Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: Values versus mechanics

Posted on by

I am just about at my limit for hot takes on both Brexit and electoral reform here in Canada, and lo, the Citizen has an op-ed out that combines the two of them. How scintillating! Except not. After dire warnings about what Brexit did for referendums, we get an appeal for a discussion on “values” rather than mechanics when it comes to discussing electoral reform.

Nope. Nooooope.

When I’ve finished banging my head against my desk for the sheer ridiculousness of the piece, I’ve got a couple of bones to pick with it.

The mechanics of any electoral system are important to understand what it produces in terms of government, kinds of parties and representatives. The guide also discusses design variations, which could be good if citizens were being asked to design a system. But citizens are not being asked to do that when they hold these informal meetings. And an obsession about design mechanics only perpetuates the wrong-headed nature of the conversation. It’s like arguing over the options on a car before you’ve chosen the model.

The problem is that nobody is actually talking about the mechanics. Sure, you have a couple of people griping over MMP versus ranked ballot, but nobody is talking about the bigger picture. There is no obsession about design mechanics – it’s all been about feelings and “fairness,” and this fantasyland notion that somehow parties will be forced to be more cooperative under whichever system is eventually chosen (which is utter tripe) or that voters will somehow turnout more (also tripe), and nobody talks about what it means that you are no longer voting for an MP in a direct and meaningful way that gives them direct agency. Mechanics matter, and nobody is discussing it, so I don’t know where this prof is getting the idea that there’s an obsession with it.

The focus of these town halls should be on what values matter most to Canadians in an electoral system. I think citizens care less about the allocation of seats than they do about how each system embodies principles such as accountability, fairness, simplicity and inclusiveness.

Wait – how much ink has been spilled to date over the allocation of seats? It’s the very first thing that the sore loser brigade starts whinging about. So yes, apparently Canadians do care about it insofar as they misunderstand how the current system works and are being told that it’s unfair based on the fantasy number of the popular vote (which we’ve already established is not a real number). Also, nobody is talking about what actual accountability means (like being able to turf a government) rather than the fuzziest of notions about your MP responding to you as a voter. And there’s that “fairness” word again, which is that emotive word that people whinge about without understanding how the system works – just that the party they support didn’t get as many seats as they feel they deserved, based on numbers that don’t exist in reality.

Should an electoral system offer greater voter choice, create effective parties, be simple and practical or offer fairness of representation? These are ideals that both reformers and non-reformers can rationally discuss without getting lost in the weeds of how votes are transferred under single transferable vote.

And here we get to the part where we apparently want a discussion about unicorns, because that’s all these ideals are. Everyone wants a magical electoral outcome, but they don’t actually understand how the system works now, so this is all about wish fulfilment and fantasy projection. This is why a discussion about mechanics matters. We can talk values until doomsday, and it will be worthless because unless you have a solid conception about what your vote actually means from a mechanical perspective, then it might as well be pixie dust.

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: Approval voting and numbers with meaning

Posted on by

While everyone has been enthralled with the electoral reform debate (no, not really), and been gripped with substance over process (no, not really), there was an op-ed in the Citizen last week that I never really had a chance to talk about amidst a number of other things going on, so I thought I’d take a moment now to address it. The issue: the electoral system known as “approval voting.”

So what is it? Basically you take the same ballot you have now, and you mark it for as many people as you want to. Supposedly this discourages strategic voting because you can vote more than once and can vote for both the person your heart wants to vote for, as well as the one you hope to defeat the person in there now. And okay, sure, it’s simple, and sure, it gives you that emotional thrill about being able to vote for more than one person (which I don’t think is that big of a concern for most people, but maybe I’m wrong), and if you do something silly like vote for everyone on the ballot (because they’re all winners for participating?), then it basically cancels out the vote and doesn’t come out any worse off. But I keep going back to the basic question: what problem is this trying to solve?

If that problem is the emotional dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes, then I’m not sure that this is the problem that we should be addressing, and I also have to wonder about the unintended consequences of picking such a system. And what could those be? Really, the quality of the data that an election produces, and what that data tells us about the election. Because believe it or not, that actually matters. What percentage a candidate received matters a lot. It gauges support, it sends a message about how solid or tenuous their support is, and about how much support their rivals have, which could mean clues for them as to how to better organise in the following election, and who to target. If the number of votes cast is divorced from the number of electors, what kind of message are we able to send? That would seem to be a pretty important consideration to me, and to a lot of people running, I would imagine.

