Tag Archives: Refugees

Roundup: Tiresome cheap shots

Posted on by

Oh, look – there’s the Senate bat-signal and oh, it’s because a couple of pundits have decided to be completely tiresome about it. I see. Up first is CBC’s Terry Milewski, who has once again decided to use Mike Duffy to paint the whole of the Senate with his disreputable brush. Never mind that the vast majority of senators don’t abuse the system, or that they have made vast improvements on financial controls and transparency (and remain far more transparent than the House of Commons in most respects), apparently the whole system is an unfixable morass because Duffy. Um, okay. And to cap it off, Milewski tries to make some wrong-headed point about representation in the Senate, ignoring that representation is along regional and not provincial lines, and no, Newfoundland is not part of the Maritimes and is a region unto itself, but hey, conflating its seats is fun and deliberately misleading! Apparently nobody has taken a basic civics or Canadian history course, because the whole point of why the Senate was constructed the way it was, was precisely because it wasn’t supposed to be representation-by-population. The Commons is, and the Senate had to rebalance the representation to keep Ontario from swamping the minority provinces. Oh, but those are “bizarre” and “absurd imbalances” apparently, because Milewski has decided that ignorance is the effective bully tactic. It’s a series of cheap shots that should be beneath the journalistic establishment, but alas no, it’s become par for the course these days. And then there’s Andrew Coyne, who decided to deliberately over-complicate the situation in the Senate in order to misconstrue what’s happening and sow confusion to make a point, that it’s not the kind of reforms that he would prefer (never mind that he’s never quite articulated why it’s preferable to have an elected Senate that would compete with the Commons, or to remove the Senate’s veto powers when they’re necessary to thwart a majority prime minister who is overstepping his or her bounds, other than the saying “democracy!” while hand-waving). But clearly, some clear-eyed critical thinking about our parliamentary institutions is a lot to ask, particularly when there are cheap points to be scored.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/676603993049690112

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate steps up

Posted on by

In their very first piece of legislation passed, the House of Commons ballsed it up. Quite badly, in fact. In rushing through a supply bill, they didn’t include a necessary schedule for where the money that was being authorised would be spent, which is a pretty big deal. And so, when it reached the Senate, this was caught and the bill had to be sent back before the Senate could deal with it and pass it so that it could get Royal Assent and everyone could go home for the holidays. The Senate, however, was not amused. This is not the first time that defective bills have made it to the Senate, be it when they sent an earlier unamended version down the hall, or when their due diligence wasn’t done and they had to make some kind of excuses to get the Senate to pass it anyway with the promise of adding a clause in a future bill to retroactively fix it. And the patience of the Senate is wearing thin. In the words of Speaker Furey:

“While it is not our place to look into the functioning of the House of Commons, I am appalled that we received a defective bill. If it is the wish of the house, I would be prepared to write to my counterpart in the House of Commons to seek his assurance that this will not happen again.”

Liberal Senator Terry Mercer was even less forgiving and deservedly so:

“It galls me, Mr. Speaker, that they talk about an administrative error. That’s passing the error off onto the staff. I’m sorry; the Members of Parliament voted on this; it is their fault and they alone take the blame… To give us this BS about administrative error, passing the buck off to someone in the administration of the House of Commons, doesn’t wash with me, and it shouldn’t wash with anybody, and it shouldn’t wash with Canadians. I want this to be notice to the Minister of Finance and to our colleagues in the other place that this place will not put up with this anymore.”

Senator Fraser suggested that the Commons needs to examine their system and perhaps even apologise to the Senate, while other Senators noted that this is government legislation and not a private member’s bill, and that perhaps the Senate should not always be as patient and perhaps rise without granting Royal Assent in the future. Part of the root of this is that that the Senate, yet again, did its job while the Commons didn’t. In their haste to get this passed so that MPs can leave, MPs spent a grand total of fifteen minutes on the Supply bill, including Committee of the Whole. That’s right – fifteen minutes to examine and authorise the spending of money by the government. The Senate Finance Committee held three days of pre-study on the bill so that they would know what the issues were, and lo and behold, when the bill arrived in defective form, they could spot it immediately. And as noted before, this keeps happening with increasing frequency. And yet, when we send MPs to Ottawa to “be our representatives,” we seem to forget that they have a job to do – to scrutinize bills, and most especially spending, and they’re not doing it. They leave it to others to do, be it the Auditor General, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the Senate – all while bitching and moaning about how terrible the Senate is even though the Senate is actually doing their jobs when MPs aren’t. And the next time I hear someone give me the line about how the Senate has no function in a modern democracy, I can give them yet another object lesson about how the Commons is the real dysfunctional chamber in our democracy. I’ll repeat Speaker Furey’s admonition – it’s appalling. Shape up, MPs. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding a referendum

