Roundup: Another reboot report

Posted on by

Yesterday saw the release of yet another expert report bemoaning all of our democratic woes, and proposed a handful of would-be solutions – or would be, if they actually bothered to correctly diagnose the problems they bemoaned. This time, it was the Public Policy Forum, and they have a pretty eminent list of people who compiled the piece. The problem was, while enumerating their grievances with our parliamentary system, they didn’t look at causes, and hence plan to treat symptoms rather than causes. “Restore cabinet governance” you say? Great! But no look at why the centralisation got more pronounced and how to fix the underlying reasons why. While their solutions regarding the public service and ministerial staffers are all well and good, their discussions around the committee system in the Commons stuck in my craw a bit. According to the report, we have too many committees, which is absurd considering that some of the busier committees don’t have the time to actually study a lot of bills with a reasonable number of witnesses getting reasonable turns to answer questions. So give them more work? Hmm. They want the whole Commons to vote on committee chairs instead of the committees themselves, like with the Speaker, but neglect to mention that this has bred its own particular set of problems in the UK, where this is the norm, where those chairs are becoming problematic personalities who have become somewhat untouchable when they start breaking rules. Their particular suggestions that committees not be bound by the parliamentary calendar is also a bit specious considering that they already have the power to meet when Parliament isn’t sitting, but those MPs tend to see the value in being in their constituencies during said periods when the House isn’t sitting. Give them more resources and staff? Certainly – they could do that tomorrow if they wanted, but it’s not because there are too many committees to do it adequately. And despite all of these suggestions, not one of them touches the underlying problem that the vast majority of MPs get elected without knowing what exactly their job is or how to do it, and what their responsibilities are once they get a committee assignment. But does this report once talk about better educating and equipping MPs themselves? Nope. So while it’s a valiant effort, perhaps they need to actually look at the forest for the trees.

Good reads:

  • Department of Justice officials say that Trudeau’s senate nomination committee plan should be okay, while some 40 senators met to discuss internal changes to the chamber.
  • VICE has ranked the Conservative leadership hopefuls, both for interim and permanent. Some Conservatives say the leadership should wait for 2017.
  • Trudeau hasn’t even formed government yet, and already they’re concern trolling his plans for Syrian refugees, marijuana legalization and F-35s. Except he never said any would be easy.
  • Senator Patrick Brazeau got an absolute discharge on his conviction of simple assault and cocaine possession. He still has a fraud trial ahead.
  • Here’s some more of the history of neglect and frugality that has plagued 24 Sussex.
  • Aaron Wherry and Martin Patriquin look at how the Conservative campaign fell apart.
  • Susan Delacourt writes about the difference between mass movements and micro-targeting in elections, and how this was an example of the former.
  • Over in the National Post, I look into the tough decisions that Trudeau faces in dealing with the Senate.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at some of the key diplomatic posts that Trudeau is going to have to fill soon.

Defeated NDP MP Craig Scott continues to be a sore loser, and is going full-crazy on the electoral reform issue.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/659412326882365440