I also have an issue with how this portrays what a vote means. In our system currently – and yes, this electoral system purports to keep the system otherwise intact, along the lines of “one simple trick to make the system more emotionally satisfying!” – when you cast a ballot it is to decide who will sit in the seat that represents your geographic area. And this is where a lot of electoral reform nonsense falls apart – it becomes about feelings rather than the fact that there is one seat and you have to help decide who fills it. How casting votes for multiple people to fill that one seat seems to defeat the purpose in many ways, and admission that it’s too difficult to make a decision so let’s cop out and muddle it so that I don’t feel so bad when I do it. But democracy is about making choices, and we should make it clear that it’s what it is, and just what that choice is (i.e.: Who is filling this one seat, rather than who is going to form a government, because that is decided once a parliament has been assembled). We’re not making that clear, and we’re constantly talking in terms of horse race numbers and leadership politics, and not about the actual choice that faces people, and I think this is something we should be paying more attention to, and being more vocal and precise about, so that we don’t wind up with yet more pie-eyed schemes that are designed to make us feel better while not actually doing what we’re supposed to. And this isn’t something that I’m seeing in the discussions on electoral reform – just a lot of pouting about “fairness” based on made-up numbers that don’t actually mean anything, and approval voting would make the numbers that do mean something, mean even less.

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: 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: Bills left unpassed

Posted on by

While the House of Commons may have risen for the summer on Friday, they did so with an unusual number of bills waiting to pass third reading, not to mention the fact that Bill C-7 on RCMP unionization is heading back to them after the Senate amends it (and those amendments have passed at the committee stage and are awaiting third reading vote). What is most unusual to me is the fact that C-7 was another bill that was in response to a Supreme Court decision that also was granted an extension, and still managed to miss its deadline and remains un-passed. Now, the government is prepared to allow it go un-passed through the summer, despite the fact that while it was under consideration on the Commons side, they insisted they couldn’t make substantive amendments to the bill because of the deadline. That deadline has passed, and they are willing to now let it go through the summer, the sense of urgency suddenly evaporated? How? It makes no sense. And looking at the other bills that they haven’t passed yet, there are two that are both awaiting Third Reading and could have passed if they’d sat for an extra couple of days: C-2 on their vaunted income tax changes, and C-4 on undoing the Conservatives’ changes to labour rights. Why they’re letting these languish through the summer – particularly C-4, which keeps some pretty onerous regulations for labour unions on the books – is frankly mystifying.

I will say that the mood in the Commons was strangely exhausted by the time Friday rolled around, when they hadn’t even been doing late-night sittings up to this point in order to get things passed an off to the Senate (often with the expectation to get those bills passed as well before rising themselves). In fact, normally by this time, MPs are outright feral, and the tone in the Commons could generally be compared to jeering, hooting baboons. Mind you, we had The Elbowing and that associated drama a few weeks ago, and as someone remarked to me the other day (and if I could remember who you were when I had this conversation, I would credit you), they basically peaked too soon this year. And that very well could be. It still makes no sense that they would leave these two bills on the Order Paper waiting for final debate, or not waiting for C-7 to come back from the Senate. But then again, there have been a lot of questionable choices made this spring, so perhaps we should chalk it up to more of that.

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 →

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 →

Roundup: Everyone’s an expert

Posted on by

More amendments to C-14 in the Senate, and the very real threat from senators that they would rather veto a bad law (such as the bill as originally drafted) than let it pass and have to head back to the courts, is prompting everyone to consider themselves an expert on the Senate and how to reform it. After days of clutched pearls by pundits and the odd bit of praise (such as Martin Patriquin’s grudging admission that the Senate is a necessary evil), we’re also starting to get some pretty bizarre pieces out there, like one from iPolitics, where they got a mining company CEO to weigh in on reforming the chamber.

No, seriously.

