Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity

Roundup: The price of everything and the value of nothing

Posted on by

We’re into that part of summer where the news is so thin that we’ve turned to cheap outrage to get to some headlines. Combing through expense reports, many a reporter is simply putting a big number up on a headline and clutching their pearls about it, never mind that there’s no context around those figures, and that in most cases they’re actually reasonable. And lo, we look small town cheap, like backwater rubes as we continue to insist that our politicians subsist on stale bread and shaving water lest they look like they’re too good for the rest of us.

https://twitter.com/lazin_ryder/status/767957004820242432

What is possibly worse is the fact that there is constant apology rather than defending any of the spending. Was the cost of Jane Philpott’s car service unreasonable? That’s debatable, and I’m dubious that the fact that the owner of the service was a campaign volunteer will gain much traction with the Ethics Commissioner. Catherine McKenna at least defended the use of a photographer at COP21 (and no, it’s not the media’s job to take photos that the government can later use for their own promotional need), but instead of media questioning the return that they got for them (Jen Gerson noted on Power & Politics that the quality of the photos she’d seen were questionable and the photographer hired had credentials that may not have been suitable for the task), we just get performed outrage at the dollar value.

https://twitter.com/will__murray/status/768206012113416198

https://twitter.com/will__murray/status/768207303455768580

In this he’s exactly right – this is made worse by politicians essentially cannibalizing one another to score points rather than saying “Whoa there, let’s stop and think about this for a minute. Maybe these are reasonable expenses.” No. Instead it’s this game of tit-for-tat, Conservatives getting back at the Liberals for pointing out their own spending excesses when they were in government, and the NDP simply being sanctimonious and smug. The Globe and Mail’s editorial on the subject is right – we are spending too much time on the nickel-and-diming and the cheap theatre of performed outrage rather than on the actual scrutiny of government spending, and this may be related to the absolute dysfunction of the Estimates process in parliament (noting that parliamentarians themselves let it get this bad rather than push back on successive governments that caused this problem, and performing cheap outrage is easier). On the other hand, we’ve reached the point where we are living out that Oscar Wilde quote about a cynic being “A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Reporters rushing to put up that headline number with no context attached have done the system a disservice. Insisting that everyone post receipts will only make things worse, and will only hasten the race to the bottom where MPs will be fighting for re-election on the backs of what brand of toilet paper they bought for the constituency office and whether it was on sale that week or not. We need to draw a line somewhere, before we both paralyze the discourse and make politics so unattractive to anyone who wants to serve the public that they won’t bother. We’re our own worst enemies, and we help nobody in feeding this populist noise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Referendum lies and demagoguery

Posted on by

So, the electoral reform committee was back again yesterday, and they heard from two academics – one was an avid proponent of proportional representation that Elizabeth May fangirled over so hard, while the other was a former Quebec MNA who spearheaded that province’s failed attempt at moving to a multi-member PR system. There wasn’t much takeaway from either, other than Arend Lijphart (the former of the two) was a big fan of multi-member ridings in Canada (because apparently the problem of enormous rural ridings escapes him), and the fact that he felt that we should avoid a referendum because like Brexit, it would fall victim to demagoguery and “outright lies.”

To which I immediately have to ask – whose lies? The proponents of the status quo, or those of the advocates of PR? Because having seen both in the state of the debate so far, they’re equally odious. How about the lies that majority governments formed under our system are “illegitimate?” Because Lijphart was peddling that one. Or the lies about “38 percent of the vote gets 100 percent of the power”? Because a) the popular vote figure doesn’t actually exist (it’s a logical fallacy based on a misreading of our elections as a single event when they’re 338 separate but simultaneous events), and b) even in proportional systems, parties don’t get a share of power equal to their share of the vote, particularly if they are not part of the governing coalition and even if they are, the “share” of power will not be equal to their vote share. How about the lies about how voter turnout will suddenly blossom under PR? Because research has demonstrated that the most increase we might see is maybe three percent (because declining turnout in Western democracies is a widespread problem that has nothing to do with the electoral systems but rather a great many other factors). How about the common lies of PR advocates that votes are “wasted” and that they don’t count if the person they voted for doesn’t win, and that they system is so unfair? Are those lies any better than the ones about how a PR system would turn us into Israel or Italy and we would have nothing but unstable governments, and the sun would become black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon become as blood? Or are the lies that PR advocates tell okay because they’re well intentioned and lies about a future full of rainbows, gumdrops and unicorns better than lies about doom and destruction? Is pro-PR demagoguery morally superior to the demagoguery of status-quo doomsayers? That’s what I’d like to know.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counter-radicalism and reality checks

