Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity

Roundup: Expat voting just fine as is

Posted on by

Democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef is saying that she plans to table new legislation around expat voting by the end of the year, and I’m going to come right out and say that while I know it’s not really popular to say so, I’m actually not sure that a five-year time limit for expats is so bad, because of the way that our voting system operates. To be more specific, our electoral system depends on your voting in one of 338 ridings to elect a local representative. You’ve not voting for the party banner or the party leader – you’re voting for the representative, regardless of what your particular electoral calculation is when you’re in the voting booth. And as an expat who has been out of the country – and in particular that riding – for more than five years, does it really make sense for you to continue to cast a ballot in said riding if you don’t actually live there?

And this is the part where people start shouting about their right to vote, which is all well and good, but again I go back to the central premise – how can you vote for a representative in a riding if you don’t live there, and almost certainly don’t know who is actually on the ballot? And don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter, that the majority of people vote based on the party or the leader, because it actually does matter. Our system is constructed in a way that ensures maximum accountability (and that accountability is currently wounded by the rules around party leadership selection, but that’s another story for another day), and that means accountability for the MP who was selected in that riding election for that seat (and yes, each riding is a separate election), and later in the House of Commons, when the government is responsible to the whole of the Chamber to maintain confidence to continue governing. And this is where expat voting gets complicated. How can someone who doesn’t live in the riding know what is going on, and whether the MP is doing a good job or not? Sure, a few expats maintain close enough ties, but I would venture that the vast majority don’t, and that the vast majority are looking to cast a special ballot based solely on party or leader preference, but that’s not how the system works, and yes, that’s important because democracy is process. The vote has to have a proper meaning, and that meaning is for the individual MP to fill the individual seat. This is not the United States where people ostensibly cast a direct ballot for the presidency (which again is complicated by their electoral college), but that makes a special ballot for expats a simpler affair. (They also impose taxes on expats, which Canada doesn’t). What about the voter rolls, where expats would ostensibly be listed at an address where they no longer live? How does that actually work in practical terms without creating yet more headaches for Elections Canada? Unless Maryam Monsef can thread the needle to demonstrate how expats can still vote within our current system in an effective manner which means voting for a candidate in a riding, I’m having a hard time seeing how dropping the five-year rule is either beneficial, practical, or even responsible. (And yes, I’m sure that I’m a monster for thinking so).

Continue reading →

QP: Carbon tax woes

Posted on by

While Rona Ambrose was still away, we had both the PM and NDP “interim” leader Thomas Mulcair present for the day. Denis Lebel led off, decrying federal interference with the provinces with the imposition of their carbon tax. Trudeau insisted that they were working with the provinces to move ahead with tackling emissions. Lebel switched to English to ask again, and got much the same answer, with Trudeau making a few more digs about the previous government not being willing to work with provinces. Lebel went another round in French before Ed Fast took over to ask the same question yet again in English, concern trolling about the three provincial environment ministers who walked out of the meeting with federal ministers. Trudeau largely repeated his points about working with the provinces to create a strong economy and a clean environment. Fast read out condemnation from those ministers, and Trudeau ensured him that their plan would create jobs. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying the endorsement of “Stephen Harper’s targets,” and lamented the too-low carbon price. Trudeau replied with his established points about showing leadership in creating jobs and protecting the environment. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto concerns about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the wake of the Environment Commissioner’s report, to which Trudeau said they would follow up on the recommendations. For his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government agree to the NDP motion on a committee on arms sales, but Trudeau did not agree, and pointed to their adopting the small arms treaty.

Continue reading →

QP: Taking the provinces’ phone calls

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was not only present, having already participated in the debate of the day (a rarity for any PM these days), his leaders opposite were not. Rona Ambrose was off to the UK Conservative caucus in Birmingham, while Thomas Mulcair was elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, demanding a signed softwood lumber agreement before it was too late. Trudeau responded by reminding him that the previous government neglected the file while his government has been hard at work in negotiations. Lebel moved onto the healthcare transfers file, demanding the government respect provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau shook it off, ensuring that they were working together. Lebel insisted that there was peace with the provinces when the Conservatives were in charge and why wouldn’t the federal government just let them be rather than meddle? Trudeau insisted that the provinces were much happier now that the federal government answered their phone calls. Ed Fast got up next to decry the “carbon tax grab” being shoved “down the throats” of Canadians. Trudeau hit back that the previous government ignored the file and made no progress, while his government was. Fast tried again, decrying it as an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau reminded him that they were indeed respecting said jurisdiction. Robert Aubin led off for the NDP, lamenting the “Harper targets” for GHGs, and Trudeau noted that they had just tabled their plan, and soon all Canadians — not just 80 percent — would be in a carbon priced jurisdiction. Aubin went again another round, got the same answer, and Linda Duncan took over in English, decrying that the announced starting carbon price was too low to be effective. Trudeau noted they were simultaneously developing a strong economy while being environmentally sustainable. Duncan worried the government was abandoning the clean energy future, but Trudeau reiterated his answer a little more forcefully.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poisoning the expenses well

