YCYC and our crisis in civic literacy

Those of you who follow me over on the Twitter Machine know that I’ve been highly critical of the new “educational charity” Your Canada/Your Constitution pretty much since its inception. Last week they put out yet another press release that demonstrates their civic illiteracy, and more than that, the fact that they are deliberately misleading the public when they say that their goals are about education around our system of governance.

On the mandate page of their website, YCYC purports to do “research and education about the history, and ongoing development, of Canada’s Constitution and governments.” And in order to solicit donations from the public, they promise to use the money to develop education materials, host workshops and public forums for discussion, and hold contests to get people engaged. According to the site:

Continue reading

The Online Party demonstrates the height of civic illiteracy

News went out yesterday that a the Online Party of Canada has obtained “registered party status” and will be fielding candidates in the upcoming federal by-elections. Never having heard of them, I quickly found an interview that party leader Michael Nicula, the director of a Toronto-based IT services company, did with the National Post. The results were pretty appalling.

Nicula quickly demonstrates that he has close to zero civic literacy. He has no understanding of responsible government, the Westminster system, or even the basics of just what is democracy. All wrapped in this shock-and-awe package of the Internet as the panacea to all of our political woes.

It was this quote in the interview that immediately caught my eye: “Why do we have to spend billions of dollars on elections?” Nicula asked. “The American Idol contest is done on the Internet, and it works pretty well. Why not do the same? With more security of course.”

And then my head exploded.

Continue reading

Meeting George Takach

On my travels last weekend, I wound up at an event that was attended by a number of Nova Scotia Liberals, and along the way, had my first encounter with bottom-tier would-be Liberal leadership candidate George Takach (who at last check has not officially declared). Takach, a Toronto-based lawyer who hasn’t run for public office before but has apparently worked on Parliament Hill, was out trying to meet some prospective supporters at the event (as the current rules now allow anyone who totally swears they’re not a member of any other party – really! – to vote for the next Liberal leader). I should note that Takach doesn’t appear to have a website in place for his putative leadership bid either – just a Twitter account and a Facebook page, neither of which actually has a biography. That, I had to find through a Google search and came up with the page from his law firm. So, yeah, points for having a place to drive prospective supporters with a coherent platform or policy ideas in place. Or not.

Just as an observation, let me say that Takach wasn’t exactly working the crowd. Even among a smaller group of fairly prominent local Liberal organisers – you know, the kinds of grassroots organisers who have networks and who can mobilise people to support a leadership campaign – he didn’t pro-actively engage them and waited for people to come to him. And when people asked for his leadership “elevator pitch,” he got bogged down along the way numerous times, not to mention made his foundational platforms – like school meal programmes to help kids get a good start in life – things aren’t actually areas of federal responsibility. Oops.

Continue reading

Roundup: The politics of gun violence

I believe Colin Horgan said it best, so I’ll start off by quoting him: “Yes, never miss a chance for partisan shots. With senseless human tragedy comes political opportunity! Well done, everybody.” He is, of course, referring to the release put out by the government in the wake of the shootings in Scarborough, to which the government gave two lines of condolences and twelve lines of partisan salesmanship about how the opposition needs to support their tough-on-crime agenda. Because we all know that if the mandatory minimums that already exist on the books didn’t prevent this, well, then we need even tougher penalties for deterrence! It also didn’t help that Vic Toews took shots at those judges who struck down the mandatory minimums as arbitrary and inappropriate in some cases – and it was both in the cases in which they were struck down. And then Julian Fantino is the one to sound reasonable? How did that happen? (And just to note that Liberal MP John McKay, whose riding the shooting happened in, was also eminently reasonable, while NDP MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan, from the neighbouring riding, took to Power and Politics to suggest they talk to the critic another day. Oops).

The Federal Court shot down a challenge to the government’s decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol because, well, it’s actually the government’s right to do so. That’s the way executive powers work, even if you don’t agree with them – not that it seems to stop the civically illiterate from taking to the courts to try and change the foundations of parliamentary democracy on a whim because they lost a political battle.

Continue reading

Roundup: No prorogation until the “mid-term”

In case you were wondering, Stephen Harper has ruled out a prorogation anytime in the near future, but hints that there would be a more extensive cabinet shuffle and new Speech From the Throne in the “mid-term” as they re-jig their longer-term agenda. (Full interview here). All of this media speculation he’s quashing – all that’s left to speculate on is who will fill those six vacant and soon-to-be-vacant Senate seats. Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt wonders if Bev Oda was tricked into resigning if she supposedly got tipped off that she was being shuffled out, and yet Harper said he’s not planning any major shuffles. It does make you think.

Speaking of Oda, it seems that all of her old limousine invoices mysteriously turned up the day after she resigned – even though days ago media outlets were told that those documents didn’t exist. I’m sure the Information Commissioner will be very interested in how that happened.

Failed refugee claimants are being offered $2000 worth of assistance and a one-way plane ticket if they voluntarily return to their country of origin. Some refugee lawyers say it’s humane and voluntary, while others worry it’s a bribe for them to walk away from their legal rights. Apparently this saves taxpayers money because it means CBSA doesn’t have to chase them down for deportation, so everyone (except genuine refugee whose claims have been unfairly denied and who are in danger if they return to their country of origin) wins, right?