Posted on by

In the wake of the Aaron Driver near-miss last week, public safety minister Ralph Goodale is set to announce that the government is moving ahead with a counter-radicalization programme, but it looks like the details are still a little ways out. That said, Goodale has been pretty frank that our current counter-radicalisation programmes have little coherence and that’s what he aims to fix over the course of this year. And while we get the musings about what kind of leader Trudeau will be in the face of terrorism, we get his former foreign policy advisor Roland Paris reminding us of what he has done to date (which is not nothing, as his critics have stated). More importantly, however, we need to remind ourselves of the reality of the situation, and for that, I would turn your attention to Stephanie Carvin’s piece in this weekend’s Globe and Mail, which explains why counter-terrorism and counter-radicalism is not as easy as you might think, and provides a good reality check for the kinds of rhetoric out there, and why saying things like “connecting the dots” isn’t actually helpful to any kind of conversation around the subject.

Continue reading →

QP: In other news…

Posted on by

It was very nearly a full house for QP, including all of the leaders. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, once again demanding an electoral reform referendum. Trudeau said that he did trust Canadians to discuss complex and nuanced issues, which was why he wanted an open consultative process. Ambrose switched to French to lament the current government’s understanding of the military and his choice in the Super Hornets. Trudeau in turn lamented the sorry state of the Forces left by his predecessors and their botched procurements. Ambrose asked again in English, and got the same answer. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of progress on a new softwood lumber agreement. Trudeau responded that the previous government neglected the file, focusing fruitlessly on pipelines that went nowhere. Lebel disputed Trudeau’s characterisation, but Trudeau insisted they immediately sought to restore positive relations with the Americans to better deal with these irritants. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and listed off the opposition to C-14, and Trudeau called the bill an “important step” but that it struck a balance with the protection of the vulnerable. Mulcair insisted it was as false choice, and accused the government of behaving exactly like their predecessors. Trudeau begged to differ, noting the Conservatives ignored the issue, and he praised the work to date. Mulcair demanded that the government at least take amendments from the Senate, and Trudeau said that he looked forward to what the “newly independent and less partisan” Senate would bring forward. Mulcair accused the bill of going against the Charter, and Trudeau reiterate the balance being struck.

Continue reading →

QP: Referenda and farm protests

Posted on by

After the machinations around the government’s climb down on their electoral reform committee and the subsequent Conservative apoplexy, it was likely to be a more tense day in QP. Here was my prediction:

Rona Ambrose led off by quoting Trudeau from a press conference earlier this morning in saying that referenda are often used to stop things, and declared it arrogant. Maryam Monsef said the time was to move past process and get onto the actual debate. Ambrose said that the NDP and the Liberals were taking the right to determine their voting system away from Canadians. Monsef praised their cooperation and doing politics differently. Ambrose repeated the question, and Monsef praised the work of the committee in engaging Canadians and bringing recommendations back to the Commons. Alain Rayes was up next, decrying the “backroom deal” with the NDP (which doesn’t appear to have been a deal considering the NDP seemed genuinely surprised that the government climbed down), and got the same lines from Monsef. Rayes gave one more demand for a referendum, and got much the same answer. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted the farm protest happening outside, and demanded action on the issue of diafiltered milk. Jean-Claude Poissant noted that the government supported Supply Management and would protect it. After another identical round from Boutin-Sweet, Tracey Ramsay decried the TPP while asking the very same questions about diafiltered milk. Poissant gave the same assurances of support for Supply Management.

