Tag Archives: Access to Information

Roundup: Minimizing blame

Posted on by

The NDP’s election debrief has been released just days before their big policy convention, in which Thomas Mulcair will need to convince delegates there to let him stay on the job. Little of what was in the report was new, other than name-checking all of the various internal bodies, committees and commissions who were consulted and who have work ahead of them. There were a couple of things that did stand out for me, however. The big one was about communication:

There were many frustrations shared about our internal communications during the campaign. Members, particularly local campaign managers, felt that the reporting from the ground had no effect on the strategic decision-making happening in the central campaign. What was being felt door-to-door was not being communicated, being miscommunicated, or went unheard. Members feel this impeded the ability of the central campaign to shift strategy when necessary.

The party has centralised a whole lot since 2011, and that was certainly reflected. That said, with everyone in the report saying that their local campaigns went great, it does smack a little bit of buck-passing to the central campaign. There were a few other points raised, such as the lack of a Quebec-specific offer, that they were not nimble enough in reacting to attacks from other parties, and that they didn’t adequately prepare for the niqab debate (but everyone was proud of their principled position, which confuses me a bit since the position wound up being that this was a court decision rather than the fact that we don’t tell women what to war in Canada). Glaringly absent in the report was the share of blame placed on Mulcair. In fact, he was barely mentioned at all. This was the closest it got:

We heard disappointment from members who felt that decisions about the strategy employed in the debates led to a situation in which our leader’s full capabilities — as demonstrated in the House of Commons over the previous years — were not on display. Across the country, we heard that our party activists did not understand why we refused to participate in some national debates.

While he wrote the big mea culpa letter taking responsibility, that’s not reflected in their actual debrief, which makes me a bit suspicious. And let’s face it – he had a big part in that, from his demeanour, to his inept slogan of “good, competent public administration,” to his poor debate performance, to the fact that his lack of the same kind of charisma that Trudeau exhibited did weigh in on people’s decisions. I’m left to wonder if the fact that they didn’t include criticisms of his performance in the report because it goes against the party’s solidarity mindset, or if it’s a kind of whitewashing of the record in advance of the leadership review vote. Suffice to say, it doesn’t make the report feel as forthcoming as it could or should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and the line of accountability

Posted on by

The punditariat continues to lose their minds over Senate independence, and I’m almost at the point of exasperation with it. After years – decades – of hand-wringing about how senators aren’t independent enough to do their jobs of sober second thought, we are suddenly overcome with hand-wringing about them being too independent and the government being unable to pass legislation (as though the opposition having a Senate majority has never happened in our country’s history before…oh, wait). It’s kind of like how We The Media keep demanding MPs be independent and vote for their constituents’ wishes and so on, and yet the moment one of them shows a little bit of backbone, we thunder that the leader is losing control of his or her caucus. Because that’s helpful. And so, Campbell Clark bemoans that poor Peter Harder doesn’t have any levers of power in the Senate to do Trudeau’s bidding, and lo, he may not even have much of an office budget either (though he can always ask the Internal Economy to increase it – this is not something that is set in stone for all time). Add to that, Clark worries that all of those new independent senators are going to have to find some new process of working things out – completely ignoring that they have already started getting that ball rolling with the Independent Working Group. It’s like he hasn’t paid attention to what is actually going on there and has been going on for the past several weeks. Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at André Pratte’s history and notes his differences with Trudeau’s philosophy, then bemoans that with all of those incoming senators, that the party leader won’t be responsible for their behaviour as they once might have been. And what is Hébert ignoring? Only the most fundamental principle in Canadian democracy – Responsible Government. Trudeau will be responsible to voters for the conduct of his appointees, whether he can whip them or not. That is a fundamental tenet of our system. If he makes a bunch of dud appointments, then guess what – voters can have their say, just as they had their say with Harper after the extent of the ClusterDuff business came out in court. This is a basic concept, and it’s disappointing that a long-time observer of Canadian politics has to be reminded of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pipeline drama queens

