Tag Archives: Democratic Reform

QP: Raising the referendum temperature

Posted on by

With the big announcement on the trans rights bill having been made, there were plenty of members’ statements about International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. All of the leaders were present, and Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked about the review of the forthcoming NEB ruling on the TransMountain Pipeline. Justin Trudeau hit back, saying that it was the previous government that created uncertainty by not committing to protecting the environment. Ambrose insisted that the review was “very thorough,” but Trudeau repeated his response about the previous government’s failings. Ambrose changed to the electoral reform referendum issue, and Trudeau responded with his promise that the last election would be the last under First-Past-the-Post. Denis Lebel took over and asked another pair of demands for a referendum in French, and Trudeau repeated his same answer in French. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and wondered “what the hell” the government was waiting for about decriminalizing marijuana — earning him a rebuke from the Speaker. Trudeau repeated his standard points about legalization as a framework to protect kids and deprive organized crime of revenue. Mulcair switched to French to ask about a pardon for people currently convicted under the existing law, but Trudeau’s answer didn’t change. Mulcair changed to C-10, for which Trudeau insisted that it would be used to build an aerospace industry in Canada. Mulcair repeated the question in English, and got the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A short history of trans rights bills

Posted on by

The government is unveiling their promised trans rights bill today, and throughout the day, you’ll be reminded that other trans rights bills have been introduced in the House, and twice died in the Senate, and there will be a general sense of the NDP trying to anoint themselves in this glow of having been the fearless pioneers on this file. And it’s true – they did introduce previous trans rights bills, some of them more successful than others. But there is more to the story than is usually presented, and as someone who used to cover this file extensively (back in my Xtra! and the much lamented Outlooks days), it’s a little more complicated than is often presented. And yes, the NDP have largely introduced iterations of this bill but the sponsor, then-MP Bill Siksay, was too far down the Order of Precedence for it to be ever debated. During the 40th Parliament, however, he was high enough on the Order that the bill came up for debate, and narrowly passed the Commons. By the time it reached the Senate, however, it had mere days before the government was defeated. The Senate has no mechanisms by which to accelerate a private members’ bill, and the justice committee – where it would have been sent to – was jammed full of “tough on crime” bills and a private members’ bill never would have been able to come up for debate (as government bills always take priority). Nevertheless, the Senate was blamed for “ragging the puck” and it died when Parliament dissolved and an election was called. By this time, Siksay had announced that he was not going to run again, and Liberal MP Hedy Fry had said that she would re-introduce the bill in his stead if re-elected. She was, and fulfilled his promise. The NDP’s newly elected MP Randall Garrison was named the party’s new LGBT critic, and he was incensed that Fry had re-introduced the bill and decided to table his own version, but because you can’t have two identical bills on the Order Paper, he needed to come up with some creative drafting in order to differentiate the two bills. And then, by sheer fate, his name came up right before Fry’s on the Order of Precedence when the lottery was drawn, so he went ahead with his poorly drafted bill, while Fry’s version of the same bill was not put forward (and she went on to introduce a cyberbullying bill that was defeated). Not only did Garrison’s bill go ahead, but he decided to introduce amendments that would partially gut the bill and do things like put in definitions for “gender identity” into the text (something that would put it out of step with any other protected grounds in legislation). The resulting bill was a dog’s breakfast, and he managed to squeak it past the Commons, but he actually lost some Conservative support because it was such a hot mess. And when it reached the Senate, there were concerns. Conservative Senator Don Plett had some particular concerns and wanted to raise amendments, and while this whole “bathroom bill” nonsense began circulating, his amendments, while not great, were blown out of proportion by supporters of the bill as being far more odious than they were. And that bill eventually died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved, but while the NDP railed against the Senate as “killing” a bill that the Commons passed, they ignored the fact that it was objectively a bad bill and this was more of a mercy killing. And now, we have a government who has committed to making this one of their priorities, and they are, which we should applaud.

