The NDP are signalling that they have received a hopeful sign in their attempt to take their battle over their satellite offices to the Federal Court, because an affidavit from a university professor that argues in favour of their position was accepted as evidence by the court. If I may be so bold, championing this as a hopeful sign is jumping the gun. Sure, they haven’t had their case summarily dismissed just yet, but that’s hardly a good sign. It could be that the judge wants to hear more arguments before writing his or her reasons as to why this case should never be brought before the courts because of parliamentary privilege, and while there is some academic opinion out there that this doesn’t qualify, I have a hard time seeing why not. It is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that parliament be self-governing, which means that it does not submit itself to an external body for oversight, and that the courts do not interfere with Parliament and its operations, just as Parliament does not interfere with the courts as they do their job. The mechanism by which the House of Commons governs its affairs is the Board of Internal Economy. They may choose at some future point to come up with a new internal mechanism, but for the time being, that’s it. Normally it operates by consensus, but in this case, the NDP feel that they are being treated unfairly because the other parties at the table insisted that they broke the rules, and to justify their refusal to play by those rules, the NDP have cried “partisan” and “kangaroo court” rather than admit that they were in the wrong when they used parliamentary resources to open up those satellite offices (the very nature of which are dubious to begin with, because they are an extension of the centralization of power and communications within the leader’s office, which is problematic for the rights of individual MPs). By turning to the courts, the NDP are repudiating the supremacy of parliament in determining its own affairs, and that’s a problem. But then again, they are consistent in this repudiation, from demanding that the Board of Internal Economy be dismantled and replaced by a new bureaucracy to oversee MPs activities and expenses, and that senators be placed under some other external authority (in advance of abolition, of course). The problem with trying to replace parliamentary self-governance with a technocratic bureaucracy is that it undermines the fundamental nature of our democratic system. If we can’t expect the people we elect to be able to manage their own affairs, then why are we bothering to elect them in the first place? We might as well just hand power back to the Queen, tell her that the past 170-odd years of Responsible Government didn’t really work out, but thank you very much, and be done with it. Asking the courts to interfere with Parliament’s self-governing ability is a similar admission, rather than taking responsibility for their actions. It’s petulant and does long-term damage to our very democratic system. I quite look forward to a sound denunciation of their position by the Federal Court.
Tag Archives: Canada Post
QP: Scripts vs Saccharine
The galleries full of Sikh delegates in advance of the Komagata Maru apology, the benches were similarly full on the floor of the Commons. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by railing about the government’s proposed motion to control the parliamentary calendar. Trudeau noted that they were trying to give MPs time to speak and that this was about putting forward the agenda that Canadians voted on. Ambrose dropped a reference to Trudeau’s admiration for the “basic dictatorship” of China before asking again in French, and Trudeau gave the same response. Ambrose moved onto the topic of an electoral reform referendum, and Trudeau used the “Unfair Elections Act” as his excuse for his preferred consultative process. Denis Lebel took over in French, asked Ambrose’s second question again and got the same answer, and his second question was the referendum question in French, prompting Trudeau to drop the “60 percent of Canadians voted to change the electoral system” talking point. Thomas Mulcair was up next, his mini-lectern making a return, and he first thundered about the government shutting down democracy, then asked about the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling around doctor-assisted dying before demanding that C-14 be referred to the Supreme Court. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then changed to the issue of home mail delivery. Trudeau gave his standard response about the promise to consult, and for his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government stop taking veterans to court. Trudeau insisted that they were working with veterans to get results for them.
Ambrose repeated her first question in French and now Lebel repeats that exact same French question. Getting repetitive, guys. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 18, 2016
QP: Endlessly repeating the same question
While it was Monday, the no major leaders in the Commons — Justin Trudeau was several blocks away talking about Canada increasing its contributions to the a Global Fund to fight HIV and TB, while Rona Ambrose was in Alberta, and Thomas Mulcair was, well, elsewhere. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, asking if the government would match donations to other charities than just the Red Cross in the Fort McMurray wildfires. Ralph Goodale praised the capacity of the Red Cross, and said they would look at other compensation going forward. Scheer then asked why the PM’s in-laws went to Washington and not the Natural Resources Minister. Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the president himself invited the PM’s mother and in-laws. Scheer lamented that party “bagmen” also squeezed out ministers, and LeBlanc reminded him that the two in question were invited by the White House, and the taxpayers paid no part of their trip. Gérard Deltell then took over in French, asking the same question again twice, and LeBlanc repeated the response in the other official language. Dion responded on the second time, and he praised the work of the Natural Resources minister in getting an agreement with the Americans. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, howling about KPMG’s involvement. Diane Lebouthillier decried those wealthy individuals who haven’t paid their fair share, and that there were criminal investigations underway, contrary to his assertion. Julian asked again in English, Lebouthillier repeated her answer, adding that she isn’t sure why he can’t understand it. Niki Ashton hectored about the size of the budget implementation bill, for which Bill Morneau disputed that it was an omnibus bill. Ashton then demanded immediate decriminalisation of simple possession of marijuana, and Bill Blair quoted Mulcair in saying certain decriminalisation would be a mistake.
Pray tell, which Liberal has "never worked a day in his life"? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 9, 2016
QP: Demanding details of a deal not done
Another busy day on the hill, and while Trudeau had been in the Commons first thing to make another statement on the Fort McMurray situation, he was back for more as QP got underway. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked for reassurance that infrastructure funding to rebuild Fort McMurray would be top priority. Trudeau assured her that yes, this was indeed a priority. Ambrose read the exact same question again in French, got the same answer, and then asked about the details for a bailout for Bombardier. Trudeau reminded her that the negotiations were ongoing, and that they expected a strong long-term business case. Denis Lebel then repeated the question in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, Lebel demanded that they government allow the Billy Bishop airport expand to let Porter also buy C-Series jets. Trudeau responded that they were not going to re-open the tripartite agreement around the Toronto waterfront. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded criminal prosecutions for KPMG tax havens, and Trudeau reminded him that they were working to combat tax evasion. Mulcair repeated the question, got the same answer, before Mulcair moved onto the Canada Post review and not immediately restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau said that they committed to studying the issue and understanding how to give Canadians a better level of service. Mulcair asked the same again in English, skirting the rules around the use of the word “lying” in the chamber. Trudeau reiterated that they were putting in the time that the previous government didn’t in order to ensure Canadians got the right level of delivery.
Mulcair knows that the government doesn't direct Crown prosecutors activities, right? #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 5, 2016
Speaker Regan cautions Mulcair about his dismissive gestures. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 5, 2016
Roundup: Responsible, not rogue
A Liberal MP has broken ranks on a government bill! Oh noes! Let us now treat this as some kind of crisis of leadership! Okay, so the CBC piece about the event is only slightly more measured than that, but their Twitter headline certainly wasn’t.
Just doing his job, Liberal MP goes rogue https://t.co/VQMoYN8C9i #cdnpoli #hw
— CBC Politics (@CBCPolitics) April 28, 2016
One of the most enduring problems with Canadian political reporting is the constant conundrum of demanding that MPs exercise more independence, but immediately treating any instances of MPs breaking party ranks as some kind of crisis of leadership, where obviously the grip has been lost and soon it will be all over for the leader. (In some cases, the party itself treats it as some kind of betrayal of solidarity *cough*NDP*cough* and punishes its MPs internally with things like removing QP spots for weeks or removing members from committees or travel junkets). Ditto with senators, or at least until Trudeau kicked his senators out of national caucus – “is the leader losing control of his senators?” was not an uncommon headline either (though not one that is generally screamed as loudly, and one might also add that not enough ink was spilled on the split in caucus over Bill C-377 – the “union transparency” bill – the first time around when they voted to gut it, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as Government Leader a couple of weeks later after seriously mishandling the whole thing inside her caucus). And yes, Trudeau did promise more free votes, but this is one of those common promises that tends to wind up with MPs voting in lock-step anyway because they all really support their party or they all just happen to all think in lock-step. I am also reminded that when Michael Ignatieff tried to encourage his caucus to vote more freely on private members’ bills by not rarely voting for them personally – so that they wouldn’t look to him as to how to vote – he was punished for it by Jack Layton lying about those missed votes as poor attendance during the election (though Ignatieff should have responded with the policy and shut him down, but didn’t, and lost the election quite badly as a result). Suffice to say, when MPs don’t vote in lockstep, we shouldn’t use terms like “goes rogue,” because it gives entirely the wrong connotation about what has taken place. We want more responsible and independent-minded MPs, so let’s not make it harder for them to do so. And let’s leave the word “rogue” to this for the time being:
Roundup: Cullen tries to game the debate, again
