The Senate is the centre of so much talk these days – government bills on their way that are likely to face amendments, blame for the trans bill dying there last parliament (despite the fact that the committees were overloaded with the government’s “tough on crime” bills and there was no way to prioritise private members’ legislation), the ongoing fascination with Mike Duffy’s return to work, and of course the ongoing internal reform project. Another snag in said reforms was unveiled yesterday in that it turns out that the Senate’s committee on Ethics and Conflicts of Interests for Senators can’t actually be legally constituted because under the Rules of the Senate, there need to be government senators on the committee. Well, there are technically no longer any government senators, and thus, they can’t be recommended to said committee. It’s a reminder of why process matters when it comes to doing reforms, because boldly forging ahead without a plan, and without the necessary rule changes in place means this happens. And yes, rule changes need to happen on a variety of issues, not the least of which are the ways in which it spells out who can constitute a caucus – necessary for independents to be able to organise themselves around logistical issues. As for Peter Harder, the Internal Economy committee has decided not to grant his additional budget requests for staff. He got half of his initial ask, but that was enough as far as they are concerned, and I can’t say that I’m unsympathetic to the committee because I still can’t fathom why Harder needed all of that staff considering that he has no caucus to manage. His excuse that it’s what his predecessor had in terms of budget and staffing seems to me to be a clearly bureaucratic reflex from his previous career in the civil service – ensuring that you have budgets that get spent and lest they be cut, and he wants to ensure that he gets that same budget as before, even though, as I said, there’s no reason why he needs so many people.
Tag Archives: Trans
Roundup: A short history of trans rights bills
The government is unveiling their promised trans rights bill today, and throughout the day, you’ll be reminded that other trans rights bills have been introduced in the House, and twice died in the Senate, and there will be a general sense of the NDP trying to anoint themselves in this glow of having been the fearless pioneers on this file. And it’s true – they did introduce previous trans rights bills, some of them more successful than others. But there is more to the story than is usually presented, and as someone who used to cover this file extensively (back in my Xtra! and the much lamented Outlooks days), it’s a little more complicated than is often presented. And yes, the NDP have largely introduced iterations of this bill but the sponsor, then-MP Bill Siksay, was too far down the Order of Precedence for it to be ever debated. During the 40th Parliament, however, he was high enough on the Order that the bill came up for debate, and narrowly passed the Commons. By the time it reached the Senate, however, it had mere days before the government was defeated. The Senate has no mechanisms by which to accelerate a private members’ bill, and the justice committee – where it would have been sent to – was jammed full of “tough on crime” bills and a private members’ bill never would have been able to come up for debate (as government bills always take priority). Nevertheless, the Senate was blamed for “ragging the puck” and it died when Parliament dissolved and an election was called. By this time, Siksay had announced that he was not going to run again, and Liberal MP Hedy Fry had said that she would re-introduce the bill in his stead if re-elected. She was, and fulfilled his promise. The NDP’s newly elected MP Randall Garrison was named the party’s new LGBT critic, and he was incensed that Fry had re-introduced the bill and decided to table his own version, but because you can’t have two identical bills on the Order Paper, he needed to come up with some creative drafting in order to differentiate the two bills. And then, by sheer fate, his name came up right before Fry’s on the Order of Precedence when the lottery was drawn, so he went ahead with his poorly drafted bill, while Fry’s version of the same bill was not put forward (and she went on to introduce a cyberbullying bill that was defeated). Not only did Garrison’s bill go ahead, but he decided to introduce amendments that would partially gut the bill and do things like put in definitions for “gender identity” into the text (something that would put it out of step with any other protected grounds in legislation). The resulting bill was a dog’s breakfast, and he managed to squeak it past the Commons, but he actually lost some Conservative support because it was such a hot mess. And when it reached the Senate, there were concerns. Conservative Senator Don Plett had some particular concerns and wanted to raise amendments, and while this whole “bathroom bill” nonsense began circulating, his amendments, while not great, were blown out of proportion by supporters of the bill as being far more odious than they were. And that bill eventually died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved, but while the NDP railed against the Senate as “killing” a bill that the Commons passed, they ignored the fact that it was objectively a bad bill and this was more of a mercy killing. And now, we have a government who has committed to making this one of their priorities, and they are, which we should applaud.
Update: The differences between Fry’s and Garrison’s bill weren’t as pronounced as I remember the debate being. Apologies to all involved, and thanks to Justin Ling for the correction. The amendments, however, were a dog’s breakfast.
