Tag Archives: NDP Leadership

Roundup: Constitutional conventions are constitutional

Posted on by

There was another example of the shocking level of civic illiteracy in our elected officials yesterday as Green Party leader Elizabeth May again trotted out the canard that political parties aren’t in the constitution. She was making a perfectly good point of privilege around the way that independent MPs and those from not officially recognised parties are being adversely affected by rules changes that are being carried forward from the last parliament, and that’s fine, but she’s shockingly wrong about the constitutional status of parties. Why? Because while political parties are not literally in the Constitution Acts of 1867 or 1982, they are part of the grounding framework of our system of Responsible Government, which is in and of itself a constitutional convention – part of our unwritten constitutional inheritance from the United Kingdom. It shouldn’t need reminding but apparently it does because apparently nobody learns civics any longer, but constitutional conventions are constitutional. In fact, they are just as enforceable as elements of the written constitution. And lo and behold, the preamble to the 1867 Act is:

Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom

This is exactly where our Responsible Government framework lies. The UK has an unwritten constitution, and its constitutional conventions have stood the test of time, and this is precisely why May and others who follow her logic are dead wrong. Parties are at the heart of Responsible Government because it’s how a government gains and maintains confidence. The system simply cannot hold with hundreds of “loose fish” all vying for attention and reward. (If you try to bring up the party-less territorial governments, smack yourself upside the head because you simply cannot scale up a consensus model from 19 members in NWT or 22 in Nunavut to 338 in Ottawa. It is a complete impossibility). Does that mean that we don’t currently have problems with the powers accumulated by party leaders? No, we absolutely do, but that’s also because we tinkered with the system of selecting those leaders, presidentializing them with massive membership votes rather than caucus selection that keeps them accountable in the Responsible Government tradition. But parties are absolutely essential to the functioning of our parliamentary system, and the fact the written portions of our constitution are silent on that fact is indicative of absolutely nothing. If one relies solely on the written portions and not the constitutional conventions, they are wholly ignorant of our system of government, and need to be called out as such.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Adjourning until Tuesday is not a problem

Posted on by

Expect a weekend full of concern trolling about the Senate not having passed C-14 before Monday’s Supreme Court-imposed deadline, and people shaking their head or clutching their pearls that the Senate chamber is not sitting on Monday. I fully expect a pundit or three to wonder aloud why the Senate isn’t sitting Monday, and demands that senators do their jobs like they’re paid to do. And if you hear anyone say something boneheaded like that, smack them upside the head and remind them that the bill is at committee, which will be sitting Monday and Tuesday, and there’s no point in the full Senate sitting on Monday to pass the bill when it’s at committee, and no, they’re not going to rush that process any more than they already are. Meanwhile, if there’s anyone to blame for it not passing on time, it’s the House of Commons, and the Liberals playing stupid games with the debate schedule and not bringing forward the bill for debate so that votes could happen more expeditiously (and yes, their attempts to control that debate calendar with tactics like Motion 6 failed spectacularly before our eyes, but that doesn’t explain why they didn’t bring the bill forward on subsequent days either). If people think that the Senate should just rubber-stamp a bill like this one without any actual debate or scrutiny, well, they need to take a remedial civics course because that’s not why the Senate exists. And yes, this is exactly the kind of situation for why we have the Senate, where a bill that is constitutionally dubious is going to get a more thorough hearing than it did in the Commons, and we are likely to see some more substantive debate on its merits and particularities so that even if it does pass in its dubious state, there is a parliamentary record that the courts can then use in their deliberations when the matter inevitably comes before them.

Add to that, this is a case where we are likely to see amendments that will head back to the House of Commons, which put the whole timetable into question. Part of what is going to be at issue is where the votes will lie in the Senate for which amendments – the ones from the more socially conservative who want greater restrictions, or those who want to see at minimum the “reasonably foreseeable death” criteria struck out in favour of the language in the Carter decision. I suspect the latter will have the more votes and we will see those amendments head to the Commons, where we will see if the government decides to dig in its heels or not given that it’s a criticism that has fairly broad support in the Commons about the bill. It also gives the government a bit more political cover in that the Senate is “forcing” them to adopt those measures – particularly that the Senate is much more independent and the Liberals have given up any levers therein to try and bully through bills – so they can insulate themselves from criticism that they have gone too far. I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s why the ministers keep insisting that they are open to amendments when they rejected them all in the Commons – because putting the blame on the Senate is the next best thing to putting the blame on the courts. If they do decide to dig in their heels and we reach an impasse between the chambers, there is always the possibility of a conference between them, which Kady O’Malley has dug up the procedural details for here:

If you missed the second reading debates in the Senate, they’re available here, and they are absolutely substantive and far beyond anything we heard in the House of Commons, and dealt with the real substance of the bill rather than the usual “This is deeply personal/what about palliative care?/conscience rights, conscience rights, conscience rights” narrative that we heard ad nauseum.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day talking in circles

Posted on by

We’re in for yet another round of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the subject of the electoral reform process, and this time it’s from the NDP who are moving a supply day motion to try and get the proposed parliamentary committee to reflect their particular gamed composition rather than a composition that reflects the House of Commons – which, I will remind you, was elected entirely fairly and correctly under how our system is supposed to operate, where we elect individual seats in separate and simultaneous elections. Demands that the committee should reflect the popular vote ignore the facts that a) the popular vote is a logical fallacy that does not actually exist since there were 338 separate elections and not just one, and b) the composition that the NDP are demanding is not actually proportional to the “popular vote,” as they are giving the Bloc and the Green Party an oversized share of the seats and votes. And rather than just thirty minutes of this endless repetition as we might hear in QP, no, it will be the whole day in the Commons, minus one hour for private members’ business. And we’ll be subjected to the sanctimonious speeches of the NDP (of which they will read the same speech in English and French ad nauseum, only changing the riding names mentioned), followed by baying from the Conservatives that what we really need is a referendum, and the odd interjection from Elizabeth May that she deserves a vote on the committee and that no, we don’t need a referendum because it’s not a constitutional issue (except that certain kinds of electoral reform are actually constitutional issues, albeit likely with the simplest amending formula). And then there are the Liberals, where we’ll get some of the usual saccharine from Maryam Monsef, some sharper rebukes from Mark Holland, and the odd backbencher repeating the talking points about Canadians demanding a change to the system. There won’t be any substantive issues discussed, and while I will be the first to say that yes, process is important, so long as each side tries to game the process to fit their own purposes, we’ll just keep talking in circles and go nowhere. Which, really, is where this discussion should go and we should instead invest in a programme of civic literacy instead so that people can actually learn how the system works. But in the absence of that, I’m ready to declare that we should nuke the whole thing from orbit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A short history of trans rights bills

Posted on by

The government is unveiling their promised trans rights bill today, and throughout the day, you’ll be reminded that other trans rights bills have been introduced in the House, and twice died in the Senate, and there will be a general sense of the NDP trying to anoint themselves in this glow of having been the fearless pioneers on this file. And it’s true – they did introduce previous trans rights bills, some of them more successful than others. But there is more to the story than is usually presented, and as someone who used to cover this file extensively (back in my Xtra! and the much lamented Outlooks days), it’s a little more complicated than is often presented. And yes, the NDP have largely introduced iterations of this bill but the sponsor, then-MP Bill Siksay, was too far down the Order of Precedence for it to be ever debated. During the 40th Parliament, however, he was high enough on the Order that the bill came up for debate, and narrowly passed the Commons. By the time it reached the Senate, however, it had mere days before the government was defeated. The Senate has no mechanisms by which to accelerate a private members’ bill, and the justice committee – where it would have been sent to – was jammed full of “tough on crime” bills and a private members’ bill never would have been able to come up for debate (as government bills always take priority). Nevertheless, the Senate was blamed for “ragging the puck” and it died when Parliament dissolved and an election was called. By this time, Siksay had announced that he was not going to run again, and Liberal MP Hedy Fry had said that she would re-introduce the bill in his stead if re-elected. She was, and fulfilled his promise. The NDP’s newly elected MP Randall Garrison was named the party’s new LGBT critic, and he was incensed that Fry had re-introduced the bill and decided to table his own version, but because you can’t have two identical bills on the Order Paper, he needed to come up with some creative drafting in order to differentiate the two bills. And then, by sheer fate, his name came up right before Fry’s on the Order of Precedence when the lottery was drawn, so he went ahead with his poorly drafted bill, while Fry’s version of the same bill was not put forward (and she went on to introduce a cyberbullying bill that was defeated). Not only did Garrison’s bill go ahead, but he decided to introduce amendments that would partially gut the bill and do things like put in definitions for “gender identity” into the text (something that would put it out of step with any other protected grounds in legislation). The resulting bill was a dog’s breakfast, and he managed to squeak it past the Commons, but he actually lost some Conservative support because it was such a hot mess. And when it reached the Senate, there were concerns. Conservative Senator Don Plett had some particular concerns and wanted to raise amendments, and while this whole “bathroom bill” nonsense began circulating, his amendments, while not great, were blown out of proportion by supporters of the bill as being far more odious than they were. And that bill eventually died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved, but while the NDP railed against the Senate as “killing” a bill that the Commons passed, they ignored the fact that it was objectively a bad bill and this was more of a mercy killing. And now, we have a government who has committed to making this one of their priorities, and they are, which we should applaud.

Update: The differences between Fry’s and Garrison’s bill weren’t as pronounced as I remember the debate being. Apologies to all involved, and thanks to Justin Ling for the correction. The amendments, however, were a dog’s breakfast.

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: The Sophie Grégoire Trudeau problem

Posted on by

The issue of assistants for Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has become a bit ugly in social media, and overblown in the political arena while opposition parties on both sides of the spectrum try to cast the prime minister’s family as being these out-of-touch elites (some of it completely speciously, as the Conservatives try to equate Trudeau’s statement about not needing government funds for childcare and suddenly billing for nannies was hypocritical, despite the fact that he wasn’t the leader of a G7 nation before), because if there’s nothing that this country loves, it’s cheap outrage. And really, that’s what a lot of this is, combined with some garden variety sexist expectations that she should be a doting wife and mother in the home, taking care of meals and childcare on her own without any public profile. But before we delve into it further, a couple of important reminders.

Seriously, for the love of all the gods on Olympus, stop calling her the First Lady. We don’t have a First Lady in Canada because we have a royal family, and the closest equivalent – aside from Prince Philip as the Royal Consort – is the somewhat antiquated term of the Chatelaine of Rideau Hall.

No, this is completely wrong. We don’t elect governments or parties in this country. We elect 338 MPs, who come together in a parliament that forms a government. So in essence, we did elect the family that came along with the MP who was able to form a government.

And this really is the important point. We have a constitutional monarchy so that the royal family takes on the ceremonial and celebrity functions and prevents the Head of Government from becoming a cult of personality. Unfortunately, in this age of media and social media, where the Trudeaus are consider bona fide celebrities in their own right, it has created a kind of cult of personality (which is only worsened by the fact that the fact that Trudeau was elected by a nebulous “supporter class” means he is accountable to nobody and he knows it). So when the public comes looking for Grégoire Trudeau to do speaking engagements and to do the kind of celebrity outreach that members of the royal family do so well in the UK (but certainly less so here because of their relative absence), how are we supposed to react? What expectations do we put on her as the spouse of the Head of Government, who has no defined role? While I have no objections to the nannies or single assistant (Trudeau is prime minister of a G7 country, and demanding that his spouse do all of the domestic work is frankly odious, particularly given her diplomatic expectations), I find myself torn about the need for additional help. I have no doubt that she needs it, because she has chosen to parlay her celebrity toward charitable causes. And it’s less about the taxpayer’s money that rubs me the wrong way, but the fact that this is getting uncomfortable under our system of government and constitutional traditions. That we have a prime minister who has formed a kind of cult of personality is very uncomfortable, but it’s not a problem with an easy solution, short of insisting that members of the royal family start spending more time on our shores to do the work of the celebrity face of our constitutional order. Is the solution to have the party pay for her added assistants? Maybe. Or to charge speaking fees on a cost-recovery basis? One can imagine the howls out outrage that an “elite” is charging charities money already. There’s not an easy answer, but the discomfort around the larger problem of where our system is headed is something that we should be talking about. Unfortunately, that conversation is being drowned out by cheap outrage and the June and Ward Cleaver crowd, which is only making this whole exercise reek.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Real problems with Monsef’s committee

Posted on by

After a day of Twitter fights about the announcement on the electoral reform committee, let me say a couple of things. First of all, the moment anyone says they want to “make every vote count,” they immediately have lost the argument, and this includes the Prime Minister and minister saying this. Why? Because every vote already counts. No, it doesn’t mean that the person you voted for is going to win every time, but they’re not supposed to. If you believe otherwise, then you’re a sore loser. Whenever anyone brings up that the popular vote doesn’t match the proportion of the seats in the Commons, they are relying on a logical fallacy. The popular vote is not a real number because a general election is not a single event. It’s 338 separate but simultaneous events to elect members to fill each of the 338 seats, and together they form a parliament which determines who will form the government. We do not elect governments. If someone says we do, smack them. If someone gives a plaintive wail that the system isn’t fair, then they’re a sore loser trying to play on emotion, which isn’t actually how we should be making decisions. The fact that Maryam Monsef’s “five principles” for choosing a new system doesn’t mention accountability once is a giant problem, because that’s one of the key features of the current system – that we can punish incumbents and vote them out. Other systems can’t say the same, and we have European countries where parties just shuffle coalition partners and stay in power for decades. This is a problem. That the minister doesn’t seem to recognise that while she deals in emotion-laden words and saccharine emotion appeals is a problem. And it’s a problem that media outlets, in talking about other electoral systems, say nothing about the current system of its strengths. And after all of today’s Twitter fights, and appallingly ignorant statements made by the minister and other MPs on this issue, I’m going to reiterate a very important point that nobody is addressing – that the problem we’re facing is not that the current system doesn’t work, it’s that we have a crisis of civic literacy in Canada and people don’t know how the system works so they assume it’s broken because they buy into emotional arguments and sore loserism. That’s the problem that the minister should be tackling, not trying to upend a system that actually does work very well.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/730463384735514629

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who to blame for short timelines

Posted on by

Our friend Kady O’Malley penned a column over the weekend about how anyone upset about the tight timeline of the assisted dying legislation should be upset at the fixed election date instead of the Supreme Court for imposing the deadline. And she’s right, but I’m not particularly enthused about her suggestion that the election date be moved to earlier in the year instead of October, as that date pretty much wipes out the fall sitting of Parliament. I mean, that is a valid point, but if you were to ask me, the real suggestion would be to simply eliminate the fixed election date as we already have a constitutional requirement that elections be held every five years, whereas the fixed date is a particular bit of Americanisation that is supposed to provide stability but just winds up making the whole system worse off, from turning Question Period into an unrelenting series of election ads, to simply changing the government’s calculations on policy to suit that date rather than supposedly helping the opposition by giving them more predictability when it comes to election timing. It didn’t, incidentally, stop the speculation of early election calls since pretty much every media outlet continued to ask whether there would be an early call (as is permissible, since the legislation can’t actually bind the powers of the Governor General), so it’s not like it changed that conversation any. That all being said, I would like to note that while many people quite rightly point out that there was no obligation on the Supreme Court to give the government that year (plus the extra four months) to come up with a bill, but could rather have struck down that prohibition immediately and we would have had few ill-effects, I will point out that without a deadline, MPs would simply keep putting off the legislation under the constant plaintive wails that it’s “deeply personal” and “a difficult subject.” Our MPs, in the event you haven’t noticed, are a lot that really are pretty lacking when it comes to moral courage to deal with difficult things. Instead, they wait for people to bring it to the courts in order to be “forced” to deal with it, and if you look at the pattern from the last decade or so, their response is to half-ass some rushed legislation in response, decry the courts for forcing them into such a compromise position, and leave it for it all to be challenged in court once again. That we have a new government doesn’t seem to have changed the pattern too much, with overly cautious legislation that doesn’t appear to meet the test laid out by the Supreme Court in the Carter decision, while MPs fall all over themselves to declare that it’s a “deeply personal” issue while wailing plaintively that there are no provisions for more palliative care in a bill that is about changing Criminal Code prohibitions. So rather than blaming the fixed election date (which is a valid position), I choose instead to blame our rather spineless crop of MPs, who have mostly chosen to complain about the lot they’ve been given rather than rise to the occasion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rare apology

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responsible, not rogue

Posted on by

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.

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:

Continue reading →