Tag Archives: Anita Anand

Roundup: Supply cycle reaches its peak

Posted on by

We’re now in day one-hundred-and-five of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has nearly seized the entirely of Luhansk, one of the two main Donbas regions. Thus far, Russia has turned over 210 bodies from fighters in the steel plant in Mariupol, exchanging them for Russian bodies.

Here is the tale of a fifteen-year-old Ukrainian boy who helped destroy an advancing Russian column by using a drone and alerting the Ukrainian forces of where to aim their artillery. Meanwhile, Ukraine has been trying to get its grain to markets by other means than by ship, but it is being beset by logistical problems, as their silos are full and a new planting season is already underway. Even if they could get their ships out of port, it will take at least a month or two to de-mine the corridors these ships travel.

https://twitter.com/UKRinCAN/status/1534287413304037376

Closer to home, it was the final day of the Supply cycle yesterday, meaning that the Conservatives got their last Supply Day, and then the House passed the Supplementary Estimates, which ensures that departments have money to function, and that it’s more aligned with the budget, because we have a mis-match between the budget cycle and the Estimates cycle that has grown over the past few decades, and when Scott Brison tried to align them when he was at Treasury Board, not only did the civil service resist, but the opposition accused him of trying to create a “slush fund” when he was trying to allocate funds to better align the Estimates and budget, and certain proposed programmes didn’t have their submissions delivered in time. Suffice to say, Brison tried, and when he failed, the government seems to have given up on fixing this very obvious problem that goes to the heart of why Parliament exists in the first place. Suffice to say, now that the Estimates are passed, the House of Commons could theoretically rise at any point. They likely will wait until at least the end of this week so that they can get the budget implementation bill passed, as well as Bill C-5 on mandatory minimums, but considering the filibusters or other dilatory motions going on around the broadcasting bill, the official languages bill, and the gun control bill, I would not be surprised if the House Leader decides to just go home a few days early and let everyone cool down over the summer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A middle power and a convenor

Posted on by

We are on day twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the shelling and air strikes against civilian targets continue—an apartment building in Kyiv, a theatre where children were sheltering in Mariupol. Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the US Congress yesterday, invoking Pearl Harbour and 9/11 as part of his demand to close the sky” (which isn’t going to happen), and added that if America can’t do that, then to at least give Ukraine the planes so they can do it themselves. That was obviously a demand he couldn’t make of Canada (no, seriously—third-hand CF-18s would not be of much use to them), so we’ll see if that gets him any further aid from the US—hours after his address, Joe Biden signed an order authorising another $800 million worth of lethal aid, including anti-aircraft systems, so that presentation may have done its job.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1504186533791870984

Meanwhile, closer to home, Mélanie Joly’s comments that Canada isn’t a military power, but a middle power whose strength is convening to make sure diplomacy happens and convincing other countries to do more is rubbing a bunch of former military leaders the wrong way. We do contribute militarily, oftentimes more so than other allies who meet the stated NATO spending targets (which is one more reason why those targets are not a great measurement of anything), though our ability to do more is being constrained. That’s one reason why I’m getting mighty tired of the number of articles and op-eds over the last few days calling for more spending, while none of them address the current capacity constraints, particularly around recruiting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Putin’s motives

Posted on by

It’s now day twelve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it appears to remain fairly stalled, but shelling continues. There had apparently been an agreement with Russia for a ceasefire to allow the evacuation of Mariupol, which they did not then live up to, making civilian evacuations all the more difficult in the area. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy worries that Odessa will be the next city to be targeted. And because Ukraine is considered Europe’s breadbasket, this is going to drive up the price of grain, further fuelling inflation, and there seems to be little idea of how this conflict could end considering where we are at currently.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1500103479687360520

Something else we’ve seen over the weekend are a number of analyses of what Putin might have been thinking when he made the decision to invade. While I would recommend you read this post from Dan Gardner, there is also this thread by a former Russian foreign minister which also sheds a bit of insight (not fully replicated below, but just some key highlights).

