Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

Roundup: A few notes on the hybrid quotes

Posted on by

Because the hybrid parliament debate will resume in the New Year, CTV has a collection of quotes from MPs both here and in comparable Parliaments abroad about the format, and I find some of the commentary to be lacking. A few notes:

  1. Lots of talk about being able to participate while stick, while ignoring that this is setting up an extremely unhealthy system of presenteeism. MPs should be allowed to take sick days or leave if they require treatment for something like cancer, and not be made to feel guilty about it.
  2. There was some talk about party whips setting up rules for when MPs can appear virtually, but there seemed to be a lot of “when they feel like it” happening, particularly since Niki Ashton only appeared in Ottawa for two days the whole fall sitting, which should be absolutely unacceptable.
  3. Our committees are in crisis because of how they have been limited by hybrid sittings and the lack of interpretation staff. Only two government bills that were not budget-related got passed in the fall. Two. Some bills were in committee the entire thirteen sitting weeks that they sat, and are still not out of committee. Additionally, there are some committee chairs who are only appearing virtually (while not sick or infirm), which should not be allowed because it’s impossible to moderate a room you’re not in.
  4. The piece did quote the interim head of the interpretation service, but absolutely none of the MPs raised a single concern for the injuries that they are telling the interpreters to suffer so that they can appear remotely when they feel like it. The continued lack of basic awareness or concern about this remains unconscionable, and it’s absolutely shameful that MPs can’t arse themselves to care.
  5. Only the Bloc raised the concerns that ministers aren’t accessible because they are moving increasingly remotely, and allowing virtual voting is even worse for that. It used to be the time when MPs could get a chance to catch a minister’s attention about a matter that requires their attention, because they were all in the Chamber at the same time. Now most ministers run out of the Chamber when votes begin and vote on their phones from their cars, and they are no longer accessible, and that is a very big problem. Similarly, the more MPs and ministers are remote, the less they are able to be button-holed by journalists, making them even less accountable than they already are (especially because the architecture of the West Block makes it too easy for them to avoid media, even when they are there).

I don’t care how convenient MPs find hybrid sittings or remote voting, it’s degrading our institutions and it needs to come to an end immediately.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 302:

I could find no stories on the situation on the ground in Ukraine because absolutely all of the coverage was about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington DC. During Zelenskyy’s visit with President Joe Biden at the White House, we got confirmation that the US will be sending Patriot anti-missile systems to Ukraine. Zelenskyy then headed to the Capitol, where he met with Nancy Pelosi (who enthused that this was just like when her father met with Winston Churchill in Congress 81 year ago), before Zelenskyy addressed a joint session of Congress. His message—that aid for Ukraine isn’t charity, but an investment in democracy and security, at a time when a number of US representatives are publicly doubting the “blank cheque” that has been given to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protecting nominations is corrosive to democracy

Posted on by

Remember back when Justin Trudeau promised that the Liberals were going to be the party of “open nominations,” because this was good for democracy and all of that? Well, it seems like once again, his party is firming up their rules to protect incumbents from nominations, which is not open nominations, and is very bad for democracy. Very, very bad. Nomination races are one of the only tools that grassroots party members have to hold incumbents to account without voting against the party in a general election. It’s how the party is supposed to hold its own to account, and if they can fundraise enough and keep their memberships above a certain level, they’re being given a free pass rather than the accountability the system is supposed to provide. This is a very bad thing for our democratic system. It’s bad enough that under Trudeau, the Liberals tore up their party constitution and centralized power in his office. Now they are short-circuiting one more accountability measure and keeping tight control over the nomination process, which focuses even more power on the leader (for whom the party constitution states doesn’t have to face a leadership review unless they lose an election). This is not how a party is supposed to be run.

