The NDP are signalling that they have received a hopeful sign in their attempt to take their battle over their satellite offices to the Federal Court, because an affidavit from a university professor that argues in favour of their position was accepted as evidence by the court. If I may be so bold, championing this as a hopeful sign is jumping the gun. Sure, they haven’t had their case summarily dismissed just yet, but that’s hardly a good sign. It could be that the judge wants to hear more arguments before writing his or her reasons as to why this case should never be brought before the courts because of parliamentary privilege, and while there is some academic opinion out there that this doesn’t qualify, I have a hard time seeing why not. It is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that parliament be self-governing, which means that it does not submit itself to an external body for oversight, and that the courts do not interfere with Parliament and its operations, just as Parliament does not interfere with the courts as they do their job. The mechanism by which the House of Commons governs its affairs is the Board of Internal Economy. They may choose at some future point to come up with a new internal mechanism, but for the time being, that’s it. Normally it operates by consensus, but in this case, the NDP feel that they are being treated unfairly because the other parties at the table insisted that they broke the rules, and to justify their refusal to play by those rules, the NDP have cried “partisan” and “kangaroo court” rather than admit that they were in the wrong when they used parliamentary resources to open up those satellite offices (the very nature of which are dubious to begin with, because they are an extension of the centralization of power and communications within the leader’s office, which is problematic for the rights of individual MPs). By turning to the courts, the NDP are repudiating the supremacy of parliament in determining its own affairs, and that’s a problem. But then again, they are consistent in this repudiation, from demanding that the Board of Internal Economy be dismantled and replaced by a new bureaucracy to oversee MPs activities and expenses, and that senators be placed under some other external authority (in advance of abolition, of course). The problem with trying to replace parliamentary self-governance with a technocratic bureaucracy is that it undermines the fundamental nature of our democratic system. If we can’t expect the people we elect to be able to manage their own affairs, then why are we bothering to elect them in the first place? We might as well just hand power back to the Queen, tell her that the past 170-odd years of Responsible Government didn’t really work out, but thank you very much, and be done with it. Asking the courts to interfere with Parliament’s self-governing ability is a similar admission, rather than taking responsibility for their actions. It’s petulant and does long-term damage to our very democratic system. I quite look forward to a sound denunciation of their position by the Federal Court.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: An exit and a streamlining
In case you hadn’t heard, there are two national political policy conventions happening this weekend, both at the same time, so Kady O’Malley came up with a viewer’s guide to both events. Last night we heard from Stephen Harper in a pretty canned speech that was mostly the same talking points that were in his retrospective video, and he wants the party to look forward. The rest of the Conservative convention is to be dedicated to reinvigorating the party as opposed to giving it a complete overhaul, so say its attendees, but there is a push to get a better organization in place to engage youth in the country – something the party has not been good at doing, officially eschewing a youth wing – and the “draft Rona Ambrose” movement continues to try to get enough support to modify the party’s constitution to allow her to run (never mind that she’s stated repeatedly that she’s not interested in the job).
As for the Liberals, it’s not just a victory lap for them as they went from third place and from talks of their time being over and needing to merge with the NDP to forming a majority government. No, they’ve got a very serious debate on their hands as it relates to whether they adopt a new “streamlined” constitution or now, and by “streamlined,” it means more than just the actual streamlining of having 18 different constitutions, but it centralizes all of the power into the leader’s office and eliminates pretty much every accountability mechanism that exists in the party for the sake of becoming a party of Big Data. So while some streamlining is no doubt necessary, I’m not sure that this is the way that the party should be run. There is also a movement to have an emergency resolution debated to pressure the government into amending C-14 to make it more Carter decision compliant, but it appears that the party has quashed it.
Roundup: The problem with sponsoring bills
News that the “Government Representative” in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, has been asking unaligned senators to sponsor government bills as they arrive from the Commons has me feeling a bit uneasy, and I’m trying to figure out why. This meant a trip through the Senate Procedure in Practice, and I find my concerns only slightly mollified. I will admit that the government’s plan to move a government bill in the Senate – Bill S-2, which deals with motor vehicle recalls – also has me uneasy because while it is being sponsored under Harder’s name, the fact that Harder is not a cabinet minister remains a troubling procedural issue. Government bills should be introduced by cabinet ministers, whether that minister is the Leader of the Government in the Senate or another minister in the Senate (which happens on occasion), and Harder, while sworn into the Privy Council, is not a minister. That the Conservatives did this with Claude Carignan was not a particularly good precedent to create or follow, since Carignan was essentially a minister without being in cabinet for the only reason that Stephen Harper was having a fit of pique over the ClusterDuff Affair, Carignan also having been sworn into Privy Council and being given access to PCO resources to do his job. But while Carignan was at least a part of the government’s caucus, Peter Harder explicitly is not, which is why this decision to have him sponsor government legislation is troubling. I remain of the view that as much as Harder is trying to present himself as non-partisan and independent, you cannot be independent while also representing the government because it is an inherent conflict of interest. That he is being asked to perform the functions of a cabinet minister while still proclaiming himself to be independent is risible. It is a problem that Justin Trudeau’s particular…naivety around his Senate reform project cannot simply gloss over without eroding the fundamental tenets of our Westminster system. That he wants a more independent Senate is not a bad thing, and the appointment of a critical mass of unaligned senators is a laudable goal, but you cannot expect someone who is not a minister to do the functions of a minister and still call themselves independent. As for Harder asking unaligned senators to sponsor bills, it’s not quite as outré as having Harder sponsor government bills that are initiated in the Senate, but I am still uncomfortable as this is typically something done by a member of the government’s party, given that the sponsor’s job is to defend the bill and advocate for its passage. While I don’t buy that every new appointed unaligned senator is really a crypto-Liberal, as many a Conservative senators would have you believe, the fact that Harder is the one doing the asking is still uncomfortable. It would perhaps be better if he were to call for volunteers to sponsor bills on their way from the Commons and then perform a coordinating role rather than an assigning one, if only for the sake of optics. Harder calling up unaligned senators and asking them to act as sponsors looks too much like he is playing caucus management, and if he continues to insist that it’s not the way that the chamber is operating, then perhaps he needs to be more conscious of the optics of the way he is operating.
Researching an issue on my mind… #SenCA pic.twitter.com/a85pFVSrze
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 26, 2016
Roundup: Term limit nonsense
As we gear up for the Conservatives’ policy convention this weekend, one of the policy resolutions on the table is term limits for the party leader, which they propose to cap at eight years should the leader become Prime Minister. While this is an example of the grassroots showing some displeasure at Stephen Harper and his stranglehold over the party for well over a decade, it’s a terrible bit of Americana that people keep trying to import into our system as though it were a panacea to problems that exist here. They’re entirely wrong, however, but they keep trying. Over in the National Post, John Pepall argues that term limits are fundamentally undemocratic because they prevent people from having the choice of electing a popular leader for as long as they like, but while he has a point, I would stress that term limits in a Canadian context are a complete lack of understanding of our system of Responsible Government, which rests on the principle of confidence. After all, term limits are largely unnecessary because our system can dump a prime minister at any point by means of a vote of no confidence – something that can’t happen in the American system, as they don’t have a system based on confidence, but rather on defined terms, with the relief valve of recall elections in some cases. Otherwise, they are forced to wait out a term until the next election, while in a Westminster system, it can happen with a snap vote in the Commons. Of course, we do have the problem in this country particularly around being able to dump a leader who is not the PM because we have moved away from the caucus selecting the leader, to systems of either delegated conventions, one-member-one-vote, or the latest Liberal abomination, the “supporter category.” Caucus selection kept leaders accountable to them, and it kept them in check, whereas they accumulated more presidential powers as the base that elected them grew larger and they felt more empowered by their “democratic mandate.” While leaders can still lose membership reviews by party members (witness Thomas Mulcair), a caucus can still pressure a leader to resign these days by simply making their dissatisfaction public. In most cases, like with Alison Redford, all it takes is a couple of MPs/MLAs with enough of a spine to go public, and the leader sees the writing on the wall. In cases where the leader digs in their heels – as with Greg Selinger in Manitoba – it can become the death knell for that particular government, as we witnessed in that province’s election just weeks ago. But all of these upsets were accomplished without term limits, and respecting the principles of Responsible Government. Trying to graft on Americana will just turn our system into some kind of monstrous chimera that won’t actually be able to function – hell, the changes we’ve made to leadership selection processes so far have already damaged and warped our system and need to be undone. But if Conservative Party members want to actually respect our system of government, they’ll vote down this cockamamie policy proposal with extreme prejudice, and hopefully we won’t have to speak of this again.
