Tag Archives: Iraq

QP: Overwrought and obfuscating 

Posted on by

After some of the soaring (well, overwrought in any case) rhetoric of today’s supply day motion on condemning the BDS movement, everyone was on-hand for QP, which one hoped would not be nearly so melodramatic. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and lamented that the CF-18s have ended their bombing mission before the debate and vote — as though it was a vote on authorization and not supporting the government’s plan. Justin Trudeau reminded her that Canadians voted for his plan. Ambrose then noted the job losses at Bombardier and wondered why aid was being considered for that company but no support was being offered for Energy East. Trudeau reminded her that he supported getting resources to market, but they needed a different process than the failed one that the Conservatives followed. Ambrose asked a muddled question about getting people back to work, to which Trudeau reminded her that his party was committed to EI reform, not hers. Gerard Deltell demanded aid for the families affected by the Bombardier layoffs, at which point Trudeau noted a decade of neglect by the previous government while his was working with the provinces. Deltell insisted that the Toronto Island Airport was the key to reversing these job cuts (as opposed to Bombardier’s poor management), but Trudeau reminded him of the contract signed with Air Canada. Leading off for the NDP was Irene Mathyssen who read some tired outrage about the TPP, for which Trudeau reminded her that the trade minister was engaged in consultations and that it would be brought up for debate in the Commons. Mathyssen asked the same thing again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice demanded help for Bombardier. Trudeau reminded him that they were working for with the provinces. Boulerice closed the round with thundering denunciation of the job losses from the previous Air Canada maintenance contract dispute, but Trudeau reminded him that overheated rhetoric helped nobody.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Doing the policy heavy lifting

Posted on by

If you were to turn to the Big Book of Canadian Political Journalism Clichés, you’d find pages of tiresome and frankly libellous descriptions of the Senate of Canada. And oh, look – The Canadian Press drew from a number of them to craft the lead of their latest piece: “Canada’s Senate, often accused of being an anachronism, is being asked to wrestle with the futuristic dream of driverless cars.” Of course, the accusations of being an anachronism often come from clueless political journalists who recite the received wisdom around the Upper Chamber with little or no critical insight or understanding of Chamber, its actual role, or its operations, and they treat it like a joke, which makes ledes like this commonplace. “Isn’t it hilarious that the Senate is supposed to look at future technology? Aren’t they all ancient, napping in the Chamber? LOL,” and so on. And then this line a little further down in the piece: “His request for a Senate study is part of the Trudeau government’s attempt to recast the much-maligned upper house as an independent and valued institution that has an important parliamentary role to play.” Um, no, it doesn’t need to be recast as having an important role to play because they’ve always had it. The Senate has been doing the kinds of cutting-edge policy study and research that the Commons can’t or won’t for decades. Just in the last parliament alone, they studied things like BitCoin and crypto-currencies, and they have been debating legislation on growing issues like genetic privacy that the Commons continues to shirk while they snipe at one another over partisan issues. But hey, when asked to do a comprehensive study on the regulatory, policy and technical issues that need to be addressed by the growing field of driverless cars, hey, it’s all a big joke because it’s the Senate. That kind of tiresome attitude is part of why the studies and reports that come out of the Senate – which in many ways acts like a built-in think tank for Parliament (and a hugely cost-effective one at that) – tend to go under the radar. Some reports get a couple of days of press, such as the very good report on the Canada-US price differential (which the previous government then largely ignored when they went to craft legislation to close that gap – an issue now moot thanks to our falling dollar), but for the most part, the media will ignore the studies. It’s really a shame because there is a lot of good work in there that is worth a lot more discussion and attention, lest it gather dust on a shelf. But why actually turn to those studies when we can make jokes about the Senate, malign its denizens thanks to the actions of a couple of bad apples, and ignore the actual work while grumbling that they aren’t elected? It’s too bad that We The Media can’t take these things more seriously, as we would all be better off as an informed citizenry as a result.

Continue reading →

QP: In advance of the deployment motion

Posted on by

As Ottawa dug itself out from a record snowfall, everyone was ready to go in advance of the debate on the new ISIS mission that would happen after QP. Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern ready to go, and she read a question about how the PM could possibly withdraw our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS. Justin Trudeau noted that one opposition party wanted them to do more and the other wanted them to do it less, and they had a comprehensive plan. Ambrose accused him of stepping back against the fight against terror, to which Trudeau assured her that our allies were happy with our stepping up our efforts. Ambrose accused Trudeau of picking and choosing Canadian values, to which Trudeau reminded her about what people voted for. Ambrose then accused the government of burning through the surplus her government left — eliciting laughs from the government benches — and wondered how much deficit they would pile on. Trudeau reminded her that they actually left a deficit, and they were committed to delivering growth. Ambrose lamented job losses, to which Trudeau again noted committing to growth. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and blasted the government for not preventing job losses at Bombardier. Trudeau insisted that they would grow the economy in responsible ways. Mulcair demanded again in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer with an added lament about shouting about problems. Mulcair then changed topics and demanded to know if the new mission was a combat mission. Trudeau said that they were doing what was most effective. Mulcair gave another go, and got pretty much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Second verse, same as the first

