Tag Archives: Pensions

Roundup: A new Supreme Court appointment

Posted on by

The government announced their new pick for the Supreme Court of Canada, and lo and behold, it’s Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal. It’s a little unexpected considering what they were signalling in terms of looking for more diversity on the bench, but they managed to find a bilingual justice in Newfoundland & Labrador, and they get to pat themselves on the back for making the first appointment to the top court from that province, so they’ve made history! Also, they’ve respected the constitutional convention around the regional composition of the court, and for that, the Conservatives have declared victory – because it was totally their non-binding supply day motion that forced the government’s hand! (Also, appointment panel head Kim Campbell seemed pleased that this was the choice from the short list that they submitted).

So Atlantic Canada is happy, and the government is making a big deal out of its new process including transparency by publishing the application form that Rowe submitted with his answers to a number of questions around his thoughts on significant decisions that he has been a part of, and his thoughts on the role of the judiciary in the legal system, which is unprecedented. As well, next week both the justice minister and Campbell will face a parliamentary committee to explain their choice (thus preserving the committee role of holding cabinet to account), to be followed by a Q&A session with Rowe to be led by a law professor with both MPs and Senators asking the questions. So transparency without devolving into an American-style “confirmation” process. At this rate, Rowe should be on the top court by early November, which means he’ll have missed about half of the fall session of the court (which isn’t as bad as the vacancy issue caused by the Nadon appointment where the court sat 8 in a number of cases). Of course, Rowe’s answers are already provoking some criticism, though it’s not necessarily shared by all members of the legal community. (Incidentally, you can see Carissima Mathen’s Power Play interview on the appointment here).

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/788201168585560064

So what of the signals the government was sending that they wanted an Indigenous judge, preferably a woman? Well I do think reality did set in when they faced pressure from their Atlantic caucus and the premiers to ensure that the seat remained an Atlantic one. It may well have been them floating a trial balloon about abandoning the convention, but it may also have been a warning. There are two more seats opening up in the next few years (barring deaths or retirements), being Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (a Western seat) and Justice Rosalie Abella (an Ontario seat), and in both of those cases, the government is saying to the legal community that there had damn well better be some more diverse, bilingual candidates ready to fill those seats when the time comes – something that was more difficult to find in Atlantic Canada owing to their demographics. We’ll see in the next few years, of course, but I think the warning has been delivered.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Modernization beyond cameras

Posted on by

The Senate’s modernization committee came out with their first report yesterday that had 21 recommendations, almost all of which were fairly common-sense, but wouldn’t you know it, the only one that most media outlets glommed onto was the one about broadcasting Senate proceedings, never mind that it was pretty much always the plan to do so once they moved to the new chamber in 2018 (as it was too expensive in the current one given the maxed out infrastructure). Other recommendations that caught the mainstream attention were developing a mechanism to split up omnibus bills, giving a more proportional role for non-aligned senators on committees and coming up with a modified way of selecting the Senate Speaker (in a rubric that doesn’t require constitutional amendment) were also up there, while Kady also clocked the recommendation on ensuring that they recognise any group over nine senators that wants to organise themselves as a caucus or parliamentary group that can choose its own leader, and that those groups can have access to sufficient research dollars.

Less publicised were the number one recommendation of a mission statement for the Chamber to guide its activities in the Westminster tradition, finding ways to reorganise its Order Paper and Senate Question Period to not only formalise inviting ministers but also Officers of Parliament (but I’m less keen on reducing it to two days per week to give the “Government Representative” a break – if he wants the salary, he should keep up with the workload). The Independent Working Group says they’re mostly happy with these changes, but want more assurances of representation on key committees like Senate Rules and Internal Economy, where they need to have the actual power to break up the duopoly that currently exists between the established parties, which is fair.

What the report does not say is that parties should be eliminated, and in fact goes out to specifically say that the institution functions within the Westminster model, which includes government and opposition roles, and nothing in that report is intended to assume or advocate for the elimination of those roles, and that’s important. Opposition is important for the practice of accountability, and that’s something the Senate is very good at providing. There will be more reports and recommendations to come, and I’ll have more to say in the coming days, but I’m heartened to see that there is a commitment to preserving these key features, rather than to blow them up in the continued kneejerk allergy to partisanship that currently grips the imagination of would-be Senate reformers.