The practice of democracy in this country is backsliding, as much as our parties like to pat themselves on the back. They have been undermining the rules at every turn, and have hollowed out the safeguards and the grassroots participation. And yes, I know that sitting MPs insist that they need protected nominations because they’re not in the riding to fend off any nomination challenges, but a) you’re in the riding an awful lot, because the number of sitting days has been in decline, and b) you have incumbency advantage already, and if you keep up the door-knocking and activities that you’re required to for these protections, you might as well do it for real stakes. Because yes, grassroots democracy matters, and we desperately need to rebuild it in this country before it’s too late. Protecting nominations just corrodes the system even more than it already has been, and the Liberals cannot pat themselves on the back and talk about how good they are for democracy if they can’t even be bothered with the fundamental basics.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 260:

Russian Forces made a big song and dance about pulling out of Kherson, saying they can’t supply it, but Ukraine is sceptical because it looks like Russia is setting a trap, because they tend to do the opposite of what they say they’re going to. And indeed, they say that they haven’t actually seen signs that Russians are completely leaving the city. Meanwhile, here’s a look at the task ahead of rebuilding Kharkiv after Russian occupation.

https://twitter.com/StratCom_AFU/status/1589649656338067464

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to dispel yet another conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was Environment Canada’s turn to take to Twitter in a series of plain-language tweets in order to dispel the conspiracy theories that Justin Trudeau is creating “climate cops” that are going to arrest people for…reasons. They’re not climate cops, they’re Environment Canada enforcement officers, they’ve been in existence since 2008 (you know, when Stephen Harper was prime minister), and they enforce environmental regulations. The theory, which seems to have originated from a far-right former Rebel fabulist, has been broadcast by UCP leadership hopeful Danielle Smith and several sitting Conservative MPs, and it’s utterly bonkers. It’s even more concerning that MPs are willingly spreading conspiracy theories in order to keep up the rage-farming that they think will get them votes, and that they have absolutely zero self-awareness that this is utterly corroding democracy. None.

Meanwhile, Conservative has-been and ongoing shitposter Andrew Scheer is trying to discredit the Bank of Canada’s correction about the false narrative of “printing money,” using the same kind of faux-logic that Flat-Earthers use. So yeah, the discourse is going great. They’re really respecting democracy. (We’re doomed).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 190:

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors arrived at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant for real this time, and conducted their initial inspection of the facility, with the intention to remain on the site, and yes, they avoided shelling and gunfire to get there. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that independent journalists were prevented from covering the visit, which allows Russia to present a one-sided picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An end to hybrid sittings?

Posted on by

Now that the Commons has risen for the summer, the parties are starting to evaluate the hell that is hybrid sittings, and lo, they are largely in favour of returning to regular, in-person sittings once again. Praise the gods on Olympus! They recognise that it’s harder to hold government to account when you can’t see the minister in front of you, and that you can’t build comradery with your fellow MPs, and that there is a sense of futility debating video screens. (And in an interview a week ago, outgoing MP Wayne Easter also noted that it’s harder for MPs within a caucus to form groups to push back against the leadership if they can’t be in the room together).

I’m going to temper that praise a little bit, because they’re already talking about exceptions, whether it’s for MPs with illnesses, or those with small children, and this is where it starts. When they return in the fall, or in the next parliament, whichever comes first, you can bet that the Liberals in particular are going to keep pushing for a number of exceptions so that the hybrid format never really goes away, and therein lies the danger – that the longer it’s able to carry on, future cohorts become more used to these sittings than the ones who are used to in-person sittings, the easier it will be for future populists to start abusing the system to stay out of Ottawa as a point of pride. It won’t happen overnight, but once you open the door a little bit, it will get used and abused.

There was one area where I could be persuaded, which was around committee meetings during weeks when the Chamber isn’t sitting – particularly emergency meetings. Often times, those involve flying into Ottawa for a single hour-long meeting, then flying home, which is a huge waste of time and resources (not to mention the carbon footprint). So I could be persuaded – but the flipside of that is that it removes an element of deterrence for not calling these emergency meetings, which are often done for the sake of a political performance. It’s something to consider in the longer term, but again, now that Pandora’s box is opened and the evil is out in the world, we should try to limit the damage as much as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee rudeness undermines their work

Posted on by

There is a piece on the Canadian Press’ newswire right now about how victims of sexual assault who went before House of Commons committees to testify, whether it’s on the PornHub issue or the Canadian Forces’ problems with sexual misconduct, have been ill-treated by MPs, usually by rudeness, or not allowing them time to deal with the trauma related to this kind of testimony. And they’re absolutely right – and Commons committees are some of the worst offenders for this kind of behaviour.

Why? Part of this is because MPs lack some basic self-awareness. There are tight rules around timelines in committee hearings, as to how long an MP has to ask questions and get answers, and they get so wrapped up in the issue of their time that they get tunnel vision, and witnesses essentially get railroaded by it. The bigger and more prevalent part, however, is that MPs are more concerned about scoring points at these hearings that they are simply being partisan dicks about everything. Ask anyone who has testified before both Commons and Senate committees, and they will tell you that Senate committees are far more preferable, as they are more interested in the subject matter and the actual expertise or experiences of the witnesses than they are in using those witnesses to score points on their behalf. And much of the time, they’re barely paying attention, because they don’t have to actually write the report at the end – the analysts provided by the Library of Parliament do, and MPs simply approve it or write dissenting recommendations. It’s a problem and it really, really devalues the role that Commons committees should be playing in our basic democratic processes in this country.

And I can speak to some of this from personal experience. I was once invited to testify before the Procedure and House Affairs committee as they were contemplating hybrid and remote voting rules, and it quickly became apparent that I had been asked not for my expertise or my insights as someone who had been watching Parliament longer than any member of that committee had been an MP – I was there to be treated as a reactionary whom they could hold up their proposals to and show that they were being reasonable and my opinions weren’t. It was kind of a gross experience, and I was rudely treated by a couple of Liberal MPs (one of whom has since become a minister), because they were interested in scoring points. I also didn’t have the added weight of having to re-traumatise myself to provide this testimony to be treated in such a way, like some of the women in the piece were. It’s pretty gross, and it’s a poor reflection of how Parliament operates, particularly in the current climate and context. MPs really need to shape up and do better, if they want to retain any credibility at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some pushback on the hybrid sittings

Posted on by

I felt a tiny glimmer of hope over the weekend as I read this piece that talked to three MPs from each of the main parties about their experience with hybrid sittings, and lo, MPs are unimpressed. Praise be! Mind you, it’s a small sample, and it’s all Manitoba MPs (given that it was a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press), but props for having this conversation with them, and props for not letting it simply go by unquestioned, as is often the case.

This being said, I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet in terms of what the lasting implications of these hybrid changes will be, particularly when there are west coast MPs who are loudly praising the hybrid format, and when groups like Samara Canada are already lining up the excuses to allow it to keep happening, which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that I have been warning about since before this began. Don’t forget that the Liberals were pushing for these kinds of changes for nearly five years before the pandemic hit, and this was the perfect excuse for them to finally implement them, even if it was under the rubric of it being for the duration of the emergency. But as you’ve heard me warn before, they will soon find a list of excuses – just as Samara provided for them – to keep them going in some capacity, which will have a long-term erosion on our system and the norms therein. I am especially worried that there will be pressure to keep the voting app system going, even though, as the interviews in the article pointed out, this system greatly benefits the government because it doesn’t allow opposition MPs to use the votes to register displeasure (such as slow-voting). So while it’s great that some MPs want a return to proper sittings (one of them being an advocate for a parliamentary bubble, to little avail), there is still going to be a fight to ensure these changes stay are relegated to the dust heap once the pandemic is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending the defence committee study

