Tag Archives: Constitution

Roundup: The problem with giving everyone a title

Posted on by

There has been a lot of talk over the past few days about the choices that Pierre Poilievre made with announcing a shadow Cabinet as large as he did, and lo, the CBC had even more commentary over the weekend about it. Suffice to say, I’m not sure I really buy the take of “it gives everyone something to do.” Why? For starters, the whole point of a shadow Cabinet, particularly as it is practiced in the UK, is to have people who are ready to go into ministries if there is a change of government, and these are people who know their files, and can slot into the positions easily and quickly. That doesn’t really happen in Canada because our Cabinets have a lot of other considerations in play, such as regional composition, and balance with gender and other diversity, but region is the big one, and therefore, we can’t really have people ready to go into ministries because we don’t know how the regional dynamics will play at a time when they form government. (This is one reason why I’m not keen on calling critics “shadow ministers,” because they don’t have the same function). If you give everyone jobs that are not related to how Cabinet is composed, you’re not really living up to the purpose, particularly if you’re assigning made-up portfolios to certain MPs to exercise their hobby-horses as a reward for loyalty, even though as a reward goes, it’s not much because there is no added pay that goes with it.

My other problem, however, is that MPs already have a lot of work that they’re already not really doing, and many of them have offloaded those responsibilities on to independent Officers of Parliament, and that’s a problem. Committee work is supposed to take up the bulk of an MP’s time, but if they’re playing “shadow minister” for their hobby horses, they’re spending less time doing the work in committee or elsewhere that they’re supposed to be doing. There is also participation-trophy syndrome at play, where (almost) everyone gets a title (but not pay), even though we should remember that backbenchers are supposed to play important accountability roles in our parliamentary system. If we’re training the caucus to all expect titles and roles and not that they have jobs to do as backbenchers, we’re really weakening the ability of our parliament to do its job, and that is worrying. Not that the current crop of MPs in the Commons seems to care much about Parliament and its ability to function correctly, and this goes for all parties (and it’s really not helped when the prime minister has been a constitutional vandal when it comes to the Senate and the role it plays). This is a problem, and we should be talking about it, rather than patting Poilievre on the back for such a “strategic” move.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 235:

Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk say that their mayor’s office was hit by a rocket, which the Ukrainian military has not claimed responsibility for, while Russian rockets struck the town across from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Over the weekend, a missile strike seriously damaged an energy facility near Kyiv,

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1581636027487178754

Continue reading →

QP: Missing the mark on the tough-on-crime questions

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off to Calgary to sign a land settlement with a First Nation, and his deputy off to Washington DC, none of the other leaders were in attendance either. Luc Berthold led off, laying out that the prime minister promised to run a transparent government, but raised the CBC story on 72 secret orders-in-council (which are secret for statutory reasons, not because the government simply declared them to be). François-Philippe Champagne noted that there are particular decisions which need to be secret, particularly under the Investment Canada Act and under national security considerations, and while they strive for transparency, there are instances where the national interest requires secrecy. Berthold tried once again on this, and Champagne repeated his response. Berthold then raised the rise in gun crimes and worried that the bill revoking mandatory minimums was making life easier on criminals. David Lametti reminded him that there are many cases where the justice system targets Black and Indigenous people and that serious crimes will still receive serious sentences. Rob Moore took over in English to also decry the same bill and demanded the government abandon the bill. Lametti repeated his response. When Moore tried again, Pam Damoff listed actions the government is taking to tackle gun violence.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed that the National Assembly has a democratic duty to protect secularism in the province, and insinuated that the federal government was trying to overturn democracy in the province. Lametti reminded Therrien that he too is a Quebecker, that Law 21 prevented a teacher from working, and that the federal government has a duty to protect minority rights. Therrien listed areas where the federal government turns down Quebec’s demands, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that while the Bloc is trying to pick fights, the government is trying to move society forward. 

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, he noted a lot of food bank users are disabled, before he denounced the new disability benefits bill. Carla Qualtrough recited that they have worked with the disability community and provinces to lift disabled people out of poverty, which included ensuring that provinces don’t claw back benefits. Bonita Zarillo repeated the same condemnation in English, and Qualtrough reiterated points before calling on the House to get it done.