On a related note to this conflict is the hope or at least speculation that this will mean that we’ll finally be serious about our defence spending in this country, but that relies on some poor assumptions, one of which is that the current government hasn’t been spending. They have, and they can’t actually spend any more because of capacity constraints within the Forces, not only in terms of our fairly broken procurement process, but mostly because they simply don’t have enough personnel. We have a major recruitment shortfall, and that severely limits their ability to actually spend their budgets. But let’s hope this doesn’t derail the efforts to fix the culture within the Forces that is proving a detriment to recruitment and retention, because you know there will be voices calling for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Grifters fail to secure Trudeau’s resignation

Posted on by

While the organisers and the American mouthpieces they fed their PR to claimed that the grifter convoy would see 50,000 trucks and 1.5 million people descending upon Ottawa (a city of a million people over a fairly vast geography), it was a couple of hundred trucks, and a couple of thousand people—nothing even remotely close to a Canada Day in the Before Times. Some are saying it was relatively peaceful in that there were no riots, but its denizens were certainly belligerent and forced the closure of the mall near Parliament Hill, along with many other businesses in the area, most of whom will remain closed today. Liquor stores in the area were also closed because of the same belligerence, and the honking rarely ceased all weekend. (The Ottawa Citizen has a rolling blog of events over the weekend here, while Justin Ling has the definitive account of the event and its lead-up).

The reckoning for certain Conservative MPs will begin soon enough, particularly Michael Cooper, as he was filmed talking to reporters while in front of an up-side down Canadian flag that had a swastika on it. (Not-so-fun fact: swastikas were doing double-duty over the weekend, both sported by extremists like those who organised the event, while others were using them to denounce the government as being Nazis, because nothing says sore loser like calling the prime minister in a hung parliament after a free and fair election a tyrannical dictator). Cooper insists it’s not his fault there were swastikas around, and that he’s the victim here—erm, except he knew damn well that extremists organised this event and that these kinds of symbols and flags always turn up at these events, so it would have been better for him not to show up at all. (Reminder: Cooper is also the guy who read the New Zealand mosque shooter’s manifesto into the record at committee, because reasons). Also, I cannot wait for all of those Conservative MPs to have a meltdown about the grifters who urinated on the Cenotaph at the National War Memorial, the way they did when that rando did it on Canada Day in 2006. Because they’ll have the same reaction, right?

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1487763389522849795

As for what happens next, we’ll see. It already started to peter out yesterday because there’s a) nothing to do, and b) they’re accomplishing nothing. The extremist organisers insist they’ll stay there until all of the vaccine mandates are rescinded (good luck with that—they’re mostly provincial jurisdiction), and that the government resign, and even more, that the Liberal Party is dismantled. Yeah, that’s not going to happen, buddy. Police became way more visible on Sunday, and the play seems to be that they let these grifters have their fun and make their on Saturday, then made their presence known in a big way on Sunday, so that if they’re not gone by the end of Monday, they’ll start taking action. But we’ll see. Nevertheless, this is a big waste of everyone’s time, and everyone is out of patience.

Meanwhile in Alberta, a smaller convoy headed to the province’s legislature on Saturday, while a separate group of trucks blockaded a southern border crossing. It took a day for Jason Kenney to condemn said blockade, but after all of the noise he made supporting the original grifter convoy only for its same proponents to turn on him and his province is pretty much fitting. Kenney keeps thinking he’s the smartest guy in the room and can outrun the fires he starts to pretend like he’s putting them out, but once again, he’s getting burned.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A headache over added and subtracted seats

Posted on by

The question of seat redistribution and the allocation – and subtraction – of seats has been simmering, and the premier of Quebec is demanding that the prime minister step in and guarantee that Quebec not only retain the seat it is slated to lose, but also to guarantee that because of the notion that Quebec constitutes a nation within Canada, that they must be guaranteed that their share of seats never drops even if their population grows at a much slower pace than other provinces. The problem with that? It would require a constitutional amendment to do, using the 7/50 formula (seven provinces representing 50 percent of the population). And that could be the tricky part.

