Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Slowly effacing the Crown

Posted on by

There has been a certain level of trepidation amongst monarchists when the Liberals came to power, given their penchant for rewriting Canadian monarchical symbols out of things in order to focus on the maple leaf. When Trudeau announced that there would be no changes to our relationship with the Crown, there was a bit of a sigh of relief, particularly when he said that he would not be de-royalizing the service names of the Canadian Forces, but they are slowly and subtly reversing some of the Conservative restorations of monarchical symbols, starting with generals’ rank pins. They had gone from maple leaves, reverting to the older crowns given that hey, this country is a constitutional monarchy and the head of the Canadian Forces is the Queen of Canada. But now they’re turning back into maple leaves. The official excuse is that it’s easier for our international allies to recognise, but I am suspicious that this isn’t in fact a reversion to traditional Liberal effacing of monarchical symbols. What especially makes me insane about this is that it reinforces the narrative that the Conservatives as the party of the monarchy, inherently politicizing the Crown which should never, ever happen, and which is really, really irresponsible for the Liberals and NDP to engage in. Like, completely and utterly boneheadedly irresponsible. The Crown is our central organising principle. It is the centre of our constitutional framework. I cannot emphasise enough that letting one party drape themselves in the glow of the Crown unchallenged is beyond negligent. Worse, they not only let it go unchallenged by buy into this completely wrong narrative that they’re reverting to Britishisms when the Canadian monarchy is separate and distinct (well, more or less, but there is not grey area thanks to the Conservatives’ completely boneheaded royal succession bill). Rather than defending the Crown of Canada, you now have parties that are playing stupid political games around it, and doing lasting damage to Canadians’ understanding around our very constitutional framework. So slow claps all around, because this is the height of ignorant wrongheadedness. Everyone needs to be spanked for this petty and irresponsible nonsense.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/716069134925103104

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/716069379809480705

Update:

I may have been hasty about the pips, as there may be good reason to change them. The rest of my points, about allowing the Crown to be politicized (especially since it allows more clueless journalists to put this frame around it), and my own trepidation about the Liberal penchant for effacing Crown symbols, remains.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Minimizing blame

Posted on by

The NDP’s election debrief has been released just days before their big policy convention, in which Thomas Mulcair will need to convince delegates there to let him stay on the job. Little of what was in the report was new, other than name-checking all of the various internal bodies, committees and commissions who were consulted and who have work ahead of them. There were a couple of things that did stand out for me, however. The big one was about communication:

There were many frustrations shared about our internal communications during the campaign. Members, particularly local campaign managers, felt that the reporting from the ground had no effect on the strategic decision-making happening in the central campaign. What was being felt door-to-door was not being communicated, being miscommunicated, or went unheard. Members feel this impeded the ability of the central campaign to shift strategy when necessary.

The party has centralised a whole lot since 2011, and that was certainly reflected. That said, with everyone in the report saying that their local campaigns went great, it does smack a little bit of buck-passing to the central campaign. There were a few other points raised, such as the lack of a Quebec-specific offer, that they were not nimble enough in reacting to attacks from other parties, and that they didn’t adequately prepare for the niqab debate (but everyone was proud of their principled position, which confuses me a bit since the position wound up being that this was a court decision rather than the fact that we don’t tell women what to war in Canada). Glaringly absent in the report was the share of blame placed on Mulcair. In fact, he was barely mentioned at all. This was the closest it got:

We heard disappointment from members who felt that decisions about the strategy employed in the debates led to a situation in which our leader’s full capabilities — as demonstrated in the House of Commons over the previous years — were not on display. Across the country, we heard that our party activists did not understand why we refused to participate in some national debates.

