Tag Archives: Euthanasia

Roundup: To Leap or to cleave?

Posted on by

There are some interesting dynamics shaping up at the NDP convention in Edmonton, which is less about the current tensions over the leadership review vote that Thomas Mulcair will undergo on Sunday, but rather the fact that there appears to be a split developing between the Alberta NDP (and to some extent the New Brunswick arm of the party) and the federal party when it comes to debating the Leap Manifesto. Mulcair himself is in self-preservation mode as he talks about the Manifesto, and promises to live up to it if the membership decides on it, which seems to go back to his particular issues with authenticity because there is no sense of what he believes around it (though he once praised the policies of Margaret Thatcher, so perhaps one could extrapolate from there). Mulcair is now insisting that no, the Manifesto isn’t about shutting down the oil sands or forgoing pipelines, except it pretty much is, with the promise to decarbonise the economy by 2050 – as well as shutting down mining and other extractive industries and tearing up trade agreements under the rubric that they hurt local economies. Mulcair has retreated to the statement that the Manifesto doesn’t explicitly say to leave oil in the ground, but after musing to Peter Mansbridge that he would do everything in his power to go that route if it’s what the party decided, well, the damage has been done, as the Alberta party is distancing themselves, the province’s environment minister calling the federal party’s environmental plan a “betrayal,” and Rachel Notley took to the airwaves to tell Albertans explicitly that she is working to get a pipeline built. The Manifesto’s proponents, however, insist that this is necessary, and that a hard-left turn can win, and cite Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn – never mind that neither has actually won an election, and likely never could given the personal dislike for them among even their own respective parties. (Seriously – Corbyn had a caucus enemies list drawn up). So will a hard-left turn save the party? It all depends on what they want to do, whether they want to return to being only about principle and the “conscience of parliament,” pushing the Liberals to do the right thing, or if they want power and the compromises that come with it. We’ll have to see what the membership decides, and whether Mulcair fits that vision.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bruised feelings helping nobody

Posted on by

In yet another write-up of the creation of the new Independent Working-Group in the Senate, we’re seeing a repetition of certain themes, and an omission of some other, more fundamental issues at play such as privilege and Independent senators running their own affairs, in part because you have a group of journalists who aren’t quite sure what to look for and what questions to ask – and it’s not helped by some of the senators at the centre of the issue feeding into those narratives instead of talking about the other issues at play. The narratives, of course, have to do with partisanship in the institution. Those senators who have left caucuses are quick to talk about the blind partisanship eroding the credibility of the Senate, and media observers who are unfamiliar with the Senate outside of the salaciousness of the ClusterDuff affair glom onto this kind of talk because it confirms all kinds of notions that they’ve held without much in the way of actual challenge. Meanwhile, senators who are still proud party members are proving particularly thin-skinned about the whole thing.

Sen. Dagenais told The Hill Times that after reading the six Senators’ press release, he was “upset” and “disappointed” that they questioned the “credibility” of the parliamentary work of Conservative and Liberal Senators because they’re affiliated with political parties.

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I don’t accept this,” said Sen. Dagenais.

I won’t deny that there has been a certain tone of moral superiority by some of those senators who have left their caucuses, and it can feel like a bit of a slap in the face to others. At the same time, I think that some of the counter-protestations, that senators who leave their caucuses should resign (per Senator Tkachuk) or that that the notions of a non-partisan Senate are an inherent breach of privilege and would render the Chamber non-functional (per some of the arguments of Senator Housakos, among others) are also way beyond the pale. And yes, some of this has been fed by Justin Trudeau’s talk about how wonderful a non-partisan Senate would be, as though it’s partisanship that’s the problem rather than a question of degrees. No, partisanship is not a bad thing – in fact, it’s fairly healthy in a democracy, and the Senate reflecting that diversity of political opinion is a good thing. What has been a problem are the degrees to which senators, particularly new ones, have taken their partisanship, and it cannot be understated that nearly all of the Conservative senators took it a little too far in demonstrating their loyalty and commitment to putting forward Stephen Harper’s agenda, but they were also very poorly trained upon appointment, and they took the wrong lessons to heart. That is not the fault of partisanship – it’s the fault of a party leadership that was trying to exercise levers of power that didn’t exist in the Senate, and they tried to create some using sentiment and a sense of personal loyalty to the man who appointed them. Now, things are swinging violently in the other direction and babies are being thrown out with bathwater. Partisanship doesn’t make the chamber a bad place, nor does a group of senators looking to try a new way of doing things make their efforts illegitimate. This is a bold new era, and both sides need to stop this constant state of upsetting each other. There is room in our parliament for parties and independents, and the sooner they stop this game of offending one another, the faster we can proceed with a credible modernisation process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Go knock doors

