Tag Archives: Democratic Reform

QP: Referenda and farm protests

Posted on by

After the machinations around the government’s climb down on their electoral reform committee and the subsequent Conservative apoplexy, it was likely to be a more tense day in QP. Here was my prediction:

Rona Ambrose led off by quoting Trudeau from a press conference earlier this morning in saying that referenda are often used to stop things, and declared it arrogant. Maryam Monsef said the time was to move past process and get onto the actual debate. Ambrose said that the NDP and the Liberals were taking the right to determine their voting system away from Canadians. Monsef praised their cooperation and doing politics differently. Ambrose repeated the question, and Monsef praised the work of the committee in engaging Canadians and bringing recommendations back to the Commons. Alain Rayes was up next, decrying the “backroom deal” with the NDP (which doesn’t appear to have been a deal considering the NDP seemed genuinely surprised that the government climbed down), and got the same lines from Monsef. Rayes gave one more demand for a referendum, and got much the same answer. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet noted the farm protest happening outside, and demanded action on the issue of diafiltered milk. Jean-Claude Poissant noted that the government supported Supply Management and would protect it. After another identical round from Boutin-Sweet, Tracey Ramsay decried the TPP while asking the very same questions about diafiltered milk. Poissant gave the same assurances of support for Supply Management.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day talking in circles

Posted on by

We’re in for yet another round of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the subject of the electoral reform process, and this time it’s from the NDP who are moving a supply day motion to try and get the proposed parliamentary committee to reflect their particular gamed composition rather than a composition that reflects the House of Commons – which, I will remind you, was elected entirely fairly and correctly under how our system is supposed to operate, where we elect individual seats in separate and simultaneous elections. Demands that the committee should reflect the popular vote ignore the facts that a) the popular vote is a logical fallacy that does not actually exist since there were 338 separate elections and not just one, and b) the composition that the NDP are demanding is not actually proportional to the “popular vote,” as they are giving the Bloc and the Green Party an oversized share of the seats and votes. And rather than just thirty minutes of this endless repetition as we might hear in QP, no, it will be the whole day in the Commons, minus one hour for private members’ business. And we’ll be subjected to the sanctimonious speeches of the NDP (of which they will read the same speech in English and French ad nauseum, only changing the riding names mentioned), followed by baying from the Conservatives that what we really need is a referendum, and the odd interjection from Elizabeth May that she deserves a vote on the committee and that no, we don’t need a referendum because it’s not a constitutional issue (except that certain kinds of electoral reform are actually constitutional issues, albeit likely with the simplest amending formula). And then there are the Liberals, where we’ll get some of the usual saccharine from Maryam Monsef, some sharper rebukes from Mark Holland, and the odd backbencher repeating the talking points about Canadians demanding a change to the system. There won’t be any substantive issues discussed, and while I will be the first to say that yes, process is important, so long as each side tries to game the process to fit their own purposes, we’ll just keep talking in circles and go nowhere. Which, really, is where this discussion should go and we should instead invest in a programme of civic literacy instead so that people can actually learn how the system works. But in the absence of that, I’m ready to declare that we should nuke the whole thing from orbit.

Continue reading →

QP: An end to constant clapping?

Posted on by

On caucus day, all of the leaders were present but there were a few curiously empty desks. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, asking about Canadian special forces troops coming under fire near Mosul, and wondered about the training mission. Trudeau replied about helping our allies take the fight to ISIS, and listed off the additional resources added to the mission. Ambrose asked again about the combat mission, and Trudeau reiterated that it was not a combat mission. Ambrose then moved back to the howls for a referendum, and Trudeau listed off his promises of broad consultation. Denis Lebel took over in French to demand a referendum, and got much the same answer, and then a second round of the same. Thomas Mulcair was up next, asking about RCMP surveillance on journalists, and Trudeau reminded him that the RCMP were taking steps, and that they have learned from their mistakes. Mulcair asked again in English, and demanded why C-51 was not repealed. Trudeau mentioned ongoing consultations with stakeholders and the forthcoming parliamentary oversight body for national security. Mulcair then switched to C-10 and jobs affected, and Trudeau insisted that they were trying to ensure the long-term success of the industry. For his final question, Mulcair bemoaned the lack of investment in Bombardier, and Trudeau reiterate that they are encouraging investment in the sector.

