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.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
Roundup: A refresher on the GG
With a minority government likely in the offing – possibly Conservative, possibly Liberal – we’re seeing a spate of new articles about post-electoral scenarios and the role of the Governor General. While some of them get it more or less right, (my own offering a couple of weeks ago here), into the middle of this, Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch sticks his nose in and starts making trouble of his usual sort – deliberately misconstruing the system to his own ends. And then, unfortunately, As It Happens picked it up and ran with it without someone credible to counter it. Fortunately, Philippe Lagassé was already ahead of that game earlier yesterday morning, followed by a smackdown of Conacher later in the evening. I’ll leave you to it.
Dear Democracy Watch: The GG is not there to do your bidding. #ResponsibleGovernment #civicliteracy #elxn42 pic.twitter.com/BDaybIvl9M
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 13, 2015
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653914291637198848
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653914770098290690
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653915706283659264
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653915926199410688
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653916331650252800
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653916666636713984
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653917027585916928
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653919426622943232
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653919762775437313
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/653920023229132800
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654124638788653056
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654124746611683328
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654124846054404096
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654124979273908224
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654125100501872641
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/654125513863098368
Roundup: Crafting an image
The National Post had an interesting feature looking at the construction of Justin Trudeau’s image over the course of this election, with his carefully chosen images like the boxing, or the canoeing, and so on. Of course, Trudeau had this set out since he began the leadership contest, with an official photographer who has followed him around everywhere since. And yes, there is a deliberate crafting of the image he has been putting forward – vital, positive, authentic, all chosen to look natural and not artificial. This is nothing new, and what the piece didn’t mention was that Stephen Harper has been busy doing the same thing for the past number of years. Harper has a team of photographers and videographers on staff who have similarly been engaged in crafting an image of Harper that he has been trying to build, albeit it’s one of him being leaderly but not glamorous or robust. Where the divergence has been is the way in which Harper has crafted this image to such a controlling extent that he has gradually been shutting out legitimate news media and photojournalists and then distributes handout photos from his own photographers instead. Which, as we know, is not journalism but stenopgraphy. It’s gotten to the point where he has been self-generating “news” videos (the 24/Seven series) in order to bypass the press. Trudeau, to his credit, has not yet begun engaging in this kind of behaviour, and has been far more open to media availabilities and photojournalism, where media cameras are at the same events where his photographer is. That remains an important distinction – sure, he may have some great shots as part of his campaign media, but the real media is still there too, and that’s an important distinction.
Roundup: Resurrecting the “barbaric” issue
Not content to ratchet up the niqab issue alone, the Conservatives decided yesterday to go full-on culture war, and dredge up their Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices legislation from the previous parliament, and not only tout what it does (almost all of which is duplicative and unnecessarily antagonistic), but they added the promise of setting up a “tip line” for when people suspect these “barbaric cultural practices” like child brides, polygamy or female genital mutilation are taking place. Never mind that there’s already a tip line in place – it’s called 911 – it seems ripe for reporting on neighbours as a general xenophobic policy that ties up police resources that are already stretched thin. While the Twitter lit up with an attempt to turn the #BarbaricCulturalPractices into an exercise in sarcasm, there are more serious issues underlying the Conservatives’ use of the word. Back when the bill was being debated, Senator Mobina Jaffer, herself a Muslim woman and a lawyer, utterly dismantled the bill from its use of the loaded term “barbaric” to its hypocrisy in targeting polygamy by foreigners but not the community of Bountiful in BC, to the way in which it actually denies the protection of those who were forced into marriages, to the way in which the government improperly uses the defence of “provocation” to try and make a point about honour killings. It’s a masterful bit of legislative scrutiny that deserves to be read again in light of what the Conservatives are trotting out for electoral gain, and in order to put the whole issue into proper context. (That it also demonstrates the value of the work that senators can do its an added bonus).
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/649992456377765889
Fighting in hockey. Circumcision. Seal-clubbing. Battery hens. Getting drunk at weddings. #BarbaricCulturalPractices
— David Reevely (@davidreevely) October 2, 2015
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/650004567241961472
Targeting small minority for harmless religious practice for political gain #BarbaricCulturalPractices
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 2, 2015
"We need to stand up for our values" eh, @MinChrisA ? I am–targeting minorities for electoral gain is not a Canadian value.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 2, 2015
Roundup: French debate, the first
So, the first French debate, and the only one where we’ll see five leaders all on the same stage. It wasn’t a dumpster fire, but it had its trying moments. Not twenty minutes into it, they got into the tiresome niqab debate, of which Justin Trudeau had the clearest and probably best statement, saying that we don’t accept it when men tell women what they can and can’t wear. There was also a ridiculous segment about the Senate, when it got compared to a vestige of our British colonial past (it’s not – the Senate of Canada is actually a wholly unique institution in the world), and Gilles Duceppe dropped the republican gauntlet in calling for an end to the monarchy, and saying an independent Quebec would do so. (Never mind that Quebec’s foundations are actually pro-monarchy, in part because it was the Quebec Act and Royal Proclamation that protected their language, culture and post-France turning the colony over to the British). Harper was pretty laid back in this debate, Mulcair easily nettled – particularly when Trudeau went after him on the bulk water exports issue. Trudeau was more evenly paced and not frantic this time around, Elizabeth May not overly memorable other than calling out the niqab debate as a distraction, and Gilles Duceppe, was as wily as a fox as ever. Here’s Kady O’Malley’s liveblog, while here’s the CBC recap. The Ottawa Citizen gathered four experts to react to the debate.
@journo_dale @stephenfgordon Either 6 or 8%. Been on a declining trend under Harper, if I recall .
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/647212971484033024
Why does nobody ever say: "We put all our eggs in the manufacturing basket. When manufacturing declined, look what we were left with?"
— Jen Gerson (@jengerson) September 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215818904743936
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/647215942712193024
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215943102271488
Roundup: Aspirational job targets
Stephen Harper’s election pledge du jour was a target of 1.3 million net new jobs by 2020, which sounds terribly impressive, but if you listen to the economists talk about it, there are a few caveats. Of course, we should note first that really, government’s don’t create jobs as such, but they can provide the environment that is conducive to investment and hiring. The question for Harper really is a) how many of these jobs would be created regardless of whatever you do, and b) what measures exactly are you proposing to create these jobs, considering that it’s becoming ever more clear that we’re moving into an era of really low growth. And no, just signing trade agreements isn’t enough, nor is just lowering taxes and calling it a day. The Conservatives asked Mike Moffatt and Kevin Milligan to check their figures, and both say that sure, it’s plausible – but it’s going to depend on strong global growth, immigration, and older workers staying in the workforce longer (as in not retiring). Mike Moffatt gives his analysis here, while Milligan (and others) have tweeted their comments.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646353978452668416
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646354120912187392
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646357137124257792
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646359832807649280
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646360403753041920
https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/646347682307411968
https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/646347416493363200
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355410262323200
I believe 1.3 million jobs by 2020 is achievable given increased labour force attachment by older workers. #elxn42
— Dr. Jack Mintz (@jackmintz) September 22, 2015
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355705893662720
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646360723707293697
Roundup: F-35s flare up again
Talk of the F-35 fighters dominated the discussion yesterday, with Harper going full-bore on trying to say that Trudeau was living on some other planet if he thought that pulling out of the F-35 programme wouldn’t “crater” the country’s aerospace industry, while Mulcair – a vocal critic of the F-35s for years – suddenly said they should stay in the competition process. Of course, it sounds increasingly like Harper is trying to indicate the F-35s are the government’s choice all along no matter the procurement process that they’re going through right now with great fanfare, while Mulcair sounds increasingly like Harper – something Trudeau probably doesn’t mind. As a reality check, there are no contracts to tear-up, because we haven’t signed or committed to anything. As well, there is no guarantee that Canada pulling out of the F-35s would damage our industry because those companies supplying parts for the aircraft were chosen for quality, and because we paid into the development process, but didn’t commit to buying the full craft itself. Not to mention, any other plane we would go with (say, the Super Hornets) would have the likelihood of as many if not more regional industrial benefits. (And while we’re on the subject of reality checks, the Liberals apparently really bungled their costing figures for the F-35s in their own backgrounders). As for how you can have an open competition but exclude the F-35s? I don’t think that’s rocket science – it seems pretty clear to me that you simply add the specification to the procurement process that it needs to have more than one engine. That would rule out the F-35 pretty effectively, no? Suffice to say, it’s a lot of sound and fury, and plenty of flashbacks to the last election where this was an issue. Paul Wells writes more about it, and how it positions the leaders.
