The announcement came down yesterday making it all official – Rosemary Barton has now passed the gauntlet of the competition process and has officially been named the permanent host of CBC’s Power & Politics. It’s not as though she didn’t more than prove herself in spades over the course of the election, with six-days-a-week broadcasts, and sharp coverage, but that Chris Alexander interview, where she shut down one of his tantrums and put him in his place – that has become legendary in political circles already. A senior journalist in this town described her as an “accountability interviewer,” and that’s something that’s been desperately needed in this city, where there has been a certain amount of timidity in the kinds of interviews we’ve seen. Not having a Jeremy Paxman of our own, we’d seen many a political show host in this country tiptoe around members of the Harper government for close to a decade because they often threatened (or instituted) boycotts after one hissy fit or another (John Baird being particularly famous for them), but Barton was having none of that – and it went for opposition MPs as well, like her interview with Thomas Mulcair pretty much on the day she was given the interim job when Evan Soloman’s sudden firing happened, and she didn’t put up with Mulcair’s too-cute-by-half routine. In their release, CBC pointed out her history as a reporter, going back to her starting out as a researcher for the French-language RDI while in Winnipeg, and covering politics in Quebec City – the kinds of chops that her predecessor never had, who relied instead on personality than on hard-won experience in covering the beat. And with Barton’s permanent appointment comes the acknowledgement of the changing face of politics in Canada – the fact that she’s not a middle-aged white male is important in an age of younger MPs, and of gender-equal cabinets, that a younger woman is tougher and more competent in the role than her middle-aged male contemporaries. It’s just too bad that this announcement didn’t happen in June on the heels of Solomon’s departure. (And as for Evan Solomon, it was announced that he’s taking over the afternoon broadcast for Ottawa’s CFRA radio station, because all is apparently forgiven for his ethical lapses).
Roundup: Political drinking
The admission by new Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan that he’s seeking treatment for an “alcohol-free lifestyle” is one that has brought plaudits and expressions of support from across the political spectrum. This is, after all, the age where people are being more open about issues like addiction and mental health, in order to shake the stigma that still surrounds it. But as Laura Payton writes in Maclean’s, this does present a problem with the way that Ottawa works currently, where much of the socialising here revolves around cocktails. Social functions put on by lobby and industry groups are in that 5-7 hour, when MPs come out of votes or committee meetings and head to them for drinks, hors d’oeuvres and schmoozing. It’s pretty much the only bonding experiences that MPs have left, given that the shared experiences of dining together three nights a week before late sitting debates happened were killed off in the early nineties in an attempt to make the institution more “family friendly.” But really, what this misses is the fact that it’s a far less booze-intensive place than it used to be, and I’m not talking about the post-Confederation days when there used to be a pub in the basement of the original Centre Block. No, up until the early nineties, there was far more access to alcohol around the Parliamentary precinct, where there used to be beer machines everywhere (one of the last was in the Press Gallery’s Hot Room), where there used to be the Press Club where reporters and sometimes politicians would drink together at the end of the day, and when martini lunches were a Thing. And those late night debates were often lubricated by drinks with dinner, during an age where you couldn’t order by the glass in the Parliamentary Restaurant, but rather had to buy the whole bottle (which they would put your name on and keep behind the bar for you). So really, if anything, it’s probably the easiest it’s ever been for people who are abstaining to be around the environment. On the other hand, there has been a direct loss in the collegiality between MPs since the booze largely stopped flowing. Make of it what you will, but the relationship between politics and alcohol is an interesting and fairly interconnected one, which makes a story like O’Regan’s a particularly interesting one to consider in the broader context.