Update: The differences between Fry’s and Garrison’s bill weren’t as pronounced as I remember the debate being. Apologies to all involved, and thanks to Justin Ling for the correction. The amendments, however, were a dog’s breakfast.

Continue reading →

QP: Narratives and process

Posted on by

While there was already drama in the Commons earlier in the morning as a government bill barely survived a tie vote, by the time QP rolled around, it was a bit more sedate. Justin Trudeau was in Montreal for an award presentation, and Rona Ambrose was elsewhere, which left Denis Lebel to lead off. He raised the new guidelines around advertising, but wondered why Trudeau was still in a Discovery Canada ad. Brison reminded him that the ad in question was not a paid ad, and thus did not apply. Lebel asked again, and Brison switched to English and hit back about the previous government’s record. Lebel switched to English to ask again, and got the same answer. Andrew Scheer asked again, and raised the self-promotion narrative before demanding do know that no government funds were used in the ad. Brison read out the policy, and suggested that Scheer rethink his questions. After another round of the same, Thomas Mulcair rose for the NDP, and thundered about the “scammers” in KPMG. Diane Lebouthillier insisted that there were codes of conduct in place and that no one gets special treatment. Mulcair thundered again in French, got the same answer, and before Mulcair thundered about Montreal infrastructure funding. Amarjit Sohi insisted that funding was on the way as consultations were underway. Mulcair asked again in English, and go the same.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just a normal backbench function

Posted on by

There are days when I wonder if the cynicism among reporters isn’t the bigger problem facing Ottawa as we get yet another incredulous piece talking about how backbench Liberal MPs are openly voting against their own party, and how incredible is that? One MP went so far as to say that the Prime Minister himself told his caucus that the media was going to have to get used to the fact that MPs would disagree with him from time to time. And lo and behold, it continues to be treated as both a novelty and an aberration that backbenchers will stand up to government. We had commentary on one of the lesser weekend panel shows yesterday that was some pundit or other incredulous that there were MPs disagreeing with the leader, apparently because there weren’t enough goodies like cabinet posts or committee chairs to go around, and I can’t even.

Meanwhile, we have interviews with the government whip about how he’s going to manage all of these free votes on things (which was fairly constructive, to be honest, as he talked about having copies of the bill at hand and lists of people he could direct MPs to talk about with their concerns). It’s helpful, but needs more reminding that hey, it’s actually a backbencher’s job to hold their own government to account as much as it is the opposition’s. Now, if we could just get them to start asking some real questions in QP instead of throwing these suck-up softballs, that would be really great. Oh, and while I’m on the topic of journalists and pundits acting all surprised that MPs are doing their jobs, can we also stop this faux-confusion about how things are working in the Senate with “independents” and “independent Liberals”? Because honestly, if you haven’t gotten the memo that Senate Liberals are not part of the national Liberal caucus, and that they simply chose to continue to call themselves Liberals because the Rules of the Senate say that a caucus needs to have an association with a registered federal political party, then you really need to get with the programme. Stop saying that things are confusing when they’re not. You’re not helping the public – you’re just making things worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Whose vanity project was bigger?