Continue reading →

QP: Slightly sharper responses

Posted on by

It was very nearly a full house, and all of the leaders were present and ready to go. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by concern trolling about the government trying to control the debate — as though her government was blameless on that front. Justin Trudeau rose to respond, noting that sixteen amendments were made to C-14 during the committee stage and that it was a free vote on the bill, while mentioning the deadline. Ambrose then moved onto the first of many demands for a referendum on electoral reform, for which Trudeau gave some standard lines about Canadians demanding change for the system. Ambrose accused the government of trying to rig the process and that they had hired a proponent of ranked ballots, but Trudeau responded with platitudes about a more inclusive process. Denis Lebel was up next to concern troll about Liberal party members being “muzzled” on C-14 debates last weekend, and Trudeau insisted that they had frank discussions including the ministers. Lebel worried about the provinces with C-14, and Trudeau insisted that the bill was largely based on the Quebec model. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and rises the Environment Commissioner’s report on toxic substances not being reported to Health Canada. Trudeau thanked the Commissioner for her report, and said that they would implement her recommendations. Mulcair then moved to a declaration that C-14 was unconstitutional, and Trudeau gave the standard responses. Mulcair demanded that the bill be referred the Supreme Court, but Trudeau reiterated the deadline debate. Mulcair pivoted again and demanded immediate decriminalisation of marijuana, for which Trudeau chided him for his desire to do an end-run around parliamentary process and that decriminalisation wouldn’t keep it out of the hands of children.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating electoral reform processes

Posted on by

Amidst all of the continued and sustained howling by the Conservatives for an electoral reform referendum, and the interminable bellyaching about the composition of the parliamentary committee and how it doesn’t let the NDP game the system in their favour, the Ottawa Citizen commissioned Stewart Prest to write a pair of op-eds about the reform process and the problems it faces, and to debate between the usefulness of a referendum or a citizens’ assembly. On the former point it’s fairly uncontroversial – that the Liberals won’t be able to get broad-based buy-in unless they can get more than one party on-side, but we’re not having any discussions about ideas because all we’re hearing is howling and bellyaching. Prest’s latter point, however, is the much more troublesome one, because I have a great deal of scepticism about citizens’ assemblies, particularly based on what happened in Ontario. Prest touches on the two main criticisms, both of which need to be expanded upon – that they are easy to manipulate, and that they undermine our representative democracy. On the former point, the outcomes of these assemblies tends to be overly complicated and shiny, what with STV in BC and MMP in Ontario. That there is a pro-reform bias to these assemblies is in and of itself a problem (not to mention that the pro-reform narrative, no matter who it comes from, is ripe with dishonesty particularly as it comes to the status quo), but that the lack of civic literacy on the part of the participants makes it easy for them to fall into the thrall of the various “experts” that steer them to the various options. As for the latter point, I do think it’s a problem that we entrust these very big decisions to a group of randoms with no legitimacy. (If you bring up the Senate’s legitimacy, I will remind you that their authority comes from the constitution and that their appointments are based on the Responsible Government principle that they are made by a government with the confidence of the Chamber). It does diminish our representative democracy because the inherent message is that politics is not to be left up to the politicians, which is a sad kind of cynicism. We elect our MPs for a reason. While I could be convinced as to the merits of a referendum because it would legitimise a decision of this magnitude made by our elected officials, to pass off that decision to yet another body is to again this same kind of buck-passing that has made it acceptable for us to insist that the Supreme Court now do our legislating for us instead of MPs, or officers of parliament to do the role of opposition instead of MPs. Why? Because it’s easier for the elected to hide behind the unelected to avoid accountability, and the public laps it up because they’re not elected so they must have superior opinions, freed from the grasping for re-election. So no, I don’t really see the merit in citizen assemblies as an end-run around democracy, and I think it needs to be called out more loudly.