Posted on by

It really doesn’t take much to set Brad Wall off these days, and in ways that are both a bit unseemly and frankly nonsensical, and really, really unhelpful in the long run. Yesterday is was Quebec’s environment minister filing a court injunction related to Energy East, but unlike what everyone was up in arms about, it wasn’t to block the pipeline – he made several assurances that he had no opinion on it. Rather, he wanted TransCanada to submit paperwork with the Quebec government for their own environmental process, and TransCanada has thus far said no. It remains to be seen if Quebec’s position holds legal water (there was a precedent in BC that may or may not apply), but from the apoplexy coming from the likes of Brad Wall or Brian Jean in Alberta, you’d think Quebec had declared the project dead on arrival. Except they didn’t. Rachel Notley kept a level head saying she knows it’s not a veto, so she’s keeping her guns holstered. Justin Trudeau said he understands the province’s desire to get social license for the project, but listening to conservatives, both federal and provincial, you would have thought that those terrible lefties had put a stake in the heart of the oil industry. In fact, it’s the opposite of helpful when they are quick to declare a crisis of national unity when really, it’s Brad Wall fighting an election, and the Federal Conservatives and Wildrose party in Alberta trying to assert themselves into the debate in the most divisive way possible (and seriously, guys – that’s not how equalization works, so stop using it as a talking point). Suffice to say, everyone is acting like a bunch of petulant drama queens, demanding approvals to pipeline projects without actually going through the proper process, claiming that Trudeau politicized the process (err, except it was the Conservatives who changed the law so that Cabinet was given final sign-off on these projects, completely politicizing the process), and that if he doesn’t do things their way that he’s destroying the country. That’s a mature way to handle things, guys. Slow clap.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/704690026781786112

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/704691188327174144

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/704715206543482882

Continue reading →

Roundup: Application versus consultation

Posted on by

The head of the new Senate Appointment Advisory Board appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee yesterday, and has raised a few issues about this new process that are a bit troubling, which has to do with applications – rather, that there seems to be an emphasis on application rather than nominations arising out of consultations. In particular, the ability for people to apply for a seat on their own seems to be at odds with some of the design of the advisory process. Emmett Macfarlane notes that this wasn’t how he envisioned the process when he was asked to help design it, and that it not only overly bureaucratizes the process, but it sets it up for a particularly unsavoury sort to want to apply, which I concur with. Why is this important? Because we’ve only spent the past number of months watching the trial of a certain Mike Duffy, who was well known for wanting desperately to become a senator for decades, and how he viewed such an appointment as a “taskless thanks” which would also provide him with all manner of perquisites – and witness how he managed to monetize all of his relationships as a result of his appointment, as we’ve witnessed in testimony. We also lived though the bizarre spectacle that was Bert Brown, “elected” senator whose self-appointed crusade for Senate reform comprised largely of unsolicited meetings with provinces to convince them of his plan (on the Senate’s dime), and taking to the op-ed pages to basically call his detractors Nazis (I’m not sure how else you take it when he reminds you of his family’s military service in WWII as a rebuttal). Some of the best senators we’ve seen are those who never expected an appointment, and who never would have sought office on their own – people like Roméo Dallaire. It’s also why I’m not sold on the NDP fear that this process will just be elites nominating elites – a broad enough consultation will bring people of accomplishment and expertise in a wide variety of fields than just academia. But at the same time, the Senate should be a place that rewards experience and expertise rather than being a repository for randoms, given their role to scrutinise legislation and act as the country’s premier think tank. I have a hard time seeing how hot dog vendors can fulfil those roles, no matter how many people they interact with in a day.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695336557893431300

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/695341816439136261

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questionable speaking fees

Posted on by

Following testimony at the Mike Duffy trial, Glen McGregor went back through the records of Duffy’s speaking engagements and what he was paid for them. Why? Because at trial, it came to light that he paid a speechwriter for a last-minute speech to one group, made a couple of tiny changes to it, paid for said speech through his “clearing fund” run by Gerald Donohue as though it were an expense related to his Senate duties, and then collected the $15,000 fee. Senate ethics guidelines state that they are not to collect speaking fees if it’s related to their Senate duties – and to be clear, there are plenty of parliamentarians in both Chambers for whom it’s entirely appropriate to have a Speaker’s bureau arrange and charge for speeches based on their previous experiences, because it’s not part of their parliamentary duties and it ensures that their expenses are covered and not charged to the taxpayer. Duffy, however, seems to have breached this particular rule, which could be yet another wrinkle in his attempt to prove his innocence, or to show that the “clearing fund” was only for legitimate parliamentary expenses. Meanwhile, looking back at the trial, we see recollections of his memorable phrases, and the petulance of his testimony.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Imposition and breaches of privilege

