Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair

Roundup: Some laudable goals, and a lead balloon

Posted on by

The writs might as well have been dropped for the kinds of campaigning that was going on yesterday – Trudeau in Ottawa, and Mulcair in Toronto. While Mulcair largely reheated past statements about support for the manufacturing sector (not that he spelled out what that support means) or lowering small business taxes (of the kind that could actually help out whose wealthy Canadians who incorporated themselves for tax reasons), it was Trudeau’s package of announcements that got the big play. The package included 32 measures for “real change” to bring more openness and transparency to government – a familiar song and dance, but there were some pretty laudable concrete proposals in there, around things like Access to Information, improving service standards at CRA, or repealing this government’s “fair” election laws. The part that got everyone talking – and my head exploding repeatedly – was Trudeau signing onto the electoral reform bandwagon. While Trudeau was talking about consultations and then legislation within eighteen months, the fact that he’s buying into the completely and demonstrably false notion that votes don’t count under our current system (in fact, they not only count but all count equally) is disheartening – particularly after he spent his leadership campaign talking about how he didn’t believe in PR systems (as opposed to Joyce Murray, where that was a central plank for her). Without turning this post into a denunciation of electoral reform, let me simply say that it’s false to say that votes don’t count now, and that changing the system will simply replace one set of problems – or perceived problems – for a whole new set of problems. There were so many other laudable proposals in his platform, one or two duds excepting, that it’s too bad that this one particularly bad one sucked the air out of the rest of it all. If he want’s “evidence based policy,” then perhaps he should reconsider this particular promise. Paul Wells writes about the earnestness of it all, with some historical perspective for good measure.

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: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense

Posted on by

In the aftermath of the AG’s report on the Senate, we see a little more analysis of what it said – questions of residency issues, or about whether some board and charity work qualifies as Senate business – but mostly we’re seeing a bunch of hyberbolic bluster and nonsense from the pundit class about holding a referendum on Senate abolition (can’t be done during a general election, and won’t actually be binding or really democratic). No one has taken this kind of bluster to the next level quite like Thomas Mulcair, who has taken the talk to the level of being obtuse. Quebec premier Phillipe Couillard said he’s not interested in Senate abolition, end of story, but Mulcair kept insisting that he’ll get a “mandate” for abolition and he’ll work with the premiers on that issue alone, as though nobody would make other demands, or that minority provinces and territories would willingly give up what little representation they have so that they can be completely swamped by all of the Commons seats in Ontario – you know, one of the reasons why the Senate was designed the way it was, which was to act as a counterbalance. But then, Mulcair decided to not only stick with being obtuse, he doubled down on dickishness and declared that no Senator had ever done any work of any value – because apparently the Kirby report on mental health, or Romeo Dallaire’s work around child soldiers, or the study on the Canada-US price gap, or any number of examples of quality work the Senate has done – far better than anything the Commons has produced in recent memory – is nothing. With this having been said, let me add a couple of notes of my own, particularly for journalist colleagues – if you start talking about Senate “reform,” note that you had better have a specific reform proposal in mind, otherwise you’re actually talking about nothing. Senate reform is kind of like a unicorn in that it’s magical and fantastical and everyone wants it but can’t be grasped because reality soon sets in, and what reforms you’re proposing are almost certainly unworkable. Trudeau’s plan for a reformed appointment process is a start, and probably the best that can happen, but we don’t know what the outcome is going to be when those senators appointed by this new process start filtering into the system.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645300207534080

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645895211503618

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608647086427361281

Continue reading →

Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead

Posted on by

It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to politicize the GG

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s permanent underclass

Posted on by

During a visit by the president of the Philippines yesterday, Stephen Harper took a question from a Filipino reporter about the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme – something that affects a great many Filipinos who come to work in Canada, and how there has been an exodus of those workers whose four-year permits have expired. Harper responded that he doesn’t want to see a “permanent underclass” of workers who don’t have the same rights as Canadians, and that they can become immigrants like everyone else. While that answer sounds pretty high-minded on the surface, the problem with it is that it ignores the changes that his own government put into place and perpetuates. Under Harper’s watch, the numbers of permanent residencies has declined in favour of more temporary work permits, and the other problem is that the current immigration program ignores the fact that there is a need for low-skilled immigrants in this country who can’t get in the door now because we are only looking for highly skilled or educated individuals and their families. That kind of system ignores the long-term investment in the country that low-skilled immigration brings, and has brought to this country when it was a big part of the way our system operated. In other words, Harper’s own government policies are perpetuating a system that will allow these temporary workers for four years, but won’t allow them to become permanent residents, and yet he admonishes them for not using the regular immigration routes. But hey, rhetoric while a foreign leader is present makes everything sound better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The end of acting honourably

