Apparently what is going on in the Senate is proving a little too confusing for some of the nation’s more obtuse pundits, so here’s a few points of explanation. John Ibbitson penned a column expressing optimism about the proposed new system of Senate appointments, and yet threw in a number of bizarre concerns that made me wonder. For one, it’s hard to see how they would all come “from Bay Street” when there is a set number of regional seats apportioned. His notion that they should come from “Main Street and the street” is also fairly mystifying because the Senate should be a place for eminent, accomplished Canadians. The House of Commons is for just that – the common people. The Senate has served best when it is a place where people who have achieved excellence can find a new way to contribute to public life in a way that they would not otherwise because they would not think to seek elected office – people like Romeo Dallaire or Kelvin Ogilvie. Ibbitson is also astoundingly obtuse when he calls Senate Liberals “Independents,” and figures that all new senators under this system would also be Independents, when neither statement is correct. Senate Liberals are still Liberals – they just don’t sit in caucus with the Liberals in the Commons so as to give them greater independence, and nowhere was it said that any senator chosen by an arm’s length process had to be an Independent when they could simply choose which caucus to sit in of their own accord. There is nothing wrong with that because there is nothing wrong with parties or with partisanship. Yes, the kind of hyper-partisan tribalism we’ve seen in recent years is a problem, but that’s a function of message control and discipline rather than the actual role and function of partisanship, and the two parties who relied heavily on message control and discipline were dealt blows in the last election, giving pause to those who believe in that kind of system. The Senate has generally always been a less partisan place because they’re not scoring points for re-election, which is half the point. None of this is rocket science, but you wouldn’t know it judging from some of the commentary we’re seeing.
Tag Archives: Refugees
Roundup: Assisted dying heating up
The issue of doctor-assisted dying is heating up the closer we get to Trudeau and cabinet being sworn in, seeing as there’s a looming February deadline on the horizon. Trudeau signalled that he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an extension to their decision to strike the existing laws down, but that too poses its own challenges. The federal government had initially asked the Court for eighteen months, and they gave them twelve, at which point the government sat on it for several months before creating what looked to be a stacked advisory committee to study the issue. That committee is also in the crosshairs, as advocacy groups say that it should be abolished because of its stacked nature. The chair of said committee said that its members’ former positions against assisted dying are no longer relevant because the Court has ruled and they now have to come up with a system that will work to protect the vulnerable while enabling those Canadians who wish to die with dignity to do so on their own terms. It certainly couldn’t hurt Trudeau to let them report and see what they have to say, and then choose to accept or disregard it at that time. The very fact that he’s now forming government should also be a signal that he expects this consultative process to be something other that the one the government engaged in around the prostitution question, in that he is not expecting them to give one response in particular but to have a more thoughtful result in the end. I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, advocates of religious communities came out against assisted dying again, insisting instead on more resources for palliative care, as though they were mutually exclusive, never mind that the Supreme Court has also made a clear ruling. (And one would think that if they allowed people who wanted to die on their own terms rather to do so, it would free up those resources that were otherwise needlessly prolonging their suffering that could be applied to palliative care, but maybe I’m wrong on that one).
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/659187808322605056
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/658299297897824256
Roundup: Another reboot report
Yesterday saw the release of yet another expert report bemoaning all of our democratic woes, and proposed a handful of would-be solutions – or would be, if they actually bothered to correctly diagnose the problems they bemoaned. This time, it was the Public Policy Forum, and they have a pretty eminent list of people who compiled the piece. The problem was, while enumerating their grievances with our parliamentary system, they didn’t look at causes, and hence plan to treat symptoms rather than causes. “Restore cabinet governance” you say? Great! But no look at why the centralisation got more pronounced and how to fix the underlying reasons why. While their solutions regarding the public service and ministerial staffers are all well and good, their discussions around the committee system in the Commons stuck in my craw a bit. According to the report, we have too many committees, which is absurd considering that some of the busier committees don’t have the time to actually study a lot of bills with a reasonable number of witnesses getting reasonable turns to answer questions. So give them more work? Hmm. They want the whole Commons to vote on committee chairs instead of the committees themselves, like with the Speaker, but neglect to mention that this has bred its own particular set of problems in the UK, where this is the norm, where those chairs are becoming problematic personalities who have become somewhat untouchable when they start breaking rules. Their particular suggestions that committees not be bound by the parliamentary calendar is also a bit specious considering that they already have the power to meet when Parliament isn’t sitting, but those MPs tend to see the value in being in their constituencies during said periods when the House isn’t sitting. Give them more resources and staff? Certainly – they could do that tomorrow if they wanted, but it’s not because there are too many committees to do it adequately. And despite all of these suggestions, not one of them touches the underlying problem that the vast majority of MPs get elected without knowing what exactly their job is or how to do it, and what their responsibilities are once they get a committee assignment. But does this report once talk about better educating and equipping MPs themselves? Nope. So while it’s a valiant effort, perhaps they need to actually look at the forest for the trees.
