The markets are crashing, the dollar continues to plummet and the price of oil seems to be in free-fall, but what is it that has the Canadian commentariat entranced – well, aside from the latest Duffy minutiae? The fact that Doug Ford may be contemplating the federal Conservative leadership if Stephen Harper fails to win the upcoming election. It kind of makes me want to weep. “Oh, it’ll be hilarious!” the Twitter Machine keeps relaying, but no, it wouldn’t. It would be heartbreaking for what it means to democracy. As we saw with the Rob Ford years in Toronto, and as we’re seeing play out with the Donald Trump primary race in the States, what more rational people see as hilarious and unbelievable is being embraced by a share of the electorate who are disengaged and who believe that all politicians are liars, so they would rather someone who stands up there and “tells it like it is,” never mind that what they’re telling them is completely divorced from reality and also generally false. We are already dealing with an overload of anti-intellectualism in the Canadian discourse (and no, not just from the right-leaning populists – you should see the abuse heaped on the economists who dared to debunk the NDP’s minimum wage proposal earlier in the week). Do we need it compounded on the federal scene by such an individual? While people may treat it like a joke, it’s a legitimate threat. Remember that Rob Ford got elected mayor because the very people who dismiss the Ford brothers can’t seem to grasp that they do strike a chord with voters, and I can’t think of anything more terrifying for the future of federal politics.
Tag Archives: Maple Crown
Roundup: Trying to politicize the GG
In a move so stunningly boneheaded that I can scarcely believe it, the NDP have gone to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to wade in on the Senate residency issue – because there’s nothing like trying to politicise the GG to show that you mean business about a petty issue. It’s like Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition doesn’t have a clue about what Responsible Government – the central organising principle of our democratic system – actually means. Here’s a refresher for their edification – the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister holds the confidence of the House of Commons, which is the chamber elected for the purpose of granting or withholding said confidence. The entire history of the struggle for Responsible Government in the colonies that became Canada, back in the 1830s, was because they wanted to control the appointments made by the Crown, rather than leave it up to the colonial masters in the UK. The entire history of Canadian democracy rests on the fact that it’s the elected government that advises the Crown on who to appoint, and not the other way around. And yet the NDP seem to suddenly think it’s cool to ask the GG to weigh in on which appointments he thinks are okay or not. Charlie Angus may tell you that he’s asking for an explanation and that he’s not trying to draw the GG into the “scandal,” but with all due respect, that’s a load of utter horseshit and he knows it. He’s trying to get the GG to tell him that the PM is wrong so that he has “non-partisan” authority to make the claim for him; that’s never going to happen. Ever. It is assumed that the advice the PM gives the GG is legitimate because the PM has the confidence of the Commons. That means that the quality of that advice is a ballot box issue – if we don’t like it, we get to hold that PM and that government to account by voting them out. It is not up to the GG to veto it unless it’s so egregious that it’s a blatant violation of the constitution, at which point he refuses the advice and the Prime Minister is forced to resign. But as much as Charlie Angus might like to think that Mike Duffy is some unprecedented scandal that rocks the very legitimacy of the Upper Chamber (which they don’t believe is legitimate anyway, so this is grade-A concern trolling on his part), it’s not a constitutional crisis. It’s just not. Even if Harper’s advice was dubious, it was up to Duffy to ensure that he lived up to the terms of that appointment, and ensuing he was a proper resident of PEI – which essentially would have meant a hasty house sale in Ottawa, buying a year-round residence on the Island (and not a summer cottage) tout suit, and then maybe renting an apartment or buying a small condo near Parliament Hill as his Ottawa pied à terre, being a legitimate secondary residence. Duffy did not do that. He instead got political opinions to ensure that he was okay with the summer cottage and a driver’s licence and that’s it, when clearly that was not enough. He bears as much culpability in this as the PM for making the appointment – not the GG. Charlie Angus should be utterly ashamed for this blatant attempt to politicise the GG, but I’m pretty sure he’s incapable of shame.
@InklessPW Oh p-lease. So the NDP opposes the Senate because it is undemocratic but is ok with the GG vetoing the PM? #cdnpoli
— Adam Dodek (@ADodek) May 20, 2015
Roundup: On official birthdays
It should not be unexpected that on Victoria Day, you would get some usual trite releases by the Prime Minister and the Governor General about the importance of Canada’s relationship with the monarchy, and so on. We got them. What we also got was a bunch of ignorant backlash.