Posted on by

A very blustery day on Parliament Hill, and all three main leaders made it through the rapidly accumulating snowfall in order to make it to QP on time. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about pulling the fighters out of Iraq, insisting that it means that Canada is not fighting terrorism. Justin Trudeau said that they consulted with allies and came up with a robust new plan to do what was needed. Ambrose insisted that military action and fighting was necessary, to which Trudeau quoted to her the US coalition leader saying that they couldn’t bomb their way out of the crisis, and that they needed training. Ambrose switched to the issue of new funding for UNRWA, which was found to be linked to Hamas. Trudeau noted his meeting with Ban Ki-moon, and the commitment to re-engaging with the world. Stephen Blaney was outraged that some of our aid money could find its way to terrorists groups, at which Karina Gould reminded him that our aid money was neutral. Blaney then called the decision to send Griffon helicopters with the new trainers “bungling,” but Harjit Sajjan merely confirmed that yes, the helicopters would be deployed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, outraged that more trainers over in Iraq would mean more risk. Trudeau reminded him that Canadians always stand up to do their duty when called upon. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer in French. Mulcair mentioned his trip to Saskatchewan, and demanded EI reforms to help people in the oil price drop. Trudeau said that they were working hard to meet that demand. Mulcair decried a $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers without the Canadian Wheat Board. Lawrence MacAulay noted that government no longer had ties to the former Board.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mister Speaker is a meanie

Posted on by

While astute readers will know that I have my issues with the way that Speaker Regan is attempting to crack down on heckling in the Commons, one thing I will not countenance is the kind of whinging that the opposition – and in particular the Conservatives – are engaged in as a result. Yes, the Speaker does call them out more, because *gasp* they heckle more! Science! But what gets the Conservatives most are the ways in which Regan will sometimes editorialise in his interventions, whether it’s his admonition to keep the Chamber from sounding like a 1950 boys’ club, or in reminding two front-bench Conservatives that Question Period is not the Muppet Show. It is a different tone from the Speaker than we’ve seen in the last several parliaments, and Regan is adopting a more forceful tone when it comes to trying to put an end to heckling. I may disagree with how he’s doing it, and in particular his sanctimonious tone, but his naming actual MPs who are heckling is part of the process of trying to turn the tables so that they are being held to account for their behaviour. It’s a legitimate tactic, but to complain that he’s picking on the Conservatives is a bit rich. Yes, the Liberals were boisterous when they were in opposition, and nobody is saying that’s a bad thing, but even when in government, the Conservatives tended to be boorish hecklers, and their behaviour in opposition is not much improved. If they had instructive cross-talk or clever retorts, then yeah, it might not be so bad, but most of the time, it’s not clever. I will also add that this is part of the problem with the issue of heckling in the Commons – everyone agrees that it’s a problem, everyone insists that they don’t do it, even when they do, and it’s always someone else who’s worse and needs to be dealt with instead of them, because they’re always the victim in this. None of it is true, but MPs like to tell themselves that it is. It’s also a problem in that making the Speaker crack down on it is more about trying to treat symptoms than it is the actual cause of why they’re doing it in the first place, but that would mean more broad changes to the rules and the way that things run, and there seems to be even more resistance to that. Until MPs can have a grown-up conversation about the issue of heckling, we’re likely to get more whinging on all sides of the issue rather than actual progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A vote for support

