Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: Precious conformity

Posted on by

Conservative MP Garnett Genuis penned an analysis piece for Policy Options that tried to explain why MPs vote in lockstep, and it’s just so precious you can barely stand it. Genuis dismisses the talk of heavy-handed PMO and whips offices, and after some lengthy discussion, concludes that it’s the human nature of conformity that’s at play. His mode of analysis was the voting record on C-14, the highly contentious medical assistance in dying bill.

It’s not that Genuis doesn’t have some good – if somewhat infuriating points – in the piece, talking about how MPs are so busy with their constituency work that they just don’t have the time to sit down and study the legislation that they were elected to be considering. That one nearly made me blow a gasket, considering that constituency work isn’t actually part of an MP’s job description and its growing importance has come at the expense of their actual jobs of holding government to account. That Genuis uses it as an excuse for having MPs let the “experts” in their leaders’ offices tell them how to vote is utterly galling. I can see why they would use this excuse, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good one or one that we should let them get away with (but then again, almost nobody knows what an MP’s actual job description is, least of all the MPs themselves, and yes, that is a Very Big Problem. His better points, however, included that sometimes it’s good for local nominations to see that an MP will be willing to break ranks from time to time, but it’s a mixed bag when they also need to be seen to have a united front with the party. It is a tension that he doesn’t delve deeply enough into.

But so much of his thinking is flawed, in part because he relies on the data of votes on a single contentious bill rather than a broader sample, which would produce a more thoughtful discussion, and also because he ignores the other incentives for why MPs will vote in lock-step. For some parties, like the NDP, the need for solidarity in all things means a much more conformist voting pattern in all things, and there is an internal culture of bullying to keep MPs in line so as not to be unseemly with dissent. With government backbenchers, there is the hope that toeing the line enough will earn you a post in cabinet or as a parliamentary secretary, because the ratio of cabinet-to-backbench seats is still too low in Canada to encourage a culture of more independent backbenchers in safer seats willing to do their job of holding government to account. There is also the pressure – which We The Media shamefully perpetuate – that you don’t want to be seen as breaking ranks lest it reflect poorly on the leader (though this seems to be a bit less so under Trudeau who has been vocal about encouraging more free votes). There is no discussion about the blackmail of a leader that can withhold their signature from an MP’s nomination papers during the next election (or whatever the mechanism is post-Reform Act, because there is no actual clarity in law there any longer). So yes, while there is a human tendency to conformity, it is informed by a whole lot of other factors that Genuis ignores, and that taints his analysis to a pretty fatal degree.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/776734642225475584

https://twitter.com/e_tolley/status/776768733922471937

https://twitter.com/e_tolley/status/776769078878883841

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking yet more wrong lessons

Posted on by

Another day, another column with a plaintive wail that Proportional Representation (PR) is really nothing like its critics say – really! And like Andrew Coyne last week, this defence by Devon Rowcliffe for iPolitics.ca relies again on comparisons that are problematic. The argument that small parties better reflect our diverse society ignores that large brokerage parties that exist in this country are adaptable and diverse in their own right, and seek to attract diverse candidates. Many countries that rely on PR systems are fairly ethnically homogenous, and I would be concerned that a system that privileges smaller ideological parties would also favour parties founded on ethnic nationalism – a party of Sikh voices or Ismaili Muslims, for example. There are plenty of stories that exist among people who currently organise in our system about attempts by these communities to turn themselves into voting blocs for one party or another, and in a system that privileges those kind of blocs with the promise of outsized power – as opposed to one that diffuses these differences among the many factions being brokered into a big tent – there would be the danger of rewarding sectarianism, which would do nothing for social unity. And no, Canada is not New Zealand, so trying to force that comparison is yet another attempt to draw lessons that may not be applicable.