Continue reading →

QP: An end to constant clapping?

Posted on by

On caucus day, all of the leaders were present but there were a few curiously empty desks. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, asking about Canadian special forces troops coming under fire near Mosul, and wondered about the training mission. Trudeau replied about helping our allies take the fight to ISIS, and listed off the additional resources added to the mission. Ambrose asked again about the combat mission, and Trudeau reiterated that it was not a combat mission. Ambrose then moved back to the howls for a referendum, and Trudeau listed off his promises of broad consultation. Denis Lebel took over in French to demand a referendum, and got much the same answer, and then a second round of the same. Thomas Mulcair was up next, asking about RCMP surveillance on journalists, and Trudeau reminded him that the RCMP were taking steps, and that they have learned from their mistakes. Mulcair asked again in English, and demanded why C-51 was not repealed. Trudeau mentioned ongoing consultations with stakeholders and the forthcoming parliamentary oversight body for national security. Mulcair then switched to C-10 and jobs affected, and Trudeau insisted that they were trying to ensure the long-term success of the industry. For his final question, Mulcair bemoaned the lack of investment in Bombardier, and Trudeau reiterate that they are encouraging investment in the sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An affidavit in error?

Posted on by

Another interesting twist has emerged in the saga of the satellite offices, and the quixotic quest to have the Board of Internal Economy decision challenged in Federal Court. While the NDP crowed that the court accepting their “expert opinion” affidavit, it seems that the legal opinion given to the Board is that this is a Very Bad Thing that needs to be challenged, because allegedly this sets up some kind of terrible precedent. As well, because the acceptance of the affidavit was by a court official and not a judge – meaning probably a prothonotary – this is also somehow significant and material to the challenge. I’m certainly not an expert in civil procedure, and welcome the comments of those who are, but my own particular reading of this is that this is apparently something that should have been laughed out of court right off the start, rather than allowing a judge to actually get the affidavit, read it through, and then telling the NDP to go and drop on their collective heads in a scathing judgment because there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege and it’s an important concept that parliamentarians govern their own affairs. Which of course may explain why the NDP were so giddy as to alert the media that their affidavit was not laughed out of the room in the first place, even though I will remind you that having an affidavit accepted is a far cry from actual victory. Mind you, I do think that this is an issue of parliamentary privilege (for which I explained the reasons here), so perhaps the Commons’ legal advice is worth noting that it means that the affidavit should have been refused after all. But like I said, I’m not an expert in civil procedure, so I await responses from those in the know.

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: 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 →

QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and the day before the budget, and attendance was pretty depressed, and none of the major leaders were present. Megan Leslie led off, demanding the government table a budget that helps families. Kevin Sorensen said she’d have to wait for tomorrow to get the details, but they were going to fulfil their provinces including tax breaks for families. Leslie insisted regular Canadians would face cuts, but Sorenson was not deterred from his good news talking points. Leslie then changed topics to the constitutionality of Mike Duffy’s Senate appointment, to which Paul Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite offices and demanded they repay them. Peter Julian repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and for his final question, Peter Julian decried cuts to marine safety as demonstrated by the fuel leak in English Bay. Lisa Raitt responded by commending the Coast Guard on their actions, and reminded them that the ship transiting Canadian waters who is solely responsible for their pollution. Scott Brison led for the Liberals, decrying the planned balanced budget legislation, and asked the government to make the law retroactive to repay the five percent penalty for the years that we weren’t in recession. Sorenson praised balanced budgets, and didn’t take Brison’s bait. Brison then decried the doubling of the TFSA limit as helping only the wealthy, and Sorenson responded with some non sequitur past quote of Brison. Brison wanted more help for students instead of advertising (Poilievre: You would raise taxes on students).

Continue reading →