Roundup: May already has a job
In the wake of Monday’s election results, a number of people have been trying to circulate a few petitions calling on Justin Trudeau to appoint Elizabeth May as environment minster. It’s so ridiculous I barely know where to begin. First of all, why would she cross the floor? There is no need for a coalition government, and for her to abandon the Green Party to join the Liberals would be a bit of a repudiation of what she stands for. It also demonstrates a lack of awareness of what it means to be in a cabinet, which means solidarity with the government’s decisions as a whole. If you don’t agree with all of the cabinet’s decisions, you resign, because cabinet solidarity is part of our system of government. With her many strident positions on various policy files, it’s hard, if not impossible, to see May agreeing with the Liberal positions on so many files. Most of all, this call demonstrates a complete inability for people to appreciate the role that the opposition plays in our system of government. It’s vital, because it holds the government to account – and why wouldn’t you want May to be holding the government to account over their environmental policies? Why would it be a lesser job for her to be doing the holding to account? In the romantic notion that people have that everything should somehow be done by consensus, they don’t appreciate that there is a role for accountability when there is disagreement. It doesn’t need to be nasty – which is unfortunately where we’ve wound up in recent years because of the kinds of culture that has been allowed to breed in parliament – but it can be principled and fair, and certainly May is providing that kind of opposition. Trudeau is making other inroads, such as inviting her and other opposition members to the Paris climate summit – former practice that Harper abandoned when he decided that only his ministers should be allowed to attend these kinds of things. Can May play a role in the system? Absolutely, and she does? That doesn’t mean that she needs to be given a seat at the cabinet table. That’s just ridiculous.
Roundup: Threats from the Senate
There are a couple of issues arising out of the Senate right now, both of which deserve a bit of exploration. The first is over the selection of the party’s interim leader – the party president has indicated that the Commons caucus would make the selection (per the provisions in Michael Chong’s lamentable Reform Act). Senator David Wells says that no, the party constitution says that an interim leader would be chosen by the Parliamentary caucus, which would include senators. Why is this important? Because right now, the party has no East Coast MPs, nor any from the GTA or Montreal, whereas they have Senators from those regions who can provide some of that input. (In fact, it’s yet another reason for why the Senate is valuable – for years, it used to mean that the only Albertans in the Liberal caucus were from the Senate, until of course Trudeau’s Great Expulsion). And as Wells points out, this is an issue in the party’s own constitution, which makes the party president’s position that much more untenable. The other issue is certain Conservative senators trying to flex their muscles and saying that they’re under no obligation to pass Liberal legislation, much as in 2006, Liberal senators were giving the Conservatives a hard time with some of their bills. This whole thing is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, this is likely someone talking out of their ass (and I have my suspicions as to who it is). With Harper no longer leader, and no longer PM, any leverage that he had with the Senate has pretty much evaporated. Newer senators no longer have someone to feel beholden to, and there is no longer the emotional blackmail of “You want to support the PM, don’t you?” Those non-existent levers of power that the PMO was trying to exercise (per Nigel Wright’s complaints) no longer have anything to back them up when it comes to threat or reward. And then there’s the matter of 2006 that these oh-so-brave “senior senators” are referencing, particularly the Accountability Act. The problem was that it was a bad bill that had all kinds of problems and loopholes, but they didn’t get fixed on the Commons side? Why? Because the Liberals of that era were so cowed by their election loss that they left the fight up to the Senate rather than take the blowback themselves, while Pat Martin was the Conservatives’ accomplice, giddily rubber-stamping the whole affair in order to punish the Liberals some more. So the Liberals in the Senate did the battling for the needed amendments, most of which they actually got. I’m going to be optimistic and say that the legislation coming from this crop of Liberals is likely to be of higher calibre because they’re not opposed to listening to civil service advice for kneejerk reasons. On top of it all, there has to be enough shreds of self-awareness in the Conservative senate caucus to know that if they start playing games, they’ll damage themselves and the Chamber’s reputation as Trudeau tries to rehabilitate it, and everyone will lose as a result. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t take these threats too seriously.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/657348537873735682
