Tag Archives: Census

Roundup: A petulant motion

Posted on by

The degradation of Supply Day – otherwise known as “opposition day” – motions continues apace as the NDP have chosen to be completely petulant about their day today, using their motion to get the House to say that the government misled them on their promise to end First-past-the-Post and call on the government to apologise. It’s petty and cheap, and it’s going to be no fun for the Liberals on House duty to have to eat some of their own words on the need for electoral reform, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that this is not what an opposition day motion is supposed ot be doing.

As a quick refresher, the purpose of Supply Days is for the opposition to demonstrate why the government should be denied supply – meaning the money that they want to spend to run the government. In other words, the day is to be spent arguing about why the government shouldn’t be spending money they’re asking taxpayers for. It’s part of the job of the House of Commons in holding the government to account by controlling the purse strings, which government can only spend with their approval. But that’s not how it works anymore. Now, it’s any topic under the sun.

The Conservatives have been engaging in their own shenanigans with supply days, arguing one this week that was supposed to be about getting the government to agree not to tax health and dental benefits, but because they wanted it to be defeated, they got cute with the wording so as to proclaim that Canadians were too burdened with taxes and so on, knowing the government wouldn’t support it. And when they defeated it, they took to Twitter and QP to decry the government not ruling out taxing these benefits despite the fact that they had stated clearly that they would not. But hey, why not play silly buggers with parliament’s time?

Even worse than motions designed to get the government to vote it down by using cute language are the “mom and apple pie” motions designed to get the government to support them in the hopes of embarrassing them into taking action on a file, and as happened so often during the Conservative years, the government would support the motion, pat themselves on the back, and then do nothing while the NDP howled about it to little effect. It was a government that had no shame, but it was a too-cute-by-half motion to start with.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/829344479958142980

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/829347208063483904

Like Philippe Lagassé says, less theatrics, more accountability. And that’s exactly what we’re not seeing in any of these motions, when it’s the fundamental job of every MP in the Commons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A painful lesson in committee cooperation

Posted on by

News broke yesterday morning that rogue Liberal backbencher Nate Erskine-Smith had been reassigned from the public safety committee by the party whip, and immediately everyone was all “uh oh, this is totally because he spoke out against his party.” Yes, Erskine-Smith has been making all kinds of waves, talking about his disagreement with the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, advocating for the decriminalisation of all illegal drugs to treat them as a public health as opposed to a criminal law issue, and most recently, prostrating himself before his electorate to decry his government’s decision to abandon electoral reform (and using the curious tactic of using language that both undermines his government’s legitimacy and advocates for a system that undermines the very agency he has as an MP to stand apart from his party, but whatever).

Of course, it also appears that none of those commenters from the peanut gallery actually bothered to read the story about why Erskine-Smith was yanked from the committee, and it had little to do with his outspokenness than the fact that he was overly naïve as a newbie MP if trying to make parliament a nicer place. In this case, he wanted to operate by consensus on the committee and tried to get the other parties onside for amending the bill on establishing a national security committee of parliamentarians. The problem was that in the process, he was manipulated by Tony Clement into deleting some of his government’s own provisions because, you know, consensus and working together! So yeah, painful lesson, and maybe he’ll learn to be a little less trusting the next time. I get that you want parliament to be a nicer place and politics to be done better, but if you’re not careful, your opponents will (metaphorically) shiv you because they have their own goals, and they don’t necessarily want to buy into your platform. And let’s not forget that the competition of ideas is part of what keeps our system vital and accountable.

Of course, the fact that the whip could take this step has the usual suspects up in arms about how too much power is in the hands of the leader (by way of the whip), and the standard calls about reforming committees were trotted out. The Liberal Party’s promises on committee reform – more resources, electing chairs by secret ballot, and ensuring parliamentary secretaries are no longer voting members – were pretty much accomplished, but Conservative leadership candidate Michael Chong has his own reform ideas (try to look surprised), but reading them over, I have doubts. In particular, his plan to take away the power to assign MPs to committees and replacing it with a secret ballot process is dubious, in particular because a) I can’t imagine trying to count those ballots, b) it won’t solve the problems of MPs all trying to get onto the “sexier” committees while leaving some of the less exciting ones to be scrounging for members, c) critics – which the leader assigns – are on those committees, so for a party like the NDP, the secret balloting process would be useless, and d) this is a typical Chong suggestion of a solution in search of a problem. MPs like to bitch and moan about being assigned to committees they don’t like, but rarely actually ask for committee assignments, nor do they seem to have an appreciation that sometimes the party has to spread out their talent to places where it’s needed as opposed to where MPs want to go.

