Tag Archives: General Jonathan Vance

Roundup: Ford’s eagerness to please

Posted on by

The Star had a very interesting, if very infuriating, longread out yesterday, which charted the ways in which Conservative-affiliated lobbyists impacted on the decisions that Doug Ford made over the course of the pandemic – the laundry list of exemptions that kept growing by the day, the fact that the long-term care industry has insulated itself from any and all accountability and is getting their licenses renewed as if the deaths of thousands of seniors aren’t on their hands, the illogical restrictions for small retail but not box store, right up to the illogical closure of playgrounds.

The piece was illuminating not because of the look at lobbying – all of which is legal, above-board, and not the same as we’d understand from an American context of the cartoonish Hollywood portrayals – but rather because of what it shows us about Ford himself. He’s someone out of his depth – his sole experience was a single term as a junior city councillor while he brother was mayor – who was not only struggling to understand his job, but who also has a pathological need to be liked, and to be seen to be doing favours for people he knows. People like these former Conservative staffers and operatives who are now in lobbying firms. It less that these lobbyists are cozy with the provincial Progressive Conservatives – it’s that Ford wants to please them and do them favours because he knows them. That’s why the pandemic in this province turned into such a clusterfuck – because Ford needed to please the people he felt close to.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1415672572574715909

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clown show at the bar

Posted on by

The move to call the Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, to the bar of the House of Commons yesterday, was a complete clown show. After the Speaker read his admonishment, the Chamber descended to a back-and-forth of points of order, points of privilege, and a discussion of moving a motion on sending the Sergeant-at-Arms to the PHAC offices to search them and seize the unredacted documents (and good luck with that, given that secret documents are meant to be kept in secure cabinets).

I found it exceedingly curious that none of the opposition leaders were present for this spectacle, given that they would doubtlessly like to use it for their own partisan purposes. I am also deeply unimpressed that the government only presented other possible options for the disclosure of those documents, such as only turning them over after more security measures were in place and the Commons Law Clerk had assistance from national security officials to ensure redactions could be done properly and in context, after the admonishment happened, which they should have done beforehand to prevent this incident from ever having taken place.

I’m not sure that a security-cleared Commons committee could have prevented this whole incident, because the committee that started this whole state of affairs is not the Defence committee (which is the natural place for such as security-cleared body) but the Canada-China committee, which was a make-work project of this current parliament set up in large part because Conservatives are trying to use China as their wedge issue, and the government went along with it. The whole demand for these documents is overblown partisan theatre, considering that the firing of the two scientists was almost certainly a paperwork issue (based on the reporting by those who have been on this story for two years), but the fact that the Lab is a secure facility simply complicated matters. This whole incident is one trumped-up incident after another, until it all combusted, and it’s no way to run a grown-up democracy, and yet here we are. Nobody comes out of this looking good.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lies about inflation and the central bank

Posted on by

For weeks, the Conservatives (and Pierre Poilievre in particular) have been making a bunch of bogus and nonsensical attacks against the government and what they term the “inflation tax,” which makes absolutely no sense, but is predicated on the wild notion that the Bank of Canada is allegedly printing money to finance the government’s “out of control” deficits, and that this is going to drive up inflation and turn us into Venezuela. It’s bullshit – the Bank of Canada is independent from government (and it should be shocking that the Conservatives are suggesting otherwise given the history of the independence of the central bank in this country), quantitative easing is not “printing money,” and given that a year ago, in the early days of the pandemic, we were facing deflation as a country, an expansionary monetary policy was the right move to make. We’re still in need of stimulus, because the recovery has been so uneven, but the Bank of Canada knows this, because it’s their job.

https://twitter.com/trevortombe/status/1405250437838610432

With this in mind, it was no surprise yesterday that when the inflation figures were reported, the fact that it clocked in at an annualized 3.6% had the Conservatives, and Erin O’Toole in particular, trying to make hay of this – and media outlets didn’t help with their headlines that this was the highest rate in a decade, without putting that in proper context. Now, part of that is the base effect of last year’s massive drop, which is going to take time to work itself out in the data; but it’s also in part based on factors from right now, the most important of which is housing prices, which have skyrocketed as demand has outstripped supply. None of this is a surprise, and none of this has anything to do with the size of the federal deficit or the Bank of Canada’s quantitative easing, and yet that is the narrative being painted. It didn’t help that O’Toole’s examples lacked any logical consistency, such as blaming increases in post-secondary education on the federal government, when that’s a provincial jurisdiction. Not that truth matters.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1405152487821168642

