Tag Archives: Ukraine

Roundup: Some laudable goals, and a lead balloon

Posted on by

The writs might as well have been dropped for the kinds of campaigning that was going on yesterday – Trudeau in Ottawa, and Mulcair in Toronto. While Mulcair largely reheated past statements about support for the manufacturing sector (not that he spelled out what that support means) or lowering small business taxes (of the kind that could actually help out whose wealthy Canadians who incorporated themselves for tax reasons), it was Trudeau’s package of announcements that got the big play. The package included 32 measures for “real change” to bring more openness and transparency to government – a familiar song and dance, but there were some pretty laudable concrete proposals in there, around things like Access to Information, improving service standards at CRA, or repealing this government’s “fair” election laws. The part that got everyone talking – and my head exploding repeatedly – was Trudeau signing onto the electoral reform bandwagon. While Trudeau was talking about consultations and then legislation within eighteen months, the fact that he’s buying into the completely and demonstrably false notion that votes don’t count under our current system (in fact, they not only count but all count equally) is disheartening – particularly after he spent his leadership campaign talking about how he didn’t believe in PR systems (as opposed to Joyce Murray, where that was a central plank for her). Without turning this post into a denunciation of electoral reform, let me simply say that it’s false to say that votes don’t count now, and that changing the system will simply replace one set of problems – or perceived problems – for a whole new set of problems. There were so many other laudable proposals in his platform, one or two duds excepting, that it’s too bad that this one particularly bad one sucked the air out of the rest of it all. If he want’s “evidence based policy,” then perhaps he should reconsider this particular promise. Paul Wells writes about the earnestness of it all, with some historical perspective for good measure.

Continue reading →

QP: Misrepresenting the AG report

Posted on by

Though Harper was off in the Baltic Sea visiting our frigate there, the other leaders were in the Commons for another QP running on fumes. Mulcair led off, flirting with libel with his assertions about the AG report on the Senate — grossly mischaracterising what was found. Paul Calandra reminded him that the non-partisan House Administration found problems with their satellite offices, and that he should repay them. Mulcair wanted Harper to take accountability for the senators he appointed, but Calandra repeated the satellite offices line. Mulcair then gave complete falsehoods about why Marjory LeBreton resigned as leader in the Senate, and got the same response from Calandra. Mulcair brought up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen and wondered about other senators who repaid expenses before the audit — which has nothing to do with the government. Again, same answer from Calandra. for his final question, Mulcair wanted the PM to ask the Pope to apologise for residential schools. Bernard Valcourt took this one, and gave some bland assurances. Justin Trudeau was up, and wondered about the Prime Minister’s 57 patronage appointments to the Senate as a lack of a desire for real reform. Paul Calandra said that Trudeau’s position made no sense, that he would appoint Liberals to appoint non-partisan senators. Trudeau gave a pitch for his plan in French, got derision from Calandra about relieving Liberal senators from the burden of having to attend his caucus meetings. Trudeau wanted the Prime Minister to end partisan appointments, but Calandra gave some broad-based derision of the Liberals in response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible return to deficits

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave his pre-budget analysis, and said that while the books look balanced this year, the government’s continued focus on tax breaks, spending announcements and the low oil price environment could mean heading back into deficit in two years – not too surprising really if you’ve been paying attention. Part of the fiscal breathing room the government is using right now is coming from their decision to freeze EI rates rather than let them fall to a level that reflects the actual unemployment rate, which sounds a lot like the kinds of things they used to curse Paul Martin for doing. And then there are the asset sales, such as all of those GM shares – possibly sold at a loss – that just pad the books in the short term. But hey, they can claim to balance the budget without raising taxes (err, except for all of those tariffs that they raised this year) and try and sell that as sound economic management going into the election. The actual numbers tell a different story, as we’ve seen, but hey, why mess with a narrative?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Legalism and homework monitors