Of course, the obvious solution is to tinker with the seat distribution formula, which the Conservatives introduced (fully intending to screw over Ontario for new seats along the way). But as I stated in my column a couple of weeks ago, we would probably be better served adding far more than just four seats – something more like 40 would be better for everyone, especially because it would mean better populating committees and keeping parliamentary secretaries from voting positions on them. Mike Moffatt and I discussed this over Twitter:

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456558821942431744

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456560023383969796

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456590475985571840

Furthermore, if we stay at the current redistribution formula, that sole new seat in Ontario is going to cause a lot of problems with redrawing boundaries (which will then have provincial reverberations, because Ontario provincial ridings mirror their federal counterparts, with the exception of an additional seat in Northern Ontario for better representation. Once this reality starts to sink in, perhaps the government would start considering boosting that formula to avoid these kinds of headaches.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1456593608648298498

Continue reading →

Roundup: Breakaway caucuses are more headaches for O’Toole

Posted on by

Things in the Conservative caucus seem to be getting increasingly precarious, as a “small number” of MPs continue to remain unvaccinated, and others refuse to disclose even if they are vaccinated, which is going to be a problem for Erin O’Toole in two weeks when they need to show proof of vaccination to enter the parliamentary precinct, their offices, or reach the House of Commons.

As if this weren’t enough, you have more unofficial “breakaway” caucus groups forming – one of them calling themselves the “civil liberties caucus,” apparently headed by Marilyn Gladu, who are concerned with the loss of “medical privacy” over vaccine status; the other is allegedly rallying around fiscal and deficit issues (and I would be tremendously surprised if this isn’t a faction led by Pierre Poilievre). And for context, particular “caucus” groups are fairly normal, but they tend to be around things like friendship groups with other countries, or other soft parliamentary diplomacy. This is not it, and while Gladu insists that this isn’t about O’Toole’s leadership, but it’s hard not to see it that way – especially as he should have been clamping down on the anti-vax contingent in his caucus and party more broadly because there is still a pandemic going on, and pandering to a group that is heavily influenced by conspiracy theories is frankly insane.

Nevertheless, this is where we find ourselves. O’Toole continues to try and play both sides of the fence, saying he’s encouraging vaccination but won’t enforce it when people refuse for no good reason at all. The fact that the party has made itself beholden to its social conservative and more fringe base because they’re the ones who both fundraise and volunteer is a problem for the party over the long term, as the need to keep appeasing this base isn’t going away. That makes it harder for the rational, moderate Conservatives from having influence (witness the savaging they gave to Michael Chong in 2017, and Peter MacKay last year, even though MacKay wasn’t even a real Red Tory). So long as O’Toole refuses to put his foot down in the face of a global pandemic, he’s enabling more of the decline and that bodes very poorly for the future of the party, and Canadian political discourse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Enter the new Whip

Posted on by

Newly-appointed Chief Government Whip Steve MacKinnon had a conversation with CBC over the weekend, and there are a few interesting bits in there. For one, I didn’t actually realise that the term came from 18th-century hunting slang for “whipper-in, as the rider who keeps hounds from straying from the pack. So it’s not about any kind of literal or metaphorical whipping of MPs to vote a certain way, and now we’ve both learned something new today.

What I did know before is that there is more to the whip’s job than just ensuring MPs vote in certain ways, particularly if there’s a confidence vote upcoming. Rather, the whip and his or her office has a lot of work in juggling assignments – who is on what committee, who can stand in for that MP if they are away, and to an extent, who has House duty. And because the whip is largely the person in charge of MPs’ attendance (even if said attendance is not made public), I have it on very good authority that the Whip spends a lot of time listening to MPs as they unburden themselves, and talk about what is going on in their lives as to why they can’t attend a committee meeting or vote. The whip also becomes responsible for the staff in a riding office if that MP resigns or dies in office. And then comes the discipline part, which is different between each party. Some parties are very strict about it, some have unofficial ways of enforcing discipline – largely through in-group bullying – and some are fairly relaxed over the issue provided it’s not a matter of confidence.

