Tag Archives: Maxime Bernier

Roundup: Beware blinkered history

Posted on by

There is always a danger in trying to look for lessons from history when you do so selectively. This is the case with a column by William Watson in today’s Ottawa Citizen. Watson – an economics professor at McGill and not a parliamentary observer, it should be noted – dug through the 1917 Hansard to look over the debates on bringing in income tax (remember, this was the “temporary” wartime measure that was introduced and then eventually became a permanent thing), and discovered that lo, the debate was so much more serious then and nothing like things are today, ergo Parliament was better in 1917 than it is today.

And then I bashed my head against my desk for a while.

This is what happens when you take a look at a narrow slice of history without actually looking at the broader context or picture. It’s easy to take a single debate and declare a golden age because hey, the government of the day was giving complex answers to complex questions, but that’s not to say that there weren’t antics that took place. Remember that this was not far removed from the days when MPs would light firecrackers and play musical instruments to disrupt the other side during debate. Hell, I was speaking to a reporter who was in the Gallery during WWII, and she said that there was far less professionalism in those days, and MPs who got bored would often break into song during debate. This was also the era before TV, before the proceedings were recorded in audio or video and able to be checked, so we don’t know what the transcriptionists missed. It was also an era where I’m sure that time limits for questions and answers were looser than they are now, and where MPs weren’t playing up for the cameras. Does that make it better? Maybe, maybe not. Parliament was also composed entirely of white men, mostly of a professional background – does that make things any better? You tell me. Parliament had very different responsibilities in those days as well, and government was much, much smaller. Patronage ruled the day, and government was more involved in direct hires of the civil service rather than it being arm’s length. Is this something we want to go back to? Watson kind of shrugs this important distinction off because they had more meaningful exchanges about income tax.

Declaring simply that Parliament was composed of “intelligent, informed adults” in 1917, and the implication that it is not so today, is a grossly blinkered view of history and of civics. I will be the first to tell you that the state of debate today is pretty abysmal when it mostly consists of people reading statements into the record, talking past one another, but that doesn’t mean that MPs aren’t intelligent or informed. Frankly, it seems like Watson is longing for the days of the old boys’ club if you read some of his nostalgic commentary. I’m not sure that’s proof that things were better then, and it certainly should be a caution about taking a blinkered view of history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Further conversations on constitutional conventions

Posted on by

In response to my blog post yesterday on the our unwritten portions of our constitution being just as important as the written parts, I had a lot of response over the Twitter Machine, many trying to argue that parties were not an integral part of the system, but historian Christopher Moore took the time out to chastise me for the use of the term “constitutional conventions” when it comes to Responsible Government. But the problem is that Moore is actually wrong in what he tried to argue. To wit:

Smith should look at Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which sets out in plain language that only the cabinet can make and propose the raising and spending of money. That is what defines the role of the cabinet of ministers. It budgets; it plans the getting and spending.  But then there is Section 53, which bluntly states that only the House of Commons can give approval to the cabinet’s proposals for getting and spending.

A few problems with this. First of all, he’s citing the Constitution Act, 1867 and not 1982, and looking at Section 54, there is no mention of cabinet at all:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

As is consistent in our constitution, there is no mention of a PM, or cabinet, because they are part of Responsible Government, which as I pointed out yesterday are part of the unwritten conventions that we inherited from the UK. As is consistent with the rest of the written constitution, only the Governor General is mentioned. And here’s the kicker: the unwritten constitutional convention is that under Responsible Government, the Crown – by way of the GG – acts on the advice of ministers, and for that to happen, ministers must hold the confidence of the Chamber. Ministers via the convention do all executive government in the Queen’s name. It’s not written because it’s a convention, per the preamble, as a constitution being similar in principle to that of the UK. Moore’s contention that it’s not a convention and that it’s embedded in the text does not hold. So while I’m happy to be corrected when I get it wrong (and it happens), this is not one of those times. Also, if you’re going to quote the constitution at me, then quote the constitution. And as for those people on the Twitter Machine insisting that Responsible Government can function without parties, well, it’s possible in a theoretical world with vampires and unicorns, but it will never happen in real life, so trying to disprove it to make a point is pretty much moot. The practice of parties developed for a reason. Maintaining confidence without them is a fool’s errand.

With many thanks to Philippe Lagassé for talking this issue through with me.

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: Just a normal backbench function

Posted on by

There are days when I wonder if the cynicism among reporters isn’t the bigger problem facing Ottawa as we get yet another incredulous piece talking about how backbench Liberal MPs are openly voting against their own party, and how incredible is that? One MP went so far as to say that the Prime Minister himself told his caucus that the media was going to have to get used to the fact that MPs would disagree with him from time to time. And lo and behold, it continues to be treated as both a novelty and an aberration that backbenchers will stand up to government. We had commentary on one of the lesser weekend panel shows yesterday that was some pundit or other incredulous that there were MPs disagreeing with the leader, apparently because there weren’t enough goodies like cabinet posts or committee chairs to go around, and I can’t even.

Meanwhile, we have interviews with the government whip about how he’s going to manage all of these free votes on things (which was fairly constructive, to be honest, as he talked about having copies of the bill at hand and lists of people he could direct MPs to talk about with their concerns). It’s helpful, but needs more reminding that hey, it’s actually a backbencher’s job to hold their own government to account as much as it is the opposition’s. Now, if we could just get them to start asking some real questions in QP instead of throwing these suck-up softballs, that would be really great. Oh, and while I’m on the topic of journalists and pundits acting all surprised that MPs are doing their jobs, can we also stop this faux-confusion about how things are working in the Senate with “independents” and “independent Liberals”? Because honestly, if you haven’t gotten the memo that Senate Liberals are not part of the national Liberal caucus, and that they simply chose to continue to call themselves Liberals because the Rules of the Senate say that a caucus needs to have an association with a registered federal political party, then you really need to get with the programme. Stop saying that things are confusing when they’re not. You’re not helping the public – you’re just making things worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fair Vote Canada’s shambolic release

Posted on by

It’s not everyday that you get a completely unhinged press release in your inbox, but holy cow did Fair Vote Canada come out with a doozy yesterday. It’s hard to know where to start with such a work of “shambolic genius,” as Colby Cosh put it.

You see, according to the geniuses at Fair Vote Canada, they have cleverly parsed that when Trudeau pledged to “make every vote count” (a boneheaded statement because every vote already counts), he was referring to their slogan, and therefore he must really advocate for Proportional Representation, and because Trudeau has said he has no pre-conceived ideas about what the outcome of the consultations on electoral reform would be, he must really mean that he’s just trying to figure out which proportional representation system to use, because that’s what he’s signalled by using their slogan. Genius, I tell you. Genius!

But Wait… There’s More!™

While referring to Parliament as “the law factory” (Seriously? Seriously?!), they started invoking the Charter to claim that “equal treatment and equal benefit under the law” must mean that Canadian citizens are entitled to having their votes represented in direct proportion to the votes cast. Which is insane and ridiculous because that’s not how our system works at all, and is completely wrong when it comes to jurisprudence. You see, the Supreme Court of Canada has already rejected this line of reasoning, both in terms of the deviation of voting power (i.e. unequal riding sizes) for the purposes of better governance, but also with attempted challenges to the First-Past-The-Post system in the Quebec courts, which were roundly rejected and which the Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant leave to appeal. That means that as far as they’re concerned, the law is settled, and for Fair Vote Canada to try and advance this line of argument is futile and wrong. Because the law is settled. But considering that the whole basis for their advocacy of PR is rooted in sore loserism at the ballot box, it makes complete sense that they are also sore losers when it comes to the judicial system as well.

Moral of the story: Fair Vote Canada has long used falsehoods and logical fallacies to advance their case. This ridiculous and completely specious release is just one more in a dishonest string of arguments they’ve made and will continue to make as this debate heats up in the coming months.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fundraising moral panic

Posted on by

In case you missed it, the moral panic over the past week or so is ministerial fundraisers, first in Ontario (and to a certain extent BC), but that’s bled over in to the federal sphere, because apparently we were afraid of missing out. And don’t forget, the federal rules are already pretty strict, with corporate and union donations already been banned and the contribution limit is pretty small (and when it comes to leadership contests, the Conservatives and NDP conspired to screw the Liberals, who were mid-contest at the time, but that’s beside the point). The point is that there’s a lot of unnecessary tut-tutting, particularly around a perfectly legal private fundraiser that the Minister of Justice is holding at a Toronto law firm. “Oh,” they say. “Some of these lawyers may want to be judges one day.” And this is the point where I look at people who say that straight in the face and ask if they really think that a federal judicial appointment can be bought for $500. Really? Seriously? Even on the issue of legal contracts, the minister can recuse herself if said law firm bids. There are processes around this kind of thing. The Ethics Commissioner said that there is no apparent conflict of interest here, but that doesn’t stop people from crying “money for access!” And when you have people like Duff Conacher going on TV and decrying that limits should be $100 because that way it’s equal for everyone, you have to wonder if that logic extends to not everyone can have nice things, so we should ban them so that it’s fair for everyone. Also, if you lower the limit too low, then people start looking for other ways to raise money, and all you have to look to is Quebec, where their strict donation regime became quickly susceptible to corruption. Of course, Conacher won’t be satisfied by any ethics regime unless he’s in charge of the parliamentary thought police, and frankly, anyone who quotes him in one of these stories becomes suspect because it means they’re going for cheap outrage. Are there bigger problems of perception in places like Ontario, where there aren’t any donation limits? Yes, indeed. But that’s not the case federally, and the minister is following the rules. Frankly, I’m not fussed that the PM is shrugging this off because honestly, this isn’t something that we should be lighting our hair on fire about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate Advisory Board reports

Posted on by

In keeping with the commitment to openness and transparency, the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments released their report yesterday (PDF) on the interim process by which the first seven of the new independent Senate appointments were chosen. It’s an interesting read – they had a list of nearly 300 names to consider after consultations and nominations, from which they whittled it down to 25 names – five per vacancy that they were expected to fill, from which Justin Trudeau ended up selecting seven names rather than just five. The cost of the whole process was about $170,000, which seems to be pretty bare bones if you ask me. There were observations on the process included in the report, primarily that the process was pretty rushed, which meant that most of the information they had on candidates were all based on self-declaration, and that they didn’t conduct interviews with their short-list candidates in this process – they merely identified them, and one presumes that PMO was then responsible for the final vetting – something that might change as the process goes forward and the panel has more time and resources going forward as they look to fill the remaining vacancies over the next year or so, and any future vacancies as they come up. Also, the report listed the nearly 400 groups that the Board reached out to in order to get suggestions, and had demographic data on gender, linguistic profile, and Aboriginal and visible minority status. It also noted that failed candidates got a letter thanking them for participation, and the report noted that they are free to apply again under the future process. The chair of the Board has dismissed any concerns over the issue of André Pratte and his property hiccough, given that it will be resolved before he is appointed, and it’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. I will also note that this report answers most of the questions that Scott Reid has been howling about in QP over the past couple of months with regard to process and the secrecy of the system. Yes, there is an expectation of confidentiality for those who did not get appointed, as with any Governor-in-Council appointment, and from the language of the report, the PM did indeed choose the names from those on the short lists. Thus far, it looks like this new system is working as expected, and it provides the necessary suggestions for how to improve the process even further. Of course, we need to see how these new senators will perform, particularly in the capacity as independents in a system where the rules are still weighted to party caucuses (though that is slowly changing), but so far Trudeau’s reform plans are bearing fruit. We just need time to evaluate them going forward before we can declare it a success or not.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questionable speaking fees

Posted on by

Following testimony at the Mike Duffy trial, Glen McGregor went back through the records of Duffy’s speaking engagements and what he was paid for them. Why? Because at trial, it came to light that he paid a speechwriter for a last-minute speech to one group, made a couple of tiny changes to it, paid for said speech through his “clearing fund” run by Gerald Donohue as though it were an expense related to his Senate duties, and then collected the $15,000 fee. Senate ethics guidelines state that they are not to collect speaking fees if it’s related to their Senate duties – and to be clear, there are plenty of parliamentarians in both Chambers for whom it’s entirely appropriate to have a Speaker’s bureau arrange and charge for speeches based on their previous experiences, because it’s not part of their parliamentary duties and it ensures that their expenses are covered and not charged to the taxpayer. Duffy, however, seems to have breached this particular rule, which could be yet another wrinkle in his attempt to prove his innocence, or to show that the “clearing fund” was only for legitimate parliamentary expenses. Meanwhile, looking back at the trial, we see recollections of his memorable phrases, and the petulance of his testimony.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tepid pipeline approval

Posted on by

At long last, the government has made its decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, and it’s not wholly unexpected, but surprising in other ways. For one, it sent it out as a press release rather than making a formal announcement. For another, it gave a half-hearted and somewhat mealy acceptance of the proposal, but only if Enbridge can meet all of the National Energy Board’s 209 conditions, plus having them get the First Nations all on-side, plus getting BC on-side as well. As economist Andrew Leach noted, it’s like the government is trying to distance itself from the regulator, the proponent, and any responsibility to get the pipeline built. After all, they do have a tremendous penchant for absolving themselves of responsibility wherever they can, and in this case, there is almost a sense that they’re inviting it to fail. Reaction was swift from the NDP, who declared that if they form government in 2015, that the pipeline would be cancelled immediately, and warned of “social unrest” in the meantime. The Liberals, however, took a slightly more nuanced approach – while they called for the rejection of this particular pipeline (they do support Keystone XL), but Justin Trudeau made the observation that the Crown – basically the government – has the obligation to consult with First Nations, not companies like Enbridge, so that throws yet another wrench into the plans o f the government. There are questions as to whether the decision will hinder Conservative re-election chances in the province, but I have a hard time seeing how it would with the “Bible Belt” ridings in the southern part of the province that the Conservatives hold quite comfortably. Enbridge says the decision gives them the time they need to get it right. Here are five other pipeline projects to keep an eye on. John Geddes notes the amount of work that Enbridge is being asked to do, while remembering that BC is the home to some memorable environmental protests. Paul Wells looks at the electoral calculus of the decision, while Leach has a Twitter conversation with Elizabeth May about her comments, and how they don’t actually make sense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More pledges and hints of strategy

Posted on by

As part of the pledge not to raise personal taxes should he form government, Thomas Mulcair has added one that he would never appoint a senator. Never mind that he would be constitutionally bound to do so as it’s a listed imperative in the text, or that the mounting number of absences would start to grind the legislative process to a slow halt, or the fact that once a future government does start making appointments again, it’ll create a further shock to the system that will cause more problems down the road. But hey, it’s easy to make facile promises without thinking about them, right? Paul Wells parses this promise as well as Mulcair’s other promises, like biannual first ministers meetings, to get a glimpse of what Mulcair’s emerging constitutional strategy might look like. Michael Den Tandt looks at Mulcair’s economic promises and pokes holes in the conceits that they can grow the economy and attract investment while increasing taxes on corporations, especially if all of our pension plans are dependent on those corporations turning a profit.

Continue reading →