The Speaker’s lecture about heckling versus ideas on Tuesday continues to make the rounds, alongside the Samara study that I wrote about the other day, but as Nick Taylor-Vaisey concludes, the vows to end heckling won’t last, which is just as well. What gets me are the constant head-shaking about how heckling wouldn’t happen in any other workplace, so why should it be acceptable in parliament. My response would be, and will always be, is that parliament is different, and that it shouldn’t be like any other workplace. Consider it a kind of by-product of parliamentary privilege that keeps the institution self-governing and in its own particular bubble against some of the laws and regulations that apply to other people. Parliament is special because nowhere else does this kind of debate happen, is there an accountability function to be had in open and on public display, and nowhere else is the exchange of ideas both vigorous, theatrical, and relevant to whether or not that MP will continue again past the next election. Once again, I will offer the caveat that yes, there is boorish and sexist heckling that should be called out and stamped down, but that is not necessarily representative of all heckling, and really, we haven’t seen the likes of a “calm down, baby” that made the John Crosbie/Sheila Copps exchanges so much a part of our collective memory. We don’t have MPs singing the national anthem to drown out the other side, or setting off firecrackers. And it’s a safe bet that the vast majority of MPs aren’t showing up for debates inebriated – something that could not be assured during the days of martini lunches and copious alcohol all around the Hill. This is probably the calmest our QPs have been in a generation, and yet we are still faced with these constant admonitions that it’s still somehow terrible. No, it’s not. If Elizabeth May can’t hear, that’s as much a function of the terrible acoustics in the Chamber, where you can’t often hear what’s being said even during the dullest of regular debates, than it is the reactions of those around her. If there is an issue that should be tackled, it’s the constant applause and standing ovations, and the use of scripts that has destroyed the debating ability of our MPs. Heckling is honestly the least of our worries.
Author Archives: Dale
QP: Concern for jobs and Iran
While it was caucus day, and all of the leaders were present, but things got off to a late start for a rather unfashionable reason. When QP started, Rona Ambrose started, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about the lack of concern by the government over mounting job losses in Alberta. Justin Trudeau reassured her that he was preoccupied with the issue, and that measures were coming in the budget. Ambrose repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and then turned to the lifting of sanctions on Iran but tied it into the Syria mission. Trudeau said that the world was safer with a nuclear deal with Iran, and that Canada needed to engage in a responsible way with that country. Tony Clement railed against Iran in French, to which Trudeau repeated his previous answer about engaging responsibly, and then went for another round in English on the topic. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded action on restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they campaigned on a moratorium, which they did, and they were now engaging with Canadians on the issue. Mulcair then demanded that OAS be restored to people at 65 immediately, to which Trudeau reminded him that it’s already the case. Mulcair read the same question again in French, got the very same answer, that they age increase wasn’t going to happen until 2023, and suggested that Mulcair check his facts first. Mulcair asked about provincial pension enrichments, to which Trudeau reminded him that the finance minister is currently engaging with provinces.
Roundup: Forcing internal reform
With the Senate back in session, the uncertainties of how it will operate in this new environment are starting to make themselves be seen. With each passing day, the lack of Senate Question Period becomes a little more awkward, and until new government legislation starts coming down the pipe, much of their debates right now are about just how they plan to organize themselves. Part of these are the debates about breached privileges – not only the continuation of the investigation of the prima facia breach from the previous parliament about the leak of the AG report, but also Senator Housakos’ complaint that the lack of a government representative doesn’t allow senators to properly do their jobs, and a new complaint today about how the rights of independent senators are being breached in the way that committees are currently organising themselves. In this case it was Senator Wallace, who recently left the Conservative caucus of his own volition, essentially complaining that he couldn’t get a committee assignment that he’d asked for (and the only one that was offered to him he turned down). And it’s already been raised in this parliament that the way committee assignments are determined are a problem for independent senators, and it’s a debate that needs to be had – particularly if there is to be a new batch of independent senators on the way in (though I don’t expect them all to remain independent, nor should they, really). And until some real work starts to land on the Senate’s docket, these kinds of organizational debates are going to dominate for the weeks to come, which may start to reshape how the organisation functions as a whole. If Trudeau did one thing in his non-constitutional Senate reform promise, it was to force the chamber to reform itself from within. One just hopes that the end result hasn’t broken it for the sake of better optics.
QP: Thanks for your pre-arranged meeting
Tuesday, and it was the first regular QP not attended by the new prime minister. Rona Ambrose led off, reading her thanks for Trudeau taking her advice and meeting with Denis Coderre — you know, the meeting he had already had planned before QP yesterday. Ambrose suggested that if he wanted to create other jobs, the government could permit the extension of the Toronto Island Airport, which would hopefully help Bombardier sell more jets. Marc Garneau responded by saying they took an undertaking to respect Toronto’s waterfront plans. Ambrose then raised the spectre of ISIS, and conflated the AQIM attack in Burkina Faso with the other conflict. Stephane Dion insisted that Canada was part of the fight against ISIS. Ambrose then called ISIS the greatest threat to women and GLBT rights, to which Sajjan insisted that ISIS was a threat that he was taking seriously. Gérard Deltell then repeated Ambrose’s first question with the spin of other Quebec industry, and got a response from Jim Carr about the importance of resource development, and took a a second question on Deltell in the same vein. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded that the government not appeal the Human Rights Tribunal decision on First Nations child welfare, to which Jody Raybould-Wilson assured him that they would reform the child welfare system, but did leave the door open for judicial review. Mulcair then turned to the issue of existing pipeline approval processes, to which Catherine McKenna spoke about rebuilding trust with stakeholders. Mulcair demanded that the assessments be redone, but McKenna’s answer didn’t waver. Mulcair thundered about broken promises before pivoting to his scripted question about EI eligibility, to which MaryAnn Mihychuk assured him that they were conducting a comprehensive review.
Pretty sure the Catholic Church is a bigger threat to global GLBT rights than ISIS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 26, 2016
Roundup: A faux national unity crisis
Energy East is going to be a new crisis of national unity, comes the overwrought cries of the Conservatives in response to the opposition of several Quebec mayors, including Denis Coderre, to the pipeline. And you just have to sigh a little and shake your head, because what else can you do, particularly because you’ve got two fairly powerless mobs yelling at one another and shaking their fists? The Alberta government, mind you, isn’t stirring things up, and the Quebec government, who has more of a say in this than the local governments do, is not making the same bellicose noises against the pipeline. Instead you’ve got Brad Wall stirring the pot, trying to score points for his upcoming election, and Rona Ambrose making patently ridiculous statements about how this is supposedly like the National Energy Programme of the early 1980s, which boggles the mind. And never mind the fact that Trudeau has indicated general support for the pipeline (predicated on a proper environmental assessment and getting the requisite “social licence” from the communities that is passes through), apparently that’s not good enough either for Ambrose and the Conservatives, who continue to insist that all government positions be bellicose statements – because that worked out so well for them when they were in power. Trudeau has a meeting with Coderre this morning, and no doubt it’ll be discussed, but the fact that you have groups who aren’t involved in the decision-making trying to pit Alberta and Quebec against one another just makes it look like the two kids in the backseat who are hollering “Mom! He’s touching me!” It’s tiresome and infantile, and if they’re trying to make Trudeau look like the reasonable grown-up in all of this, well, they just might get their wish.
QP: Call Denis Coderre
The first QP of 2016, and after several statements of condolences for the incidents in La Loche, Saskatchewan, and the attacks in Burkina Faso and Jakarta, there was a moment of silence for the victims in La Loche. Rona Ambrose led off, script on mini-lectern, and read her condolences for La Loche and asked for an update on the situation. Justin Trudeau expressed his condolences, and noted that the RCMP and victims support services were on the ground to support the community. Ambrose then accused Trudeau of “swanning around” in Davos while Canadians were hurting. Trudeau insisted that his party was elected on a commitment of investment and growth, and listed the business leaders he met with to get them to invest in Canada. Ambrose then accused him of running down the resource sector, to which Trudeau insisted that the resourcefulness of Canadians included the natural resources sector. Ambrose switched to French, and accused the government of spending through the surplus they left behind (not that any of the projections agreed that there was a surplus ongoing), and Trudeau reiterate that they were elected on a platform of investment. Ambrose then demanded that Trudeau call Denis Coderre to fight for the Energy East pipeline, to which Trudeau replied that they had ten years to get pipelines approved and couldn’t. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and concern trolled about the fact that the TPP was being signed without changes. Trudeau corrected him, saying that signing was only one step that was moving forward with the consultation process. There was a round of the same again in French, before Mulcair switched to the PBO’s report on tax changes. Trudeau praised them for helping more families than before. Mulcair brought up comments made by the new Clerk of the Privy Council about university protesters (Trudeau: I’m pleased he’s the new clerk and will lead public service renewal).