Continue reading →

QP: Taking shots at the Supreme Court of Canada

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and proto-Prime Minister’s Questions day. Justin Trudeau was indeed present, as were most but not all of the other leaders. Candice Bergen led off, script on her mini-lectern, and she decried the “failure” to make life affordable, as though the prime minster has magic powers to set world oil prices, or to stop droughts in food-producing regions. Trudeau reminded her that the first thing they did was to cut taxes to the middle class and bringing in the Canada Child Benefit, which is indexed to inflation. Bergen insisted that the Liberals were cheering on high gas prices, and then worried about rising interest rates, as though you can have both low inflation and near-zero interest rates in perpetuity. Trudeau took up a script to list affordability measures like cutting cellphone bills, child care, and increasing the federal minimum wage (which affects only a tiny minority of people). Bergen pivoted to the rise in violent crime and worried that violent criminals would just get house arrest (which is an utter falsehood). Trudeau read a script about how they need a system that punishes criminals but does not target Black and Indigenous people, and that the legislation increases maximum penalties. Luc Berthold took over in French to equate both higher prices and violent crime, eventually getting to a demand to lower taxes (which fuels inflation, guys), and Trudeau read some talking points about affordability measures. Berthold decried the rise in interest rates, and Trudeau extemporaneously pointed to lower child care fees thanks to his government.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he decried the potential federal intervention at the Supreme Court on Quebec’s so-called “secularism” law, and Trudeau said that he must have misheard, that the Bloc insisted that those who want to challenge the law are not real Quebeckers. Therrien insisted this as an internal matter to Quebec, and insisted Canada was trying to “force” religion into their state, and Trudeau took exception to this, saying that minorities have the same across the country, and the federal government would stand up for them.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and listed the number of people who have died from toxic drug overdoses since 2017, and wanted the same decriminalisation approach that BC across the country. Trudeau said this was about working with provinces and municipalities to ensure there is a framework around it, but it was a complex solution. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau gave the same response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brown’s poor choice of words

Posted on by

It is approximately day ninety-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has stormed the city of Sievierodonetsk after trying unsuccessfully to encircle it. Some 90 percent of the cities buildings are damaged, and Russian forces have not cared about civilian casualties. At the same time, president Volodymyr Zelensky ventured out of Kyiv and visited the city of Kharkiv, and thanked the Ukrainian defenders in that city who pushed the Russian invasion back on that front.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is getting new shore-to-ship missiles from Denmark while howitzers from the US are arriving, and it is hoped that these missiles can help better defend their coast line (and possibly sink the Russian Black Sea fleet in the process). Also, here is a look at those evacuating from cities like Lysychansk in eastern Ukraine.

Closer to home, Patrick Brown is trying to walk back on his calling social conservatives “dinosaurs” in his book, saying it was a “poor choice of words.” But he was trying to make a point in the statement that those dinosaurs are becoming less relevant to the party, which in Ontario especially, tends to mean that you need to go on bended knee to Charles McVety and his particular ilk so that you can get their endorsement, which Doug Ford was certainly willing to do, and Brown was not, instead trying to expand the party membership through other ethno-cultural communities that could go around that traditional social conservative membership bloc. And I’ve heard certain Conservative organisers say that they want “open memberships” like the Liberals have in order to grow the party away from being beholden to the social conservatives—erm, but maybe you should just adopt more centrist or mainstream policies that will attract more people to the party if you want to move away from that particular base. Mind you, there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that those members will keep fighting to keep the policy book in their favour, but there is also no guarantee that “open memberships” will help you organise around these social conservatives any differently either. Suffice to say, if the party wants to grow away from this base, it requires a lot more organisational ability than they seem to be demonstrating to date.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Words with meanings and obligations

Posted on by

We’re now around day fifty of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and four European presidents—Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—visited Kyiv to show their support yesterday. (Some photos of Ukraine here). Ukrainian forces also detained one of Putin’s oligarch allies, which has led to a new round of threats from Russia. The other thing that will make Russia angry? The fact that the Ukrainians sank Russia’s flagship for their Black Sea fleet—the same ship that fired upon the border guards at Snake Island. It’s almost poetic justice.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1514397710509559814