Roundup: Endorsing a unicorn
It was newspaper endorsement time yesterday, and it was a pretty baffling scene all around. Postmedia’s papers had a centrally-dictated series of endorsements for Harper – in spite of all of his myriad of woes and abuses – because economy. Never mind that I’ve written pieces talking to economics professors who’ve said that the Liberals are probably the better party when it comes to the markets because of the lacklustre performance of the Conservatives and their willingness to engage in protectionist behaviours and shut down foreign acquisitions and the like while preferring regulation to carbon pricing – but the management decision of the chain is this reflexive nonsense that the Conservatives are best for the economy. As if that weren’t enough, we got a baffling incompetent endorsement from the Globe and Mail that the Conservatives deserve re-election, but not Harper, so by all means elect them but he should step down immediately after. Because that will totally happen. It’s as incompetent as the time that there was an endorsement for a minority government – because Canadians can totally choose that option on their ballots. What’s also mystifying about the Globe endorsement is that it seems to be endorsing the Progressive Conservative party of yore rather than the modern party, which is neither progressive nor even really conservative, but rather is more of a right-flavoured populist party. It is also wholly the creation of Harper and shaped to his vision. He has so marginalised and pushed out the majority of leadership contenders that it becomes an exercise in futility to promote the party minus him because he is the glue holding the party together. And does the Globe have a successor in mind that they would prefer? Would they prefer an equally divisive figure like Jason Kenney instead? It’s sad that instead of engaging in a reasoned analysis, we got that instead. Way to go. Elsewhere, former Globe and Mail editor William Thorsell pens the editorial he would have written if he were still in the business, and Robert Hiltz offers some thoughts on the endorsement game.
Roundup: A new member of the Canadian Family
Zunera Ishaq, the woman who challenged the niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies, took her oath yesterday with her face veiled, and the sky did not fall. And while Muslim immigrants question their faith in Canada, Ishaq is now free to cast her ballot to exercise her rights as a Canadian citizen.
The woman at heart of niqab controversy gets citizenship pic.twitter.com/lOEV0S5Z8f
— Susan Ormiston (@OrmistonOnline) October 9, 2015
Zunera Ishaq cried and said, "Thank you so much for honouring me here today." http://t.co/8EGwcELRLu pic.twitter.com/5w2TQGVbww
— CBC Politics (@CBCPolitics) October 9, 2015
Roundup: Refugee file hijinks
The news of the day yesterday was the revelation that the PMO ordered a halt to government-sponsored Syrian refugee processing for several weeks in the spring so that they could review the programme. There are some serious concerns that they had access to the personal files of those refugees, and other concerns that they were trying to pick and choose which refugees they would accept in terms of religious or ethnic minorities – screening out some Muslim claimants, much as they admitted to doing earlier in the year when they insisted they were taking “the most vulnerable.” Harper came out mid-day to insist that political staffers didn’t take part in making any decisions, and that they didn’t change any results – but neither he nor Chris Alexander refuted the facts of the story. There are curious elements, such as why they had reason to suspect that the UNHCR – which this government has offloaded the responsibility for vetting refugee claimants onto – would not be forwarding the most vulnerable cases to them already (that’s what they do), and why the government had a Danish Christian group do the audit. What’s even more curious is that only government sponsored refugees had their files halted, but privately sponsored refugees – most of those by family members or church groups in Canada – were left untouched. If there were concerns about security, would they not also be affected? Apparently not. And then comes Bob Fife’s story – that the “right communities” the government was looking to ensure the refugees came from would be those that have connections in Canada that could be exploited for votes. It’s a cynical answer, but fits the pattern that we’ve grown accustomed to seeing over the past number of years of this government.
