Tag Archives: Procurement

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 →

QP: Politicizing genocide

Posted on by

The benches were nearly full, and all of the leaders were present for today’s exercise in accountability. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by demanding that the government was “shameful” in not declaring ISIS to be a genocide. Justin Trudeau strongly condemned the actions of ISIS, praised our efforts, and noted that they asked the international authorities to weigh on rather than politicians. Ambrose pressed, Trudeau reiterated that they wouldn’t trivialise the word “genocide” by using it inappropriately. Ambrose tried again in French, and Trudeau repeated his point about not making petty points with this determination. Ambrose moved to the plight of Yazidi girls and asking for them to be brought to Canada. Trudeau noted that they use the UN determination of most needy. Ambrose insisted that they weren’t refugees but displaced people, and the Conservatives hollered as Trudeau noted that the previous government diminished the capacity to bring people to Canada. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and lamented the court battle from a veterans group, and Trudeau insisted that they were making changes to help veterans. After another round in French, Mulcair moved onto marijuana decriminalisation, and Trudeau reminded him that decriminalisation won’t stop street gangs. Mulcair repeated the question in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Skirting the Charter

Posted on by

It was a late-night sitting in the Senate to deal with more amendments to the assisted dying bill, and in the end, amendments that would include advanced directives in the bill were defeated. Part of the debate was that more time was needed to study the issue, and the mover of the amendments, Senator Cowan, made the very trenchant point that while the bill mandates the government to study the issue within 180 days of passage, there is no guarantee that they will do anything with it other than issue a report that will gather dust, because as we’ve been exploring lately, MPs tend to be rather spineless and because this is a tough “moral” issue, they will refuse to discuss it until forced to by the courts. Again. Meanwhile, a background paper on the bill was released by the justice minister that stated that they didn’t need to strictly follow the Supreme Court’s Carter decision because they were trying to articulate new principles about trying not to normalise suicide among the elderly and disabled. It seems to me that this is the very same logic that the previous government employed in their crafting new prostitution laws, which went around the very issues that the Supreme Court dealt with (the safety of sex workers) and tried to craft legislation that was inherently denunciating rather than which tried to put in place a better regime. That has yet to be challenged in the courts, but it is coming. In this particular case, it does seem like an attempt by the government to try and circumvent clear direction by the Supreme Court on how they have interpreted the Charter in this instance, as Carissima Mathen points out below, it’s not like they can simply say “new law!” and pretend that the existing Charter jurisprudence doesn’t exist, because it clearly does. Is this the way that this government purports to deal with the constitutional dialogue with the courts and push back against them? Maybe. But it also seems like they are flirting with a bill that is unconstitutional to try and keep themselves from pissing off too many interest groups, be they religious or the disabled community, despite the fact that there seems to be clear interest from Canadians that they want this kind of law in place (and in particular, advanced directives if you believe what senators say they are getting in terms of the feedback from Canadians). Of course, they could very well find themselves “forced” by the Senate to provide enough political cover (which I still think is a very distinct possibility), but I am getting the sense that we are now seeing the “campaign from the left, govern from the right” sensibilities starting to emerge in this current Liberal government.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/742528101364551680

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/742531190243135488

Continue reading →

QP: A moment for Orlando

Posted on by

Things got off today with a few statements of condolence and shock around the attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando over the weekend, and a moment of silence in the House of Commons. Neither Rona Ambrose nor Justin Trudeau were present today, Trudeau meeting with the chief and youth delegates from Attawapiskat.

Denis Lebel led off by asking about the terror attack in Orlando and the execution of hostage Robert Hall in the Philippines. Ralph Goodale responded with condolences and assurances that there were no threats to Canadians. Lebel then demanded an electoral reform referendum, to which Maryam Monsef called on all parliamentarians to help the committee do their work. Lebel pivoted again, and asked about a carbon tax. Jonathan Wilkinson assured him that they were focused on growing the economy in an environmentally sustainable way. Andrew Scheer took a crack at that question in English, terming a carbon price an “Ottawa knows best” approach, and Wilkinson gave the same answer. Scheer then accused the Liberals of charging admission for an electoral reform town hall, and Monsef said that they all members were supposed to follow the rules around these town halls. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and raised their opposition day motion topic of marijuana decriminalisation for simple possession. Jody Wilson-Raybould noted that they can’t just decriminalise without ensuring that children could not access it. Mulcair gave it another go in English, got the same same answer, and then he pivoted to take on the scourge of bank fees. François-Philippe Champagne reminded him that the government doesn’t regulate the day-to-day operations of banks. Mulcair asked again in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →