Tag Archives: Crown Prerogative

Roundup: Just what farm emissions are subject to the carbon levy?

Posted on by

While Pierre Poilievre continues to insist that the federal carbon levy is driving up food prices, he provides no proof of that other than his “common sense” reckon that the levy increases the price of everything.

It doesn’t really, but Poilievre likes to make you think it does. So, University of Alberta’s Andrew Leach has crunched the numbers, and lo, the carbon levy is exempt on very nearly all farm emissions, and contributes but a fraction to other expenses, like transportation. Of course, Poilievre is lying to make you angry, but it’s nice to have some receipts to know just exactly what the lies are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The fallout of that Russian plane downing that allegedly carried Ukrainian POWs continues to reverberate, as Russia claims they gave Ukraine a 15-minute warning about said plane, which Ukraine denies; as well, Ukraine’s human rights commissioner says that he believes this is an information op because the list of supposed POWs provided included several names on it that had previously been swapped. Several Ukrainian state organisations are reporting that they are experiencing cyber-attacks. Russia is also claiming that Ukrainian drones are responsible for an attack on an oil refinery in Russia’s south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No need to consult and launder accountability

Posted on by

NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson tweeted her outrage at the US/UK air strikes against the Houthis yesterday, and Canada’s participation therein (solely in a planning capacity and not contributing any assets), but in her outrage, she decried that Parliament was not consulted before Canadian participation.

This is wrong. Parliament shouldn’t be consulted because it’s not Parliament’s decision.

This kind of decision is a Crown prerogative, and that’s actually a good thing for accountability, because that is the role that the House of Commons should be playing on these decisions—holding the government to account. That’s the whole point of Parliament. MPs don’t govern—they hold to account those who do. And it’s important that we don’t have MPs voting on these kinds of decisions because that launders the accountability. In other words, if the House of Commons votes on military actions, then if things go wrong, they can’t hold the government to account for them because the government can turn around and say “You voted for this, it’s your responsibility, not ours.” That’s how our Parliament is structured, and why it works the way it does.

Oh, but you’ll say. There have been votes in the past! There have been, and they have largely been done for crass political calculations, particularly to divide opposition parties. Case in point was the extension of the Afghanistan mission, which Stephen Harper put to a vote specifically for the purpose of dividing the Liberals in opposition. It’s not how things are supposed to work. The government may announce a deployment or a mission in the House of Commons, and there might be a take-note debate on it, but there shouldn’t be a vote. If the opposition tries to force on as part of a Supply Day motion, as is their right, then it’s non-binding and is explicitly a political ploy, which makes it more transparent than a government’s attempt to launder accountability. And in this particular case, the fact that two or three Canadians are assisting in planning is hardly something that requires debate in the Commons.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine’s ground forces commander says they need more aircraft to make a difference in pushing back Russian forces. UK prime minister Rishi Sunak was in Kyiv to announce a new tranche of aid, and to address Ukraine’s parliament. A Ukrainian presidential aide says that the amended mobilization bill is expected to pass within days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Papering over party divisions

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-twenty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Severodonestk has fallen, mostly pounded into rubble the way that Mariupol was. Up next for Russian forces is across the river, to the city of Lysychansk, where they are now trying to once again encircle Ukrainian forces, while more civilians try to evacuate the area. Emboldened, Russians have also fired missiles again at Kyiv, killing at least one person. This is likely seen as a warning as NATO leaders are gathering early this week to reaffirm support for Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1541103194184601601

Closer to home, all does not sound well in the Conservative caucus. Last week, in her blog post announcing she wouldn’t be running to lead the UCP, Michelle Rempel Garner noted that:

…in both parties there have also been squabbles that have erupted in the pages of national media, public meltdowns, nearly missed physical fights, coups, smear jobs, leaked recordings and confidential emails, lack of consensus on critical issues, caucus turfings, people harassed to the point where they resign roles, and hours long meetings where members have been subjected to hours of public castigation. There have been heated exchanges to get basic concerns addressed, unjustified insularity in decision making, shunnings, exclusionary cliques and more.

So of course, over the weekend, Candice Bergen was asked about this, and while she refused to say anything about it to the Star, she denied this was the case to CTV, seeming to imply that Rempel Garner is either making it up, or is “experiencing things differently.” Bergen is also talking a big game about party unity, and is going to spend Canada Day in Halifax with Peter MacKay, for some inexplicable reason, as though this makes a point about party unity. (Remember, MacKay was never really a Red Tory, given that he voted in lockstep with Stephen Harper on everything, and couldn’t vote for socially progressive issues when other former Red Tories would). Bergen is also denying that she has any safety concerns, and seems to pin blame for the level of harassment that MPs are facing onto Justin Trudeau because he made people get vaccinated, and called out far-right extremists for what they are.

Also over the weekend, former Conservative Senate den mother leader Marjorie LeBreton emerged to voice her concerns about the direction the party is heading in, particularly around their support for the occupation, which erodes their credibility as a law-and-order party. She’s so incensed about Poilievre’s support for the occupation that she resigned from her position as a member of his riding association over it, and worries that the party may be “fracturing beyond repair.” None of this is painting a promising picture of a party that Bergen is insisting nothing is wrong in, but perhaps she is not the most credible source for what his happening behind closed doors, because it’s not in her interest to tell the truth about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop demanding deployment votes

Posted on by

While Harjit Sajjan is off in London at a meeting of defence ministers, his critics are back in Ottawa grousing about the shift of focus from peacemaking to peacekeeping – never mind that Sajjan has already said that any upcoming mission is unlikely to be “peacekeeping” in the traditional sense as opposed to what he’s terming “peace operations.” That aside, the other emerging bit of drama is the fact that Sajjan is indicating that the government is unlikely to put such a deployment to a vote in the House of Commons – which is of course the way that things should work, but the Conservatives under Stephen Harper started saying they were going to hold votes starting with the Afghanistan mission extension under the guise of being “more democratic” when their whole point was to publicly divide the Liberals, and hey, that happened. (Remember when Harper crossed the floor to shake Michael Ignatieff’s hand after that vote? Because that wasn’t about trying to put a skewer in the brewing leadership contest, no sir). But beyond the reasons why the practice started, it’s antithetical to the whole point of parliament, which is to hold the government to account. When you put decisions like this to a vote – even if it’s non-binding and worded as “supporting a decision,” it gives the illusion that you’re giving parliament a role in the decision, when that’s not their job. When they are implicated in the decision making, they are not able to effectively hold the government to account because they can turn around and say “the House voted on this,” and shrug it off – and yes, the Conservatives did this on a number of occasions as well. So yes, have debates. Have committees scrutinize the missions as they happen, but don’t insist on votes, even if it’s for symbolic reasons, because that poisons the well.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773921571438157824

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773921858794102784

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/773923808633839616

On a related note, at the meeting of defence ministers, some of the shortages facing peacekeeping operations in Africa were noted, and one of them is the need for more female peacekeepers on the ground.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering instead of being asked

Posted on by

Remember how Harper told that New York business office that the Americans had asked us to contribute more troops to the situation in Iraq? Well, US officials are saying that no, Canada offered by asking what more they could do to help combat the scourge of ISIS. It was bad enough that Harper let this particular announcement slip to a foreign audience away from the House of Commons, but for his characterisation to be different than our allies’ gives rise to his trustworthiness in saying such things – not something you really want when you’re trying to ensure that parliament is onside on these deployments. Harper’s people insist that there’s no real difference in the stories, but it’s fairly hard to swallow. Thomas Mulcair, meanwhile, continues to bang on about the need for a vote on any deployment – never mind that Paul Dewar went on TV to say that other deployments, like sending HMCS Toronto to the Black Sea, was totally different because it’s a NATO exercise. John Baird said that the government would likely put it to a vote if the mission expands into something like an air campaign where Canada sends CF-18s. The problem with Mulcair’s continually demanding a vote – and the government offering one – is that it allows the government to launder the Crown prerogative and use the out come of said vote as political cover, hindering the opposition from doing its job of holding the government to account. “Oh, the House decided on this. End of story.” It remains unclear why Mulcair can’t see that point.

Continue reading →

Roundup: So long for the summer, MPs!

Posted on by

Ladies and gentlemen, the House has risen for the summer. Let us rejoice! The Senate, however, continues to sit, likely for another week or two, as they clear the remaining bills off their plates before the recess and likely summer prorogation. (And yes, I’ll be recapping Senate QP for the duration).

Marking the last day was the escalation of the transparency game, where the NDP finally unveiled their own transparency plan, which basically proposes to dismantle the Board of Internal Economy and replace it with an independent oversight body. The proposal was agreed to go to study by committee before the House rose. While the goal here is to end the practice of MPs policing MPs, there is a danger in that by absolving themselves of their responsibilities, they are on the road to a kind of technocratic system that has little accountability. It should also give one pause – if Parliament is indeed the highest court in the land (and it is), what does it say that those who make up its occupants cannot be counted on to hold themselves to account. It would seem to me that simply demanding a greater standard of transparency would have gone a long way to solving the issues inherent with MPs policing themselves than a wholesale overturning of the system.

Continue reading →

Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 4

Posted on by

My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about the underlying issues with a potential vote on a new Afghan deployment, and the Alberta election.