Tag Archives: Procurement

Roundup: Gowns for influence

Posted on by

The celebrity status of Sophie Grégoire Trudeau gained some internal clarity within government circles as new ethics rules were published with regards to her as it pertains to gifts and loans of the clothes and jewellery she wears. As a woman with a certain profile, Grégoire Trudeau has done the politic thing to do and showcase Canadian designers, because we all know that she would immediately be subject to criticism if she didn’t. And when a person of a certain profile makes that kind of decision about showcasing designers, she tends to be presented with dresses, outfits, and jewellery to showcase at different high-profile events – often for loan, but occasionally as a gift as thanks for the exposure she gives those designers, so it makes sense that there are some rules around it, as an extension of the fact that her husband is a public office holder. I get it.

What I do not get is this notion that somehow accepting the loan or rental of a gown, outfit or piece of jewellery is going to somehow corrupt the ethics of the government of the day and put them in some kind of impossible conflict of interest. And yet, here we are, once again quoting Duff Conacher, head of the Parliamentary Thought Police, giving credence to this kind of lunacy:

“In terms of personal ethics she shouldn’t be accepting these gifts. She should decide, and she will likely decide, to wear Canadian designers quite a bit to showcase them as others have … [but she should] not be tainted with even the appearance that’s she’s up for sale and happy to receive free gifts when she can afford to buy her own clothes and jewelry.”

Are. You. Serious? Aside from the fact that such a shopping habit would quickly become very expensive and become the subject of all manner of other gossip pieces (and let’s face it – the PM’s salary isn’t that generous, no matter what you may think), fashion is an industry that is not static. It’s very difficult to buy a few pieces and then just recycle them endlessly while you’re in the public eye and being seen to promote designers. That invites its own kind of damning criticism. But how, pray tell, is she “up for sale?” What influence does she wield that this is some kind of ethical dilemma for the operation of the government? She’s promoting the industry, and she is circumscribed from accepting items over $1000 (which are surrendered to the Crown collection unless she chooses to purchase them), and gifts over $200 are disclosed, which is fine. But “up for sale”? Seriously? Do you think they’re seriously going to ask her husband to send along subsidy cheques? Then again, this is from the mind of someone so paranoid that he thinks that $1500 can buy influence in government, and that capping donations at $100 will somehow fix the system rather than drive financing to less reputable channels (as it did in Quebec, which is the model he curiously admires). The disclosure rules are sensible. Let’s leave it at that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a grown-up party

Posted on by

There is an interesting piece in yesterday’s Hill Times about the policy process of the Green Party as it struggles to grow from an activist movement into a serious political party. Despite the heavy reliance on commentary from the one non-party voice in particular, there are some interesting lessons therein about ways in which their current process is causing problems with resolutions around things like the BDS movement, which put it at odds with the leader. If you recall during the last election, it came to light that some of their platform policies around things like divorce laws were MRA propaganda, forcing them to do quick disavowals to go along with the shrugs of “hey, we’re a very open party” and “grassroots democracy!” And don’t get me wrong – grassroots engagement is a good and necessary thing in politics, but there does need to be framework around it that ensures that grown-ups are in charge and that really problematic contributions can be weeded out rather than thrown into the “open-chalkboard” approach that sets too low of a threshold for some of the more odious policy ideas to make it through without a really proper vetting. (Conversely, there needs to be enough power at the grassroots level so it’s not just the leader’s office deciding policy without any accountability for doing so, which the Liberals seem to be moving toward). What’s more concerning is that the attempts to move to some form of a proportional representation system that would allow for these more fringe views to gain seats without the party having matured into a credible political force that can deal with its crazies. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as being too open and too “grassroots” in politics, and it’s part of what is causing the implosion of the Republicans in the States, where the lack of controls in favour of more “direct democracy” primaries – alongside with this narrative that government is corrupt or illegitimate – has caused it to become completely unhinged. Some of these same messages are being echoed by the kinds of people within the Green Party, coded in language around the current electoral or party systems. It does become concerning, and it’s why these kinds of too-open endeavours start to make me nervous.

Continue reading →

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: Monsef’s terrible “event toolkit”

Posted on by

Maryam Monsef appeared before the special committee on electoral reform, and it went about as well as you could expect, from her frankly juvenile (and wrong) opening remarks, to the predictable questions from those there – the Conservatives demanding a referendum, the NDP demanding to know whether the fix was in for ranked ballots, and Elizabeth May making outrageous remarks in her boosterism for proportional representation. Oh, and the Liberals at the table wondering just why she cares so much. No, seriously.