Apparently, according to this “expert,” Trudeau has gotten it all wrong by creating a situation with “no enforceable rule,” and apparently we’ve never had a situation in the past 149 years where bills bounced back-and-forth between the chambers. Err, except that there have never been real levers by which a Prime Minister could control the chamber, only sentiment on the part of senators in his or her caucus, and we’ve had plenty of situations where bills went back-and-forth, including to having conferences between chambers (a situation which is unwieldy in the current configuration of the Senate). And while Trudeau has made mistakes, he is not to blame for the Senate’s actual constitutional powers, which are currently being demonstrated.

But wait – there’s more!™

Our CEO “expert” says that the solution is not Triple E (thankfully), but rather to reduce senators’ term limits to 12 years, to give provinces a veto on their nominees to represent them, and to ensure that a nomination panel ensures that “a new Senate is younger, more representative and better qualified for the work by credentials and life experience.”

Term limits are a solution in search of a problem because they reduce institutional independence. The problem, identified in the Ontario factum to the Supreme Court reference, is that a senator nearing their term limit can start to curry favour with the government in hopes of a post-Senatorial appointment to a tribunal or diplomatic posting. By ensuring that their end date is age 75, it scuppers those plans and keeps Senators from sucking up. Provincial vetoes? Well, senators are not there to represent provincial governments. They are not even technically representing provinces, but rather regions, and their representation tends to be for minority communities, be they linguistic, ethnic or even religious, which was the express purpose for why the Senate was built in the way that it was. And demands for a younger Senate clash with the desire to get accomplished Canadians to serve in its ranks toward the end of their careers so that they can draw on their decades of experience, and if you look at some of the qualifications of our current senators, they are on the whole a very accomplished group indeed (some exceptions apply).

So rather than get some CEO to bloviate without any actual institutional knowledge or awareness, perhaps we should all brush up on our civic literacy and learn about the chamber as it currently exists before start weighing in on how to fix something that is not actually fundamentally broken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Amendments are not some power grab

Posted on by

After hours of debate, the Senate passed the first amendment to the assisted dying legislation to remove the definition “reasonably foreseeable death” and replace it with the language from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter, and immediately the pundit class erupted in cries of horror and outrage that how dare an unelected body dare to touch the precious words of the elected House of Commons, and that this newly emboldened Senate was dangerously overstepping its bounds going forward.

Oh. Please.

It’s like any hint of context went out the window when it comes to this particular bill, and the fact that you have a Supreme Court of Canada decision that it’s supposed to be in answer to (not that parliament needed to draft a law, mind you). There are serious concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. MPs in the Commons believed it, you have a lower court judge in Alberta that believed so when crafting a judgment around an assisted death request and how the state of this legislation wouldn’t conform to the Supreme Court decision, and now Senators are doing their constitutional duty of weighing the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, and quite rightly, they find it wanting. This is why the Senate exists, and what the “sober” part of “sober second thought” means – that freed from the constraints of having to worry about what voters will think, they can take a more clear-headed look at these controversial bills. And if you get hung up on the “unelected” part, apparently the policy and legislative roles taken not only by the Supreme Court or the various administrative tribunals that exist in this country also should keep you awake at night. (Also, their democratic legitimacy comes from being appointed by a government who has the confidence of the chamber, but you know, it’s not like Responsible Government is anything other than a minor detail).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740737440231641088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740743223396683776

So what happens next? Once the remainder of the amendments are decided upon one way or the other, the report gets sent back to the Commons, which they will then debate and amend at their pleasure – you know, like democratically elected legislators are supposed to do. The Justice Minister doesn’t sound keen on these amendments “without more safeguards,” but I also take this with a grain of salt because I do believe the government is setting up this narrative of reluctance so that they can show that they have been “forced” to accept what the Supreme Court has laid out by a Senate that could veto the bill if they find it unconstitutional. Because remember, MPs who have electoral considerations don’t like to be seen to take bold steps with difficult decisions when it’s easier to hide behind another body who can take the blame for them. And it’s not like MPs aren’t used to giving abdicating all manner of their roles to other unelected bodies (the courts, Officers of Parliament, and the Senate), this just being one more in a long line of examples. It’s one more reason why I find this concern trolling by the pundit class all the more difficult to swallow. If MPs were actually serious about their jobs, then it wouldn’t be incumbent upon the Senate to be the grown-ups of parliament, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →