A great many things have been said about Senate independence of late, and most of them wrong. Stephen Harper stood up in the House last week to say that the Senate is independent, otherwise those three Senators would be out of a job. This is mostly true. Evan Solomon crowed loudly that the Duffy emails about Marjory LeBreton’s office coordinating with the PMO “shattered the myth” of Senate independence. That is largely untrue. Senator James Cowan, the Liberal leader in the Senate, told Don Martin last week that he doesn’t take direction from Justin Trudeau, but they do consult – which is actually more the model of how things should be run. But the underlying issue is that currently there is a problem with the independence of the Upper Chamber, but the bulk of the responsibility for this lies at the feet of Stephen Harper.
Tag Archives: Civic Literacy
Roundup: Condemning Trudeau for the government’s own programme
The Conservatives are trying to push the narrative that the Liberals don’t have an economic agenda but just want to push pot. As “proof,” they point to the fact that Trudeau’s chief financial officer and senior advisor, Chuck Rifici, plans to open a medical marijuana operation in rural Ontario. You know, under a programme that the Conservatives designed and implemented. When this was pointed out to Blaney’s office, they simply responded with “The statement speaks for itself.” Um, okay. Never mind that the community getting this new operation – which is RCMP approved – will see jobs being created. You know, jobs that this government keeps talking about. And it’s a $1.3 billion industry that’s good for the economy! But – but, Justin Trudeau! (The cognitive dissonance – it burns!)
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Fair Vote Canada’s intellectually bankrupt “evidence-based” argument
Our good friends at Fair Vote Canada have decided to adopt the new buzz-word of “evidence-based” as part of their new campaign for electoral reform. The “evidence” in this case is the summary of study by Arend Lijphart that compares thirty-six democracies. Immediately, this should be a red flag right there – comparing democracies that use different models of governance is pretty much like comparing apples, grapefruits, bananas and goats – which this study pretty much confirms. The study also glosses over actual substantive issues like responsibility and accountability in favour of focusing on the act of voting itself. This is not a surprise given the particular ideological bent of Fair Vote Canada, for whom it’s the act of voting that is important, rather than what the vote means, and how that act works in the broader context of the system as a whole.
Roundup: A refresher course in open nominations
Nomination races are the backbone of our democratic system, yet are probably the least understood component – thanks of course to a pretty shite job of civic education in this country that does little to teach people about it. And as Alice Funke of Pundit’s Guide points out, we’ve been out of the habit of proper open nomination races in this country since about 2004 (blame the period of minority governments and the need to be “election ready” that protected incumbents), which means that these particular democratic muscles in the Canadian electorate have become pretty flabby. Fortunately, she’s penned a fantastic guide about getting back into shape, which everyone needs to read. And no, I’m not kidding – everyone needs to read this. Okay? Good.
Roundup: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.
Roundup: A routine and legitimate prorogation
While in Whitehorse yesterday, Stephen Harper made it official – Parliament will be prorogued, and come back in October. Not sure when yet in October (though the Hill Times is saying October 21st), at which point they can return with a Speech From the Throne, and a reset of their agenda – which, let’s face it, they badly need by this point as they’ve pretty much exhausted their plans previously. Now, before you start getting angry about prorogation, remember that this is the kind of routine, normal agenda-resetting prorogations that are normal and as indicated, even necessary in the life of a parliament. It’s not being done to avoid a confidence vote, or otherwise thwart the will of the House, so put the placards away. Here, Kady O’Malley has three reasons not to freak out over this prorogation. Are we good? Apparently not, since the opposition parties are now going with the rallying cry that Harper is avoiding accountability for the Senate scandals in Parliament, and so on. Um, okay – I’m not exactly sure how much he could actually answer regarding those Senate spending issues since the Ministry doesn’t control the Senate and can’t actually answer for them under the rubric of ministerial responsibility that governs QP, and they’ve already pretty much hashed out the Wright/Duffy revelations to death, so I’m not exactly sure what “accountability” we’re missing out on. But hey, don’t let the facts spoil a good narrative. Oh, and Harper also said that he has no plans to retire anytime soon and will lead the party in the next election, so there’s that for all the pundits who’ve spent the summer theorising otherwise.
The selective myopia of Senate punditry
Since the Senate spending scandal broke out, there has been no shortage of opinions that something must be done about the Upper Chamber. Weak sauce news pieces quote polls that cite “support for reform or abolition,” as though they were interchangeable, or that there was but a single model for reform. People advocating for reform do so without the benefit of actually thinking about the end product that they’re trying to achieve, focusing instead on the inputs – generally in terms of elections and term limits – without looking at the consequences of how those changes will play out, as though elections won’t be a recipe for increased partisanship and gridlock. Abolitionists, meanwhile, throw out facile arguments, be it around cost, or “accountability,” and hope to stoke enough outrage in the population to get their way.
Roundup: Knee-jerk populist stunts
The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has decided to lump themselves in with the group of civic illiterates who operate under the mistaken impression that a national referendum is a constitutional amending formula. In this case, they used a giant inflatable Mike Duffy to launch their lobby campaign for a referendum on Senate abolition. In other words, they want to spend a great deal of tax dollars for a useless, non-binding process that is little more than a case of populist knee-jerk reaction to the bad behaviour of a small number of individuals. How exactly this seems to fit in with their mandate of eliminating government waste is a little beyond me, especially considering that the Senate delivers a great deal of value for money – not that knee-jerk populists actually know enough about the institution to realise it.
Roundup: The AG and the power of compliance
While Transport Canada went on record stating that three of the deficient areas found by previous audits were going to be rectified within a specified timeframe that had to do with an “extension” granted by the Auditor General’s office, the AG’s office said that they’re not in any position to grant any extensions because they don’t have enforcement mechanisms – it’s all Transport Canada’s responsibility to ensure compliance. So, yeah. Well done Transport. Elsewhere, Maclean’s has breakfast with the president of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, where he sort of clarifies some of his comments from the previous day.