Tag Archives: CETA

Roundup: Online voting scare

Posted on by

There was a story on Blacklock’s Reporter yesterday morning that used Access to Information documents to suppose that Elections Canada was moving ahead with electronic voting, despite the fact that the electoral reform committee hadn’t even made any recommendations around it. As it turns out, that’s not what they were up to, but it nevertheless touched off a discussion over Twitter about reasons why electronic voting is still a bad idea, and why never is still too soon to even start contemplating it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Monsef’s terrible “event toolkit”

Posted on by

Maryam Monsef appeared before the special committee on electoral reform, and it went about as well as you could expect, from her frankly juvenile (and wrong) opening remarks, to the predictable questions from those there – the Conservatives demanding a referendum, the NDP demanding to know whether the fix was in for ranked ballots, and Elizabeth May making outrageous remarks in her boosterism for proportional representation. Oh, and the Liberals at the table wondering just why she cares so much. No, seriously.

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/750754591784984576

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/750777788257402880

What was perhaps most surprising and yet odious about the whole affair was the 38-page “event toolkit” that Monsef unveiled at the appearance, which is designed to help facilitate discussions on electoral reform. (National Post summary here if you don’t want to read the whole thing). And it’s ridiculous and terrible. Laughably so, especially with the step-by-step instructions on how to host one and advice like creating a “special hashtag” for your event.

Event planning aside, the few pages devoted to different electoral systems are actually terrible because they miss the point. They all stem from a kind of discussion that fetishises “representation” and talks nothing at all about accountability, which is half of the gods damned equation when it comes to why we vote at all. It is not enough that we vote for a person and can be all warm and fuzzy about what that “representation” means to us (which is where a lot of the unicorn thinking of electoral reformists tends to wind up), but rather, it must also provide us with a means of holding those who are already in place to account. That means an ability to vote them out, and the only time that the word “accountability” is mentioned is on the page of the “guiding principles” that Monsef purports that the exercise is to he held under, and even then, the mentions do not get to the point. The principle of “preserve the accountability of local representation” and asking “how could any proposed reforms affect MPs’ accountability to citizens” does not actually make it clear that the ability to hold an MP or a party to account is a fundamental principle of our democratic system. Instead, we are treated to the usual “more democracy” kinds of rhetoric that are bogging down our whole understanding of our electoral system. It’s why I treat this whole exercise with suspicion, and those fears are being validated.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Perverting the Westminster system

Posted on by

Amidst the various detritus floating out there of post-Brexit thinkpieces, one could blink and miss a pair of posts the Andrew Potter made yesterday, but let me state that it would be a mistake to do so. The first post was a response to another trolling post from someone else who stated that a Brexit vote would never have happened in the American system because of all of its various checks and balances. Potter, however, doesn’t rise to the bait in quite the way you would think, and instead looks at the ways in which Responsible Government in the UK has gone wrong of late, which led to this situation. Things like the referendum itself not being a usual parliamentary instrument, or the fixed-parliaments legislation, and the ways in which party leadership contests have done away with the usual accountability mechanisms on the leaders that are being elected rather than selected. In other words, it’s the perversions of the Westminster system that have caused the problems at hand, not the system itself that is to blame as the original trolling post would otherwise indicate. And for those of you who’ve been following my writing for a while, this is a recurring theme with me too (which you’ll see expounded upon in my book when it’s released next year) – that it’s the constant attempts to tinker with the system that wind up being the problem because we’ve been forgetting how the system is actually supposed to operate. If we left the system alone and used it the way it’s intended, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems creeping in, forcing people to demand yet more tinkering reforms.

The second post from Potter is a continuation from an aside in the first piece, but it’s worth a read nevertheless because it’s a quick look at ways in which the changes that America needs to its system go beyond simple electoral reform, but rather a change to a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than its current morass that more resembles a pre-Responsible Government reflection of the “balanced constitution” model that the UK was experimenting with at the time. One imagines that it would mean turning their president into a more figurehead role than also having him or her be the head of government as well as head of state as the office is now (this is the part that Potter glosses over), but the rest of the points stand – that a confidence-based system instead of term limits would allow its heads of government to burn out in a third term rather than create independent power bases that are then used for dynastic purposes (witness both the Bush and Clinton dynasties), that problems with things like Supreme Court appointments would rectify themselves, and that it would force reforms to their party system that would largely prevent the kind of outsider demagogue problem that we saw in the current election cycle with Trump and Sanders. It’s certainly thought provoking, and a timely defence of our parliamentary institutions as they are supposed to function.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another incoming mass appointment

