Roundup: Just a normal backbench function

Posted on by

There are days when I wonder if the cynicism among reporters isn’t the bigger problem facing Ottawa as we get yet another incredulous piece talking about how backbench Liberal MPs are openly voting against their own party, and how incredible is that? One MP went so far as to say that the Prime Minister himself told his caucus that the media was going to have to get used to the fact that MPs would disagree with him from time to time. And lo and behold, it continues to be treated as both a novelty and an aberration that backbenchers will stand up to government. We had commentary on one of the lesser weekend panel shows yesterday that was some pundit or other incredulous that there were MPs disagreeing with the leader, apparently because there weren’t enough goodies like cabinet posts or committee chairs to go around, and I can’t even.

Meanwhile, we have interviews with the government whip about how he’s going to manage all of these free votes on things (which was fairly constructive, to be honest, as he talked about having copies of the bill at hand and lists of people he could direct MPs to talk about with their concerns). It’s helpful, but needs more reminding that hey, it’s actually a backbencher’s job to hold their own government to account as much as it is the opposition’s. Now, if we could just get them to start asking some real questions in QP instead of throwing these suck-up softballs, that would be really great. Oh, and while I’m on the topic of journalists and pundits acting all surprised that MPs are doing their jobs, can we also stop this faux-confusion about how things are working in the Senate with “independents” and “independent Liberals”? Because honestly, if you haven’t gotten the memo that Senate Liberals are not part of the national Liberal caucus, and that they simply chose to continue to call themselves Liberals because the Rules of the Senate say that a caucus needs to have an association with a registered federal political party, then you really need to get with the programme. Stop saying that things are confusing when they’re not. You’re not helping the public – you’re just making things worse.

Good reads:

  • The NDP leadership will take place in September or October of 2017, with the party taking a big cut of the funds raise, after which Mulcair will retire from politics.
  • Maxime Bernier has officially launched his bid for the Conservative leadership.
  • Mark Holland says that one shouldn’t assume the Liberals have ranked ballots in the bag given that the caucus is divided on the issue.
  • Access to Information change consultations have floated the idea of a ministerial veto on some requests, which has groups alarmed.
  • The Senate Speaker would like the RCMP to wrap up their investigation into Pamela Wallin one way or the other. Not sure that it’s his call.
  • An electoral reform expert weighs in on statements that Maryam Monsef has made. It goes about as well as you’d expect.
  • Neil Macdonald writes about the Sophie Trudeau issue as an episode of “tall poppy syndrome,” and I don’t think he’s entirely wrong.
  • Michael Den Tandt complains the Liberals study everything to death. So the solution is to stumble around boldly but blindly? Carry on with broken systems?

Odds and ends:

Michael Sona’s robocall conviction goes to appeal, but only over the sentencing, not the actual verdict.