Tag Archives: Ethics

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: Postcards for values

Posted on by

Yesterday the National Post reported that the government is planning on sending a postcard to every household in the nation and asking them to head to a website to answer questions about their democratic values. Immediately the Twitter-verse went into full-snark mode, wondering why the government would do this rather than hold a referendum, and wondering at the cost of such an exercise, but there were a few phrases that struck me as I read it, and that goes back to the fact that they’re asking Canadians what values they’re looking for in their voting system as opposed to asking them to choose a system. Why does that matter? Because it basically allows the government to justify whatever decision they end up making by selling it as living up to the greatest number of the “values” they got feedback on. And when the committee report comes back a deadlock with several dissenting reports (as it inevitably will), the government will be further empowered to finally suffocate the whole ill-fated enterprise and list all of the ways the current system conforms to the majority of the “values” that they polled Canadians on, and lo, we shall never speak of this again. Or something like that.

Meanwhile, PEI had their plebiscite on electoral reform and with a stunningly low voter turnout of 36 percent even with several days of voting, lowering the age to 16, and giving people a myriad of options to vote including online, it came down to several preferential rounds where Mixed-Member Proportional won a very narrow 52 percent win. This again translated into two very different sets of reactions – elation from the PR crowd for whom this validates their crusading on the topic, never mind that the mandate for said system is really, really weak (between the low turnout and the fact that it took several drop-off rounds to get that bare majority vote), or the fact that the plebiscite was by definition non-binding and there is more than enough opportunity for the government to get out of it (and really, I’m not sure that such a low vote is mandate enough to make such an important change). The other reaction was a sense of somewhat smugness from proponents of a referendum on electoral reform at the federal level, basically telling their opponents (who insist that such a referendum would favour the status quo) that they’re wrong. But if you think about it, such a low turnout and the fact that MMP barely squeaked past may indeed be an indication that there was more of a desire for the status quo than is being acknowledged. Nevertheless, both groups are going to be insufferable for days to come.

https://twitter.com/katemckenna8/status/795799811345842176

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating useless rule changes

Posted on by

Yesterday was “debate the House rules” day in the Commons, and lo, there was some talk about eliminating Friday sittings again, which the opposition parties tend to be against, but fear the government will try to ram through anyway. And yes, we all know that Fridays are not like any other day, particularly because MPs need to get back to their ridings, but there are still debate hours that happen, and eliminating them means either making up for them elsewhere, or losing them altogether, after we’ve lost plenty of debate hours in the past number of years, all to be more “family friendly” with spring breaks and so on. Kady O’Malley followed the debate (I would have more if I didn’t have other deadlines to file), and some of the best and worst are below.

Eliminating whip/House leader-provided speaking lists absolutely needs to happen. It removes agency from MPs and is part of what has debased QP into this scripted farce and turned debate on legislation into nothing of the sort. If you take away the lists – and then ban the scripts – it will help to make the debate free-flowing once again rather than just exercises in reading speeches into the void.

Oh, the irony. The bitter, bitter irony.

I am dubious, as we would have people tabling all manner of nonsense to “prove” whatever they were saying in QP, almost all of it irrelevant. (Also, look up the story about the tabled hamburger from the Alberta legislature that they ended up preserving).

No. We do not need to privilege private members’ business any more than we already do. Most of it is out of hand, with useless and costly Criminal Code piecemeal amendments, more national strategies than you can shake a proverbial stick at, and even more bills to declare national days for every issue under the sun. The proliferation of PMBs is already out of hand, we don’t need to make it that much worse.

So…turning the summer break from three months to four? No. But do feel free to sit more days in January regardless.

Not unless we start insisting that supply days start being about actually debating supply once again.

Because Parliament is just a debating chamber for hobbyhorses? Because there isn’t actual work that needs to get done?

Not unless parties start agreeing that second reading debates be severely curtailed, and that debate on government bills can collapse relatively quickly. But seriously, committee work already happens while debates are going on in the Chamber so I don’t see the point of this. At all.

Amen.

Seriously. I can’t believe that this actually needs to be pointed out.

Continue reading →

QP: Everything is overwrought

Posted on by

Thursday before a long weekend, and not a single leader was present in the Commons for QP. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives and he lamented the imposition of a carbon tax on the costs on groceries. Jim Carr answer for the government, praising the ratification of the Paris Agreement. Lebel asked again in English, prompting Carr to chide Michelle Rempel for her attacks on those job creators for their support for carbon pricing. After another round of the same in French, Candice Bergen railed about how uncaring the government was about Canadians suffering under the carbon tax, for which Jean-Yves Duclos reminded her that they had programs to help poor Canadians. Bergen went on a second overwrought round, and a Marc Garneau noted that the minister of infrastructure was at this moment meeting with municipal leaders in Alberta regarding infrastructure commitments. Brigitte Sansoucy led off for the NDP, railing about the imposition of health transfers on the provinces, to which Jane Philpott reminded her that they were still discussing with provincial and territorial counterparts on priorities and funding. After a second of the same, Don Davies asked the same again in English, falsely calling changed escalators a cut, and Philpott reminded him that more money was not the answer, but priority investments were.

Continue reading →

QP: A non-existent conflict

Posted on by

The b-team was out a little early today, as both Justin Trudeau and Rona Ambrose jetted off to Israel for the funeral of Shimon Peres, and Thomas Mulcair decided he had better things to do. Candice Bergen led off, mini-lectern on desk, conspiracy theorizing at the attendance of Dominic LeBlanc at an event in Toronto hosted by a law firm that does lobbying for the Irvings. LeBlanc stood up to tell the House that he was there to promote the Atlantic Growth Strategy. Bergen noted that he was the lead on litigation strategy for the government and that it was a conflict, but LeBlanc insisted that he cleared it in writing with the Ethics Commissioner. Bergen decried his lack of judgment, but LeBlanc continued to rebuff the allegation. Alain Rayes was up next, and decried the health negotiations with provinces and the possibility of strings being attached, and Jane Philpott noted that the health transfers were going up, and they went one more round of the same. Don Davies led off for the NDP, decrying the healthcare escalator (referring to them as “cuts” when the transfer continues to go up), and Philpott reminded that there is no cut. Davies went a second round, got the same answer, and then Brigitte Sansoucy took over in French on the very same topic. Philpott repeated her answers in English, reminding the NDP that they promised a balanced budget which they wouldn’t have been able to achieve without cuts, and then one more round again of the same.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Squeamish MPs and the problems they cause

Posted on by

So many pearls got clutched yesterday on a couple of topics that, while unrelated, actually have a lot more in common than one may think. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the legal definition of bestiality must include penetration (with only Justice Abella dissenting) based on its common law definitions going back years. It was a case that involved the sexual abuse of teen girls, but if you judged by the headlines and the reactions on social media, it was a number of bizarre over-readings of what the ruling was, as though they ruled it legal rather than saying that there is a hole in the law because MPs didn’t properly update it when they had a chance. And this is where this starts to overlap with what else is happening.

As you may have guessed, the pearl-clutching amongst the pundit class carries on over the Senate amending bill C-14 (I swear that Michael Den Tandt has clutched his pearls so tightly that he’s cut off the flow of oxygen to his brain) and the “suddenly assertive” Senate (it’s actually not, but rather it has a couple of genuinely problematic bills before it), and while I won’t repeat yesterday’s civics lesson, let me say that the Supreme Court decision around bestiality is exactly the kind of object lesson that the assisted dying legislation could easily become.

Let’s face it – MPs don’t like to deal with tough issues. When the abortion laws they tried to pass post-Morgentaler decision was defeated, they didn’t make a second attempt. When they passed “temporary” prostitution laws in the 1980s to deal with a specific public nuisance issue, they didn’t return to the issue as promised to deal with it until the Supreme Court struck them down in the Bedford decision. We saw yesterday morning with the bestiality case that where MPs should have dealt with the issue when they changed other laws around the issue in the 1980s, they didn’t until the Supreme Court had to render a decision that pointed out the loophole and a sexual offender had two charges against him dropped rather than the court make up a new law holus bolus. And now there’s doctor-assisted dying. The Court had very good reasons when they made the Carter decision to insist on a timeline, which MPs have been balking about because they don’t want to deal with it. When the Prime Minister defends the conservative nature of C-14 with the excuse that it’s the “first step” of a longer conversation, I don’t actually trust that there will be a second step because MPs are too squeamish to deal with tough problems. And that’s exactly why I think the Senate is right to rip the band-aid off right now and force the government to actually deal with the whole issue as the Supreme Court laid it out. And yes, the government is going to grumble and say they don’t want to accept the amendments, but I also think that it’s part of the narrative of reluctance, where they can then hide behind the Senate as having “forced” them to accept the changes, so that they have political cover when interest groups confront them during the next election. But we’ve seen this problem of MPs not wanting to do their jobs time and again and the problems that it eventually causes. And if it means that the Senate has to be the grown-ups and make them deal with it this time, so be it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fundraising moral panic

Posted on by

In case you missed it, the moral panic over the past week or so is ministerial fundraisers, first in Ontario (and to a certain extent BC), but that’s bled over in to the federal sphere, because apparently we were afraid of missing out. And don’t forget, the federal rules are already pretty strict, with corporate and union donations already been banned and the contribution limit is pretty small (and when it comes to leadership contests, the Conservatives and NDP conspired to screw the Liberals, who were mid-contest at the time, but that’s beside the point). The point is that there’s a lot of unnecessary tut-tutting, particularly around a perfectly legal private fundraiser that the Minister of Justice is holding at a Toronto law firm. “Oh,” they say. “Some of these lawyers may want to be judges one day.” And this is the point where I look at people who say that straight in the face and ask if they really think that a federal judicial appointment can be bought for $500. Really? Seriously? Even on the issue of legal contracts, the minister can recuse herself if said law firm bids. There are processes around this kind of thing. The Ethics Commissioner said that there is no apparent conflict of interest here, but that doesn’t stop people from crying “money for access!” And when you have people like Duff Conacher going on TV and decrying that limits should be $100 because that way it’s equal for everyone, you have to wonder if that logic extends to not everyone can have nice things, so we should ban them so that it’s fair for everyone. Also, if you lower the limit too low, then people start looking for other ways to raise money, and all you have to look to is Quebec, where their strict donation regime became quickly susceptible to corruption. Of course, Conacher won’t be satisfied by any ethics regime unless he’s in charge of the parliamentary thought police, and frankly, anyone who quotes him in one of these stories becomes suspect because it means they’re going for cheap outrage. Are there bigger problems of perception in places like Ontario, where there aren’t any donation limits? Yes, indeed. But that’s not the case federally, and the minister is following the rules. Frankly, I’m not fussed that the PM is shrugging this off because honestly, this isn’t something that we should be lighting our hair on fire about.

Continue reading →

QP: Women ask the questions 

Posted on by

It being International Women’s Day, one could be sure that outside of the leader’s round, we would see a majority of women MPs asking questions, and lo and behold, that was the case. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on Scheer’s neighbouring desk, and she asked about the Yazidi women targeted by ISIS and bringing them over as refugees. Justin Trudeau reminded her of the commitments they made to bring over refugees, and that they achieved their goal of 25,000 Syrian refugees . Ambrose repeated yesterday’s question about his visit to the Centre for American Progress, to which Trudeau responded that when he was there two years ago, he spoke out in favour of Keystone XL. Ambrose then tried to insist that Trudeau help Bombardier by agreeing to their supply day motion on the Toronto Island airport. Trudeau asked her not to pit region against region for political gain. Kelley Block was up next, and insisted that the Liberals let the Toronto Island airport expand so that Porter can buy Bombardier C-series jets (as though the tens that they would buy would totally make the difference). Marc Garneau praised Air Canada’s intent to purchase those jets, and when Block asked again, Garneau chastised her for not respecting the tripartite agreement with the city and provincial governments. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded a childcare plan. Trudeau hit back that Mulcair would be deciding what to cut if he had been elected in order to balance the budget. Mulcair then used women’s access to EI to badger the government for defeating their opposition day motion. Trudeau responded that they were taking action, and there would be more to come in the budget. Mulcair raised the issue of tax cheats getting amnesty deals, and Trudeau noted it was under the previous government and they would investigate if need be. Mulcair demanded action, citing special treatment for the rich, and Trudeau reminded him of his pledge to give childcare dollars to millionaires.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mindless PR propaganda

Posted on by

There are times when will indulge my masochistic streak. Yesterday was one of those days, when I took a deep breath, girded my loins, and read that Broadbent Institute “report” on Proportional Representation. And then proceeded to roll my eyes and sigh the whole way through it. To say that it’s an intellectual exercise would be an insult to critical thinking or, well, actual intelligence. No, it was but a mere collection of platitudes masquerading as serious argument (and it should not surprise me considering the source). If you too want an exercise in masochism, or you desperately want to hate-read it, it’s here, but I wouldn’t waste my time. The highlights consist of “OMG First-Past-the-Post is old!” and a bunch of charts that show how terrible “false majorities” are, except that there is no such thing as a “false majority” because the popular vote figure is a logical fallacy that neither reflects how the system is constructed, nor how elections are run. In fact, nowhere in the document does it actually give a proper recounting of how our system works, where you have 338 separate-but-simultaneous elections that each decide on who occupies a single seat to form a parliament, and that parliament determines who forms government based on who can command the confidence of the Commons. Instead, it calls FPTP elections “horse races” while proportional representation is “sharing the pie” (not how the system works – at all), and then talks at length about “fairness.” It talks about “wasted votes” as if they were a Thing as opposed to an expression by sore losers for whom votes only count if the person they voted for wins. It makes a bunch of bullshit platitudes about how PR will magically increase voter turnout (not true) and ignores that declining voter turnout is a widespread problem across all democracies regardless of electoral system. Accountability? Apparently not an issue because you have all kinds of parties to vote for! And any criticisms of PR? Brushed off and not actually explored. The worse sin of all, however, is the way in which it treats the political process, as though the vote were the end-all-and-be-all of engagement. False. Completely and utterly false, and that’s part of the problem that the magical thinking of PR advocates in general. You see, our system starts with joining a party, where you then participate in policy discussion leading up to resolutions at biennial policy conventions, and in participating in nomination races for candidates. Riding associations act as liaisons with caucus members to relay concerns, even if your riding is not represented by your party of choice, and one actively participates in the system. The ballot box is but one small facet of that process. But most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it in schools, and PR advocates prey on this ignorance to push for their own magical solutions to perceived problems without a proper understanding of the ecosystem or the mechanics. So no, unless you’re going to represent the actual system, then no, you’re not having an honest discussion about PR, and that’s exactly what this report was – dishonest, jejune, and a sad waste of everyone’s time.

https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705081823639031808

https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705082136756424705

https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705083872577507328

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 →