Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Party accountability sacrificed for Big Data

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau is encouraging his party to adopt a new constitutional structure, and I am completely aghast at the way in which he proposes to essentially blow up the way parties work in this country for under the banner of “modernization.” And even worse, that he denigrates the existing system as being somehow elitist if people hold party memberships. No, seriously. Paying $10 to get buy-in to the party membership is “elitist.” My head is exploding right now. As with the way the Liberals blew up their leadership selection process to absolutely obliterate any trace of accountability, they are moving to the exact same thing with their party policy process, and shifting to a Big Data approach that eliminates any incentive for the meaningful participation in the process that our system is built around. And let’s not kid ourselves either – for their last leadership race, the Liberals destroyed the line of accountability to the leader in order to populate their database. Now they want to put that process on steroids in the name of making the party – err, sorry, “movement” – wide-open. Anyone can participate! So long as they can collect all kinds of data on you in order to target and craft messages and fundraising appeals rather than have you be an engaged citizen. Remember that there is far more to the political process in this country than just showing up to vote every few years, despite what you may think. The process actually involves people getting involved with the party, buying memberships, attending meetings, talking about and developing policy positions that then get voted on and forwarded to policy conventions, where they are then discussed by delegates from across the country and voted on, and once adopted, form the basis of the party platform. That is real people engaging in the process. Granted, this has been made much more problematic the more we increasingly presidentialise our party leadership systems in this country – again, spearheaded by the Liberals in 1919 with delegated conventions, and culminating in the way that Trudeau was elected in 2013, so that leaders amassed so much power that they began dictating what the election platform was going to be, policy resolutions be damned. And to whom is that leader accountable? It used to be caucus when they selected a leader, then it was to the party members, who were a somewhat nebulous group but they still existed and could hold reviews. But now? When anyone can vote for the leader, he or she is accountable to nobody, with an increasing amount of power under the rubric of a “democratic mandate.” By blowing up the policy process, where does that leave the membership? Or can we even call them that anymore since they no longer have buy-in to the party? If the process becomes technology driven – as this Big Data approach suggests – then what happens to riding associations, to volunteers, to the people who engage in the process from the grassroots? Do we simply adopt a slactivist approach that the leader’s office drives? Rather than encourage more people to join the party, to get involved, to do the hard work that won them the election – how do you think all of those doors got knocked on? – this starts to take that human element out of it in favour of a charismatic leader’s direction. It’s not that the system wasn’t working as it stands – it was. The problem goes back to civic literacy. We’re not taught in schools that the fundamental part of engaging in the political process is to join a party. Parties haven’t exactly been great at reaching out to teach people this either, because their membership drives focus on nomination races or leadership contests rather than hey, here’s a way for you to get involved in how this country runs. And wide-open approaches haven’t worked for the Green Party, with their wiki-style policy platform (which, remember, got somewhat hijacked by Men’s Rights Advocates and was exposed as such during the election), so why are the Liberals getting on board? To populate their database. It’s cynical, and it’s destructive to the way that our Westminster system works. But hey, it’s modern, so let’s climb aboard without thinking about it!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Slowly effacing the Crown

Posted on by

There has been a certain level of trepidation amongst monarchists when the Liberals came to power, given their penchant for rewriting Canadian monarchical symbols out of things in order to focus on the maple leaf. When Trudeau announced that there would be no changes to our relationship with the Crown, there was a bit of a sigh of relief, particularly when he said that he would not be de-royalizing the service names of the Canadian Forces, but they are slowly and subtly reversing some of the Conservative restorations of monarchical symbols, starting with generals’ rank pins. They had gone from maple leaves, reverting to the older crowns given that hey, this country is a constitutional monarchy and the head of the Canadian Forces is the Queen of Canada. But now they’re turning back into maple leaves. The official excuse is that it’s easier for our international allies to recognise, but I am suspicious that this isn’t in fact a reversion to traditional Liberal effacing of monarchical symbols. What especially makes me insane about this is that it reinforces the narrative that the Conservatives as the party of the monarchy, inherently politicizing the Crown which should never, ever happen, and which is really, really irresponsible for the Liberals and NDP to engage in. Like, completely and utterly boneheadedly irresponsible. The Crown is our central organising principle. It is the centre of our constitutional framework. I cannot emphasise enough that letting one party drape themselves in the glow of the Crown unchallenged is beyond negligent. Worse, they not only let it go unchallenged by buy into this completely wrong narrative that they’re reverting to Britishisms when the Canadian monarchy is separate and distinct (well, more or less, but there is not grey area thanks to the Conservatives’ completely boneheaded royal succession bill). Rather than defending the Crown of Canada, you now have parties that are playing stupid political games around it, and doing lasting damage to Canadians’ understanding around our very constitutional framework. So slow claps all around, because this is the height of ignorant wrongheadedness. Everyone needs to be spanked for this petty and irresponsible nonsense.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/716069134925103104

