One of Alberta’s “senators in waiting” is grumbling about the current Senate appointment process, believing that the people of Alberta “have spoken” when they chose his name from a list to one day fill a Senate seat for that province. The problem, of course, is that the Supreme Court declared that whole process – which was a bit of a farce from its very inception – unconstitutional. If one wants Senate elections, they need a constitutional amendment with the seven-provinces-representing-fifty-percent-of-the-population amending formula. And don’t give me the “but it’s a non-binding election” line either, as Justice Cromwell very rightly pushed back during the Senate Reference hearings, “why not hold a consultative auction then? Is that any less valid?” The thing with the excuse for Senate elections as they have existed in this country so far is that they don’t actually provide any form of accountability is because they are for a non-renewable term. With an election, the re-election is where the accountability comes in. Anyone can get elected, no matter how terrible – we’ve seen untold number of examples of this in the past, and with the process that Alberta put into place, most of their Senate “elections” were just names on a ballot – most of the time, there was little advertising, there were no televised debates, and generally only one party participated as the Liberals boycotted the process and the NDP had no interest seeing as they want the Senate abolished anyway. At least when you have MPs who more or less accidentally get elected, you can judge them the next time around to see whether they did a good job or not (and we got a taste of this with the demise of many of those NDP MPs who got elected in the “Orange Wave” in 2011). Complicating the process in the Alberta conception of Senate “consultative elections” was the notion that they were based on provincial party nominations which don’t necessarily correspond to the federal parties that Senators caucus in (or at least used to until a couple of years ago), and what would one’s platform be anyway? It’s pretty hard to make legislative promises as a Senator, and promising transparency in spending is a sideshow compared to the actual legislative duties that they are expected to perform. And if memory serves, none of the “elected” Senators that Harper appointed have put forward any bills in the Senate either. One of them is also now concern trolling about the new “independent” senators as not being accountable to a party caucus, which makes one wonder why the big fuss about electing a Senator if one simply expects them to follow party lines despite the fact that the place was created with institutional independence for the very sake of pushing back against the government. Nevertheless, the Conservatives’ democratic reform critic has decried the new Senate appointments process as an “insult to Alberta” (erm, what part of unconstitutional don’t you understand?) and now we get these demands that the results of this sham election be considered regardless of the process or the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Senate was not designed to simply create 105 new backbenchers for the Commons. It would be nice if people stopped insisting as though that were the case, which is precisely what these “elections” have given us.
Tag Archives: Infrastructure
Roundup: Religious Freedom office on the line
In a month, Canada’s Religious Freedom ambassador’s first three-year term will expire, as will his office’s budget. He’s been making the rounds, once again, to talk about how much value there is in his office in helping our diplomats understand the religious points of view that dominate certain other countries, and uses that as the justification for his office. In a piece by the Citizen, there are a few other voices who say that he’s been doing a good job, and that he’s been available and accessible to talk about certain foreign policy issues, which is all well and good, but there does remain a certain discomfort around the very existence of the office and its raison d’etre. Part of that has to do with the suspicion that this was an office designed like its American counterpart to essentially be an office of Christian proselytising around the world – and to a certain extent, the press releases we did see out of that office seemed to weigh in particular to countries where there was a Christian minority in some level of persecution. But what the Citizen article misses is a more existential problem that the office faces, which is that its very existence creates a problem of perception in terms of a hierarchy of rights. The previous government in many statements it made in the Commons and elsewhere seemed to point to freedom of religion being a more fundamental building block to other rights and freedoms, which is fairly anathema to human rights academia. Back when the office was created, I spoke to a number of scholars who were sceptical because it introduced the notion that there was a hierarchy of rights, when all rights should be treated equally, lest they get their own departments within Global Affairs, and the jockeying for status, position and funding would take over. It remains to be seen what Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government thinks of the Office and whether they will be inclined to keep it around, or possibly absorb it into some other department within Global Affairs, of if they are persuaded by the argument of the perceptions of hierarchy.
Roundup: Bemoaning private meetings
There are times when demands for transparency from the government in all things does perplex me, particularly times when it starts to feel creepily inappropriate. Case in point is the sudden cry of “Oh noes! Justin Trudeau’s itinerary doesn’t list who those private meetings are with!” followed by some handwringing about taxpayer dollars. And then a chorus of “Oh noes! He met with lobbyists!” Because that’s the whole point of lobbying – to meet with officials, and not all lobbying is evil or the exchange of money, gifts or favours for the sake of influence, despite what American television will tell you (though, to be honest, the American version of lobbying – where those lobbyists have been able to be on the floor of the House of Representatives – is excessive). The fact that we can see after the fact that the PM and his staff have met with lobbyists is a sign of the transparency in our reporting mechanism, and I’m sure that there are meetings that should probably be private for all sorts of legitimate reasons. Can we ask questions about it? Sure. Does it mean that we are entitled to be privy to all of the details? I don’t see why. The thing is, sometimes the government relies on private, frank conversations in order to help guide their thinking – kind of like meetings with the Governor General. Sometimes good governance requires a modicum of discretion, and sometimes total transparency makes things worse. Is there a balance to be had? Of course. The fact that we’re getting daily itineraries is a far cry more than what we got under the last guy, and while that can’t simply be the go-to excuse that something is better than nothing, it also behoves us to temper our expectations a little. They don’t have to jump when we say so. I sometimes wonder if there aren’t a few people who don’t realise this and who get bent out of shape when it doesn’t happen. By all means, let’s ask the questions – but let’s also not pretend that the system is broken when we don’t get the answer we’re looking for.
Roundup: The problem with private members’ bills
I’ve written a lot about the problems with private members’ bills, and in my column this week over at Loonie Politics, it came up again given that the lottery for the Order of Precedence was posted. I wrote about it back in the spring when there were a number of problematic ones that the Senate was possibly going to kill (and in some cases did when the clock ran out on them) for good reason – because they were bad bills. While interviewing Liberal Senator George Baker yesterday for a story I was writing, he offered this, which I unfortunately wasn’t able to include in the piece, but every MP should nevertheless read it and take it to heart:
“Here’s a real problem with these private member’s bills: if there’s a fault in the bill, if there’s a word out of place, if there’s an error in the wording or in the intent of a sentence of paragraph – if it’s a private member’s bill, then the Senate is in a quandary because if they amend the bill, then they will in all likelihood be defeating the bill. If you amend a bill in the Senate, if it’s a private member’s bill, it goes back to the Commons and it goes to the bottom of the list for consideration, and then the private member will come to the Senate committee and say you’re going to pass this bill. We had it happen three times in the past two years. They say you’re going to defeat the bill, so the Senate turned around and passed the bill, given the tradition of not defeating something that’s legitimately passed in the House of Commons, and Senate ignored the necessary amendments and they passed bad legislation.”
Baker is absolutely right in that there is a problem – MPs don’t have them drafted very well, and then don’t do their due diligence because these bills are automatically time-allocated by design. That a number of these bills died on the Order Paper in the Senate one hopes might be an object lesson to MPs that they need to do better, but unfortunately, the lesson too many MPs took is that the “unelected and unaccountable Senate” didn’t just rubber-stamp a bill because it passed the Commons. Except, of course, it’s not their job to rubber stamp, and we’ve had an increasing number of bad bills getting through the cracks based on these emotive arguments, and not a few hissy fits along the way *cough*Reform Act*cough*. And now we have bad laws on the books because of it, apparently content to let the courts handle it instead. It’s sad and a little pathetic, to be perfectly honest. We should be demanding out MPs do better, and when they screw up, they need to take their lumps so that they’ll do better next time. Otherwise they won’t learn – or worse, they will take the wrong lesson, and our system will be worse off.
QP: The scattershot attack
The week slowly drawing to a close, more desks started to empty out in the Chamber, but hey, Justin Trudeau was there for a fourth day in a row — I’m not sure that ever happened under Harper, ever. Rona Ambrose led off, lectern still on desk, and she read a question in French about the size of the deficit. Trudeau rose and stated that they had pledged to be open and honest about budget figures, and they would reduce the net debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose then accused the government of doing nothing for the plight of Albertans with dropping oil prices. Trudeau reminded her that the previous government did nothing for them. Ambrose changed topics again, and trolled for support for their opposition day motion to maintain the CF-18 bombing mission. Trudeau reminded her that the Americans were just happy with the Canadian position, and that he was even just invited for a state dinner at the White House, something Harper never got. Denis Lebel was up next, and asked the same question to get the same answer. Lebel then asked why Trudeau thought that the 1982 patriation was a good template for electoral reform, but Trudeau reminded him of the promises made during the election.Thomas Mulcair was up next and noted the RCMP Commissioner’s admission that there were racists in his force and asked what the government was doing about it. Trudeau lamented it, but basically said that it was up to the RCMP to deal with their members. Mulcair asked about boil water advisories on First Nations reserves, to which Trudeau noted they were working with those First Nations. Mulcair changed topics again to Canada Post, and got the very same response he got the past three days. Mulcair gave one last change of topic, asking about which refugees where getting health funding for refugees, which Trudeau said they would be doing.