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/750754591784984576

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/750777788257402880

What was perhaps most surprising and yet odious about the whole affair was the 38-page “event toolkit” that Monsef unveiled at the appearance, which is designed to help facilitate discussions on electoral reform. (National Post summary here if you don’t want to read the whole thing). And it’s ridiculous and terrible. Laughably so, especially with the step-by-step instructions on how to host one and advice like creating a “special hashtag” for your event.

Event planning aside, the few pages devoted to different electoral systems are actually terrible because they miss the point. They all stem from a kind of discussion that fetishises “representation” and talks nothing at all about accountability, which is half of the gods damned equation when it comes to why we vote at all. It is not enough that we vote for a person and can be all warm and fuzzy about what that “representation” means to us (which is where a lot of the unicorn thinking of electoral reformists tends to wind up), but rather, it must also provide us with a means of holding those who are already in place to account. That means an ability to vote them out, and the only time that the word “accountability” is mentioned is on the page of the “guiding principles” that Monsef purports that the exercise is to he held under, and even then, the mentions do not get to the point. The principle of “preserve the accountability of local representation” and asking “how could any proposed reforms affect MPs’ accountability to citizens” does not actually make it clear that the ability to hold an MP or a party to account is a fundamental principle of our democratic system. Instead, we are treated to the usual “more democracy” kinds of rhetoric that are bogging down our whole understanding of our electoral system. It’s why I treat this whole exercise with suspicion, and those fears are being validated.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Perverting the Westminster system

Posted on by

Amidst the various detritus floating out there of post-Brexit thinkpieces, one could blink and miss a pair of posts the Andrew Potter made yesterday, but let me state that it would be a mistake to do so. The first post was a response to another trolling post from someone else who stated that a Brexit vote would never have happened in the American system because of all of its various checks and balances. Potter, however, doesn’t rise to the bait in quite the way you would think, and instead looks at the ways in which Responsible Government in the UK has gone wrong of late, which led to this situation. Things like the referendum itself not being a usual parliamentary instrument, or the fixed-parliaments legislation, and the ways in which party leadership contests have done away with the usual accountability mechanisms on the leaders that are being elected rather than selected. In other words, it’s the perversions of the Westminster system that have caused the problems at hand, not the system itself that is to blame as the original trolling post would otherwise indicate. And for those of you who’ve been following my writing for a while, this is a recurring theme with me too (which you’ll see expounded upon in my book when it’s released next year) – that it’s the constant attempts to tinker with the system that wind up being the problem because we’ve been forgetting how the system is actually supposed to operate. If we left the system alone and used it the way it’s intended, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems creeping in, forcing people to demand yet more tinkering reforms.

The second post from Potter is a continuation from an aside in the first piece, but it’s worth a read nevertheless because it’s a quick look at ways in which the changes that America needs to its system go beyond simple electoral reform, but rather a change to a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than its current morass that more resembles a pre-Responsible Government reflection of the “balanced constitution” model that the UK was experimenting with at the time. One imagines that it would mean turning their president into a more figurehead role than also having him or her be the head of government as well as head of state as the office is now (this is the part that Potter glosses over), but the rest of the points stand – that a confidence-based system instead of term limits would allow its heads of government to burn out in a third term rather than create independent power bases that are then used for dynastic purposes (witness both the Bush and Clinton dynasties), that problems with things like Supreme Court appointments would rectify themselves, and that it would force reforms to their party system that would largely prevent the kind of outsider demagogue problem that we saw in the current election cycle with Trump and Sanders. It’s certainly thought provoking, and a timely defence of our parliamentary institutions as they are supposed to function.