Continue reading →

QP: Sharper responses to repetitive questions

Posted on by

The vast majority of MPs fresh from a convention, you would have thought that the leaders would be there to join them, but no, Elizabeth May was the only party leader present in the Commons for QP on a sweltering day in the Nation’s Capital. Denis Lebel led off, demanding a referendum on electoral reform to ensure that there was proper support. Mark Holland responded, inviting members of the opposition for their input on what kind of a system they would like to see. Lebel repeated the question in English, and Holland brought up the Fair Elections Act. Lebel asked again, and Holland broadened his response to say that it wasn’t just about electoral reform, but about things like mandatory voting or electronic voting. Andrew Scheer was up next, and demanded that the government withdraw the motion to create the electoral reform committee. Holland reiterated the points that people believe that the status quo isn’t good enough. Scheer closed it off with a series of lame hashtag jokes, but Holland praised the dynamic conversation that was about to happen. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP, and wanted C-14 referred to the Supreme Court. Jody Wilson-Raybould insisted that they needed to pass the bill before the Supreme Court deadline. The question was repeated in French, and Wilson-Raybould stated that the bill is the best public policy framework going forward. Murray Rankin took over, and pleaded for the government to work with them to get the bill right. Wilson-Raybould’s answer didn’t change, and on a repeated supplemental, Jane Philpott insisted that they need the legislation in place to protect physicians and pharmacists.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stake through the grassroots

Posted on by

Congratulations Liberals, you have once again made things awful for the proper functioning on Canadian democracy, as you so often do. In fact, most of our democratic ills in this country can be traced directly back to Liberal “innovations,” like delegated leadership conventions, which removed caucus accountability of the party leader, to the “supporter class” of leadership selection – removing any and all accountability the leader had – and now you’ve decided to eliminate party memberships to further erode what accountability was left in the party system so that all of the remaining power can be centralised in the leader’s office and Big Data can be used to justify any and all policy decisions rather than allowing them to come from the grassroots. Well done! Oh, but no need to worry – Justin Trudeau totally promised that this wasn’t about centralizing power and taking it away from the grassroots (just the regional power brokers, natch), so no need to worry! Absent from that assurance was anything about accountability, which isn’t surprising given the way the history of these attempts to “democratize” things happen in this country. I’m not saying that the party didn’t need to update its various constitutions into a single body. That’s fine. But memberships are actually an important thing for the role of a political party in our democratic system. And while I get that the “supporter” category during the leadership was instrumental in populating the database that they’re so very proud of for their new digital future, it doesn’t erase the role that grassroots members play. While the Liberals are trying to “deconstruct” what a political party is and turn it into a “movement,” it can’t escape that political parties are not just “private clubs,” as the rhetoric around the new constitution has been trying to paint them as (and indeed, rhetoric used going back to the introduction of the “supporter” category during the leadership). And beyond just offering organizational structure within Parliament (which is in itself a Very Big Deal), parties have an interlocutory role to play between the parliamentary caucus and the public at large. It’s why people are supposed to be joining parties – to provide bottom-up ideas and policies, to nominate candidates, and in return, the riding associations act as interfaces to bring local concerns to caucus if there is no local representative. But we’re not taught about the importance of joining riding associations in school, and when the grassroots has weak structures and little power, then it only empowers the apparatchiks in Ottawa at the centre of the party. I fail to see how Trudeau’s new “movement” is going to empower the grassroots when riding associations will be hollowed out in favour of “streamlining” policy proposals via Big Data. The social and community aspects of riding associations are gone because there is no longer anything there for them to do, other than organise nominations every few years. And not only does it weaken the grassroots, it further diminishes the power of MPs (as Peter Lowen writes here) because that power gets centralized in the leader’s office – just as the power of MPs started being eroded when we took away their ability to select and remove leaders. But because we’re not being taught civic literacy, we’re not learning these lessons, and power continues to be centralized. Trudeau has consolidated a great deal of power now, owing to his popularity, and he is accountable to nobody, and the party structures that would place any kind of check on that power are now gone. I don’t see this as a great day for the Liberal party, but one that harkens worse things to come for our country’s political system as a whole.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/736672242864656385