Nathan Cullen is at it again with his attempts to try and skew the electoral reform debate in his direction. Not content to try and game a future Commons committee with “proportional” (but actually not even remotely proportional) membership, Cullen insisted yesterday that the government set up a citizen’s assembly to run a parallel kind of consultative process in order to really make sure that they’re hearing from all the right voices, and so on. Of course, what Cullen isn’t saying is that this is but one more dishonest tactic in trying to hijack the process into delivering the system that his party prefers. But how do I know that this is what the outcome would be? Well, a couple of things, the first is of course the bias for reform that these kinds of assemblies are set up with, and in the kinds of “eminent Canadians” that Cullen seeks to lead this assembly. You can just about imagine the names on his shortlist (Ed Broadbent, Craig Scott, etc), but one really doesn’t have to look very far. Political academia is very much biased in favour of reform, as is the majority of punditry in this country. The fix is very much in when it starts. Also, the experience of the citizens assembly in Ontario that recommended MMP in advance of the ill-fated Ontario referendum on a new electoral system is a kind of demonstration as to how these assemblies become convinced as to the magic that these new systems will apparently bring – they are in an environment where the current system is not adequately explained or represented, and they wind up favouring a system which purports to maximise on the supposed benefits, in this case MMP. Fairness! Local representation! Cooperation! Votes counting! Forget the usual caveats about logical fallacies and magical thinking that these proponents engage in, they are essentially being sold a time-share in Mexico, and make no mistake that by the end, they will sign up for it. It also feeds into the narrative that PR-enthusiasts like to dine out on, about how people just don’t understand how great PR/MMP is, but because those in the citizen assembly really got to learn about it, they understood just how awesome and magical it is, so they really get it. Cullen is trying to tap into all of this – convince your assembly that the preferred MMP system is the way to go, you suddenly have moral authority to pursue it in parliament for all it’s worth, particularly if the government is reluctant to put it to a plebiscite. Cullen is more transparent than he thinks he is, which is why this new plan deserves to be treated with scepticism.
Roundup: 100 days without unicorns
We have reached 100 days since the election, so expect to find any number of analyses and think-pieces about the “milestone,” like this one here from CBC. The Canadian Press had their enumerated list of what promises have been kept, what hasn’t (like promised gun-marking measures), and what’s in progress, which is handy to have. And while Trudeau has come out and said that perhaps they won’t meet the deficit targets made during the election, the economy being what it is, hay is certainly being made over it – particularly from the Conservatives, who have pounced on that singular National Bank forecast that said that perhaps the deficit will surpass $90 million over four years. Of course, nobody knows if that will be the case, particularly if the stimulus the government is pouring into the economy does manage to kickstart growth, and when the economy grows, deficits shrink on their own. That said, everybody leaping onto this report before we’ve even seen a budget is pretty ridiculous. The NDP’s release on the 100 days, however, was a bit more…fanciful. It contained a laundry list of woe, from their mischaracterisation of the tax cut, the fact that other promised spending hasn’t happened yet, the continued deliberate conflation of signing versus ratification of the TPP, the lack of new GHG targets or action on legalising marijuana – all giving the impression that such things can happen at the snap of a finger, without debate, without a budget, and apparently all by Order-in-Council rather than with legislation in many cases, is a bit ridiculous. The only valid point they do make is about parliamentary secretaries and committees (and as discussed earlier in the week, their own record of centralisation in this area is nothing to be proud of). The fact that they came out with such a list full of dubious complaints seems to be a return to true third-party status, where they can rail into the wind without the benefit of a reality check, belies a particular lack of lessons having been learned in the previous election or self-awareness about what they’re saying. Nobody is expecting them to roll over and applaud the government – but at least make the criticisms valid ones, rather than complaining that they didn’t have enough unicorns in the parade. The opposition has a serious job in holding the government to account. It’s a pity that our two main opposition parties seem incapable of taking that job seriously, as demonstrated yesterday.
