Tag Archives: Access to Information

Roundup: A precipitous climbdown

Posted on by

In an attempt to head off a day full of useless circular discussion around the process of the electoral reform discussion, the Liberals offered an epic climbdown and accepted the NDP’s gamed committee configuration, giving up their perfectly legitimate committee control and then patting themselves on the back for looking reasonable for backing down. Trudeau went so far as to say that they felt like they were looking too much like the previous Conservative government, and decided to take a different tone, with all of the usual platitudes about working together and cooperation and so on. Which is a nice sentiment, and they get all of these plaudits for looking reasonable and like grown-ups, but I wonder if they haven’t given up their ability to put their foot down in the future when they need to, lest the process spin out of control, as these things are wont to do. Nevertheless, I will reiterate that this is not any kind of reasonable compromise. In fact, there are a few reactions that sum up my feelings pretty well.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/738384990463918081

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/738409956865642496

And Hiltz is bang on. The Liberals have walked into the NDP’s trap, and this whole process, already a gong show, has just become an even bigger one. The Conservatives are completely apoplectic with outrage, claiming that there was a “backroom deal” to get this deal (when that really doesn’t seem to be the case if you look at how it was unveiled and how the NDP were just as surprised by it). So while the howls for a referendum will continue, and the bogus “proportional” arguments will ring through the back-patting on this whole sordid affair, I will just reiterate this particular sentiment.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day talking in circles

Posted on by

We’re in for yet another round of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the subject of the electoral reform process, and this time it’s from the NDP who are moving a supply day motion to try and get the proposed parliamentary committee to reflect their particular gamed composition rather than a composition that reflects the House of Commons – which, I will remind you, was elected entirely fairly and correctly under how our system is supposed to operate, where we elect individual seats in separate and simultaneous elections. Demands that the committee should reflect the popular vote ignore the facts that a) the popular vote is a logical fallacy that does not actually exist since there were 338 separate elections and not just one, and b) the composition that the NDP are demanding is not actually proportional to the “popular vote,” as they are giving the Bloc and the Green Party an oversized share of the seats and votes. And rather than just thirty minutes of this endless repetition as we might hear in QP, no, it will be the whole day in the Commons, minus one hour for private members’ business. And we’ll be subjected to the sanctimonious speeches of the NDP (of which they will read the same speech in English and French ad nauseum, only changing the riding names mentioned), followed by baying from the Conservatives that what we really need is a referendum, and the odd interjection from Elizabeth May that she deserves a vote on the committee and that no, we don’t need a referendum because it’s not a constitutional issue (except that certain kinds of electoral reform are actually constitutional issues, albeit likely with the simplest amending formula). And then there are the Liberals, where we’ll get some of the usual saccharine from Maryam Monsef, some sharper rebukes from Mark Holland, and the odd backbencher repeating the talking points about Canadians demanding a change to the system. There won’t be any substantive issues discussed, and while I will be the first to say that yes, process is important, so long as each side tries to game the process to fit their own purposes, we’ll just keep talking in circles and go nowhere. Which, really, is where this discussion should go and we should instead invest in a programme of civic literacy instead so that people can actually learn how the system works. But in the absence of that, I’m ready to declare that we should nuke the whole thing from orbit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Aftermath of The Elbowing

Posted on by

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.

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just a normal backbench function

Posted on by

There are days when I wonder if the cynicism among reporters isn’t the bigger problem facing Ottawa as we get yet another incredulous piece talking about how backbench Liberal MPs are openly voting against their own party, and how incredible is that? One MP went so far as to say that the Prime Minister himself told his caucus that the media was going to have to get used to the fact that MPs would disagree with him from time to time. And lo and behold, it continues to be treated as both a novelty and an aberration that backbenchers will stand up to government. We had commentary on one of the lesser weekend panel shows yesterday that was some pundit or other incredulous that there were MPs disagreeing with the leader, apparently because there weren’t enough goodies like cabinet posts or committee chairs to go around, and I can’t even.

Meanwhile, we have interviews with the government whip about how he’s going to manage all of these free votes on things (which was fairly constructive, to be honest, as he talked about having copies of the bill at hand and lists of people he could direct MPs to talk about with their concerns). It’s helpful, but needs more reminding that hey, it’s actually a backbencher’s job to hold their own government to account as much as it is the opposition’s. Now, if we could just get them to start asking some real questions in QP instead of throwing these suck-up softballs, that would be really great. Oh, and while I’m on the topic of journalists and pundits acting all surprised that MPs are doing their jobs, can we also stop this faux-confusion about how things are working in the Senate with “independents” and “independent Liberals”? Because honestly, if you haven’t gotten the memo that Senate Liberals are not part of the national Liberal caucus, and that they simply chose to continue to call themselves Liberals because the Rules of the Senate say that a caucus needs to have an association with a registered federal political party, then you really need to get with the programme. Stop saying that things are confusing when they’re not. You’re not helping the public – you’re just making things worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rare apology

