Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Barton vs Alexander

Posted on by

One of the great failings of our politics is the way that everything has devolved into talking points – and usually, they’re utterly moronic talking points that have little to do with the questions being posed to whichever MP is speaking, and sometimes those talking points are complete non sequiturs to the topic at hand. And it’s not just Conservative MPs who ape them either – the NDP are some of the worst at it, ever since the 2011 communications lockdown started, and there are fewer sights more painful than watching their young rookie MPs being sent into an interview armed only with two or three talking points and nothing more. And then there’s Chris Alexander – Oxford educated, former diplomat, and the most petulant communicator that the 41st parliament produced. With the topic of Syrian refugees top of mind, Alexander went on Power & Politics last night, and tried to spin, deflect, and otherwise obfuscate the topic at hand. And praise be, Rosemary Barton was having none of it, repeatedly calling Alexander on his evasions and when he tried to blame the show for not tackling the subject before then, well, she let him have it. And thank the gods, because it’s about time we see the hosts get tough with MPs rather than pussyfoot around them in the hopes that tough questions don’t offend them into boycotts. (BuzzFeed offers a recap here). I’ve argued before that Barton not only deserves to be the permanent host of the show once the election is over, but given her performance last night, I think she deserves a gods damned Canadian Screen Award.

The full segment:

I’ll also say that the whole affair reminded me of this (faux) Jeremy Paxman interview from The Thick of It, and it fills me with hope that Barton is becoming Canada’s Paxman.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Challenging Responsible Government

Posted on by

Last week, a group of lawyers wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail, calling for a constitutional challenge to judicial appointments, bemoaning the political process and concern trolling over an apparent declining lack of public confidence in the system – never mind the fact that no such lack of confidence is being expressed anywhere. Leonid Sirota writes an excellent takedown of the proposal here, but there is another concept that this group of lawyers ignores entirely, which is that of Responsible Government. Under our system, a prime minister and cabinet can legitimately make appointments so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Being as we’re a democracy and not a technocracy, it’s a system that allows the government to carry on its necessary business while having a mechanism to be held to account, not only at the ballot box but at any time, the House can withdraw its confidence if they feel the government has abused its powers. It cannot be understated that the whole reason we gained Responsible Government in the colonies pre-confederation is that we wanted control over our patronage appointments, so that they weren’t coming from London. It’s one of the foundational cornerstones of our whole democratic system. That this group of lawyers wants to undermine it with no actual evidence that there’s a problem – rather, what seems to be some fairly partisan sour grapes because they don’t agree ideologically with a small minority of appointments – is troubling. They should know how our system of government works. That they apparently don’t is a very big problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving terrorists what they want

Posted on by

Because they’re totally not trying to use public service resources for electioneering purposes, it has been revealed that the Foreign Affairs minister Rob Nicholson wanted his department to produce a minimum of three media statements per week regarding the security threats posed by terrorism. While they would draw from events around the world, the statements would have been a steady stream delivered to media inboxes in the hopes of getting some kind of traction. Fortunately, the civil servants in the department realised this was ridiculous and pushed back, saying it wasn’t a priority for them to fulfil these requests, and good on them for doing so – it’s not their job to try and help the party build a narrative for their election campaign. And no doubt, we’ll likely hear a lot more about the security question from the Conservatives going forward, because it’s not like their economic record is doing them any favours right now. Of course, the irony in all of this is that it would appear to feed directly into the aims of terrorists, which is of course, to create fear. If the government is going to deliver nothing but a stream of statements saying “Ooh, terrorists! Be very afraid!” then doesn’t it mean that they’re letting the terrorists win? Even if they follow it up with the chest thumping about how awesome the government is by taking such a strong stand against them, etcetera, etcetera? I’m at a bit of a loss as to how this is a brilliant strategy in the bigger picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stacking the panel

Posted on by

The government has unveiled how they’re going to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on doctor-assisted dying, and it could not be any more spineless if they tried. Having first ignored the issue in Parliament for decades, they waited for the courts to tell them to do something, and by something, they decided to appoint a three-person panel to hold more consultations and come up with recommendations. In other words, outsourcing their response. But wait – it gets better. Two of the three members of this panel are opponents to doctor-assisted dying, and testified on the government’s behalf during the court cases. The third member, a former Quebec cabinet minister, is vested in the issue of provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the government has decided on the outcome they want, and stacked the panel in such a way as to deliver it. We shouldn’t be surprised by this response, considering how closely it mirrors what happened with the Bedford decision on prostitution. Rather than actually heed the decision and what it said about safety and security for sex workers, the government stacked their consultations in favour of opponents and religious institutions, dismissed as much expert testimony as they could in committee hearings, and drafted a bill that substantively does not change the situation for those sex workers when it comes to their safety, and will in fact just drive the industry further underground by criminalising buyers, and all the while touting that they were listening to the responses from their consultations. Watching them do the same with the assisted dying issue is proof positive that this is a government that refuses to make any hard decisions. (On a related note, here’s an interesting analysis of the Court’s decision in the case from Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen).

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Sole-sourcing shipyard contracts

Posted on by

With all government business taken care of, a showdown was brewing in the Senate over Bill C-377, a “union busting” bill the government wants passed, but Liberals and a few Conservatives are doing their best to filibuster it into the ground. Things got started with the usual statements by senators (Canada Day in Quebec, the situation in Burundi, the good work of the Senate, the Terry Fox Run), and Routine Proceedings.

Continue reading →

QP: Counselling illegal behaviour

Posted on by

It being a Tuesday, Stephen Harper was present for QP, a rarity these days — it’s too bad that neither Jusin Trudeau was (despite being in town but apparently had a thing with his children), nor Thomas Mulcair (who was giving a speech in Toronto). Megan Leslie led off, bemoaning the economic situation the country finds itself in. Stephen Harper disputed her, praising the post-recession job creation record. Leslie noted the drop in manufacturing numbers, using it to plug Mulcair’s speech, but Harper repeated his previous points. Leslie tried again, but Harper insisted that the NDP were only at the mercy of big union bosses, and that brought economic ruin in Europe. Peter Julian then picked up, and wondered why the government was allergic to democracy and the facts. Stephen Blaney responded, saying that the “group in question” supports a terrorist organization, and a second round in English went exactly the same. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, condemning the government for “counselling illegal behaviour” when it came to the destruction of those gun registry records. Harper insisted that the RCMP acted on the will of parliament, and that the Liberals simply wanted to revive it. Goodale ripped into him for the response, but Harper more forcefully repeated that it was the will of parliament, and that the Liberals hated farmers and duck hunters. Stéphane Dion took another kick at it in French, going after the retroactive legislation burried in the omnibudget bill to protect the RCMP, but Harper would not change in his talking points.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/610876361096495104

Continue reading →

QP: Bono’s big visit

Posted on by

With Bono promised to attend, MPs were vibrating with fannish glee during Members’ Statemets. Thomas Mulcair even showed up on a Monday, which is an indication of how big of a deal they were making of it. When he led off, he led immediately with the AG report on the Senate, and asked about PMO interference (not that any has been alleged). Paul Calandra, quite predictably, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair then raised the mischief-making of the possibility that Senators won’t travel extra city blocks to get cheaper temporary office space, to which Diane Finley made a bland statement about expecting senators to take whatever temporary office space if given to them. Mulcair then went on a soliloquy that he is probably glad he was shielded by privilege for, and asked a rhetorical question about why the PM appointed the senators he did, not that Calandra’s reply changed from before. Mulcair changed topics, brought up Bono (who still had not arrived) and the fact that the government has not committed to actually doing anything about the poverty pledge they are signing onto. Christian Paradis praised the government’s programmes abroad. Mulcair noted the poverty among First Nations, to which Bernard Valcourt listed their success stories in the north. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about the Information Commissioner’s decision to take the government to court over those deleted gun registry records, and wondered who counselled the behaviour. Stephen Blaney touted the destruction of said registry and gave a false point another the will of parliament. Goodale pressed, and Blaney doubled down. Stéphane Dion gave it a go in French, and got the same answer — again.

Continue reading →

QP: Easter season Friday-on-a-Thursday

Posted on by

With it being an early end to the week in advance of Easter long weekend and a two-week constituency break, QP was held at the usual Friday time slot of 11 am. And while it was on a Friday schedule, there was better than usual Friday attendance, including one major leader — Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair led off by reading a rambling question about balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. Andres Saxton responded by reading some talking points about the family tax cuts, and warned that the opposition would take them away. Mulcair made some digs about Senator Nancy Ruth, to which Candice Bergen responded with some non sequitur talking points about those same family tax cuts. Mulcair then read some concerns about the Future Shop job losses, and Pierre Poilievre got a turn about those same talking points. Charlie Angus then got up to ask an out of bounds question about Senate travel — which earned him a warning from the Speaker after the fact, to which Paul Calandra reminded the House about their satellite office spending, and then they had another go around of the same. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, demanding infrastructure spending, to which Poilievre gave the same response. Scott Brison took another go of it in English, and Candice Bergen got another turn to deliver the approved lines. Brison then noted the amount of government advertising dollars that could go toward creating summer jobs, but Pierre Poilievre delivered a tired “forty million dollars” line before returning to the family tax cut talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern over a slight shrinking in GDP

Posted on by

It being Tuesday, the leaders were all present and ready to go, because apparently it only counts two days a week now. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the new numbers from StatsCan that showed that GDP shrank ever so slightly last month. Stephen Harper touted his family tax cut legislation instead. Mulcair demanded a budget, but Harper demurred. Mulcair decried “all of the eggs” in the oil basket — actually not true — and continued his demand for a budget, but Harper kept insisting that they are continuing their Economic Action Plan™ and that it was working. Mulcair then moved onto this morning’s PBO report that said that families with older kids and those without kids in childcare will be getting more benefits than those with kids in childcare. Harper first insisted that the NDP wanted to raise taxes, and then insisted that all families would get an increase in after-tax benefits. Mulcair decried those families with kids in childcare being punished, but Harper repeated his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, and he returned to the reports of negative growth in three months of the past six, and wondered when the government would come up with a plan to get the economy moving. Harper responded with a laundry list of their recent announcements, and insisted that the Liberals only wanted to raise taxes. Trudeau noted that giving a tax break to the rich wouldn’t help, but Harper insisted that forecasts still showed growth, and wanted support for their family tax break bill. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

QP: What about those Syrian refugees?

Posted on by

Despite it only being Thursday, and with the debate on the Iraq going on throughout the day, it was perhaps strange for none of the major leaders to be present. Sadly, it’s no longer surprising. That meant that Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, to which she asked about the inaction on asylum requests from Iraq and Syria. Chris Alexander insisted that they have hosted the largest number of resettled refugees from Iraq and Syria. Leslie pointed that the government only met their 2013 promises for Syrian refugees, and wanted the plans to ensure that the current promises will be kept on time. Alexander responded with bluster about goals having been fulfilled and promises made. Leslie asked why the mission extension motion doesn’t have any new money for refugees, but Alexander’s bluster in response increased in volume and exasperation. Jack Harris was up next, and noted that the government has admitted that the mission will likely take years, and that the one-year extension was only a first step. Jason Kenney insisted that the terms of the motion were clear based on the current number of forces deployed. When Harris asked about the legal justifications given, Rob Nicholson raised Iraq asking for international help. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, asking about the huge job cuts at CBC. Rick Dykstra responded that CBC was responsible for their own operations, and to put on programming that people want to watch. Ralph Goodale noted that the Alberta and Saskatchewan were able to table budgets despite oil price uncertainty, and wondered when the federal government would do. Andrew Saxton responded with some pro forma talking points about the low-tax agenda. When pressed, Saxton read praise for the government’s plans.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/581160408360173568

Continue reading →