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/716069379809480705

Update:

I may have been hasty about the pips, as there may be good reason to change them. The rest of my points, about allowing the Crown to be politicized (especially since it allows more clueless journalists to put this frame around it), and my own trepidation about the Liberal penchant for effacing Crown symbols, remains.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Minimizing blame

Posted on by

The NDP’s election debrief has been released just days before their big policy convention, in which Thomas Mulcair will need to convince delegates there to let him stay on the job. Little of what was in the report was new, other than name-checking all of the various internal bodies, committees and commissions who were consulted and who have work ahead of them. There were a couple of things that did stand out for me, however. The big one was about communication:

There were many frustrations shared about our internal communications during the campaign. Members, particularly local campaign managers, felt that the reporting from the ground had no effect on the strategic decision-making happening in the central campaign. What was being felt door-to-door was not being communicated, being miscommunicated, or went unheard. Members feel this impeded the ability of the central campaign to shift strategy when necessary.

The party has centralised a whole lot since 2011, and that was certainly reflected. That said, with everyone in the report saying that their local campaigns went great, it does smack a little bit of buck-passing to the central campaign. There were a few other points raised, such as the lack of a Quebec-specific offer, that they were not nimble enough in reacting to attacks from other parties, and that they didn’t adequately prepare for the niqab debate (but everyone was proud of their principled position, which confuses me a bit since the position wound up being that this was a court decision rather than the fact that we don’t tell women what to war in Canada). Glaringly absent in the report was the share of blame placed on Mulcair. In fact, he was barely mentioned at all. This was the closest it got:

We heard disappointment from members who felt that decisions about the strategy employed in the debates led to a situation in which our leader’s full capabilities — as demonstrated in the House of Commons over the previous years — were not on display. Across the country, we heard that our party activists did not understand why we refused to participate in some national debates.

While he wrote the big mea culpa letter taking responsibility, that’s not reflected in their actual debrief, which makes me a bit suspicious. And let’s face it – he had a big part in that, from his demeanour, to his inept slogan of “good, competent public administration,” to his poor debate performance, to the fact that his lack of the same kind of charisma that Trudeau exhibited did weigh in on people’s decisions. I’m left to wonder if the fact that they didn’t include criticisms of his performance in the report because it goes against the party’s solidarity mindset, or if it’s a kind of whitewashing of the record in advance of the leadership review vote. Suffice to say, it doesn’t make the report feel as forthcoming as it could or should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The modernization agenda

Posted on by

Conservative Senator Thomas McInnis, chair of the new modernisation committee, took to the op-ed pages of the Chronicle Herald to talk about just that – their process of modernising the Upper Chamber by non-constitutional means. While much of the op-ed is pretty standard stuff, he did say a couple of things that intrigued me, so I’ll make brief mention of them. First is that as they contemplate changes and incorporating the increasing number of independent senators, that they need to recognise that since the Senate is not a confidence chamber, it doesn’t need to organise itself on party lines in the same way that the Commons does. This is an important point, because as much as it is an important concept to have a government and opposition side in our Westminster system of government, the role of the Senate means that it doesn’t need to hew as closely to that model. Now, I do still think that the Government Leader in the Senate should have remained a cabinet minister for the sake of there being someone who can answer for the government in the chamber, as well as to properly shepherd government legislation through the Chamber (the minister-in-all-but-name model that Harper used for Claude Carignan was very much a poor idea that limited the exercise of Responsible Government), the fact that the Senate is not a confidence chamber does blunt my criticisms to an extent. McInnis also dropped hints about one of the modernisation committee’s goals being to strengthen the role of being an “effective” representative for regions and provinces. This is interesting because I do wonder if it means that there will be a push to form regional caucuses within the Senate, as is occasionally brought up. I’m not sure how it would really work – essentially having four or five party-like structures (Ontairo, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the West each being 24-seat regional divisions, plus the additional six seats for Newfoundland and Labrador and one each for the territories could either fold into one of the other regional caucuses or forming a caucus of their own), and how they would then translate that into the committee memberships and so on, but it is an idea that has been mentioned before, so we’ll see what kind of appetite there is for it, or if the new Independent Working Group will hold more sway in terms of keeping the current structure but giving more power to independent senators for committee memberships and the like. With there being no opposition MPs from the whole of the Atlantic provinces, this is where the Senate’s regional role becomes more important – and they have been flexing those muscles when ministers have appeared before them in the new Question Period format – but it remains to be seen how this will translate into workable reforms. Suffice to say, these are conversations that are being had, and we’ll see what the committee reports back in the weeks ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and the line of accountability

