Tag Archives: Syria

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 →

QP: Sad to see them go

Posted on by

On a snowy day in Ottawa, the parties were riled up after their caucus meetings, and ready to go for QP. Rona Ambrose led off, this time putting her mini-lectern on Andrew Scheer’s desk in order to get a different camera angle, and she wondered if the government was making up their deficit plans and they go along. Justin Trudeau chided the Conservatives for their decade of low growth, and noted their commitment to growth. Ambrose asked the same question in French, and Trudeau responded that they were creating jobs. Ambrose then moved to the issue of the CF-18s and noted an American General was “sad to see them go.” Trudeau retorted that our allies were glad that we stepped up our role in the fight against ISIS. Jason Kenney asked a meandering question about deficits and taxes, for which Trudeau praised investment in infrastructure, jobs and the middle class. Kenney wondered which taxes they would increase to pay for their deficits, to which Trudeau noted that the Conservatives had no idea about how to create growth in the economy. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and mentioned a First Nations community that was declaring a state of emergency for their everyday existence, and Trudeau thanked him for raising the issue and noted their promise to reset the relationship with First Nations. Mulcair moved to the question of a commitment to build a maintenance centre for Bombardier C-Series jets, for which Trudeau praised the agreement with Air Canada and Bombardier. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, Mulcair demanded the stock option tax loophole, but Trudeau told him to wait for the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Doing the policy heavy lifting

Posted on by

If you were to turn to the Big Book of Canadian Political Journalism Clichés, you’d find pages of tiresome and frankly libellous descriptions of the Senate of Canada. And oh, look – The Canadian Press drew from a number of them to craft the lead of their latest piece: “Canada’s Senate, often accused of being an anachronism, is being asked to wrestle with the futuristic dream of driverless cars.” Of course, the accusations of being an anachronism often come from clueless political journalists who recite the received wisdom around the Upper Chamber with little or no critical insight or understanding of Chamber, its actual role, or its operations, and they treat it like a joke, which makes ledes like this commonplace. “Isn’t it hilarious that the Senate is supposed to look at future technology? Aren’t they all ancient, napping in the Chamber? LOL,” and so on. And then this line a little further down in the piece: “His request for a Senate study is part of the Trudeau government’s attempt to recast the much-maligned upper house as an independent and valued institution that has an important parliamentary role to play.” Um, no, it doesn’t need to be recast as having an important role to play because they’ve always had it. The Senate has been doing the kinds of cutting-edge policy study and research that the Commons can’t or won’t for decades. Just in the last parliament alone, they studied things like BitCoin and crypto-currencies, and they have been debating legislation on growing issues like genetic privacy that the Commons continues to shirk while they snipe at one another over partisan issues. But hey, when asked to do a comprehensive study on the regulatory, policy and technical issues that need to be addressed by the growing field of driverless cars, hey, it’s all a big joke because it’s the Senate. That kind of tiresome attitude is part of why the studies and reports that come out of the Senate – which in many ways acts like a built-in think tank for Parliament (and a hugely cost-effective one at that) – tend to go under the radar. Some reports get a couple of days of press, such as the very good report on the Canada-US price differential (which the previous government then largely ignored when they went to craft legislation to close that gap – an issue now moot thanks to our falling dollar), but for the most part, the media will ignore the studies. It’s really a shame because there is a lot of good work in there that is worth a lot more discussion and attention, lest it gather dust on a shelf. But why actually turn to those studies when we can make jokes about the Senate, malign its denizens thanks to the actions of a couple of bad apples, and ignore the actual work while grumbling that they aren’t elected? It’s too bad that We The Media can’t take these things more seriously, as we would all be better off as an informed citizenry as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Weak sauce mea culpa