Conservatives heckling "wrong" as Mulcair lists the ills of the TPP. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 25, 2016
Roundup: “Elected” senatorial whinging
One of Alberta’s “senators in waiting” is grumbling about the current Senate appointment process, believing that the people of Alberta “have spoken” when they chose his name from a list to one day fill a Senate seat for that province. The problem, of course, is that the Supreme Court declared that whole process – which was a bit of a farce from its very inception – unconstitutional. If one wants Senate elections, they need a constitutional amendment with the seven-provinces-representing-fifty-percent-of-the-population amending formula. And don’t give me the “but it’s a non-binding election” line either, as Justice Cromwell very rightly pushed back during the Senate Reference hearings, “why not hold a consultative auction then? Is that any less valid?” The thing with the excuse for Senate elections as they have existed in this country so far is that they don’t actually provide any form of accountability is because they are for a non-renewable term. With an election, the re-election is where the accountability comes in. Anyone can get elected, no matter how terrible – we’ve seen untold number of examples of this in the past, and with the process that Alberta put into place, most of their Senate “elections” were just names on a ballot – most of the time, there was little advertising, there were no televised debates, and generally only one party participated as the Liberals boycotted the process and the NDP had no interest seeing as they want the Senate abolished anyway. At least when you have MPs who more or less accidentally get elected, you can judge them the next time around to see whether they did a good job or not (and we got a taste of this with the demise of many of those NDP MPs who got elected in the “Orange Wave” in 2011). Complicating the process in the Alberta conception of Senate “consultative elections” was the notion that they were based on provincial party nominations which don’t necessarily correspond to the federal parties that Senators caucus in (or at least used to until a couple of years ago), and what would one’s platform be anyway? It’s pretty hard to make legislative promises as a Senator, and promising transparency in spending is a sideshow compared to the actual legislative duties that they are expected to perform. And if memory serves, none of the “elected” Senators that Harper appointed have put forward any bills in the Senate either. One of them is also now concern trolling about the new “independent” senators as not being accountable to a party caucus, which makes one wonder why the big fuss about electing a Senator if one simply expects them to follow party lines despite the fact that the place was created with institutional independence for the very sake of pushing back against the government. Nevertheless, the Conservatives’ democratic reform critic has decried the new Senate appointments process as an “insult to Alberta” (erm, what part of unconstitutional don’t you understand?) and now we get these demands that the results of this sham election be considered regardless of the process or the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Senate was not designed to simply create 105 new backbenchers for the Commons. It would be nice if people stopped insisting as though that were the case, which is precisely what these “elections” have given us.