Compounding this, however, is the completely irresponsible way in which this was being spun by shows like Power & Politics, where the framing was “the cost of everything is going up!” followed by asking panellists if the government should do something about it. And to their credit, most of those panellists said no, leave it for the Bank of Canada, but the fact that the host kept torqueing this notion about “prices are rising!” and trying to constantly get people to say something – anything – inflammatory about inflation, was not only irresponsible, but shows actual contempt for proper economics reporting by the gods damned CBC. They don’t care about actual information or reasonable discussion, they want the false balance of opposed partisans battling it out, and the “drama” that creates. It does such a disservice to everyone that it amazes me that they can get away with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: C-10 keeps stumbling

Posted on by

If there is any bill in recent history that is an object lesson in fucking around and finding out, it’s bill C-10, on amending the Broadcasting Act. Indeed, after the government, with Bloc support, moved time allocation while the bill was in committee, the five hours allotted to finish clause-by-clause consideration was apparently not enough, as it seems yet more MPs on the committee wanted to waste time fighting about things this bill doesn’t actually do. And lo, amendments that were passed after the five hours were up were deemed null and void by the Speaker, so once again, MPs found out.

This doesn’t mean that those amendments are necessarily gone for good – they can certainly be moved at report stage, where the bill is currently, though that may require extending the time allocation that was imposed on the current stage in order to be able to move and vote on said motions – and that leaves yet more opportunity for dilatory actions such as slow-voting and another point-of-order-palooza around remote voting. Barring that, the government can move them in the Senate, though that will be very uncomfortable as it will probably mean having to recall the Commons in a couple of weeks to pass the amended bill, which will be a gong show all around. Or, with any luck, it will be stuck on the Order Paper over the summer, and possibly smothered if the election call that the pundit class is so hell-bent on getting happens. Nevertheless – there is plenty of blame to go around for this state of affairs, not the least of which belongs to the minister for his singular failure to offer coherent communications around this bill at every opportunity, and most especially at committee.

I would add, however, that I have no patience for this notion that the bill saw “no real debate,” as certain individuals are claiming. It got more debate than most budget implementation bills – more than any bill I can remember in recent memory. Granted, we have no guarantee of the quality of debate, and considering that this bill has been the subject of a campaign of conspiracy theories (Internet Czar, anyone?), straw men, red herrings, and outright lies, while substantive and existential problems with the bill have largely gone unremarked upon, I can see a critique that the months of debate were short on substance. That said, I’m not sure how even more debate would have helped, other than to prolong the agony.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time allocation in perspective

Posted on by

There seems to be both a sense of amnesia and of performative wailing and garment rending as the government – with the cooperation of opposition parties – has moved time allocation on its budget implementation bill, and extended sitting hours for the final few days of the sitting. The sense of amnesia is that this kind of thing happens every June, every single year (and usually again in December), and that’s how things work. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this state of affairs, and its’ very strange that certain media outlets are making this out to be something unusual. It’s not – if anything, what’s unusual is that there are so few bills that they are trying to get over the finish line in the face of opposition that has spent an extraordinary amount of effort fighting these bills with lies, red herrings, concern trolling, and a complete lack of proportionality.

The fact that the government has imposed time allocation on its budget implementation bill is not unusual, and the fact that it’s ten hours – five at report stage and five more at third reading – is also a fairly generous amount of time, especially when considered in parliamentary terms. It’s essentially two more full days of debate for a regular Tuesday or Thursday sitting day. It’s also not really “debate,” and frankly Elizabeth May’s concerns here are a bit precious – it’s MPs reciting pre-written speeches into the record, with little interaction between them, and when it comes to report stage and third reading, there is specific purpose. The bill already had seven allotted days at second reading, which is bananas – second reading should take a single afternoon because it’s supposed to be where you discuss the overall principles of the bill, and then send it off to committee. It spent thirteen hours at committee of clause-by-clause consideration – which, again, is a fair amount considering that most committee sittings are two hours – where they heard from 65 witnesses in pre-study sessions. Five hours at report stage, to discuss whether or not to adopt the amendments agreed to at committee, is an awful lot of parliamentary time. Same again with third reading, where you are giving final consideration before final passage to the Senate, is more than generous – you are no longer debating the principle, or the details – those have all been agreed to.