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with sponsoring bills

Posted on by

News that the “Government Representative” in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, has been asking unaligned senators to sponsor government bills as they arrive from the Commons has me feeling a bit uneasy, and I’m trying to figure out why. This meant a trip through the Senate Procedure in Practice, and I find my concerns only slightly mollified. I will admit that the government’s plan to move a government bill in the Senate – Bill S-2, which deals with motor vehicle recalls – also has me uneasy because while it is being sponsored under Harder’s name, the fact that Harder is not a cabinet minister remains a troubling procedural issue. Government bills should be introduced by cabinet ministers, whether that minister is the Leader of the Government in the Senate or another minister in the Senate (which happens on occasion), and Harder, while sworn into the Privy Council, is not a minister. That the Conservatives did this with Claude Carignan was not a particularly good precedent to create or follow, since Carignan was essentially a minister without being in cabinet for the only reason that Stephen Harper was having a fit of pique over the ClusterDuff Affair, Carignan also having been sworn into Privy Council and being given access to PCO resources to do his job. But while Carignan was at least a part of the government’s caucus, Peter Harder explicitly is not, which is why this decision to have him sponsor government legislation is troubling. I remain of the view that as much as Harder is trying to present himself as non-partisan and independent, you cannot be independent while also representing the government because it is an inherent conflict of interest. That he is being asked to perform the functions of a cabinet minister while still proclaiming himself to be independent is risible. It is a problem that Justin Trudeau’s particular…naivety around his Senate reform project cannot simply gloss over without eroding the fundamental tenets of our Westminster system. That he wants a more independent Senate is not a bad thing, and the appointment of a critical mass of unaligned senators is a laudable goal, but you cannot expect someone who is not a minister to do the functions of a minister and still call themselves independent. As for Harder asking unaligned senators to sponsor bills, it’s not quite as outré as having Harder sponsor government bills that are initiated in the Senate, but I am still uncomfortable as this is typically something done by a member of the government’s party, given that the sponsor’s job is to defend the bill and advocate for its passage. While I don’t buy that every new appointed unaligned senator is really a crypto-Liberal, as many a Conservative senators would have you believe, the fact that Harder is the one doing the asking is still uncomfortable. It would perhaps be better if he were to call for volunteers to sponsor bills on their way from the Commons and then perform a coordinating role rather than an assigning one, if only for the sake of optics. Harder calling up unaligned senators and asking them to act as sponsors looks too much like he is playing caucus management, and if he continues to insist that it’s not the way that the chamber is operating, then perhaps he needs to be more conscious of the optics of the way he is operating.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The elbowing

Posted on by

I can scarcely express just how stupid things got yesterday because everyone needed to rush to score points. But here we are. Starting back at the beginning, the government decided to put a motion on the Notice Paper that was basically the nuclear option of time allocation measures – essentially suspending all avenues by which the opposition could propose dilatory motions until the Commons rises for the summer, so that they can get C-14 and a few other timely pieces of legislation passed. And the opposition freaked out.

Nobody is quite sure why the Liberals resorted to such tactics, but my working theory is that the closed-door House Leaders’ meetings have degenerated to being unworkable (not an unlikely theory considering that my sources told me in the previous parliament that Peter Julian was impossible to work with), and Monday’s surprise vote after the NDP lied about the motions they were moving that day broke the trust of the Liberals, who had been attempting to work amiably with them. It’s also possible that putting this motion on the Notice Paper was as the nuclear option – the threat to hold over their heads in order to try and force them to come to the table with reasonable requests for timelines on debates. Dominic LeBlanc went so far as to suggest that rather than constraining debate, they were trying to allow for more under this motion, not that the opposition believed him. Temperatures got raised, and QP was one of the most heated of the current session.