Posted on by

The punditariat continues to lose their minds over Senate independence, and I’m almost at the point of exasperation with it. After years – decades – of hand-wringing about how senators aren’t independent enough to do their jobs of sober second thought, we are suddenly overcome with hand-wringing about them being too independent and the government being unable to pass legislation (as though the opposition having a Senate majority has never happened in our country’s history before…oh, wait). It’s kind of like how We The Media keep demanding MPs be independent and vote for their constituents’ wishes and so on, and yet the moment one of them shows a little bit of backbone, we thunder that the leader is losing control of his or her caucus. Because that’s helpful. And so, Campbell Clark bemoans that poor Peter Harder doesn’t have any levers of power in the Senate to do Trudeau’s bidding, and lo, he may not even have much of an office budget either (though he can always ask the Internal Economy to increase it – this is not something that is set in stone for all time). Add to that, Clark worries that all of those new independent senators are going to have to find some new process of working things out – completely ignoring that they have already started getting that ball rolling with the Independent Working Group. It’s like he hasn’t paid attention to what is actually going on there and has been going on for the past several weeks. Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at André Pratte’s history and notes his differences with Trudeau’s philosophy, then bemoans that with all of those incoming senators, that the party leader won’t be responsible for their behaviour as they once might have been. And what is Hébert ignoring? Only the most fundamental principle in Canadian democracy – Responsible Government. Trudeau will be responsible to voters for the conduct of his appointees, whether he can whip them or not. That is a fundamental tenet of our system. If he makes a bunch of dud appointments, then guess what – voters can have their say, just as they had their say with Harper after the extent of the ClusterDuff business came out in court. This is a basic concept, and it’s disappointing that a long-time observer of Canadian politics has to be reminded of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Slight mandate confusion

Posted on by

The effort to turn the delay in André Pratte’s formal Senate appointment while he finalizes the purchase of property in the right Quebec senatorial district into some kind of controversy continues to be weak sauce, but it did expose a bit of a schism between what the advisory board believes their job to be – finding names to be recommended, leaving the PMO to do the final vetting – and the PMO’s communication around their expectations – that the board should only recommend qualified persons (which, let’s be honest, is a little bit of buck-passing). I’ve seen what purports to be the application form, and it did have the seven vacant districts listed, but that doesn’t mean that Pratte filled that form out as a self-applicant, but may have been approached, which could be why the issue of property was not entirely sorted before he was recommended. Regardless, it remains a bit of a damp squib in terms of a controversy or conspiracy, as Conservative MP Scott Reid would have us believe. Does this mean that there will likely be more vetting the next time around? Probably. Is this a fatal blow to the process? Hardly. Growing pains at the very least, which is why they had the interim process that generated these seven names first, so that they could work the bugs out of the system. That said, I will repeat Emmett Macfarlane’s note that the bigger problem with this process is people applying. That way is almost certainly the way that madness lies, as every egomaniac and self-professed “top minds” in their field will apply (and I know of at least one person who is wholly unqualified but believes himself to be who is trying to get support for a self-nominated Senate application). This should be a process where people are identified and nominated by others in recognition for a lifetime of good work, not a means of ego-stroking and self-congratulation without having to go through the rabble of the electoral process. It defeats the whole point of the Senate as being a place where people who would not otherwise seek office can be given an opportunity to contribute. If you are seeking a Senate appointment, your motives should be immediately considered suspect, and should almost certainly be disqualifying. After all, did we learn nothing from Mike Duffy’s decades-long campaign to get himself appointed? Let’s not do that again.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/713744433011953666