Continue reading →

Roundup: To give or not to give Sophie resources

Posted on by

At his session-ender press conference, Trudeau highlighted three carefully chosen accomplishments, gave no additional clarity on the missing and murdered Indigenous women file, and didn’t commit to an open process for fighter procurement. All of that was par for the course, given that it was a lot of back-patting, but also a reminder that there is still a lot of work ahead, and he doesn’t want to look like he’s patting himself on the back too much. What I found more curious was in response to a question that he said that his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, should be able to have resources to carry out the duties that she has set about to undertake, but that he also doesn’t want to create a formal role for prime ministerial spouses going forward so that there is no obligation for the future. There is a certain amount of sense to this position, but it’s a very fine line to walk. Currently, she has one assistant and is given help from PMO staff on an ad hoc basis, as needed. Speculation with the staffing changes made to the household, particularly around nannies, has to do with creating space on the staff for an additional assistant for Grégoire Trudeau, but we have yet to see that materialise. None of it answers the specific existential question however on the role that prime ministerial spouses play. The reluctance to create an official position is a good instinct to have, especially because it bears reminding again and again that we are already a constitutional monarchy, and we have a royal family to take on these particular roles. In fact, the GG and his spouse also take on these kinds of feel-good roles in the absence of a more present royal family, which leaves very little room for a prime ministerial spouse to take it on. What they have to trade in – particularly Grégoire Trudeau – is a kind of celebrity status, especially as the previous few prime ministerial spouses haven’t had much in the way of a career of their own, and for Grégoire Trudeau, it has become her career to be a public speaker at events and for particular charity groups – and there’s nothing wrong with that. It nevertheless makes for a sticky situation with who pays for the help that such a career entails, particularly if it becomes an important optical consideration that she not be paid for the work (and if she were paid, even on a cost-recovery basis, one can already imagine people hissing “how dare she!” on accepting money from charities no matter that it’s the cost of doing business and standard practice). So we are between that proverbial rock and hard place. I don’t have a solution to offer either than to say that there is no winning, and it now becomes a way of finding the least unpalatable option, and that may wind up being what Trudeau is signalling – resources but the explicit rule that this is not formalising the role in any way. His reminding people that we have a royal family for these kinds of things wouldn’t hurt either so that we can stop this constant “First Lady” talk.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The quest for a less arbitrary majority

Posted on by

The electoral reform committee met for the first time yesterday and got all of its housekeeping details out of the way – “electing” Francis Scarpaleggia as the chair (though it was unopposed) and naming Scott Reid and Nathan Cullen as the deputies, allocating clerks and resources, and starting to figure out when the meetings will begin, hearing from the outgoing Chief Electoral Officer to start with. But with all of this going on, it bears reminding what we are doing with this whole “reform” endeavour in the first place, much of which has to do with the complaints that parties that don’t get a majority of the votes wield a majority of the power. Joseph Heath writes a great piece debunking this kind of thinking that everyone should read, because it is a reminder that trying to find a “true majority” becomes a futile quest – there is enough arbitrariness in any system that there can never be an actual majority, but it is simply more naked under First-Past-the-Post. Changing the system just moves the goalposts in different ways – indeed, proportional systems just removes the possibilities of majority government with the horse-trading of coalitions, which brings yet more arbitrariness into the system. So good luck, committee members, with your stated goals for the system you wish to choose when they are built upon foundations of sand.

Meanwhile, as our friends in the media write yet more stories about what the committee will be looking at, can I please offer the reminder about doing some actual research when it comes to systems like ranked ballots. Consistently our media colleagues have repeated the grossly distorted line that ranked ballots somehow “increase the disparities of first-past-the-post.” We’ve seen this over and over again, especially as the NDP and their Broadbent Institute brethren have picked it up as a talking point. No.

This supposed fact comes from a single analysis done by CBC’s Eric Grenier using a single poll done around the time of the election regarding second choices. That’s it. It doesn’t detail how the system actually works and what it is designed to do, which is to eliminate tactical voting, and yet we’ve never heard that description used once. Oh, wait – I used it in a sidebar I researched for the Ottawa Citizen. But that’s it. It would be nice if other journalists writing about this file could actually go and do a bit of research on their own rather than repeating the talking points provided to them by partisans, because we might get a better understanding of what is actually up for debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A test of bicameral wills?

Posted on by

Whether through stubbornness or pique, the House of Commons voted to adopt nearly all of the amendments the Senate proposed to Bill C-14, with the exception of the biggest and most important one – the one which would eliminate the requirement of a “reasonably foreseeable” death before someone could be granted medical assistance in dying. And then, the Commons more or less announced that tomorrow will be their last sitting day before they rise for the summer, essentially daring the Senate to return a bill to a chamber that has gone home (well, they are supposed to come back on the 29th for Obama’s address), and leaving the spectre of there being no law in place, which has all manner of medical community stakeholders concerned (never mind that the framework of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Carter decision is in place and would ensure that nobody would be charged for providing the service). It’s a little more ballsy than I would have given the Liberals credit for a few weeks ago, particularly before I saw the background paper that Jody Wilson-Raybould released with her…questionable justification for drafting the law the way it was. Now comes the difficult part – will the Senate stick to their guns and insist that the amendments to eliminate “reasonably foreseeable” be maintained if the bill is to remain constitutional, or will they back down because they’ve made their point and the Commons is the elected chamber?

