There’s the Senate bat-signal, and there are a couple of articles out there about how the Senate organizes itself that need to be discussed. Global has an exclusive piece about how the Senate agreed to change its organisational funding model in light of their new post-government caucus reality, but *gasp!* it’s all closed-door negotiations about your taxpayer dollars! Oh, I’m sorry, did I yawn there? Senate caucus funding used to be allocated along government and opposition lines, but with there being no governing party in the Senate any longer, Senate Liberals were at risk of losing their operational funding, and yes, this is an issue because it costs money to run things and the Senate is an integral part of our democratic system. The compromise that they came up with, allocating funds on a proportional basis of seats, is actually pretty novel. Yes, it’s more money than they got before, but remember that the Senate Liberals can no longer draw from the caucus resources of their Commons counterparts either, particularly for things like research dollars, so not giving them some kind of additional resources would be punishing them again for Trudeau’s unilateral decision to kick them out of caucus. Let’s not forget that democracy costs money, and one of the most egregious forms of cheap outrage journalism is pretending that a parliamentary body can be run for pennies when it absolutely cannot, particularly if we want them to do the heavy lifting of parliament, as they are increasingly doing. Meanwhile, there is some consternation that the government won’t be appointing a whip when they appoint their “government representative” in lieu of a Leader of the Government in the Senate, but mostly because there has been a defined role in terms of the government whip for doing some of those organisational tasks like allocating offices and parking spaces, not to mention organising committee assignments when there are only so many spaces to go around and lots of senators want on some committees and fewer on others. After all, the whip’s job is more than just telling people how to vote – that role has been far less prevalent in the Senate, and well before Trudeau’s edict, Liberal Senators were not being given instruction by their Commons counterparts and exercised a great deal of independence. (As for the Conservatives, we saw in the Duffy trial that Nigel Wright was trying to encourage Harper to exercise levers of power that didn’t actually exist within the Senate, to the institution’s detriment, and while many Conservative senators don’t see anything wrong with the way they’ve been doing things, well, they haven’t known any differently and that’s part of the problem). Of course, with no government caucus, there is less of a need for that role, but what I suspect is going to end up happening is that the Senate’s internal bureaucracy is going to wind up taking on more responsibilities to deal with this lack of the traditional structures and growing number of independent senators. Again, there are organisational duties that need to be performed, and it would behove the institution to figure out who’s going to do them.
Author Archives: Dale
QP: Haze and incoherence
A slushy and wet day in Ottawa, and the PM was headed off to Montreal instead of being in QP. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern again on Andrew Scheer’s desk instead of her own, and complained about the incoherence of the current government’s messaging. Navdeep Bains got up to respond, pointing out that the previous government turned a surplus into a deficit and touted their own plan for creating jobs. Ambrose complained about the size of the deficit, to which Bains insisted that they have a plan to grow the economy and make it more productive. Ambrose then insisted that Trudeau was imposing a national carbon tax, and this time Catherine McKenna got up and quoted Suncor’s CEO and Preston Manning as fans of carbon pricing. Maxime Bernier was up next, and he complained of the broken promise around the size of the deficit. Marc Garneau responded to this question, stating that Conservative cuts in the current economic situation could push the country into recession. Bernier insisted that deeper debt would not create wealth, and Garneau read some talking points about the importance of their own plan. Charlie Angus led off for the NDP, who noted a suicide in Moose Factory in his riding, and wanted a plan to end the discrimination in funding. Jean-Yves Duclos responded to this one, and he said that federal and provincial partners were working together on the complex issues. Angus listed the health problems on reserves, demanding action yesterday, for which Duclos reiterate that they were working with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis to provide inclusive and sustainable circumstances. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked the same again in French, got the same answer from Duclos in French, and for her final question, demanded action on proportional representation. Maryam Monsef stated that she looked forward to meaningful consultations.