Posted on by

The government’s permanent Senate appointment board is set to get underway “within days” to get to work on filling the remaining 19 vacant Senate seats, but if you listen very carefully, you can hear my alarm going of that the way they appear to be planning to do this is a Very Bad Idea. Specifically, it certainly looks like the plan is to appoint all 19 in one fell swoop by the fall, and I cannot stress enough how much of a really, really bad thing this is. It’s like nobody learned any of the lessons from the glut of 18 panic appointments in 2008, and how badly that stressed the Senate in its ability to absorb that many new members at once, and the fact that it had a negative effect on their independence because it meant that the government at the time pretty much controlled them and exercised a heavy whip hand because there wasn’t time to let them integrate at their own pace. The seven appointments made this spring, without a government or caucus to guide them, put them on a steep learning curve and left them with little in the way of logistical support for setting up their offices, which isn’t exactly ideal either. That Peter Harder has now created for himself a new quasi-whip (ahem, styled “government liaison”) that has the capacity to help them with some logistics issues, barring the Independent Working Group being in a position to offer that support as well if they are in a position to do so, may wind up being one less stressor for the individual appointees, but that still doesn’t neglect the fact that mass appointments are bad for the system. Because of the nature of the Senate, it works best when individual vacancies are filled as they happen, and that those new senators gradually get up to speed, given the unique way that the chamber operates, and that really is a process that can take two or three years to get fully into it. But the government sitting on the appointment process as long as it has, in order to do these appointments in one fell swoop, is a problem, and it’s yet another problem of their own making, which is a consistent pattern when it comes to the Senate. It’s one thing I hope that does come out of this Federal Court challenge to Senate vacancies – that there is a declaration that sets a time limit for when vacancies must be filled, so that it cuts down on future mass appointments, on top of ensuring that those regions have their proper representation as they are guaranteed under the Constitution, because yes, these things do matter.

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 →

Senate QP: Rambling along

Posted on by

While the Commons has risen for the summer, the Senate continues to sit and still had ministerial Question Period this week, with special guest star agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay. Senator Carignan started off, asking about internal trade barriers and what he was doing to bring them down. MacAulay started off by joking that it’s always an aspiration of members of the Commons to wind up in the Senate, before he launched into a lament for those barriers and an invitation for ideas about how to bring them down.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament’s ongoing abdication

Posted on by

After a day of impassioned and indeed blistering speeches, Bill C-14 has passed the Senate without its key amendment that would remove the “foreseeable death” restriction, and has received Royal Assent, making it law, but it wasn’t done without more damage done to our parliamentary system. No, I’m not one of those pearl-clutchers who saw the Senate doing its job in standing up against unconstitutional legislation as being some kind of anathema or affront to the democratically elected Commons – indeed, anyone who listened to Senator Serge Joyal’s speech yesterday about all of the times that the elected majority in the Commons used their powers to strip away people’s rights should see that’s why simply hand-waving about “democracy” can’t be an argument that holds water – but rather, it was the burden that is being placed on the Supreme Court of Canada and those who must challenge this legislation that is the affront. The prevailing sentiment in the chamber became “this is going to be challenged, and we did as much as we can so now it’s up to the Supreme Court,” when no, the Senate could have dug in their heels and used the powers available to them under the constitution and threaten to defeat the bill outright because of the grave doubts about its constitutionality if the government didn’t back down. Joyal tried to move an amendment that would restore the previous amendment with a proviso that it be suspended for up to two years until the Supreme Court could weigh in on its constitutionality, which was a compromise that I remain uncomfortable with because I don’t like the fact that we are increasingly demanding that the Supreme Court weigh in on bills as though legislating were a game of “Mother May I?” I was almost convinced, however, by the fact that doing it this way would be at the government’s expense rather than at the expense of a family with a suffering member who would need to begin the legal challenge process all over again – something that some senators deemed to be an immoral action. It bothers me a great deal that this is becoming the new normal in our politics – that we are increasingly becoming dependent upon the courts to deal with matters of evolving public policy because MPs – and indeed senators – lack the testicular/ovarian fortitude to actually deal with tough issues.