While he wrote the big mea culpa letter taking responsibility, that’s not reflected in their actual debrief, which makes me a bit suspicious. And let’s face it – he had a big part in that, from his demeanour, to his inept slogan of “good, competent public administration,” to his poor debate performance, to the fact that his lack of the same kind of charisma that Trudeau exhibited did weigh in on people’s decisions. I’m left to wonder if the fact that they didn’t include criticisms of his performance in the report because it goes against the party’s solidarity mindset, or if it’s a kind of whitewashing of the record in advance of the leadership review vote. Suffice to say, it doesn’t make the report feel as forthcoming as it could or should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and the line of accountability

Posted on by

The punditariat continues to lose their minds over Senate independence, and I’m almost at the point of exasperation with it. After years – decades – of hand-wringing about how senators aren’t independent enough to do their jobs of sober second thought, we are suddenly overcome with hand-wringing about them being too independent and the government being unable to pass legislation (as though the opposition having a Senate majority has never happened in our country’s history before…oh, wait). It’s kind of like how We The Media keep demanding MPs be independent and vote for their constituents’ wishes and so on, and yet the moment one of them shows a little bit of backbone, we thunder that the leader is losing control of his or her caucus. Because that’s helpful. And so, Campbell Clark bemoans that poor Peter Harder doesn’t have any levers of power in the Senate to do Trudeau’s bidding, and lo, he may not even have much of an office budget either (though he can always ask the Internal Economy to increase it – this is not something that is set in stone for all time). Add to that, Clark worries that all of those new independent senators are going to have to find some new process of working things out – completely ignoring that they have already started getting that ball rolling with the Independent Working Group. It’s like he hasn’t paid attention to what is actually going on there and has been going on for the past several weeks. Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at André Pratte’s history and notes his differences with Trudeau’s philosophy, then bemoans that with all of those incoming senators, that the party leader won’t be responsible for their behaviour as they once might have been. And what is Hébert ignoring? Only the most fundamental principle in Canadian democracy – Responsible Government. Trudeau will be responsible to voters for the conduct of his appointees, whether he can whip them or not. That is a fundamental tenet of our system. If he makes a bunch of dud appointments, then guess what – voters can have their say, just as they had their say with Harper after the extent of the ClusterDuff business came out in court. This is a basic concept, and it’s disappointing that a long-time observer of Canadian politics has to be reminded of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A surprisingly packed budget

Posted on by

And that was the budget. It was full of interesting things, but you wouldn’t know it based on the fact that absolutely everybody was fixated on the deficit figure, and barely even that it was built on a super cautious, pessimistic framework that basically presented a worst-case scenario in terms of assumptions, meaning that the only place it really could go was up, and yes, if the economy grows enough, then the budget will start to balance itself. The child benefit changes are the big news, and as for reaction, the Conservatives call the budget a “nightmare” while the NDP rail about all of the promises that it didn’t keep (because everything should have happened immediately).

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking the budget bait

Posted on by

The day before budget day, and the Commons was not as full as it could or should be. Rona Ambrose led off, her mini-lectern on Andrew Scheer’s desk as it often is these days, and she read some concern about her supposition about the budget. Justin Trudeau insisted that they had a plan, and that the previous government didn’t get the job done. Ambrose tried to retort that they had the best job creation record in the G7, then turned a lament about raising taxes. Trudeau reminded her of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose insisted that investment has “fallen off the cliff” since the election, but Trudeau responded that economists said that this was the time to invest. Denis Lebel took over to ask about public confidence in the economy, which Trudeau reiterated their investment promises, and Lebel lamented the state of the forestry industry as an example of a measure needed in the budget, but Trudeau didn’t bite, and told him to wait for the budget. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and decried Bombardier’s plan to outsource some jobs, and demanded the protection of jobs in Canada. Trudeau agreed that they wanted to protect good jobs, which was why they were taking the time to assess Bombardier’s proposal. Mulcair demanded commitments on EI, for which Trudeau reminded him that they made commitments in their platform and they would keep that promise in the budget. Mulcair switched to English and lamented the conditions on First Nations reserves, for which Trudeau yet again reminded him that they made promises to renew the relationship, and that the budget would contain historic investment. For his final question, Trudeau asked about a family where the children were kidnapped to Kurdistan. Trudeau insisted that the return of those children were a high priority.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Process questions and straw men

