Tag Archives: Syria

Roundup: Mulcair’s Senate delusions

Posted on by

It was Thomas Mulcair’s turn to talk to Peter Mansbridge, and it was a bit of a doozy. Not only because he too insisted that whoever wins the most seats should form government (with a bunch of “it’s a really complex constitutional question but…” thrown in), but rather because of his continued wilful ignorance about how he proposes to deal with the Senate. It’s not just about his fantasy notion that Senate abolition could ever happen (which it won’t), or that he’ll somehow be able to sit down with the premiers and make it happen right away (even if he brings the federal cheque book to the table, it’s still not going to happen). No, it’s his attitude for how he would deal with it should he form government. Not only are vacancies mounting, but he told Mansbridge that he wouldn’t even appoint a Government Leader in the Senate. This is actually a Very Big Deal. Why? Because if legislation is to pass the Senate, it needs to happen according to proper procedure, and proper procedure requires a government voice – particularly one from cabinet – to be in the Chamber to shepherd government bills through, an to answer questions on behalf of the government in Senate Question Period. Now, Harper has already been petulant about this when he refused to make his current Senate leader a member of cabinet (even though he still gets PCO support, and as we’ve learned, PMO handlers to deal with messaging), but there is still a government leader in there to do the things that he’s supposed to do. If Mulcair would be so completely cavalier as to further break an already damaged institution by refusing to let it do its job properly under the pretext of daring them to vote down bills passed by the Commons, it’s unconscionable. We have someone campaigning to be the leader of the country on a platform of thumbing his nose at the constitution, whether that’s around a refusal to make appointments, or in ensuring that it can do its job. And this is more than a question of “democratic expression” of a government that has won an election, as Mulcair phrases his bullying tactics – it’s about process. And what is democracy? Democracy IS process. Process matters, just like the constitution. Why are we giving him a free pass when he seems to be of the notion that the constitution and the institutions of parliament don’t matter?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The slippery slope of civic ignorance

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau adding his voice to those of the other leaders in completely misreading how a Westminster democracy works with the formation of government (albeit acknowledging that the incumbent does get the first crack), I think it’s quite apparent we’re in a crisis of civic literacy in this country. While Kady O’Malley gives a refresher here, there was an interesting idea posited by Leonid Sirota that we may be witnessing the birth of a new convention. I’m a bit sceptical about that, and would agree more with Emmett Macfarlane that it may be a political convention as opposed to a legal one, but it should also be a warning signal to our political actors that ignorance of the system, whether genuine or deliberate, does have broader repercussions. The system works the way it does because, well, it works. That’s why it evolved the way we did. To try and move it past that for crass political purposes demeans it, and opens a number of cans of worms that will do nothing more than create problems down the road that will be even bigger headaches. Better to learn and apply the system as it exists, rather than try to change the rules for petty reasons. Also, we need to stop dismissing these kinds of conversations as boring or pedantic because they matter. The rules matter. If we don’t point out what the rules are and that they matter, then it makes it easier for people to break them without anyone raising a fuss.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641312992257277953

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313435049959424

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313802944946176

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314338674974720

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314592094822400

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228423038238720

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228866099417088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641229200544808960

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641230837434855424

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641231352986124288

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s Westminster mistake

Posted on by

It was a fairly combative interview, as Stephen Harper sat down with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, but there was a fairly important point to make, which is that the understanding of the Westminster parliamentary system that he espoused was totally wrong. Harper stated that he wouldn’t try to form government if his party didn’t win the most seats, which is an interesting political commitment, but his assertion that it’s the way the convention works in a Westminster system is wrong and has nothing to do with the actual way that governments are formed. What I will say is that this certainly seems to answer all of the paranoid delusions of the Harper Derangement Syndrome-types out there who insist that he’s going to try to hold onto power at all costs, and that even if he can’t win a majority that he’s going to still test the confidence of the Chamber and call a snap election immediately if he doesn’t get it, etcetera, etcetera. That’s certainly not the message that he’s been giving, and really, he’s not a Bond villain. Making him out to be such is counterproductive and simply wrong. Here’s Mansbridge’s behind-the-scenes look at the leader interview series, the biting satirical Twitter account Canadian Median Voter weighing in on Harper’s understanding, plus a reminder that Thomas Mulcair has said pretty much the very same incorrect things, and a reminder of how things actually operate.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/641069383729741826

https://twitter.com/markdjarvis/status/640289615987929088

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Conservatives’ anti-refugee inertia