Roundup: Oversight and transparency
Oh, look – it’s the first Senate bat-signal of the year, this time with an interview with Senator Beth Marhsall on CBC Radio’s The House. The treatment of the interview does raise some of the usual problems when it comes to reporting what’s going on in the Senate – namely, that journalists who don’t follow the institution, or who haven’t actually given a critical reading of the Auditor General’s report mischaracterise it as showing “widespread abuse” when it certainly was not, and a good number of the report’s findings were in fact suspect because they were value judgements of individual auditors, many of whom were perfectly defensible. Marshall, however, thinks that the AG’s suggestion of an independent oversight body is a-okay, despite the fact that it’s a massive affront to parliamentary supremacy. The Senate is a legislative body and not a government department – it has to be able to run its own affairs, otherwise out whole exercise of Responsible Government is for naught, and we should hand power back to the Queen to exercise on our behalf. I can understand why Marshall might think this way – she is, after all, a former provincial Auditor General and would err on the side of the auditor’s recommendations regardless, but the fact that no reporter has ever pushed back against this notion and said “Whoa, parliamentary supremacy is a thing, no?” troubles me greatly. I still think that if an oversight body is to be created that it should follow the Lords model, as proposed by Senator McCoy, whereby you have a body of five, three of whom are Senators, and the other two being outsiders, for example with an auditor and a former judge. You get oversight and dispute resolution, but it also remains in control of the Senate, which is necessary for the exercise of parliamentary supremacy. Marshall’s other “fix” is the need to televise the Senate for transparency’s sake. While it’s a constant complaint, and yes, cameras will be coming within a year or two, the notion that it’s going to be a fix to any perceived woes is farcical. Why? With few exceptions, people don’t tune into the Commons outside of Question Period, despite our demands that we want to see our MPs on camera to know they’re doing their jobs. Cameras, meanwhile, have largely been blamed for why QP has become such a sideshow – they know they’re performing, and most of the flow of questions these days is atrocious because they’re simply trying to get news clips. I’m not sure how cameras will improve the “transparency” of the Senate any more than making the audio stream publicly available did, never mind that committees have been televised for decades. If people really wanted to find out what Senators do, there are more than enough opportunities – but they don’t care. It’s easier to listen to the received wisdom that they’re just napping on the public dime, and the people who could be changing that perception – journalists – are more than content to feed the established narrative instead.
Roundup: Demanding immediate parity
It seems that I couldn’t ignore the siren call of the Senate bat-signal one last time. A group of prominent women want the prime minister to ensure that all 22 current vacancies in the Senate be filled with women in order to quickly achieve gender parity in the upper chamber. Trudeau has already stated that he wants to move the chamber toward gender parity and diverse representation as part of the appointment process (and it does have more women and minorities on a proportional basis than the Commons does), but this would be a bit more strident. It’s not a terrible idea, and one doesn’t really want to get into the “merit” debate because there isn’t a shortage of meritorious women that could fill every one of those seats. That’s not the issue. What I worry about is that it sets up a situation where the demand that it be balanced at all times, so as to start setting gendered seats in each province, and that if there is a retirement or resignation, it becomes imperative that the new holder of that seat be of the gender that is required to maintain balance, despite there being other considerations for some of those seats, such as linguistic minorities, Aboriginals, or other minority communities. Where this would especially be problematic is Quebec, where there are senatorial districts, and it could “lock in” the gender of those districts’ senators, despite the fact that some of those districts were initially established to protect other communities. Meanwhile, David Akin penned an utterly facile column that conflates the Duffy trial with the broader problems of the Senate and somehow comes to the conclusion that constitutional Senate reform is the answer, never mind that he offers no actual vision for what that reform is supposed to accomplish, and he may have missed the memo that elected chambers have spending scandals. All. The. Time. Left unsaid is the fact that the Senate has undergone substantial internal reform and tends largely to be more transparent than the Commons, not that it fits within anyone’s narrative of the “grasping, tawdry circus” of the Senate, when on the whole it is anything but. Seriously, pundit class – reality doesn’t quite reflect your tired received wisdom.