Roundup: Caution on the veto
The particular bugaboos of electoral reform and the role of the Senate have been colliding increasingly in the past number of days, as there have been threats coming that certain Conservative senators have been threatening to use their majority to vote down any legislation on changes to the electoral system unless there’s a referendum first. And then this particular op-ed in the Citizen by a Université de Montréal law professor urging them to do just that makes me want to just take a moment to talk it all through. First, a few things to keep in mind – the senator who went to the media about this threat was Don Plett, who is, well, singular on some issues. He’s broken ranks before, and is willing to stick to his guns on others, but I wouldn’t ever quote him as the voice of the Conservatives in the Senate, even though he is now the caucus whip. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Senate of Canada, being probably the most powerful Upper Chamber in the democratic world, does indeed have the power of unlimited veto – there is no overriding it if the Senate decides that they want something to die. It’s a power that they very rarely use, particularly when it comes to government bills – it’s kind of like the nuclear deterrent for legislation. No, they’d rather make amendments and send it back, with few exceptions. The reason it’s treated with such caution is that they know they don’t have the democratic mandate to exercise these powers except in rare circumstances. In those rare circumstances, they will do it because it’s their job to have a check on a majority government, and be empowered to speak truth to power, which is why they are afforded the kind of institutional independence that they have. So with this in mind, I will hold up a big caution sign when it comes to encouraging them to overturn any theoretical bill on electoral reform. This all dredges up memories of the Free Trade Agreement, and when the Senate held up that bill from the Mulroney government until it could be put to the people, seeing as this deal was hugely contentious at the time, and it was believed that it was going to be selling out our sovereignty to the Americans. The election was fought on this issue, Mulroney won, and the bill passed, and lo and behold, the sky didn’t fall. But while there was merit in putting that question to the people, it was part of the chain of events that started to polarise the Senate, which prior to 1984, was said to have operated on a much less partisan basis. Tit-for-tat games ramped up the partisanship there, until things became so bad that Mulroney exercised the emergency powers of appealing to the Queen to appoint an additional eight senators in order to get the GST passed. The Senate is currently in a vulnerable spot, and while I wouldn’t ask them not to do their jobs because they are in a period of intense scrutiny and this would get blown completely out of proportion by an ignorant pundit class and MPs with agendas harmful to the independence of the Senate – but it would hurt them. That’s why this discussion needs to be approached extremely cautiously, and rash actions scrupulously avoided at all costs.
Roundup: Eight whole meetings
With the C-51 now before the Commons public safety committee, various kinds of shenanigans were played there, the NDP essentially launching a filibuster throughout the day in order to get more time to hear from witnesses, and they did get more time – about eight days, instead of three. They had proposed some 25 hearings, which included over a constituency week so that they could still meet the same deadline the government proposed, but they didn’t bite. It was also suggested that this may have been the government’s plan the whole time – give them a few more days and they’ll seem reasonable. Perhaps, but that didn’t seem to be the case if you listened to the Conservatives on the committee, who seemed to think that talk about rights was somehow an unreasonable thing. Online, people claiming to be from Anonymous are hoping an online campaign will force the government to back down on the bill, the way the government responded to backlash over Vic Toews’ lawful access bill, but I’m not sure they’ll have the same success, especially as the government is fairly confident that they can get the public to go along with the bill by holding the threat of terrorism over them – especially as new stories of people heading over to fight with ISIS become almost daily news at this point. The NDP tried to get in on the online campaign game and tried to get #StandWithRosane to trend – meaning their deputy critic Rosane Doré Lefebvre, leading the filibuster effort. Not surprisingly, it didn’t trend, for fairly obvious reasons, which makes one think that the NDP still hasn’t quite cracked the social media campaign that the election will supposedly be about. Perhaps we can call it a “hashtag fail,” as it were.
.@RosaneDL is fighting for our rights and freedoms right now. Join her. #StandWithRosane #NDP #cdnpoli #C51 pic.twitter.com/ifj82DBbR9
— NDP (@NDP) February 26, 2015
Roundup: Assisted suicide heads to the SCC
With the Supreme Court challenge to assisted suicide laws heading to the Supreme Court tomorrow, here’s a look at some of the other countries’ laws in that regard. Carissima Mathen gives us a primer on the assisted suicide case going before the Supreme Court this week.
Roundup: The problem with political copyright changes
The government doubled down on their leaked plans to change copyright laws to give political parties unfettered access to using news clips in political ads, and accused media outlets of essentially “censoring content” by not broadcasting ads that have material that was taken without permission or compensation. Shelly Glover then went on to misquote copyright law expert Michael Geist to justify the position, leaving everyone to wonder just what exactly they hope to accomplish by picking this fight with the press and with broadcasters, especially after leaking a cabinet document to do so. Paul Wells parses the government’s reasons for this move, and what the unintended consequences will be.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386423107911681
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386539462074370
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386670282436608
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/520386839858151424
Roundup: Countdown to an announcement
Word has it that on Friday, Stephen Harper will announce our combat role in the fight against ISIS in Iraq. It also sounds like two of our refuelling jets are being readied for the mission. That will mean that Parliament will become seized with the debate and eventual vote (never mind that it’s a trap) early next week. There’s also no indication where he’ll make that announcement, but it’s unlikely to be in the Commons, because, well, it’s a Friday and Harper never, ever darkens the door of the Commons on a Friday (let alone makes a major announcement there, but that’s another story). Andrew Coyne gives his thoughts on a deployment here. That said, I think this talk about decisions to put soldiers into harm’s way needing some kind of special consent and the knowledge that our parliamentarians have our soldiers’ backs is a bit overblown, while pressing for a vote can simply curtail debate and damage accountability.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337138770083840
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337562860359680
QP: It’s up to the proponent
The final caucus day of the sitting, and Rib Fest taking place a block away, MPs were itching to head back to their ridings. All of the major leaders were in the Chamber today for a second day in a row (amazing!) while Elizabeth May was absent for a change, off campaigning in Toronto for the forthcoming by-elections. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering where all those Conservatives were to tout the Northern Gateway after three years of doing so previously. Stephen Harper said that the NDP were opposed to all resource development, considered it a “disease,” and it was up to Enbridge to fulfil the 209 conditions imposed by the NEB. Mulcair said that BC Conservative MPs were “in the witness programme” about the pipeline, while Harper shot back that Mulcair himself was in the programme when it came to answering for their improper mailings and satellite offices. Mulcair insisted that with the removal of Navigable Waters Act protections, the deck was stacked in favour of the pipeline, to which Harper reminded him of the 180 days of hearing and thousands of pages of evidence, and that there were 209 conditions. Mulcair brought up Enbridge’s record in the US, Harper returning to the scientific panel, and when Mulcair declared that Harper could not “subcontract the Honour of the Crown” to Enbridge with consulting First Nations, Harper listed the number of hearings they held with First Nations groups as part of the regulatory process. Justin Trudeau brought up that the BC government still opposes the pipeline, and wondered why the Prime Minister still said yes. Harper repeated that it was up to the proponent to meet their conditions. Trudeau brought up the government’s previous statements about the importance of the integrity of the Great Bear rainforest, but Harper reiterated about the scientific process of the regulator. Trudeau asked one last time to reverse the approval, but Harper kept repeating about the 209 conditions, and concluded that the Liberals don’t practice evidence-based decision making.
QP: Hudak math and Kijiji data
For the first time of the week, all three leaders were in the Chamber, possibly for one of the last times before the Commons rises. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about cuts to job market research, wondering how it could be justified. Stephen Harper responded by insisted that it wasn’t correct and more resources had been diverted into the area, and by the way, we created one million net new jobs. Mulcair retorted with a crack about Hudak math, and looking for information on Kijiji, to which Harper noted that the information came from Statistics Canada. When Mulcair demanded that the hiring tax credit for small businesses be extended, Harper reminded them that they voted against that time-limited measure in the first place. Mulcair changed topics and moved to the fighter jet procurement, and if other companies could put in bids. Harper assured him that the report had not yet been considered by cabinet, but they would soon. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and noted that the previous chief of defence staff noted that the F-35 was not the only suitable plane for Canada, and whether the process was going to be open and transparent. Harper repeated that cabinet had not yet considered the report. Trudeau moved onto the Northern Gateway Pipeline and the widespread opposition to it. Harper responded that the government was in the process of reviewing the report of the National Energy Board, and they would be coming to a decision soon.
Roundup: Emoting about the economy
The Liberals put out a YouTube video wherein Justin Trudeau narrated their concerns about the economy, which was a lot of angst about the middle class. Because apparently facts and figures can be displaced with talking about feelings. Suffice to say, reaction among economists has been mixed – while some like the format, they are quick to point out some of the inherent problems with the message. Things like the political nonsense that Prime Ministers directly run economies, or the assertion that the middle class “lives off their incomes and not their assets.” (Do you know which is the class that lives off of their assets? Retirees). And then there’s the assertion that middle class incomes have stagnated over thirty years, when they haven’t – they fell drastically and have recovered over that thirty-year period, so it’s not exactly an accurate description. And as Stephen Gordon points out, the recipe Trudeau offers is largely wishful thinking. But why should we let actual facts get in the way of emoting about the economy?