To that end, I’m also extremely disappointed that you had senators who said that they did their job in warning the government about the fact that the bill was unconstitutional, and that the government will have to answer to the people for it. Except it’s not the Senate’s job to “warn” – it’s their job to protect minorities and the constitution, which they did not end up doing today. And “answering to the people” is precisely why the government has been so forcefully timid in what they were going to allow under this bill. “This is just the first step,” they kept insisting, but to be perfectly frank, I don’t believe them. The bill mandates that they must have a report within two years on things like advanced directives, mature minors and the mentally ill, but if you think they’re going to do something that report other than refusing to touch it with a bargepole, well, you’re a far more optimistic person than I. No, what happened today was a further abdication by parliamentarians in both chambers of doing their jobs, and forcing more of it onto the courts (and at the cost of the individuals who will be forced to bring the challenges). It’s disgraceful.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Trade talks

Posted on by

It was a few minutes delayed while things ran overtime in the Commons, but the delay was short, and soon International Trade minister Chrystia Freeland arrived to answer questions. Senator Caignan asked about the rise in American protectionist sentiment with the presidential election campaign, and wondered what she could do about it. Freeland said that the problem concerns her, and that those sentiments are dangerous and that Canada needs to fight against it, starting with maintaining strong relationships with all levels of government, noting that senators can help by using their relationships with people in positions of influence in the States. Freeland added that the wave of protectionism is related to fears of the twenty-first century economy, which is why they needed to emphasise a focus on small and medium-sized businesses and not just large corporations. Carignan asked about the ratification of CETA in order to help diversify our export market, to which Freeland noted that there are concerns about protectionism in Europe as well, and criticism of the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, which they have made corrections to. She did state that CETA will be signed this year and ratified by the European Parliament next year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New paths to power

Posted on by

If there was any particular proof needed that things are indeed changing in the government, the way in which decisions are made is a pretty good place to start, as Susan Delacourt explores over in Policy Options. Gone are the days when all paths lead to the PMO, but rather individual ministers are empowered to make decisions, but at the same time, they are expected to consult with provincial and territorial counterparts. The civil service, having grown used to not being asked to draw up an array of options for shaping policy, is now a “fixer upper,” while the new dynamic makes it possible for anyone to contribute to policy discussions, meaning that the government can draw from a bigger pool of ideas. And the new buzzword of “deliverology” means that goals are being drawn up as tangible things that have knowable results, rather than just abstract dollar figures. (The “guru” of deliverology just met with cabinet at the Kananaskis retreat, where he said that the government has made good progress over the last six months). Commons committees are coming up with policy discussions of their own (not that they’re always going to be taken fully, as the assisted dying legislation shows). We have evidence that the Senate and their legislative agenda is being listened to, with examples like Senator Moore’s bill on restoring parliamentary authority over borrowing being adopted in the government’s budget, and Ralph Goodale talking about how they are considering his bill on CBSA oversight. So yes, it looks like the centre of power is less and less the PMO in this brave new world, which is probably not such a bad thing after all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: To Leap or to cleave?

Posted on by

There are some interesting dynamics shaping up at the NDP convention in Edmonton, which is less about the current tensions over the leadership review vote that Thomas Mulcair will undergo on Sunday, but rather the fact that there appears to be a split developing between the Alberta NDP (and to some extent the New Brunswick arm of the party) and the federal party when it comes to debating the Leap Manifesto. Mulcair himself is in self-preservation mode as he talks about the Manifesto, and promises to live up to it if the membership decides on it, which seems to go back to his particular issues with authenticity because there is no sense of what he believes around it (though he once praised the policies of Margaret Thatcher, so perhaps one could extrapolate from there). Mulcair is now insisting that no, the Manifesto isn’t about shutting down the oil sands or forgoing pipelines, except it pretty much is, with the promise to decarbonise the economy by 2050 – as well as shutting down mining and other extractive industries and tearing up trade agreements under the rubric that they hurt local economies. Mulcair has retreated to the statement that the Manifesto doesn’t explicitly say to leave oil in the ground, but after musing to Peter Mansbridge that he would do everything in his power to go that route if it’s what the party decided, well, the damage has been done, as the Alberta party is distancing themselves, the province’s environment minister calling the federal party’s environmental plan a “betrayal,” and Rachel Notley took to the airwaves to tell Albertans explicitly that she is working to get a pipeline built. The Manifesto’s proponents, however, insist that this is necessary, and that a hard-left turn can win, and cite Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn – never mind that neither has actually won an election, and likely never could given the personal dislike for them among even their own respective parties. (Seriously – Corbyn had a caucus enemies list drawn up). So will a hard-left turn save the party? It all depends on what they want to do, whether they want to return to being only about principle and the “conscience of parliament,” pushing the Liberals to do the right thing, or if they want power and the compromises that come with it. We’ll have to see what the membership decides, and whether Mulcair fits that vision.

Continue reading →