Rowcliffe also cites that there’s no real fear of unstable coalition governments, and then cites the Danish political drama Borgen as an example of this in action, apparently taking the wrong lessons as every other episode of Borgen that I’ve seen (granted, I’m only into the second season currently) has the coalition being in danger of falling apart because one party or another that forms it is looking to leverage their way into more power or influence. Look at the Liberal Democrats in the UK! You mean the part where the party was virtually wiped out in the next election? Shouting “Stephen Harper!” as an excuse to implement PR ignores that there was a significant following for Harper and his policies at the time, and it should not bear repeating but trying to change the voting system to keep out a party you don’t’ like is a very poor reason to do it because that leads to all manner of unintended consequences. Pointing to the 1993 election as examples where the current system has failed ignores both the circumstances around it and the fact that it was a blip and not the norm (not to mention that once again, the logical fallacy of the popular vote is cited as being a real figure when it is not, and hence the epithet of the system being “broken and archaic” is reliant on a lie).

One last point, which is that constantly whining about how unfair the current system is to the Green Party (as Rowcliffe borders on) ignores that the Green Party is not a grown-up political party. It’s a loose collection of conspiracy theory-minded hippies and bitter Red Tories with a policy development system that consistently falls prey to marginal groups like “Men’s Rights Activists,” and their inability to effectively organize or come up with a coherent policy book is not the fault of the system. Pretending otherwise ignores the facts for the sake of sore loserism.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Case management conundrum

Posted on by

MPs complaining about the changes to the way that immigration files are handled returns to an old bugaboo of mine, and as it seems, Aaron Wherry’s as well. In other words, MPs shouldn’t be doing immigration casework, because it’s not what they’re there to do.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/765943599573897216

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/765944593057808384

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/765952888388583424

What I will add to this is that MPs’ jobs are not just as legislators, but rather, their primary function in a Westminster system is to hold the government to account – something that most MPs spend very little time doing these days. And the civil service has a lot to blame for this, don’t get me wrong, and everything I’ve heard has indicated that they are just as culpable by not even looking at some files until the MP’s office brings it up to them in cases, and that’s unacceptable. But we shouldn’t be making this situation worse by reinforcing the broken system that has MPs playing this role, because that’s a losing proposition. There needs to be political will to fix those problems, and if MPs would rather spend that will to reinforce the broken system (because they think it will win them local votes), then the cycle perpetuates. Enough has to be enough. Let’s draw the line.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Begrudging a day off

Posted on by

There was a good piece in Policy Options yesterday from Jennifer Ditchburn which talked about the problem of “vacation shaming” politicians, in light of Justin Trudeau making his first public statements about the Aaron Driver case almost a week after it happened, as part of Trudeau’s Atlantic Canada tour. There is a problem with expecting the PM to be on call for cameras at a moment’s notice, as the Conservatives certainly seem to be demanding, decrying his absence when bad economic numbers came down a few weeks ago, or when the Driver incident happened. But relevant, competent ministers stood up when those things happened, and it’s not like the Prime Minister could have said or done anything that would have added to the situation other than to be the face of it, when he’s made it clear that his is a government by cabinet, and that means that the responsible ministers get to be the ones that get in front of the cameras when things in their bailiwick happen, and guess what – they did.

Ditchburn also makes the very apt points that for everyone who says that they want better work-life balance, especially for MPs, demanding that they be every present fro the media goes counter to that desire, particularly when we badmouth them for being open about taking a day or a week off. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over the day off he took during the visit to Japan was outsized and ridiculous, and we’re seeing much the same thing here, compounded with the beating of breasts over the international coverage that people catching a glimpse of said PM with his shirt off. It’s excessive and it’s only fouling the well. Politics is close to being a 24/7 job as it is, and that can be a problem for all sorts of reasons (high divorce rate among politicians being a chief one), and it becomes just one more outlet for cheap outrage when we demand that our politicians now must forgo vacations, as well as forgo the bulk of their salary, pensions and benefits, and expenditures, as so many clueless wannabe pundits will declare over social media. Let’s grow up about our expectations and not begrudge them a vacation or a day off. We’re better than that.

Continue reading →

QP: Nobody believes that invitation 

Posted on by

A lovely Tuesday afternoon in Ottawa, and most of the leaders were present today, though not Rona Ambrose, who is still in Alberta, on the ground with the Fort McMurray Fire victims. Andrew Scheer led off, reading from a script on his mini-lectern, first calling for praise for the firefighters in that region, and then demanded pipelines be built to “cushion the blow” of the fire. Justin Trudeau first congratulated the firefighters on the ground, and said they would help with the rebuilding. Scheer demanded that the government not allow “special interests” block any pipelines. Trudeau hit back by pointing out that the Conservative approach failed to get pipelines to tidewater. Scheer brought up the Washington trip and how the in-laws were present by not the Natural Resources minister. Trudeau reminded him that those guests were personal invites by Obama. Scheer insisted that nobody believed that was the case, and demanded Trudeau just tell them that he added those names to the list. Trudeau told him that Obama insisted they be invited on top of the official delegation. Scheer hammered away, insisted that the Natural Resources Minister still should have been there. Trudeau repeated again that the Conservatives didn’t understand how that bilateral relationship actually works. Thomas Mulcair led for the NDP, and he wondered who the government was trying to protect in the KPMG tax evasion scandal. Trudeau reminded him of their investments into CRA, and noted that it was a Liberal who raised the issue in committee to begin an investigation. Mulcair read some shell companies listed in the Panama Papers, and pointed out that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage worked for one of them. Trudeau reiterated that they were committed to combatting tax evasion, regardless of Mulcair’s smears. Mulcair moved onto the PBO report on the loss of small business tax cuts, and Trudeau praised the Canada Child Benefit as a measure that helps the economy as a whole. Mulcair then demanded that the assisted dying bill be referred to the Supreme Court, but Trudeau demurred.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible pipeline

Posted on by

Pipelines will be the talk of the day, as the National Energy Board gave approval to Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement pipeline to the US late yesterday, and Candice Bergen wasted no time in putting out a press release demanding that the government approve it for the sake of jobs, and so on. Never mind that this pipeline doesn’t go to tidewater, so it won’t actually help Alberta get world price for its exports, but hey, it’s a pipeline and we are apparently in desperate need of them, except when we aren’t because they will encourage the further exploitation of oil and gas which won’t help us reach our climate goals, and all of that. But tidewater remains on everyone’s lips, as there is talk that the Northern Gateway pipeline may not be dead after all, and there is even talk that Enbridge is looking at alternate port facilities than the one that they proposed in their initial bid. There is a sense of a deadline, given that the conditional approval that the NEB gave Northern Gateway would expire by the end of this year, but it’s also hard to say that it was a real approval given the 200+ conditions that they attached to it, which may very well have been quite onerous – particularly any conditions that required First Nations buy-in when they are not keen to allow these pipelines over their territories, nor to have any terminus near the waterways that salmon depend upon for spawning, as that affects their local fisheries as well. That said, all of the agitation for Energy East will continue undaunted, no matter that it hasn’t even begun much of its environmental assessment process, nor the case for its “social licence” as Trudeau likes to call it – not that questions of process seem to matter to those who want it to happen yesterday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s long road back

Posted on by

We heard confirmation yesterday from Duffy’s lawyer that he does indeed plan to return to the Senate despite some serious health concerns, not that he’ll find many friends there, which could make things more awkward than they’ll already be. In talking with one senator yesterday, I heard largely that he had few friends there to begin with, and because he spent his time fundraising for the party instead of doing actual Senate work, he never really got to know or ingratiate himself with his actual Senate colleagues, so it’s not like he’ll have a long list of people looking to welcome him back with open arms. And, because it’s unlikely the party will welcome him back, Duffy may continue to find himself on the outside. His lawyer also suggested that perhaps he should be paid back for the time in which he was suspended without pay, but you will find that argument will quickly go down in flames as senators will remind you that their internal discipline process is separate from the criminal trial, and his suspension without pay was internal discipline. And we’ll get a bunch of pundits lazily declaring that the Senate is still lax in its rules and processes, which it isn’t (and I would argue really wasn’t when Duffy was taking advantage of it), and oh look – Scott Reid did just that. Kady O’Malley admits her surprise in the ruling, while Andrew Coyne takes umbrage with “not criminal” as a standard that seems to be emerging. The Winnipeg Free Press editorial board notes how the new, better appointments could help to restore the Senate’s credibility, while CBC looks at what effect the Duffy verdict could have with future prosecutions of other senators’ questionable conduct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles

Posted on by

I was set to delve into the eight principles that Maryam Monsef laid out as part of what she plans to work on the electoral reform proposals around, when it turned out that Peter Loewen went ahead and tracked which of the three most likely voting systems corresponded to each principle. Suffice to say, not one system fit with each, which gives rise to the notion that Monsef will have to treat some principles more than others. Now, the NDP were outraged in QP yesterday that proportionality was not on this list of principles, though one could argue that the first principle, that votes are translated into election results without significant distortions, could be an endorsement of proportionality, except of course that it’s a perception problem based on a logical fallacy, which makes its inclusion as a principle to be a problem. I also have a problem with the inclusion of the third principle of using the system to increase diversity. That’s not a problem of the electoral system so much as it’s a problem of how parties seek out and nominate candidates. Most parties are getting better at this, but we should beware that including this principle would give rise to list systems, which in turn give rise to unaccountable token MPs in a two-tiered system. Monsef’s eighth principle, that the system needs to build consensus, is also problematic. Why? Because our system is built to hold people to account, and consensus makes this problematic. If everyone is accountable, then no one is accountable. Of course, I would remind everyone that there’s nothing actually wrong with our system as it is – what’s wrong is our crisis of civic literacy, which means that people don’t understand how the system works, leading them to assume that it’s broken – particularly if they succumb to sore loser tendencies and complain about things like “wasted votes.” If I may be so bold, Monsef is probably better off tinkering with the existing system to encourage greater participation (as we saw examples of in the last election, such as campus polling stations) and education rather than this attempt to rethink the system which will please no one and ensure that everything is worse off than it is now. We don’t have to break the system even further. We can stop this train before it goes off that cliff.

Continue reading →

QP: Still going while eyes on DC

Posted on by

While Trudeau and several ministers were in Washington, things were still happening in Ottawa. Plenty of things. Rona Ambrose led off QP, asking that the government not approve any environmental measures that the Americans won’t implement themselves. Jim Carr noted that they were restoring credibility to the process. Ambrose then worried about the deficit spending which some economists claimed would have no benefit. Bill Morneau responded that they were making investments in long-term productivity at a time when borrowing is cheap. Ambrose switched to French to ask about the size of the deficit, to which Morneau trotted out his lines about growing the economy. Denis Lebel picked up, repeating the question about the lack of stimulus from the deficit, and he got the same response that Ambrose did. For his final question, Lebel asked the bog standard question of which taxes the government would raise to pay off said deficit, but Morneau stuck to his line of growth for the future. Leading off for the NDP was Peter Julian, demanded action on softwood lumber. David Lemetti stated that Trudeau and Obama signalled that they were interested in having an agreement. Julian railed about Canadian jobs, to which Lemetti finished his previous answer a commitment to report back in 100 days. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked a pair of questions about the levels of Indigenous people in prisons, to which Michel Picard promised work to improve the situation.

Continue reading →

QP: Scattering instead of pressing

Posted on by

Bill Morneau’s fiscal update a couple of hours previous before touched off a partisan storm over social media, which was bound to carry over into QP. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on desk, led off by reading a question about the size of the deficit. Justin Trudeau reminded her that they ran a campaign on investing to promote growth. Ambrose demanded to know who would pay for it all, at which Trudeau retorted that that they were already paying for the previous ten years of poor growth. Ambrose tried to burnish the previous government’s record, but Trudeau accused them of creative accounting. Gerard Deltell demanded controlled public spending, for which Trudeau reiterated his response about fudged numbers. Deltell gave it one last kick, and got the same answer. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded the government respect the rights of Aveos workers rather than amend Air Canada’s legislation. Trudeau responded that they were proud that the agreement with Bombardier would encourage investment in aerospace. Mulcair asked again in English, got largely the same answer, and then demanded reforms to the EI system. Trudeau reminded him that they promised to strengthen the system, and they were going to. Mulcair demanded a universal eligibility threshold as part of that reform, and Trudeau reiterated that they were making needed changes.

Continue reading →