Posted on by

Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with Duffy’s defence

Posted on by

Day one of the Duffy trial, and we saw two things – the Crown laying out a case, including a bunch of evidence that was made available to the media, that showed a pattern of abuse by Duffy when it came to the claiming of expenses, such that he was claiming per diems on the day his appointment was announced, never mind that he wasn’t even sworn in yet, and that he was using one contract to a friend as a slush fund for things the Senate wouldn’t pay out. The crux is common sense – no reasonable person would make these kinds of claims. The defence, meanwhile, is arguing that the rules were so loose that it’s not Duffy’s fault, and everyone else in the Senate is doing it. I have a problem with that because no, everyone else is not doing it, and it breaches the good faith that Duffy should have been exercising from his office. Much of it stems to the very fact that Duffy should never have been appointed as a senator for PEI, but when Stephen Harper made that decision, Duffy didn’t live up to his end of the implicit deal. In conversations that I have had with those who used to work in the Liberal Senate Leader’s office back in the day when they formed government, if they were to appoint someone who didn’t currently live in the province that they were to represent, they ensured that they had their ducks in a row beforehand. This meant that the person was told they were being considered for an appointment – and if they told anyone, that wouldn’t happen – but in the interim they had to ensure that they had the driver’s licence, health card, election registration, licence plates, the works – taken care of beforehand. In Duffy’s case, it would likely have meant selling his home in Kanata and ensuring he had one in PEI that he could access year-round rather than a summer cottage, while maintaining either an apartment or a small condo near the Hill as his secondary residence. It’s really a no-brainer, but Duffy apparently wasn’t able to comprehend that and allegedly looked for as many loopholes as he could to maximise what he could claim. Every other senator I have ever spoken to, including some very long-time ones, is aghast at that kind of behaviour, and they do their utmost to minimise what they claim. I am also dubious about this “conspiracy” to “force” Duffy to repay claims that he may have been able to make legitimately – but remember that there were always political considerations at play, and even if some of those claims were legal, they would not have been politically sound and Duffy should have known this from the start. His cries of victimhood ring hollow, but he looks to be set on trying to win the trial on pure technicalities. Nicholas Köhler has his observations here, while the Ottawa Citizen’s Gargoyle shows some of the behind the scenes moments from the day.

Continue reading →

QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria

Posted on by

After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eminent Canadians push back

Posted on by

The anti-terror legislation again dominated the headlines yesterday, starting with a letter that four former Prime Ministers – Turner, Clark, Chrétien and Martin – along with 18 other eminent Canadians including five former Supreme Court justices, penned in the Globe and Mail about the need for better oversight of our national security agencies. You know, like the Martin government was trying to pass in 2004 before the Conservatives and NDP brought them down (and which Peter MacKay blatantly misconstrued in QP). What’s more baffling is that the government, by way of Jason Kenney, is now arguing that the bill doesn’t need more oversight because it gives more power to the courts to provide it. (Funnily enough, this is the same party who likes to moan about judicial activism). The problem with judicial oversight is that it also isn’t really oversight, and we have actual demonstrated cases where CSIS didn’t tell the truth when they went to the courts for a warrant. One of those cases is now waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court, because CSIS failed in their duty of candour. This is not a minor detail, but rather a gaping hole in the government’s argument. Oversight is a very important and necessary component, and it makes no sense that the government can keep ignoring it because it’s going to come around and bite them in the ass if they don’t get a handle on it, particularly when the bad things that happen come to light, and they always do, and we’ll have another Maher Arar-type situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All About Eve, Part 2: The Revenge