Posted on by

A trio of Justin Trudeau-related items in the news today, which makes me want to look at them together. The first incident of note was actually last in chronological order, but to me it seemed most significant, which is the fact that during Question Period yesterday, Trudeau stood up and apologised for having told reporters on Wednesday that opposition party obstruction was to blame for why a committee on electoral reform was not yet up and running, and pledged that he was still serious about the topic. I’m not sure that we ever saw Stephen Harper apologise, nor would we ever see it because that was a man who was not only determined to always be seen to be right, but he also had a particularly obstinate streak that made him dig his heels in rather than be proven to be wrong. Most often this was around the inappropriate behaviours of cabinet ministers, and rather than have them step down over wrongdoing, Harper would keep them in position well past the time that the heat was on them, and only shuffle them once the attention was elsewhere so it didn’t look like he was capitulating to demands of the reporters. Trudeau on the other hand owned up to what he had said, apologised, promised to do better, and even applauded when the MP who called him out made a slightly clever dig about it in his follow-up question. It was a show of humility and accountability that we are unused to seeing here. The second incident of note was after his speech on Fort McMurray at the start of the day, during Statements by Ministers (a practice in Routine Proceedings that the Conservatives had virtually allowed to fall into complete disuse). Rona Ambrose rose to give remarks in reply, and got emotional during it, and once she finished speaking, Trudeau was quick to cross the aisle to give her a quick hug – again, something that cold fish Harper was loathe to do, and only once gave awkward hugs around speeches related to either an MP’s passing or the attack on Parliament Hill (I forget which and tried to find a reference but couldn’t – forgive me). Trudeau remains a master of the humanizing gesture that helps to civilise politics in a way that we have become unused to after a decade of angry sound and fury. The third item of note had to do with a point of order raised after QP, when Blake Richards accused Trudeau of sticking his tongue out during a question raised by Diane Watts about P3 projects. Nobody but Richards seems to have witnessed this, but we do know that Trudeau does occasionally possess an irreverent side. Did he stick his tongue out? Maybe. Is it the end of the world if he did? Hardly, and in the theatrics of QP, it’s a bit tiresome but does raise the spectre of the “fuddle duddle” incident, if only less profane.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsible, not rogue

Posted on by

A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.

One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Minimizing blame

Posted on by

The NDP’s election debrief has been released just days before their big policy convention, in which Thomas Mulcair will need to convince delegates there to let him stay on the job. Little of what was in the report was new, other than name-checking all of the various internal bodies, committees and commissions who were consulted and who have work ahead of them. There were a couple of things that did stand out for me, however. The big one was about communication:

There were many frustrations shared about our internal communications during the campaign. Members, particularly local campaign managers, felt that the reporting from the ground had no effect on the strategic decision-making happening in the central campaign. What was being felt door-to-door was not being communicated, being miscommunicated, or went unheard. Members feel this impeded the ability of the central campaign to shift strategy when necessary.

The party has centralised a whole lot since 2011, and that was certainly reflected. That said, with everyone in the report saying that their local campaigns went great, it does smack a little bit of buck-passing to the central campaign. There were a few other points raised, such as the lack of a Quebec-specific offer, that they were not nimble enough in reacting to attacks from other parties, and that they didn’t adequately prepare for the niqab debate (but everyone was proud of their principled position, which confuses me a bit since the position wound up being that this was a court decision rather than the fact that we don’t tell women what to war in Canada). Glaringly absent in the report was the share of blame placed on Mulcair. In fact, he was barely mentioned at all. This was the closest it got:

We heard disappointment from members who felt that decisions about the strategy employed in the debates led to a situation in which our leader’s full capabilities — as demonstrated in the House of Commons over the previous years — were not on display. Across the country, we heard that our party activists did not understand why we refused to participate in some national debates.

While he wrote the big mea culpa letter taking responsibility, that’s not reflected in their actual debrief, which makes me a bit suspicious. And let’s face it – he had a big part in that, from his demeanour, to his inept slogan of “good, competent public administration,” to his poor debate performance, to the fact that his lack of the same kind of charisma that Trudeau exhibited did weigh in on people’s decisions. I’m left to wonder if the fact that they didn’t include criticisms of his performance in the report because it goes against the party’s solidarity mindset, or if it’s a kind of whitewashing of the record in advance of the leadership review vote. Suffice to say, it doesn’t make the report feel as forthcoming as it could or should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and the line of accountability

