The NDP are trying to open yet another Hill branch office, but this time in Saskatchewan – where they don’t have any MPs. In other words, trying to claim that it’s for parliamentary work is utter bunk. And “outreach officer” is not a Hill staffer position, by the way. When they claim that they need to be in touch with all Canadians, that’s not the job of Hill staffers – that’s the role of the local riding associations. Their associations are supposed to be the interlocutors between the local communities and the parliamentary party and caucus, a model that is ever weakening in the age of instamembers for leadership votes, and power centralized in leaders’ offices. That the NDP are trying to knock down those barriers between party work and Hill work is another worrying trend about the level of centralization that they are employing.
Tag Archives: Civic Literacy
Roundup: So long, Alison Redford
In a somewhat surprising move, Alberta premier Alison Redford resigned last night, effective Sunday evening. It sounds like she’ll be staying on as MLA for the time being, but man, that’ll be a tough gig. Jen Gerson notes that for all of her skill at policy, Redford lacked political instincts and was in fact the victim of her own transparency laws as her own spending came to light. Colby Cosh reminds us that this really had little to do with the cost of the South Africa trip, but was a long simmering series of problems that kept building until Redford finally collapsed under the weight of them.
Roundup: Shenanigans and filibusters
It was a day of procedural shenanigans in the House, with the government trying to tie up the debate around the Brad Butt privilege issue, while in committee, the NDP were continuing their filibuster around the issue of holding cross-country hearings on the elections bill. In the end, closure came down and the Butt issue went to a vote, majority ruling not to send the matter to committee (most Conservatives insisting that his apology was enough and that he really didn’t mean to mislead the House – though nobody had explained how exactly that was the case), and the NDP got concessions on the elections bill at committee – more hearings would be held, but only in Ottawa, while the party decided to hold their own hearings across the country on their own.
Charlie Angus’ wrongheaded understanding of our democracy
It was no surprise that NDP-turned-Independent MP Bruce Hyer joined the Green Party, if you’d paid the least amount of attention to the House of Commons over the past year or so. Hyer did flirt with the Liberals to a small extent, expressing support to Joyce Murray’s leadership campaign because of her stance on things like proportional representation, but really, Hyer and Elizabeth May have become quite the pair in the far corner of the Commons.
What was also not a real surprise was the outrage that the NDP would show over the move, and what should not have been a surprise was the stunning degree of civic ignorance demonstrated by Charlie Angus in his press release denouncing Hyer’s move.
The romance with half-assed reform proposals
Throughout his press conference this morning around the introduction of the Reform Act, 2013, Conservative MP Michael Chong insisted that the changes he was proposing would simply bring Canada back into line with other Westminster parliaments such as the UK and Australia in giving the caucus the power to dismiss the leader. This, however, is not exactly the case. It relies on the omission of the key fact that the ways in which these parties tend to select their leaders impacts on the ways in which they can overturn them.
The problem with consultative elections
The romance over consultative elections have been at the heart of the Senate reference before the Supreme Court that we heard last week, but not to be outdone, the five alarm gong show known as Democracy Watch decided to raise the stakes, and propose that vice-regal consultative elections could be held, and that there would be no need to amend the constitution in order to achieve it.
No. Just no.
How Stephen Harper’s high-minded neglect damaged the Senate
A great many things have been said about Senate independence of late, and most of them wrong. Stephen Harper stood up in the House last week to say that the Senate is independent, otherwise those three Senators would be out of a job. This is mostly true. Evan Solomon crowed loudly that the Duffy emails about Marjory LeBreton’s office coordinating with the PMO “shattered the myth” of Senate independence. That is largely untrue. Senator James Cowan, the Liberal leader in the Senate, told Don Martin last week that he doesn’t take direction from Justin Trudeau, but they do consult – which is actually more the model of how things should be run. But the underlying issue is that currently there is a problem with the independence of the Upper Chamber, but the bulk of the responsibility for this lies at the feet of Stephen Harper.
Roundup: Condemning Trudeau for the government’s own programme
The Conservatives are trying to push the narrative that the Liberals don’t have an economic agenda but just want to push pot. As “proof,” they point to the fact that Trudeau’s chief financial officer and senior advisor, Chuck Rifici, plans to open a medical marijuana operation in rural Ontario. You know, under a programme that the Conservatives designed and implemented. When this was pointed out to Blaney’s office, they simply responded with “The statement speaks for itself.” Um, okay. Never mind that the community getting this new operation – which is RCMP approved – will see jobs being created. You know, jobs that this government keeps talking about. And it’s a $1.3 billion industry that’s good for the economy! But – but, Justin Trudeau! (The cognitive dissonance – it burns!)
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Fair Vote Canada’s intellectually bankrupt “evidence-based” argument
Our good friends at Fair Vote Canada have decided to adopt the new buzz-word of “evidence-based” as part of their new campaign for electoral reform. The “evidence” in this case is the summary of study by Arend Lijphart that compares thirty-six democracies. Immediately, this should be a red flag right there – comparing democracies that use different models of governance is pretty much like comparing apples, grapefruits, bananas and goats – which this study pretty much confirms. The study also glosses over actual substantive issues like responsibility and accountability in favour of focusing on the act of voting itself. This is not a surprise given the particular ideological bent of Fair Vote Canada, for whom it’s the act of voting that is important, rather than what the vote means, and how that act works in the broader context of the system as a whole.