This narrative that it’s a “gag” and “cutting debate” is overblown in the context of what is being offered here. This isn’t an abuse of time allocation, like we saw in previous parliaments – it’s a legitimate tool in the face of procedural obstruction, and given that this is a hung parliament, the fact that at least one opposition party is agreeing to the use of this tool makes the narrative a bit silly. But that seems to be the way these things get written up, because there is a general ignorance of procedure and what it all means.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not just a golf game

Posted on by

The top brass of the Canadian Forces shot themselves in the foot – metaphorically – yet again this weekend as both the outgoing vice-chief of defence staff and the head of the Royal Canadian Navy both went golfing with former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active police investigation. To call it tone-deaf is an understatement – rather, it highlights the old boys’ club mentality that still pervades the upper ranks of the Forces, and sends the wrong message to the victims of sexual misconduct, who remain the subordinates of these officers. And to make the optics even more nightmarish, the vice-chief technically has the power to issue orders to the Provost Marshall, who controls the military police.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404114717405286401

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1404192298905264128

You can get that there was an outcry, including from numerous Cabinet ministers, and in short order, there were apologies from those involved, while the minister of defence, Harjit Sajjan, said that he would be evaluating “next steps” in this particular situation.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404262974504812545

To the point that West (who was drummed out of the military because of the double standard around sexual misconduct) is making in her tweet, there is very much a growing trend of professionally-crafted apologies going around given where things have gone over the past year or so, and I have to agree with this take that we need to take this into account as yet more of them are delivered over the coming days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: From ombudsman to officer?

Posted on by

The current military ombudsman is trying to pitch the notion that the government doesn’t need to create a new independent body to investigate complaints about sexual misconduct – rather, he is pitching that his office can do it, if only parliament would loosen his shackles and let him report to them directly rather than to the reporting to the minister of defence. I am dubious, and a little alarmed.

For starters, I am not certain that he is actually the best-placed person to field those complaints, rather than a centre that specializes in it, that is properly trauma-informed and so on. There is a reason why the Deschamps Report called for an independent body to do this kind of work, and I’m not sure that the military ombudsman is independent enough (especially as many of those who fill the role have military backgrounds, and are just as likely to be inured to the highly sexualized culture in the Forces that is part of what needs to be changed). It also detracts from other work that the ombudsman should be doing around other aspects of military life than just this particular aspect of it.

The bigger part I am reticent about, however, is because the very last thing we need is yet another unaccountable Officer of Parliament, as we already have far too many, and some of them are problems. Look no further than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is turning himself into a media darling and who is going far beyond his legislative mandate, but because he is accountable to no one – and because he is being encouraged to keep going beyond his mandate by the media – he is really pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. As for a military ombudsman, you don’t have to go too far in history to see others who held the role who were also becoming problematic – one of whom was also becoming a media darling, and who got increasingly erratic as time went on (especially once he was no longer in the job). It’s not the kind of person who should be in a role that has no accountability, and if it’s happened once, it’s likely to happen again, particularly in the current environment. I’m not unconvinced that the current reporting mechanism of the ombudsman’s office isn’t a problem, but there needs to be another solution than creating another Officer of Parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Quitting over a municipal issue

Posted on by

News came down yesterday that Liberal MP Bob Bratina announced, in a bit of a huff, that he wasn’t going to run again in the next election because the government decided to fund an LRT project in Hamilton – where his riding is, and where he used to be mayor – because he’s personally opposed to the project. A certain Postmedia columnist picked up on this and insisted this was dire news for the Liberals, because they’re not even listening to their own MPs. There are counterpoints to this argument.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394439822748659719

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394441891937140741

This having been said, yes, we know that sometimes Trudeau and Cabinet can be deaf to caucus concerns, but in this case, Bratina is throwing a tantrum, insisting that they didn’t consult “the Hamilton guy” when the Labour minister’s riding is also in Hamilton, and the infrastructure minister, Catherine McKenna, grew up there. In other words, the voices at the Cabinet table are just as qualified to talk about Hamilton issues than the “Hamilton guy,” especially because he’s personally opposed to a project that is basically what his own party is standing up for right now – mass transit options as part of the oncoming rapid decarbonization we need to engage in if we’re going to get our GHG emissions below catastrophic levels. He should be well aware of this given it’s the party he ran for two elections in a row. If he wants to run for mayor again to oppose the project, he’s within his rights to do so.

