Tag Archives: Democratic Reform

Roundup: Save your prayers

Posted on by

As reaction to the Orlando shooting started to roll in, the rote phrase of “thoughts and prayers” was pretty much stock on most public officials’ tweets and posts, including in Canada. The Governor of Florida went so far as to say that now was a time for prayer. And yes, reaction to these kinds of events is now rote and ritualised, and it gets worse with every time that it happens.

https://twitter.com/scott_gilmore/status/742066737995231232

In this particular incidence, however, people calling for prayer are precisely the wrong thing to say. Why? This was a crime directed at the LGBT community (in this instance, particularly gay men), and it should not bear reminding that this is a community that has to deal with spiritual violence directed toward them on a consistent basis. What exactly do you think that calling for prayer for a community that is constantly told that they’re going to hell means to them? Do you think it somehow comforts them to know that the same god who is wielded against them is supposed to be looking after them? Really? As well, the fact that the word “homophobia” is absent from most of the leaders’ statements is a problem in my opinion.

While it’s all well and good to call it domestic terrorism – which it undoubtedly is – the problem with that narrative, particularly with an ostensibly Muslim shooter (that he may have declared allegiance to ISIS being entirely irrelevant) is that it diminishes the act perpetrated against the targeted community. Both Trudeau and Ambrose are supportive of the LGBT community, of that there is no doubt, but for them not to call out homophobia point blank is disappointing, particularly because words matter, and when the word they choose is “terrorism,” it sets up for a specific response, and in today’s climate, that response gears toward Islamophobia instead. Across the Twitter Machine, people insisted that it was Islam who planted the seeds of homophobia in the shooter, which is rich considering how much the Christian right-wing in America uses blatant homophobia (and more recently transphobia) for political ends. But suddenly these same American politicians care about the lives of 50 people gunned down in a gay nightclub (without ever having to say the words “gay” or “homophobia,” natch). Fortunately, things are a little better on this side of the border.

I would like to see more statements like Rempel’s, where homophobia is called out, and there are no calls for prayer; and likewise with Oliphant’s, who reminds people that Muslims are not automatically homophobes or hate-mongers. Words matter. We should ensure that they are used wisely.

Continue reading →

QP: Genocide and refugees

Posted on by

Despite it being Thursday, there were no major leaders in the Commons today, which is a disappointing slide back to the poor attendance record of the previous parliament. Denis Lebel led off, referencing their opposition motion on calling ISIS a genocide and demanded support for it. Pam Goldsmith-Jones responded with the government line that the declaration is not a political one but a legal one, and it needed to have the endorsement of the International Criminal Code. Lebel moved onto the possible sole-sourcing of Super Hornets, for which Harjit Sajjan reminded him that the Conservatives were about to sole-source the F-35 fighters, while he had not yet made a determination. Lebel demanded a transparent process, and Sajjan reiterated that no decision was made. Andrew Scheer accused the government of playing politics with military equipment, and Sajjan snapped back that he has been in combat. Scheer then returned to the declaration of ISIS as a genocide, and Goldsmith-Jones repeated her previous answer. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, calling out the government on C-14’s constitutionality, and Jody Wilson-Raybould insisted that they came to the right balance. Julian and Ruth Ellen Brosseau said that the Senate was making the amendments that they had proposed, and to Julian, Wilson-Raybould repeated her answer while Jane Philpott responded to Brosseau that she hoped the Senate would pass it. Brosseau repeated her question in French, and Philpott reiterated that she hoped the bill would pass expeditiously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Amendments are not some power grab

Posted on by

After hours of debate, the Senate passed the first amendment to the assisted dying legislation to remove the definition “reasonably foreseeable death” and replace it with the language from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter, and immediately the pundit class erupted in cries of horror and outrage that how dare an unelected body dare to touch the precious words of the elected House of Commons, and that this newly emboldened Senate was dangerously overstepping its bounds going forward.

Oh. Please.