Continue reading →

QP: Pawns on a chessboard

Posted on by

While Trudeau and a good number of ministers remained at the UN General Assembly, things carried on back in Ottawa. Rona Ambrose led off, reiterating her line from yesterday about our troops not being pawns on the political chessboard of getting a UN Security Council seat. Harjit Sajjan reminded her that nothing was decided about where they would be deployed and they were still gathering information, and then patted himself on the back for how transparent they were being about it all. Ambrose asked a pair of questions about why there was a sudden change of heart on an extradition treaty with China while they still have the dealt penalty, Sajjan said that they were pushing China on that issue. Ambrose then changed topics to the planned CPP increase, and Bill Morneau said that they still planned on keeping TFSAs and that the rate would increase with the Consumer Price Index, and then they went one more round in French. Thomas Mulcair concerned trolled about the Liberals still using Stephen Harper’s GHG targets, and Jim Carr said that they were planning to increase the targets as they went along. Mulcair went another round in French, and Carr reminded him of the pan-Canadian targets being negotiated. Hélène Laverdière asked if the government would repeal the ministerial directive that allows information obtained by torture to be used. Ralph Goodale didn’t make a firm commitment, only noted that they were giving the whole national security apparatus a thorough review and that legislation on a parliamentary oversight body was before the House. Laverdière then returned to the issue of the extradition treaty with China, but got much the same response from Sajjan that he gave before.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Don’t take conventions to court

Posted on by

A group of East Coast lawyers has decided to launch a court challenge about the possibility that the government might appoint a new Supreme Court justice that is not from Atlantic Canada, and my head is already hitting the desk because while you can conceivably argue that the regional composition of the court may very well be a constitutional convention, by that very same argument, a constitutional convention is non-justiciable, so you can’t actually take it to court.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/777960468979785729

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/777960878251581441

So, to recap, until an appointment is actually made, the whole quixotic venture is premature. Constitutional conventions are politically enforceable but not legally, in part because we don’t actually want people to constantly take the government to court when they lose at politics (which already happens too much – and it’s almost as bad as writing to the Queen when you lose at politics). There was a court case not too long ago when Democracy Watch took the government to court because Stephen Harper went to the Governor General to call an early election despite the (useless) fixed-election date legislation having been enacted, and the courts dismissed it because prerogative powers are constitutional conventions (and while unwritten, are nevertheless still part of our constitutional framework).

And don’t get me wrong – I do think there is a very good case that the regional composition is a constitutional convention because it reflects the federalist principle that is necessary to give its decisions the political legitimacy necessary to be the arbiter of jurisdictional disputes in this country, and that is a pretty big consideration. But the courts are probably not the best place to solve this issue. Having the Atlantic premiers write the Justice Minister to warn her about breaching the convention is probably a better course of action, as would having backbench Liberal MPs from the region expressing their displeasure (though, for all we know, they may already be doing so behind closed doors in the caucus room). And a public campaign that lays out this argument (as opposed to just one centred around it being unfair or about maligning the political correctness of trying to find a new justice that better reflects certain diversity characteristics) wouldn’t hurt either. But this group of lawyers should know better than to try and make a non-justiciable issue justiciable.

Continue reading →

QP: Back in the saddle

Posted on by

Everyone’s back, and raring to go, and how I’ve missed them all! Well, okay, not everyone’s back — the PM and several of his ministers are off at the UN General Assembly (where Canada’s Back™), but these things happen.

Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, decrying tax increases along with a potential carbon tax and CPP increases. Bill Morneau stood up to lament the challenges facing Canadians, and noted the reduction in middle-class taxes and the Canadian Child Benefit. Ambrose gave the doom statistics, and Morneau reminded her that investments and not austerity were geared toward future growth. Ambrose changed tactics and sounded the alarm about a peacekeeping mission in sun-Saharan Africa. Harjit Sajjan reminded her that it was dangerous, and that was why he was doing the necessary homework beforehand. Ambrose worried that troops were being used as pawns on a political chessboard in a bid for a UN seat. Sajjan reminded her that it was not just about troops, but a whole-of-government approach to peace operations and stability. Ambrose switched to French to demand a debate and vote on a deployment. Sajjan said they welcomed a healthy debate, but did not commit to a vote (as is proper). Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying the “cuts” (read: changed escalator) to health transfers. Jane Philpott said she was talking with the provinces, but didn’t commit to restoring the old escalator. Mulcair asked again in English, got the same answer, and then Mulcair demanded that the government vote in favour of nuclear disarmament at the UN this week. Sajjan said that the best way was a pragmatic step-by-step approach. Mulcair demanded GHG reduction targets, and Catherine McKenna said that they were being transparent in their approach.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unger vs Black

Posted on by

Further to Senator Black’s resignation from the Conservative caucus, we have a couple of reactions – first, an interview with Black by Jen Gerson, in which Black expresses his excitement for the “uncharted territory” of greater independence in the Senate. Second, a somewhat bitter response from fellow “elected” Alberta Senator Betty Unger, who repeats some of Senator Plett’s accusations about Black’s attendance, and goes on to assert that senators should be in a caucus to give them some kind of accountability. Oh, and then there’s Kady O’Malley, who notes the “disappointment” of Senator Tannas in his response to Black’s decision, in which she reminds them in her own Pollyana-ish way that yes, they can still work together even if they’re no longer in caucus together.

Among the responses are some particular problems with the conceptions of how a caucus can and should operate, and part of that stems from the fairly unique situation of how the Senate was being run under the Harper government. Unger is correct in that being part of the national caucus brings more perspectives and allows more participation (which is one of the reasons why Trudeau’s decision to banish senators from his caucus was short-sighted), but her conception of caucus providing “checks and balances” to senators is a bit mystifying, particularly considering that there is little that a caucus could do to actually control a senator given that they have institutional independence under our constitution. Sure, they can threaten them with being removed from a committee or from participating in travel, but that’s the extent of it, and if a senator feels a particular conviction on an issue, then that’s a risk they can and have taken before.

As for Black, being part of a caucus in the Senate doesn’t mean that he is forced to toe any particular party line, whether they achieve consensus on a position or not. Granted, since he has been in the Senate, it was operating in a more tightly controlled environment because the Conservatives had largely trained their new senators to believe that this was the norm, that they could be whipped, along with some cajoling about how they needed to go along with things under the rubric of “you want to support the prime minister, don’t you?” And that would usually cow them into line, never mind that there are no actual levers of power for a government to assert in the Senate. Black and Unger both have always been in the Senate where they were told that there was this expectation, and now that they are in opposition and the party is in a leadership convention, they are suddenly finding themselves without that same comfortable feeling of obligation to the person who appointed them (never mind their “elected” status – it certainly didn’t mean anything for their “elected” predecessor Bert Brown, who insisted that senators had to dance with the one who brought them). Black obviously decided that he felt freer in this environment and wanted to push it further. That’s his prerogative; Unger feels the need for structure, and that’s legitimate, so long as she knows that she has that institutional independence and that there is no such thing as caucus control for a senator (and I’m not sure that she does, given her Senate “upbringing”).

But honestly – between the fetishisation of “independence” and the wrong-headed notion of “checks and balances” that don’t actually exist, neither are really on the side of the angels on this one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Automatic disqualifiers

Posted on by

It has been talked about before on this blog, and will probably be talked about again, but the selection process for those 19 vacant Senate seats is now open, and the process allows people to nominate themselves if they so choose. There’s a good piece about this and how it contributes to selection bias in the appointment panel, but the head of said panel insists that they are reaching out to all manner of groups to get names to consider but they are using the individual application process to help broaden the search to ensure that they don’t miss out on anyone who is worthy of the job. Of course, self-selection should probably be considered as criteria for elimination off the start – usually it tends to indicate a particular over-inflated sense of self (and yes, I do know of a couple of people who have been looking to get their names submitted as part of this process, and yes, they are a bit narcissistic), and a betrayal of what a Senate appointment should be about. Really, it should be about a way of contributing to public service when one’s career is winding down, and of being able to contribute to the public dialogue given a particular perspective. It’s almost like a form of recognition for doing good work over a lifetime, and being given an opportunity to give back a little more (because really, the salary isn’t as generous as people like to portray it as, given the amount of work that tends to be involved). It’s always been a bit contentious when prime ministers appointed people in terms of their age and place in their career. Some, like Chrétien, tended to appoint them too old so that they only had a short time to contribute, which hurts the ability to have the Senate serve as a chamber of institutional memory and longer-term vision. But sometimes they appoint people far too young – Harper’s appointment of Patrick Brazeau being but one shining example of how poor of a choice that really was. Let’s hope that this is one of those considerations that the independent panel becomes a bit more cognisant of as they move ahead with this next phase of their task.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at the Senate’s revamped communications effort and the team they’ve assembled to do the work, which is moving away from bland and safe to being more response and proactive in reaching out to showcase the work of the Senate and of individual senators.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rebutting the reformers’ complaints

Posted on by

If it were possible for someone to write a column that was basically one long subtweet, then I’m pretty sure that it’s what Andrew Coyne did with his column on electoral reform, with me as his unspoken target – particularly as he parroted several of my arguments (that no one else seems to be making) without actually getting their substance correct. So here we go.

When proportional representation advocates complain that the allocation of seats among the parties in the legislature does not resemble their relative shares of the votes cast — with the especially unhappy effect of allowing a minority of the voters to rule over the majority — first past the post’s defenders reply: why should it? Members were elected in 338 separate riding elections, not in a single nationwide vote.

Yes, and that’s pointed out for a number of reasons – that the vote share figure that reformers cite as evidence is not actually real (hence its use as evidence is meaningless), and the fact that each MP is elected to a single seat in a separate election has a particular meaning that gives them individual agency rather than making them a thrall of a particular party. This is an important consideration in the electoral system because it gives a clear line for how MPs are empowered, which is what we keep insisting we want. It also demonstrates that if the complaint is that MPs aren’t empowered, it’s because it’s their own choice or ignorance – not the electoral system that is at fault.

When reformers point out the imbalance this creates between voters — in a given election it typically takes many more votes to elect a member from one party than another — first-past-the-posters look positively mystified: everyone gets one ballot. And when the former observe that under first past the post the votes cast for anyone but the leading candidate in a riding are “wasted,” in the sense that they do not contribute to electing anyone, the latter lose all patience. How could any of the votes have been wasted, they ask, if all were counted? The candidate who was elected may not have been everyone’s choice, but he still represents everyone.

Here Coyne adopts the same specious math that the Broadbent Institute was pushing over Twitter yesterday, which ignores how ridings actually work, and that elections are 338 separate events, and mashes the figures together and divides by 338, pretending that it’s a number with meaning when it’s not – just like the popular vote. It’s pretty much like bringing a unicorn to a logic exam. As well, he doesn’t make a compelling argument about why votes are “wasted” because it ignores the broader political ecosystem. It has little to do with the fact that the MP who won the seat represents everyone, but that the vote itself is but one small piece of political engagement. Casting a vote is not the end-all-be-all of political engagement. Rather, the system is built for people to be joining parties and engaging at a grassroots level to develop policy and for riding associations to act as interlocutors between the local community and the caucus, even when they don’t have a local MP in that party. As well, the percentage by which the MP won the seat is a figure that matters. If it’s by a slim margin, then those votes against are certainly not “wasted” – they have a meaning in the message that it sends to the MP about where his or her support lies. That matters.

To reformers’ complaints about how the system works, in other words, the answer commonly offered is: that’s how the system works. It is as if that were not just the system we have now, but the only system there is. And of course if you assume that then yes, reformers’ objections become literally incomprehensible. They might as well object to the weather. If only one member can be elected per riding, then obviously it’s silly to talk about wasted votes, or to complain that voters who supported another candidate are not represented. That’s life. Suck it up. The resulting parliament was not proportional? That’s not how our system works.

No, that’s not why one has to point out that it’s how the system works – one needs to point that out because you need to understand how the system works before you go about changing it, which usually means breaking things and making them worse. It has been proven that every time we tinker with our system, we make it worse, which leads us to want to tinker with it more, breaking it even further. Why? Because people don’t understand how the system works, so they assume that it’s broken, particularly if they get emotional that it doesn’t do what they think it should. This is the whole premise of my book – that we need to stop and understand how and why things work the way they do before we go about messing with the system some more because history has shown repeatedly that tinkering makes it worse. Ignorance is literally killing our democracy, and no matter how well intentioned its reformers tend to be, they almost always make it worse.

At any rate, it’s worth debating. Some might argue that single-member ridings give constituents a clearer sense of who to take their problems to, and who to hold to account. Others might reply that, with several members competing to represent them, constituents might get better service: if one didn’t answer your letter, another might.

From here, Coyne goes off about how maybe multi-member ridings would be better, possibly sprinkled in with single-member ones where they would be too large (hello, all of rural and remote Canada), which immediately brings up questions about how that could possibly be considered a more fair system. And while he touches ever so briefly on accountability, he gets the premise wrong – an MP’s job is not to “service” one’s constituents. It’s about holding the government to account. This, however, is lost on the reformers, whose fetishisation with fantastical notions about “representation” overshadow all other aspects of how the system works in its broader ecosystem. Yes, representation is a part of it, but it is not the totality, and yet that is what all of their reforms are geared toward with no regard for the bigger whole.

So no, it’s not about whether other systems are possible – it’s about not making things worse because you don’t understand how things work now. That’s a very different thing entirely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More awful electoral reform questions

Posted on by

Another day, another meeting of the electoral reform committee, which produced yet more kinds of awful. Marc Mayrand, the outgoing Chief Electoral Officer, gave a few facts to MPs, like the fact that a referendum (if the enabling legislation were changed) would cost about $300 million to run, or the fact that Elections Canada could be ready in time for a 2019 election under a new system, provided that everything was settled by May of next year. (Note: This may be overly optimistic considering the constitutional questions raised by some kinds of voting systems). But some of the worst moments were around questions raised to both Mayrand and his predecessor, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, about things like online voting.

