Tag Archives: Trade

Roundup: “Hot lesbian” pinkwashing

Posted on by

By now, you’ve probably heard about that ostensibly pro-oilsands ad that proclaimed that lesbians are hot, and it’s better to use oil from Canada, where they’re considered hot, than from Saudi Arabia, where they would be executed, and it being accompanied by an image taken from Orange is the New Black. And his apology and attempts to walk back from how particularly boneheaded the whole idea was to begin with. (Seriously, his sputtering about what he considers to be “hot” is both hilarious and sad at the same time). As well, the fact that he didn’t use two men to make the same point is entirely because he was conscious that the same message wouldn’t have the same effect on his target audience (because let’s face it, the idea of guys kissing isn’t as titillating to the general public as the idea of two women). What hasn’t been really explored in all of this, however, is this increasing tendency toward pinkwashing, particularly from the political right, as an excuse for xenophobia.

If you’re not familiar with the term pinkwashing, it’s generally used to show how some modicum of LGBT rights is a contrast to the death sentence that can be associated with homosexuality in certain parts of the world, usually as a way of deflecting attention from other problems. A famous example is the way that Israel uses Tel Aviv Pride to deflect criticism of their other human rights problems, and there was a tonne of pinkwashing done in the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando as a pretext to condemning so-called Islamist terrorism (never mind that the same people spouting this pinkwashing ignore their own homophobic records. Who cares if we want to take away their civil rights – we don’t want to execute them, is generally how the argument goes, as though that’s really the choice that the LGBT community wants to be faced with). And this lesbian ad isn’t even the first time that this argument has been used – the Erza Levant brainchild Ethical Oil tried similar arguments a couple of years ago to little avail.

Suffice to say, while the mainstream media did jump all over these ridiculous lesbian ads, the criticisms tended to focus on the surface images of photogenic actresses and the fact that it ignores that there are still problems in this country where the GBLT community is concerned, the fact that there was no discussion about pinkwashing was disappointing, because this increasing tendency (particularly from the alt-right and Trump supporters) to use the queer community as some kind of shield to justify their xenophobia is tiresome and needs to be called out for what it is. These ads provided a good opportunity to do so, but that opportunity was largely squandered.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lessons from Trump

Posted on by

Because apparently there is absolutely nothing else to talk about, we’re going to take lessons about the whole Donald Trump fiasco here in Canada. I’m not quite sure what lessons there are to take directly, given that we have more safeguards in our system of government, starting with a stronger party system than exists in the States, that one would think would do a better job of weeding out a candidate like Trump from running for leadership of a party. While Robert Hiltz lists some better comparisons to Trump in Canadian politics than Rob Ford (hello Pierre Karl Péladeau), I would simply add that part of the problem comes from the ability to vote for a person directly, as in a primary system in the States or a mayoral contest, rather than indirectly as our parliamentary system currently operates. The lesson of Trump, combined as well with the lesson that Jeremy Corbyn in the UK is providing in spades, is that for every charismatic leader like Justin Trudeau that gets elected from an open membership process to great success (so far), there is just as much the possibility of getting a Trump, or an Alison Redford, who skews the party and its dynamic by force of their personality, and like Corbyn, is accountable to nobody and relies instead on the supposed “democratic legitimacy” of the leadership election process. In other words, if we want to take lessons and avoid a Trump or a Corbyn in the future, then we need to stop perverting our Westminster system and return to a system of caucus selection of party leaders, where there is a system of accountability in place that keeps those leaders and their excesses in check (and provides that the leader first have a seat rather than be a complete outsider vowing to “shake things up” without actually understanding how the system works to begin with), and keeps them from getting too powerful at the expense of the rest of the party.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A deal 149 years in the making – maybe

Posted on by

After some last-minute negotiations at the very end of the Council of the Federation meeting in Whitehorse, the premiers finally came to an agreement – well, an agreement in principle – about interprovincial trade. It only took 149 years of confederation to reach this point, and we’re trying to be optimistic about it, but its full virtues remain to be seen as the list of exclusions has yet to be published, and we don’t know how extensive it is, or what the process for standardising regulatory hurdles between provinces is going to be (and this is things like trucking regulations that change at provincial borders, or the sizes of milk cartons, and so on). There is a great deal of pessimism in some corners about this whole thing, and it’s hard not to get caught up in it, particularly when Alberta was the holdout over local infrastructure projects, and the first question asked of the Yukon premier (who chaired the meeting) from his local press was how it would affect local jobs, playing directly into the kinds of protectionism that a trade agreement is supposed to break down. But again, we await the actual details to be delved into.

Otherwise, the other outcome of the meeting was that surprise, surprise, the premiers want to meet with the Prime Minister in the fall about healthcare funding, because they’re largely opposed to targeted spending (saying that it’s too “temporary” and not “long term”) and want the federal government to cough up more funding overall instead – 25 percent of each province’s expenditure, which seems to me that it makes it easy for a province to ramp up their spending with the assurance that Ottawa would fill that gap, again with little in the way of accountability for how those dollars are spent, or for ensuring that there is equitable access to things like homecare across the country, which is what the federal government is looking to achieve.

Meanwhile the beer spat between Saskatchewan and Alberta had some impact on the interprovincial trade talks, but for all of Brad Wall’s complaints about how terrible the changes being made to Alberta’s system would be for his province, here’s a look into how Saskatchewan’s system isn’t all that open either. But hey, a deal on wine was reached between Ontario, BC and Quebec, so that’s progress, right? Well, considering that it’s about online ordering, it’s a half-measure at best.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not a grown-up party

Posted on by

There is an interesting piece in yesterday’s Hill Times about the policy process of the Green Party as it struggles to grow from an activist movement into a serious political party. Despite the heavy reliance on commentary from the one non-party voice in particular, there are some interesting lessons therein about ways in which their current process is causing problems with resolutions around things like the BDS movement, which put it at odds with the leader. If you recall during the last election, it came to light that some of their platform policies around things like divorce laws were MRA propaganda, forcing them to do quick disavowals to go along with the shrugs of “hey, we’re a very open party” and “grassroots democracy!” And don’t get me wrong – grassroots engagement is a good and necessary thing in politics, but there does need to be framework around it that ensures that grown-ups are in charge and that really problematic contributions can be weeded out rather than thrown into the “open-chalkboard” approach that sets too low of a threshold for some of the more odious policy ideas to make it through without a really proper vetting. (Conversely, there needs to be enough power at the grassroots level so it’s not just the leader’s office deciding policy without any accountability for doing so, which the Liberals seem to be moving toward). What’s more concerning is that the attempts to move to some form of a proportional representation system that would allow for these more fringe views to gain seats without the party having matured into a credible political force that can deal with its crazies. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as being too open and too “grassroots” in politics, and it’s part of what is causing the implosion of the Republicans in the States, where the lack of controls in favour of more “direct democracy” primaries – alongside with this narrative that government is corrupt or illegitimate – has caused it to become completely unhinged. Some of these same messages are being echoed by the kinds of people within the Green Party, coded in language around the current electoral or party systems. It does become concerning, and it’s why these kinds of too-open endeavours start to make me nervous.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware blinkered history

Posted on by

There is always a danger in trying to look for lessons from history when you do so selectively. This is the case with a column by William Watson in today’s Ottawa Citizen. Watson – an economics professor at McGill and not a parliamentary observer, it should be noted – dug through the 1917 Hansard to look over the debates on bringing in income tax (remember, this was the “temporary” wartime measure that was introduced and then eventually became a permanent thing), and discovered that lo, the debate was so much more serious then and nothing like things are today, ergo Parliament was better in 1917 than it is today.

And then I bashed my head against my desk for a while.

This is what happens when you take a look at a narrow slice of history without actually looking at the broader context or picture. It’s easy to take a single debate and declare a golden age because hey, the government of the day was giving complex answers to complex questions, but that’s not to say that there weren’t antics that took place. Remember that this was not far removed from the days when MPs would light firecrackers and play musical instruments to disrupt the other side during debate. Hell, I was speaking to a reporter who was in the Gallery during WWII, and she said that there was far less professionalism in those days, and MPs who got bored would often break into song during debate. This was also the era before TV, before the proceedings were recorded in audio or video and able to be checked, so we don’t know what the transcriptionists missed. It was also an era where I’m sure that time limits for questions and answers were looser than they are now, and where MPs weren’t playing up for the cameras. Does that make it better? Maybe, maybe not. Parliament was also composed entirely of white men, mostly of a professional background – does that make things any better? You tell me. Parliament had very different responsibilities in those days as well, and government was much, much smaller. Patronage ruled the day, and government was more involved in direct hires of the civil service rather than it being arm’s length. Is this something we want to go back to? Watson kind of shrugs this important distinction off because they had more meaningful exchanges about income tax.