The NDP’s laundry list of complaints for the first 100 days of the Liberal government. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/clUSuArDzC
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 11, 2016
Apparently everything can be done 1) immediately; 2) with no debate; 3) before a budget has been tabled; 4) by Order in Council.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 11, 2016
For contrast, here is the Conservative assessment of Trudeau’s first 100 days. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/biuSoGntg5
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 11, 2016
QP: Pipeline laments
Thursday in the Commons, and Justin Trudeau was present, but Rona Ambrose wasn’t. That left it up to Opposition House Leader Andrew Scheer to lead off, mini-lectern on his desk, and he read a lament for the government adding more red tape to pipeline projects. Trudeau insisted that the only way to get resources to tidewater was to do it in an environmentally sustainable way. Scheer wanted to know if Western Liberal MPs would be free to vote on the Conservatives’ opposition motion, to which Trudeau panned it as a rehash of their failed policies. Scheer took a dig at Trudeau meeting with celebrities instead of unemployed Canadians. Trudeau hit back with a reminder of the need for sustainability. Candice Bergen was up next, asking if downstream emissions would be part of the new environmental assessment process, to which Catherine McKenna confirmed that it would be a consideration. Bergen decried the uncertainty for ongoing assessments, but Jim Carr praised the change in tone from the current government where environment and natural resource development happened together. Thomas Mulcair was up next, lamenting that the TPP would cost jobs but was being signed anyway, but Trudeau assured him that the signature would just be a technical step that would allow further debate. Mulcair switched to French to continue to hammer on the meaning of the signature, to which Trudeau reiterated that signature and ratification were different. Mulcair changed to lamenting reducing taxes for the well-off instead of tackling inequality, to which Trudeau reminded him that they reduced taxes to the middle class and increased them on the one percent. Mulcair asked again, and Trudeau reiterated his answer.
QP: Thanks for your pre-arranged meeting
Tuesday, and it was the first regular QP not attended by the new prime minister. Rona Ambrose led off, reading her thanks for Trudeau taking her advice and meeting with Denis Coderre — you know, the meeting he had already had planned before QP yesterday. Ambrose suggested that if he wanted to create other jobs, the government could permit the extension of the Toronto Island Airport, which would hopefully help Bombardier sell more jets. Marc Garneau responded by saying they took an undertaking to respect Toronto’s waterfront plans. Ambrose then raised the spectre of ISIS, and conflated the AQIM attack in Burkina Faso with the other conflict. Stephane Dion insisted that Canada was part of the fight against ISIS. Ambrose then called ISIS the greatest threat to women and GLBT rights, to which Sajjan insisted that ISIS was a threat that he was taking seriously. Gérard Deltell then repeated Ambrose’s first question with the spin of other Quebec industry, and got a response from Jim Carr about the importance of resource development, and took a a second question on Deltell in the same vein. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded that the government not appeal the Human Rights Tribunal decision on First Nations child welfare, to which Jody Raybould-Wilson assured him that they would reform the child welfare system, but did leave the door open for judicial review. Mulcair then turned to the issue of existing pipeline approval processes, to which Catherine McKenna spoke about rebuilding trust with stakeholders. Mulcair demanded that the assessments be redone, but McKenna’s answer didn’t waver. Mulcair thundered about broken promises before pivoting to his scripted question about EI eligibility, to which MaryAnn Mihychuk assured him that they were conducting a comprehensive review.
Pretty sure the Catholic Church is a bigger threat to global GLBT rights than ISIS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 26, 2016
Roundup: Demanding a referendum
The issue of electoral reform has boiled over into what could be seen as the first major disagreement of the 42nd Parliament. The Conservatives have become quite vociferous in demanding that any change to the electoral system be put to a referendum – no doubt out of selfish considerations, knowing that most forms of alternative voting would be seen to disadvantage them, and secure in the knowledge that every time that such alternative ballots have been put to a vote either in Canada or the UK, that the existing First-Past-the-Post system ends up winning out. (Kelly McParland and the Maclean’s editorial are also in favour of a referendum). Even in Canadian polls on electoral reform, there remains a preference for a simple ballot that can deliver a stable government – something that most forms of alternative voting won’t deliver. While some pollsters have had fun with the numbers, trying to build models of what the election results would have delivered under different systems, the truth is that we can’t know what would have happened because there’s no guarantee that we would have had the same parties or configurations thereof in the election – particularly under a proportional representation system that encourages fringe parties, and given the country’s geographical, linguistic, and cultural diversity, a system that rewards smaller parties could very well fragment the “big tent” parties that currently exist. While people insist that we wouldn’t turn into Israel or Italy, the real worry is turning into Belgium, where the linguistic divisions in their PR system were so fragmented that they couldn’t form a workable government for over a year. While the government (and in particular Dominic LeBlanc) say they will engage in a broad consultative process and try to come to a consensus, I’m pretty sure that political consensus with the other parties won’t happen – the NDP favour one form of MMP, the Greens favour a PR system of some variety, and the Conservatives favour the status quo while the Liberals are more keen on ranked ballots, it’s hard to see how consensus will be built out of that. And at least LeBlanc concedes that consultations may show that the status quo ends up being preferable, and if there is an argument for that, it’s that our system right now allows you to throw the bums out – something that becomes all but impossible in PR systems where coalition partners get shuffled around but the central party remains in power for decades. It’s hard to see how that can in any way be preferable in a robust democracy.