The wheels are starting to come off Thomas Mulcair’s continued leadership of the NDP, as more and more voices are starting to come out to question the direction of the party under his leadership – not that many of them will say that directly, but the implication is certainly there, considering that the whole point of Mulcair’s leadership was in large part for them to occupy more of the centre of the spectrum in their haste in believing that the Liberals were a spent force whose days were numbered. And it’s more than just the fringe socialist wing of the party that’s calling for his head. Yesterday, some thirty-seven NDP members from Quebec, including three former MPs, published an open letter calling for the party to renew itself, and one of those MPs was one of Mulcair’s biggest boosters during the leadership. Most damning was when he went on Power & Politics yesterday to say, and I quote, “I haven’t really heard a compelling reason for him to stay on.” During a press conference, Niki Ashton was asked repeatedly whether she supported Mulcair’s leadership, and she evaded every time, insisting instead on talking about the “team” rather than the individual. Given how much importance that the NDP place on solidarity and showing a united front, and how they treat any kind of public dissent as being unseemly (and sometimes even subject to punishment), Ashton’s silence was actually quite deafening. These new calls from the grassroots that the open letter was showcasing is showing the cracks in Mulcair’s mea culpa, and in the outreach efforts he’s made so far. The message is that he’s still not listening, and that could cost him. And on top of the questions we already had about his continued leadership – in no small part whether he can still be part of the generational change taking place in this country’s political ranks – it seems like the party also has to ask itself if they can really ask Mulcair to be a leopard who can change its spots. They brought Mulcair into the party for a reason, and gave him the leadership for a reason, and those reasons are no longer reflected on the political landscape, particularly if the Liberals keep outflanking them. People ask who are in the wings, and despite Nathan Cullen’s grand protests that he doesn’t want the job, I’m pretty sure he does, and I’m sure there are a few people who are still interested, even if they didn’t win their seats in the last election. Leadership hopefuls will emerge – that’s not the question. The question is whether the party’s grassroots will decide to give Mulcair one more chance, or if they’ve decided that he’s run out of chances.
Tag Archives: Privacy
Roundup: A “third party” option
Six senators have taken the first steps to forming their own quasi-caucus with the Upper Chamber, as a means of trying to better sort out how to deal with life as independent senators. The list includes former Conservatives, Liberals and Independent Progressive Conservative Elaine McCoy, and they are calling themselves a “working group” as opposed to a caucus or party. Their aim is to get “third party” status that will allow them to better control their own destiny. Currently, party whips in the Senate control not only committee assignment duties, but also office allocations, parking spaces, trips for inter-parliamentary delegations, and all of those other administrative details that independents currently don’t have access to. Rather than turn over those kinds of details to Senate administration, they are looking to come up with a means to start controlling it themselves, which is important because it protects their privilege as Senators, which is important in how they govern themselves and are responsible for their own affairs. This is a very important consideration, and as the Chamber continues its process of forced evolution and change with the advent of decreasing partisanship and a greater number of independents on the way, because it has the potential to find a way through some of those process hurdles that are currently tripping them up. We’ll see how many other independent senators join this working group – after all, official party status in the Senate requires five members, which they have for the moment but at least one of their number is soon to hit the mandatory retirement age, and it would be incumbent upon them to keep their membership numbers up in order to carry on carrying on with their own affairs. This will hopefully help have systems in place for when the new senators start arriving, some of whom may opt to stay independent (others of course free to join a caucus if they wish), and allow these senators to assign one of their own as a kind of “whip” to deal with the administrative duties, and hopefully get more resources for their offices when it comes to things like research dollars. Overall, though, it will hopefully give them some organisational clout so that they are better able to answer stand up to the current oligarchy of the party structure in the Senate. Elsewhere, Senator Patterson has tabled a bill to amend the constitution and remove the property requirements for Senate eligibility (which I previous wrote about their relative harmlessness).