Posted on by

The Senate sat for the first actual sitting of the new parliament yesterday, and already the new era is being felt as they had to do away with Senate Question Period as there was no one there to answer questions on behalf of the government. You may not think this is an issue, but it does blow a hole in the accountability role of the Senate. Conservative Senate leader Claude Carignan moved a motion that would invite ministers to appear before the Senate to answer questions instead, and couched it in the language of urgency for regions like Atlantic Canada, who have no Conservative representation in the Commons, and they would have questions to ask that need answers. Of course, that would require going into Committee of the Whole and calling those ministers to the bar, rather than being able to do it as a regular Senate QP, which presents logistical challenges, but we’ll see what the government has to say in response. Meanwhile, former Senate Speaker Leo Housakos is moving a point of privilege that the government’s refusal to appoint a Government Leader is interfering in the operations of the Senate, which infringes on their privileges as a result. I don’t think he’s completely wrong there, particularly that the government is forcing changes to the way the Senate operates by circumventing things like Senate QP from functioning properly without anything in the way of consultation. It remains to be seen if the new Speaker will deem it a prima facia breach and put it to the Senate rules committee to determine if the breach is real, but this could be setting up a conflict between the two chambers, which could have been avoided if Trudeau had been a bit more thoughtful in the way he’s handled the whole situation. (As for other Senators complaining that “partisan” is being treated like a dirty word, and that the future “non-partisan” appointments will all be Liberals, and claiming that having senators in national caucus makes them more accountable, well, I think they need to take a breath and get a grip, because there are better ways to argue their points than the way they’re going about it).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some answers on the Senate question

Posted on by

That Senate bat-signal? It came with air raid sirens today. To recap, the government named Senator George Furey as the new Senate Speaker, which was a positive step, then they handed down their plan for their new appointment process, and amidst this all, Conservative Senator Jacques Demers quit caucus to sit as an independent. So where to begin? Well, with Furey’s appointment, it lays to rest issues around whether the government would ignore their obligation to make the appointment, and to the questions of what to do with Housakos after the allegations of his breaching senators’ privilege with the AG leaks. Senator Elaine McCoy was disappointed that Senators couldn’t choose their own Speaker, but I’m not sure she’s aware that it would require a constitutional amendment for that to happen (but one with a minor amending formula, granted). And then there the appointment panel – it’s designed much like the Vice-Regal Appointments Commission, with three permanent federal members and two ad hoc members per province with a vacancy, and they will draw up a short list for each vacancy for the Prime Minister to choose from. It’s constitutional and creates the atmosphere for the Senate to change from within, based on the recommendations from Emmett Macfarlane. The plan is to draw up a temporary process to name five Senators quickly in the New Year (two each for Manitoba and Ontario plus one for Quebec, where the representation levels are getting low), and the permanent process will then take over and fill the remaining vacancies, plus new ones as they happen. The plan is also that the provincial will give input on the appointment of board members from their province (though the federal government will appoint them for the temporary process). Christie Clark said that she’s not interested in participating, which is fine – the government can appoint BC representatives for the committee without her government’s input, and the same with Brad Wall if he joins her obstinacy. It was also announced that one of those five first appointments will be named the government leader in the Senate, but that they won’t be in cabinet and will be more of an administrator or a legislative coordinator, thus impacting on the accountability aspect (which I will write about in a future piece). It does provide a bit more clarity, however, but much remains to be worked out. As for Demers, I have little sympathy for his whinging that he didn’t want to vote on certain bills when he was in caucus, but he did it out of loyalty “to the team,” and to Harper. He had a choice. He singled out Bill C-377, which four other of his colleagues either voted against or abstained on in the final vote when they found the intestinal fortitude to do so. He could have joined them but chose not to, and only now leaves once Harper is gone. He’s a grown-up and had choices all this time.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/672432061702017024