Posted on by

Something unexpected happened yesterday, in that the Defence committee voted to end the study on the allegations against General Jonathan Vance – the Liberals moving the motion, and the Bloc supporting it (which was the real surprise). Of course, ending the study comes with a number of different narratives. For the Conservatives and the NDP, this is all about the government trying to “cover up” what happened, because they won’t allow staffers to testify – nor should they. The concept of ministerial responsibility is inviolable in our constitutional framework, and the government should be fighting to maintain it, and yes, they have put the minister forward in this case several times, so that does matter. For the Liberals’ decision to move to end the study, it’s also at the request of some victims’ groups, who have stated that every past government is at fault, and that the committee is simply using the victims in order to score partisan points – and they are 100 percent correct in that assertion.

I do find it disturbing, however, that in most of the reporting on what has gone on, media have followed the opposition narrative that staffers are being “blocked” from appearing, and that the only time that ministerial responsibility is mentioned, it’s in quotes and being both-sidesed in terms of the government’s response. This is a real problem because it is undermining this fundamental principle in our democracy. This is something that should be explained, including why it’s wholly improper for the opposition to be demanding that this important principle be violated, and why when the Conservatives were in government, they repeatedly invoked the same principle as well to keep their staffers away from committee. Constitutional principles matter – they’re not just to be dismissed as a “process story” as so many journalists and editors are wont to do in this city, and it cheapens the discourse when this context is being left out of the stories, and when the government’s correct position is being spun as being improper.

Of course, if the government is going to claim ministerial responsibility, that doesn’t just mean Sajjan has to show up (which, to his credit, he did for six hours) – Sajjan has to actually take responsibility as well, and he hasn’t. And more to the point, Sajjan should fall on his sword for this, because he did drop the ball. He remained way too incurious about the allegations and whether an investigation was being carried out – which is not the same as involving himself in the investigation or meddling in it. It’s basic due diligence for someone who is responsible to Parliament for the armed forces and its leadership, and he failed in that due diligence. Sajjan has no choice but to resign over this, and it will be a giant sign that Justin Trudeau is not taking this seriously if he doesn’t insist on a resignation in short order.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sending in the wrong minister

Posted on by

The shenanigans at committees on all sides are severely testing my patience, as things continue to spiral toward a potential contempt of Parliament charge, never mind that what’s being demanded is exceeding what is generally acceptable parliamentary norms.

The demands that staffers appear at committee are clearly outrageous and in violation of the sacrosanct notion of ministerial responsibility, but the Liberals are nevertheless pushing the bounds of what is acceptable in and of itself. Instead of sending staffers, they were offered the chance to send the prime minister instead – a bit of a long shot, but sending the Government House Leader was clearly testing the committee’s bounds. For them to then send the Minister for Middle Class™ Prosperity® on a second appearance is definitely pushing buttons, and they should know better. If you’re going to invoke the principle of ministerial responsibility, then gods damned well respect it and put the actual minister forward, and for PMO staff, then the prime minister is the responsible minister. Sending Mona Fortier is a deliberate slap in the face.

At the same time, I am also particularly at the end of my rope with the constant demand for unredacted documents, and the insistence that the House of Commons’ Law Clerk be the one to do any redactions. His office is already buried under the literal millions of documents that the Health Committee demanded, and now the Foreign Affairs committee also wants a piece of him and his time to do even more redactions when the non-partisan civil service is normally the body that does this work. This is generally beyond the scope of what the Law Clerk should be doing, and he’s already stressed his resources and staff to do work they shouldn’t be doing, and yet more MPs keep making even more demands. That’s not how this works, and not how this should work, and yet they keep hand-waving about “cover-up!” as though that’s some kind of talisman. I’m not sure what the solution here is other than telling MPs from all sides to grow up, but that’s where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheering on an attack on institutional independence

Posted on by

Yesterday, Senator Claude Carignan tabled a bill that seeks to strip Julie Payette of her pension, and would strip any former Governor General of a pension if they don’t serve at least five years (never mind that nine of our 29 past Governors General did not serve at least five years). It’s an attack on the institutional independence of an office that can serve as a check on government, and needs to be called out as such.

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376970875031945217

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376971807576711168

https://twitter.com/LagassePhilippe/status/1376998266282328065

But just how was it discussed on Power & Politics last night? Over several segments, each of them with different pundits, the common consensus that this was great populist politics to go after an unpopular figure like Payette, and digging into the issue of their other benefits – because nothing sells in Canadian media like cheap outrage and hairshirt parsimony. The most we got to the cautionary tale was to beware unintended consequences, and that a future GG may have to invent a medical reason for a resignation (which the bill states that Cabinet would have to approve, which is entirely bonkers). Not one person – not one – raised the issue of institutional independence, and why it’s a Very Bad Thing to open the door to governments being able to threaten their financial well-being as a way to hold power over them, most especially when the beneficiaries of this independence (not only the GG, but also senators and Supreme Court justices) provide a check on the power of government. This is the level of discourse in this country? Seriously? And even more to the point, the host of the show kept steering the topic to this kind of populist, vindictiveness rather than the actual consequences of making an action like this. It is absolutely boggling, but it gives you a sense as to why things have degenerated as they have. This bill represents an existential threat to our parliamentary system, and it’s being played for petty drama and populist cheap shots.

We need better pundits in this country, and better politics shows. This is horrifying.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lying with statistics, quarterly GDP edition

Posted on by

Statistics Canada released their fourth quarter GDP data yesterday, and it was surprisingly not bad – it far exceeded expectations for growth, with an annualized increase of 9.6 percent, and the estimates of January’s GDP numbers are that they will grow, in spite of renewed lockdowns/mockdowns across much of the country, which is good economic news. Comparatively, OECD data shows that Canada ranked second out of G7 countries in terms of GDP growth over the quarter – only Japan beat us. This should give rise to some cautious optimism about the direction of our economic recovery.

https://twitter.com/PhilSmith26/status/1366746936825548801

Erin O’Toole, however, declared that these figures just will not do, and that the country needs “economic leadership.” As proof, he cited that the country’s annual GDP fell a record 5.4 percent – the most since comparable data began being kept in 1961 – never mind that the economic shock was brought on by the global pandemic, plus the false notion that we have the “highest unemployment in the G7,” as well as high pandemic spending levels. The Conservatives keep trotting out these unemployment figures, but every country measures unemployment differently, so they are effectively lying with statistics. Even if we measured our unemployment by the same way the Americans do, the gap is consistent with the gap in figures that always exists between our countries. Meanwhile, we still have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and our pandemic spending has insulated the economy so that it will be more resilient once we’re able to open – and hey, we also managed to have a much lower death count than most other G7 countries because we paid people to stay home. But part of the problem is that O’Toole (and most especially Pierre Poilievre) never gets called out for essentially lying with statistics, because the CBC has essentially given up on economics reporting, and the Financial Post largely sticks to getting their commentary from Jack Mintz and the Fraser Institute (with one or two exceptions). So O’Toole can stand at the lectern in the current ad hoc press theatre in the West Block and lie with statistics unchallenged, and media won’t call out the misinformation because they will either both-sides it, or just report it verbatim because they don’t know enough about the numbers to challenge it. It’s a sad state of affairs.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1366872106806349825

Meanwhile, in more news that O’Toole is unwilling to have an honest discourse, his staff penned an op-ed in his name in the National Post calling on the government to turn to India instead of China for future economic growth – but the piece was deafeningly silent on Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalism, which has turned into pogroms against Muslims and mistreatment of Sikhs in the country. It’s a lie of omission to simply call India the world’s largest democracy and ignore the flagrant human rights violations going on there as well – but this is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from O’Toole and company, because We The Media have enabled them the whole way.

Continue reading →