open competition does not necessarily mean open to all. Ruling out the most expensive and most criticized is not necessarily problematic
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) September 21, 2015
Roundup: Niqab politics taking over
The politics of the niqab have slowly starting taking up a lot of oxygen on the election campaign, on a number of fronts. While people over the Twitter Machine tried to skew Harper’s “old stock Canadians” remark as some kind of racist or dog whistle politics (I’m not sure that interpretation makes sense given the context of what he was saying), the government has decided to crank their petulance around the attempted niqab ban up to eleven by declaring that they will ask the courts for a stay of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies case, essentially to deny the woman in question the right to vote. It’s going to be tough for them to convince the courts that there is some imminent danger if they allow her to take the oath before October 19th, much less convince the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case (and they almost certainly won’t, seeing as this is a fairly open-and-shut case of administrative law, where the minister overreached is authority to implement the ban). But while this pettiness digs in, the panic over the niqab has already begun to spread, with the Bloc launching an attack ad to warn that the NDP will mean pipelines and niqabs in Quebec, while an NDP candidate has stated that while Thomas Mulcair reopens the constitution to try and abolish the Senate (never going to happen), that he deal with the menace of niqabs at the same time. No, seriously. He added that he’s sure the party supports him on that, and as of posting time, the party has not repudiated the statement (much as they did not really repudiate it when Alexandre Boulerice made similar statements about banning niqabs earlier). Justin Trudeau, for his part, said he wouldn’t try to appeal the ban to the Supreme Court. So there’s that. Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey takes on the government’s attempted niqab ban, with her usual acid wit.
Roundup: Globe Debate debacle
The big “economic debate” was last night, hosted by the Globe and Mail, and well, it wasn’t exactly edifying on any account. The moderator was also commenting, he rushed segments so the leaders were alternating between slow points and rushing through, and then there was the shouting and the non sequiturs. And what non sequiturs they were – I’m not sure what C-51 had to do with taxation, but Thomas Mulcair brought it up anyway. Truth be told, much of the “debate” was leaders trying to go down their talking point and catchphrase checklists. Alas. Kady O’Malley offers advice for future single-issue debates, while Drake Fenton gives an ode to the moderator’s bell/egg timer. Reaction from the Citizen’s pundit panel, Paul Wells, and Micheal Den Tandt.
1/2 Incredible. The Prime Minister of my country just stooped to panic incitement in the matter of Syrian refugees. He actually said this:
— Terry Glavin 格立文 (@TerryGlavin) September 18, 2015
2/2 Trudeau & Mulcair "throwing open our borders. . .literally hundreds of thousands of people coming without any kind of security check."
— Terry Glavin 格立文 (@TerryGlavin) September 18, 2015
It's over. I think Daria speaks for the lot of us. #globedebate pic.twitter.com/PBIutnx0Z8
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 18, 2015
Roundup: No, Chong’s bill won’t give us Australian leadership spills
News of the leadership spill in Australia, ousting Tony Abbott as prime minister and ending the greatest political bromance of the Commonwealth countries (Harper and Abbott were quite the mutual admiration society), we were suddenly inundated with Twitter musings about whether that could happen in Canada, thanks to Michael Chong’s Reform Act which passed this summer. While Kady O’Malley offers the “in theory” answer, the in practice answer is that no, it couldn’t happen here, because Canada has a terrible system of leadership selection that purports to “democratise” the system with grassroots involvement, but instead created an unaccountable and presidentialised system of an overly powerful leader that has little fear of their caucus turning on them, because caucus didn’t select them. When it comes to removal, selection matters. A lot. Chong’s bill, perversely, makes an Australian situation less likely by raising the bar for leadership challenges to happen in the first place, and would instead give us situations like what happened in Manitoba where a sitting leader was challenged, and when it went to a leadership process where he still participated and won based on the grassroots support when his caucus was no longer behind him, well, it’s ugly and it’s down right unparliamentary given that a leader needs to have the confidence of his or her caucus, and when they don’t but stay in based on grassroots votes, the system breaks down. Paul Wells cautions that reforming a system usually replaces real or perceive problems with different problems, while Andrew Coyne points out that being able to dump a bad leader quickly is the lesser evil of being stuck with them.