Posted on by

It only took a hundred days, but the NDP membership finally got some kind of a public mea culpa from leader Thomas Mulcair over the way the last election went down, and good news – he takes full responsibility for what happened! But much as Rebecca Blaikie’s interim report goes soft on what Mulcair did wrong, Mulcair’s own reckoning of events is still going pretty soft on things that happened as opposed to some of the myths that are being built up. Things like the balanced budget pledge, which Mulcair said overshadowed the “social democratic economic vision” where they thought they could squeeze all kinds of money out of corporate taxes, CEOs and tax havens, which any competent economist will remind you that you certainly can’t get the kind of money they’re talking from any of those sources. Mulcair goes soft on the observation that they lacked an over-arching narrative that could be easily communicated, when problem was less of a lack of an overall message, but a really poor message that they settled on, which was then badly communicated because, well, the message was poor to begin with. The message, of course, being “good, competent public administration,” and after Canadians had put up with a prime minister who had all of the pizzazz of dull wood varnish, Mulcair would show up to debates, smize like his life depended on it, and proceeded to look like someone on Valium because he was more intent on controlling his temper than he was in engaging with real ideas to present rather than some tired – and in come cases baffling – talking points. And this is what they sent up against most dynamic and charismatic political leader in over a generation. Couple this with some pretty disastrous policy rollouts – recall the initial release of their “costed platform” that didn’t actually have any breakdowns of numbers, but had some nonsense headings like “helping Canadians in need” that journalists rightly questioned, and when we did get numbers, they were based on some wrong assumptions. Campaigns matter, and both Mulcair and Blaikie have been downplaying that it was a poorly run campaign. Mulcair’s letter also contained some rather cryptic references to “overhauling the way caucus works,” but it’s vague, and isn’t owning up to their over-centralization that made the Conservatives’ centralisation efforts look elementary. That centralization has been carrying on to this day, which, when compared to the Liberals’ governing by cabinet rather than the leader’s office, and where their ministers are answering the bulk of their questions off-the-cuff and on their feet while the NDP (Mulcair included) have their scripts in front of them every time they rise in the Chamber, it looks stifling and controlling. So far, I’m not seeing much of a willingness to confront these truths so that they can do something to change them, which the party membership is going to have to weight when the leadership review comes in April.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/697642773235695616

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making adjustments on the fly

Posted on by

Lots of developments in the Senate, so let’s get to it, shall we? Kady O’Malley looks into the ways that the Senate is going through the process of reshaping itself to fit the new reality that they find themselves in, and so far they’ve been doing it in a fair-minded way, tempering some the partisan excesses of the previous parliament while they start adjusting their rules around things like Question Period in the new scheme they’ve developed. I’m still a little hesitant, considering that they’re losing some of the pacing and ability to make exchanges that made Senate QP such a refreshing change from Commons QP, but we’ll see once they start working out the kinks. Meanwhile, the Senate is trying to adapt its Conflict of Interest committee to a reality where there are no “government” senators, and more debate about how to include the growing number of independent senators into that structure. We’ll see how the debate unfolds in the next week, but this is something they are cognisant about needing to tackle, just as they are with how to better accommodate independent MPs with committee selection as a whole. Also, the Senate Speaker has ruled that the lack of a Leader of the Government in the Senate does not constitute a prima facia breach of privilege, convinced by the argument that the lack of a government leader doesn’t affect the Senate’s core ability to review and amend legislation, and that the primary role of the chamber isn’t to hold government to account. I would probably argue that it may not be the primary role, but it is a role nevertheless, but perhaps I’m not qualified enough to say whether that still constitutes an actual breach of privilege, as opposed to just making the whole exercise damned inconvenient and leading to a great number of unintended consequences as they venture into this brave new world of unencumbered independence. At this stage, however, things are all still up in the air, and nothing has really crashed down yet, but it’s a bit yet. By the time that Parliament rises for the summer, we’ll see if all of those broken eggs wound up making a cake, or if we just wind up with a mess.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Application versus consultation

