It’s not the first time I’ve written on this topic, and it certainly won’t be the last. Yesterday’s column by David Akin about making MPs continue to work on Fridays has me itching to reiterate a few points, even if some of Akin’s writing style makes me cringe a little. (Seriously, PROC is an “obscure but important” committee? Really?) Akin makes good points in that we are already seeing a greater diversity in people running and getting elected, and more women running and getting elected than ever before, and that people who put their name on the ballot know that the job entails actually being in Ottawa five days a week for roughly half the year. And really, that’s one of the points that makes me a bit crazy when we keep circling back to these discussions about making parliament “family friendly.” Parliament is not just another workplace, and you can’t apply the same standards to it that you would with any other job. We all know that a great deal of sacrifice is involved with the job, which is why we compensate MPs fairly well for it (though one could quite easily argue that they are underpaid, though populist sentiment means that argument will never win the day). Even more crazy making were MPs on Procedure and House Affairs committee saying things like “It’s special being here,” while trying to figure out how to vote from their riding or telecommute to the job in Ottawa, never mind that the job involves being in Ottawa because it relies on building personal relationships. No, it’s not “special” to be in Ottawa – it’s the job you signed on for. Being present to vote is what you signed on for. If you didn’t want to be in Ottawa but still serve the public, you could have run for local city council, but no, you wanted to play a federal role. That means being in Ottawa. It doesn’t mean being here year-round, and clearly it’s not given the growing number of constituency weeks, but constituency work is not what your job is. Your job is to hold the government to account, which means being present, debating, reading the Estimates and the Public Accounts, doing committee work, grilling ministers and department staff, and engaging with stakeholders as part of that job. All of that is done here. Sure, helping people with passport forms is all well and good, but it’s not actually your job. In fact, the growing MP role as civil service ombudsman is a distressing turn of events, because it starts to subtly politicise the system, but it also takes away from the accountability role. We are already in a crisis of civic literacy in this country. Having MPs justify the fact that they don’t feel the need to be in Ottawa to do their jobs, and to wrap that justification up in the flag of being family-friendly is a problem. Yes, it’s tough, and marriages break up with too much frequency, but the system already bends over backwards to accommodate spouses and families. The reality remains, however, that this is not a job that you can do from home, and candidates needs to go into it with their eyes open rather than making excuses to shirk their duties once they get here.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: It’s not a wealth transfer
Woe be Saskatchewan, apparently, with the collapse in global commodity prices, affecting both its oil and potash industries. Its premier, Brad Wall, is in full-on populist mode in advance of a provincial election, and when not goading Montreal mayor Denis Coderre over Energy East, he’s also demanding some kind of federal dollars should the Trudeau government decide to bail out Bombardier, as well as funds for his idea of a well-capping programme. To be fair, the well-capping idea is a good one, but Wall’s bombast is probably not helping, particularly when he makes comments about equalisation funding. The Conservatives have been all about equalisation in Question Period, with questions yesterday demanding “fairness” for Alberta and Saskatchewan after the territories were having their formulas adjusted, despite the explanation that the adjustments were because of changing Statistics Canada measurements. More egregious was when former Speaker Andrew Scheer decried that wealth was still being transferred to other provinces based on calculations from when Saskatchewan was benefitting from $100/barrel oil. And my head very nearly exploded when he asked that because it’s about as wrong – and frankly boneheaded – as one can get when discussing equalisation. Despite the common mythology, the federal equalisation is not a wealth transfer between provinces. “Have” provinces don’t write cheques to the federal government in order to pass them along to the “have not” provinces. It’s nothing like that at all. Every Canadian pays into equalisation by way of taxes, and the federal government will transfer some of its general revenue funds to provinces who need help in providing an equal level of service to its citizens. Now, provinces like to make all kinds of claims based on what their per-capita contributions to the programme are, but it’s not a bloody wealth transfer. I get why they like to claim that it is for political purposes, but it’s wrong and it just fuels these ridiculous regional conflicts (like the ones we’re seeing now between the west and Quebec based on nonsense rhetoric over Energy East) to no good end. So seriously, MPs and premiers – knock it off. You’re not helping anyone.