Posted on by

Day after day in Question Period, we are being subjected to this constant narrative by the Conservative questions that the government – and more specifically Justin Trudeau – is just one big vanity project. Apparently there isn’t a day that goes by that Trudeau or one of his ministers isn’t trying to burnish their own profile, apparently, and the facts aren’t going to dissuade them from this narrative. The State Dinner in Washington? Apparently the president inviting Trudeau’s mother and in-laws was vanity. Trudeau stopping by that boxing gym in New York while already there on business, and seeing disadvantaged youth there? Vanity. Chrystia Freeland’s appearance on Bill Maher’s show while in LA to talk trade with local officials? Vanity. And now it’s the Destination Canada video that Trudeau appears in (never mind that it’s not about him)? Vanity. You can see where this is going. And the new word that Candice Bergen has been dropping to complete this narrative? That all of this supposed self-promotion proves that Trudeau is like a Kardashian. Oh, it’s not an insult, she suggests disingenuously, because the Kardashians work hard at promoting their brand, so obviously that’s what Trudeau is trying to do. So the obvious question to the Conservatives is that if Trudeau is simply busy with all manner of vanity projects, then what the hell was Stephen Harper’s web show 24/Seven? How is that not his own personal reality show à la Keeping Up With the Kardashians? While Trudeau has a personal photographer (Harper had at least two), he isn’t filming his exploits to promote himself under the guise of “a day in the life of a prime minister” or using taxpayer dollars to do it. But the Conservatives haven’t gotten past this notion that because Trudeau is photogenic and charismatic – something that Stephen Harper was not – it must mean that he’s not a Very Serious Person™. The problem is that the electorate didn’t buy that narrative during the election, and Trudeau has proven that he’s got the chops to do the heavy lifting for the job, he’s in the House of Commons more than Stephen Harper ever was when he was PM, he’s taking questions from the media, he’s made himself available, he’s answering questions, and I daresay he’s been more focused on the Canadian brand than his own personal one, but hey – it’s all self-promotion and “vanity.” It’s completely tiresome. That’s not to say that there isn’t a problem with the way Trudeau is using his popularity within his own party to turn it into a cult of personality, and there is a very big problem brewing as he is looking to reshape his party’s constitution to solidify that. That’s a huge problem. But it’s not something that the Conservatives can go after him in QP, and rather than try and find something of substance that they can hammer him on, we are subjected to this inanity instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Sophie Grégoire Trudeau problem

Posted on by

The issue of assistants for Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has become a bit ugly in social media, and overblown in the political arena while opposition parties on both sides of the spectrum try to cast the prime minister’s family as being these out-of-touch elites (some of it completely speciously, as the Conservatives try to equate Trudeau’s statement about not needing government funds for childcare and suddenly billing for nannies was hypocritical, despite the fact that he wasn’t the leader of a G7 nation before), because if there’s nothing that this country loves, it’s cheap outrage. And really, that’s what a lot of this is, combined with some garden variety sexist expectations that she should be a doting wife and mother in the home, taking care of meals and childcare on her own without any public profile. But before we delve into it further, a couple of important reminders.

Seriously, for the love of all the gods on Olympus, stop calling her the First Lady. We don’t have a First Lady in Canada because we have a royal family, and the closest equivalent – aside from Prince Philip as the Royal Consort – is the somewhat antiquated term of the Chatelaine of Rideau Hall.

No, this is completely wrong. We don’t elect governments or parties in this country. We elect 338 MPs, who come together in a parliament that forms a government. So in essence, we did elect the family that came along with the MP who was able to form a government.

And this really is the important point. We have a constitutional monarchy so that the royal family takes on the ceremonial and celebrity functions and prevents the Head of Government from becoming a cult of personality. Unfortunately, in this age of media and social media, where the Trudeaus are consider bona fide celebrities in their own right, it has created a kind of cult of personality (which is only worsened by the fact that the fact that Trudeau was elected by a nebulous “supporter class” means he is accountable to nobody and he knows it). So when the public comes looking for Grégoire Trudeau to do speaking engagements and to do the kind of celebrity outreach that members of the royal family do so well in the UK (but certainly less so here because of their relative absence), how are we supposed to react? What expectations do we put on her as the spouse of the Head of Government, who has no defined role? While I have no objections to the nannies or single assistant (Trudeau is prime minister of a G7 country, and demanding that his spouse do all of the domestic work is frankly odious, particularly given her diplomatic expectations), I find myself torn about the need for additional help. I have no doubt that she needs it, because she has chosen to parlay her celebrity toward charitable causes. And it’s less about the taxpayer’s money that rubs me the wrong way, but the fact that this is getting uncomfortable under our system of government and constitutional traditions. That we have a prime minister who has formed a kind of cult of personality is very uncomfortable, but it’s not a problem with an easy solution, short of insisting that members of the royal family start spending more time on our shores to do the work of the celebrity face of our constitutional order. Is the solution to have the party pay for her added assistants? Maybe. Or to charge speaking fees on a cost-recovery basis? One can imagine the howls out outrage that an “elite” is charging charities money already. There’s not an easy answer, but the discomfort around the larger problem of where our system is headed is something that we should be talking about. Unfortunately, that conversation is being drowned out by cheap outrage and the June and Ward Cleaver crowd, which is only making this whole exercise reek.

