Nomination races are the backbone of our democratic system, yet are probably the least understood component – thanks of course to a pretty shite job of civic education in this country that does little to teach people about it. And as Alice Funke of Pundit’s Guide points out, we’ve been out of the habit of proper open nomination races in this country since about 2004 (blame the period of minority governments and the need to be “election ready” that protected incumbents), which means that these particular democratic muscles in the Canadian electorate have become pretty flabby. Fortunately, she’s penned a fantastic guide about getting back into shape, which everyone needs to read. And no, I’m not kidding – everyone needs to read this. Okay? Good.
Tag Archives: Civic Literacy
Roundup: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.
Roundup: A routine and legitimate prorogation
While in Whitehorse yesterday, Stephen Harper made it official – Parliament will be prorogued, and come back in October. Not sure when yet in October (though the Hill Times is saying October 21st), at which point they can return with a Speech From the Throne, and a reset of their agenda – which, let’s face it, they badly need by this point as they’ve pretty much exhausted their plans previously. Now, before you start getting angry about prorogation, remember that this is the kind of routine, normal agenda-resetting prorogations that are normal and as indicated, even necessary in the life of a parliament. It’s not being done to avoid a confidence vote, or otherwise thwart the will of the House, so put the placards away. Here, Kady O’Malley has three reasons not to freak out over this prorogation. Are we good? Apparently not, since the opposition parties are now going with the rallying cry that Harper is avoiding accountability for the Senate scandals in Parliament, and so on. Um, okay – I’m not exactly sure how much he could actually answer regarding those Senate spending issues since the Ministry doesn’t control the Senate and can’t actually answer for them under the rubric of ministerial responsibility that governs QP, and they’ve already pretty much hashed out the Wright/Duffy revelations to death, so I’m not exactly sure what “accountability” we’re missing out on. But hey, don’t let the facts spoil a good narrative. Oh, and Harper also said that he has no plans to retire anytime soon and will lead the party in the next election, so there’s that for all the pundits who’ve spent the summer theorising otherwise.
The selective myopia of Senate punditry
Since the Senate spending scandal broke out, there has been no shortage of opinions that something must be done about the Upper Chamber. Weak sauce news pieces quote polls that cite “support for reform or abolition,” as though they were interchangeable, or that there was but a single model for reform. People advocating for reform do so without the benefit of actually thinking about the end product that they’re trying to achieve, focusing instead on the inputs – generally in terms of elections and term limits – without looking at the consequences of how those changes will play out, as though elections won’t be a recipe for increased partisanship and gridlock. Abolitionists, meanwhile, throw out facile arguments, be it around cost, or “accountability,” and hope to stoke enough outrage in the population to get their way.
Roundup: Knee-jerk populist stunts
The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has decided to lump themselves in with the group of civic illiterates who operate under the mistaken impression that a national referendum is a constitutional amending formula. In this case, they used a giant inflatable Mike Duffy to launch their lobby campaign for a referendum on Senate abolition. In other words, they want to spend a great deal of tax dollars for a useless, non-binding process that is little more than a case of populist knee-jerk reaction to the bad behaviour of a small number of individuals. How exactly this seems to fit in with their mandate of eliminating government waste is a little beyond me, especially considering that the Senate delivers a great deal of value for money – not that knee-jerk populists actually know enough about the institution to realise it.
Roundup: The AG and the power of compliance
While Transport Canada went on record stating that three of the deficient areas found by previous audits were going to be rectified within a specified timeframe that had to do with an “extension” granted by the Auditor General’s office, the AG’s office said that they’re not in any position to grant any extensions because they don’t have enforcement mechanisms – it’s all Transport Canada’s responsibility to ensure compliance. So, yeah. Well done Transport. Elsewhere, Maclean’s has breakfast with the president of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, where he sort of clarifies some of his comments from the previous day.
Why the Senate Leader needs to be in cabinet
The announced departure of Senator Marjory LeBreton from cabinet this morning has led not to furious speculation about her replacement, but rather about the PMO’s plans for the position itself. According to the government sources, Stephen Harper plans to eliminate the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate from cabinet going forward – apparently oblivious that this is a Very Big Problem.
You see, there is an actual reason why the position of Leader of the Government (LGS) in the Senate is a full Minister of the Crown. It’s not just because they felt they needed to give someone a limo and a driver, but rather, because of a little something called Ministerial Responsibility. And yes, this is an important foundational principle to our system of government.
Roundup: Another day of the Senate doing its job
The Senate did its job, and sent the union transparency bill back to the Commons. Sixteen senators voted in favour of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s amendment, which raised the disclosure level in the bill (to the same level as the government changed Brent Rathgeber’s bill to, as it happens). Oh, and another six Conservative Senators abstained, which pushed the vote over. This has shown the rifts opening up in the Conservative caucus – MPs griping about Senators doing their jobs (because MPs of course never draft and then pass bad bills), and Senators in the caucus who are tired of being bullied into supporting bad bills. And in this case – a bill that was entirely dubious constitutionally – well, it was intolerable for most of them to support it, and yes, numerous Harper appointees voted for the amendment, including one of the “elected” Senators from Alberta. And while some Conservatives are grousing that this is just the Senate trying to justify their existence, it’s really just them doing their jobs. This shouldn’t be dramatic because the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and it never has been. Just because people expect them to be – out of civic ignorance – and are suddenly shocked that the system works the way it’s supposed to, it should be a reminder and a teachable moment. Instead we’re seeing complete butchery of civic literacy among the political talking heads, which is distressing to say the least.
Roundup: Shadow MPs, and the speaking fees plot
There was quite the commotion yesterday morning as the mayor of Montreal was arrested on corruption charges, but possibly more interesting was Saulie Zajdel, a former “regional advisor to the Minister of Heritage,” otherwise known as the Shadow MP that the Conservatives installed in Irwin Cotler’s riding. It was on Zajdel’s behalf that the Conservatives robocalled Cotler’s riding with the misleading message that Cotler planned to retire and would they support Zajdel in a by-election that followed – an action that the Speaker termed “reprehensible.” In QP, James Moore tried to put some distance between himself and Zajdel, saying that the charges stemmed to Zajdel’s time as a city counsellor and his role in the regional office was coordinating events, and more telling, giving the blunt statement that if Zajdel was found to have broken the law that they should throw the book at him.
Roundup: Rathgeber wins the day
It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.