#indp #SenCa announcemement https://t.co/UphTnIzagq #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/8Lg1JLlW1c
— Elaine McCoy (@SenElaineMcCoy) March 10, 2016
Roundup: Trying to game the committee
As we heard late last week, the NDP’s democratic reform critic, Nathan Cullen, has been pushing his new idea of a “proportional” committee to better examine electoral reform options and come up with an idea that can be presented to Canadians. It’s a gimmick, of course, and it one has to be cognisant of Cullen’s agenda, which is of course a certain kind of proportional representation system that his party favours, just like Cullen’s other suggestion of “trying” an election with a new system and then asking voters for forgiveness by means of a referendum after the fact. It’s trying to game the system in a way he prefers, as Colby Cosh pointed out over the weekend, which should raise any number of red flags for those who take Cullen’s proposition seriously.
"One can view Cullen's proposal as reflecting a proportional system for allocating committee seats.” No, one can’t. https://t.co/Lr1BR2UrCy
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
Seriously, the Greens and the Bloc did not get one-twelfth of the 2015 vote BETWEEN them. Cullen gives them 2/12ths of the seats. Why?
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
“We can’t even use literal PR to pick the committee to bring in PR” is as strong a condemnation as PR could get, & it’s not from an opponent
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
Troublingly, it seems possible that PR advocates may not even know how to reckon proportions.
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
Why would we consider them together at all? Oh, right, because it’s advantageous for what Nathan Cullen wants. https://t.co/dR9EBr3sen
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
But, hey, we can’t expect the people who’ve been screaming about PR for years to know stuff like that. @BenBrisebois @EmmMacfarlane
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
This is actually an operating example of how politicians game the tricky details of an electoral reform. Before your very eyes!
— Colby Cosh (@colbycosh) February 6, 2016
Roundup: Refugee plans leaking out
We have some more details on the Syrian refugee plans that have started leaking out – 900 Syrians arriving per day starting December 1st, primarily from camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey; military facilities are being quickly winterized to help house them, mostly in Ontario and Quebec; and it looks like Christmas leave and vacations are being cancelled for a number of civil servants and military personnel to help make this all happen in time, which will cost in overtime. All will be identified by the UNHCR as resettlement candidates and screened on the ground (screening process explained here), and once they land and additional checks are made, they’ll immediately be made permanent residents. And it sounds like there may also be an advertising campaign to help Canadians who want to help out and do more to help the refugees. We’re due to get the official confirmation for these plans by next week, so we’ll see how much of all these leaks bears out then, but it does appear that the ambitious plan is coming together, and perhaps all of the overblown concerns for plans nobody has seen or articulated may be for naught.
Roundup: New Cabinet Eve
Welcome to Stephen Harper’s last day as Prime Minister. Tomorrow is the big day, and if you’re in Ottawa and want to take part, well, Rideau Hall is getting it all set, with big screens on the grounds, and helpful hints on attending (like you can’t park there and you’d better wear comfortable shoes, because you might be standing from 10 am to 1 pm). The cabinet will also apparently arrive by bus rather than everyone in their own individual cars, and it sounds like there will be some sort of interaction with the crowds, so I guess we’ll see how that all goes when it happens. Suffice to say, it again marks a change in tone from the last guy. If you’ve missed the others so far, Kady O’Malley gives a good primer on how to form a cabinet, while Nick Taylor-Vaisey fills you in on some more of the background details, like just what is a cabinet, and what are the oaths you need to sign? And no, I’m not going to engage in any cabinet speculation, because it’s a bit of a mug’s game at this point. I also don’t really want to get into the “gender quota versus merit” debate because it’s not a debate. There have always been quotas, be it linguistic, regional or even religious (when that mattered), more than merit, and I can’t believe that this is even a conversation, but whatever. The real question is how many women get into the “big” portfolios of finance, foreign affairs, justice, or defence.
Want to watch the cabinet swearing-in at Rideau Hall on Wednesday? Here are the guidelines. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/sOqOxkhGc4
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 2, 2015
https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661179686009962497
https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180078185775104
https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180363868278784
https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/661291352769064961
Roundup: TPP a Caretaker conundrum
The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are taking place right now, with the possibility that a deal could be struck with Canada while we’re in a writ period. The optics of this are a bit fraught, because if the government gets the deal signed, then they can crow about their prowess on the campaign trail, and how they’re signing deals to boost our economy. But the flip side of that coin is that a really big deal may be a kind of violation of the Caretaker Conventions that govern how an incumbent government operates during a writ period. Remember that we can never be without a government even when Parliament is dissolved – they just need to exercise restraint, and can’t implement major policy changes or make appointments during that period. This time around, however, the government released the Convention guidelines publicly while adding specific exemptions about negotiating trade deals. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of sense – do we really want to hold up the eleven other countries while we are in an extra-long election period? (Note that there seems to be a desire to conclude the deal before the American election gears up to full-on insanity mode). One of the arguments is that there should at least be some kind of consultation with opposition leaders if the negotiations continue during the writ period, and there are complaints that the TPP negotiations are unprecedented in their secrecy. What is not mentioned is that secrecy is deliberate considering how game changing this pact could be, particularly when it comes to weakening some of the tough subsidized markets in several member countries. And if you look at the reactions that rumours of deals around weakening Supply Management or auto parts content rules, and promises by other party leaders to maintain those protectionist policies, it’s hard not to see why they want to keep a lid on things until they’re finalised – particularly if the goal is actual trade liberalisation rather than just lip-service. It’s a delicate balance, and arguments can be made on both sides of the propriety of the government’s negotiations under the Caretaker Conventions. For example, Susan Delacourt argues the government is going beyond the Conventions. I’m not sure I have any answers, but I guess we’ll see what gets decided, and let the chips fall where they may.
Roundup: The slippery slope of civic ignorance
With Justin Trudeau adding his voice to those of the other leaders in completely misreading how a Westminster democracy works with the formation of government (albeit acknowledging that the incumbent does get the first crack), I think it’s quite apparent we’re in a crisis of civic literacy in this country. While Kady O’Malley gives a refresher here, there was an interesting idea posited by Leonid Sirota that we may be witnessing the birth of a new convention. I’m a bit sceptical about that, and would agree more with Emmett Macfarlane that it may be a political convention as opposed to a legal one, but it should also be a warning signal to our political actors that ignorance of the system, whether genuine or deliberate, does have broader repercussions. The system works the way it does because, well, it works. That’s why it evolved the way we did. To try and move it past that for crass political purposes demeans it, and opens a number of cans of worms that will do nothing more than create problems down the road that will be even bigger headaches. Better to learn and apply the system as it exists, rather than try to change the rules for petty reasons. Also, we need to stop dismissing these kinds of conversations as boring or pedantic because they matter. The rules matter. If we don’t point out what the rules are and that they matter, then it makes it easier for people to break them without anyone raising a fuss.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641312992257277953
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313435049959424
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313802944946176
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314338674974720
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314592094822400
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228423038238720
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228866099417088
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641229200544808960
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641230837434855424
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641231352986124288
@pauldalyesq Or, to put it even more starkly, our elections are in effect becoming presidential ones. Indeed, there are other reasons 1/
— Leonid Sirota (@DoubleAspect) September 8, 2015
@pauldalyesq increasingly leader-centred. Leaders are the drivers and focus of campaigns; parties just vehicles for them. 3/3
— Leonid Sirota (@DoubleAspect) September 8, 2015
Roundup: Disputing the AG’s claims
The Senate feeding frenzy continues, complete with torqued headlines and inordinate amounts of time being given to the concern trolls in the NDP (who refuse to answer questions on whether they plan to campaign on opening the constitution if they truly believe in abolition). And why not? The Senate is an easy punching bag. More details continue to leak out, despite the fact that the full audit won’t be made public until Tuesday afternoon, which really makes one question who is doing the leaking and what their endgame is. The AG has hinted that it’s not his office doing the leaking, but if I were him, I’d be steaming mad about these leaks which are casting a pall over the report itself, and fuelling this breathless and hysterical coverage that remains to date largely devoid of a great many facts. The concern trolling over the two leaders and the Speaker has been particularly odious, and it’s hard to take these cries of apparent conflict of interest seriously when you look at the facts regarding their actual involvement and what they knew about their spending claims – just because they got requests for additional information, it didn’t mean that they knew they would be in the final report, and none of the three are being accused of any particular criminality. It was also made known that the Prime Minister wouldn’t have known that there were a couple of questioned expenses for Senator Housakos when he was appointed Speaker, but hey, PMO-conspiracy theorists won’t believe it regardless. While Senator Boisvenu stepped down from the Conservative caucus for the investigation, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny put out a release saying his response in the audit will speak for itself. Former Senator Gerry St. Germain disputes that he’s done anything wrong, as did Former Senator Don Oliver, and well, pretty much every one of the nine that were flagged for being egregious. It also bears mentioning that the audit itself cost over $21 million, and found less than a million in questionable spending, and that number is likely to drop dramatically once the arbitration process gets underway and a number of these cases are found to have been value judgements on the part of auditors (and yes, this is an actual problem with the way this was conducted). Some MPs and Senators think that MPs should have their own books looked over, and wouldn’t you know it, there are a whole lot of MPs who resist that notion – particularly the ones who have been so vocal about the Senate allegations. Meanwhile, the lawyers for suspended senators Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy are whinging that it’s not fair that their clients didn’t have access to this arbitration process, but there was a process at the time that they could have availed themselves to. There have been a lot of problems with procedural fairness with the way their cases were handled, and political expediency was the order of the day coming from the government’s side, but that doesn’t actually excuse any of the potential wrongdoing that they are alleged to have done, most of which far exceeds what most of the senators apparently named in the report did.
QP: Senate reform questions from the past
Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.
"Last I checked, I am female myself," Kellie Leitch says. Um, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 4, 2015
Roundup: Trying to politicize the GG
In a move so stunningly boneheaded that I can scarcely believe it, the NDP have gone to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to wade in on the Senate residency issue – because there’s nothing like trying to politicise the GG to show that you mean business about a petty issue. It’s like Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition doesn’t have a clue about what Responsible Government – the central organising principle of our democratic system – actually means. Here’s a refresher for their edification – the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister holds the confidence of the House of Commons, which is the chamber elected for the purpose of granting or withholding said confidence. The entire history of the struggle for Responsible Government in the colonies that became Canada, back in the 1830s, was because they wanted to control the appointments made by the Crown, rather than leave it up to the colonial masters in the UK. The entire history of Canadian democracy rests on the fact that it’s the elected government that advises the Crown on who to appoint, and not the other way around. And yet the NDP seem to suddenly think it’s cool to ask the GG to weigh in on which appointments he thinks are okay or not. Charlie Angus may tell you that he’s asking for an explanation and that he’s not trying to draw the GG into the “scandal,” but with all due respect, that’s a load of utter horseshit and he knows it. He’s trying to get the GG to tell him that the PM is wrong so that he has “non-partisan” authority to make the claim for him; that’s never going to happen. Ever. It is assumed that the advice the PM gives the GG is legitimate because the PM has the confidence of the Commons. That means that the quality of that advice is a ballot box issue – if we don’t like it, we get to hold that PM and that government to account by voting them out. It is not up to the GG to veto it unless it’s so egregious that it’s a blatant violation of the constitution, at which point he refuses the advice and the Prime Minister is forced to resign. But as much as Charlie Angus might like to think that Mike Duffy is some unprecedented scandal that rocks the very legitimacy of the Upper Chamber (which they don’t believe is legitimate anyway, so this is grade-A concern trolling on his part), it’s not a constitutional crisis. It’s just not. Even if Harper’s advice was dubious, it was up to Duffy to ensure that he lived up to the terms of that appointment, and ensuing he was a proper resident of PEI – which essentially would have meant a hasty house sale in Ottawa, buying a year-round residence on the Island (and not a summer cottage) tout suit, and then maybe renting an apartment or buying a small condo near Parliament Hill as his Ottawa pied à terre, being a legitimate secondary residence. Duffy did not do that. He instead got political opinions to ensure that he was okay with the summer cottage and a driver’s licence and that’s it, when clearly that was not enough. He bears as much culpability in this as the PM for making the appointment – not the GG. Charlie Angus should be utterly ashamed for this blatant attempt to politicise the GG, but I’m pretty sure he’s incapable of shame.
@InklessPW Oh p-lease. So the NDP opposes the Senate because it is undemocratic but is ok with the GG vetoing the PM? #cdnpoli
— Adam Dodek (@ADodek) May 20, 2015