No. No, no, no, no, no. The problem with online voting has zero to do with encryption technology and everything to do with the secrecy of the ballot, and anyone who confuses the two needs a smack upside the head. The secrecy of the ballot is ensuring that nobody sees who you are voting for, so that you can’t be rewarded or punished for it, you know, like in the era of “rum bottle politics.” And you can’t ensure the secrecy of the ballot with online voting. “But what about mail-in ballots?” you ask. Well, the proportion of those is so small that it’s a compromise that we have to make. Online voting is not comparable.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/751122720520282113

This particular intervention is complete nonsense. Does David Christopherson not take the phone calls of his constituents unless they can prove that they voted NDP? Does he not present their petitions in Parliament? Oh, so he does? Then they don’t “get nothing,” and it’s fundamentally wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise, and proof that they don’t know what it means to be an MP.

And then there’s this specious and utterly wrong nonsense, because it’s fundamentally dishonest. Do you know how many voters it took to elect Elizabeth May? 37,000 votes. We have ridings, where people decide who gets to sit in each seat. We don’t apportion seats based on the number of votes they receive, and to try and present it as such in order to prove some point is basically lying. And yes, this is the kinds of discourse that this process is bringing out, so well done everyone.

And then there are the editorials and op-eds. Christina Spencer is not at all impressed with how this committee has gotten started (and I can’t say that I blame her – it’s been pretty awful). Kelly McParland thinks the Liberals are counting on apathy in order to get their preferred electoral system through (hence their reluctance for a referendum), while Michael Den Tandt thinks the insistence of “focus grouping” their electoral reform consultations is really a shell game of “trust us” while they push ranked ballots through. Colin Horgan suggests that the “electoral reform toolkit” is an attempt at making the conversation appear to be more grassroots.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Use your Australian comparisons wisely

Posted on by

If it’s not the leadership omnishambles in the UK that’s holding our attention, it’s the indecisive election result in Australia. While that would be something in and of itself, we find ourselves with pundits eager to take some lessons from Australia, only to completely balls things up along the way. To wit, Kelly McParland writing in the National Post delivered this hot mess yesterday which manages to conflate every possible thing in Australian politics in order to prove a point – not necessarily a bad point – but went about it in entirely the wrong way. So, for Mr. McParland’s edification, let’s break it down a little.

First of all, the “six prime ministers in six years” has virtually nothing to do with the ranked ballots in Australia. The system of caucus selection of leaders there (which is how leaders should be chosen, as I’ve argued elsewhere numerous times) has gone to extremes, creating a culture of paranoia and betrayal. But that’s not the fault of the ranked ballots since it’s a different process. That parties will spill leaders shortly before an election in the hopes of having a more appealing leader is party politics enabled by the ability to have spills, rather than the ranked ballot effect. Conflating them is not helpful.

The ranked ballots themselves allow for more small parties to exist independent of “big tent” brokerage parties because ranked ballots discourage tactical voting – something McParland neglects to mention while returning to the Canadian canard that the Liberals only want ranked ballots because they think they’ll clean up by getting everyone’s second place votes. That has led to the need for the Australian Liberals (read: conservatives) to require a coalition partner to govern, which is a consideration to make if we want ranked ballots, but it is a giant conflation to mix this in with the stability of their system and leadership woes.

The problem of the Australian Senate is the bigger nub of the argument, but which gets lost in the rest of the McParland’s confusing mess. The Australian Senate is chosen by single-transferable proportional voting, and the system has been effectively gamed in the previous election so that a bunch of marginal players got seats and subsequently created a huge problem in their upper chamber, requiring more tinkering of the system to be forced through and the Prime Minister calling for double-dissolution (so that both chambers be elected at the same time – a rare occurrence usually reserved for political crises) in order to break the legislative deadlocks. Those tweaks appear to be causing even more problems with this election, but we may see how it all shakes out in a few weeks. (Note that these ballots tend to be the size of placemats, because of the way they’re structured with the enormous number of parties running). And while the problems with these marginal parties being given outsized powers of persuasion in the previous parliament are very valid points to make, it gets lost in the sea of conflations that plagued the rest of the piece.

So I get McParland’s point about electoral reform advocates needing to be careful what they wish for, and can even agree with it to a large extent, this was utterly the wrong way to go about it.

Meanwhile, here’s a primer about Australia’s lengthy counting process – so lengthy that their Senate preferential distribution process could take over a month. Closer to home, here are some of the ways in which the electoral reform committee plans to engage with Canadians.

Continue reading →