Roundup: A curious silence
After a long weekend of seeing waaaay too much social media abuse hurled at Ruth Ellen Brosseau regarding The Elbowing, and both the Liberals and Conservatives coming to her defence, I am struck that no NDP MP has come forward to take any responsibility for the apocalyptic rhetoric they hurled at the Prime Minister on Brosseau’s behalf that she is now being blamed for, even though she didn’t actually say anything other than to acknowledge that yes, she was elbowed. Also, I remain bemused that people continue to muse about Justin Trudeau’s “anger management issues” and temper when it was Thomas Mulcair who exploded into a rage ball as it all happened, which forced MPs around to separate him physically from Trudeau. Also, amusingly, an Ontario newspaper took the Beaverton fake news article about the NDP showing up the day after The Elbowing in wheelchairs and neck braces as being true. So there’s that. Meanwhile, we’ve got a week for tempers to cool and to see if the House Leaders can come up with any kind of schedule regarding the remaining legislation that needs to be passed while ensuring the opposition feels they’ve had enough time to debate the assisted dying bill, while also noting that it looks like Parliament will sit extra late this year as the Senate contemplates those bills with likely amendments, and keeping in mind that President Obama is due to address a joint session of Parliament on June 29th – which is after the June 23rd date that the Commons was supposed to rise for the summer.
Dear headline writers: The House of Commons ≠ Parliament. Parliament = Commons + Senate + Crown-in-Parliament. https://t.co/v17KOcQjtB
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 23, 2016
Roundup: Motion 6 regrets
With a tiny bit of time and distance from the ridiculous events of this week, attention is turning back to the procedural shenanigans that got us to the frayed tempers in the first place. While the Liberals promised an era of fewer procedural tactics when being sworn in, in reality it was a petty dumb promise to make because let’s face it – sometimes it’s tough for a government to get their agenda through a House of Commons that doesn’t like some of their plans, and the opposition isn’t going to go along with them. It’s not their job to, and our system is built to be adversarial in order to keep the government accountable. On the other hand, there is so much hyperbole being applied to what Motion 6 was, and what the Liberals attempted to do with it, that we need to apply a little bit of perspective sauce. For starters, while Peter Julian rants and rails about how “draconian” the motion was, those in the know on the Hill know that he is very difficult to work with as a House Leader. In fact, the word “impossible” has been thrown around if you ask the right people. And sometimes that means using a heavier hand to work around. Rona Ambrose complained that Motion 6 took away “every ability” for the opposition to hold the government to account, but I’m not sure that dilatory motions are actual accountability. They’re protests, certainly, but that’s not necessarily accountability, so points for hyperbole there. And yes, this is a problem of the Liberals’ own making, promising infinite debate on an infinite number of bills, until they ran into a bunch of deadlines that made infinite debate a problem. And we need to remember that time allocation can be a perfectly appropriate tool when used appropriately. Did the Conservatives over-use it? Yes, because Peter Van Loan was an inept House manager, and the NDP refused to let any debate collapse, which made it a regular tool. And every debate does not need to go on forever. There is no genuine reason that there needed to be 84 speakers at second reading for the assisted dying bill. None. Particularly when virtually every one of those interventions was reading a script that said 1) This is a deeply personal issue; 2) What about palliative care?; and 3) Conscience rights, conscience rights, conscience rights. That does not need to be repeated 84 times at the stage of debate where you deciding on the merits of the bill. It’s noble that the Liberals were as accommodating as they were, but in this case, the opposition demands that everyone be heard – and not during extended hours – is actually unreasonable. Likewise, when LeBlanc started the time allocation motions, it was to head off NDP procedural trickery around Bill C-10, which they are perfectly justified in doing. And now that the government has backed off from Motion 6 (which I maintain was likely the nuclear option they were presenting to try and force the opposition parties back to the negotiation table for timetables around bills, and I doubt their tales that they were cooperative given the personalities involved), we’re going to see an increased hue and cry any time a future time allocation motion is brought forward. The Liberals, by combination of a dumb promise of infinite debate combined with their tactical ham-fistedness, have hampered their own future attempts to get bills passed in a timely manner. This will make things even more difficult going forward, as more planks of their ambitious agenda get unveiled.