Declaring simply that Parliament was composed of “intelligent, informed adults” in 1917, and the implication that it is not so today, is a grossly blinkered view of history and of civics. I will be the first to tell you that the state of debate today is pretty abysmal when it mostly consists of people reading statements into the record, talking past one another, but that doesn’t mean that MPs aren’t intelligent or informed. Frankly, it seems like Watson is longing for the days of the old boys’ club if you read some of his nostalgic commentary. I’m not sure that’s proof that things were better then, and it certainly should be a caution about taking a blinkered view of history.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Segal’s misplaced demand

Posted on by

Oh, Hugh Segal. While I can understand your concern for your former colleagues, and that there were problems around due process for the trio of formerly suspended senators, I have to say that your demand for a formal apology from the Senate to Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau seems a bit…off-base. The three were suspended in large part because of the ill repute that they brought to the Senate, and just because the Crown abandoned charges against two of them in the wake of Duffy’s acquittal, nobody is saying that none of them did anything wrong. A finding that Duffy’s actions were not criminal is far from finding that there was no wrong that had been done – the Senate’s own rules were broken, even in Donald Bayne managed to convince a judge that the rules were vague. Segal is also off-base when he says that the Senate should have spent their energies fixing those rules instead of throwing people under the bus – in fact, the Senate has been working on updating their rules for years, even before the Duffy expenses were brought to light, and that trial hastened the reform process that had already been underway. Saying that they are owed back pay and again forgets that they brought disrepute onto the institution, and were punished for it within the rules of the Senate. Yes, as stated, there were problems with the due process of it, but rules were broken. Expenses were claimed when they should not have been. Calendars were altered, meetings were claimed that did not happen. Official addresses were made where senators did not live. These facts are not really in dispute, and the Senate had an obligation to do something about it, if not for any other reason than to be shown to be addressing the problems that were addressed rather than letting them slide and opening themselves up to even more criticism about letting people get away with it just because they’re senators. Was it embarrassing for everyone involved? Yes. Is it “torture” to still demand that Duffy repay expenses that were proven to have broken the rules? Hardly. Is it the Senate’s fault that the RMCP and the Crown didn’t do a thorough enough job? Not really. In light of all of this, I find Segal’s insistence on apologies to be hard to swallow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unger vs Black

Posted on by

Further to Senator Black’s resignation from the Conservative caucus, we have a couple of reactions – first, an interview with Black by Jen Gerson, in which Black expresses his excitement for the “uncharted territory” of greater independence in the Senate. Second, a somewhat bitter response from fellow “elected” Alberta Senator Betty Unger, who repeats some of Senator Plett’s accusations about Black’s attendance, and goes on to assert that senators should be in a caucus to give them some kind of accountability. Oh, and then there’s Kady O’Malley, who notes the “disappointment” of Senator Tannas in his response to Black’s decision, in which she reminds them in her own Pollyana-ish way that yes, they can still work together even if they’re no longer in caucus together.

Among the responses are some particular problems with the conceptions of how a caucus can and should operate, and part of that stems from the fairly unique situation of how the Senate was being run under the Harper government. Unger is correct in that being part of the national caucus brings more perspectives and allows more participation (which is one of the reasons why Trudeau’s decision to banish senators from his caucus was short-sighted), but her conception of caucus providing “checks and balances” to senators is a bit mystifying, particularly considering that there is little that a caucus could do to actually control a senator given that they have institutional independence under our constitution. Sure, they can threaten them with being removed from a committee or from participating in travel, but that’s the extent of it, and if a senator feels a particular conviction on an issue, then that’s a risk they can and have taken before.

As for Black, being part of a caucus in the Senate doesn’t mean that he is forced to toe any particular party line, whether they achieve consensus on a position or not. Granted, since he has been in the Senate, it was operating in a more tightly controlled environment because the Conservatives had largely trained their new senators to believe that this was the norm, that they could be whipped, along with some cajoling about how they needed to go along with things under the rubric of “you want to support the prime minister, don’t you?” And that would usually cow them into line, never mind that there are no actual levers of power for a government to assert in the Senate. Black and Unger both have always been in the Senate where they were told that there was this expectation, and now that they are in opposition and the party is in a leadership convention, they are suddenly finding themselves without that same comfortable feeling of obligation to the person who appointed them (never mind their “elected” status – it certainly didn’t mean anything for their “elected” predecessor Bert Brown, who insisted that senators had to dance with the one who brought them). Black obviously decided that he felt freer in this environment and wanted to push it further. That’s his prerogative; Unger feels the need for structure, and that’s legitimate, so long as she knows that she has that institutional independence and that there is no such thing as caucus control for a senator (and I’m not sure that she does, given her Senate “upbringing”).

But honestly – between the fetishisation of “independence” and the wrong-headed notion of “checks and balances” that don’t actually exist, neither are really on the side of the angels on this one.

Continue reading →

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: Rebutting the reformers’ complaints

Posted on by

If it were possible for someone to write a column that was basically one long subtweet, then I’m pretty sure that it’s what Andrew Coyne did with his column on electoral reform, with me as his unspoken target – particularly as he parroted several of my arguments (that no one else seems to be making) without actually getting their substance correct. So here we go.

When proportional representation advocates complain that the allocation of seats among the parties in the legislature does not resemble their relative shares of the votes cast — with the especially unhappy effect of allowing a minority of the voters to rule over the majority — first past the post’s defenders reply: why should it? Members were elected in 338 separate riding elections, not in a single nationwide vote.

Yes, and that’s pointed out for a number of reasons – that the vote share figure that reformers cite as evidence is not actually real (hence its use as evidence is meaningless), and the fact that each MP is elected to a single seat in a separate election has a particular meaning that gives them individual agency rather than making them a thrall of a particular party. This is an important consideration in the electoral system because it gives a clear line for how MPs are empowered, which is what we keep insisting we want. It also demonstrates that if the complaint is that MPs aren’t empowered, it’s because it’s their own choice or ignorance – not the electoral system that is at fault.

When reformers point out the imbalance this creates between voters — in a given election it typically takes many more votes to elect a member from one party than another — first-past-the-posters look positively mystified: everyone gets one ballot. And when the former observe that under first past the post the votes cast for anyone but the leading candidate in a riding are “wasted,” in the sense that they do not contribute to electing anyone, the latter lose all patience. How could any of the votes have been wasted, they ask, if all were counted? The candidate who was elected may not have been everyone’s choice, but he still represents everyone.

Here Coyne adopts the same specious math that the Broadbent Institute was pushing over Twitter yesterday, which ignores how ridings actually work, and that elections are 338 separate events, and mashes the figures together and divides by 338, pretending that it’s a number with meaning when it’s not – just like the popular vote. It’s pretty much like bringing a unicorn to a logic exam. As well, he doesn’t make a compelling argument about why votes are “wasted” because it ignores the broader political ecosystem. It has little to do with the fact that the MP who won the seat represents everyone, but that the vote itself is but one small piece of political engagement. Casting a vote is not the end-all-be-all of political engagement. Rather, the system is built for people to be joining parties and engaging at a grassroots level to develop policy and for riding associations to act as interlocutors between the local community and the caucus, even when they don’t have a local MP in that party. As well, the percentage by which the MP won the seat is a figure that matters. If it’s by a slim margin, then those votes against are certainly not “wasted” – they have a meaning in the message that it sends to the MP about where his or her support lies. That matters.

To reformers’ complaints about how the system works, in other words, the answer commonly offered is: that’s how the system works. It is as if that were not just the system we have now, but the only system there is. And of course if you assume that then yes, reformers’ objections become literally incomprehensible. They might as well object to the weather. If only one member can be elected per riding, then obviously it’s silly to talk about wasted votes, or to complain that voters who supported another candidate are not represented. That’s life. Suck it up. The resulting parliament was not proportional? That’s not how our system works.

No, that’s not why one has to point out that it’s how the system works – one needs to point that out because you need to understand how the system works before you go about changing it, which usually means breaking things and making them worse. It has been proven that every time we tinker with our system, we make it worse, which leads us to want to tinker with it more, breaking it even further. Why? Because people don’t understand how the system works, so they assume that it’s broken, particularly if they get emotional that it doesn’t do what they think it should. This is the whole premise of my book – that we need to stop and understand how and why things work the way they do before we go about messing with the system some more because history has shown repeatedly that tinkering makes it worse. Ignorance is literally killing our democracy, and no matter how well intentioned its reformers tend to be, they almost always make it worse.

At any rate, it’s worth debating. Some might argue that single-member ridings give constituents a clearer sense of who to take their problems to, and who to hold to account. Others might reply that, with several members competing to represent them, constituents might get better service: if one didn’t answer your letter, another might.

From here, Coyne goes off about how maybe multi-member ridings would be better, possibly sprinkled in with single-member ones where they would be too large (hello, all of rural and remote Canada), which immediately brings up questions about how that could possibly be considered a more fair system. And while he touches ever so briefly on accountability, he gets the premise wrong – an MP’s job is not to “service” one’s constituents. It’s about holding the government to account. This, however, is lost on the reformers, whose fetishisation with fantastical notions about “representation” overshadow all other aspects of how the system works in its broader ecosystem. Yes, representation is a part of it, but it is not the totality, and yet that is what all of their reforms are geared toward with no regard for the bigger whole.

So no, it’s not about whether other systems are possible – it’s about not making things worse because you don’t understand how things work now. That’s a very different thing entirely.

Continue reading →