Roundup: The problem with paper candidates
Yesterday, the quixotic Jean-François Party released a rare bilingual statement to decry the use of “paper candidates,” citing a case of a Green candidate from BC who had never visited the riding he or she is contesting in Quebec. If there was to be a cautionary tale around the use of paper candidates, it should have been with both the NDP in the 2011 federal election, and more recently in the Alberta provincial election. In both cases, paper candidates accidentally got elected in popular “waves” where it was clear that the voters of Quebec and Alberta were motivated to vote for the party for their particular reasons (affection for Layton in 2011, anger with the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta this year). In both cases, some less than stellar MPs/MLAs were accidentally elected – one of them, incidentally, joined the Jean-François Party. While Jean-François Party co-founder (and now party president and candidate) Jean-François Larose was one of those NDP MPs who was part of the sweep, then-fellow NDP MP Manon Perreault was an example of how a paper candidate turns out to be trouble. Over the course of the 41st parliament, Perreault was charged and convicted of criminal mischief when she falsely accused an assistant of theft, and was also later investigated by the RCMP for problems with travel claims expenses (though I’m not sure we heard the outcome of said investigation). Nevertheless, she was turfed from the NDP caucus during her trial, and after the writ dropped, she joined the Jean-François Party. So really, that the party is now coming out against paper candidates when their very existence is dependent on the victory of such candidates is curious. The problem, however, is that the parties have an incentive to create these candidates, and that incentive is that running full slates, regardless if those candidates have ever been to those ridings or not, allows them to claim the maximum spending cap. Hence, as especially in Quebec in 2011, ridings which barely had NDP riding associations all accepted the “nominations” of those paper candidates which included Ruth Ellen Brosseau and the McGill Four, because the NDP wanted their spending cap. So what to do about it? It’s a sticky situation because it would seem the answer is to remove the incentive of the spending cap, but how does one enforce that the candidates have actually been to the riding, or are actually campaigning? Do we really want Elections Canada to become an intrusive body to not only poke their heads into the party nomination process and to check up on those candidates in the ridings? It’s hard to say. I do think that paper candidates are an affront to our democratic system, but without turning Elections Canada into Big Brother, I’m at a loss as to a workable solution.
The Jean-François Party wants to do away with paper candidates. So far their MPs are all cast-offs from NDP/BQ. pic.twitter.com/nU2EtrQdMy
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 6, 2015
Roundup: Let the equivocation begin
With three weeks left in the race, we’ve started seeing Thomas Mulcair start equivocating – or clarifying in any case – some of the policy planks he’s been running on. In many of those cases, it’s starting to make his promises look far less impressive. Take childcare – he is now talking about sitting down with provinces and using some of their existing spaces toward his “one million spaces” goal. One example was with Ontario, and the two years of full-day kindergarten offered in this province, so how does that get counted into with is childcare pledge, and the funding questions that go along with it? Add to that, with some 900,000 spaces already in existence across the country, does that mean that his plan will simply be to add another 100,000 spaces over the next eight years and make sure that they simply cap the fees at $15/day? Or is it still supposed to be a million new spaces? With his cap-and-trade announcement, he says that provinces can opt-out so long as they meet or exceed the federal objectives. But does that not then become essentially the Liberal position, where the provinces take the lead while the federal government establishes the targets? And didn’t he denounce that very notion? Mulcair has even started back-pedalling a little on his criticism of “useless” senators, saying it was only the institution he was denouncing (which, I’m sorry, is absolutely not what he said at the time). As crunch time approaches I’ll be interested to see how much more “clarifying” happens between the different parties, and how much of that clarifying goes against what they were saying the whole time.
Mulcair just clarified that his million daycare spaces by 2023 includes those already in place (over 900 000). See http://t.co/Xs5a2uFbWo
— Marc Garneau (@MarcGarneau) September 26, 2015