Roundup: Aftermath of The Elbowing
In the aftermath of The Elbowing, the opposition decided to use it as leverage to their advantage. The morning was spent, first with a third apology by Trudeau, followed by endless debate on a privilege motion about the incident, and because privilege motions take precedence over everything else, it essentially held the Commons hostage to endless lamentations that compared Trudeau’s actions to those of a domestic abuser and drunk driver. No, seriously. The intent was clear, however – this procedural gamesmanship would keep up until the government dropped Motion 6 – their procedural nuclear option – and eventually the government did. Of course, because they backed down after showing their hand, it means that they’re going to have a much more difficult time controlling the debate in the future, with the likes of Peter Julian and Andrew Scheer opposite Dominic LeBlanc in House Leaders’ meetings, and future attempts by the government to move their agenda forward will be hard to handle as any future attempts will be met with more emotional blackmail, and already it now looks like the assisted dying bill is going to miss its June 6th deadline because of the government’s fumbling and the opposition shenanigans.
Yes, I’m sure it was entirely the NDP that *forced* the government to back down on Motion 6. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/q2XTTxMjVJ
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 19, 2016
Reactions to The Elbowing were also all over the pundit class, but possibly the one that needs to be read first comes from Ashley Csanady, who reminds us that comparing Trudeau to Jian Ghomeshi after this kind of incident is really an insult to actual survivors of violence. Kate Heartfield notes that this incident is unlikely to damage Trudeau’s brand, while Matt Gurney sees the incident as one where Trudeau was trying to stay true to brand and show Decisive Leadership™ when it all went wrong. Susan Delacourt sees this as a teachable moment for the PM and his impatience with dissent in the Commons (which I don’t entirely buy given how much leeway he’s given dissent in his own caucus), and Tim Harper also sees a disdain for dissent coming out of Trudeau. Paul Wells sees this as the culmination of the corner the Liberals have painted themselves into, promising infinite debate on an infinite number of bills, while Don Braid sees flashes of Trudeau’s father and his infamous temper in this episode.
1977. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/IC26aeUT9W
— Paul Fairie (@paulisci) May 19, 2016
QP: A lid on the anger
After last night’s insanity and this morning’s third apology, Justin Trudeau was nowhere to be found. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and lamented the arrogance of the government while demanding that Motion 6 be withdrawn. Dominic LeBlanc stood up to assure her that they withdrew it. Ambrose wanted to ensure that every MP who wanted to speak on Bill C-14 would be allowed to, and LeBlanc said that they were trying to find a mechanism to extend the hours while keeping the deadline in mind. Ambrose demanded that the government show that they respect MPs, and LeBlanc repeated that they respect parliament but they also respect the deadline. Denis Lebel took over to ask, in French, why the PM lost his temper, and Jane Philpott took this one, reminding them of the sincere apology of the PM and that they wanted to get to work on C-14 deadline. Lebel returned to the question of MPs getting the chance to speak, and LeBlanc repeated his answer about finding a balance. Peter Julian got up for the NDP, and demanded the end of use of time allocation. Dominic LeBlanc said that they were trying to work cooperatively. Julian demanded timetables for legislation, and LeBlanc reminded him of the deadline on bills. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet cranked up the partisan complaining about time allocation in both official languages, and got much the same answer from LeBlanc.
Roundup: The elbowing
I can scarcely express just how stupid things got yesterday because everyone needed to rush to score points. But here we are. Starting back at the beginning, the government decided to put a motion on the Notice Paper that was basically the nuclear option of time allocation measures – essentially suspending all avenues by which the opposition could propose dilatory motions until the Commons rises for the summer, so that they can get C-14 and a few other timely pieces of legislation passed. And the opposition freaked out.
Nobody is quite sure why the Liberals resorted to such tactics, but my working theory is that the closed-door House Leaders’ meetings have degenerated to being unworkable (not an unlikely theory considering that my sources told me in the previous parliament that Peter Julian was impossible to work with), and Monday’s surprise vote after the NDP lied about the motions they were moving that day broke the trust of the Liberals, who had been attempting to work amiably with them. It’s also possible that putting this motion on the Notice Paper was as the nuclear option – the threat to hold over their heads in order to try and force them to come to the table with reasonable requests for timelines on debates. Dominic LeBlanc went so far as to suggest that rather than constraining debate, they were trying to allow for more under this motion, not that the opposition believed him. Temperatures got raised, and QP was one of the most heated of the current session.