I’m also not keen on Chong’s plan to merge five committees to bring down the total number because there’s no actual need. We have 338 MPs and we don’t have a super-sized cabinet with a bloated parliamentary secretary brigade to match it, and in the previous parliament, they already reduced committees from 12 to 10 members apiece. There are enough MPs to go around, and merging the mandates of committees overloads them rather than letting them undertake studies of their own accord, which they should be doing. There’s no real crisis of overloading MPs with work right now (which was not always the case), so this particular suggestion seems gratuitous.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Revisionist history mythologizing

Posted on by

The electoral reform committee was back yesterday and the “star” witness was former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, currently heading the institute that bears his name. If you’ve been out of the loop, Broadbent is an unabashed supporter of Proportional Representation, and figures that Mixed-Member Proportional is the cat’s pyjamas, and proceeded to regale the committee with any number of ludicrous statements about both the current system and the purported wonders of MMP, and then delivered this particular gem: that MMP would have spared the west the National Energy Programme in the 1980s.

I. Can’t. Even.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/770351319471325185

The amount of mythologizing around the NEP in this country borders on psychosis. There was a time not so long ago that people also caterwauled that a Triple-E senate would also have prevented the NEP, with no actual proof that would be the case if you actually stopped to think about what would be involved in creating such an institution (particularly the imposition of party discipline because if you think you would be electing 105 independent senators, you’re even more delusional than the premise of the question belies). Most of these mythologies around the NEP forget that there was a history involved with global energy crises, broad support in the rest of the country, and that it was a global recession that happened around the same time that was largely responsible for the economic collapse that ensued as opposed to the NEP itself, but the two became conflated in the minds of most people. It didn’t happen in a vacuum or because Pierre Elliot Trudeau simply rubbed his hands and tried to come up with a diabolical plan to screw the West. For Broadbent to suddenly claim that a PR system would have ensured more regional voices at the table and common sense would have prevailed is simply revisionist history combined with the kind of unicorn logic that his preferred voting system would have been responsible only for the good things in history and never the bad. It’s egregious bullshit and needs to be called out as such.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Brexit fallout

Posted on by

So, Brexit. If you missed how it all went down, here’s the recap of the evening’s events, a look at the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty regarding an exit from the EU, a look at other countries who may be next, and speculation about how the Queen is faring in the face of this result. There’s a look at the divisions within the UK, and what psychology tells us about feelings toward immigration and how that influenced the referendum vote. And of course, what the Brexit could mean for the Canada-EU trade agreement, seeing as the UK was one of the driving forces behind this agreement. The results of that referendum seem to have made Quebec sovereigntists chippy about the 50-percent-plus-one threshold, while Jason Kenney’s tweets once the results were announced raised a number of eyebrows. The Prime Minister, however, assures us that our economy is strong enough to be able to withstand the market storms triggered by this event. (And do check out Maclean’s full package of excellent Brexit pieces here).

And then there’s the reaction. Doug Saunders notes that this is the first time that a far-right movement and its xenophobia has won a majority vote in a Western Nation, while Scott Gilmore notes that the Brexit could take a multitude of different forms. Andrew Coyne takes the events as a cautionary tale of countries engaging in self-harm. Paul Wells writes about the case that the EU needs to make for itself in the face of referenda like these, while Andrew MacDougall notes that this referendum, along with the Trump phenomenon in the states, is showing the power of demagoguery over fact and expert advice, which is probably the scariest part of this whole sad and sordid affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gratuitously rejecting amendments