This is the part where I chime in with a few reminders that this is the reason why our Senate exists the way it does – it enjoys institutional independence and cannot be threatened by the Commons so that they can push back on bills they find unconstitutional, particularly a controversial one like this, where MPs are proving themselves to be timid in the face of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that lays out what they deem to be an appropriate constitutional reading of the issue – something the government is basically flouting in an attempt to push back on this bit of social evolution for as long as possible. And as I’ve stated before, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Commons is waiting for the Senate to “force” them to advance things. Will it turn into a ping-pong between the chambers? Not for much longer, I would say, but it is going to depend on who blinks. If the Senate does dig in its heels on this and insist that doing otherwise would be to let an unconstitutional bill pass, then there is every reason to suspect the government take the “forced into this” option and let the Senate be the punching bag when religious and disability groups complain. There are people suggesting that the Supreme Court should break the impasse, which I would loudly denounce because it’s the very last thing we need. It’s not their job, and it would signal a complete abdication of the rights of Parliament and Responsible Government that our predecessors fought long and hard for. (Also, stop demanding these bills be referred to the Court – legislating is not a game of “Mother May I?”). This whole exercise is why the Senate exists. Let’s let them do their jobs.

Continue reading →

QP: Applauding and chiding Sweden

Posted on by

Despite it being caucus day, none of the major leaders were present in the Commons today, and I find myself at a loss as to why that would be the case. That left Denis Lebel to lead off, wondering if an announcement on softwood lumber was waiting for President Obama’s visit. David Lametti responded with the usual assurances that they are working hard on the file. After another round of the same, Jason Kenney stood up to attempt to shame the government over their decision to vote against their motion on declaring ISIS a genocide. Stéphane Dion noted that Sweden’s parliament defeated a similar irresponsible motion. Kenney tried again, and third time, but Dion wouldn’t bite, instead reading what a responsible motion would look like. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, decrying the delay in the court case between KPMG and the CRA — not that it’s actually the administrative responsibility of the government. Diane Lebouthillier noted that sometimes there are delays in getting evidence, and stated that the CRA is closing in on tax cheats. Julian asked again in English, got the same answer, and then Hélène Laverdière asked about a report on Afghan detainees, demanding a public inquiry. Harjit Sajjan responded that they take human rights seriously, and they would take any new allegations seriously. Laverdière demanded a public inquiry, but Sajjan wouldn’t bite.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two bills heading back

Posted on by

It looks like the Senate has nearly finished with two of the contentious bills on its plate, and both are headed back to the Commons with amendments. The first is the obvious one, Bill C-14, where the biggest change has been to drop the requirement that a condition must essentially be terminal for the law to grant a medically-assisted death, but other amendments such as allowing for advanced directives failed in part because Senator Murray Sinclair made a compelling case that the language in the amendment was sufficiently unclear. The challenge there is that while the government promises further study in the language of the bill, there is little guarantee that will actually happen, or if it does, that legislation will follow, because MPs are terribly spineless about these sorts of things and they require being “forced” by the courts.

The other bill is C-7, the RCMP unionization bill, where the list of exclusions that the government had put into the bill has been removed, and somewhat inexplicably, a provision that a union certification vote has to be done by secret ballot was inserted (though I suspect the latter was a compromise with the Conservatives to get them to pass the more important amendment of striking down the exclusions). In that case, the government has a hard time justifying those exclusions, particularly as they both make little sense, and perpetuate the problems of the Commissioner’s office already having too much power, while it would continue to give him even more.

So what’s next? Once those bills head back to the Commons, we’ll see how much the government plans to dig in its heels, and how tough senators can talk about insisting that those changes be in the bills, particularly as they have the weight of the Supreme Court of Canada behind them in both cases. The biggest problem the Senate will face is splintering resolve – enough senators are not willing to stand up to the elected Commons even in the face of a bill that is likely not to pass constitutional muster because the Commons is the elected chamber. Never mind that the Senate was created as an appointed body so that it could do just that – stand up to the elected chamber when need be, because their lack of a need for re-election allowed their reflection on bills to be more “sober,” and this is a case where that particular “sobriety” is needed in the face of pressure from religious and disability groups. But, as I maintain, it remains likely that the Commons is looking for an excuse to be “forced” to accept these changes, and the Senate threatening to use their veto would be excuse enough for MPs to make the needed changes in a way that allows them to hide behind the Senate and skirt responsibility, as they did the courts before them. We’ll have to see.

Continue reading →