A trio of Justin Trudeau-related items in the news today, which makes me want to look at them together. The first incident of note was actually last in chronological order, but to me it seemed most significant, which is the fact that during Question Period yesterday, Trudeau stood up and apologised for having told reporters on Wednesday that opposition party obstruction was to blame for why a committee on electoral reform was not yet up and running, and pledged that he was still serious about the topic. I’m not sure that we ever saw Stephen Harper apologise, nor would we ever see it because that was a man who was not only determined to always be seen to be right, but he also had a particularly obstinate streak that made him dig his heels in rather than be proven to be wrong. Most often this was around the inappropriate behaviours of cabinet ministers, and rather than have them step down over wrongdoing, Harper would keep them in position well past the time that the heat was on them, and only shuffle them once the attention was elsewhere so it didn’t look like he was capitulating to demands of the reporters. Trudeau on the other hand owned up to what he had said, apologised, promised to do better, and even applauded when the MP who called him out made a slightly clever dig about it in his follow-up question. It was a show of humility and accountability that we are unused to seeing here. The second incident of note was after his speech on Fort McMurray at the start of the day, during Statements by Ministers (a practice in Routine Proceedings that the Conservatives had virtually allowed to fall into complete disuse). Rona Ambrose rose to give remarks in reply, and got emotional during it, and once she finished speaking, Trudeau was quick to cross the aisle to give her a quick hug – again, something that cold fish Harper was loathe to do, and only once gave awkward hugs around speeches related to either an MP’s passing or the attack on Parliament Hill (I forget which and tried to find a reference but couldn’t – forgive me). Trudeau remains a master of the humanizing gesture that helps to civilise politics in a way that we have become unused to after a decade of angry sound and fury. The third item of note had to do with a point of order raised after QP, when Blake Richards accused Trudeau of sticking his tongue out during a question raised by Diane Watts about P3 projects. Nobody but Richards seems to have witnessed this, but we do know that Trudeau does occasionally possess an irreverent side. Did he stick his tongue out? Maybe. Is it the end of the world if he did? Hardly, and in the theatrics of QP, it’s a bit tiresome but does raise the spectre of the “fuddle duddle” incident, if only less profane.
Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau
Roundup: A pointless procedural dust-up
The shine has come off around the medical assistance in dying bill, as the government decided that enough was enough, and it was time to send it to committee. So they invoked time allocation, and not surprisingly, there was all manner of outcry about how terrible this was, and Conservatives like Jason Kenney equivocating, insisting that they never employed time allocation on such sensitive life and death matters as this (ignoring things like safe injection sites or laws around prostitution as also being life and death matters for those that it affects). Kenney’s later assertions about what this bill will do were also…fanciful to say the least.
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/727954797190479872
No hyperbole here. https://t.co/PKMFGcfw5u
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 4, 2016
I will say that I have little sympathy for MPs who railed about the government cutting off debate, after two nights of midnight sittings and over 84 MPs having spoken to the bill. This is second reading debate, which is the principle of the bill. And I’ve listened to enough speeches to know that they all basically say “this is a very personal issue,” and “What about palliative care?” with minor variations throughout. The concern trolling about the conscience rights of doctors is also in there, never mind that this is a bill dealing with the criminal code and that issue is one for the provinces who deliver healthcare and the provincial certification bodies for physicians. There remains committee stage debate – which is the real meat of the bill – report stage once it comes back, and third reading debate. If MPs still have things to say, there remain plenty of opportunities, and the government also pointed out that some MPs had been up to speak several times on the bill, meaning that there couldn’t possibly be that many more MPs who needed to speak. And if you’ll forgive my particular cynicism, how many more times do we need to hear MPs read those same sentiments in the record over and over again? The government was already generous in the