Posted on by

The punditariat continues to lose their minds over Senate independence, and I’m almost at the point of exasperation with it. After years – decades – of hand-wringing about how senators aren’t independent enough to do their jobs of sober second thought, we are suddenly overcome with hand-wringing about them being too independent and the government being unable to pass legislation (as though the opposition having a Senate majority has never happened in our country’s history before…oh, wait). It’s kind of like how We The Media keep demanding MPs be independent and vote for their constituents’ wishes and so on, and yet the moment one of them shows a little bit of backbone, we thunder that the leader is losing control of his or her caucus. Because that’s helpful. And so, Campbell Clark bemoans that poor Peter Harder doesn’t have any levers of power in the Senate to do Trudeau’s bidding, and lo, he may not even have much of an office budget either (though he can always ask the Internal Economy to increase it – this is not something that is set in stone for all time). Add to that, Clark worries that all of those new independent senators are going to have to find some new process of working things out – completely ignoring that they have already started getting that ball rolling with the Independent Working Group. It’s like he hasn’t paid attention to what is actually going on there and has been going on for the past several weeks. Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at André Pratte’s history and notes his differences with Trudeau’s philosophy, then bemoans that with all of those incoming senators, that the party leader won’t be responsible for their behaviour as they once might have been. And what is Hébert ignoring? Only the most fundamental principle in Canadian democracy – Responsible Government. Trudeau will be responsible to voters for the conduct of his appointees, whether he can whip them or not. That is a fundamental tenet of our system. If he makes a bunch of dud appointments, then guess what – voters can have their say, just as they had their say with Harper after the extent of the ClusterDuff business came out in court. This is a basic concept, and it’s disappointing that a long-time observer of Canadian politics has to be reminded of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pipeline drama queens

Posted on by

It really doesn’t take much to set Brad Wall off these days, and in ways that are both a bit unseemly and frankly nonsensical, and really, really unhelpful in the long run. Yesterday is was Quebec’s environment minister filing a court injunction related to Energy East, but unlike what everyone was up in arms about, it wasn’t to block the pipeline – he made several assurances that he had no opinion on it. Rather, he wanted TransCanada to submit paperwork with the Quebec government for their own environmental process, and TransCanada has thus far said no. It remains to be seen if Quebec’s position holds legal water (there was a precedent in BC that may or may not apply), but from the apoplexy coming from the likes of Brad Wall or Brian Jean in Alberta, you’d think Quebec had declared the project dead on arrival. Except they didn’t. Rachel Notley kept a level head saying she knows it’s not a veto, so she’s keeping her guns holstered. Justin Trudeau said he understands the province’s desire to get social license for the project, but listening to conservatives, both federal and provincial, you would have thought that those terrible lefties had put a stake in the heart of the oil industry. In fact, it’s the opposite of helpful when they are quick to declare a crisis of national unity when really, it’s Brad Wall fighting an election, and the Federal Conservatives and Wildrose party in Alberta trying to assert themselves into the debate in the most divisive way possible (and seriously, guys – that’s not how equalization works, so stop using it as a talking point). Suffice to say, everyone is acting like a bunch of petulant drama queens, demanding approvals to pipeline projects without actually going through the proper process, claiming that Trudeau politicized the process (err, except it was the Conservatives who changed the law so that Cabinet was given final sign-off on these projects, completely politicizing the process), and that if he doesn’t do things their way that he’s destroying the country. That’s a mature way to handle things, guys. Slow clap.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/704690026781786112

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/704691188327174144

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/704715206543482882

Continue reading →

Roundup: Application versus consultation

Posted on by

The head of the new Senate Appointment Advisory Board appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday, and has raised a few issues about this new process that are a bit troubling, which has to do with applications – rather, that there seems to be an emphasis on application rather than nominations arising out of consultations. In particular, the ability for people to apply for a seat on their own seems to be at odds with some of the design of the advisory process. Emmett Macfarlane notes that this wasn’t how he envisioned the process when he was asked to help design it, and that it not only overly bureaucratizes the process, but it sets it up for a particularly unsavoury sort to want to apply, which I concur with. Why is this important? Because we’ve only spent the past number of months watching the trial of a certain Mike Duffy, who was well known for wanting desperately to become a senator for decades, and how he viewed such an appointment as a “taskless thanks” which would also provide him with all manner of perquisites – and witness how he managed to monetize all of his relationships as a result of his appointment, as we’ve witnessed in testimony. We also lived though the bizarre spectacle that was Bert Brown, “elected” senator whose self-appointed crusade for Senate reform comprised largely of unsolicited meetings with provinces to convince them of his plan (on the Senate’s dime), and taking to the op-ed pages to basically call his detractors Nazis (I’m not sure how else you take it when he reminds you of his family’s military service in WWII as a rebuttal). Some of the best senators we’ve seen are those who never expected an appointment, and who never would have sought office on their own – people like Roméo Dallaire. It’s also why I’m not sold on the NDP fear that this process will just be elites nominating elites – a broad enough consultation will bring people of accomplishment and expertise in a wide variety of fields than just academia. But at the same time, the Senate should be a place that rewards experience and expertise rather than being a repository for randoms, given their role to scrutinise legislation and act as the country’s premier think tank. I have a hard time seeing how hot dog vendors can fulfil those roles, no matter how many people they interact with in a day.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695336557893431300

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695341816439136261

Continue reading →