Posted on by

It was a move that shocked pretty much everyone – Conservative parliamentary secretary Eve Adams crossed the floor to the Liberals, and called out Stephen Harper as “mean-spirited” and a bully. Of course, Adams is not without controversy, with her botched nomination and allegations of shenanigans, and the news from the Conservative Party that she was denied a further attempt to contest a nomination – not that it impacted her parliamentary secretary role or duties, which they apparently still had confidence in her carrying out. This makes her look to be self-serving in her decision to approach the Liberals, though it sounds like she approached Trudeau before the final no from the Conservatives. There are also suggestions that her relations with Harper started to deteriorate after a meeting last month, but it’s all still unclear at this point. For the Liberals, Adams played up her roots in the Progressive Conservatives – a party which is no longer and whose bona fides are fading from the modern Conservative Party (which, to be fair, has also tossed social conservatism in favour of base populism). Trudeau is trying to re-capture those blue Liberal voters who voted Conservative in the past couple of elections, as well as to get the Red Tories who still exist, particularly in Ontario but also in Alberta, to vote Liberal instead. Now she’s going to try and contest one of the still open seats in the GTA, but if any Liberals want to send a message that she’s not welcome in the party for her past Conservative sins, well, this is their chance to let their displeasure be heard. As for Adams, she leaves from a prestigious position with the government to the third party, and she goes from strict message control to a place where she’s going to have to do a lot more heavy lifting as she takes on a critic portfolio. Maybe she can make something of it and prove herself. She’s got about 14 sitting weeks to make something of her change. Then there’s the question of Adams’ spouse, Dmitri Soudas, former right-hand-man of the PM and former director of the Conservative Party. He says he supports her move, and has already made threatening tweets to Conservative MPs who have tried to be too snarky about it, but the Liberals have stated that he will have no formal role in the campaign other than supporting Adams with her nomination. It was, however, pretty rich of the Liberals to cast questions about this dynamic as sexist, because they were a “power couple” and that makes it relevant. I personally am curious about some of the wider-ranging implications, such as how the Soudas-Leo Housakos power structure will carry on, as that is currently part of the cabal at the centre of Senate leadership. The loss of Soudas from the Conservative fold could resonate there as well. Paul Wells offers some snarky – but entirely deserved – comments on the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564867569836765184

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564910542037319680

Continue reading →

QP: Arthur Porter, come on down!

Posted on by

A blustery winter day in Ottawa, and there were a few sour faces among the official opposition ranks following the Board of Internal Economy directive the previous evening. All of the leaders were in the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about more layoffs in Toronto. Stephen Harper said that it has to do with particular decisions of particular companies, but their Economic Action Plan™ has created more jobs than were lost. Mulcair insisted those new jobs were part time and precarious, then listed more retail layoffs. Harper retorted the NDP position was simply to raise taxes. Mulcair then moved to the issue of CSIS, and whether the thirty year-old SIRC has the tools to oversee the agency today. Harper insisted that the system was robust and had safeguards, but the solution was not to go after the police but the terrorists. “Arthur Porter, come on down,” Mulcair quipped and noted SIRC’s report saying that CSIS had misled them just last year. Harper said that the example shows that the system works. Mulcair gave a line about freedom and safety going hand-in-hand, and saying that Harper has been decisive about it. Harper insisted that the bill already enhances oversight. (Really? Where?) Justin Trudeau was up next, demanding income splitting be cut in favour of more investment in infrastructure. Harper insisted that they were already running the largest, longest infrastructure programme in history and that he recently announced more funding — and that the Liberals want to raise taxes. Trudeau pointed out the massive difference difference in funding over the last two years and that an April budget meant municipalities would miss construction season. Harper repeated his insistence that they were already spending record amounts and accused Trudeau of being bad at math. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer in French, with an added promise for a balanced budget and targeted tax breaks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A largely fictitious distinction

Posted on by

While the battle over what’s happening at Veterans Affairs continues to rage, we are continually reassured by both the Prime Minister and the Original Series duotronic computer system known as Julian Fantino that we shouldn’t worry – that any cuts that have been made are all “back office” bureaucrats, and that front-line services haven’t been affected. Really! And while the example of cutting 12 photocopy clerks by moving to digitised medical records may be an example of those “back office” cuts, we should stop kidding ourselves – there is no neat dividing line between what is a front-line service position and a back-office bureaucrat because it’s the job of those bureaucrats to process the work of the front-line providers. If anything, this notion that back-office positions are being eliminated means anything, it’s that it forces more front-line workers to do the processing work themselves, essentially increasing their workload and making them less able to help veterans because they’re the ones busy processing the paperwork rather than focusing on the service aspect. Using the excuse of it being “back office” is largely a fictional distinction made for the sake of optics – but then again, that is the way that this government likes to operate, by photo op and announcement rather than by actual results, so this really should surprise nobody.

Continue reading →