amount of time it gave to debate second reading – accusing them of somehow stifling debate or invoking closure were both patently wrong and false. And so, once all of the procedural wrangling and grousing was done, it passed second reading by a wide margin. Liberal MP Robbie Falcon-Outlette was the sole member of that party to vote against, and he went on Power & Politics to make a bunch of patently false equivalences between this bill and the suicide crisis in places like Attawapiskat, with a host of intellectually dishonest arguments strewn along the way. The bill also began pre-study in the Senate, where I expect it will get a much tougher ride, and there remains a very real chance that even if the bill passes the Commons unscathed that it will not do so in the Senate, and that it may not pass by deadline.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/727990740576403456
Falcon-Outlette is making a kitchen sink argument that misses the actual point. https://t.co/lI5lzMgq8f
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 4, 2016
Roundup: No appetite for back pay
With parliament resuming this week, all attention is on whether or not Senator Mike Duffy will resume his duties. After all, there have been a few signs of activity in his office, with computers being updated and such, but there remains a question as to whether his health will allow it, but we’ll see. As for the question as to whether he will be getting any back pay for his time suspended without it, well, senior senators are not so keen. In fact, the phrase “no appetite” is continually used, and they are quick to point to the fact that the Senate’s internal discipline – which the suspension was part of – was based on the Deloitte audits and not criminal findings of guilt or innocence, thus his acquittal by the courts makes it largely an irrelevant issue as far as they’re concerned. I would also add that should Duffy decide to press the issue, well, there are a few well-placed senators who around this issue who are known to leak things to the media, and who will undoubtedly start doing so about any other skeletons in Duffy’s closet that they are aware of. Meanwhile, there remain questions back in PEI about whether Duffy remains qualified to represent the province, as there is still a level of distrust that he is actually a resident (and given that it sounds like he spent the bulk of his time on suspension in Ottawa, well, that doesn’t help matters much). Meanwhile, some Conservative senators are grousing a little bit that Senator Peter Harder isn’t really providing much in the way of answers during regular Senate QP (as opposed to ministerial versions thereof). I think they’re being a bit unfair, considering that he’s been on the job only a couple of weeks and hasn’t yet staffed up his office, nor really had a chance to get proper briefings from the Privy Council Office (because yes, he has been sworn into the Privy Council to take on this job, making him a quasi-minister) on the files that he is likely to be asked about, or had much in the way of a briefing binder prepared, but it does put him on notice that they do expect him to step up his game in the role of “government representative,” particularly when it comes to being the conduit for holding the government to account. These are things that are important, especially as there are no opposition voices in the Commons from Atlantic Canada or the GTA, making the Senate’s role in asking those questions all the more important.
Roundup: Six months later
The Liberal government is now six months old, so everyone is checking in on the list of their promises kept and broken. This one list, compiled from the “Trudeau Meter,” however, is a bit nitpicky on some of those “broken” promises, calling them broken because there was no mention in this year’s budget when there are three more years of budgets left in the current mandate, and it’s pretty hard to expect everything to have happened in the first six months of a government, when there are a lot of moving pieces to keep track of. In other words, give them a little more time before you declare all of these promises broken. The deficit figures for this year continue to look better than anticipated as the Fiscal Monitor shows continued surpluses into the spring months (which the Conservatives will be insufferable about in QP next week, I can promise you), but that may be because CRA is apparently having a banner year in terms of collecting lapsed taxes, up to an extra $1 billion so far. So there’s that. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have the challenge of trying to stay united during this period of transition for their party, particularly as the leadership contest starts to intensify. As for the NDP, they’re now struggling to remain relevant six months later. So there’s that.
Roundup: Responsible, not rogue
A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.
