Tag Archives: Colin Kenny

Roundup: Procedural shenanigans beget the new anthem

Posted on by

There has been some drama in the Senate over the past couple of days as the procedural shenanigans to bring the national anthem bill to a final vote culminated in a motion to call the vote, and eventually that happened. The bill has passed, and the new national anthem will be law once the Governor General gives it royal assent. But the procedural moves have the Conservatives in a high dudgeon, somewhat legitimately.

https://twitter.com/larrywsmith36/status/958840131481423872

My understanding of events was that the main motion to call the vote has been on the Order Paper for months, and was finally called Tuesday night. This was a debatable motion, and likely would have sparked a few weeks of adjournments and debate, but ultimately would have delayed the vote for only that long. But a second, also legitimate procedural move was used by another Independent senator immediately following, and Speaker apparently didn’t hear Senator Don Plett’s desire to debate it. What I’ve been able to gather is that this was likely a mistake given lines of sight, but were compounded by tactical errors on the Conservatives’ part in demanding to debate the first motion and not the second (or something to that effect). Points order were debated last night, but they had agreed to end the sitting at 4 PM in order to have the votes at 5:30, and when they didn’t get unanimous consent to extend the sitting, debate collapsed and when 5:30 rolled around, the Conservatives boycotted the vote in protest. According to those I’ve consulted, the moves were all legitimate but messy, and have the danger of setting up bad precedent for not allowing debate on this kind of motion.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958853911888080898

The Conservatives in the Senate, meanwhile, are caterwauling that their democratic rights have been taken away, and there is talk about conspiracy between Mélanie Joly’s staff, and other threads that are hard to track when they’re throwing them against the wall like spaghetti. And while I share the concerns about bad precedent, I can’t say that I have too much sympathy because they’ve used (and one could argue abused) procedure for over a year to keep the bill at Third Reading, with the intent to ultimately delay it until it died on the Order Paper. They insist that they offered the chance to amend it to the more grammatically correct “thou dost in us command” rather than the clunky “in all of us command,” but I find it a bit disingenuous, because it was simply another delay tactic. And I’ve argued before that this continued tendency to use procedural tactics to delay bills is going to end up biting them in the ass, especially because it plays into Senator Peter Harder’s hands in his quest to overhaul the chamber in order to strip it of its Westminster character. The Conservatives are overplaying their hand, and it’s going to make it very difficult to drum up enough legitimate concern to stop Harder when crunch time comes, and they should be very aware of that fact.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958861523878789120

Continue reading →

Roundup: Checking Hansard

Posted on by

There was an interesting read over on Policy Options yesterday that all MPs should be paying attention to: a reminder that they should watch what they say in when speaking about bills, because the courts (and most especially the Supreme Court of Canada) are checking Hansard. When it comes to challenging laws, particularly Charter challenges, the issue of legislative intent is often raised, and the courts are forced to determine what it was the government intended to do when they passed these laws, and that can matter as to whether those laws will survive a Charter challenge. And if MPs – and most importantly ministers – give speeches full of bafflegab and meaningless talking points, it muddies the record that the courts rely on. The example here was the bill eliminating time-served sentencing credits, by which the court examined Rob Nicholson’s statements and tested them against the results of the law and found that no, eliminating the sentencing credits didn’t enhance public safety or confidence in the justice system. I would also add that it’s yet another reason why Senate committees have particular value, particularly when it comes to contentious bills that perhaps shouldn’t pass but do anyway under protest. Because their findings are on the record, when those laws inevitably wind up in the courts, those same objections can be read and taken into consideration. So yes, your speeches and work in parliament does matter, probably more than you think. Just be sure to use your words wisely, because they will come back to haunt you.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Confessions of a style watcher

Posted on by

In a sit-down interview with Canada AM, Lisa Raitt talked about her frustration with being a woman in politics, and so much attention is being paid to her appearance, particularly with things like weight gain and hairstyles. And absolutely, it’s part of the double standards that women face for a host of societal reasons, which is something that should be tackled in a variety of ways, including sauce for the gander – ensuring that much of the same language is applied to male MPs. That being said, I wanted to add a couple of observations as someone who is known for doing style critique of MPs (and occasionally senators). Number one – I don’t comment on weight or hair, because that’s not the point of what I’m doing. What I am doing however is commenting on the image that MPs put forward by their own conscious choice – do they project an image confidence that often comes along with looking your best? Or do they look like a fool because they make $160K per year and apparently still shop at Value Village, where nothing fits or coordinates? Add to that, I also look at how the men dress. It’s not just a suit and tie and there you go – for men it has a lot to do with the cut of the suit, and looking like they spent a moment to consider if those colours go together, or if they look like they got dressed in the dark in a rumpled suit that hangs like a used burlap sack? Image and appearance do matter, but only as a first impression, after which an MP needs to have substance to back it up. It’s sad that we have a number of MPs who have neither.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Whips and grandfathered MPs

Posted on by

Given that it’s the big March for Life on the Hill, reporters asked Justin Trudeau yesterday about the whole pro-choice thing for the party (I’m guessing since it’s a fun game to try and catch the Liberals out on being a nominally pro-choice party with a few pro-life MPs still in the caucus). Trudeau said that as was decided by the membership in the 2012 policy convention, the party is officially pro-choice, that such votes would be whipped, and that the existing pro-life MPs are being grandfathered in, but all future candidates must follow the pro-choice party line. “So much for open nominations!” the commentariat cries, ignoring the kinds of conditions – or indeed groupthink – that other parties employ with their own candidates. And pro-life Liberals like John McKay kind of shrugged and said that it’s normal to have some disagreements within a party and left it at that. And now everyone else will try to make hay of this, because that’s the way it works.

Continue reading →

Roundup: So long, Jimmy K

Posted on by

And another one steps down – this time, long-time Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, or “Jimmy K,” as he is known colloquially, has tendered his resignation, and he plans to run for Toronto city council instead. Karygiannis is something of a polarizing figure, a “bare-knuckles” organizer for the party who made great inroads with ethno-cultural communities, but who also had a tendency to boast that if the party simply listened to his communications advice that they would be better off. Karygiannis was one of the three longest continually serving MPs in the House. This also means that we’re up to four by-elections to be called, which is going to put us at a really high number in recent parliaments, and we’ve still got a year-and-a-half to go before the next election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inconvenient evidence

Posted on by

When asked about why his concern over the “stagnating” middle class and how it doesn’t fit with the trend lines in the data, Justin Trudeau said that he’s looking at the data since the 1980s – just before two massive recessions – and cited that ESDC report that said that the middle class dream is “more myth than reality.” It certainly raises questions about the supposed commitment to evidence-based policy when it doesn’t fit with the narrative that they’ve decided to fight the next election on.

Continue reading →