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/679460774213857280
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/679461199080075264
Roundup: Unrest without modernization
Oh, look – it’s the Senate bat-signal, shining one last time for me this year. Here we go: Senators Greene and Massicotte, who have been trying to organise some internal reforms to the Chamber, are warning that if modernisations don’t happen within the caucuses that they may see more defections from frustrated Senators, and swelling the ranks of Independents – particularly relevant with more senators on the way chosen by this new process (though nothing says that all of these new senators will sit as Independents, or that they won’t opt to sit in one of the two existing caucuses). Many of the reforms that the two are proposing are pretty modest – electing chairs and vice-chairs of standing committees, replacing Question Period with “Issues Period,” electing caucus officers, televising Senate proceedings; larger communications budgets to promote the Senate and its work (particularly committee reports); and electing the Speaker. Some of these are already in the works, like televising/webcasting procedures, which will happen in a year or two, once they get the technology sorted. Similarly, work to reform Senate Communications has been ongoing, and will continue, and I’m sure no one will argue that more money would help. Some of them – electing caucus officers – already happens in the Senate Liberal caucus, and sounds like is starting to happen in the Conservative ranks. The issue of committee membership is a topic that is currently being debated, and no doubt work will be undertaken on this in the Senate Rules committee, where it will start getting hammered out because the growing number of Independents does make this a priority issue for them. Some of the ideas, however, are more problematic, such as electing the Senate Speaker. Why? Because the Senate Speaker is actually the titular Head of Parliament; it makes sense for this to be a government appointee as a result, and because of this titular position, it comes with diplomatic and protocol responsibilities. Having the Senate elect their own that could be in opposition to the government of the day would be a serious problem, which few people seem to be grasping. As for “Issues Period,” I find it to be the weakest suggestion, particularly as asking questions of committee chairs a) is already possible, and b) doesn’t happen often because there’s not a lot to ask of them. As I explained in my piece in the National Post last week, Senate Question Period is about holding government to account, and with there being no Conservative Atlantic Canadian MPs in the Commons, it gives those Atlantic senators an opportunity to play that role. Or rather, it would if they had someone to hold account. In the absence of that, the Senate loses out on one of its functions, which will become a problem, and it’s something that “Issues Period” won’t solve.
Roundup: Questionable speaking fees
Following testimony at the Mike Duffy trial, Glen McGregor went back through the records of Duffy’s speaking engagements and what he was paid for them. Why? Because at trial, it came to light that he paid a speechwriter for a last-minute speech to one group, made a couple of tiny changes to it, paid for said speech through his “clearing fund” run by Gerald Donohue as though it were an expense related to his Senate duties, and then collected the $15,000 fee. Senate ethics guidelines state that they are not to collect speaking fees if it’s related to their Senate duties – and to be clear, there are plenty of parliamentarians in both Chambers for whom it’s entirely appropriate to have a Speaker’s bureau arrange and charge for speeches based on their previous experiences, because it’s not part of their parliamentary duties and it ensures that their expenses are covered and not charged to the taxpayer. Duffy, however, seems to have breached this particular rule, which could be yet another wrinkle in his attempt to prove his innocence, or to show that the “clearing fund” was only for legitimate parliamentary expenses. Meanwhile, looking back at the trial, we see recollections of his memorable phrases, and the petulance of his testimony.
Roundup: Different approaches to transparency
The government announced yesterday that they would be halting compliance measures related to the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, and would restore the funds frozen to those 38 bands that had not reported yet. It was a move that First Nations applauded, while Conservatives and other small-c conservative types decried as making things less accountable. We also found out that the previous government was considering putting those non-compliant bands under third party management, which sounds fairly drastic. It’s not that First Nations are against being accountable – for the most part, they have indicated that they want to be, but that the previous government’s legislation was ham-fisted and in some cases unfair because it forced the reporting of revenue streams that didn’t come from taxpayers. In fact, they have long raised the notion of the creation of a First Nations Auditor General, but the Conservatives were never in favour of it. And to be sure, there are bands that do require a closer eye because in some First Nations, there are problems with nepotism and corruption, and it does need exposure. The question becomes what tools are best able to accomplish the goal that aren’t paternalistic or steeped in racist assumptions. It’s something that the current government is looking to engage with, and we’ll see where their consultations take them, but this will no doubt be part of their move to transform their relationship with Indigenous Canadians.