Posted on by

Because it was making the rounds yet again on the Sunday morning politics shows, I figured I should reiterate a few points, plus make a couple of new ones, concerning the new Senate appointments, and the role of the new “government representative.” The first point is that yes, the Senate is going to have to change a few of its rules, and that is a process that has already started and probably won’t be concluded for a few more weeks or months. That we have a name and a face to go with this new role may accelerate the process rather than it being nebulous with Dominic LeBlanc and Maryam Monsef just shrugging and declaring that they were confident that the Senate could work it out. With Peter Harder now in the picture, with an idea about how he wants to tackle his role, there is something a little more concrete in terms of how he wants to shape the new rules to suit his purposes. His budget as “government representative” as opposed to Leader of the Government in the Senate is also up for some debate, particularly within the Internal Economy Committee, just as they are going to have to take up what to do with the new “Independent working-group” and how they want to organise and style themselves so as to give a voice to the independent senators who are currently being frozen out of decision-making processes. (This goes as well for the Rules Committee, which has already been undertaking the question of how to better allow independent senators onto committees, as that process is mostly done behind closed doors by the caucus whips). Harder’s decision to remain officially an independent while taking on this role does complicate things, but nothing is so difficult that it cannot be solved with a little more diligence, and hopefully it won’t be too impeded by some of the more partisan senators on either side of the aisle whose feelings have been bruised by the talk of independence being an improvement on the way the Senate operates. The final point is this constant concern trolling that somehow the budget won’t get passed, or that the government won’t be able to get its agenda through if nobody is there to crack the whip. It’s a lot of specious reasoning predicated on a number of straw men, ignorant of history and civic literacy. Apparently every time the governing party in the Senate was in the minority there was some kind of constitutional crisis, which is false, and no, budgets were not held up or defeated. The Senate is very reluctant to stop any bill because they are aware of their democratic legitimacy (and yes, they do have it by virtue of Responsible Government so don’t even go there), and when they have defeated legislation, it is generally for good reason, such as constitutionality, the legislation being out of bounds, or the fact that the country was not on side with it, and it needed to be put to a test (such as with free trade in the 1980s). They have a job to do. I’m particularly galled at those concerned that the Senate is going to suddenly be empowered to use their constitutional veto powers if they are more independent and less beholden to the government of the day, never mind that the Senate has not abused its veto in decades. They were given those powers for a reason, and yes, sometimes elected legislators get things wrong and there needs to be a mechanism to stop their legislation. But this pearl-clutching about the new state of affairs really needs to stop.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Revolving door alarmism

Posted on by

Oh noes! Civil servants take positions in ministers’ offices! How terribly partisan of them! Yes, it’s time for another head-shaking column from some of our more alarmist media friends, bemoaning sweetheart deals and revolving doors, but as usual, it lacks all pretence of nuance or much in the way of a reality check on the way things work. I find it mystifying that someone would rather have a twenty-something fresh out of university, whose only real qualification is loyalty to the PMO, filling those ministerial office positions rather than professionals with years of experience in the department. Because while yes, some civil servants went to work in ministers’ offices in the Conservative years, there were a lot of these twenty-somethings on power trips, trying to play power games with departmental officials, which one presumes that people who have civil service careers would be less likely to do. And yes, they get good salaries in those positions, but they’re also a) quite ephemeral given the nature of party politics, and b) enormously stressful jobs that have some people working eighteen-hour days, and they should be compensated for it. And the “revolving door” back to the civil service afterward? Again one asks why they shouldn’t be able to translate government experience into the civil service, particularly if they’ve gained some policy expertise? So long as they perform their duties in a neutral fashion once back in the civil service, I’m not seeing why this is a problem. We need good people doing public service in this country, and we have already set up so many barriers that make recruitment a real challenge for anyone not being bridged in from school, and the growing list of restrictions makes work in ministerial offices increasingly unattractive because their post-political opportunities have become increasingly limited. If we’re not careful, all of our political staffers will be twenty-somethings trying to get experience rather than established people of substance, and I’m not sure that’s a situation that anyone relishes.