Posted on by

With the story out yesterday morning about Rona Ambrose’s expenses claimed while staying in Stornoway, I think we’re starting to approach peak ridiculousness with the growing war over expenses, and accusations of poor judgment across the board. That the Conservatives have spent the past two days pushing a non-story about Dominic LeBlanc giving a speech at an event sponsored by a law firm with Irving connections, claiming poor judgment and a conflict of interest where clearly none actually exists (it’s not a fundraiser, no decisions are being made, it’s a speech, FFS), it’s desperation and grasping at straws.

https://twitter.com/robsilver/status/781902059440181249

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902332837687296

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902590615359488

The bigger problem, however, is the corrosive effect this continues to have, fuelling not only the cheap, petty outrage that voters are being encouraged to feel anytime government spends money, but it is starting to burn the very real bridges for why we have expense regimes in the first place.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/781863718799941632

Like Rob Silver above, Wherry may be exhibiting his trademark sarcasm, he’s got a point – we are rapidly approaching the point where We The Media have stoked such public opposition to legitimate expense claims by clutching our pearls at seemingly large numbers presented without context while crying “Judgment!” and “Taxpayers’ money!” that people are developing the wrong impression. We had NDP MPs last parliament declaring that if we’re to have senators, then they should all work as volunteers, and lately I’ve had jackasses barking at me on the Twitter Machine saying that senior political staff should also be volunteers. We’re half-a-step away from people demanding it of MPs.

Which gets back to the whole point of expense regimes in the first place – so that it acts as an equaliser, so that you don’t have to be inordinately wealthy in the first place in order to participate in political life, be it as an MP or senator (or senior political staffer, apparently). Do we really think it’s for the best that we return to an era where only the wealthy can afford to participate in political life and let them dictate policy for us? Or where a lack of an expense regime would encourage actual graft (as opposed to this nonsense we’re currently getting the vapours over with moving expenses and whatnot) from politicians to help make themselves financially whole from the expense of doing their jobs? Seriously, we need to grow up and stop poisoning the well because we don’t want to go where this road leads. Only certain doom lies that way.

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: Harder’s arrogant dismissal

Posted on by

It is probably not without a certain amount of chutzpah that Senator Peter Harder went before the Senate’s modernisation committee yesterday, and not only lectured to them about what the Senate does, but offered his particular thoughts on how the institution should be reformed, and most of all, having the gall to suggest that there was nothing that could be learned from the House of Lords and their integration of crossbenchers. Harder, with his mere couple of months of experience, has taken it upon himself to declare that the Senate should comprise of the government representative (a creature which does not actually appear in convention, statute or logic) and independents who will loosely affiliate on an ad hoc basis – no government, no opposition, no parties, no partisanship.

Give. Me. A. Break.

This declared allergy to partisanship in the upper chamber has reached the point of being utterly ridiculous. Parties exist for a reason. No one is arguing that the current power structure in the Senate needs to be broken apart and for independents to be given more power and resources, but blowing up parties is not the way to go, nor is assiduously screening nominees for any past hint of partisanship because there is nothing inherently wrong with partisanship. If Harder thinks that 105 individuals can sufficiently organise themselves for debates without any kind of structure – that his office doesn’t impose anyway – is lunacy. And it does concern me that Harder is making a bit of a power grab, especially considering that his office is already poised to start offering staffing services for the incoming batch of senators, which is not only unseemly but once again looks to bigfoot the work that the Independent Senators Group has been doing to come up with a bottom-up approach to organising unaligned senators in a manner consistent with the operation of the Chamber while working to give them caucus-like powers for committee assignments and with any luck, research dollars and support. But this isn’t the first time that Harder has attempted to bigfoot this nascent group, and I think that’s a very real problem. His attitude towards the modernisation committee – and in particular his arrogant dismissal of the crossbencher model (which the Independent Senate Group has been looking toward) – is a worrying sign.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne not only unhelpfully endorses the Segal-Kirby call for the Senate to limit its veto to a suspensive one (because hey, it’s not like we might need an option to stop a prime minister with a majority from passing really terrible legislation), but goes one step further and proposes that any bill in the Senate that has not been passed in six months is deemed to have passed, so that when they can’t procedurally speed through certain bills that get bottlenecked in committees (like any private member’s bill, many of which are objectively terrible), or when they demand more time and attention, they should just be passed anyway? Seriously? What a way to run a parliament.

Continue reading →

QP: More shovels in the ground

Posted on by

Caucus day, and nearly a full house in the Commons as QP got underway. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, was terribly concerned about 190 conditions attached to the Pacific Northwest LNG approval. Justin Trudeau reminded her that the last government’s cheerleading didn’t get them anywhere and they needed to do things differently. Ambrose demanded they get shovels in the ground, but Trudeau stuck to his points about sustainable development. Ambrose shifted gears and was concerned that the first round of deficit spending didn’t spend jobs, to which Trudeau praised the investments they were making in communities. Ambrose went for another round, and Trudeau insisted that the Conservatives didn’t learn the lessons of the last election, and they went one more round on the same question in French. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and he railed about the lack of consultation with local First Nations on the LNG project. Trudeau praised economic growth with environmental protection and they “folded in” the consultations. Mulcair decried that it was now impossible to meet GHG targets, to which Trudeau noted that they need to grow the economy while working to meet targets, so they are working with the provinces to do so. Mulcair wanted approval for their supply day motion for parliamentary oversight over arms sales, and Trudeau spoke instead about participating the arms trade treaty. Mulcair asked again in English, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Non-binding unanimous support