As for said the aforementioned columnist’s coded language around “common sense” and “silent majorities,” it’s hard to square that with the current incarnation of the Liberals. In other words, it’s probably pretty safe to consider his dire warning about this as an example of concern trolling, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On not electing first ministers

Posted on by

There was something going around the Twitter Machine yesterday regarding past prime ministers, and Kim Campbell in particular, and it appealed to my sense of pedantry/exactness in our civic discourse – no, Kim Campbell was not “elected” as prime minister, but no prime minister is actually elected in the Westminster System.

She was not the first prime minister not to have been appointed to the position without leading their party to victory in a general election. We had two early prime ministers who were sitting senators and not MPs. John Turner didn’t have a seat in either Chamber when he was sworn in as prime minister. At least Campbell had a seat and had led several high-profile Cabinet portfolios (first female justice minister and defence minister), and she made significant reforms to the structure of Cabinet upon her appointment as PM, many of which have been lasting. She did not have to face Parliament as prime minister, but neither did Sir Charles Tupper, not John Turner. Trying to somehow insist that because her appointment did not follow a general election victory as somehow denigrating or making her lesser-than as a prime minister is ahistorical and ignorant of how Westminster parliaments work.

Part of this, however, is tied up with narratives that our pundit class keeps importing from the US, and which our media stokes out a sense of general ignorance of civics. We recently saw in places like Nova Scotia, where they just appointed a new premier, that the media are jumping up and down for him to get “his own mandate” – meaning going to a general election – which goes against how our system works. In Newfoundland and Labrador, their premier was appointed without a seat, which he promptly won in a by-election, and then called an election “to get a mandate” and lo, it turned into a gong show because they had a sudden outbreak of COVID. But this false notion about “mandates” keep cropping up, because media and pundits keep feeding it. It’s not how our system works, and it places false expectations on new first ministers, and creates unreal expectations for those, like Campbell, who did everything according to our system’s actual tenets. It would be great if we had a better sense of civics in this country to counter this ongoing nonsense.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing an “Internet Czar” out of whole cloth

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was present, as was the usual Liberal placeholder, Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he led off by accusing the government of moving the goalposts on vaccines, blamed him for not getting any last winter (when no one else in the world did), and Trudeau reminded him that they had stated the goals of three million doses by the end of March and they got well more than anticipated. O’Toole raised the CanSino conspiracy theory and accused Trudeau of wanting lockdowns until Thanksgiving, and Trudeau stated that by accelerating first doses means people can do more with one another in the summer, in advance of getting their second doses in the fall. O’Toole then accused the government of “stealing doses from COVAX” and of being late by trying to partner with CanSino, and Trudeau reminded him they have seven signed contracts and none were with a Chinese firm. O’Toole declared that we were in a third wave because of the CanSino non-deal, and Trudeau called out the misinformation and disinformation coming from the opposition. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and got the same answer about first doses meaning a better summer.

Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc, and he accused the government of wanting an election and invited all leaders to have a private meeting to come to a consensus, but Trudeau denied wanting an election while they were delivering for Canadians, and the Bloc are the ones who want an election by voting against a confidence motion. Blanchet repeated his invitation for a meeting to come to a consensus — which seems to be the opposite of an open legislative process — and Trudeau reminded him that all parties can reflect on the bill at committee, and repeated that he didn’t want an election.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in English, demanded “concrete action” on long-term care, for which Trudeau reminded him that there were $3 billion in the budget, and the government has been investing to create standards and to make permanent changes, but they need to work with provinces. Singh demanded more of the same, and Trudeau declared that the situation is deplorable, but they have stepped up as a federal government to assist the provinces, whose jurisdiction this is.

Continue reading →