Tag Archives: CSE

Roundup: Pushing back against Leitch

Posted on by

In the wake of Wednesday’s Conservative leadership “debate” – and I use the term loosely because there was no actual debate, just presentations sans Power Point – the wedge that Kellie Leitch has been nursing in her campaign became all the more stark. While Michael Chong may have been first out of the gate with his condemnation, Deepak Obhrai has used it to crank his campaign up a notch yesterday, with both an appeal for support in order to oppose Leitch specifically, and also told tales about messages he’s received from Leitch supporters telling him to leave the country.

At one point during the presentations on Wednesday, Leitch held up a book Points of Entry from sociologist Victor Satzewich to justify her screening proposals. The problem? That Satzewich’s conclusions in the book were the opposite of hers, that the system was working, that demanding more face-to-face interviews for all visa applications would make the system grind to a halt, and that while he went into the research sceptical, his research convinced him that things were better than he had initially surmised. So that’s kind of embarrassing for Leitch (or would be if she had any demonstrated capacity for shame, which I’m not convinced is the case).

Meanwhile Leitch, whose other Trumpian note has been to rail against “elites” – as though she were not the epitome of one – has been holding fundraisers in Toronto with Bay Street lawyers for $500 a pop. You know, more of those elites which she’s totally not one of. Also, if she’s so convinced that she’s going to be Prime Minister by 2019, isn’t this some kind of ethical conflict for her to be holding these kinds of cash-for-access fundraisers?

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few more partial concessions

Posted on by

I’m about at the end of my patience with stories about moving expenses, just as news comes down that two more senior ministerial staffers have offered to partially reimburse their own expenses. This while we continue the smarmy remarks by the Conservatives who can’t decide if the perpetrators are cronies or millionaire BFFs, and the NDP perch on their sanctimony, and pundits across the nation clutch their pearls about how it doesn’t actually matter that all of these expenses were within the rules, that it’s all a matter of perception (which they incidentally are fuelling by the way in which these stories and columns are framed). Indeed, we have moralising columns mentioning entitlement, corruption, and how this puts things back on a “war footing.”

About the only salient bit of analysis that has been Robyn Urback’s (otherwise sarcastic) look at the Liberal damage control strategy pattern, which tends to be “ignore, defend, project, concede partial defeat.” And we did see elements of all of these, including the final two simultaneously as they not only had the partial concession of the repayments, but also the projection of looking at similar expenses within the Harper PMO, which they obviously spent Thursday night digging up from PCO records. And let’s be honest – as her first test, Bardish Chagger didn’t do much to help her cause when she would try to deflect with protestations that they were trying to help the middle class or building a strong team. (I will add that it may have been unfair for We The Media to castigate Trudeau for not giving the names of who the staffers were, given privacy considerations).

There was plenty of evidence or fact that Chagger could have used, from being more specific in pointing out the policies, or contextualising them as being a reflection of policies collectively negotiated with senior public servants (where changing policies could affect them), and most especially when the Conservatives were making cheap shots about the “personalised cash payments,” noting what those referred to precisely, which is not a payment in a brown envelope.

But no, we didn’t get that, and instead of having a discussion based on fact, we got pabulum, and it feeds into this ugly and petty narrative that We The Media love to perpetuate, where we must reflect a nation that is so cheap that we must be mean-spirited about it (and I deeply suspect is part of our collective tendency toward tall poppy syndrome). I defy you find a single person who wouldn’t claim moving expenses that they were legitimately entitled to. But instead, I’m getting people barking at me over the Twitter Machine that these staffers should be volunteers, and that it’s some kind of awful crime that they get reasonably well compensated for doing a damned difficult job that most people wouldn’t want to go anywhere near. This is the kind of nonsense that we shouldn’t be feeding, and yet we can’t help ourselves because cheap outrage is such a quick and easy high, but like most highs, it leaves us empty and worse off in the long run.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An imaginary crisis

Posted on by

The summer hearings of the electoral reform committee have ended, and now they move to cross-country hearings before they begin their deliberations. The optimistic among them think they can achieve consensus. The remarkably optimistic insist that it’s going to be some form of proportional representation. And the Conservatives say that any consensus would be contingent upon a referendum, while some Liberals say that if they can get consensus there would be no need for one. So, with any luck, that means it’ll all go down in flames. That said, there was still more eye-rolling testimony yesterday that should be commented upon.