Posted on by

Supply day motions – also known as opposition day motions – can be tricky business, and unless the opposition party that moves it isn’t careful, they can wind up giving the government a free pass on supporting said motions without fear of consequence. Never mind that the point of supply day motions is to debate why the government should be denied supply (and hence confidence), these have largely turned into take-note debates on topics of the opposition’s choosing. These free pass motions happened with surprising regularity in the previous parliament, with the NDP frequently offering up mom-and-apple-pie motions that the Conservatives would obviously support the intent of, despite never having the intention to follow through with substantive action on, because hey, the motions are non-binding, and why not look like they support the idea of the motion? And lo and behold, the Conservatives offered up just such a motion around the Supreme Court of Canada, imploring the government to “respect the custom of regional representation” when making appointments to that court, “in particular, when replacing the retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell, who is Atlantic Canada’s representative on the Supreme Court.” While I will quibble with their use of “custom” as opposed to “constitutional convention” (which it really is at this point), this was one of those motions worded just loosely enough that the government could vote for it (and it did pass unanimously, as these kinds of motions often do), and should they go ahead and appoint a non-Atlantic justice to the court, they have room enough to turn around and give some kind of a nonsense excuse like “Oh, we felt that such-and-such diversity requirement was more needed at this point,” or “we felt that the Atlantic nominees were insufficiently bilingual,” or what have you. Or, as the talking points have been turning to, they will point to the number of Atlantic nominees on the short-list and said that they got equal opportunity and were not prejudiced against or some such, and make the merit argument. Suffice to say, there is more than enough wiggle room, and for a party that was so recently in government, the Conservative should have known better than to word a motion in a way that the government can support and later wiggle out of. This having been said, the government has been under enormous political pressure from the premiers regarding this Atlantic seat, so it is not inconceivable that this as a step in walking back from having the nominations being too open, but that remains to be seen.

Continue reading →

QP: The Giorno angle

Posted on by

With all of the leaders in the Commons today, the hope was that the show would be a little less awful than it was yesterday. On the whole, it was. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a plea that the government approve the Pacific Northwest LNG project, and Justin Trudeau dissembles about the choice between the environment and the economy. Ambrose lamented that too many pipeline projects were languishing and getting people back to work. Trudeau reminded her that their pipeline plans didn’t work because they didn’t get community buy-in, added that the Conservative voted against middle-class tax cuts. Ambrose changed topics, concerned about discussions with China that included cyber-security regardless of how many times Chinese hackers attacked Canadian targets. Trudeau stated that previous discussions were always ad hoc, while these new high-level discussions provided a more permanent framework. Ambrose expressed confusion about any extradition talks with China, and Trudeau returned to the same response about high-level dialogue. Ambrose asked again in French, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, asking if the Great Bear rainforest was no place for a crude oil pipeline, but wondered if it would also be one for natural gas. Trudeau didn’t give a clear response, mentioning analyzing various projects. Mulcair then lamented the adoption of Harper-era healthcare “cuts” (note: it’s not a cut, because the funds are still increasing), but Trudeau shrugged it off with talk of consultation with the provinces. Mulcair went another round in French, got the same answer, and then Mulcair moved onto labour rights and demanded that the government support their anti-scab bill. Trudeau spoke about the need for a better collaborative approach.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Charter Rights Officer

Posted on by

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is leading a push for the creation of an independent Charter Rights Officer for Parliament, and that sound you hear is my head hitting my desk over and over again. Because no. We don’t need yet another officer of parliament. We really, really don’t.

What we need is for MPs – particularly the opposition – to stand up and actually do their jobs, rather than fobbing off their homework onto yet another officer, who is accountable to nobody, whose reports they can then wield like some kind of a cudgel while not actually fulfilling their own responsibilities as parliamentarians (which, I will remind you once again, is to hold the government to account). The proliferation of officers of parliament has so diminished the capacity of the opposition to do their gods damned jobs in this country that it’s embarrassing, and since the inception of the Parliamentary Budget Office, it’s only become so much more egregious because now they can ignore the Estimates cycle entirely (despite controlling the public purse being the inherent definition of what MPs are supposed to do, and how they hold governments to account).

Oh, but it’s hard! Oh, but why not cede this to subject matter experts like lawyers and judges? Oh, why don’t we just start pre-referring all bills to the Supreme Court of Canada while we’re at it and turn the dialogue between the Court and Parliament into a game of “Mother May I?” Honestly, would it kill MPs to actually debate policy, which Charter compliance is a big part of? Parliament has responsibilities to fulfil. Why don’t we actually make them do their jobs rather than finding yet another excuse for them to avoid doing it?

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/780387082682458112

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/780387432789401600

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/780396554620469249

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/780400062300090368

Continue reading →