Posted on by

We have the motion on the Order Paper now for the debate and eventual vote on the newly refocused mission in Syria and Iraq, and to the relief of those of us who care about things like Crown Prerogative and the powers of the executive, it’s crafted simply in the language of supporting the mission. This is critical, because asking for authorisation is a giant can of worms that nobody really should want to even contemplate opening, but even with this language, it’s going to cause headaches going forward. To recap, asking for authorization is something that launders the prerogative and thus the government’s accountability. When something goes wrong, they can shrug and say “the House voted for the mission,” and to varying degrees, the Harper government did this, particularly with relationship to Afghanistan. These non-binding votes are a rather unseemly bit of political theatre that purports to put the question to MPs – because apparently they need to have buy-in when we send our men and women in uniform into danger, or some such nonsense – and it gives parties like the NDP a chance to thump their chests about peacekeeping and pandering to pacifistic notions (and does anyone seriously buy that nobody is trying to stop the flow of money, arms and fighters to ISIS without Canada butting to the front of the line to finger-wag at them?), and parties like the Conservatives a chance to rail that they were doing so much more when they were in charge (when they weren’t), or when they were in charge, to pat themselves on the back for everything they were doing (when really, it tended to be a bare minimum at best, or a symbolic contribution at worst). Of course, all of this could be done with a simple take-note debate without a vote, which is how it should be, because a vote implies authorisation, and that’s how the NDP have read each and every vote in the past, and they will loudly remind everyone in QP and elsewhere about it. Trudeau has been trying to keep expectations measured by saying that they recognise the role of the executive in making these decisions – but he went and proposed a vote anyway, muddling the role of MPs in this situations like these. That role, to remind you, is to hold the government to account, so if you’re going to have a vote on a military mission, then one might as well make it a confidence vote because foreign policy and control of the military is at the heart of the Crown’s powers. (These authorisation votes that aren’t confidence measures are playing out in the UK right now, which is making a mess of their own system, for the record). Trudeau should have known better than to continue this pattern of confusion and left it at a take-note debate, like it should be. A vote, whether it’s an actual authorisation or just a declaration of support, only serves to make the waters murky, which we need our governments to stop doing before they do lasting harm to our system of Responsible Government.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151173568729088

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151589626966016

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151991277723648

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698152397277917184

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698153619657461760

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698154371541032961

Continue reading →

Roundup: Weak sauce mea culpa

Posted on by

It only took a hundred days, but the NDP membership finally got some kind of a public mea culpa from leader Thomas Mulcair over the way the last election went down, and good news – he takes full responsibility for what happened! But much as Rebecca Blaikie’s interim report goes soft on what Mulcair did wrong, Mulcair’s own reckoning of events is still going pretty soft on things that happened as opposed to some of the myths that are being built up. Things like the balanced budget pledge, which Mulcair said overshadowed the “social democratic economic vision” where they thought they could squeeze all kinds of money out of corporate taxes, CEOs and tax havens, which any competent economist will remind you that you certainly can’t get the kind of money they’re talking from any of those sources. Mulcair goes soft on the observation that they lacked an over-arching narrative that could be easily communicated, when problem was less of a lack of an overall message, but a really poor message that they settled on, which was then badly communicated because, well, the message was poor to begin with. The message, of course, being “good, competent public administration,” and after Canadians had put up with a prime minister who had all of the pizzazz of dull wood varnish, Mulcair would show up to debates, smize like his life depended on it, and proceeded to look like someone on Valium because he was more intent on controlling his temper than he was in engaging with real ideas to present rather than some tired – and in come cases baffling – talking points. And this is what they sent up against most dynamic and charismatic political leader in over a generation. Couple this with some pretty disastrous policy rollouts – recall the initial release of their “costed platform” that didn’t actually have any breakdowns of numbers, but had some nonsense headings like “helping Canadians in need” that journalists rightly questioned, and when we did get numbers, they were based on some wrong assumptions. Campaigns matter, and both Mulcair and Blaikie have been downplaying that it was a poorly run campaign. Mulcair’s letter also contained some rather cryptic references to “overhauling the way caucus works,” but it’s vague, and isn’t owning up to their over-centralization that made the Conservatives’ centralisation efforts look elementary. That centralization has been carrying on to this day, which, when compared to the Liberals’ governing by cabinet rather than the leader’s office, and where their ministers are answering the bulk of their questions off-the-cuff and on their feet while the NDP (Mulcair included) have their scripts in front of them every time they rise in the Chamber, it looks stifling and controlling. So far, I’m not seeing much of a willingness to confront these truths so that they can do something to change them, which the party membership is going to have to weight when the leadership review comes in April.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/697642773235695616

Continue reading →

Roundup: Meddling in the committees

Posted on by

I mentioned this yesterday in passing, but I’m going to revisit it today, which is the way that the Liberals are handling the issue of parliamentary secretaries at committees. And yes, they have stuck by their promise not to put them on committees officially, and they have written into their rulebook on government accountability and transparency that these parliamentary secretaries won’t be able to vote on said committees either – but they’re still showing up to them, and that is a problem. We saw under the previous government what happened under the previous government, where the parliamentary secretaries were on the committee, and their designated PMO staffer – used to help them with their additional duties – basically ran the committees, telling them how to vote, what motions to put forward, etcetera. And thus, committees started behaving not like independent bodies designed to scrutinise bills or hold the government to account for its plans, but rather to act as branch plants of ministers’ offices. It was a terrible perversion of what our system is supposed to do. The Liberals, so keen to look like they’re not emulating the Harper government’s practices, are nevertheless de facto carrying them on. Just because the parliamentary secretary isn’t voting, they and their PMO staffer are still in the room, directing the government side, even if they happen to call it “advice” and “offering the resources of the Privy Council” and all of those happy, clappy words. And while on Procedure and House Affairs, David Christopherson shouts himself into an apoplectic frenzy over it, he really has little room to talk, considering how the centralisation of operations in the NDP in the previous parliament meant that they had their own staffers from the leaders’ offices directing their MPs, providing scripts for them in the committee, and the like. Seems to me that it’s not really helping MPs be independent or letting them do their work without interference either (but this is also what happens when you get a caucus full of accidental MPs who don’t know what they’re doing, and that lack of experience made it easier to condition them to behave as the leader’s office wanted for the duration of that parliament). With the number of newbie MPs on the Liberal benches, that temptation is certainly going to be there as well – that because they’re so new, they’re going to need a lot of guidance, and hey, who better to provide it than the parliamentary secretary? No. Just no. This kind of thing needs to stop, and the Liberals promised that they were going to be better than this. So far, that promise to be better is proving to be a bit of a shell game, optics that say openness and transparency and leaning away from centralisation, but the core of it remains. Time to keep the parliamentary secretaries from the committee room, unless they’re there to help the minister with testimony. Let’s restore our institutions to their proper functioning for a change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carrying on the co-opting