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/713746943277735936

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scott Reid’s Senate conspiracy

Posted on by

There is a certain level of obtuseness that eventually has one seeing conspiracies where none exist. I am forced to conclude that Conservative MP Scott Reid has reached said level in his QP performance yesterday, with regards to the Senate appointment process, and in particular how it applied to future senator André Pratte, and his holding property in the designated Quebec senatorial district that he is due to represent. Pratte has not yet purchased property in that district, and thus, his swearing-in will be delayed until it happens. Reid, however, sees collusion and conspiracy in this. In QP, he phrased it as such:

If Mr. Pratte was on the list, the Quebec board has broken its requirements to only nominate qualified persons. If any of the seven was not on the lists, then the prime minister has broken his promise to rely upon independent advice. And if there was any communications between the prime minister and the advisory board to smooth out these wrinkles, then talk of the advisory board being independent is a farce. One of these three scenarios is what actually happened. Which one is it?

It’s not surprising that Maryam Monsef evaded in her answer, because the question is wholly unreasonable. The qualifications for appointment mirrored the constitutional requirement, but because Pratte has not been sworn in yet, the district question is not yet triggered – he has time to hold the property in that district until he is sworn in. The independent board very likely identified him as otherwise qualified, and asked him about his ability to purchase property in the identified district when he was contacted as part of the process. Pratte himself told the media that he was contacted by the committee and submitted a kind of form to say why he felt he was qualified to them. There is no indication that the Prime Minister had any part in that, and if Pratte says that he was contacted by the Board, it’s quite obvious that he would have been on their short list submitted to the PM. And if the Board recommended him and said “He’s working on the property requirement in the district we’re slotting him into,” that is not collusion or making a farce of their independence – it’s being reasonable with regards to the Quebec requirements. If the Board had to limit their search to qualified candidates who already owned property in said district, it would have needlessly limited them for something that has been common practice for Quebec senators for over a century. That Reid is trying to make a conspiracy out of this is galling, particularly when you consider the issues of other Senators that Harper appointed who had residency issues upon appointment – Mike Duffy, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Dennis Patterson, and possibly even Pamela Wallin. They were sworn in before they had their own residency issues sorted, Pratte has not been. One shouldn’t be surprised, considering that Reid has been similarly obtuse in his reading of the Supreme Court reference decision on Senate reform, and his demands that short lists be made public (despite the fact that they are not for any other Governor-in-Council appointment). It would be one thing if Reid were simply doing is duty in holding government to account, except that this isn’t it. This is inventing accusations out of whole cloth, and he should know better.

Continue reading →

QP: Easter Theatre

Posted on by

It was Friday-on-a-Thursday QP in the Commons, in advance of the two-week Easter break. Justin Trudeau was away, as were many ministers, starting to fan out across the country to sell the budget to Canadians, but Bill Morneau was present, and expects to be the star of the show. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and she railed about the “betrayal” of the middle class. Morneau insisted that there were plenty of measures to help families. Ambrose bemoaned the size of the deficit, and Morneau returned with a dig about the previous decade of low growth. Ambrose asked which taxes the government planned to raise, but Morneau didn’t bite, praising the measures therein instead. Denis Lebel took over, lamenting the lack of a plan to balance the budget. Morneau praised the plan to grow the middle class. Lebel closed by repeating the question on the size of the deficit, but got the same response. Thomas Mulcair was up next, recalling Air Canada breaking the law regarding their maintenance contracts, and now the government was retroactively changing that law. Marc Garneau responded that the situation had evolved, and Air Canada had made new commitments to create new jobs in Quebec and Manitoba. Mulcair read some condemnation that the deal was “Orwellian,” and that the Liberals were letting the rich get off the hook, but Garneau repeated his answer about changing situations and competitiveness. Mulcair thundered about the government not respecting a Human Rights Tribunal on equal investment for First Nations children. Carolyn Bennett said that they were making investments, but the systems had to change as well. Mulcair then failed about a plan to outsource Shared Services jobs, but Judy Foote responded that the publicized report was from 2014, which they did not intend to follow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Smart, engaged, and too free for comfort

Posted on by

It’s not the first piece that raises these questions, and I’m sure it won’t be the last, but I am starting to become a bit weary of the constant think-pieces that considers it a terrible woe that Justin Trudeau is putting smart and accomplished people in the Senate without the yoke of party discipline to constrain them. And lo, Chris Waddell’s over on iPolitics raises many of these same questions, worried about the lack of a democratic mandate (hint: It’s something called Responsible Government) and being fuzzy on the way the Senate actually operates.