Senate QP: Foreign Policy on the floor
The first hybridized Senate QP having deemed to have been a success, the Upper Chamber was ready for a second round, and this time, the featured guest star would be foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion. When the Senate was called to order, and Dion brought onto the floor, Claude Carignan led off, asking about the relationship with Russia. Dion responded that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are unacceptable, that their assistance to the Assad regime was a problem, and that even at the height of the Cold War, we had diplomatic ties with the USSR to facilitate dialogue. Dion also noted the cooperation on the Arctic Council, and noted that cutting off relations won’t work.
QP: Overwrought and obfuscating
After some of the soaring (well, overwrought in any case) rhetoric of today’s supply day motion on condemning the BDS movement, everyone was on-hand for QP, which one hoped would not be nearly so melodramatic. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and lamented that the CF-18s have ended their bombing mission before the debate and vote — as though it was a vote on authorization and not supporting the government’s plan. Justin Trudeau reminded her that Canadians voted for his plan. Ambrose then noted the job losses at Bombardier and wondered why aid was being considered for that company but no support was being offered for Energy East. Trudeau reminded her that he supported getting resources to market, but they needed a different process than the failed one that the Conservatives followed. Ambrose asked a muddled question about getting people back to work, to which Trudeau reminded her that his party was committed to EI reform, not hers. Gerard Deltell demanded aid for the families affected by the Bombardier layoffs, at which point Trudeau noted a decade of neglect by the previous government while his was working with the provinces. Deltell insisted that the Toronto Island Airport was the key to reversing these job cuts (as opposed to Bombardier’s poor management), but Trudeau reminded him of the contract signed with Air Canada. Leading off for the NDP was Irene Mathyssen who read some tired outrage about the TPP, for which Trudeau reminded her that the trade minister was engaged in consultations and that it would be brought up for debate in the Commons. Mathyssen asked the same thing again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice demanded help for Bombardier. Trudeau reminded him that they were working for with the provinces. Boulerice closed the round with thundering denunciation of the job losses from the previous Air Canada maintenance contract dispute, but Trudeau reminded him that overheated rhetoric helped nobody.
The vote on the CF-18s is for support, not authorisation. Cripes. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 18, 2016
THIS IS WHY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE HOUSE VOTE ON MILITARY OPERATIONS.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 18, 2016
Roundup: Doing the policy heavy lifting
If you were to turn to the Big Book of Canadian Political Journalism Clichés, you’d find pages of tiresome and frankly libellous descriptions of the Senate of Canada. And oh, look – The Canadian Press drew from a number of them to craft the lead of their latest piece: “Canada’s Senate, often accused of being an anachronism, is being asked to wrestle with the futuristic dream of driverless cars.” Of course, the accusations of being an anachronism often come from clueless political journalists who recite the received wisdom around the Upper Chamber with little or no critical insight or understanding of Chamber, its actual role, or its operations, and they treat it like a joke, which makes ledes like this commonplace. “Isn’t it hilarious that the Senate is supposed to look at future technology? Aren’t they all ancient, napping in the Chamber? LOL,” and so on. And then this line a little further down in the piece: “His request for a Senate study is part of the Trudeau government’s attempt to recast the much-maligned upper house as an independent and valued institution that has an important parliamentary role to play.” Um, no, it doesn’t need to be recast as having an important role to play because they’ve always had it. The Senate has been doing the kinds of cutting-edge policy study and research that the Commons can’t or won’t for decades. Just in the last parliament alone, they studied things like BitCoin and crypto-currencies, and they have been debating legislation on growing issues like genetic privacy that the Commons continues to shirk while they snipe at one another over partisan issues. But hey, when asked to do a comprehensive study on the regulatory, policy and technical issues that need to be addressed by the growing field of driverless cars, hey, it’s all a big joke because it’s the Senate. That kind of tiresome attitude is part of why the studies and reports that come out of the Senate – which in many ways acts like a built-in think tank for Parliament (and a hugely cost-effective one at that) – tend to go under the radar. Some reports get a couple of days of press, such as the very good report on the Canada-US price differential (which the previous government then largely ignored when they went to craft legislation to close that gap – an issue now moot thanks to our falling dollar), but for the most part, the media will ignore the studies. It’s really a shame because there is a lot of good work in there that is worth a lot more discussion and attention, lest it gather dust on a shelf. But why actually turn to those studies when we can make jokes about the Senate, malign its denizens thanks to the actions of a couple of bad apples, and ignore the actual work while grumbling that they aren’t elected? It’s too bad that We The Media can’t take these things more seriously, as we would all be better off as an informed citizenry as a result.