Continue reading →

Roundup: A dubiously predicted rejection

Posted on by

There are days when the Senate bat-signal shines in the sky, and I’m likely to sigh and say “Oh, you again.” And it’s one of those times, wherein the Hill Times writes a screaming headline about Liberal senators saying they’ll oppose an appointed Government Leader, only for the story to be about one unnamed Senate Liberal source (not even necessarily a senator) saying that they might objet to an appointment, but no one really knows because it’s all up in the air. So, chalk another one up for hyperbole without any real basis for it. Now, it does seem like there are some issues that need to be sorted, such as whether they count as a Recognized Party for budget reasons when it comes to leadership, but that would seem to me to be an issue that they could solve internally as the Senate is self-governing. And for sure, the sense of uncertainty amongst Senate Liberals is likely getting frustrating because I’m sure they’d like to know if there will be things like Senate Question Period still carrying on without a member of the government to hold to account, or how they will shepherd government bills through the Chamber, or even how they will organise seating (as there really isn’t a government and opposition side any longer), but again, it’s all up in the air. One does hope that the Liberals on the Commons side will start getting more communicative about what’s going on, seeing as having a functioning Parliament would be a good thing to get sorted, but it seems that we have to remain patient a little longer. Hyperbolic headlines don’t help.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Artificial anti-terror drama

Posted on by

With the Senate back in the news, it’s like my own personal bat-signal, so let’s delve into it, shall we? First up is a piece about some Conservative senators talking about changes to national security legislation (formerly C-51, which we need to stop referring to it as, since it’s passed and with dissolution the number scheme slate is wiped clean). Despite the ominous headline that warns that they could “disrupt” the plan to change the anti-terror act, there is very little indication in the story that they intend to do just that. They say they’ll study the changes, and they’re not opposed to creating a parliamentary oversight body, so where is the actual plans for disruption? Oh dear. It seems that we may have torqued a headline for the same of drama. I mean, they could disrupt any bill, but they don’t. Try again. Meanwhile, Senate leader Claude Carignan is trying to get assurances that Conservative senators will be able to vote on the interim leader, seeing as that’s in the party’s constitution, particularly because they are now all that is left to represent certain regions of the country – like the Atlantic provinces, or Toronto and Montreal. They will also have a particular heft to their representation, with 47 senators to a current 99 MPs. So that’ll be interesting. (Also, are we really down to four non-Harper appointed Conservatives already? Time flies). Senator Runciman talks about party renewal including proposing that they have their own Kingston Conference to lay the groundwork for their return to power, much as the Liberals have done in times past. Historian Christopher Moore thinks the party should return to caucus selection for permanent leader rather than an expensive and lengthy membership-driven process (which I would agree with), but somehow I doubt the party will buy it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, Chong’s bill won’t give us Australian leadership spills

Posted on by

News of the leadership spill in Australia, ousting Tony Abbott as prime minister and ending the greatest political bromance of the Commonwealth countries (Harper and Abbott were quite the mutual admiration society), we were suddenly inundated with Twitter musings about whether that could happen in Canada, thanks to Michael Chong’s Reform Act which passed this summer. While Kady O’Malley offers the “in theory” answer, the in practice answer is that no, it couldn’t happen here, because Canada has a terrible system of leadership selection that purports to “democratise” the system with grassroots involvement, but instead created an unaccountable and presidentialised system of an overly powerful leader that has little fear of their caucus turning on them, because caucus didn’t select them. When it comes to removal, selection matters. A lot. Chong’s bill, perversely, makes an Australian situation less likely by raising the bar for leadership challenges to happen in the first place, and would instead give us situations like what happened in Manitoba where a sitting leader was challenged, and when it went to a leadership process where he still participated and won based on the grassroots support when his caucus was no longer behind him, well, it’s ugly and it’s down right unparliamentary given that a leader needs to have the confidence of his or her caucus, and when they don’t but stay in based on grassroots votes, the system breaks down. Paul Wells cautions that reforming a system usually replaces real or perceive problems with different problems, while Andrew Coyne points out that being able to dump a bad leader quickly is the lesser evil of being stuck with them.

Continue reading →