Roundup: Giorno joins the brigade
Proponents of proportional representation are getting a bit of a boost across party lines as former Harper advisor Guy Giorno is adding his name to the so-called “Every Voter Counts Alliance” to push the government to adopt such a measure. (Note that the name of this group is hugely problematic because every vote already counts, and suggesting otherwise is tantamount to voter suppression). Giorno says the Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid that changing the system will mean that they will be permanently shut out of power (as is one of the arguments that proponents tout as a feature of the change), before launching into the usual talking points of “fairer” and “more democratic” which are a) complete bunk, and b) at a direct cost to the system of accountability that the existing First-Past-The-Post system is really good at achieving. Also, it’s a bit rich to hear the hyper-partisan Giorno talk about how wonderful it would be for PR-elected legislatures to require more co-operation, collegiality, working together” – all of which is ridiculous, since it simply changes the power calculus in order to keep coalitions cobbled together and giving smaller and more radical parties outsized influence to keep those coalitions together, while parties at the centre of governments can go for decades without being tossed out as they shuffle coalition partners around instead (again, a feature of our current system being the ability to throw the bums out, which PR does not do very well). Suffice to say, Giorno’s voice in the debate doesn’t actually change that the arguments are based on emotion and logical fallacies, and while he has different partisan credentials, it’s still a system that that nobody should be rushing into on the basis of emotion. Meanwhile, here’s Colby Cosh to demolish some of the arguments.
Quite a politically courageous move. </sirhumphrey> https://t.co/7SvBYQt8aO
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
PR is a terrific idea if you think being fair to *parties* is the most important goal of an electoral system. https://t.co/BDog8MpJ1a
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
Because under PR, all of them magically get the government they personally want! https://t.co/CQjG1vueIw
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
We’ll see what @guygiorno’s actual plan is! Maybe it’ll involve party lists! https://t.co/hcRbHDgGjs
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
“Collective will” is nonsense. We’re looking for an optimum method of aggregating individual wills. https://t.co/SCck9cMXTM
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
If I don’t like it, why would I want you to translate it from a tendency in our system to a formal premise of it? https://t.co/tT4T5vlbSR
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
You’ve decided they should, or must, all think the same way? Believe me, “thinking” is not always involved at all. https://t.co/2zrQDt2nZP
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
In presidential elections the taller guy usually wins. “Tape-measure elections! I’m just acknowledging reality!" https://t.co/VbgNGScNzL
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
Canadians also know that they have a Member of Parliament who is theirs, where they live. https://t.co/haIjOYcxxh
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
OK, so you’re gonna have party lists. Parties just don’t have enough power in our system… https://t.co/Wq1mcQZ8ay
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 25, 2016
Senate QP: Sajjan takes the heat
Senate QP invites a minister, round three, with special guest star National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. There were a few technical issues with the earpiece at the centre desk on the floor, and the Liberals invited Sajjan to use a desk on their side instead. Senator Carignan agreed, saying that it was technically the government side of the chamber, and once Sajjan was settled, Carignan led off, asking if Canada was officially at war with ISIS as France and the United States were. Sajjan gave a personal definition of war as being what we remember with the World Wars, and that this conflict was not of the same scale, but that didn’t lessen the commitment to the fight.
QP: Sad to see them go
On a snowy day in Ottawa, the parties were riled up after their caucus meetings, and ready to go for QP. Rona Ambrose led off, this time putting her mini-lectern on Andrew Scheer’s desk in order to get a different camera angle, and she wondered if the government was making up their deficit plans and they go along. Justin Trudeau chided the Conservatives for their decade of low growth, and noted their commitment to growth. Ambrose asked the same question in French, and Trudeau responded that they were creating jobs. Ambrose then moved to the issue of the CF-18s and noted an American General was “sad to see them go.” Trudeau retorted that our allies were glad that we stepped up our role in the fight against ISIS. Jason Kenney asked a meandering question about deficits and taxes, for which Trudeau praised investment in infrastructure, jobs and the middle class. Kenney wondered which taxes they would increase to pay for their deficits, to which Trudeau noted that the Conservatives had no idea about how to create growth in the economy. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and mentioned a First Nations community that was declaring a state of emergency for their everyday existence, and Trudeau thanked him for raising the issue and noted their promise to reset the relationship with First Nations. Mulcair moved to the question of a commitment to build a maintenance centre for Bombardier C-Series jets, for which Trudeau praised the agreement with Air Canada and Bombardier. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, Mulcair demanded the stock option tax loophole, but Trudeau told him to wait for the budget.