Posted on by

With opinion galvanizing around the Syrian refugee crisis, there are calls for the government to do more – even if the opposition parties’ targets remain a little on the weak side in the overall picture. Cities and provinces – in particular Quebec – are pledging to do more, but they are bound by the pace that the federal government sets. And above all, that is the real problem with Canada’s response. Chris Alexander has been subtly blaming the UNHCR for their slow and onerous process while trying to cast his government in a positive light for trying to change that, except they’re the ones who’ve made the system far more onerous in the first place. I’ve covered the refugee file for a number of years, most especially when I was writing for Xtra, and a consistent theme emerged was that every time the Conservatives changed the rules, they were making it harder for refugees to make it into the country. In a particular bid to try to keep out refugee groups that they didn’t want to deal with – Mexicans and Roma are two that immediately come to mind – they continually tinkered with the rules, going so far as to create a “designated country of origin” list to make it easier to reject and deport those groups, no matter that a high volume of them had legitimate claims. They shortened processing times on arrival to prejudice the system against them, particularly when it’s difficult to get documentation, and denied them avenues of appeal. And overseas, they’ve understaffed embassies and missions in areas with high refugee populations and outsourced refugee determination to the UNHCR, which doesn’t have the resources and capacity to do that. Here in Canada, they’ve shifted their focus to private sponsorship away from government sponsorship, and even when they try to assist private groups, they don’t give them the assistance that they really required, such as capacity building. And then there was the whole issue of cutting off healthcare for refugee claimants, which was also used as a means of disincentivising people from coming over. Add to this a focus on risk assessment and then prioritizing minority populations in places like Syria and Iraq, and suddenly it’s no wonder that they’re moving at a glacial pace when it comes to getting more refugees resettled in Canada. The lack of political will to tackle this refugee crisis has been long-standing and a long time in the making. There are plenty of things that they could do, as Joe Clark explained, such as putting people on the ground in the region, doing security checks there, relieving the UNCHR of all of the work of refugee status determination, and arranging transportation rather than offering them loans for it (because if there’s one thing that refugees need it’s to be nickel-and-dimed by the Canadian government). They have the capacity, but they’ve spent so long trying to choke off the flow of refugees that the law of inertia has taken hold, and they can’t turn the ship around. I don’t think enough people are calling them out on this fact.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refugee crisis derails the election

Posted on by

News that the family of that Syrian boy who drowned off the coast of Turkey was trying to get to Canada and had been rejected touched off a political firestorm yesterday, and it wasn’t until hours later that some clarity was brought to the situation – that the sister of the boy’s father was in Canada and applying to sponsor her family, starting with her older brother, then the child’s father and his family (which included a wife and another son, all of whom were lost when their boat capsized). Chris Alexander made a show of “suspending his campaign” to come to Ottawa to meet with officials, but his campaign really wasn’t suspended – he just wasn’t door-knocking, and then he hid out from the media in the airport and ended up going out a back way in order to avoid them. Statements from the aunt in Vancouver and the government clarified some of the statements around the events with their refugee application, but much of the damage had already been done, and the government looks poorly for it – particularly because of the slow pace at which they are assisting refugees in the area, and padding their figures with those refugees from Iraq, and the fact that they appear to be cherry-picking those from religious and ethnic minorities. Harper hasn’t really helped, insisting that this is really about ISIS and saying that it’s more important that we carry on the fight against them – never mind that a) Assad and the Syrian government forces have killed more Syrians by far than ISIS or any other faction, and b) air strikes are not going to stop ISIS and the government knows it. He also insists that we’re one of the most generous countries in assisting refugees, but the numbers simply don’t show that. University of Ottawa professor Roland Paris shares some thoughts on the situation, while Scott Gilmore argues that we should take in twenty times the number of refugees being promised now, up to as many as 200,000, which we could pay for by cancelling a couple of boutique tax credits. Michael Petrou notes the real problem of the war in Syria.