Posted on by

The issue of electoral reform has boiled over into what could be seen as the first major disagreement of the 42nd Parliament. The Conservatives have become quite vociferous in demanding that any change to the electoral system be put to a referendum – no doubt out of selfish considerations, knowing that most forms of alternative voting would be seen to disadvantage them, and secure in the knowledge that every time that such alternative ballots have been put to a vote either in Canada or the UK, that the existing First-Past-the-Post system ends up winning out. (Kelly McParland and the Maclean’s editorial are also in favour of a referendum). Even in Canadian polls on electoral reform, there remains a preference for a simple ballot that can deliver a stable government – something that most forms of alternative voting won’t deliver. While some pollsters have had fun with the numbers, trying to build models of what the election results would have delivered under different systems, the truth is that we can’t know what would have happened because there’s no guarantee that we would have had the same parties or configurations thereof in the election – particularly under a proportional representation system that encourages fringe parties, and given the country’s geographical, linguistic, and cultural diversity, a system that rewards smaller parties could very well fragment the “big tent” parties that currently exist. While people insist that we wouldn’t turn into Israel or Italy, the real worry is turning into Belgium, where the linguistic divisions in their PR system were so fragmented that they couldn’t form a workable government for over a year. While the government (and in particular Dominic LeBlanc) say they will engage in a broad consultative process and try to come to a consensus, I’m pretty sure that political consensus with the other parties won’t happen – the NDP favour one form of MMP, the Greens favour a PR system of some variety, and the Conservatives favour the status quo while the Liberals are more keen on ranked ballots, it’s hard to see how consensus will be built out of that. And at least LeBlanc concedes that consultations may show that the status quo ends up being preferable, and if there is an argument for that, it’s that our system right now allows you to throw the bums out – something that becomes all but impossible in PR systems where coalition partners get shuffled around but the central party remains in power for decades. It’s hard to see how that can in any way be preferable in a robust democracy.

Continue reading →

QP: The scattershot attack

Posted on by

The week slowly drawing to a close, more desks started to empty out in the Chamber, but hey, Justin Trudeau was there for a fourth day in a row — I’m not sure that ever happened under Harper, ever. Rona Ambrose led off, lectern still on desk, and she read a question in French about the size of the deficit. Trudeau rose and stated that they had pledged to be open and honest about budget figures, and they would reduce the net debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose then accused the government of doing nothing for the plight of Albertans with dropping oil prices. Trudeau reminded her that the previous government did nothing for them. Ambrose changed topics again, and trolled for support for their opposition day motion to maintain the CF-18 bombing mission. Trudeau reminded her that the Americans were just happy with the Canadian position, and that he was even just invited for a state dinner at the White House, something Harper never got. Denis Lebel was up next, and asked the same question to get the same answer. Lebel then asked why Trudeau thought that the 1982 patriation was a good template for electoral reform, but Trudeau reminded him of the promises made during the election.Thomas Mulcair was up next and noted the RCMP Commissioner’s admission that there were racists in his force and asked what the government was doing about it. Trudeau lamented it, but basically said that it was up to the RCMP to deal with their members. Mulcair asked about boil water advisories on First Nations reserves, to which Trudeau noted they were working with those First Nations. Mulcair changed topics again to Canada Post, and got the very same response he got the past three days. Mulcair gave one last change of topic, asking about which refugees where getting health funding for refugees, which Trudeau said they would be doing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Winds of change in the Senate

Posted on by

Interesting things are afoot in the Senate, with a number of new motions and bills introduced that could change the way it operates in the future, as well as debates on operations. It’s been pretty fascinating so far, and so far we’ve had:

  • Senator Housakos’ point of privilege on the lack of a Leader of the Government in the Senate;
  • Senator Carignan’s motion to call ministers to answer questions in the Chamber;
  • Senator Mercer tabling a bill that would amend the constitution to allow Senators to elect their own Speaker (and yes, this is the easiest amending formula);
  • Senator Wallace leading a debate on committee memberships and how they’re determined.