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau and three ministers announced the new plan to fight ISIS yesterday, and while the CF-18s are coming home in two weeks, the surveillance and refuelling planes will remain along with triple the number of special forces trainers, plus ministerial advisors in Iraq and capacity building in neighbouring Jordan and Lebanon, along with a lot more humanitarian assistance on the ground, and small arms and ammunition to our Kurdish allies. Its’ an approach that the Americans praised (despite Rona Ambrose’ dire warnings), but there is something that is troubling, which is the fact that Justin Trudeau has declared that he will still call a vote on the matter in the House of Commons. Why is this important? Because it has to do with the practice of Responsible Government. Under our system, the government – meaning the cabinet – takes a decision, and the Commons gets to hold them to account for it. But what Stephen Harper decided to start doing back in 2006 is to put things which are normally the prerogative of the Crown – things like military deployments – to a vote in the Commons, for purely political reasons. Part of those reasons were about trying to drive a wedge in the Liberal ranks over the mission in Afghanistan, and he did it very effectively. The other part was that it gave him political cover. When things went wrong, and they did, his ministers stood up to remind the House that they voted for that Afghan mission. Because that’s what insisting on votes does – it co-opts the House’s accountability role, and launder’s the government’s prerogative so that they can help avoid being held to account. It was bad enough that the Harper government, it’s worse that the Trudeau government, which says a lot of good things about restoring the proper functioning of our parliamentary system, to not do so in this case – especially after saying that he understands the role of the executive in military matters, and then goes on to promise a vote anyway. (I would also add that it’s mind-boggling that the NDP would continue to insist on a vote despite the fact that it co-opts them, but mind-boggling is what a lot of their positions tend to wind up being). One imagines that the language of the vote will be one which simply expresses support in the mission rather than has the language of authorisation, as Harper did with the previous Iraq vote, but it’s still terrible all around, not only for optics, but the proper functioning of our system of government.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696736519126654976

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696889900747116545

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696890218461396992

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696890666672992256

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696891549745963008

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696891294443032576

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696905835071598592

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696905964902080512

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/696906561885728768

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making adjustments on the fly

Posted on by

Lots of developments in the Senate, so let’s get to it, shall we? Kady O’Malley looks into the ways that the Senate is going through the process of reshaping itself to fit the new reality that they find themselves in, and so far they’ve been doing it in a fair-minded way, tempering some the partisan excesses of the previous parliament while they start adjusting their rules around things like Question Period in the new scheme they’ve developed. I’m still a little hesitant, considering that they’re losing some of the pacing and ability to make exchanges that made Senate QP such a refreshing change from Commons QP, but we’ll see once they start working out the kinks. Meanwhile, the Senate is trying to adapt its Conflict of Interest committee to a reality where there are no “government” senators, and more debate about how to include the growing number of independent senators into that structure. We’ll see how the debate unfolds in the next week, but this is something they are cognisant about needing to tackle, just as they are with how to better accommodate independent MPs with committee selection as a whole. Also, the Senate Speaker has ruled that the lack of a Leader of the Government in the Senate does not constitute a prima facia breach of privilege, convinced by the argument that the lack of a government leader doesn’t affect the Senate’s core ability to review and amend legislation, and that the primary role of the chamber isn’t to hold government to account. I would probably argue that it may not be the primary role, but it is a role nevertheless, but perhaps I’m not qualified enough to say whether that still constitutes an actual breach of privilege, as opposed to just making the whole exercise damned inconvenient and leading to a great number of unintended consequences as they venture into this brave new world of unencumbered independence. At this stage, however, things are all still up in the air, and nothing has really crashed down yet, but it’s a bit yet. By the time that Parliament rises for the summer, we’ll see if all of those broken eggs wound up making a cake, or if we just wind up with a mess.

Continue reading →