It’s like any hint of context went out the window when it comes to this particular bill, and the fact that you have a Supreme Court of Canada decision that it’s supposed to be in answer to (not that parliament needed to draft a law, mind you). There are serious concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. MPs in the Commons believed it, you have a lower court judge in Alberta that believed so when crafting a judgment around an assisted death request and how the state of this legislation wouldn’t conform to the Supreme Court decision, and now Senators are doing their constitutional duty of weighing the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, and quite rightly, they find it wanting. This is why the Senate exists, and what the “sober” part of “sober second thought” means – that freed from the constraints of having to worry about what voters will think, they can take a more clear-headed look at these controversial bills. And if you get hung up on the “unelected” part, apparently the policy and legislative roles taken not only by the Supreme Court or the various administrative tribunals that exist in this country also should keep you awake at night. (Also, their democratic legitimacy comes from being appointed by a government who has the confidence of the chamber, but you know, it’s not like Responsible Government is anything other than a minor detail).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740737440231641088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/740743223396683776

So what happens next? Once the remainder of the amendments are decided upon one way or the other, the report gets sent back to the Commons, which they will then debate and amend at their pleasure – you know, like democratically elected legislators are supposed to do. The Justice Minister doesn’t sound keen on these amendments “without more safeguards,” but I also take this with a grain of salt because I do believe the government is setting up this narrative of reluctance so that they can show that they have been “forced” to accept what the Supreme Court has laid out by a Senate that could veto the bill if they find it unconstitutional. Because remember, MPs who have electoral considerations don’t like to be seen to take bold steps with difficult decisions when it’s easier to hide behind another body who can take the blame for them. And it’s not like MPs aren’t used to giving abdicating all manner of their roles to other unelected bodies (the courts, Officers of Parliament, and the Senate), this just being one more in a long line of examples. It’s one more reason why I find this concern trolling by the pundit class all the more difficult to swallow. If MPs were actually serious about their jobs, then it wouldn’t be incumbent upon the Senate to be the grown-ups of parliament, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →

QP: Shifting focus to fighter jets

Posted on by

After the big “family photo” on the steps of the building this morning, and a speech marking the 150th anniversary of the legislature of Canada meeting on Parliament Hill, we got into the business of the day. While Trudeau was on the Hill in the morning, he was on his way to Toronto and absent from QP today. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked about measures to bring Yazidi girls to Canada as refugees. John McCallum noted that refugees are prioritised based on need as determined by the UN, and that he was proud of their record. Ambrose turned to the question of fighter jets, and wondered why they would get new jets if they didn’t use the ones we have to fight ISIS. Harjit Sajjan noted that that he had received a briefing on the mission in Iraq, but didn’t really answer. Ambrose listed off the sins of Liberal procurement past, and wondered how this time would be different. Sajjan retorted that the previous government cut $3 billion from the defence budget. Denis Lebel was concerned about pulling out of the the F-35 programme and how that would affect the aerospace industry in Montreal, and Sajjan noted that no decision had been made. When Lebel tried to press about the other allies who had adopted the F-35, Sajjan noted that they were not fully operational and they were taking the time to make the right choice. Thomas Mulcair led off for the NDP, asking about a statement that Senator Pratte made about the need to pass C-10 quickly. Marc Garneau said there was no deal, but this was about avoiding future litigation. Mulcair wanted assurances that there was no deal, and Garneau plainly stated there wasn’t one. Mulcair turned to tax havens by KPMG, and Diane Lebouthillier noted that there were investigations and court cases ongoing. Mulcair said that if it was in the courts it would be public, but pivoted to the Super Hornets and sole-sourcing. Sajjan repeated that no decision was made.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Further conversations on constitutional conventions

Posted on by

In response to my blog post yesterday on the our unwritten portions of our constitution being just as important as the written parts, I had a lot of response over the Twitter Machine, many trying to argue that parties were not an integral part of the system, but historian Christopher Moore took the time out to chastise me for the use of the term “constitutional conventions” when it comes to Responsible Government. But the problem is that Moore is actually wrong in what he tried to argue. To wit:

Smith should look at Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which sets out in plain language that only the cabinet can make and propose the raising and spending of money. That is what defines the role of the cabinet of ministers. It budgets; it plans the getting and spending.  But then there is Section 53, which bluntly states that only the House of Commons can give approval to the cabinet’s proposals for getting and spending.

A few problems with this. First of all, he’s citing the Constitution Act, 1867 and not 1982, and looking at Section 54, there is no mention of cabinet at all:

It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.

As is consistent in our constitution, there is no mention of a PM, or cabinet, because they are part of Responsible Government, which as I pointed out yesterday are part of the unwritten conventions that we inherited from the UK. As is consistent with the rest of the written constitution, only the Governor General is mentioned. And here’s the kicker: the unwritten constitutional convention is that under Responsible Government, the Crown – by way of the GG – acts on the advice of ministers, and for that to happen, ministers must hold the confidence of the Chamber. Ministers via the convention do all executive government in the Queen’s name. It’s not written because it’s a convention, per the preamble, as a constitution being similar in principle to that of the UK. Moore’s contention that it’s not a convention and that it’s embedded in the text does not hold. So while I’m happy to be corrected when I get it wrong (and it happens), this is not one of those times. Also, if you’re going to quote the constitution at me, then quote the constitution. And as for those people on the Twitter Machine insisting that Responsible Government can function without parties, well, it’s possible in a theoretical world with vampires and unicorns, but it will never happen in real life, so trying to disprove it to make a point is pretty much moot. The practice of parties developed for a reason. Maintaining confidence without them is a fool’s errand.