After QP and the Komagata Maru apology, the procedural games started up again, including a privilege motion from Julian about how terribly draconian these tactics were. Fast forward a couple of hours to the time allocation vote on C-14, and the NDP apparently decided to play the childish tactic of physically blocking the Conservative whip from being able to walk down the aisle. The NDP claimed they were just “milling about,” but people milling about don’t all stand facing the same direction, and both Elizabeth May and Andrew Leslie have confirmed that there were shenanigans being played. And it would seem that Justin Trudeau had lost his patience by this point, possibly because Christy Clark was waiting in his office for a meeting he was already late for, and he still had a Komagata Maru apology reception to speak at, also late for. And so he did something completely boneheaded – he got up, went to the NDP blockade, and reached through to grab the Conservative whip and pull him through (which he apparently didn’t appreciate either), and in the course of that, accidentally elbowed Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Moments later, he went back to apologise to her as she fled the chamber – apparently flustered and unable to cope – when Thomas Mulcair began screaming at Trudeau and jabbing in his direction, when suddenly MPs from both sides of the aisle went to pull them apart before things got physical. It was all over in seconds, and Trudeau apologised for his actions.

Not well enough, apparently, as he did it again later when Brosseau reappeared in the chamber, but it doesn’t seem to matter because opposition MPs were now in point-scoring mode. Niki Ashton immediately got to her feet to decry that Trudeau had violated the “safe space” of the Chamber and NDP MPs started likening the incident to domestic violence, bullying and physical intimidation, and Julian talked about how his aunt was beaten to death. No, seriously. The Conservatives soon after began piling on, smelling blood in the water, and it devolved from there. Outside the chamber, Scheer and Julian took to the microphones to ramp up the spin, Julian deciding to drop the hints that there were “rumours” to the fact that Trudeau has some kind of history of violence, because there were points to be scored. And the faux outrage dominated the Twitter Machine as “fearful” MPs registered their shock and horror at what they’d witnessed. And it was just so stupid that I can’t even. Suffice to say, this looks like it’s going to boil down into privilege hearings in the Procedure and House Affairs committee, and we’re going to be subjected to weeks of un-clever “sunny ways” references, and suggestions that Trudeau is apparently unfit for office. It’s a good thing that next week is a constituency week, but I fear for what the final stretch of sitting weeks is going to be like if tempers are this frayed this early. I suspect it’s going to get really ugly from here.

Continue reading →

QP: Scripts vs Saccharine 

Posted on by

The galleries full of Sikh delegates in advance of the Komagata Maru apology, the benches were similarly full on the floor of the Commons. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by railing about the government’s proposed motion to control the parliamentary calendar. Trudeau noted that they were trying to give MPs time to speak and that this was about putting forward the agenda that Canadians voted on. Ambrose dropped a reference to Trudeau’s admiration for the “basic dictatorship” of China before asking again in French, and Trudeau gave the same response. Ambrose moved onto the topic of an electoral reform referendum, and Trudeau used the “Unfair Elections Act” as his excuse for his preferred consultative process. Denis Lebel took over in French, asked Ambrose’s second question again and got the same answer, and his second question was the referendum question in French, prompting Trudeau to drop the “60 percent of Canadians voted to change the electoral system” talking point. Thomas Mulcair was up next, his mini-lectern making a return, and he first thundered about the government shutting down democracy, then asked about the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling around doctor-assisted dying before demanding that C-14 be referred to the Supreme Court. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then changed to the issue of home mail delivery. Trudeau gave his standard response about the promise to consult, and for his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government stop taking veterans to court. Trudeau insisted that they were working with veterans to get results for them.

Continue reading →