Just doing his job, Liberal MP goes rogue https://t.co/VQMoYN8C9i #cdnpoli #hw
— CBC Politics (@CBCPolitics) April 28, 2016
One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:
Roundup: Linda Frum’s misplaced concerns
Conservative Senator Linda Frum has decided to take on the topic of the current batch of Senate reforms, and I can’t even. And yet, I must. So here we go. Her two main points are about the institution’s lack of accountability and lack of legitimacy, and while she notes all of the changes with the former, she is way off base with the latter – but more on that in a moment. Much of the problem with Frum’s whole thesis is that it ignores historical context and perspective. With the lack of accountability, she correctly laments that the Duffy incident highlighted poor financial controls, but this is not unique to the Senate – most elected legislatures also lacked adequate controls until very recently, hence we had the moat cleaning imbroglio in the UK, or the Nova Scotia MLAs who bought flat screen TVs and generators as office expenses, or federal MPs improperly claiming their own housing allowances just a few years ago. It’s a process and the Senate was actually ahead of the curve of the Commons for much of the last number of years. And good for her for denouncing the “everybody does it” excuse. But her analysis of the Senate’s legitimacy issue is, frankly, jejune. The Senate does not need to derive its legitimacy from popular elections because it comes from the constitution and from Responsible Government – as with all Governor-in-Council appointments, the Prime Minister is empowered to make them so long as he or she maintains the confidence of the Commons, and he or she is accountable for making them. That is where the Senate’s legitimacy is drawn from, and people who insist otherwise tend to be more enamoured with Americana rather than the actual function of our own Senate – a body geared toward more deliberation than as a competing legislative body. Popular election would make the Senate just that – a competing chamber more inclined to gridlock if it is controlled by an opposing party to the government in the Commons, and otherwise full of 105 backbenchers for the Commons parties to boss around, seeing the great expense and organisation that would go along with Senate elections (even more than MP elections given that senators represent a whole province and not a small riding). Leaving aside Frum’s conspiracy theory that all of the new independent appointments are just closet Liberals (and I will give her the point that Peter Harder’s insistence on styling himself an independent is deeply problematic), Frum is boggled by the notion that a body that is not a confidence chamber can operate without defined government and opposition sides, and that Senators could weigh legislation on its merits rather than on the basis of the whip. In fact, Frum goes so far as to posit this baffling gem:
So long as we senators are not elected, our democratic legitimacy depends on government-appointed Senators following the leadership of a government that is elected – and that government, in turn, must honestly acknowledge its responsibility for the actions of the senators it appoints.
I barely even know where to start with this, other than to say “Nope. Nope, nope, nope. So much nope.” You see, the Senate has institutional independence under the constitution. The whole point of the Senate is that it’s supposed to push back against a prime minister when that prime minister tries to ram through dubious legislation through a majority Commons that they control. If said PM also has senators under their thumb, then it kind of defeats the purpose of it, no? And no, as I explained in my column this week, the PM doesn’t have the responsibility to police the Senate because of that institutional independence. And I get that Frum is doing yeoman’s work in trying to defend her partisan affiliations, which are totally legitimate. I too don’t think that a Senate full of independents is the best thing for our system, but that doesn’t mean that a greater presence of independent senators – enough to ensure the balance of power is no longer weighed in the favour of any one party – is illegitimate or unconstitutional. Frum is wrong on that point, and it needs to be said.
Roundup: New paths to power
If there was any particular proof needed that things are indeed changing in the government, the way in which decisions are made is a pretty good place to start, as Susan Delacourt explores over in Policy Options. Gone are the days when all paths lead to the PMO, but rather individual ministers are empowered to make decisions, but at the same time, they are expected to consult with provincial and territorial counterparts. The civil service, having grown used to not being asked to draw up an array of options for shaping policy, is now a “fixer upper,” while the new dynamic makes it possible for anyone to contribute to policy discussions, meaning that the government can draw from a bigger pool of ideas. And the new buzzword of “deliverology” means that goals are being drawn up as tangible things that have knowable results, rather than just abstract dollar figures. (The “guru” of deliverology just met with cabinet at the Kananaskis retreat, where he said that the government has made good progress over the last six months). Commons committees are coming up with policy discussions of their own (not that they’re always going to be taken fully, as the assisted dying legislation shows). We have evidence that the Senate and their legislative agenda is being listened to, with examples like Senator Moore’s bill on restoring parliamentary authority over borrowing being adopted in the government’s budget, and Ralph Goodale talking about how they are considering his bill on CBSA oversight. So yes, it looks like the centre of power is less and less the PMO in this brave new world, which is probably not such a bad thing after all.
Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles
I was set to delve into the eight principles that Maryam Monsef laid out as part of what she plans to work on the electoral reform proposals around, when it turned out that Peter Loewen went ahead and tracked which of the three most likely voting systems corresponded to each principle. Suffice to say, not one system fit with each, which gives rise to the notion that Monsef will have to treat some principles more than others. Now, the NDP were outraged in QP yesterday that proportionality was not on this list of principles, though one could argue that the first principle, that votes are translated into election results without significant distortions, could be an endorsement of proportionality, except of course that it’s a perception problem based on a logical fallacy, which makes its inclusion as a principle to be a problem. I also have a problem with the inclusion of the third principle of using the system to increase diversity. That’s not a problem of the electoral system so much as it’s a problem of how parties seek out and nominate candidates. Most parties are getting better at this, but we should beware that including this principle would give rise to list systems, which in turn give rise to unaccountable token MPs in a two-tiered system. Monsef’s eighth principle, that the system needs to build consensus, is also problematic. Why? Because our system is built to hold people to account, and consensus makes this problematic. If everyone is accountable, then no one is accountable. Of course, I would remind everyone that there’s nothing actually wrong with our system as it is – what’s wrong is our crisis of civic literacy, which means that people don’t understand how the system works, leading them to assume that it’s broken – particularly if they succumb to sore loser tendencies and complain about things like “wasted votes.” If I may be so bold, Monsef is probably better off tinkering with the existing system to encourage greater participation (as we saw examples of in the last election, such as campus polling stations) and education rather than this attempt to rethink the system which will please no one and ensure that everything is worse off than it is now. We don’t have to break the system even further. We can stop this train before it goes off that cliff.
Roundup: Harder’s budget request
Peter Harder is asking the Senate for a budget of $800,000 to hire nine people to assist in his “government representative duties.” While I’m not opposed to the dollar figure, I’m a bit curious about why nine staff, but let’s back up first to the precedent that is guiding this whole exercise, being Stephen Harper’s fit of pique when Marjory LeBreton resigned as Government Leader in the Senate. By that point, Harper was being badgered and hectored daily about the ClusterDuff incident, as well as Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, and he decided that his next Government Leader, Claude Carignan, was not going to be put into cabinet so as to give the appearance of distance. Of course, it was only the appearance, as Carignan was a minister in every respect but name, including being sworn into the Privy Council (necessary to get the briefing books to answer on behalf of the government in Senate QP). But because he wasn’t a minister, he couldn’t get funding from PCO for staff and needed activities, so Carignan went to the Senate and asked for a bigger budget, and he got it, hiring a staff of 14. With Trudeau now being fairly cute with the way he is handling the “government representative” file – Harder being sworn into Privy Council and able to attend cabinet meetings – the government decided that with the Carignan precedent, Harder can simply ask the Senate for the budget he needs. Now, he is getting some pushback about getting a budget without attendant responsibilities, such as answering in QP. They referred the decision to a subcommittee (that still hasn’t been filled), but I do wonder why nine. I can understand an admin staff, a policy person or two, a comms person, but without a caucus to manage, what exactly is so labour intensive about “shepherding the government’s agenda”? That’s a bit of time management, introducing the odd debate on government legislation, but what else would he be required to do? So perhaps we’ll get some answers, but it does seem a bit odd to me.
QP: Disclosures and the rules
It was Audrey O’Brien Day in the Commons, as the Clerk Emeritus sat at the head of the table as a farewell to her time serving MPs. Rona Ambrose started off by paying tribute to O’Brien before she got to her question about pipelines, and how there was now a tanker ban on the west coast after Northern Gateway was approved (only it wasn’t really approved, as there were 200+ conditions attached). Trudeau also paid tribute to O’Brien before reminding Ambrose that they didn’t get any pipelines built. Ambrose demanded to know if Trudeau would let Energy East or Transmountain go through if they were approved, but Trudeau stuck to generalities. Ambrose tried again, but got a reminder that her government didn’t get pipelines to tidewater in ten years. Denis Lebel was up next, worried about the lack of information in the budget. Trudeau reminded him of the promises that they made to families in the election. Lebel tried to burnish his government’s record, but Trudeau’s answer didn’t change. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and after a brief homage to O’Brien, lambasted the government for approving the Saudi LAV deal. Trudeau reminded Mulcair of statements he made regarding the jobs in question and not cancelling agreements. Mulcair then accused Trudeau of using numbered companies to avoid taxes, but Trudeau insisted that all taxes were paid. Mulcair pressed, and Trudeau reminded him that he has been open about his financial holdings. Mulcair asked again in English, and Trudeau stood by his disclosures.