There’s this existential drama going on where a Liberal MP on the committee noted that they’re not in a crisis situation, so is this the best time to have the debate, and Elizabeth May, true to form, prompts a witness to say that we should change the system now before there’s a crisis. But what crisis are we talking about?

This I can’t figure out. We’ve had 149 years post-Confederation of free and fair elections, and reasonably good governance, and do I keep needing to remind everyone that the system isn’t broken? Because it’s not. And people who tend to talk “crisis” have been the ones from whom that crisis is that the party they favour didn’t win. “Oh, but Stephen Harper!” the exclaim. To which I remind them that he wasn’t a Bond villain. Yes, he bent the rules of Parliament to their breaking point, but that had absolutely nothing to do with our electoral system and everything to do with all of the other tinkering that we’ve done to our system in the name of making things “more democratic,” like changing the way we select leaders. Harper had a “democratic mandate” from his party members, the cachet of having united the party, and an immense amount of goodwill among the party members for that. But he was also unchallenged by his own party members for his going too far and his excesses because the party members let him, in large part because of civic illiteracy on their part in not knowing they had agency enough to push back, and their accountability measures having been weakened by successive generations of ways in which people tinkered with the system. This whole electoral reform exercise is just tinkering with the system on a more massive scale, and I have zero confidence that things will end up better because (to quote Colby Cosh), it’s a contrived moral panic over a solution in search of a problem. There is no crisis. There will not be a crisis, and it will certainly not be over the perceived legitimacy of a so-called “false majority” (which doesn’t exist because it’s a sore loser term to try to make a Thing out of a logical fallacy). The crisis is one of civic literacy – not the electoral system. Attempts to cast it as such are disingenuous in the extreme.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important disavowal

Posted on by

Oh, hey – the author of a study on ranked ballots that relied on survey data from the last election has admitted that it wasn’t really a good study because the behaviours of voters would be different using a different ballot system. Gosh, you think? This is the same study and survey data that people have been citing in the blind panic that “OMG it will be first-past-the-post on steroids so obviously the Liberals want it!” because somehow it would give the Liberals 205 seats, based on that singular poll about second choices in the last election. It ignores that the selling feature of a ranked ballot – other than ensuring that a winner will always have more than 50 percent of the vote (no matter that you need to keep redistributing votes until you reach it) is that it eliminates the need for strategic voting, and in Australia it has given the Green and other minor parties a few seats of their own in the House of Representatives, plus allowed their National Party to remain independent of the Liberal (read: conservative) Party. Considering that they have largely relied on coalitions in the last few parliaments has shown that it’s not just geared toward majoritarianism, the way that people have been freaking out about in Canada. That said, why this particular study was allowed to stand considering its obvious design flaw is a bit galling, and this walking back from the results should have come much sooner rather than this committee hearing after months and months of false and misleading media stories proclaiming that ranked ballots would exacerbate the “distortions” of the current system, which have poisoned the well when it comes to having a reasoned discussion on the various systems that are out there. (Note: Those distortions are not real but a result of misreading the results based on a logical fallacy. Also note that I am not actually a proponent of ranked ballots, merely of proper and informed debate on electoral reform, which we have not been getting).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Corrosive myths about mandates

Posted on by

It’s official – Theresa May is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thanks to being selected by her party caucus, and thanks to her rival dropping out (after a spectacular media implosion) and she was left with no rival to take to the party membership. (See her first speech here). But that has already started the general nonsense about her being “unelected” or not having a “mandate,” all of which is complete and utter nonsense, as though anyone making those claims doesn’t understand how the Westminster system works – and yes, I’m looking at you, CBC, who used the term in your reporting on her being appointed by the Queen yesterday to the job.

One of the most incomprehensible piece on the subject so far was published in the Guardian, written by Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who seems to be utterly mystified with the way that governments are formed in our shared system of government, or the fact that we don’t elect prime ministers. (He also advocated a bunch of proportional representation nonsense, which didn’t help his arguments any either). Now, while it’s likely that the whole piece was simply his attempt at trolling for the government to call a general election (somehow bypassing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act as though it were no big deal), hoping to reverse their devastating losses from the previous election while running on a pro-Remain ticket, it’s nevertheless shocking just how civically illiterate the leader of a major political party is in print.