Posted on by

The head of the new Senate Appointment Advisory Board appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday, and has raised a few issues about this new process that are a bit troubling, which has to do with applications – rather, that there seems to be an emphasis on application rather than nominations arising out of consultations. In particular, the ability for people to apply for a seat on their own seems to be at odds with some of the design of the advisory process. Emmett Macfarlane notes that this wasn’t how he envisioned the process when he was asked to help design it, and that it not only overly bureaucratizes the process, but it sets it up for a particularly unsavoury sort to want to apply, which I concur with. Why is this important? Because we’ve only spent the past number of months watching the trial of a certain Mike Duffy, who was well known for wanting desperately to become a senator for decades, and how he viewed such an appointment as a “taskless thanks” which would also provide him with all manner of perquisites – and witness how he managed to monetize all of his relationships as a result of his appointment, as we’ve witnessed in testimony. We also lived though the bizarre spectacle that was Bert Brown, “elected” senator whose self-appointed crusade for Senate reform comprised largely of unsolicited meetings with provinces to convince them of his plan (on the Senate’s dime), and taking to the op-ed pages to basically call his detractors Nazis (I’m not sure how else you take it when he reminds you of his family’s military service in WWII as a rebuttal). Some of the best senators we’ve seen are those who never expected an appointment, and who never would have sought office on their own – people like Roméo Dallaire. It’s also why I’m not sold on the NDP fear that this process will just be elites nominating elites – a broad enough consultation will bring people of accomplishment and expertise in a wide variety of fields than just academia. But at the same time, the Senate should be a place that rewards experience and expertise rather than being a repository for randoms, given their role to scrutinise legislation and act as the country’s premier think tank. I have a hard time seeing how hot dog vendors can fulfil those roles, no matter how many people they interact with in a day.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695336557893431300

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695341816439136261

Continue reading →

QP: Demands for free votes on Energy East

Posted on by

Monday, and old habits are starting to rear their heads — neither Trudeau nor Mulcair were present, Trudeau in meetings, and Mulcair in La Loche, Saskatchewan. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and read a question about jobs in the resource sector, demanding support for their opposition day motion on Energy East. Jim Carr noted that they needed to establish a credible process if they wanted to get resources to market. Ambrose decried Trudeau killing off Northern Gateway with the tanker ban on the west coast, to which Carr reminded her of the lack of trust in the regulatory process under the previous government. Ambrose tried again to get support for the motion, but got another reply about the environmental assessment process. Maxime Bernier was up next, decrying deficits, to which Bill Morneau reminded him that the debt-to-GDP ratio was still going down. Bernier cried that only businessmen create investment, not governments, and then demanded confirmation that the Conservatives left a budget surplus. Morneau insisted that the fiscal update released at the end of last year showing a deficit was accurate. Leading off for the NDP was Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, who raised one of the interviews from last night’s CBC special, and demanded help for the manufacturing sector. Navdeep Bains rose up, and said that an innovation agenda for the sector was on the way. Boutin-Sweet demanded a plan yesterday, to which Bains insisted that they have it. Irene Mathyssen took over to read the same again in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The needed reforms to the Estimates

Posted on by

Democratic reforms remain the topic of discussion on the Hill, following Dominc LeBlanc’s appearance at the Procedure and House Affairs committee on Thursday, and some of what he’s talking about is necessary – most importantly, reform to the Estimates process. The Liberals had promised during the election that they would reform the process so that the Estimates were a) readable, and b) resembled the Public Accounts, so that the latter could be used to check over the former. There is probably no greater reform that needs to happen than this, because it’s the job of MPs to hold government to account by means of controlling the public purse. The Estimates are how they plan to spend the money, and the Public Accounts are the accounting of how it was spent. When both are reported using different accounting methods, and with the Estimates currently being largely unreadable to the layperson, it makes that accountability nigh impossible to do. It’s no wonder that the process has largely devolved to voting them through at all stages with no actual discussion or scrutiny (as they did in December, only for the Senate to catch their mistakes when they ballsed it up in their haste). It’s also why MPs have been consistently fobbing off that homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General, and increasingly the Senate, while ministerial visits to committee to discuss the Estimates for their departments are spent answering questions on issues of the day rather than the Estimates they were there to talk about. Add to that, there’s the “deemed” rule, whereby Estimates are deemed to be agreed to and passed after a certain date, so MPs couldn’t even hold them up if they wanted to. It’s so entirely broken, which is why the Liberal promise to fix this system is so damned important. Of course, with the good comes the bad – talk of eliminating Friday sittings, possibly with longer days on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to compensate (but what about the “family friendly” elimination of evening sittings so that MPs can have dinner with their families?), and assurances that they wouldn’t actually be getting Fridays off, but working in their constituencies. The problem there is that constituency work is not actually part of an MP’s job – the ombudsman role they play on behalf of their constituents’ interactions with the civil service has grown over the years until it’s metastasised into this beast now where there are stories that the immigration department won’t touch files until they are forwarded by the MP’s office (so far down the slippery slope to corruption it’s alarming), and MPs continue to spend their resources doing this work rather than their actual jobs of scrutinizing the Estimates or legislation. In other words, eliminating Friday sittings makes this problem worse, not better. LeBlanc also did agree that a proposal to ban applause in the Commons may be something else worth considering to help improve decorum, and I would agree that even more than the constant sanctimonious tut-tutting about heckling, applause and scripts are the bigger problems that should be tackled if we want to be serious about making changes to the way our MPs do business.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hollow Senate threats