Continue reading →

QP: Women ask the questions 

Posted on by

It being International Women’s Day, one could be sure that outside of the leader’s round, we would see a majority of women MPs asking questions, and lo and behold, that was the case. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on Scheer’s neighbouring desk, and she asked about the Yazidi women targeted by ISIS and bringing them over as refugees. Justin Trudeau reminded her of the commitments they made to bring over refugees, and that they achieved their goal of 25,000 Syrian refugees . Ambrose repeated yesterday’s question about his visit to the Centre for American Progress, to which Trudeau responded that when he was there two years ago, he spoke out in favour of Keystone XL. Ambrose then tried to insist that Trudeau help Bombardier by agreeing to their supply day motion on the Toronto Island airport. Trudeau asked her not to pit region against region for political gain. Kelley Block was up next, and insisted that the Liberals let the Toronto Island airport expand so that Porter can buy Bombardier C-series jets (as though the tens that they would buy would totally make the difference). Marc Garneau praised Air Canada’s intent to purchase those jets, and when Block asked again, Garneau chastised her for not respecting the tripartite agreement with the city and provincial governments. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded a childcare plan. Trudeau hit back that Mulcair would be deciding what to cut if he had been elected in order to balance the budget. Mulcair then used women’s access to EI to badger the government for defeating their opposition day motion. Trudeau responded that they were taking action, and there would be more to come in the budget. Mulcair raised the issue of tax cheats getting amnesty deals, and Trudeau noted it was under the previous government and they would investigate if need be. Mulcair demanded action, citing special treatment for the rich, and Trudeau reminded him of his pledge to give childcare dollars to millionaires.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Points for process

Posted on by

From all accounts, the First Ministers meeting in Vancouver got off to a terse start. Premiers were unhappy over the regional bickering over Energy East and discussions of carbon pricing, while Indigenous groups were grousing that they should also have been at that table when it comes to coming up with a plan on combating climate change. By lunch, word around the place was that Trudeau was digging in his heels and was ready to impose a national carbon price on the provinces if they continued to balk and not work together to come to some kind of framework. And, by those same accounts, something changed after lunch and they struck a more conciliatory tone, and even though the meeting ran overtime, they came up with the Vancouver Declaration on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which was essentially an agreement on process. They have six months now to form four working groups and when they meet again in September, the expectation is that there will be more concrete plans, but carbon pricing mechanisms will be part of it – though there seems to be some indication that somehow carbon capture and storage will be seen as some kind of mechanism related to climate mitigation, despite the fact that thus far it’s been an expensive failure of a concept (but hey, Brad Wall is fully committed to it). And then even more grousing happened from the opposition, where the Conservatives complained that there was too much uncertainty for market investment (though not really if you consider that carbon pricing is coming, which the energy sector has actually been demanding and building into their projections), and the NDP moaning that there are still no targets or timelines (to which one wonders if they would have simply imposed them and told the provinces to deal with it if they were in charge, as with their vaunted plans for a cap-and-trade system despite the fact that BC has a successful carbon tax). So if nobody goes away happy, does that mean it was some measure of success? Perhaps, but one shouldn’t diminish the fact that there was a victory for process, because (and it can’t be stated enough) process matters. Democracy is process. So if you have a process laid out, it means that you can move ahead in a coordinated fashion with a plan and a road map and go from there. That may be an understated ending to the conference, but we’ll have to see what the next six months bring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Go knock doors

Posted on by

While I’ve pretty much said my piece on the Manning Conference, one last headline caught my eye yesterday, which was the “Traditional campaigns dead! It’s a digital world now!” variety, which made me roll my eyes a bit, but here it is. The “experts” – all American – talk about how Facebook and digital ads are where it’s at instead of TV advertising, but it seems to me like they missed entirely what happened during the last federal election – you know, something that the Conservatives might have a vested interest in actually learning from their mistakes in, rather than what is going on south of the border, with their utterly insane primary season and unlimited corporate and private money. Because seriously, if they paid attention to what the Liberals did here, it was actually a lot of traditional campaigning, which was door-knocking. Yes, they flooded social media with their “days of action,” which featured candidates and their teams – wait for it – door-knocking. There wasn’t a series of YouTube or Facebook ads that won the election for the Liberals – in fact, the only commercial that anyone remembers is the one with Trudeau on the escalator, and mostly because everyone tried to mock it (not all of it effectively). How often in the last decade did we hear about the Conservatives’ fearsome electoral machine with their CIMS database, and how that was helping them cut swaths though campaigns based on the smiley and frowney faces of voter identification? It didn’t win them the election. Yes, the Liberals rebuilt their own voter identification database (“Liberalist”), but again, what was it used for? Door-knocking, and canvassing donations, but it also bears noting that the Liberals did not spend the most money, disproving that money is what wins elections. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll take the words of these American “experts” that the Conservatives enlisted with a grain of salt, while the traditional shoe-leather method of direct voter engagement and going from door-to-door is putting in the hard work that won a majority of seats.

Continue reading →