After QP and the Komagata Maru apology, the procedural games started up again, including a privilege motion from Julian about how terribly draconian these tactics were. Fast forward a couple of hours to the time allocation vote on C-14, and the NDP apparently decided to play the childish tactic of physically blocking the Conservative whip from being able to walk down the aisle. The NDP claimed they were just “milling about,” but people milling about don’t all stand facing the same direction, and both Elizabeth May and Andrew Leslie have confirmed that there were shenanigans being played. And it would seem that Justin Trudeau had lost his patience by this point, possibly because Christy Clark was waiting in his office for a meeting he was already late for, and he still had a Komagata Maru apology reception to speak at, also late for. And so he did something completely boneheaded – he got up, went to the NDP blockade, and reached through to grab the Conservative whip and pull him through (which he apparently didn’t appreciate either), and in the course of that, accidentally elbowed Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Moments later, he went back to apologise to her as she fled the chamber – apparently flustered and unable to cope – when Thomas Mulcair began screaming at Trudeau and jabbing in his direction, when suddenly MPs from both sides of the aisle went to pull them apart before things got physical. It was all over in seconds, and Trudeau apologised for his actions.
Not well enough, apparently, as he did it again later when Brosseau reappeared in the chamber, but it doesn’t seem to matter because opposition MPs were now in point-scoring mode. Niki Ashton immediately got to her feet to decry that Trudeau had violated the “safe space” of the Chamber and NDP MPs started likening the incident to domestic violence, bullying and physical intimidation, and Julian talked about how his aunt was beaten to death. No, seriously. The Conservatives soon after began piling on, smelling blood in the water, and it devolved from there. Outside the chamber, Scheer and Julian took to the microphones to ramp up the spin, Julian deciding to drop the hints that there were “rumours” to the fact that Trudeau has some kind of history of violence, because there were points to be scored. And the faux outrage dominated the Twitter Machine as “fearful” MPs registered their shock and horror at what they’d witnessed. And it was just so stupid that I can’t even. Suffice to say, this looks like it’s going to boil down into privilege hearings in the Procedure and House Affairs committee, and we’re going to be subjected to weeks of un-clever “sunny ways” references, and suggestions that Trudeau is apparently unfit for office. It’s a good thing that next week is a constituency week, but I fear for what the final stretch of sitting weeks is going to be like if tempers are this frayed this early. I suspect it’s going to get really ugly from here.
So everyone is behaving appalllingly.
— kady o'malley (@kady) May 18, 2016
#CPC interim leader @RonaAmbrose on HoC dustup: "shocking" "complete lack of respect" by PM Trudeau #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/63nRQ3l7M2
— Richard Madan (@RichardMadan) May 19, 2016
QP: Scripts vs Saccharine
The galleries full of Sikh delegates in advance of the Komagata Maru apology, the benches were similarly full on the floor of the Commons. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by railing about the government’s proposed motion to control the parliamentary calendar. Trudeau noted that they were trying to give MPs time to speak and that this was about putting forward the agenda that Canadians voted on. Ambrose dropped a reference to Trudeau’s admiration for the “basic dictatorship” of China before asking again in French, and Trudeau gave the same response. Ambrose moved onto the topic of an electoral reform referendum, and Trudeau used the “Unfair Elections Act” as his excuse for his preferred consultative process. Denis Lebel took over in French, asked Ambrose’s second question again and got the same answer, and his second question was the referendum question in French, prompting Trudeau to drop the “60 percent of Canadians voted to change the electoral system” talking point. Thomas Mulcair was up next, his mini-lectern making a return, and he first thundered about the government shutting down democracy, then asked about the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling around doctor-assisted dying before demanding that C-14 be referred to the Supreme Court. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then changed to the issue of home mail delivery. Trudeau gave his standard response about the promise to consult, and for his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government stop taking veterans to court. Trudeau insisted that they were working with veterans to get results for them.
Ambrose repeated her first question in French and now Lebel repeats that exact same French question. Getting repetitive, guys. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 18, 2016