The other thing I would add is that at the advent of the era of “Senate independence,” as Justin Trudeau and others would have you believe, the whip in the Senate was equivalent to in the House of Commons, and they instructed senators how to vote – or else. This was simply not true – the whip in the Senate was always rather illusory, and the Whip’s office was more about doing things like committee assignments, finding alternates for those who were absent, and assigning things like office space or parking to incoming senators who joined the caucus. They had little to no leverage of senators and their voting patterns because of institutional independence, and I heard a former Liberal senate leader once remark that on one occasion when the leader’s office on the Commons side called them up and said they’d really like it if senators could vote for a certain bill, that these senators turned around and voted the other way, just to prove a point around their independence. So there is a lot more to the role than people may expect from the outside, and best of luck to Steve MacKinnon as he takes on this new role.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A refreshed Cabinet for a new parliament

Posted on by

So, that was the big Cabinet shuffle. It was extensive, and we saw three ministers dropped entirely (not the first time), a few promotions, a few demotions, and a lot more hybrid and chimeric ministries which will make governance a challenge to say the least. Nevertheless, here we are. Some observations:

  • This was not a new Cabinet or ministry – this was just a shuffle. It’s also not a third term or mandate, because we don’t have those in Canada – it’s the third parliament that the current ministry has spanned.
  • Marc Garneau’s exclusion from Cabinet has fuelled rumours he’s about to become ambassador to France. My presumption is that Bardish Chagger’s exclusion is because she is going to be the new Whip, as the old Whip and his deputy are now in Cabinet. Jim Carr’s departure may be health-related.
  • After Trudeau had rather bravely centralized all of the economic development agencies under one roof and didn’t have them beholden to local ministers and the corrupting influence that offers, he has relented and re-established the practice of regional economic development ministers again, and undone the work of trying to clean up the mess they create.
  • The most important portfolios – finance, defence, foreign affairs – are now all held by women. Anita Anand is the second woman defence minister in Canadian history (the first being Kim Campbell), and her background as a law professor specializing in governance can only help in a role where there has been a crisis in civilian oversight. As foreign affairs minister, Mélanie Joly will have to deal with the tensions between the US and China (and our general lack of a coherent foreign policy).
  • Splitting up Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was a good and necessary thing; giving Bill Blair emergency preparedness and not public safety is an even better thing because Blair was essentially at risk of capture in the role as a former police chief (with a questionable record around actions of the Toronto Police during the G20 to boot).
  • There are nine new faces in this configuration of Cabinet, and more diversity – the first Black woman since Jean Augustine, the first out lesbian minister, and the queerest Cabinet in Canadian history.
  • Putting Steven Guilbeault in environment may yet be a huge disaster given how badly he mismanaged Bill C-10, but Jonathan Wilkinson in natural resources will likely mean a steadier hand on some of those files where the two overlap.
  • Carving off an associate health minister portfolio for Carolyn Bennett to deal with addictions and mental health is a bit of a throwback to when she was the first minister of state for the newly-created Public Health Agency of Canada, back in the Paul Martin era. Jean-Yves Duclos in health – an economist who did a lot of work on poverty reduction – means he’s not going to be fooled by provinces trying to get more money out of the federal government that they plan to spend elsewhere.
  • Trudeau says he plans to lead the Liberals in the next election, but I’m not sure I believe him, and of course he’d say that now. He wouldn’t actually say he plans to leave until it comes time to do so, lest he turn himself into a lame duck without any moral authority to get anything done.

And now, the talking heads. Aaron Wherry hears from a Senior Liberal Source™ that the message of this Cabinet is the need for urgent delivery of promises. Heather Scoffield makes note of the activists leading the environment and housing files. Jason Markusoff highlights the squirming that Jason Kenney and others are doing now that Steven Guilbeault is the environment minister. Althia Raj sees some attempted legacy-building in Trudeau’s choices.

Continue reading →

Roundup: CSIS has a warning and a request

Posted on by

The head of CSIS gave a rare speech yesterday, in which he did two things – called for more modernisations to the CSIS Act in order to let the organisation collect more digital information, and to warn about state actors who are targeting the country’s economic secrets, often though partnerships that they then take advantage of (pointing the finger on this one specifically at China).

Meanwhile, here’s former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis’ assessment of what she heard in the speech, which has a few interesting insights.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213965851697154

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359213967906865152

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359214670624792576

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215146657341441

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1359215476224704512

Continue reading →