With many thanks to Philippe Lagassé for talking this issue through with me.

Continue reading →

QP: In other news…

Posted on by

It was very nearly a full house for QP, including all of the leaders. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, once again demanding an electoral reform referendum. Trudeau said that he did trust Canadians to discuss complex and nuanced issues, which was why he wanted an open consultative process. Ambrose switched to French to lament the current government’s understanding of the military and his choice in the Super Hornets. Trudeau in turn lamented the sorry state of the Forces left by his predecessors and their botched procurements. Ambrose asked again in English, and got the same answer. Denis Lebel was up next, decrying the lack of progress on a new softwood lumber agreement. Trudeau responded that the previous government neglected the file, focusing fruitlessly on pipelines that went nowhere. Lebel disputed Trudeau’s characterisation, but Trudeau insisted they immediately sought to restore positive relations with the Americans to better deal with these irritants. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and listed off the opposition to C-14, and Trudeau called the bill an “important step” but that it struck a balance with the protection of the vulnerable. Mulcair insisted it was as false choice, and accused the government of behaving exactly like their predecessors. Trudeau begged to differ, noting the Conservatives ignored the issue, and he praised the work to date. Mulcair demanded that the government at least take amendments from the Senate, and Trudeau said that he looked forward to what the “newly independent and less partisan” Senate would bring forward. Mulcair accused the bill of going against the Charter, and Trudeau reiterate the balance being struck.

Continue reading →

QP: Memories of Dion positions past

Posted on by

After the revelries of the weekend, most everyone was present, except Thomas Mulcair. As he so colourfully put it at the Gallery Dinner, he really doesn’t care anymore. Rona Ambrose led off, and immediately laid into the referendum question. Justin Trudeau reminded her that the majority of Canadians voted for parties that wanted change, and that he looked forward to the strong voices that would be heard on the committee. Ambrose raised the issue that Stéphane Dion said in 2012 that a referendum would be necessary on electoral reform, and Trudeau said that they needed committee consultation on such a complex question. Asking again in English, Trudeau gave a more impassioned defence of a robust consultative process. Alain Reyes made the demand for a referendum again in French, and got much the same response. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP and raised the Liberal Senate leader who did not agree with C-14, and would the government listen to him. Trudeau pointed out that there was no greater endorsement of their reforms to the Senate than the NDP endorsing senators’ work, and then basically admitted that the bill would come back to the Commons with amendments. On a follow-up in French, Trudeau again said that they would look forward to amendments. Murray Rankin took over, raising more objections to the bill, and Trudeau kept saying that they consulted widely and looked forward to the bill coming back.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Monarchial stability

Posted on by

In an interview with CTV’s Question Period about his upcoming trip to the Queen’s official 90th birthday celebrations in London, His Excellency the Governor General credited the monarchy with holding Canada together, and noted that constitutional monarchies are among the most stable of all forms of government – and he’s right. Predictably, however, the republicans among us got right offended, saying that Canadians deserve some of the credit, and it was simplistic, patronising and wrong to say that Canada would “disintegrate without a London-based, hereditary Head of State.” The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores some of the counterfactuals, and what we see in countries where heads of state are elected and who are largely partisan in nature. The stability of those countries is indeed an issue in many cases, and social progress is generally further behind than most constitutional monarchies, which have a demonstrated tendency not to be as conservative or reactionary as one might think given the importance of maintaining those traditions. But the most important reason why constitutional monarchies like Canada’s tend to be more uniting is that they don’t rely on a partisan head of state to be the uniting figure around which all of the pomp and circumstances happens, and you don’t have people going “he’s not my president” and so on. It’s not the partisan head of state’s face on postage stamps and in embassies, or who receives military salutes. Ours is a system designed to keep leaders from developing cults of personality and keeps their ambitions in check because they do not hold power – they merely exercise it on behalf of the one who does (that being the monarch). It’s also why it’s concerning that our prime ministers in this country have been getting presidential envy, and why this “First Lady” business around Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is a problem because it goes against our particular constitutional monarchical order. Having someone be above the political fray has benefitted our society and our culture, and it can’t be easily dismissed as being simple or patronising. Systems help to shape societies, and our system has shaped ours for the better. We can’t simply ignore it out of some childish sense of spite about how and why that system works the way it does.

