Our good friends at Fair Vote Canada have decided to adopt the new buzz-word of “evidence-based” as part of their new campaign for electoral reform. The “evidence” in this case is the summary of study by Arend Lijphart that compares thirty-six democracies. Immediately, this should be a red flag right there – comparing democracies that use different models of governance is pretty much like comparing apples, grapefruits, bananas and goats – which this study pretty much confirms. The study also glosses over actual substantive issues like responsibility and accountability in favour of focusing on the act of voting itself. This is not a surprise given the particular ideological bent of Fair Vote Canada, for whom it’s the act of voting that is important, rather than what the vote means, and how that act works in the broader context of the system as a whole.
Category Archives: Musings
Pamela Wallin and “activist” senators
One of the key parts of embattled Senator Pamela Wallin’s defence is that she wanted to be an “activist senator” when she was appointed, and that she’s been making speeches across the country and so on as part of this self-appointed mandate. And apparently she’s not the only one – not even two months ago, it was revealed that newly appointed Conservative Senator Thahn Ngo is charging the Senate to go speak to Vietnamese groups across the country, because as a Vietnamese-Canadian senator, he sees that as part of his duties. All of which raises the question of just what should constitute the duties of a senator, “activist” or otherwise?
The selective myopia of Senate punditry
Since the Senate spending scandal broke out, there has been no shortage of opinions that something must be done about the Upper Chamber. Weak sauce news pieces quote polls that cite “support for reform or abolition,” as though they were interchangeable, or that there was but a single model for reform. People advocating for reform do so without the benefit of actually thinking about the end product that they’re trying to achieve, focusing instead on the inputs – generally in terms of elections and term limits – without looking at the consequences of how those changes will play out, as though elections won’t be a recipe for increased partisanship and gridlock. Abolitionists, meanwhile, throw out facile arguments, be it around cost, or “accountability,” and hope to stoke enough outrage in the population to get their way.
On Marjory LeBreton’s departure
Over the course of the afternoon, I’ve heard people express surprise that Government Leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, decided to step down from the post in advance of the cabinet shuffle. I’m not sure why exactly, given everything that has gone on.
The first and most obvious reason why she would step down now is that it was her 73rd birthday, and she would have reached the age of mandatory retirement before the 2015 election. By opting to see the post filled now would allow that continuity in cabinet leading up to the election. That the PMO has stated that the new Leader of the Government in the Senate (LGS) won’t be in cabinet is a problem that I tackled in a previous post.
Why the Senate Leader needs to be in cabinet
The announced departure of Senator Marjory LeBreton from cabinet this morning has led not to furious speculation about her replacement, but rather about the PMO’s plans for the position itself. According to the government sources, Stephen Harper plans to eliminate the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate from cabinet going forward – apparently oblivious that this is a Very Big Problem.
You see, there is an actual reason why the position of Leader of the Government (LGS) in the Senate is a full Minister of the Crown. It’s not just because they felt they needed to give someone a limo and a driver, but rather, because of a little something called Ministerial Responsibility. And yes, this is an important foundational principle to our system of government.
The fanciful nonsense of defunding the Senate
Once more, the NDP have decided that the constitution be damned, it’s time to pull another too-cute-by-half stunt when it comes to the Senate. Indeed, their Wednesday opposition day motion will be to de-fund the Senate by Canada Day – as though that would actually be something feasible, or without any consequences.
Let’s start with the constitutional reality. The Constitution, which I will remind you is not just a suggestion, stipulates that legislation be passed by both the Commons and the Senate. It’s not exactly something is an option when it comes to the way legislation works. You need a functional Senate to pass said legislation, otherwise the system grinds to a halt. And to have a functional Senate, it requires money.
Responsible Government and Senate appointments
This past week, the calls for Senate reform and/or abolition have suddenly taken on a renewed fever pitch – despite the fact that the issue has precisely zero to do with the problems that certain members of said institution face. But it hasn’t stopped the floodgates of shallow, insipid, and frankly boneheaded plans and schemes from being forwarded, each person more confident than the last that they know the true meaning of democracy and how to deliver the panacea to the supposed ills of our Parliamentary democracy.
A reminder about the bounds of QP
In advance of the gasket that I’m inevitably going to blow during QP today, I offer you a few reminders of what is and is not fair game about the current Clusterduff Scandal. While Harper won’t be there to answer any of these questions all week due to previously scheduled foreign travel, the designated back-up PM du jour will be handling this file, but that doesn’t mean that the opposition (and hopefully government backbenchers – oh, dare to dream) can’t ask the right kinds of questions. Continue reading
Elizabeth May’s valiant, yet flawed, effort
Elizabeth May has tabled yet another Private Members’ Bill which she is flogging before the media tomorrow, and this time it’s about one of the necessary steps to restore some of the necessary balance to our Westminster system of democracy. In this case, it is specifically to do with limiting the power of the party leader to sign off on nomination papers, which has become a kind of blackmail tool that leaders have increasingly employed to keep their caucus in line. It’s a valiant effort on May’s part, and props to her for giving it a go, but let’s step back for a moment and remember a few things.
Justin Trudeau, the most unaccountable leader ever
Congratulations, Liberals and “supporters” — you’ve just elected the most unaccountable leader in Canadian political history! Give yourselves a round of applause!
But wait, you might say. Didn’t the party throw open the doors to let in all kinds of new ideas and to allow the broadest level of participation in Canadian history? Well, maybe, but when you think about it, not really. Remember, this was a leadership convention and not a policy convention, despite what some of the contenders seemed to believe. And according to the party’s new rules, only paid-up members and not the new “supporters” get to vote on policy, or the “new ideas” that the party hopes to attract, so really, throwing open the doors so to speak didn’t really produce new ideas. What it did do was populate the party’s database, so that they can hope to turn those 300,000 new “supporters” into potential donors and maybe members. Maybe.