Posted on by

While I’ve pretty much said my piece on the Manning Conference, one last headline caught my eye yesterday, which was the “Traditional campaigns dead! It’s a digital world now!” variety, which made me roll my eyes a bit, but here it is. The “experts” – all American – talk about how Facebook and digital ads are where it’s at instead of TV advertising, but it seems to me like they missed entirely what happened during the last federal election – you know, something that the Conservatives might have a vested interest in actually learning from their mistakes in, rather than what is going on south of the border, with their utterly insane primary season and unlimited corporate and private money. Because seriously, if they paid attention to what the Liberals did here, it was actually a lot of traditional campaigning, which was door-knocking. Yes, they flooded social media with their “days of action,” which featured candidates and their teams – wait for it – door-knocking. There wasn’t a series of YouTube or Facebook ads that won the election for the Liberals – in fact, the only commercial that anyone remembers is the one with Trudeau on the escalator, and mostly because everyone tried to mock it (not all of it effectively). How often in the last decade did we hear about the Conservatives’ fearsome electoral machine with their CIMS database, and how that was helping them cut swaths though campaigns based on the smiley and frowney faces of voter identification? It didn’t win them the election. Yes, the Liberals rebuilt their own voter identification database (“Liberalist”), but again, what was it used for? Door-knocking, and canvassing donations, but it also bears noting that the Liberals did not spend the most money, disproving that money is what wins elections. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll take the words of these American “experts” that the Conservatives enlisted with a grain of salt, while the traditional shoe-leather method of direct voter engagement and going from door-to-door is putting in the hard work that won a majority of seats.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Coming up with a new organizational model

Posted on by

There’s the Senate bat-signal, and there are a couple of articles out there about how the Senate organizes itself that need to be discussed. Global has an exclusive piece about how the Senate agreed to change its organisational funding model in light of their new post-government caucus reality, but *gasp!* it’s all closed-door negotiations about your taxpayer dollars! Oh, I’m sorry, did I yawn there? Senate caucus funding used to be allocated along government and opposition lines, but with there being no governing party in the Senate any longer, Senate Liberals were at risk of losing their operational funding, and yes, this is an issue because it costs money to run things and the Senate is an integral part of our democratic system. The compromise that they came up with, allocating funds on a proportional basis of seats, is actually pretty novel. Yes, it’s more money than they got before, but remember that the Senate Liberals can no longer draw from the caucus resources of their Commons counterparts either, particularly for things like research dollars, so not giving them some kind of additional resources would be punishing them again for Trudeau’s unilateral decision to kick them out of caucus. Let’s not forget that democracy costs money, and one of the most egregious forms of cheap outrage journalism is pretending that a parliamentary body can be run for pennies when it absolutely cannot, particularly if we want them to do the heavy lifting of parliament, as they are increasingly doing. Meanwhile, there is some consternation that the government won’t be appointing a whip when they appoint their “government representative” in lieu of a Leader of the Government in the Senate, but mostly because there has been a defined role in terms of the government whip for doing some of those organisational tasks like allocating offices and parking spaces, not to mention organising committee assignments when there are only so many spaces to go around and lots of senators want on some committees and fewer on others. After all, the whip’s job is more than just telling people how to vote – that role has been far less prevalent in the Senate, and well before Trudeau’s edict, Liberal Senators were not being given instruction by their Commons counterparts and exercised a great deal of independence. (As for the Conservatives, we saw in the Duffy trial that Nigel Wright was trying to encourage Harper to exercise levers of power that didn’t actually exist within the Senate, to the institution’s detriment, and while many Conservative senators don’t see anything wrong with the way they’ve been doing things, well, they haven’t known any differently and that’s part of the problem). Of course, with no government caucus, there is less of a need for that role, but what I suspect is going to end up happening is that the Senate’s internal bureaucracy is going to wind up taking on more responsibilities to deal with this lack of the traditional structures and growing number of independent senators. Again, there are organisational duties that need to be performed, and it would behove the institution to figure out who’s going to do them.

Continue reading →

QP: Haze and incoherence

Posted on by

A slushy and wet day in Ottawa, and the PM was headed off to Montreal instead of being in QP. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern again on Andrew Scheer’s desk instead of her own, and complained about the incoherence of the current government’s messaging. Navdeep Bains got up to respond, pointing out that the previous government turned a surplus into a deficit and touted their own plan for creating jobs. Ambrose complained about the size of the deficit, to which Bains insisted that they have a plan to grow the economy and make it more productive. Ambrose then insisted that Trudeau was imposing a national carbon tax, and this time Catherine McKenna got up and quoted Suncor’s CEO and Preston Manning as fans of carbon pricing. Maxime Bernier was up next, and he complained of the broken promise around the size of the deficit. Marc Garneau responded to this question, stating that Conservative cuts in the current economic situation could push the country into recession. Bernier insisted that deeper debt would not create wealth, and Garneau read some talking points about the importance of their own plan. Charlie Angus led off for the NDP, who noted a suicide in Moose Factory in his riding, and wanted a plan to end the discrimination in funding. Jean-Yves Duclos responded to this one, and he said that federal and provincial partners were working together on the complex issues. Angus listed the health problems on reserves, demanding action yesterday, for which Duclos reiterate that they were working with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis to provide inclusive and sustainable circumstances. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked the same again in French, got the same answer from Duclos in French, and for her final question, demanded action on proportional representation. Maryam Monsef stated that she looked forward to meaningful consultations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giorno joins the brigade

Posted on by

Proponents of proportional representation are getting a bit of a boost across party lines as former Harper advisor Guy Giorno is adding his name to the so-called “Every Voter Counts Alliance” to push the government to adopt such a measure. (Note that the name of this group is hugely problematic because every vote already counts, and suggesting otherwise is tantamount to voter suppression). Giorno says the Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid that changing the system will mean that they will be permanently shut out of power (as is one of the arguments that proponents tout as a feature of the change), before launching into the usual talking points of “fairer” and “more democratic” which are a) complete bunk, and b) at a direct cost to the system of accountability that the existing First-Past-The-Post system is really good at achieving. Also, it’s a bit rich to hear the hyper-partisan Giorno talk about how wonderful it would be for PR-elected legislatures to require more co-operation, collegiality, working together” – all of which is ridiculous, since it simply changes the power calculus in order to keep coalitions cobbled together and giving smaller and more radical parties outsized influence to keep those coalitions together, while parties at the centre of governments can go for decades without being tossed out as they shuffle coalition partners around instead (again, a feature of our current system being the ability to throw the bums out, which PR does not do very well). Suffice to say, Giorno’s voice in the debate doesn’t actually change that the arguments are based on emotion and logical fallacies, and while he has different partisan credentials, it’s still a system that that nobody should be rushing into on the basis of emotion. Meanwhile, here’s Colby Cosh to demolish some of the arguments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No Fridays off