Um, pretty sure that most of those refugees are fleeing Assad and not ISIS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 10, 2015
QP: TFSA concerns
Tuesday’s QP followed on the announcement of the design phase of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women, and counter-programmed Mike Duffy’s testimony in his fraud trial, so plenty going on. When QP got underway, Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern on her desk, and read a question about the reduced limit for Tax-Free Savings Accounts. Justin Trudeau, without script, noted the plans to help vulnerable seniors with things like an increase in the GIS. Ambrose switched to French, and wondered what else the government would do to get cash, such as eliminating TFSAs altogether. Trudeau snapped back that trying to intimidate seniors wouldn’t work. Ambrose quoted Bill Morneau’s company’s praise for the increased limits, but Trudeau responded that the Conservatives were out of touch with Canadians. Denis Lebel asked another question on TFSAs in French, to which Trudeau replied that they were making concrete actions to help seniors. Lebel switched to the new deficit figures, to which Trudeau said that they would continue to update the numbers as they became available. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and welcomed the establishment of the inquiry process, but wondered about the timeline for action. Trudeau responded that they were making sure that the inquiry was properly informed, which is what they were committed to doing. Mulcair then turned to the question of Trudeau’s definition of middle class if people under a certain threshold didn’t benefit from the tax cut. Trudeau reminded him that they were getting more help through the Canada Child Benefit. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer. For his final question, Mulcair demanded a clear answer on the home delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they had a moratorium in place, and they had a commitment to keep.
Roundup: About that “costed” plan
The NDP released their “costed” fiscal plan yesterday, which was not in fact the full costing that they had promised, but rather a broad-strokes framework, full of vague line item names like “Helping Families Get Ahead” and “Help Where It’s Needed Most” rather than actually talking about their childcare plan, and their promises around the healthcare escalator. (That escalator, incidentally, has confused a lot of reporters in the room). It’s kind of ironic that after a week spent baiting the Liberals on releasing their costed platform, the NDP didn’t actually deliver theirs. Suffice to say, the analysis to date seems to be that the NDP platform relies on the Budget 2015 numbers – numbers which are no longer relevant as the price of oil has crashed even further, and GDP growth is nowhere near what was projected and likely won’t be anytime soon, which blows a hole of several billion dollars into the assumptions. It also relies on the same austerity that the Conservative budget is built upon, despite what the NDP insists. The Conservatives and Liberals immediately panned the document, but that’s not a surprise. Being as I’m not an economist, I’ll leave the comments for those who are, and they have plenty to say (with some background on how to read these kinds of documents from Kevin Milligan here):
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266217994215424
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266726171869184
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267141714149376
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267656929918976
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644268654381563904
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269099938283520
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269679876288512
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644270215551848448
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/644258642158596096
@acoyne If full employment wages fall with CIT increase. My estimate based on disequilibrium GE model with bigger job impact.
— Dr. Jack Mintz (@jackmintz) September 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/644306950700724224
Anyone looking at that list of NDP revenue measures is almost certainly going to say "No skin off my nose"
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
NDP program is not a rebellion against anti-tax sentiment; it's buying into it.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
No-one is going to vote NDP saying to themselves, "Okay, I'll pay more in taxes, but I'm willing to pay the price"
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
The NDP is selling a free lunch: We will raise taxes you don't have to pay, and we'll use them to buy you these goodies
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
So any narrative that sells support for the NDP as a rejection of the CPC has got it wrong. NDP is appealing to the same anti-tax sentiment
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 17, 2015
https://twitter.com/rolandparis/status/644332078855815168
NDP detail on daycare? @RosieBarton asks @thomson_ndp for the numbers (with @MichelleRempel & @JohnMcCallumLPC too) http://t.co/OszzPVZqs4
— Leslie Stojsic (@LeslieStojsic) September 16, 2015
Note to self: memorize all line by line expenditures before next @PnPCBC. FYI # is $595M in Y1 rising to $2.5B in Y4 @LeslieCBC @RosieBarton
— Andrew Thomson (@Thomson416) September 17, 2015
Roundup: May’s magical thinking
It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.