Meanwhile, we are getting into a frustrating debate about whether or not to call what’s happening in Ukraine a genocide, and what makes it frustrating is the fact that there are international obligations to do something about it if that’s indeed the case. There is no argument that there are crimes against humanity happening, and those are very, very serious. But “genocide” is a specific legal term with specific intent, and for President Biden to throw the word around and saying that lawyers can sort out the details later isn’t helping, when the term obligates the US to do something about it (which they have danced around in the past because they don’t want to be obligated). And then Justin Trudeau chines in and says it’s “absolutely right” to use the term, which would then obligate Canada to do something about it as well. But we need to stop using the most serious language for things for shock value, because words have meanings, and in this case, obligations as well.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1513890485970116614

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1513902439556169733

Closer to home, the Bank of Canada raised its key interest rates by fifty basis points, and has hinted that more rate hikes are on the way, as they have to not only combat inflation with the only tool they have, but they have to fight the perception that they aren’t doing enough to cool inflation (and that latter part is the bigger part of the problem). I’ll be writing more about what’s in the Monetary Policy Report in the coming days, but in the meantime, here are some smart economists giving some reaction.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1514249461857366021

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feeling like March 2020 all over again

Posted on by

It’s definitely starting to feel like March 2020, as provinces all started increasing restrictions in advance of Christmas—some of them insufficient, and too late, but they are taking some actions nevertheless. (That, and they’re not all honest about what has been happening with rapid tests—looking most especially at the incompetent murderclown Doug Ford). Federally, the border measures are getting even tougher with negative PCR tests being required even for trips that are less than 72 hours in duration (and those PRC tests need to have been done out-of-country), while the travel ban on those ten African countries is now lifted as omicron has already achieved community spread in Canada and such a ban is now useless.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau is trying to offer some reassurances that we have the benefit of knowledge that we didn’t have during the first wave, and that Canadians know enough to do what it takes to curb the spread of the virus. I suspect that may be a bit overly optimistic considering that too many people will do what the government allows them to, so don’t take all of the precautions necessary to actually curb the spread.

Meanwhile, here’s an exploration of some of the psychological reactions that are being seen and felt to the rapid onset of omicron, where fatigue of the “new normal” is starting to overtake compliance to health measures, and the need to start thinking about what the world looks like if we have COVID forever now.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inflation stats and what’s behind them

Posted on by

Rounding out the big economic week was the Consumer Price Index report yesterday (made all the more difficult because Statistics Canada’s website is largely offline as they seal the cyber-vulnerability identified on Friday). The top line figure is that inflation remains at 4.7 percent for a second month in a row, meaning that it hasn’t accelerated into the much higher territory that places like the US are sitting at, and several of the price indicators were flat, which could mean that some prices are starting to stabilise. But it’s still early days, though when you drill down into the numbers, there are really three things that are driving inflation: gasoline, housing costs, and meat.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1471125492568838152

To be clear, as noted by StatsCan:

  • Oil production continues to remain below pre-pandemic levels though global demand has increased
  • Prices for fresh or frozen beef increased 15.4% year over year in November. Poor crop yields resulting from unfavourable weather conditions have made it more expensive for farmers to feed their livestock, in turn raising prices for consumers

https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/1471120984702922757

So what is the takeaway here? That these are issues that the federal government has very little control over, and that the Bank of Canada raising interest rates won’t tackle either. And yet, we keep hearing demands for “concrete action” from the federal government on this, as though they could wave a want to fix it. Or if not a magic wand, then wage and price controls? Do we need to bring “Zap, you’re frozen!” out of retirement?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland is setting her policy own agenda—oh noes!

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail had a strange hit piece out yesterday that was largely targeted at Chrystia Freeland, but it was kind of all over the place and seemed to be missing the mark on a few different tangents. It was framed around Michael Sabia, the new-ish deputy minister of finance, and the fact that he hasn’t made any headway in reining in spending or coming out with a “growth agenda,” as though we aren’t still in a global pandemic that has required extraordinary government fiscal measures in order to keep the economy from spiralling into a depression, or the fact that the last budget was a growth agenda, but it was focused on inclusive growth rather than tax cuts, which a particular generation cannot wrap their heads around (and the fact that the piece singles out the childcare plan is evidence of this fact).