Today, Laureen & I join Cdns to officially celebrate the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. http://t.co/kDokPviYF8
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) May 18, 2015
The GG wishes us a happy Victoria Day, and Her Majesty a happy official birthday in Canada. #MapleCrown pic.twitter.com/4rSTzN8PRk
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 18, 2015
Immediately a bunch of geniuses started to tweet back that it was celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday, not Queen Elizabeth’s, and that Harper was an idiot, and so on. Err, except that those people were the ones in the wrong because since 1957, it was decided that the Official Birthday of the Canadian Sovereign would be Victoria Day, not the April birthday of the current Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, nor the same official birthday as the Queen of the United Kingdom, which is in June. It’s like we have our own monarchy or something! Also, it has to do with the distinction between the legal person of the Queen of the Canada, and her natural person.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600350515633979393
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600350878269313025
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600354856294047744
Suffice to say, it’s a pretty sad statement as to the current state of civic literacy in Canada that this basic celebration of our Head of State has been completely lost to your average person. Granted, the PM’s tweet could have been better phrased, such as “official birthday” instead of “officially celebrate,” but still, the point stands. It’s time to take this basic education more seriously, Canada. Yesterday was pretty embarrassing.
https://twitter.com/lopinformation/status/600334009944645633
Roundup: Breaking the debates
The Conservatives have decided that they’re going to opt out of the major broadcasters when it comes to election debates this fall, and will instead entertain the option of independents who don’t have the same kind of widespread broadcast capabilities, by accepting the invitations of Maclean’s/Rogers, and TVA in French. In a way, it’s more of this attempt to portray themselves as poor, put upon underdogs that the “big media elites” are trying to control – as though being in power for the past ten years doesn’t make them elites. There has been this particular undercurrent in pre-election conversation that they want plenty of debates because apparently it’ll be how they can trip up Justin Trudeau (ignoring both the fact that he cleaned up in his party leadership debates, and the fact that the more debates, the more chance that any gaffes will be minimised). It’s also a curious strategy that they would forgo the broadest audience that the major broadcasters’ consortium could provide – and a bit tone deaf as to the reality of the media landscape that they think that it’s just a matter of some university hosting an event and everyone brings their cameras. What it does is twofold – firstly, it’s a power game by the Conservatives to unilaterally pull out of the consortium negotiation process and throw everyone into disarray, and secondly, it’s an attempt to control those debates by creating a proliferation of independent offers that they can then cherry pick when it comes to things like format and hosting choices. It has also been pointed out how hypocritical their position is considering that they very rarely allow their candidates to even attend local debates, so for them to be concern trolling over the state of the leaders’ debates is a bit rich. Suffice to say, it’s throwing a lot of added confusion out there and is setting up a power play that will further break our system more than it already is.
Roundup: A surprise visit
Stephen Harper took everyone (and most especially assignment editors across the country) off-guard by taking a surprise trip to Iraq while headed to V-E commemoration ceremonies in the Netherlands. While in Iraq, he met with that country’s prime minister and announced $167 million in aid and security equipment promises ($139 million of which is actually for the region, including Lebanon and Jordan). Politically, he also gained the advantage of being in theatre, getting photos and video of him being near the front lines, and talking tough about terrorism and national security, which he sees as vote-getters and poll-movers after weeks where his messaging has been thrown off track by both the distraction that is the Duffy trial, and the pushback to the budget, which was only balanced by raiding the contingency reserve and EI fund. In other words, he needs to remind people why they should vote for him, and looking prominent in a place where we’ve sent troops is one way to do it. While there, it was also said that the investigation into the friendly fire death of Sgt. Doiron is complete, and was likely due to fatigue among Peshmerga fighters. That report is supposed to be released publicly back in Canada within a month.
Roundup: Minor changes on the way
First it was the Liberals offering their amendments to C-51 on Thursday, and yesterday it was the NDP. Monday we will get a laundry list from the Green Party, and now we hear that on Tuesday, the government will have amendments of their own, demonstrating that they’ve listened to at least a few of the criticisms on the bill, in particular removing the word “lawful” from demonstrations, and clarifying that CSIS won’t have arrest powers – changes that they hope will tone down the hysteria from activist groups who have been proclaiming that they would soon find themselves on terror watch-lists for dissenting against the government. Not so, the government insists – they want to keep the focus on the real terrorists. But they’re not doing anything more for oversight, and as far as they’re concerned, parliamentary oversight is a dead letter. What strikes me in all of this, however, is the way in which this is playing out like it did with amendments to the Fair Elections Act. Then, as with C-51, the government is making a few minor amendments that won’t have a very big impact on the bulk of the bill and its powers, but by at least proposing those small changes, they can turn around and look like they’ve been reasonable about listening to their critics. That way, they’ve barely put much water in their wine, but still try to come out looking like heroes, and letting politics once again triumph over good policy.