QP: In advance of the deployment motion
As Ottawa dug itself out from a record snowfall, everyone was ready to go in advance of the debate on the new ISIS mission that would happen after QP. Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern ready to go, and she read a question about how the PM could possibly withdraw our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS. Justin Trudeau noted that one opposition party wanted them to do more and the other wanted them to do it less, and they had a comprehensive plan. Ambrose accused him of stepping back against the fight against terror, to which Trudeau assured her that our allies were happy with our stepping up our efforts. Ambrose accused Trudeau of picking and choosing Canadian values, to which Trudeau reminded her about what people voted for. Ambrose then accused the government of burning through the surplus her government left — eliciting laughs from the government benches — and wondered how much deficit they would pile on. Trudeau reminded her that they actually left a deficit, and they were committed to delivering growth. Ambrose lamented job losses, to which Trudeau again noted committing to growth. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and blasted the government for not preventing job losses at Bombardier. Trudeau insisted that they would grow the economy in responsible ways. Mulcair demanded again in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer with an added lament about shouting about problems. Mulcair then changed topics and demanded to know if the new mission was a combat mission. Trudeau said that they were doing what was most effective. Mulcair gave another go, and got pretty much the same answer.
Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown
A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600
QP: Second verse, same as the first
A very blustery day on Parliament Hill, and all three main leaders made it through the rapidly accumulating snowfall in order to make it to QP on time. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about pulling the fighters out of Iraq, insisting that it means that Canada is not fighting terrorism. Justin Trudeau said that they consulted with allies and came up with a robust new plan to do what was needed. Ambrose insisted that military action and fighting was necessary, to which Trudeau quoted to her the US coalition leader saying that they couldn’t bomb their way out of the crisis, and that they needed training. Ambrose switched to the issue of new funding for UNRWA, which was found to be linked to Hamas. Trudeau noted his meeting with Ban Ki-moon, and the commitment to re-engaging with the world. Stephen Blaney was outraged that some of our aid money could find its way to terrorists groups, at which Karina Gould reminded him that our aid money was neutral. Blaney then called the decision to send Griffon helicopters with the new trainers “bungling,” but Harjit Sajjan merely confirmed that yes, the helicopters would be deployed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, outraged that more trainers over in Iraq would mean more risk. Trudeau reminded him that Canadians always stand up to do their duty when called upon. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer in French. Mulcair mentioned his trip to Saskatchewan, and demanded EI reforms to help people in the oil price drop. Trudeau said that they were working hard to meet that demand. Mulcair decried a $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers without the Canadian Wheat Board. Lawrence MacAulay noted that government no longer had ties to the former Board.
Roundup: Mister Speaker is a meanie
While astute readers will know that I have my issues with the way that Speaker Regan is attempting to crack down on heckling in the Commons, one thing I will not countenance is the kind of whinging that the opposition – and in particular the Conservatives – are engaged in as a result. Yes, the Speaker does call them out more, because *gasp* they heckle more! Science! But what gets the Conservatives most are the ways in which Regan will sometimes editorialise in his interventions, whether it’s his admonition to keep the Chamber from sounding like a 1950 boys’ club, or in reminding two front-bench Conservatives that Question Period is not the Muppet Show. It is a different tone from the Speaker than we’ve seen in the last several parliaments, and Regan is adopting a more forceful tone when it comes to trying to put an end to heckling. I may disagree with how he’s doing it, and in particular his sanctimonious tone, but his naming actual MPs who are heckling is part of the process of trying to turn the tables so that they are being held to account for their behaviour. It’s a legitimate tactic, but to complain that he’s picking on the Conservatives is a bit rich. Yes, the Liberals were boisterous when they were in opposition, and nobody is saying that’s a bad thing, but even when in government, the Conservatives tended to be boorish hecklers, and their behaviour in opposition is not much improved. If they had instructive cross-talk or clever retorts, then yeah, it might not be so bad, but most of the time, it’s not clever. I will also add that this is part of the problem with the issue of heckling in the Commons – everyone agrees that it’s a problem, everyone insists that they don’t do it, even when they do, and it’s always someone else who’s worse and needs to be dealt with instead of them, because they’re always the victim in this. None of it is true, but MPs like to tell themselves that it is. It’s also a problem in that making the Speaker crack down on it is more about trying to treat symptoms than it is the actual cause of why they’re doing it in the first place, but that would mean more broad changes to the rules and the way that things run, and there seems to be even more resistance to that. Until MPs can have a grown-up conversation about the issue of heckling, we’re likely to get more whinging on all sides of the issue rather than actual progress.
Roundup: A vote for support
We have the motion on the Order Paper now for the debate and eventual vote on the newly refocused mission in Syria and Iraq, and to the relief of those of us who care about things like Crown Prerogative and the powers of the executive, it’s crafted simply in the language of supporting the mission. This is critical, because asking for authorisation is a giant can of worms that nobody really should want to even contemplate opening, but even with this language, it’s going to cause headaches going forward. To recap, asking for authorization is something that launders the prerogative and thus the government’s accountability. When something goes wrong, they can shrug and say “the House voted for the mission,” and to varying degrees, the Harper government did this, particularly with relationship to Afghanistan. These non-binding votes are a rather unseemly bit of political theatre that purports to put the question to MPs – because apparently they need to have buy-in when we send our men and women in uniform into danger, or some such nonsense – and it gives parties like the NDP a chance to thump their chests about peacekeeping and pandering to pacifistic notions (and does anyone seriously buy that nobody is trying to stop the flow of money, arms and fighters to ISIS without Canada butting to the front of the line to finger-wag at them?), and parties like the Conservatives a chance to rail that they were doing so much more when they were in charge (when they weren’t), or when they were in charge, to pat themselves on the back for everything they were doing (when really, it tended to be a bare minimum at best, or a symbolic contribution at worst). Of course, all of this could be done with a simple take-note debate without a vote, which is how it should be, because a vote implies authorisation, and that’s how the NDP have read each and every vote in the past, and they will loudly remind everyone in QP and elsewhere about it. Trudeau has been trying to keep expectations measured by saying that they recognise the role of the executive in making these decisions – but he went and proposed a vote anyway, muddling the role of MPs in this situations like these. That role, to remind you, is to hold the government to account, so if you’re going to have a vote on a military mission, then one might as well make it a confidence vote because foreign policy and control of the military is at the heart of the Crown’s powers. (These authorisation votes that aren’t confidence measures are playing out in the UK right now, which is making a mess of their own system, for the record). Trudeau should have known better than to continue this pattern of confusion and left it at a take-note debate, like it should be. A vote, whether it’s an actual authorisation or just a declaration of support, only serves to make the waters murky, which we need our governments to stop doing before they do lasting harm to our system of Responsible Government.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151173568729088
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151589626966016
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151991277723648
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698152397277917184
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698153619657461760
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698154371541032961