Roundup: The Conservatives’ anti-refugee inertia
With opinion galvanizing around the Syrian refugee crisis, there are calls for the government to do more – even if the opposition parties’ targets remain a little on the weak side in the overall picture. Cities and provinces – in particular Quebec – are pledging to do more, but they are bound by the pace that the federal government sets. And above all, that is the real problem with Canada’s response. Chris Alexander has been subtly blaming the UNHCR for their slow and onerous process while trying to cast his government in a positive light for trying to change that, except they’re the ones who’ve made the system far more onerous in the first place. I’ve covered the refugee file for a number of years, most especially when I was writing for Xtra, and a consistent theme emerged was that every time the Conservatives changed the rules, they were making it harder for refugees to make it into the country. In a particular bid to try to keep out refugee groups that they didn’t want to deal with – Mexicans and Roma are two that immediately come to mind – they continually tinkered with the rules, going so far as to create a “designated country of origin” list to make it easier to reject and deport those groups, no matter that a high volume of them had legitimate claims. They shortened processing times on arrival to prejudice the system against them, particularly when it’s difficult to get documentation, and denied them avenues of appeal. And overseas, they’ve understaffed embassies and missions in areas with high refugee populations and outsourced refugee determination to the UNHCR, which doesn’t have the resources and capacity to do that. Here in Canada, they’ve shifted their focus to private sponsorship away from government sponsorship, and even when they try to assist private groups, they don’t give them the assistance that they really required, such as capacity building. And then there was the whole issue of cutting off healthcare for refugee claimants, which was also used as a means of disincentivising people from coming over. Add to this a focus on risk assessment and then prioritizing minority populations in places like Syria and Iraq, and suddenly it’s no wonder that they’re moving at a glacial pace when it comes to getting more refugees resettled in Canada. The lack of political will to tackle this refugee crisis has been long-standing and a long time in the making. There are plenty of things that they could do, as Joe Clark explained, such as putting people on the ground in the region, doing security checks there, relieving the UNCHR of all of the work of refugee status determination, and arranging transportation rather than offering them loans for it (because if there’s one thing that refugees need it’s to be nickel-and-dimed by the Canadian government). They have the capacity, but they’ve spent so long trying to choke off the flow of refugees that the law of inertia has taken hold, and they can’t turn the ship around. I don’t think enough people are calling them out on this fact.
Roundup: Barton vs Alexander
One of the great failings of our politics is the way that everything has devolved into talking points – and usually, they’re utterly moronic talking points that have little to do with the questions being posed to whichever MP is speaking, and sometimes those talking points are complete non sequiturs to the topic at hand. And it’s not just Conservative MPs who ape them either – the NDP are some of the worst at it, ever since the 2011 communications lockdown started, and there are fewer sights more painful than watching their young rookie MPs being sent into an interview armed only with two or three talking points and nothing more. And then there’s Chris Alexander – Oxford educated, former diplomat, and the most petulant communicator that the 41st parliament produced. With the topic of Syrian refugees top of mind, Alexander went on Power & Politics last night, and tried to spin, deflect, and otherwise obfuscate the topic at hand. And praise be, Rosemary Barton was having none of it, repeatedly calling Alexander on his evasions and when he tried to blame the show for not tackling the subject before then, well, she let him have it. And thank the gods, because it’s about time we see the hosts get tough with MPs rather than pussyfoot around them in the hopes that tough questions don’t offend them into boycotts. (BuzzFeed offers a recap here). I’ve argued before that Barton not only deserves to be the permanent host of the show once the election is over, but given her performance last night, I think she deserves a gods damned Canadian Screen Award.
P&P covered Syrian refugees 32x since 2011. Incl 5 debates & 1×1 intv w/ @calxandr. Many more intv requests denied. http://t.co/m1GPD9WGhd
— Leslie Stojsic (@LeslieStojsic) September 2, 2015
The full segment:
I’ll also say that the whole affair reminded me of this (faux) Jeremy Paxman interview from The Thick of It, and it fills me with hope that Barton is becoming Canada’s Paxman.