Continue reading →

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: A technical recession

Posted on by

So there we have it – StatsCan says two quarters of negative growth, which means a “technical” or “statutory” recession. And in case you were wondering, manufacturing was also shrinking, so it’s not just confined to the energy sector (though a lot of Ontario’s manufacturing is now geared to the energy sector). Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver tried to keep the spin on the positive – growth in June, that surplus in the Fiscal Monitor (that may prove illusory). See! Things are on the rebound! Of course, things aren’t so simple, what with some increased consumer spending and employment, and there is a great deal of debate about what it all means (or even if it is a “real” recession, rather than one that meets the statutory definition, which always brings me back to Mike Moffatt’s term “pornographic recession” – knowing one when you see it). Regardless, it’s going to keep things interesting on the campaign trail as parties sharpen their messages over the data. BuzzFeed has a simple guide to what the recession means, while here is a roundup of what the leaders said about it on the campaign trail.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/638702391005589505

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/638714053142179841

Continue reading →

QP: Carry on the middle-class talking points

Posted on by

As Monday is the new Friday, none of the main leaders were in the House — Harper in Europe, Mulcair in Quebec City, and Trudeau across the river in Gatineau, having just laid out his party’s new tax plan. When QP kicked off, Megan Leslie led off, asking about job losses in the manufacturing sector. Pierre Poilievre took the question, and listed off some talking points about how great their family tax cuts were. Leslie noted the media reports that Conservative MPs will personally benefit more from income splitting than others, but Poilievre was undaunted from his talking points. Leslie then changed to the topics of coalition air strikes in Syria hitting civilians. Rob Nicholson noted that they had a 12-month commitment. Jack Harris then asked about Harper’s comments that they were not sure how effective the bombing campaign was. Nicholson noted it was a precision campaign, and wanted the NDP to thank the men and women in uniform. Harris then asked about reports about allegations of mistreatment of Taliban by military police. James Bezan insisted that they were taking the allegations seriously. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, praising their recent announcement and wondered why the government wouldn’t adopt it (Poilievre: Yay our plan), and Ralph Goodale got increasingly critical of that plan Poilievre was touting (Poilievre: You just said you want to raise taxes on people making $60,000 — blatantly untrue).

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 →

Roundup: It’s not an authorisation

Posted on by

Today is the day that the Commons will be holding their non-binding vote on the motion to support the government’s decision to extend the military mission in Iraq and into Syria, but you wouldn’t know it based on the headlines out there right now. “Tories to push through authorization of Syria air mission,” says the Globe and Mail. Nope. It’s not an authorisation, and the Conservatives aren’t pushing it through because they have a majority and it was a foregone conclusion. “Avoiding Syrian air defences a concern as Commons set to approve war expansion,” says The Canadian Press. Still nope – it’s not an approval. It’s an expression of support. It’s right there in the text of the motion. Granted, the government is courting this kind of false interpretation by forcing an unnecessary vote in the first place, and no matter how correctly the motion is worded, they are presenting it as an authorisation or an approval when it’s not, precisely because politically it will help to launder the decision, and make it look like the Commons approved it when they didn’t. That way, when things to wrong – and they inevitably do – and the opposition does its job in holding the government to account, the government could say “the Commons voted on it,” and try to wash their hands of it. Except it’s not an approval, the motion states that, and We The Media need to stop playing the government’s game for them. So repeat after me – it’s an expression of support. That’s all.

Continue reading →