There was a great rebuttal to Farron’s nonsense by Robert Hazell, which offers some clarity on the way that Westminster parliaments work, but he makes the very salient point that all of this talk about needing a democratic mandate “has a corrosive effect on public understanding of our parliamentary system, and on legitimacy and trust in government.” And he’s absolutely right, which is why I am especially outraged that media outlets like the CBC are repeating this bilge rather than reporting on our shared system of government as it exists and how it’s supposed to work. Civic literacy should not be a high bar to clear when it comes to reporting on politics, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: About the Fiscal Monitor…

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to meet Prince Harry and launch the countdown to next year’s Invictus Games, the rest of Parliament was getting down to business. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk and raised the surplus figures in the Fiscal Monitor. Bill Morneau said that the department continues to tell him that the year will still end in deficit, but those figures won’t be available until September. Ambrose worried that Canadians can’t trust him if he ignores basic facts, to which Morneau gave some bland praise for their fiscal programme for the middle class. Ambrose then repeated her first question in French, and got the same answer from Morneau in French. Denis Lebel got up next, and asked the very same question, and got the very same answer. Lebel closed with a question about support for the forestry industry, to which Kim Rudd read some praise for the sector as part of the government’s commitment to innovation. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP, decrying that the government wasn’t bailing out Bombardier. Navdeep Bains insisted that the government understood the importance of the sector, and that they were trying to set it up for success in the long-term. Boutin-Sweet then decried the loss of jobs inherent in Bill C-10, for which Marc Garneau insisted that the bill mandated jobs be in three province, and said the bill would clarify the law to prevent future lawsuits. Nathan Cullen was up next, demanding a legislated tanker ban on the North Coast of BC. Garneau said that he was in the midst of working on this with his cabinet and provincial colleagues. Cullen railed about the issue further, and Garneau repeated his answer in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No appetite for back pay

Posted on by

With parliament resuming this week, all attention is on whether or not Senator Mike Duffy will resume his duties. After all, there have been a few signs of activity in his office, with computers being updated and such, but there remains a question as to whether his health will allow it, but we’ll see. As for the question as to whether he will be getting any back pay for his time suspended without it, well, senior senators are not so keen. In fact, the phrase “no appetite” is continually used, and they are quick to point to the fact that the Senate’s internal discipline – which the suspension was part of – was based on the Deloitte audits and not criminal findings of guilt or innocence, thus his acquittal by the courts makes it largely an irrelevant issue as far as they’re concerned. I would also add that should Duffy decide to press the issue, well, there are a few well-placed senators who around this issue who are known to leak things to the media, and who will undoubtedly start doing so about any other skeletons in Duffy’s closet that they are aware of. Meanwhile, there remain questions back in PEI about whether Duffy remains qualified to represent the province, as there is still a level of distrust that he is actually a resident (and given that it sounds like he spent the bulk of his time on suspension in Ottawa, well, that doesn’t help matters much). Meanwhile, some Conservative senators are grousing a little bit that Senator Peter Harder isn’t really providing much in the way of answers during regular Senate QP (as opposed to ministerial versions thereof). I think they’re being a bit unfair, considering that he’s been on the job only a couple of weeks and hasn’t yet staffed up his office, nor really had a chance to get proper briefings from the Privy Council Office (because yes, he has been sworn into the Privy Council to take on this job, making him a quasi-minister) on the files that he is likely to be asked about, or had much in the way of a briefing binder prepared, but it does put him on notice that they do expect him to step up his game in the role of “government representative,” particularly when it comes to being the conduit for holding the government to account. These are things that are important, especially as there are no opposition voices in the Commons from Atlantic Canada or the GTA, making the Senate’s role in asking those questions all the more important.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Party accountability sacrificed for Big Data

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau is encouraging his party to adopt a new constitutional structure, and I am completely aghast at the way in which he proposes to essentially blow up the way parties work in this country for under the banner of “modernization.” And even worse, that he denigrates the existing system as being somehow elitist if people hold party memberships. No, seriously. Paying $10 to get buy-in to the party membership is “elitist.” My head is exploding right now. As with the way the Liberals blew up their leadership selection process to absolutely obliterate any trace of accountability, they are moving to the exact same thing with their party policy process, and shifting to a Big Data approach that eliminates any incentive for the meaningful participation in the process that our system is built around. And let’s not kid ourselves either – for their last leadership race, the Liberals destroyed the line of accountability to the leader in order to populate their database. Now they want to put that process on steroids in the name of making the party – err, sorry, “movement” – wide-open. Anyone can participate! So long as they can collect all kinds of data on you in order to target and craft messages and fundraising appeals rather than have you be an engaged citizen. Remember that there is far more to the political process in this country than just showing up to vote every few years, despite what you may think. The process actually involves people getting involved with the party, buying memberships, attending meetings, talking about and developing policy positions that then get voted on and forwarded to policy conventions, where they are then discussed by delegates from across the country and voted on, and once adopted, form the basis of the party platform. That is real people engaging in the process. Granted, this has been made much more problematic the more we increasingly presidentialise our party leadership systems in this country – again, spearheaded by the Liberals in 1919 with delegated conventions, and culminating in the way that Trudeau was elected in 2013, so that leaders amassed so much power that they began dictating what the election platform was going to be, policy resolutions be damned. And to whom is that leader accountable? It used to be caucus when they selected a leader, then it was to the party members, who were a somewhat nebulous group but they still existed and could hold reviews. But now? When anyone can vote for the leader, he or she is accountable to nobody, with an increasing amount of power under the rubric of a “democratic mandate.” By blowing up the policy process, where does that leave the membership? Or can we even call them that anymore since they no longer have buy-in to the party? If the process becomes technology driven – as this Big Data approach suggests – then what happens to riding associations, to volunteers, to the people who engage in the process from the grassroots? Do we simply adopt a slactivist approach that the leader’s office drives? Rather than encourage more people to join the party, to get involved, to do the hard work that won them the election – how do you think all of those doors got knocked on? – this starts to take that human element out of it in favour of a charismatic leader’s direction. It’s not that the system wasn’t working as it stands – it was. The problem goes back to civic literacy. We’re not taught in schools that the fundamental part of engaging in the political process is to join a party. Parties haven’t exactly been great at reaching out to teach people this either, because their membership drives focus on nomination races or leadership contests rather than hey, here’s a way for you to get involved in how this country runs. And wide-open approaches haven’t worked for the Green Party, with their wiki-style policy platform (which, remember, got somewhat hijacked by Men’s Rights Advocates and was exposed as such during the election), so why are the Liberals getting on board? To populate their database. It’s cynical, and it’s destructive to the way that our Westminster system works. But hey, it’s modern, so let’s climb aboard without thinking about it!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expenses arbitration comes back

Posted on by

At long last, former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie’s report on his arbitration of Senate expenses was released yesterday, and it should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that the amounts that many of those senators owed was slashed by a considerable amount. (For others, not so much, but we’ll get to that in a moment). Why? Because in the course of his audit, the Auditor General and his staff made a series of value judgments as part of their report, particularly in instances where senators added personal businesses to Senate-related travel, or when spouses travelled with them. Binnie re-evaluated those claims with more information and a broader mindset and found that indeed, many of those claims were actually reasonable, and he let them go through, cutting the demanded repayments significantly in many cases. In other cases, notably Senator Colin Kenny, he remained unconvinced and ordered them to make their repayments with little or no reductions in the amounts owing. After saying that he wasn’t hired to look into motives of these Senators, he did admit that he felt that for the most part, nobody was actively trying to game the system, but that there were some disagreements in how rules were applied. An interesting turn of events is the fact that Senator Dagenais plans to launch a complaint against the AG for the way in which the audit was conducted, which has most pundits and journalists aghast, because they like to think that the AG can do no wrong (when that is obviously not the case, particularly if one starts digging into some of the value judgments made in the Senate audit). The AG’s response to Binnie’s report was that he thinks that the Senate still needs to follow up on all of his recommendations, including the external oversight body, but I will again raise the point that an external body is a violation of parliamentary privilege, and that the institution needs to be self-governing. This is not a technocracy, and the suggestions by some of an audit committee that is still majority Senate-controlled is a far more acceptable solution. The other bit of interest was the way in which he, intentionally or otherwise, blew holes in the defence offered by Mike Duffy’s lawyers, that the Senate was this lawless and inscrutable place that would have anyone confused. Nonsense, said Binnie – there were rules that mostly required a bit of common sense in their application. One wonders if this is something that Justice Vaillancourt will take note of as he deliberates on Duffy’s fate.

Continue reading →