It’s all very interesting, and there has been some spectacular pushback on the facile notion by some senators that only partisan senators can be effective. There will have to be a great number of rule changes that will have to be debated by the Senate, and in particular the Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament committee, whenever it is formally struck (which should be very shortly). Some of those changes will have to be the determination of funding for the Senate Liberal caucus as they are not the government caucus, nor are they the opposition caucus (no matter that they currently sit on the government side, more out of convention than anything). Part of the discussions that were had in response to Senator Housakos’ point of privilege are that Question Period did not enter into the Senate until 1979 (ETA: This is disputed. Senate rules dating to 1969 include it, as does a 1916 edition of Bourinot. Thanks for the corrections), and that independent Senators have chaired committees in the past. These are all matters that will remain up for discussion, but the process of internal change in that Chamber is already upon them.

Continue reading →

QP: TFSA concerns

Posted on by

Tuesday’s QP followed on the announcement of the design phase of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women, and counter-programmed Mike Duffy’s testimony in his fraud trial, so plenty going on. When QP got underway, Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern on her desk, and read a question about the reduced limit for Tax-Free Savings Accounts. Justin Trudeau, without script, noted the plans to help vulnerable seniors with things like an increase in the GIS. Ambrose switched to French, and wondered what else the government would do to get cash, such as eliminating TFSAs altogether. Trudeau snapped back that trying to intimidate seniors wouldn’t work. Ambrose quoted Bill Morneau’s company’s praise for the increased limits, but Trudeau responded that the Conservatives were out of touch with Canadians. Denis Lebel asked another question on TFSAs in French, to which Trudeau replied that they were making concrete actions to help seniors. Lebel switched to the new deficit figures, to which Trudeau said that they would continue to update the numbers as they became available. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and welcomed the establishment of the inquiry process, but wondered about the timeline for action. Trudeau responded that they were making sure that the inquiry was properly informed, which is what they were committed to doing. Mulcair then turned to the question of Trudeau’s definition of middle class if people under a certain threshold didn’t benefit from the tax cut. Trudeau reminded him that they were getting more help through the Canada Child Benefit. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer. For his final question, Mulcair demanded a clear answer on the home delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they had a moratorium in place, and they had a commitment to keep.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Preparing the leadership campaign

Posted on by

The Conservative national council, plus about twenty other individuals including MP Diane Finley, are nearly set to lay out their leadership campaign rules, including the date of the vote – likely sometime in 2017. I’m sure we’ll start seeing the campaigns start to rev up soon after that – Kellie Leitch and Jason Kenney out the door first, and over time, I’m sure a not-Jason-Kenney candidate will emerge for others to start coalescing around. People keep saying Lisa Raitt, but I haven’t seen any sign of her French improving, and that is going to be an important consideration with the party having improved its fortunes in Quebec in the last election. And then there’s Peter MacKay, who leads in the polling on the subject, but I’m not sure that he’s had enough time and distance from politics just yet, not to mention the fact that he really isn’t the Red Tory that most people seem to think he is (just because he very briefly led the Progressive Conservatives after winning the leadership on a promise that he immediately turned around and broke). I’m not unconvinced that there needs to be someone who was much more of an outsider, largely untainted by the Harper years, who will be the instrument of the party broadening its base more as part of the leadership process, and again, I really doubt that MacKay is that person. He is intimately tied with Harper for his joining with him in the creation of the party, and I fail to see how that would be any kind of asset in a leadership race where the party would need to show that it is moving on from those years, rather than simply moving to relive them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking forward to the first QP