Posted on by

It’s not the first time I’ve written on this topic, and it certainly won’t be the last. Yesterday’s column by David Akin about making MPs continue to work on Fridays has me itching to reiterate a few points, even if some of Akin’s writing style makes me cringe a little. (Seriously, PROC is an “obscure but important” committee? Really?) Akin makes good points in that we are already seeing a greater diversity in people running and getting elected, and more women running and getting elected than ever before, and that people who put their name on the ballot know that the job entails actually being in Ottawa five days a week for roughly half the year. And really, that’s one of the points that makes me a bit crazy when we keep circling back to these discussions about making parliament “family friendly.” Parliament is not just another workplace, and you can’t apply the same standards to it that you would with any other job. We all know that a great deal of sacrifice is involved with the job, which is why we compensate MPs fairly well for it (though one could quite easily argue that they are underpaid, though populist sentiment means that argument will never win the day). Even more crazy making were MPs on Procedure and House Affairs committee saying things like “It’s special being here,” while trying to figure out how to vote from their riding or telecommute to the job in Ottawa, never mind that the job involves being in Ottawa because it relies on building personal relationships. No, it’s not “special” to be in Ottawa – it’s the job you signed on for. Being present to vote is what you signed on for. If you didn’t want to be in Ottawa but still serve the public, you could have run for local city council, but no, you wanted to play a federal role. That means being in Ottawa. It doesn’t mean being here year-round, and clearly it’s not given the growing number of constituency weeks, but constituency work is not what your job is. Your job is to hold the government to account, which means being present, debating, reading the Estimates and the Public Accounts, doing committee work, grilling ministers and department staff, and engaging with stakeholders as part of that job. All of that is done here. Sure, helping people with passport forms is all well and good, but it’s not actually your job. In fact, the growing MP role as civil service ombudsman is a distressing turn of events, because it starts to subtly politicise the system, but it also takes away from the accountability role. We are already in a crisis of civic literacy in this country. Having MPs justify the fact that they don’t feel the need to be in Ottawa to do their jobs, and to wrap that justification up in the flag of being family-friendly is a problem. Yes, it’s tough, and marriages break up with too much frequency, but the system already bends over backwards to accommodate spouses and families. The reality remains, however, that this is not a job that you can do from home, and candidates needs to go into it with their eyes open rather than making excuses to shirk their duties once they get here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not a wealth transfer

Posted on by

Woe be Saskatchewan, apparently, with the collapse in global commodity prices, affecting both its oil and potash industries. Its premier, Brad Wall, is in full-on populist mode in advance of a provincial election, and when not goading Montreal mayor Denis Coderre over Energy East, he’s also demanding some kind of federal dollars should the Trudeau government decide to bail out Bombardier, as well as funds for his idea of a well-capping programme. To be fair, the well-capping idea is a good one, but Wall’s bombast is probably not helping, particularly when he makes comments about equalisation funding. The Conservatives have been all about equalisation in Question Period, with questions yesterday demanding “fairness” for Alberta and Saskatchewan after the territories were having their formulas adjusted, despite the explanation that the adjustments were because of changing Statistics Canada measurements. More egregious was when former Speaker Andrew Scheer decried that wealth was still being transferred to other provinces based on calculations from when Saskatchewan was benefitting from $100/barrel oil. And my head very nearly exploded when he asked that because it’s about as wrong – and frankly boneheaded – as one can get when discussing equalisation. Despite the common mythology, the federal equalisation is not a wealth transfer between provinces. “Have” provinces don’t write cheques to the federal government in order to pass them along to the “have not” provinces. It’s nothing like that at all. Every Canadian pays into equalisation by way of taxes, and the federal government will transfer some of its general revenue funds to provinces who need help in providing an equal level of service to its citizens. Now, provinces like to make all kinds of claims based on what their per-capita contributions to the programme are, but it’s not a bloody wealth transfer. I get why they like to claim that it is for political purposes, but it’s wrong and it just fuels these ridiculous regional conflicts (like the ones we’re seeing now between the west and Quebec based on nonsense rhetoric over Energy East) to no good end. So seriously, MPs and premiers – knock it off. You’re not helping anyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Doing the policy heavy lifting