Posted on by

At the end of the first week of the Duffy trial, the Crown regained some of the ground that it was appearing to lose – it wasn’t just that the rules were loose, or that there was no definition around residency, but there was an expectation that senators behave honourably, and thanks to the actions of the likes of Duffy, Wallin, and others, that expectation is now being buried under new legalistic guidelines. There was also pushback to the notion that because the Prime Minister appointed Duffy a Senator from PEI, his residency was assumed to be genuine – there are limits, and as I’ve discussed on this blog previously, not only did the PMO not ensure that their ducks were in a row on that front before Duffy was appointed (as previous governments who took appointments seriously and didn’t make them in a panic had done), but they almost practically encouraged the alleged abuses of Duffy and Wallin in particular by that very act of not ensuring residence upon appointment. Duffy himself kept trying to get reassurance as to the residency issue – as his own diaries show – but apparently only enough to ensure that he didn’t need to make the effort of actually ensuring that he was properly moved to the Island as his principle residence. What should be addressed – but isn’t in the trial because it is beyond the ambit – is the fact that when the Queen or GG makes the appointment on the basis of the PM’s advice, it is assume that the advice is sound because of Responsible Government. In the case of Duffy, we can be reasonably assured that the advice was likely not sound – that Duffy was not qualified to be a senator from PEI, or Wallin a Senator from Saskatchewan. What that also means is that under Responsible Government, we get to hold that government to account, and there is an election coming up. Perhaps we need to remind people of that fact. Maclean’s also has commissioned comic strips of the week’s events, while Scott Reid gives us his take on the Duffy Diaries, and the defence to date.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blowback on gun comments

Posted on by

The backlash from the Conservatives’ fundraising appeal for rural gun owners is starting, from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, to Quebec premier Philippe Couillard, to Ontario’s former attorney general. In fact, numerous legal authorities are reminding Canadians that they don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their homes – unless it’s a case of self-defence, but those situations are rare, and use of force must be proportional in order to not be criminal. And then the PMO started backpedalling about things Harper did or did not say, and how they are aware of criminal misuse of firearms, all while the gun lobby is chafing that the government hasn’t gone far enough for their liking. See the swamp that the government has stepped in, while curiously trying to import a culture war that doesn’t actually exist in Canada. It has also been pointed out that Harper made the gun comments in part of a broader discussion of rural issues while in Saskatchewan, and that he missed the mark on some of the more pressing concerns in that area as well.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Laying out their C-51 positions

Posted on by

Not that it was any surprise what they were, but the opposition parties laid out their explicit positions on the new anti-terror bill in advance of the start of debate yesterday – the NDP firmly opposed, the Liberals walking the line by listing the things they support in the bill and the things they don’t, and vowing to make it an election issue if the Conservatives don’t make the necessary amendments. But while it’s certainly within the right of the NDP, as official opposition, to call for the bill’s defeat, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, much of their messaging on it is a mess. At his press conference yesterday, Mulcair was simultaneously saying that they want the bill defeated writ large and voted down at second reading (agreement in principle), while saying that it needs more debate and amendments at committee, and then reiterating that it’s beyond saving, that there were no amendments that could make them live with it. From a procedural standpoint, that’s all over the map. And then there’s the conspiracy theory aspect, where Mulcair is going on about how a government could use CSIS to spy on their political adversaries under these broad definitions, and then to the Francophone media, he goes full-bore on re-fighting 1970, and it’s all October Crisis and the War Measures Act. That, of course, has to do with his Quebec voter base, which is polling its support for stronger anti-terror measures, discomfited by the terror-inspired hit-and-run last October, and probably the Charter of Values xenophobia around Muslims that is still an undercurrent. Suffice to say, the scattershot of arguments against make it hard to follow the plot. For her part, Elizabeth May is going full-on conspiracy theory, insisting the bill will turn CSIS into a “secret police” – err, except that they have no arrest powers, and then tried to say that such a bill would basically turn Rosa Parks into a terrorist in CSIS’ eyes. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Terry Glavin makes the point that while there are alarming things in the bill, hysteria doesn’t really help the debate. As for Peter MacKay, whose use of “cultural” causes with relation to the not-really-would-be-terror-attack in Halifax, when asked what he thought the definition of terrorism was, MacKay told reporters to “look it up.” He’s all class.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More security, no more oversight

Posted on by

The new anti-terrorism bill was unveiled today, but in the government’s singularly dickish fashion – sending journalists to a lock-up off the Hill where they couldn’t even see the bill for the first hour, while Harper made the announcement in a pre-campaign stop in a suburb of Toronto. While the bill would largely expand the powers of CSIS greatly, it lowers the legal thresholds for preventative arrest and peace bones, criminalising the “promotion” of terrorism, allowing CSIS to “disrupt” would-be terror activities, removing terrorist materials from the web, sealing court proceedings, and overhauling the national no-fly list. Oddly enough, nobody would say how any of these measures could have prevented the October 22nd shooting in Ottawa. What it doesn’t do is provide any new or additional oversight to the agency, unlike all of our allies (but hey, they finally filled one of the empty seats on SIRC yesterday, but it’s still not up to full strength and there’s no permanent chair. Yay oversight!). It’s a strange kind of obstinacy, and only serves to make it like the government has something to hide. And then of course there are the concerns from civil liberties groups and the Privacy Commissioner, which goes to the breadth of activities and again the lack of proper civilian oversight. Tyler Dawson writes that the need to criminalise that “promotion” of terrorism is an admission of being afraid of these terrorists.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/561220364957933569

Continue reading →