Tag Archives: Parliamentary Precinct

Senate QP: Sole-sourcing shipyard contracts

Posted on by

With all government business taken care of, a showdown was brewing in the Senate over Bill C-377, a “union busting” bill the government wants passed, but Liberals and a few Conservatives are doing their best to filibuster it into the ground. Things got started with the usual statements by senators (Canada Day in Quebec, the situation in Burundi, the good work of the Senate, the Terry Fox Run), and Routine Proceedings.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, they’re not new powers

Posted on by

I’ll admit that there has been some terribly naïve punditry about Michael Chong’s Reform Act, and a lot of touchy-feely optimism about the fuzzy notion of “reform,” but perhaps one of the most gallingly maladroit to date has come from Campbell Clark, who wonders if MPs will actually get the will to confront party leaders with their “new powers.” Yes, that was the sound of me sighing deeply. “New powers.” For those of you keeping score, Chong’s bill did not give MPs any new powers. MPs had all the power in the world thanks to the way our system of government is designed – elected as an individual MP under the first-past-the-post system, they are empowered to give or withdraw confidence, whether it is to their party leaders, or to the government of the day in the Commons. That’s an incredible amount of power because confidence is how our system runs. The problem is that they stopped empowering themselves to exercise their power, deferring first to leaders who were no longer accountable to them after we broke our leadership selection system to make it “more democratic” by taking away that power from MPs and giving it to the party membership (a convention which Chong’s bill now cements into law), and later to leaders who gained the power to sign off on their nomination forms (a measure designed to prevent spoofing on ballots and hijacked nomination races). Sure, MPs still had power and they could exercise it – but it generally meant that enough of them had to defy the leader all at once to ensure that the spectre of group punishment didn’t draw further questions, and few MPs had the intestinal fortitude to risk their necks. They still, however, had that power. For Chong to claim that his bill grants “new” powers is bogus. As I’ve stated before, it actually takes power away because it did not actually do away with the nomination sign-off power in a meaningful way, and it raised the bar by which MPs can openly challenge a leader so it can no longer be a small group who has the gonads to go forward, but will now see the media demanding the 20 percent headcount. So will MPs have the will to use these “new” powers? Probably not, because the bar has been set higher. But in the meantime, we’ll have the pundit class praising Chong for his efforts and his “courage,” rewarding him for the campaign of bullying and attempting to disenfranchise an entire body of parliament along the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mischief-making with Senate offices

Posted on by

Because it’s open season on Senators, the story of their apparent lack of willingness to get office space an added block away from the temporary Senate chamber, adding $25 million to the price of temporary space, has turned into a new round of howls of outrage and outright derision. According to the Senate, however, the figure is false and being used to cast them in a poor light – which is everyone’s favourite game these days. The true costs would be less than half that, according to the Senate law clerk, and the original public works plan would have had them spread out a lot more, which would increase costs for things like transportation and IT services. Not only that, but apparently the people who are trying to make hay out of this story don’t seem to grasp some of the basic geography of the situation. While MPs are staying clustered around the West Block (where the temporary House of Commons will be located), with new office space opening up in the soon-to-be-completely-renovated Wellington Building, Senators won’t get that luxury. In fact, the temporary Senate chamber, to be located in the Government Conference Centre, is much further afield which poses additional challenges for both walking times and getting the little white busses into and out of the location (given the way the roads work around there), while they have thirty-minute vote bells. Add to that, winter is going to be a particular challenge, and you have a bunch of aging senators who are going to need to be extra careful about things like the ice and snow, and it will be a problem. For anyone to start mocking senators that they don’t want to walk an extra block doesn’t seem to grasp the actual sense of the problem, and the churlish and childish taunts of the likes of Thomas Mulcair and Charlie Angus are really unbecoming. It would be a thought if other journalists could actually provide context to the situation rather than engaging in mischief-making and piling on to the Senate in the midst of overblown and torqued reporting on the AG report.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eminent Canadians push back

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It wasn’t terrorism, but support our anti-terror bill

Posted on by

With the House back this week, we are likely to see debate resume on the new anti-terrorism bill – something that Peter MacKay was talking up over the weekend with regard to the alleged Halifax shooting plot, despite the assurances that the would-be shooters weren’t actually terrorists and were caught using existing tools. Through this, a former assistant director of CSIS says the tools are necessary because CSIS is built for the Cold War, and they really need these new tools to actively disrupt terrorist networks. Sure, that may be, but there remains the gaping flaw in terms of oversight, and another former CSIS agent spoke to the media, pointing out that without that oversight, we’ll see more cases where CSIS sanitizes their files before they hand them over to SIRC. As well, said agent warns that the provisions in the bill are likely to open up a whole area of secret jurisprudence which is alarming, and says that the Prime Minister making vaguely threatening statements like “tentacles of jihadism reaching us” could actually fan the flames and make things worse. So there’s that. Two professors who study national security laws weigh in on the bill, and while they see a few merits in it, they have a number of concerns and yes, the lack of oversight is one of the most alarming portions of it. And no, a judicial warrant is not a sufficient safeguard considering that we have documented cases where CSIS was found to have misled the very court it asked for a warrant from. That is a very big problem, and one that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on sometime later this year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan

Posted on by

A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Candour, oversight, and the lack thereof

Posted on by

As Parliament debates a pair of bills on expanding the powers of CSIS, a case involving CSIS and foreign wiretaps was granted leave by the Supreme Court, meaning it’ll be heard sometime later this year. Why this is important is because it involves a Federal Court judge chastening CSIS for basically misleading the court into what they were going to do with a warrant they obtained, and if you’ve paid attention to what the Conservatives has been saying about their new anti-terror bill this past week, it’s been a lot of “we don’t need oversight because they’ll need judicial warrants!” Well, as this case shows, sometimes CSIS doesn’t tell these judges the truth when they go to get those warrants, so you see where the problem lies. Meanwhile, Terry Milewski shows us the times when SIRC didn’t really do their job when it comes to overseeing CSIS – just as the government insists that they’re “robust oversight.” Oh, and there were those times when CSIS wasn’t really honest with SIRC either. But by all means, let’s keep insisting that the status quo of a review committee is just fine instead of actual oversight. Nothing to see here, move along. And while the government continues to insist that oversight over intelligence agencies are “needless red tape,” Aaron Wherry reminds us that red tape is pretty much the role of Parliament, meant to constrain the powers of government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Economic bluster

Posted on by

The mood of the moment on the Hill is economic bluster in the light of falling oil prices and a delayed budget – not that there wasn’t some bluster around the Iraq mission to go around either. The NDP announced early on that they want an immediate fiscal update, the subject of today’s opposition day motion – along with the demand to create a budget that suits their particular terms, naturally. The government, however, spent the day playing as if nothing is really wrong. Sure, they’ve lost some manoeuvring room, but they insisted that they will a) balance the budget, b) deliver on all of their promises, and c) not make any more cuts, though one presumes that means any more cuts on top of the continued austerity programme that their whole “surplus” was built on. They can’t really explain how this will happen, other than to use the $3 billion contingency fund, to which Oliver has started talking about how it’s there to be spent and it’ll just go on the bottom line (i.e. national debt payments) otherwise. I will make the additional observations that the NDP were trying to roll the Target layoffs into their lamentations of economic doom and demands for a “jobs programme,” the Liberals were more focused on getting the actual figures for the hole in the budget that the drop in oil prices created and pointed out that Oliver has the information and wasn’t sharing it. It was a noticeable distinction.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804485556781058

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804578800357376

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just a communications problem

Posted on by

If you listen to the government and their spokespeople, the problems at Veterans Affairs don’t have to do with management or resources, but rather that they’re simply not communicating their programmes effectively to newer veterans. At least, that’s the argument that Conservative parliamentary secretary Erin O’Toole was trying to put forward on the weekend. O’Toole – who isn’t even the parliamentary secretary for veterans, but rather international trade – his status as a veteran, plus the ineptitude of both the minister and parliamentary secretary for veterans is why he’s being put forward on the file – was charged with trying to sell this message on The West Block last weekend, to much incredulity. And Tom Clark asked him point blank if that means that the answer is more money for advertising, no matter that they’ve already been spending more on advertising than they’ve saved on closing those veterans service centres around the country. I have a hard time seeing how this is at all a winning strategy because is smacks so much of victim blaming to those veterans who can’t get the help that they need and are entitled to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: NATO spending commitments

Posted on by

As that NATO summit gets set to get underway in Wales, it looks like the face-saving final communiqué will state that the 2 percent of GDP on defence spending that they hope members will achieve will simply be “aspirational,” since it’s not going to happen with some members like Canada (which would essentially doubling our current defence budget). Stephen Saideman explores why it’s wrong for NATO to focus solely on the spending levels of member countries than it is on capabilities. It also sounds like NATO members are going to discuss making cyberwarfare as much of a threat to member nations as bombs, which is quite true of the modern era. It also sounds like the attention will be split between the threats posed by Russia and ISIS. Michael Den Tandt notes that while Harper keeps sounding tough, there is no escaping that the Canadian Forces are badly under-resourced – possibly as bad as the “Decade of Darkness” – and we can’t have it both ways of doing good work on the cheap. Katie Englehart has more on the broader context of the situation here.

Continue reading →