Posted on by

If you were to turn to the Big Book of Canadian Political Journalism Clichés, you’d find pages of tiresome and frankly libellous descriptions of the Senate of Canada. And oh, look – The Canadian Press drew from a number of them to craft the lead of their latest piece: “Canada’s Senate, often accused of being an anachronism, is being asked to wrestle with the futuristic dream of driverless cars.” Of course, the accusations of being an anachronism often come from clueless political journalists who recite the received wisdom around the Upper Chamber with little or no critical insight or understanding of Chamber, its actual role, or its operations, and they treat it like a joke, which makes ledes like this commonplace. “Isn’t it hilarious that the Senate is supposed to look at future technology? Aren’t they all ancient, napping in the Chamber? LOL,” and so on. And then this line a little further down in the piece: “His request for a Senate study is part of the Trudeau government’s attempt to recast the much-maligned upper house as an independent and valued institution that has an important parliamentary role to play.” Um, no, it doesn’t need to be recast as having an important role to play because they’ve always had it. The Senate has been doing the kinds of cutting-edge policy study and research that the Commons can’t or won’t for decades. Just in the last parliament alone, they studied things like BitCoin and crypto-currencies, and they have been debating legislation on growing issues like genetic privacy that the Commons continues to shirk while they snipe at one another over partisan issues. But hey, when asked to do a comprehensive study on the regulatory, policy and technical issues that need to be addressed by the growing field of driverless cars, hey, it’s all a big joke because it’s the Senate. That kind of tiresome attitude is part of why the studies and reports that come out of the Senate – which in many ways acts like a built-in think tank for Parliament (and a hugely cost-effective one at that) – tend to go under the radar. Some reports get a couple of days of press, such as the very good report on the Canada-US price differential (which the previous government then largely ignored when they went to craft legislation to close that gap – an issue now moot thanks to our falling dollar), but for the most part, the media will ignore the studies. It’s really a shame because there is a lot of good work in there that is worth a lot more discussion and attention, lest it gather dust on a shelf. But why actually turn to those studies when we can make jokes about the Senate, malign its denizens thanks to the actions of a couple of bad apples, and ignore the actual work while grumbling that they aren’t elected? It’s too bad that We The Media can’t take these things more seriously, as we would all be better off as an informed citizenry as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: 100 days without unicorns

Posted on by

We have reached 100 days since the election, so expect to find any number of analyses and think-pieces about the “milestone,” like this one here from CBC. The Canadian Press had their enumerated list of what promises have been kept, what hasn’t (like promised gun-marking measures), and what’s in progress, which is handy to have. And while Trudeau has come out and said that perhaps they won’t meet the deficit targets made during the election, the economy being what it is, hay is certainly being made over it – particularly from the Conservatives, who have pounced on that singular National Bank forecast that said that perhaps the deficit will surpass $90 million over four years. Of course, nobody knows if that will be the case, particularly if the stimulus the government is pouring into the economy does manage to kickstart growth, and when the economy grows, deficits shrink on their own. That said, everybody leaping onto this report before we’ve even seen a budget is pretty ridiculous. The NDP’s release on the 100 days, however, was a bit more…fanciful. It contained a laundry list of woe, from their mischaracterisation of the tax cut, the fact that other promised spending hasn’t happened yet, the continued deliberate conflation of signing versus ratification of the TPP, the lack of new GHG targets or action on legalising marijuana – all giving the impression that such things can happen at the snap of a finger, without debate, without a budget, and apparently all by Order-in-Council rather than with legislation in many cases, is a bit ridiculous. The only valid point they do make is about parliamentary secretaries and committees (and as discussed earlier in the week, their own record of centralisation in this area is nothing to be proud of). The fact that they came out with such a list full of dubious complaints seems to be a return to true third-party status, where they can rail into the wind without the benefit of a reality check, belies a particular lack of lessons having been learned in the previous election or self-awareness about what they’re saying. Nobody is expecting them to roll over and applaud the government – but at least make the criticisms valid ones, rather than complaining that they didn’t have enough unicorns in the parade. The opposition has a serious job in holding the government to account. It’s a pity that our two main opposition parties seem incapable of taking that job seriously, as demonstrated yesterday.

Continue reading →