Do Canadians want a more activist Senate composed of people who, while accomplished, have no democratic mandate to act? Do we want to see anyone who was not elected to office regularly rejecting or amending legislation passed by elected representatives? If so, on what basis should they do that? Their personal opinions? The views of others? If so, whose views?

In short, a) the democratic mandate comes from the constitution and our system of Responsible Government, where the government that holds the confidence of the Chamber can make such appointments and be responsible for making them; b) This fear that the Senate will suddenly start rejecting bills is nonsense. They’re aware of their role and the fact that they’re not elected, and they tend to exercise their powers with a little too much restraint if you ask me; c) They should do so on the basis of the constitution and whether it’s bad legislation. And yes, elected representatives do pass bad bills where Senators actually read them and find out that hey, it’s a bad bill and needs to be either amended, delayed, or outright stopped; d) Why does a party whip make the Senate rejecting or amending bills any more legitimate than if they do so on the basis of their lifetime of expertise in a given field or based on concerns that aren’t related to whether it’ll get them elected the next time around? Because seriously, that’s part of what “sober” in “sober second thought” means – having a more critical eye that isn’t just about trying to appease the public for short-term electoral gain when there could be bigger things at stake.

Senators don’t just review legislation. They can introduce bills as well — but without a party infrastructure to push such bills through the Senate and then get the attention of the Commons, how many of those bills will be debated in the House, let alone passed?

Yes, they can introduce bills, but they tend to introduce very few, and even fewer of them get very far because they are at the bottom of the list of the Senate’s priorities. And they can get into the Commons by the very same process they do right now – an MP sponsors it, and it goes through on the Order of Precedence. Party infrastructure has nothing to do with it (though the Conservatives did try some shenanigans by all signing up to sponsor Liberal Senate bills in the hopes of delaying and killing them, only to attach their names to bills that were never going anywhere and could backfire on said MPs in that it looked like they were putting their names behind things like stopping the seal hunt, which is political poison). Senate bills are considered Private Members’ Business. This isn’t rocket science.

Once appointed, senators can self-identify the issues they want to pursue in office. Simply by doing that, they make travel costs and expenses incurred in pursuit of those issues Senate business — expenses they can claim, in other words. But those issues are never earmarked by elected officials — so what makes them important enough to be paid for by taxpayers?

Despite the attention paid to Senators’ expenses of late, I’m not overly moved by this line of concern. Without electoral constituencies to concern themselves with, Senators adopt causes, and those causes usually wind up being reflected in committee studies, bills, and reports. And as we’ve found, from both Justice Binnie’s report and the Duffy trial, there are questions raised when Senators start claiming anything as “Senate business,” and yes, there is much more transparency now than there was before, and more rules and reporting yet to come.

Perhaps the fact that we lack answers to these questions of substance is the reason why the Trudeau government has passed just one bill through the Commons for Senate consideration in the five months since it was elected — legislation tabled last December giving it the authority to spend money.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope. This is utterly specious. The government has only passed one bill because they’ve only introduced seven thus far, and are taking them one at a time. That bill was spending estimates, and it had to go through, and lo, the Senate found that the Commons ballsed it up by sending an incomplete bill to them, missing the actual spending schedules. You know, doing their job of oversight when MPs couldn’t be bothered as they passed it at all stages in the span of a few minutes. So if anything, it’s a sign that the Senate is necessary and doing their jobs. Can we please stop this insistence that the only way we want smart and engaged people to have a hand in the parliamentary process is if it’s under the whip? The Senate isn’t a confidence chamber. The pundit class should know these basic facts.

Continue reading →

QP: A death in the House

Posted on by

The death of Conservative MP Jim Hillyer shocked Parliament Hill, and all plans for the day were cancelled. The Conservatives cancelled their national caucus meeting to mourn instead, and it was agreed that the day in the Commons would be cancelled after a few brief statements of condolence. Hillyer died in his office on Sparks Street at some point either last night or this morning, likely from a complication to a bone infection that he was suffering from, yet nevertheless insisted on coming to Ottawa for budget day.

Continue reading →