Posted on by

As the Conservatives grasp their diminishing influence in the opposition benches, their threats of using the Senate to get their way seem to be increasing. Yesterday, as the Liberal government announced their bill to repeal two of the anti-union private members’ bills that passed in the last parliament, at least one Conservative MP was beating his chest and threatening that the Senate would be used to defeat the bill. The problem? That he’s unlikely to find allies in the Senate to carry out this threat. You see, one of these bills badly fractured the Conservative Senate caucus in the last parliament, which is almost certainly what led to Marjory LeBreton tendering her resignation as Government Leader early, and her threats to the caucus very nearly provoked a revolt. Given how much trouble they went through to pass the bill in June, and how much they had to crack the whip and still have dissenters, those who abstained or who just refused to show up for the vote, I really doubt that they would have any fight left in them on this bill. It makes the insistence from their MP caucus that they will somehow be a rearguard action to stop bills they don’t like from being passed as not only fanciful, but actually pretty insulting to that Senate caucus, who they’re treating as just another group of backbenchers that they can push around, and with a leadership contest soon to get underway, they’re going to find that their senators are about to start getting a lot more independent, as the guy who appointed them is no longer around and his influence has almost faded entirely as even his MP caucus swallows themselves whole to reverse their previously held positions now that he’s gone. If they think that they can still wield that influence to preserve this unpopular and contentious bill, well, they may soon find themselves getting a rather rude awakening. (Meanwhile, the Conservative allegation that the repeal of those bills was somehow repayment for an illegal union donation that the Liberals didn’t even know about, and which was repaid as soon as it was uncovered, is laughable considering that the repeal of these bills was in the bloody platform).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Heckling the delicate flowers

Posted on by

Oh, those poor delicate flowers that dwell in the House of Commons. Their poor nerves are so affected by all of the terrible heckling during Question Period that they all need to collapse on a divan, and get out the smelling salts, and blah, blah, blah. Samara just released a report on heckling, and wouldn’t you just know, everyone is aghast by all of the heckling that goes on. Why, it’s just terrible. But here’s the thing – every MP says they hate it, and insists that they don’t do it, except they do. They’ll even deny it when caught on camera. Heckling of course comes in a broad variety of taunts, jeers, and outright boorish behaviour, but really, sometimes it’s more instructive than what passes for debate. Yes, some heckling is sexist and boorish and should be called out, but not all heckling is sexist and boorish. And when there are complaints that women get heckled more, sometimes it’s because of how they’re reading scripts – one of the things about heckling is that it’s trying to knock people off of their talking points. Sometimes it’s clever and witty, and sometimes it’s not. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in knocking people off of their message tracks. And if anyone thinks that simply having more women in the place would change that, well, the most vigorous (and indeed some of the best) hecklers in my experience have been the women. And honestly, I can’t think of anything more dreadful than a QP that lacks it. Why? Because we need an injection of theatre into the sitting day, lest we all develop narcolepsy. Has anyone who moans about heckling sat through the rest of the day’s debates? Probably not. I’ve learned more about some issues by the heckling than I have in the scripted responses by ministers. Can it be too vigorous at times? Sure. Can people take it too far? Of course, and it should be dealt with when that’s the case, but this constant pearl-clutching about it is ridiculous, disingenuous, and in most cases, hypocritical. I’d rather a commitment to improving the quality of heckling than to see its elimination, and we’d be better off for it.

Continue reading →