Roundup: More calls to keep the bombers
ISIS forces launched a surprise attack against Kurdish forces in five different places in Iraq yesterday, and Canadian Special Forces trainers in the area helped fight them off, which did involve calling in air strikes from our CF-18s. No Canadians were injured in the fighting, but it did lead to a new round of calls, primarily from the Conservatives, to keep the CF-18s in theatre, regardless of the promise to withdraw them in favour of a more robust training presence on the ground. Some even went so far as to claim that if we didn’t have our planes in the area, our allies wouldn’t be as quick to respond to Canadian troops coming under fire (but that has been shut down by experts in the field right away). Michael Petrou remains unconvinced by Trudeau’s position on pulling out the CF-18s from Iraq, while Michael Den Tandt sees it as a kind of political calculation that isn’t so much related to pre-election promise, but rather the broader political implications of a ground war in the region.
https://twitter.com/michaelsona/status/677677335794073601
Today's news from Iraq might suggest CF-18s pullout would leave CANSOF w/o air support, but not the case. US/allies would show up
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
As I have said before, I think it is a dumb stance, forced by domestic politics to differentiate Liberals from NDP/Tories. But
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
6 CF18s are not a big difference maker. Again, the Auroras and Polaris have much more added value to the allied effort.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
I will say that I am impressed with how this govt and DND/CF are pushing out the news on this, including emails to those who study CF.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
Yes, but US also has lots of hotspots, lots of places that need those capabilities. 2 Auroras + 1 Polaris > 6 CF18s https://t.co/ZYlQLV85WJ
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
Roundup: The town hall performance
Justin Trudeau had his townhall with Maclean’s yesterday (in partnership with fellow Rogers publications Chatelaine, L’Actualité and CityTV, of course), and it went very well, and was engaging (and the whole thing can be viewed here). There wasn’t a lot of news, per se, that came out of it, but Trudeau did spend some time explaining certain positions, such as why he thinks there is a better role for Canada in the Middle East that draws from our experience in Afghanistan than the bombing mission does, or why he made the decision to cut the tax bracket that he did (it winds up helping more people when examined in conjunction with the new child benefit program), and the whole issue of the federal minimum wage (it only helps such a small group of people, and wasn’t likely to move too many provincial governments). Oh, and he slammed the kinds of fear-mongering politics engaged in by politicians like Donald Trump as ignorant and irresponsible. John Geddes remarks about Trudeau’s effortless adoption of the role of Prime Minister, while Paul Wells offers his thoughts on the event as the moderator, and how Trudeau compares to Harper. Laura Payton notes the very politic way in which Trudeau responded to questions, and some of the lessons that he perhaps learned from Harper in that regard.
Roundup: No place for Trump
In one of her year-end interviews, Rona Ambrose said the Donald Trump is “far off the spectrum,” and “not a voice that is welcome in our party.” Um, except that she can’t really get off that quickly or easily on this one. While Ambrose may not be saying it, her party is one that dumped any pretence of actual ideological conservatism long ago, and simply became right-flavoured populists who loudly championed all manner of non-conservative ideas and plans, all for the sake of appealing to enough micro-targeted groups that they could cobble together a base of support that they rose to power once, but which fell apart in 2015. Remember too that in the dying days of the election, Harper willingly embraced the Ford brothers in Toronto in order to cash in on their populist appeal, which are two very Trump-like voices that apparently have been welcomed into her party with open arms. And as for charges that her party is not doing enough to combat Islamophobia as Syrian refugees start arriving in the country, we’re seeing a lot of concern trolling out of her party that makes it sound like they’re supportive of the idea when in fact they are arguing or agitating for indefinite delays to refugee arrivals. Put all of this together, and it’s hard to see how Ambrose is arguing for any kind of principled conservatism, or that she rejects the populism of Trump while she has not moved to distance herself or her party from the Ford brothers. That’s a worrying sign, and when the Conservative leadership does get underway, we’ll see if Doug Ford makes that leap. If he does, we’ll see if Ambrose continues to insist that those kinds of voices are welcome in the party or not.