Posted on by

It sounds like deliberations in the Commons justice committee are going about as well as expected, as they reject dozens of amendments related to the medical assistance in dying bill. It should be noted that they’re rejecting amendments from all sides – both the Conservative ones aimed at introducing further restrictions (which should probably just invoke the Notwithstanding Clause along with them because of how they further impede the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter), and those NDP, Bloc and Green amendments that would make the legislation more permissive, and it sounds like only a couple of minor amendments have been accepted – one Liberal, one Conservative, both fairly technical. All of this is making be believe that we may be headed for a showdown with the Senate, as it sounds increasingly like they are unhappy with the current state of the bill and have grave concerns that it doesn’t meet the constitutional tests laid out in the Carter decision. This could make for a very interesting few weeks ahead if senators decide to dig in their heels – particularly Senate Liberals, who are likely to very clearly demonstrate their independence from the Liberals in the Commons as they take opposition positions on this government bill. We’ll see how far they’re willing to push it, whether they will amend the bill and send it back to the Commons, and if the government decides to push back or not, or accept the judgment of the Senate in its more independent state (as Trudeau has insisted he’s looking to make a reality). More likely, we’ll be subjected to weeks of pundits baying at the moon because how dare the unelected Senate dare to challenge elected MPs even though that’s the whole point of the institution in our constitution. I can hardly wait for that fun to start. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry looks at how MPs are dealing with this issue in terms of consulting with their constituents for the upcoming free vote, and how their own religious convictions play into it. Of course, MPs always like to say all manner of things about what their constituents say and believe (and it almost always just happens to line up exactly with their party’s talking points, as if by magic), and given how completely spineless most MPs tend to be on tough issues like this, we’ll see how they wind up deciding when the final vote comes down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Talking out the clock needlessly

Posted on by

As you may have heard, Conservative MPs refused to let debate collapse on Mauril Bélanger’s national anthem bill yesterday, not allowing it to come up for a vote as had been hoped in order to fast-track the bill through the process owing to Bélanger’s condition. While this has been described as a “filibuster,” it’s not quite, but it was dickish behaviour, make no mistake – particularly the fact that all of the Conservative MPs were making the same points over and over again rather than offering any new criticism of the bill (with such novel excuses that it would be a slippery slope – references to God would be next in line, and woe be the age of political correctness, and so on). As a quick explanation, private members’ business cannot be filibustered because it is all automatically time allocated. Under the standing orders, each private members’ bill or motion gets two hours of debate – each hour separated by the precedence list of 30 items, meaning about six sitting weeks – before it goes to a vote. If bills pass the second reading vote, they go to committee for a couple of hours of study before they get another two hours of debate at report stage and third reading (again, separated by the precedence list of 30 items), and then they head to the Senate, where there is no time allocation and they will often get more scrutiny – particularly at committee – but government business taking priority means that they can sometimes languish there for months. In this particular case, there was a hope that debate could collapse and there would be no need for a second hour of debate, but they also requested that they could go straight into the second hour, but the Conservatives denied consent to do so. After all, they had planes to catch back to their ridings. If Bélanger’s health deteriorates further and he is forced to resign his seat – and he did come to the debate directly from the hospital – then it would be possible for another MP to take on the bill in his stead, but that tends to require unanimous consent, and if the Conservatives continue to want to be dickish about this, then they can deny it and the bill will die without its sponsor present. And because this is a private members’ bill, no other MP can launch a similar bill in this parliament, since there are rules around debating the same bill twice. The danger for those Conservatives, however, is that the Liberals can turn around and put it into a government bill and put it through the process that way, which gives them all manner of other tools to use to push it through – particularly on the Senate side. And while nobody is arguing that the bill should pass just because of Bélanger’s health, the argument is that it should have come to a vote so that it could pass or fail at second reading. While Conservatives argue that they have a right to talk out the clock, the fact that they kept repeating themselves is a sign that this was a dilatory tactic and designed to be dickish, which is what has enraged a number of Bélanger’s supporters. And really, it’s unnecessary because it looks like they’re bullying a dying man, and no good can come of it. We’ll see if anyone is willing to trade their upcoming slot in the Order of Precedence to move Bélanger’s second hour of debate up so the vote can be accelerated, but it shouldn’t have been necessary.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A pointless procedural dust-up