His Excellency also noted that Trudeau’s children help bring Rideau Hall “alive,” and he reminded us that his own children used to play with Pierre Trudeau’s children when they were the same age, living in Montreal nearby one another.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Adjourning until Tuesday is not a problem

Posted on by

Expect a weekend full of concern trolling about the Senate not having passed C-14 before Monday’s Supreme Court-imposed deadline, and people shaking their head or clutching their pearls that the Senate chamber is not sitting on Monday. I fully expect a pundit or three to wonder aloud why the Senate isn’t sitting Monday, and demands that senators do their jobs like they’re paid to do. And if you hear anyone say something boneheaded like that, smack them upside the head and remind them that the bill is at committee, which will be sitting Monday and Tuesday, and there’s no point in the full Senate sitting on Monday to pass the bill when it’s at committee, and no, they’re not going to rush that process any more than they already are. Meanwhile, if there’s anyone to blame for it not passing on time, it’s the House of Commons, and the Liberals playing stupid games with the debate schedule and not bringing forward the bill for debate so that votes could happen more expeditiously (and yes, their attempts to control that debate calendar with tactics like Motion 6 failed spectacularly before our eyes, but that doesn’t explain why they didn’t bring the bill forward on subsequent days either). If people think that the Senate should just rubber-stamp a bill like this one without any actual debate or scrutiny, well, they need to take a remedial civics course because that’s not why the Senate exists. And yes, this is exactly the kind of situation for why we have the Senate, where a bill that is constitutionally dubious is going to get a more thorough hearing than it did in the Commons, and we are likely to see some more substantive debate on its merits and particularities so that even if it does pass in its dubious state, there is a parliamentary record that the courts can then use in their deliberations when the matter inevitably comes before them.

Add to that, this is a case where we are likely to see amendments that will head back to the House of Commons, which put the whole timetable into question. Part of what is going to be at issue is where the votes will lie in the Senate for which amendments – the ones from the more socially conservative who want greater restrictions, or those who want to see at minimum the “reasonably foreseeable death” criteria struck out in favour of the language in the Carter decision. I suspect the latter will have the more votes and we will see those amendments head to the Commons, where we will see if the government decides to dig in its heels or not given that it’s a criticism that has fairly broad support in the Commons about the bill. It also gives the government a bit more political cover in that the Senate is “forcing” them to adopt those measures – particularly that the Senate is much more independent and the Liberals have given up any levers therein to try and bully through bills – so they can insulate themselves from criticism that they have gone too far. I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s why the ministers keep insisting that they are open to amendments when they rejected them all in the Commons – because putting the blame on the Senate is the next best thing to putting the blame on the courts. If they do decide to dig in their heels and we reach an impasse between the chambers, there is always the possibility of a conference between them, which Kady O’Malley has dug up the procedural details for here:

If you missed the second reading debates in the Senate, they’re available here, and they are absolutely substantive and far beyond anything we heard in the House of Commons, and dealt with the real substance of the bill rather than the usual “This is deeply personal/what about palliative care?/conscience rights, conscience rights, conscience rights” narrative that we heard ad nauseum.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A precipitous climbdown

Posted on by

In an attempt to head off a day full of useless circular discussion around the process of the electoral reform discussion, the Liberals offered an epic climbdown and accepted the NDP’s gamed committee configuration, giving up their perfectly legitimate committee control and then patting themselves on the back for looking reasonable for backing down. Trudeau went so far as to say that they felt like they were looking too much like the previous Conservative government, and decided to take a different tone, with all of the usual platitudes about working together and cooperation and so on. Which is a nice sentiment, and they get all of these plaudits for looking reasonable and like grown-ups, but I wonder if they haven’t given up their ability to put their foot down in the future when they need to, lest the process spin out of control, as these things are wont to do. Nevertheless, I will reiterate that this is not any kind of reasonable compromise. In fact, there are a few reactions that sum up my feelings pretty well.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/738384990463918081

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/738409956865642496

And Hiltz is bang on. The Liberals have walked into the NDP’s trap, and this whole process, already a gong show, has just become an even bigger one. The Conservatives are completely apoplectic with outrage, claiming that there was a “backroom deal” to get this deal (when that really doesn’t seem to be the case if you look at how it was unveiled and how the NDP were just as surprised by it). So while the howls for a referendum will continue, and the bogus “proportional” arguments will ring through the back-patting on this whole sordid affair, I will just reiterate this particular sentiment.

Continue reading →