Roundup: Eight whole meetings
With the C-51 now before the Commons public safety committee, various kinds of shenanigans were played there, the NDP essentially launching a filibuster throughout the day in order to get more time to hear from witnesses, and they did get more time – about eight days, instead of three. They had proposed some 25 hearings, which included over a constituency week so that they could still meet the same deadline the government proposed, but they didn’t bite. It was also suggested that this may have been the government’s plan the whole time – give them a few more days and they’ll seem reasonable. Perhaps, but that didn’t seem to be the case if you listened to the Conservatives on the committee, who seemed to think that talk about rights was somehow an unreasonable thing. Online, people claiming to be from Anonymous are hoping an online campaign will force the government to back down on the bill, the way the government responded to backlash over Vic Toews’ lawful access bill, but I’m not sure they’ll have the same success, especially as the government is fairly confident that they can get the public to go along with the bill by holding the threat of terrorism over them – especially as new stories of people heading over to fight with ISIS become almost daily news at this point. The NDP tried to get in on the online campaign game and tried to get #StandWithRosane to trend – meaning their deputy critic Rosane Doré Lefebvre, leading the filibuster effort. Not surprisingly, it didn’t trend, for fairly obvious reasons, which makes one think that the NDP still hasn’t quite cracked the social media campaign that the election will supposedly be about. Perhaps we can call it a “hashtag fail,” as it were.
.@RosaneDL is fighting for our rights and freedoms right now. Join her. #StandWithRosane #NDP #cdnpoli #C51 pic.twitter.com/ifj82DBbR9
— NDP (@NDP) February 26, 2015
Roundup: Yes, governing is political
Your best political read of the weekend was a Twitter essay from Philippe Lagassé, so I’ll leave you to it.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515068326457344
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515450780020736
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515909972434945
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516334192701440
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516761273532418
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517336677507073
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517603938369536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517862274142209
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569518893456171008
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569530939325296641
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569531442990088193
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532019685908480
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532280991055872
Lagassé, who was part of the fighter jet replacement options analysis task force, reminded us then as reminds us now that we need to stop behaving like we should be in a technocracy, that there are political considerations and debates that need to be had, and that ministers decide things for which there is always a political calculation. This is not a bad thing, though we may disagree with the final decision. The great thing is that we can hold those who made the decisions to account – something you can’t really do in a technocracy, so can we please stop pretending that it’s the way our system is supposed to operate?
Roundup: Eminent Canadians push back
The anti-terror legislation again dominated the headlines yesterday, starting with a letter that four former Prime Ministers – Turner, Clark, Chrétien and Martin – along with 18 other eminent Canadians including five former Supreme Court justices, penned in the Globe and Mail about the need for better oversight of our national security agencies. You know, like the Martin government was trying to pass in 2004 before the Conservatives and NDP brought them down (and which Peter MacKay blatantly misconstrued in QP). What’s more baffling is that the government, by way of Jason Kenney, is now arguing that the bill doesn’t need more oversight because it gives more power to the courts to provide it. (Funnily enough, this is the same party who likes to moan about judicial activism). The problem with judicial oversight is that it also isn’t really oversight, and we have actual demonstrated cases where CSIS didn’t tell the truth when they went to the courts for a warrant. One of those cases is now waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court, because CSIS failed in their duty of candour. This is not a minor detail, but rather a gaping hole in the government’s argument. Oversight is a very important and necessary component, and it makes no sense that the government can keep ignoring it because it’s going to come around and bite them in the ass if they don’t get a handle on it, particularly when the bad things that happen come to light, and they always do, and we’ll have another Maher Arar-type situation.
Jason Kenney: anti-terror bill #C51 "doesn’t give new power to police or intelligence agencies but rather to judges" pic.twitter.com/fviUIo4J7Z
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) February 19, 2015
Roundup: An ignored anniversary
A very important anniversary passed yesterday that concerns our history and development as a country, but you didn’t hear a single MP remark on it in the Commons yesterday. It was the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which not only gave Canada full control over its foreign affairs – one of the final pieces of sovereignty from the United Kingdom that had not yet been transferred to our control – but more crucially was one of the defining moments in the independence of the Canadian Crown. The Statute helped solidify the notion that the Crown is divisible, and henceforth the same monarch would wear separate Crowns for each of the realms that he or she ruled. That’s why the Queen of Canada, the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are separate legal entities even though Elizabeth II wears each hat. It’s one of the most fundamental underpinnings of our sovereignty and constitutional architecture, but not a single MP could be bothered to mention it. Well done, everyone. Also of note: Royal historian Carolyn Harris uses the discussion around the DNA of Richard III to remind us that our current Queen reigns by an Act of Parliament, not by divine right, which is a worthwhile lesson when it comes to how the modern monarchy works.
https://twitter.com/onshi/status/542685207938084864