What was particularly troubling about the piece was the fact that it couldn’t quite decide how it was attacking Freeland. On the one hand, it worried that she was too hands-off in the department, leaving Sabia to manage it while she dealt with big policy items (for which she was attacked in absentia during Question Period yesterday), while at the same time, it is overly concerned that Department of Finance officials aren’t driving policy, but the government is. Which, erm, is kind of how things work in our system. The civil service is supposed to provide fearless advice but also do the work of implementing the policies and directives of their political bosses. That’s the whole point of a democracy—this is not a technocracy where the bureaucrats run the show, and if these sore Finance officials have a problem with that, perhaps they either need a refresher on how this works, or they need to find themselves out of the civil service.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1470409184076185600

None of this is particularly surprising, mind you—there are still too many pundits and journalists who still think it’s 1995 and will always be 1995, because that is the established media narrative by which they must always obey (and this hit piece also touches on the Cult of the Insider narrative as well with all of the anonymous inside sources). And the fact that Freeland is a woman holding the job, and is focusing on things like inclusive growth and not the usual “tax cuts=jobs” agenda frankly makes it too easy for the 1995 narrative to keep being circulated. But it’s not 1995, and perhaps it’s time that We The Media stop pretending otherwise, because this kind of hit piece was frankly something that should not have seen the light of day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No formal deal to be had

Posted on by

While we’re still a month away from Parliament being summoned and the first major confidence vote – likely on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne – there is going to be no end of talk of some kind of formal governing arrangement between the Liberals and either the Bloc or the NDP. Because that’s what always happens, and we’re predictable like that, but really, there isn’t going to be any arrangement, because nobody actually wants one.

As David Reevely has pointed out, the idea of any kind of supply or confidence agreement with the Bloc is political poison, and won’t happen. Period. And any kind of agreement with the NDP is not saleable politically on either side. And oh, you might say – didn’t they rely on the NDP last year during the pandemic? Well, not really. For the early months, they came to all-party agreements on emergency legislation in the backrooms, and all of it was done behind closed doors and we got next to no debate in the House of Commons over it – just a few speeches about the pandemic, and some back-patting about working together, but nobody was actually going to bring down the government over it. Later on, the NDP and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives in their procedural warfare that largely paralysed legislation for the better part of five months, because they love to embarrass the government, no matter the stripe, and it wasn’t until May when both the Bloc and NDP realized they had bills they wanted to get passed (C-10 for the Bloc, the UNDRIP, the conversion therapy ban, and the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation bills for the NDP) and they finally started to play ball. As for the confidence votes in the interim, the NDP pretended like they were forcing the government’s hand into extending benefits that were going to be extended regardless – this is not a government that is averse to spending money when need be – and they patted themselves on the back for doing such a good job of taking credit for work that happening anyway.

The other fact is that the seat math just isn’t there for a need for a formal agreement of any kind. It’s not marginal enough – as in BC and New Brunswick during their respective hung legislatures, where they had a mere seat or two leeway with the support of the minority partner – whereas that’s not the case here. And as much as everyone is going to handwave about “Canadians want a Parliament that works,” the truth is nobody is in the position to go to an election for at least another 18 months, if not longer. And yes, the Bloc and the NDP will huff and puff and performatively make demands, but in the end, the government will carry on with period bouts of empty drama that the press gallery will dutifully type up as though it did carry much weight, and things will carry on, without need for a formal arrangement once again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament versus itself

Posted on by

Not unexpectedly, the Speaker of the House of Commons has declared that he’s going to fight “tooth and nail” for Parliament’s right to demand whatever documents they want – as well he should. But this is a very complex issue that becomes parliament fighting against itself, because of the obligations in places like the Canada Evidence Actthat triggered the process that the Attorney General had to undertake around those Public Health Agency documents related to the National Microbiology Lab firings.

With that in mind, here is some context as to what the Canada Evidence Act demands, and why this is not Justin Trudeau personally defying the will of parliament, but the government following its own laws.

For a further breakdown of the legal balancing act involved, and what the court process for this will look like, read through this thread (which was a little too long to simply post, but a couple of highlights are below).

Continue reading →