Continue reading

Roundup: Secret meeting with Mulroney

With a need to bolster his public image in Quebec, and the real sense of how much trouble he could be in should the PQ get elected in the province, Harper apparently had a secret meeting with Brian Mulroney last week for advice. (I’m still trying to figure out when that might have happened, given that Harper’s been a pretty busy PM of late, between international travel and vote-a-thons in the Commons). Nevertheless, necessity can make for strange bedfellows. Paul Wells dissects what it all means here.

The Rio+20 summit has ended with little in the way of agreed upon targets or timelines. Peter Kent says it’s a good thing, and that big conferences like that end up being counter-productive, and that binding targets are “inappropriate” and “unrealistic.”

Despite the requests to waive solicitor-client privilege in the investigation of a soldier’s suicide, Peter MacKay says no.

Continue reading

Roundup: Pressuring the Clerk of the Privy Council

As his showdown with the federal government over details of the budget cuts intensifies, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, obtained a legal opinion from a respected constitutional lawyer to try to pressure the Clerk of the Privy Council to giving up the information he’s requested. Page says he doesn’t want to have to take the government to court to get the data because it means that basically he’s lost – he won’t get the information in time for it to be useable, but at the same time, it’s a battle he needs to wage before the government treats him and his office with further contempt. Of course, this is all related to the ongoing contempt the Conservatives have been showing to Parliament over their refusal to turn over any of the requested financial data, no matter that IT’S THE FIRST DUTY OF PARLIAMENT TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC PURSE. But who cares about MPs doing their own jobs when they can (try to) get the PBO to do it for them and fight their battles for them?

The NDP made one last effort to kill the omnibus budget bill with a “reasoned amendment” that it not move to third reading. Not surprisingly, it was voted down, and the bill is now on its way to the Senate.

Continue reading

The omnibudget versus the role of the opposition

Amidst the anticipation and reaction to the Speaker’s rulings on the amendments for the omnibus budget bill yesterday, I was struck by the tone of the rhetoric being employed across the opposition benches, and how it varied from party to party. That tone was actually pretty instructive with how each party seems to consider its role as an opposition party.

First out of the gate this morning was Marc Garneau for the Liberals, who laid out why his party was prepared to vote on marathon amendments. When asked if all of these votes were a good use of Parliament’s time, considering that we all know how they’ll end up, Garneau gave an unequivocal yes. According to him, it is an effective use because it is holding the government to account. And while sure, the Liberals have offered to support the actual budget portions if the government hives off the four other sections of the bill (environment, fisheries, OAS and EI), it was with a firm tone.

Continue reading

The actual cynical political games

All day, the Conservatives were sniping at other parties over “cynical partisan games” on two different bills. They not only accused Liberal senators of delaying the CP Rail back-to-work legislation (which they weren’t), and the NDP of deliberately delaying a private member’s bill on eliminating inter-provincial trade barriers on wine. The problem is, there were no actual games being played.

While Lisa Raitt railed against those awful Liberal senators, it turned out that it was the rules of the Senate, which mandates that 48 hours notice must be given before the Senate hears a bill. The bill passed the House at 1:30 in the morning, and the Senate sat at 13:30 in the afternoon. The leadership in the Senate met, and actually moved up the timetable to hear the bill on Thursday – a full twelve hours before they were obligated to. And they’ll be hearing from witnesses at Committee of the Whole, which is more than what happened in the Commons. But apparently that’s “obstruction.”

Continue reading

As Wilks demonstrates, ignorance is democracy’s biggest danger

Its plaintive wail echoing through the halls of the Langevin Block, the independent thought alarm sounded earlier this morning, and something needed to be done. Young staffers in the PMO rushed into action, and by shortly after noon, the bilingual press release was out, and independent thought was quashed. In all, a good morning’s work.

What we are referring to was the musings that BC Conservative MP David Wilks would contemplate voting against the omnibus budget bill – provided that Canadians could convince twelve other Conservative MPs to also vote against the bill. That, of course, simply wouldn’t do. I mean, it was a bone-headed thing for Wilks to say considering it’s a confidence measure and finding twelve other Conservatives to revolt would actually cause the government to collapse – but there did seem to be a moment or two of worry that he might actually take a stand against his party – providing of course that he had enough cover with which to do so. But it was not to be.

Throughout all of this, however, runs a few more disturbing underlying currents, which really only come out in the videos of the constituents’ meeting that Wilks was just the sense of pervasive helplessness that individual MPs are imbued with. Wilks continued to insist throughout that as a single MP he couldn’t do anything, which is a) not true, and b) indicative of just how far we’ve fallen as a democracy. The degree of central control over individual MPs is reaching crisis proportions, and Wilks’ explanations for the way things work are a testament to that fact. Oh, and smug partisans and Kool-Aid drinkers of all stripes: this applies across the board. All parties are guilty of centralised messaging and levels of control, whether that’s the formal exercise of the whip or by quiet bullying and shaming if someone should dare deviate from the “united front” that they feel they must present.

Continue reading