Posted on by

The shine has come off around the medical assistance in dying bill, as the government decided that enough was enough, and it was time to send it to committee. So they invoked time allocation, and not surprisingly, there was all manner of outcry about how terrible this was, and Conservatives like Jason Kenney equivocating, insisting that they never employed time allocation on such sensitive life and death matters as this (ignoring things like safe injection sites or laws around prostitution as also being life and death matters for those that it affects). Kenney’s later assertions about what this bill will do were also…fanciful to say the least.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/727954797190479872

I will say that I have little sympathy for MPs who railed about the government cutting off debate, after two nights of midnight sittings and over 84 MPs having spoken to the bill. This is second reading debate, which is the principle of the bill. And I’ve listened to enough speeches to know that they all basically say “this is a very personal issue,” and “What about palliative care?” with minor variations throughout. The concern trolling about the conscience rights of doctors is also in there, never mind that this is a bill dealing with the criminal code and that issue is one for the provinces who deliver healthcare and the provincial certification bodies for physicians. There remains committee stage debate – which is the real meat of the bill – report stage once it comes back, and third reading debate. If MPs still have things to say, there remain plenty of opportunities, and the government also pointed out that some MPs had been up to speak several times on the bill, meaning that there couldn’t possibly be that many more MPs who needed to speak. And if you’ll forgive my particular cynicism, how many more times do we need to hear MPs read those same sentiments in the record over and over again? The government was already generous in the amount of time it gave to debate second reading – accusing them of somehow stifling debate or invoking closure were both patently wrong and false. And so, once all of the procedural wrangling and grousing was done, it passed second reading by a wide margin. Liberal MP Robbie Falcon-Outlette was the sole member of that party to vote against, and he went on Power & Politics to make a bunch of patently false equivalences between this bill and the suicide crisis in places like Attawapiskat, with a host of intellectually dishonest arguments strewn along the way. The bill also began pre-study in the Senate, where I expect it will get a much tougher ride, and there remains a very real chance that even if the bill passes the Commons unscathed that it will not do so in the Senate, and that it may not pass by deadline.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/727990740576403456

Continue reading →

Roundup: No appetite for back pay

Posted on by

With parliament resuming this week, all attention is on whether or not Senator Mike Duffy will resume his duties. After all, there have been a few signs of activity in his office, with computers being updated and such, but there remains a question as to whether his health will allow it, but we’ll see. As for the question as to whether he will be getting any back pay for his time suspended without it, well, senior senators are not so keen. In fact, the phrase “no appetite” is continually used, and they are quick to point to the fact that the Senate’s internal discipline – which the suspension was part of – was based on the Deloitte audits and not criminal findings of guilt or innocence, thus his acquittal by the courts makes it largely an irrelevant issue as far as they’re concerned. I would also add that should Duffy decide to press the issue, well, there are a few well-placed senators who around this issue who are known to leak things to the media, and who will undoubtedly start doing so about any other skeletons in Duffy’s closet that they are aware of. Meanwhile, there remain questions back in PEI about whether Duffy remains qualified to represent the province, as there is still a level of distrust that he is actually a resident (and given that it sounds like he spent the bulk of his time on suspension in Ottawa, well, that doesn’t help matters much). Meanwhile, some Conservative senators are grousing a little bit that Senator Peter Harder isn’t really providing much in the way of answers during regular Senate QP (as opposed to ministerial versions thereof). I think they’re being a bit unfair, considering that he’s been on the job only a couple of weeks and hasn’t yet staffed up his office, nor really had a chance to get proper briefings from the Privy Council Office (because yes, he has been sworn into the Privy Council to take on this job, making him a quasi-minister) on the files that he is likely to be asked about, or had much in the way of a briefing binder prepared, but it does put him on notice that they do expect him to step up his game in the role of “government representative,” particularly when it comes to being the conduit for holding the government to account. These are things that are important, especially as there are no opposition voices in the Commons from Atlantic Canada or the GTA, making the Senate’s role in asking those questions all the more important.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caution on the veto