Posted on by

It’s the first full sitting of the new parliament, which includes the first Question Period of the new session. Hooray! It’s going to be exciting, but there remains so much to be seen, so it’s hard to pre-judge the whole thing. Not to mention, the Liberals are keen to change the rules around QP by the New Year, so what happens this week may be a glimpse into a future that never will be. Will Speaker Regan enforce his heckle ban? Will MPs respect it? While Kady O’Malley offers a preview of what to expect, and the rest of the Ottawa Citizen staff gives their expectations for some of the match-ups, I’ll offer a few of my own observations. First of all, the first few QPs of any new parliament aren’t likely to be exciting because, frankly, everyone’s still a bit sanctimonious at this point. There’s all this hope and optimism, and of course they’re going to be civil and constructive because why wouldn’t they be? It’s also early enough that there really haven’t been too many screw-ups or missteps by the new government yet, so there’s not too much for the opposition to sink their teeth into just yet. We’ll see if Trudeau is going to show up, and how many questions he’ll answer, seeing as he plans to change the rules so that he’ll only be required to show up one day per week (but answer all questions on that day). As for some of these match-ups the Citizen staff came up with, well, it’s pretty obvious that they didn’t really watch QP in their last parliament because some of their descriptions and predicted “winners” are complete nonsense. Advantage Irene Mathyssen over Kent Hehr? Seriously? Mathyssen who reads her questions with sheets of legal-sized paper in front of her face is more impressive than Hehr, who has years of provincial experience? Sorry, no. Cullen as a “strong performer?” Seriously, did anyone actually listen to him ask questions in the last parliament? Because he didn’t so much ask questions as give soliloquies as to how terrible the government was with no actual question asked. Not sure how that makes him a “strong performer.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Welcome, parliamentary secretaries

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau named his parliamentary secretaries yesterday – 35 of them, with three for his office alone, each representing particular portfolio issues. Those appointments aren’t at full gender parity, but then again, they’re not cabinet ministers either. The question now is what becomes of them – will they have useful and meaningful roles while still respecting the letter and spirit of Responsible Government in our system, or will they be used as human shields and ministerial proxies as they were in the last parliament? According to the Open and Accountable Government document that the PMO put out, the role of a parliamentary secretary is not to be a replacement cabinet minister, but to attend Question Period; help shepherd their minister’s legislation through the process in the Commons and in committee (but not voting in committee); supporting their minister’s position on Private Members’ Business; supporting their minister on committee issues and appearing before committees; and carrying out other House duties, such as leading government responses to Opposition Day motions and participating in the Late Show (aka Adjournment Proceedings). All of these are important, but let me make a couple of cautions. First of all, parliamentary secretaries should not – and I cannot emphasise this enough – sit on committees. This practice has been banned in the past, but when repealed, we saw what happened in the last parliament what became of it, which is that the committees were (in the words of Scott Brison) turned into “branch plants of ministers’ offices.” With their special PMO staffer behind them at committee meetings, it allowed the PMO to basically control the committee agendas, robbing them of any semblance of independence like they are supposed to have. This cannot be allowed to continue in the new parliament. We should also discontinue the practice of allowing parliamentary secretaries to field questions in QP. They are not members of the Ministry, and don’t have access Cabinet briefing materials, so they can’t answer. Under Responsible Government, the government is being held to account, so government needs to answer – not their proxies. Having them do so shields the minister from answering, and if the minister is not present, then they need to have a designated deputy in Cabinet to field those questions (and yes, there is a list of the deputies). Let’s keep the roles separate, and keep government accountable to parliament, the way it should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A troubling allegation

Posted on by

There’s a rather disquieting story in the Huffington Post that quotes a couple of unnamed former Senate staffers, who point the finger at Senate Speaker Leo Housakos as the source of the leaks of the Auditor General’s report into senators’ expenses. And to be clear, in the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard similar tales being floated by someone else on the inside who witnessed it happen, and later witnessed Housakos deny it to other Senators. And indeed, Housakos was in the big chair when he found a prima facia breach of privilege when Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette raised the issue in the chamber, and with that finding, it went to the Senate’s rules committee to study the matter; that study was suspended when Parliament was dissolved, but it could be revived once the committee is reconstituted. That breach of privilege is a pretty big deal, and the fact that more than one person is now coming forward to say something is telling. This going public is also going to put pressure on Prime Minister Trudeau with regards to what he’s going to do with the question of appointing a new Senate Speaker. To be clear, this is a Prime Ministerial appointment because, unlike the Commons Speaker, the Senate Speaker is higher on the Order of Precedence as he or she fills a variety of additional diplomatic and protocol functions that the Commons Speaker does not, and is considered a representative of the Crown. If the current representative is not deemed to be trustworthy, and has indeed violated the privilege of Senators for his own ends, then it seems difficult to see how he can be trusted to stay in the post, and it may light a fire under Trudeau to do something about it, while the rest of the Senate remains in the dark about how they’re going to organise themselves as Trudeau drags his feet.

Continue reading →