Tag Archives: General Eyre

Roundup: Electoral reform tries to take the spotlight

Posted on by

In addition to the constant wanking of pollsters and polling analysts, while the Elder Pundits continue to pronounce the end of Justin Trudeau’s political career, there has been an entire sub-category of commentary that is trying to tie this by-election loss to the failure to enact some kind of electoral reform, even though Trudeau has won two elections since then. Justin Ling wrote up a whole op-ed about this for the Star yesterday, given that the 84 candidates on the by-election ballot were because of a tantrum by electoral reform group to use the stunt to call attention to Trudeau’s broken promise. And Ling makes some wild assertions along the way.

This notion that MPs are more beholden to the party than to their constituents would not be fixed by changing the electoral system. In fact, the current system is the one that most empowers MPs to be beholden to their constituents, as most PR systems rely on party votes, and party lists to fill “proportional” seats, and that makes those MPs even more beholden to the leader because they don’t have the connection to a riding as a result. That’s an even worse outcome, and hands even more power to the leader to centralise, worse than they already do. The ability to be independent under such a PR system is even less than under the current system, so I have a hard time fathoming why anyone thinks that this solves any of those problems.

The current dysfunction that Ling complains about in the piece is not a result of the electoral system—it’s because of the perverse incentives that have developed, compounded by the Trump Effect, that have made rational discourse impossible because everything is about driving engagement over social media, not in the Houses of Parliament. Changing the electoral system wouldn’t change that—in fact, it could make it worse as parties fragment and fragile coalitions emerge that rely on extremists to play kingmaker, forcing parties to behave in even more outrageous fashions. Electoral reform doesn’t solve problems—it takes an existing set of problems and replaces them with a new set of problems. Resurrecting this debate in order to once again flog this dead horse is not helping anyone, and if anything, is just distracting from the actual frank conversations that parties need to be having amongst themselves with their members about how to meet the moment to solving the problems this country faces. PR won’t make that happen, and we have to stop entertaining the notion that it somehow will.

Programming Note: I’m taking the long weekend fully off of blogging, as well as a few days next week in order to work on another project.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have forced Russian troops out of part of Chasiv Yar. Some Ukrainian commanders are complaining that the Canadian-built Senator armoured vehicles aren’t built for off-road capability, break down too often, and aren’t well suited for the front lines. With the EU security pact now signed, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on European allies to fulfil their promises around arms and supports.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1806344642041917773

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1806321424446951489

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: A caution around more nomination “safeguards”

Posted on by

There has been some renewed interest in party nominations after the accusations of shenanigans in Liberal MP Han Dong’s nomination, and unsurprisingly, we get a rather tepid piece asking if we need more safeguards. There are a few things that this ignores, part of which is the history. MPs actively wanted to keep Elections Canada out of policing nominations (though they now have a bigger role in policing the funding of said contests). This is one of the reasons why the decision was made to have party leaders sign off on nominations forms—to keep Elections Canada out of the process. (That later turned into a problem of leaders using this power to blackmail members into staying in line, which was not something contemplated at the time, and yes, I did study the Hansards of those debates as part of research for my book).

The other thing that the piece missed is how parties have been monkeying with nomination processes to get their favoured candidates installed. The Samara Centre for Democracy has a great report on this (though they were a little too credulous at the NDP’s claims they always run open nominations when they don’t), and my particular caution is that more “safeguards” for nominations may very well mean a greater ability for the party or the leader’s office to monkey around or put their thumbs on the scale. Already we are in a veritable crisis where open nominations are fast disappearing behind the curtain of protected nominations for incumbents and invoking “electoral urgency” rules unnecessarily that allow the leader to just directly appoint candidates. Parties used to be robust enough to fight this kind of interference, but they are losing that ability, particularly in the Liberals, who rewrote their party constitution to centralize even more power in the leader’s office and disempower the grassroots after Trudeau became prime minister.

Should there be more safeguards? Probably. But that means returning the power to the grassroots riding associations so that they can run proper, open and transparent contests, rather than what has been happening.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that in spite of Russian claims, Bakhmut is not surrounded, and the fighting continues. In fact, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries has said that their position is at risk if they can’t get more ammunition. The Ukrainains are, however, trying to evacuate the remaining civilian population, who are still there for many different reasons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Marinating ideas or wasting precious time?

Posted on by

As his weekend think piece, the CBC’s Aaron Wherry extolled the virtues of MPs who aim high with their private members’ bills, even if they don’t go anywhere. I am of particular mixed feelings about this, because while I can get behind the notion that sometimes the big ideas need to marinate in the public consciousness for a while, whether that was cannabis legalisation, single-event sports betting, or trans rights, we also need to be cognisant that a whole lot of private members’ business is, well, a giant waste of everyone’s time, particularly when you have MPs who table dozens of bills and motions in any single session that will never see the light of day, but consume time they should be spending doing their actual jobs of holding government to account, as well as media attention for something that is dead on arrival.

It’s hard not to conclude that PMBs aren’t being abused in the current iteration of the Standing Orders. We’re seeing a growing number of bills that need royal recommendations still get debated all the way up to the final vote, which essentially means that everyone’s time has been wasted because it’s not going to proceed, and that MP could have used their spot for something that could have gone somewhere instead, rather than hoping that the government was going to grant the recommendation that late in the game. There is a never-ending supply of bills to amend riding names and declare national days, weeks, or months about some ethno-cultural group or cause, individual tweaks to the Criminal Code that have distorted all semblance of proportionality in our sentencing principles, or attempts at tax expenditures that are a loophole to the prohibition against proposing spending (because the rubric is that you are forgoing tax revenue, as though that didn’t come with its own costs), and when you do get the big issues, I’m really not sure that two hours of scripted speeches being read into the void is really exercising the national consciousness on the issue.

Maybe I’m just horribly cynical, but I don’t see the benefits of this particular exercise like I would if there was an actual grassroots process to formulate policy that the party adopts (and I especially have a problem when MPs use their spots to put forward policy positions because it surrenders their rights and privileges as MPs for the party’s sake, most especially if it’s a stunt on the party’s behalf—looking especially at you, NDP). Time is one of the most precious resources in Parliament, and the amount of time and resources that gets wasted on these bills that will never see the light of day just makes a mockery of the process.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 221:

After being encircled by Ukrainian forces, Russians retreated from the city of Lyman, which has been a logistics hub for the Donetsk region. In the meantime, Russians have targeted humanitarian convoys, because of course they did. Meanwhile, ten torture sites have been found in Izium, which Russia controlled for six months, and at least thirty people found in the mass grave outside of the city bore marks associated with torture.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1576248108690079745

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three weeks into the invasion

Posted on by

We’re now in day twenty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—three weeks, when Russia considered it a mere matter of marching. Talks appear to be making some slight progress, and in a curious statement, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated publicly that Ukraine would not be seeking NATO membership (but worth noting that NATO does not accept prospective members who are engaged in an active territorial dispute, which Ukraine has been with Russia, not only with the annexation of Crimea, but with the “breakaway” regions in its east). While Mariupol continues to be shelled, some 20,000 citizens were able to flee, which is progress. Zelenskyy will address the US Congress later today.

And there was Zelenskyy’s address to the Canadian Parliament, where he and Justin Trudeau addressed each other on a first-name basis, Zelenskyy referring to “dear Justin” on several occasions. While he continued his appeals to “close the skies,” he knows it’s not going to happen, but he has to ask—it’s his job to do so. And at the very least, it could spur other actions that have not yet been attempted that won’t consist of essentially declaring war on Russia, which is important. In response to the speech, the Putin regime put Trudeau and some 300 other Canadians, including MPs and Cabinet ministers, on the blacklist from being allowed into Russia, for what that matters. (For what it’s worth, Chrystia Freeland was blacklisted years ago).

Meanwhile, as all of this was happening, Governor General Mary May Simon got to have tea with the Queen at Windsor Castle, as well as meet Charles and Camilla at Clarence House. Unfortunately, it looks like the era of future Governors General spending the weekend with the Queen and family at Balmoral in advance of appointment seems to be at an end, but glad that this meeting was able to take place at long last.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some more inflation fact-checking

Posted on by

Because you know it’s going to come up yet again during Question Period today and through the rest of the week, here are a couple of reality checks around inflation, first from former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, who will give you all of the reasons why the pandemic spending and stimulus is not what is causing the current bout of transitory inflation.

Next, from economist Stephen Gordon:

So when Erin O’Toole and Pierre Poilievre start sounding off on inflation again, I know whose economic judgment I’ll be listening to (and it won’t be theirs).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting more dangerous precedents to justify hybrid sittings

Posted on by

With a vote of 180 to 140, hybrid sittings will be returning to the House of Commons, which is bullshit and absolutely unconscionable, but the Liberals and NDP have managed to convince themselves of a lot of nonsense in order to justify this. For the Liberals, it was weaponizing a lot of nonsense about MPs feeling “unsafe” in the House of Commons with potentially unvaccinated Conservatives in their midst, which may be a theoretical danger at this point, but it’s not outside of what everyone else has to contend with – and in fact, we expect a lot of essential workers to put themselves in a lot more danger on a daily basis than MPs have to by being in the Chamber with nearly everyone double-vaxxed and everyone wearing masks. For the NDP, it was a lot of the usual handwaving about “work-life balance” and parents of small children, but they already have a lot of accommodations being made for them, and that excuse is getting thin.

What is especially egregious is that this debate over hybrid sittings and remote voting has created an artificial standard of perfect attendance which has never existed, and there is no reason why it needs to exist now. One or two votes won’t bring the government down, and being dramatic about it isn’t helping matters. If anything, creating this impossible standard of perfect attendance in order to justify hybrid sittings is irresponsible and downright dangerous, and sets a way worse example to the rest of the country. Allowing this standard to flourish will mean that MPs will never be allowed sick days or necessary leaves of absence in the future because they will be expected to attend virtually or to continue voting remotely, and it will be used as justification to keep hybrid formats going in perpetuity (which is very, very bad for the health of our Parliament). Perpetuating it will encourage MPs to remain in partisan silos because they don’t have to attend in person and interact face-to-face, and the toxic atmosphere of the last session will become the new norm.

There is also the accountability problem, which the Conservatives and Bloc have been absolutely right to highlight. Allowing attendance by Zoom allows ministers to escape accountability, and it allows all ministers and MPs to escape the accountability of the media because they will simply absent themselves from Parliament Hill, where they cannot be button-holed on their way in and out. Accountability is already suffering in this country, and the government has given themselves a free pass to let it slide even further, and their apologists are clutching their pearls about the pandemic still being on. This is no way to run a country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The admiral needs to take the hint

Posted on by

Things are looking pretty dire for Admiral Art McDonald, the former-ish Chief of Defence Staff, whose little tantrum last week in writing a letter to the general and flag officers to demand his job back (not that they could do anything about it) is looking more and more impolitic. Why? Because the military police are now pushing back to say that he wasn’t “exonerated” as McDonald claimed in his letter, but rather that there was insufficient evidence to lay charges, which is not the same thing as the allegation being unfounded. And McDonald’s accuser is speaking out publicly and pointing to witnesses to the incident, which the military won’t say whether they were interviewed or not as part of their investigation. Nevertheless, the incident makes it even clearer that McDonald doesn’t understand civilian control and doesn’t have the character and temperament necessary to guide the Forces through this particular period of culture change, and it’s better for him – and everyone else – that he get the hint and retire before consequences follow from that letter.

Meanwhile, it seems that the former commandant of the Canadian Forces School of Military Intelligence is serving as a staff officer in Ottawa after being relieved of his command following an investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct, which signals that there aren’t consequences if people simply get moved around.

Interested observers are wondering what is taking the government so long to take more action on what is going on with the senior ranks in the military, or to formally make General Wayne Eyre the permanent Chief of Defence Staff, formally taking McDonald’s reinstatement off the table (though he should have taken the hint when Eyre got promoted to full general). There is speculation that they are waiting for the Cabinet shuffle, but one would think that they’d want to make changes now, so that a fresh minister won’t have to come in and do the cleaning out on his or her first day rather than letting Sajjan do it now, and let his successor come in fresh. But that might require this minister and this government to have a modicum of self-awareness, and which would be your answer as to why they haven’t.

Continue reading →