In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau defended Statistics Canada’s plan to use anonymized banking data for statistical purposes, citing cooperation with the Privacy Commissioner.
• Trudeau also denounced carbon tax critics as trying to “make pollution free again.” (Is that really a winning line? Really?)
• As part of a massive budget implementation bill, pay equity legislation has been tabled. It also changes Status of Women to Women and Gender Equity.
• Foreign Affairs issued a terse statement around the election of a far-right president in Brazil (and quickly had to withdraw a congratulatory headline).
• A draft tender for new fighter jets has finally been put forward.
• Yazidi refugees resettled in Canada say they need help adapting to this country, and feel like they’ve been left to fend for themselves.
• General Vance says it’s a good thing that our forces in Mali have only had to participate in two medical evacuations to date.
• MPs are waking up to the fact that their social media accounts can be vulnerable to hacks.
• While there are worries the next election will be “nasty,” most of the examples are ones where MPs cried victim after things were deliberately taken out of context.
• The Inuit Tapiriit Kantami says they won’t support the coming Indigenous languages legislation if they deem it to be only “symbolic.”
• Now that Canada has ratified the TPP, it looks like Australia will be next, meaning it could come into effect by January 1^st.
• Here’s a lengthy investigation into how Canada essentially barred adoptions from Muslim countries in 2013 based on an interpretation of Sharia law.
• Jagmeet Singh continues to grouse that he hasn’t been given a by-election date now that he’s decided he’s finally going to run in one.
• In light of the James Cudmore questions around the VADM Mark Norman trial, Charlie Angus wants CBC to affirm their journalistic source protection policies.
• Doug Ford and Scott Moe are trying to take their anti-carbon tax show on the road (as filled with gross distortions of the policy as it is).
• Here’s a look at the state of BC’s electoral reform referendum, and Doug Ford is being used as a cautionary tale by both sides.
• Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the rules of calling by-elections, and muses about further rules to take the politics out of those calls. (I’m not in favour).
• Chantal Hébert says Trudeau not calling a by-election for Burnaby South means Trudeau is lowering the bar (but she neglects two more incoming by-elections).

Odds and ends:

Here are the finalists for this year’s Parliamentarian of the Year awards.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.