Roundup: Cauliflower concerns
The NDP put out a press release yesterday, which was essentially an object lesson in precisely what not to do when trying to make hay out of a political issue. The issue – rising food prices, and in particular, the rising cost of fruits and vegetables, and the lament that cauliflower is now a “luxury item.” Err, except that it’s not. And worse, that its “inexplicable” rise in price is entirely explicable – there’s a drought in California, and then there was a frost, which reduced the supply, and the increased demand lately (because it’s a trendy food right now) means that, thanks to the basic laws of supply and demand, the price spiked for a few weeks. And lo, it’s come back down again. And let us not forget that fresh fruits and vegetables in the winter is actually a luxury that our parents pretty much never had. They attempted to use the release to highlight inequality – Mulcair put out a release a couple of days previous, lamenting that Trudeau didn’t bring up inequality during his speech at Davos – but most of the claims in the cauliflower release were spurious. Transportation costs are not increasing – the crashing price of oil means that the cost of fuel is coming down by quite a lot. And the lament that the December rate of inflation was 1.6 percent? Um, target inflation is two percent, so unless they have another target in mind, that might be a policy they want to put out there. Rising food costs also have a lot to do with the lower dollar, and if memory serves, the NDP were lamenting that the dollar was too high (no doubt because they felt it was depressing the manufacturing sector, never mind that there are deeper structural issues than just the dollar alone), and that’s the thing about a low dollar – that it reduces your purchasing power, particularly if the fresh fruits and vegetables that don’t grow in this country in the winter have to be imported. To cap it off, the release offers no actual suggestions for what they’d like to see – only a vague statement that the upcoming budget is an opportunity to do something about inequality. So what, pray tell, is up for offer? Socialist wealth redistribution? The government is already raising taxes on the wealthiest one percent and offering more transfers to poorer families. So in totality, one has to ask if there as any adult supervision in putting out this hot mess of a press release, because the evidence before us makes that assertion unlikely in the extreme.
This NDP release about cauliflower is utter nonsense. IT’S EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THERE WAS A DROUGHT! Seriously! pic.twitter.com/hWJK4GRB6U
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 22, 2016
The return of "ZAP! You're frozen." anyone? https://t.co/zSwdxWX5UF
— Luke Kawa (@LJKawa) January 22, 2016
Roundup: Appointment board terms
The Order in Council relating to the new Senate appointment board was made public yesterday, and some of the details were tweeted out (as below, with commentary). Of note for me when you read the terms was that this interim process for the first five appointments will be done by engaging with civil society groups of various distinctions. The permanent process going forward will be the one that invites people to nominate others (or themselves) as vacancies come open.
And here's the mandate for the Senate appointments board. https://t.co/cwc6kocSUQ
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Board members who select new senators will earn $375-$450 per diems, plus travel costs. Not even lawyer money. https://t.co/aFdwzBbZC5
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Here are the detailed terms for the Senate appointments board. https://t.co/EXgFpxGraa
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
Because of Responsible Government and the Constitution. It’s a Thing. https://t.co/mPh828058x
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 21, 2016
Pretty safe bet that one of the first five new senators appointed will be aboriginal. I will bet my house on this. https://t.co/6LqSLZ6JIm
— Glen McGregor (@glen_mcgregor) January 21, 2016
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289470709563392
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690289727677829121
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/690290163809959937
Roundup: Heckling the delicate flowers
Oh, those poor delicate flowers that dwell in the House of Commons. Their poor nerves are so affected by all of the terrible heckling during Question Period that they all need to collapse on a divan, and get out the smelling salts, and blah, blah, blah. Samara just released a report on heckling, and wouldn’t you just know, everyone is aghast by all of the heckling that goes on. Why, it’s just terrible. But here’s the thing – every MP says they hate it, and insists that they don’t do it, except they do. They’ll even deny it when caught on camera. Heckling of course comes in a broad variety of taunts, jeers, and outright boorish behaviour, but really, sometimes it’s more instructive than what passes for debate. Yes, some heckling is sexist and boorish and should be called out, but not all heckling is sexist and boorish. And when there are complaints that women get heckled more, sometimes it’s because of how they’re reading scripts – one of the things about heckling is that it’s trying to knock people off of their talking points. Sometimes it’s clever and witty, and sometimes it’s not. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in knocking people off of their message tracks. And if anyone thinks that simply having more women in the place would change that, well, the most vigorous (and indeed some of the best) hecklers in my experience have been the women. And honestly, I can’t think of anything more dreadful than a QP that lacks it. Why? Because we need an injection of theatre into the sitting day, lest we all develop narcolepsy. Has anyone who moans about heckling sat through the rest of the day’s debates? Probably not. I’ve learned more about some issues by the heckling than I have in the scripted responses by ministers. Can it be too vigorous at times? Sure. Can people take it too far? Of course, and it should be dealt with when that’s the case, but this constant pearl-clutching about it is ridiculous, disingenuous, and in most cases, hypocritical. I’d rather a commitment to improving the quality of heckling than to see its elimination, and we’d be better off for it.