Roundup: Mindless populism leading the way
As Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall has made his voice heard in recent weeks in the lead-up to his re-election campaign, and the Conservatives in Ottawa have taken up his banner on all manner of topics, it is the issue of carbon pricing that is driving home a few truths about both Wall and the Conservative Party. While there is talk about setting a baseline $15/tonne carbon price nationally, which can be implemented either by carbon tax (per BC) or cap-and-trade (per Ontario and Quebec), Wall is adamant that he doesn’t want it imposed on his province, and is going so far as to suggest that any “national carbon tax” (which, let’s be clear, it is not what is being discussed) would be exempt from SaskPower because it’s a provincial Crown corporation. And in the House of Commons, former Speaker Andrew Scheer gave a ridiculous and gobsmackingly boneheaded Members’ Statement on Monday which mocked the notion of a “carbon tax” (which, again, not on the table) as a market mechanism, and tried to apply it to other forms of taxation, generally making a fool out of himself in the process. But if you listen to what both Wall and Conservatives like Scheer are saying, it becomes obvious that intelligent, principled conservatism in this country has pretty much gone the way of the Dodo, and that we are left with right-flavoured populism in its wake. Because seriously, an actual conservative thinker would look at a carbon price, and using whichever mechanism (but likely an actual carbon tax), use that in order to encourage the market to find their own ways to reduce their carbon emissions. In fact, it’s what the oil sector has been demanding for years now, and they’ve even built carbon pricing into their books while they waited for some kind of direction as to just how much it would be and by what mechanism it would be applied. But rather than having an actual conservative government that would take this tool to and use the market to innovate and achieve the desired end (being lower carbon emissions), you have a bunch of populists in both Saskatchewan and Ottawa who howled instead about a fictional “job-killing carbon tax” and who held their breath and stamped their feet rather than dealing with the problem of carbon emissions for an entire decade. So while the Conservative Party starts to re-examine itself in advance of its leadership contest, perhaps this is something that they should consider – a return to actual conservative principles rather than this populist noise, which resulted in a decade of poor economic decisions (like lowering the GST), incoherent policy decisions, and as we can see here, childish tantrums to what should be an actual conservative approach to solving problems.
QP: Flailing about the deficit
Fallout from the financial update was still front and centre, and Rona Ambrose was off the mark to insist that deficits meant higher taxes in the long run. Trudeau immediately went into his talking points about investment and growth. Ambrose tried to burnish her previous government’s fiscal record, and claimed that our world leadership was in jeopardy (if it even existed). Trudeau hit back that Canadians didn’t believe in the Conservative record. Ambrose demanded immediate action on pipelines to create jobs, but Trudeau insisted that the only way to get projects off the ground was to do it in an environmentally responsible way. Maxime Bernier was up next, and railed about the size of deficits, to which Bill Morneau, without notes and in French, responded with points about investing in the economy. When Bernier pressed, Morneau insisted that the Conservatives left them in a hole that meant they had to start further behind. Thomas Mulcair got up next, and insisted that there was no firm commitment for Bombardier to do maintenance in Canada. Trudeau praised the agreement and everything it offered. Mulcair asked again in English, bringing in the Aveos contract, but Trudeau insisted that they were supporting the aerospace industry. Mulcair turned to EI benefits, and demanded immediate reforms to hours and eligibility, and Trudeau agreed that they were making changes. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer.
Roundup: The expanded deficit
The big news yesterday was of course Bill Morneau’s fiscal update, in which he said that the deficit was slated to rise to $18.4 billion – and then everyone freaked out. But if you take a breath, you’ll see that in there is about $6 billion of wiggle room (or “fudge” as Andrew Coyne called it) when they adjusted down the growth projections of private sector economists – which have been particularly optimistic. As well, much of the current-year deficit is driven by lower revenues rather than new spending, despite what the Conservatives say, which is why the Liberals thought it clever to remark in QP yesterday in response to questions about the deficit that the Conservatives and NDP would be cutting all over the place in order to keep a balanced budget (to which Lisa Raitt, on the evening politics shows, rather indignantly replied “You don’t know that.”)
https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/701758020103983104
https://twitter.com/stephen_tapp/status/701799653826813952
@markdjarvis You're not missing anything. pic.twitter.com/5jyGd1cBnN
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) February 22, 2016
As part of the changed fiscal picture, the “savings” the previous government booked for changing public service sick leave is now back in books (not that it would have actually achieved savings in the first place). Stephen Gordon wonders if spending to spur growth is the right policy when this period of low growth may not actually be temporary, but rather might be the new normal. Kevin Milligan on the other hand notes that because it’s so cheap to borrow right now that going into deficit won’t really cost as much in the future, as we are not in the same situation as we were 25 years ago. Maclean’s charts the worsening fiscal situation. Kevin Page has questions about the “holes” in the fiscal update. Morneau also hired Dominic Barton as a growth consultant, which likely means a focus on Asia.
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/701796830795931648
https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/701797622537986049
QP: Scattering instead of pressing
Bill Morneau’s fiscal update a couple of hours previous before touched off a partisan storm over social media, which was bound to carry over into QP. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, led off by reading a question about the size of the deficit. Justin Trudeau reminded her that they ran a campaign on investing to promote growth. Ambrose demanded to know who would pay for it all, at which Trudeau retorted that that they were already paying for the previous ten years of poor growth. Ambrose tried to burnish the previous government’s record, but Trudeau accused them of creative accounting. Gerard Deltell demanded controlled public spending, for which Trudeau reiterated his response about fudged numbers. Deltell gave it one last kick, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded the government respect the rights of Aveos workers rather than amend Air Canada’s legislation. Trudeau responded that they were proud that the agreement with Bombardier would encourage investment in aerospace. Mulcair asked again in English, got largely the same answer, and then demanded reforms to the EI system. Trudeau reminded him that they promised to strengthen the system, and they were going to. Mulcair demanded a universal eligibility threshold as part of that reform, and Trudeau reiterated that they were making needed changes.
The Liberal retort today is that the Conservatives and NDP would make massive cuts to keep the budget balanced. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 22, 2016
Roundup: Cullen pens a hot mess
NDP MP Nathan Cullen penned an op-ed for National Newswatch over the weekend, and it’s a total hot mess. Hot. Mess. Where to begin, where to begin? Let’s start with the opening paragraph:
One of the recurring conversations I’ve had over the years, with folks of all political leanings, is the condition of our democracy and how our voting system doesn’t reflect their voices at the national level.
Demonstrably false, since what we vote for are who to fill individual seats. People who are elected to those seats are the reflection of the wishes of that riding. Ergo, our voting system actually is reflective of voices at the national level. The entire second paragraph is a gong show:
It’s not a new charge that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system too often produces false majorities. Our current voting system is broken. Too many Canadians simply feel their vote does not count. Something is deeply wrong if our very voting system encourages people to tune out of our democratic process.
Nope, nope, nope, and nope. There is no such thing as a “false majority” because the popular vote is a logical fallacy. You can’t extend 338 separate and simultaneous elections, mash them together and come up with a figure when you don’t have the same number of parties running in all ridings, nor does it reflect the fact that we elect individual seats, not parties. The voting system is not broken – it accurately reflects that we elect individual seats in individual ridings. Canadians feel their vote doesn’t count because of sore loserism, and apparently votes only count when the person you voted for wins, which is childish and wrong. Our voting system does not encourage people to tune out of our democratic process – our appalling lack of civic literacy does. From there, Cullen goes on to defend his idea of a “proportional” Commons committee to consult on electoral reform, except it’s a) not proportional, b) it’s designed to play up his desire for proportional representation (if the committee can be proportional…) and c) it’s designed to game the process, while he professes new ways of doing things. From there, Cullen meanders into a defence of the NDP as “progressive opposition,” which sounds more defensive by the day as the Liberals continue to outflank the party on the left, and finally, the piece moves into a defence of Thomas Mulcair as party leader, with Cullen professing support – you know, to look like he’s not angling to replace him should Mulcair happen to fall well short of expectations at the upcoming leadership review vote. After all, the federal NDP have a culture of it being unseemly to not be in complete and total lockstep at all times when the cameras are on. So there you have it – a complete hot mess. What is that old journalistic expression? Get me rewrite.
https://twitter.com/jameslhsprague/status/699297692837666816