Posted on by

The particular bugaboos of electoral reform and the role of the Senate have been colliding increasingly in the past number of days, as there have been threats coming that certain Conservative senators have been threatening to use their majority to vote down any legislation on changes to the electoral system unless there’s a referendum first. And then this particular op-ed in the Citizen by a Université de Montréal law professor urging them to do just that makes me want to just take a moment to talk it all through. First, a few things to keep in mind – the senator who went to the media about this threat was Don Plett, who is, well, singular on some issues. He’s broken ranks before, and is willing to stick to his guns on others, but I wouldn’t ever quote him as the voice of the Conservatives in the Senate, even though he is now the caucus whip. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Senate of Canada, being probably the most powerful Upper Chamber in the democratic world, does indeed have the power of unlimited veto – there is no overriding it if the Senate decides that they want something to die. It’s a power that they very rarely use, particularly when it comes to government bills – it’s kind of like the nuclear deterrent for legislation. No, they’d rather make amendments and send it back, with few exceptions. The reason it’s treated with such caution is that they know they don’t have the democratic mandate to exercise these powers except in rare circumstances. In those rare circumstances, they will do it because it’s their job to have a check on a majority government, and be empowered to speak truth to power, which is why they are afforded the kind of institutional independence that they have. So with this in mind, I will hold up a big caution sign when it comes to encouraging them to overturn any theoretical bill on electoral reform. This all dredges up memories of the Free Trade Agreement, and when the Senate held up that bill from the Mulroney government until it could be put to the people, seeing as this deal was hugely contentious at the time, and it was believed that it was going to be selling out our sovereignty to the Americans. The election was fought on this issue, Mulroney won, and the bill passed, and lo and behold, the sky didn’t fall. But while there was merit in putting that question to the people, it was part of the chain of events that started to polarise the Senate, which prior to 1984, was said to have operated on a much less partisan basis. Tit-for-tat games ramped up the partisanship there, until things became so bad that Mulroney exercised the emergency powers of appealing to the Queen to appoint an additional eight senators in order to get the GST passed. The Senate is currently in a vulnerable spot, and while I wouldn’t ask them not to do their jobs because they are in a period of intense scrutiny and this would get blown completely out of proportion by an ignorant pundit class and MPs with agendas harmful to the independence of the Senate – but it would hurt them. That’s why this discussion needs to be approached extremely cautiously, and rash actions scrupulously avoided at all costs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A muzzle or a distasteful incident

Posted on by

The neutrality of the civil service has been an issue lately, with the distasteful episode of the cheering (and booing) at Global Affairs last Friday on the one hand, and to a certain extent, the “un-muzzling” of scientists on the other. Michael Petrou explores the former issue here, while Paul Booth offers some advice for the “un-muzzled” here, noting that there is a balance to be struck between talking about one’s research while at the same time maintaining their role of civil servants where they are not supposed to be critical of the government of the day if they want to keep their jobs, because they have a role to play. At the heart of both is that they ultimately serve the Queen and not the government of the day, no matter how much their advice or carrying out of government policy is criticised. While ink has been spilled on the cheering as being proof that the Conservatives were right to be suspicious of “official Ottawa,” one has to note a few different thing, including simple demographics – polling data repeatedly shows, time and time again, that education levels will affect political preferences, with the Conservatives scoring best among those who only have high school diplomas, while those who have attained increasing levels of higher education increasingly support Liberals. The vast majority of the civil service is university-educated, so their sympathy with the Liberals should not be a surprise. Should they have cheered Trudeau? Probably not. I will note that for context, the one clip I saw of the cheering happened after Trudeau said that he would be taking their advice unlike the previous government, while the booing of that journalist’s questions were both to the fact that they crashed a private event, and that it was a question for which an answer had already been given earlier in the day. Not that this should excuse what happened, because they should have known better, and I know plenty of other civil servants who were also critical of what happened there. But on the other hand, we should also note that they are human, and that the Conservatives exacerbated any distrust of the civil service with excessive dickish behaviour (such as Diane Finley walking into a department she was taking over and telling the staff that they were all Liberals and that she would clean up the joint). We should hope that this kind of incident doesn’t happen again, and it may very well not. I’m also not sure how helpful it is to light our hair on fire about it either, but I could very well be wrong about that.

Continue reading →