Continue reading →

QP: Howling for a referendum 

Posted on by

While the March for Life went on outside the Centre Block, and while Justin Trudeau was in town — having met with the premier of New Brunswick only a couple of hours before — he didn’t show up at QP. Then again, neither did Rona Ambrose or Thomas Mulcair. Jason Kenney led off, demanding a referendum on electoral reform as the provinces had. Maryam Monsef kept up yesterday’s saccharine talking points, and insisted that a referendum wouldn’t reach young people, women, people with disabilities or minorities. Kenney and Monsef went at it again for another two questions, before Stephen Blaney picked up on it in French, and got the same response. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led for the NDP, and decried the composition of the electoral reform committee, to which Monsef insisted that having the Bloc and Greens on the committee was indeed going above and beyond what was required. Hélène Laverdière changed topics and turned to Saudi LAV sales, wondering how many civilians need to be killed before it becomes unacceptable. Stéphane Dion reminded her that the NDP promised to respect the contract to win the seat in that riding, and when Laverdière tried to make it about a question of trust, Dion noted that the NDP changed their tune, not the Liberals.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Real problems with Monsef’s committee

Posted on by

After a day of Twitter fights about the announcement on the electoral reform committee, let me say a couple of things. First of all, the moment anyone says they want to “make every vote count,” they immediately have lost the argument, and this includes the Prime Minister and minister saying this. Why? Because every vote already counts. No, it doesn’t mean that the person you voted for is going to win every time, but they’re not supposed to. If you believe otherwise, then you’re a sore loser. Whenever anyone brings up that the popular vote doesn’t match the proportion of the seats in the Commons, they are relying on a logical fallacy. The popular vote is not a real number because a general election is not a single event. It’s 338 separate but simultaneous events to elect members to fill each of the 338 seats, and together they form a parliament which determines who will form the government. We do not elect governments. If someone says we do, smack them. If someone gives a plaintive wail that the system isn’t fair, then they’re a sore loser trying to play on emotion, which isn’t actually how we should be making decisions. The fact that Maryam Monsef’s “five principles” for choosing a new system doesn’t mention accountability once is a giant problem, because that’s one of the key features of the current system – that we can punish incumbents and vote them out. Other systems can’t say the same, and we have European countries where parties just shuffle coalition partners and stay in power for decades. This is a problem. That the minister doesn’t seem to recognise that while she deals in emotion-laden words and saccharine emotion appeals is a problem. And it’s a problem that media outlets, in talking about other electoral systems, say nothing about the current system of its strengths. And after all of today’s Twitter fights, and appallingly ignorant statements made by the minister and other MPs on this issue, I’m going to reiterate a very important point that nobody is addressing – that the problem we’re facing is not that the current system doesn’t work, it’s that we have a crisis of civic literacy in Canada and people don’t know how the system works so they assume it’s broken because they buy into emotional arguments and sore loserism. That’s the problem that the minister should be tackling, not trying to upend a system that actually does work very well.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/730463384735514629

Continue reading →

QP: Monsef’s saccharine platitudes

Posted on by

For caucus day, all of the leaders were present, and from the gallery at the back of the chamber, former Speaker Peter Milliken was keeping a jovial eye on the place. Rona Ambrose led off, mentioning her time in Fort McMurray and asking that infrastructure funding for the region be fast-tracked to help them get back on their feet. Trudeau thanked her for her leadership on the ground and noted that he formed an ad hoc cabinet committee for the rebuilding, in order to bring the whole of government to help. Ambrose changed topics and demanded a referendum on electoral reform. Trudeau raised the Fair Elections Act, and that people voted for change in the last election. Ambrose asked again in French, got much the same answer, and then Scott Reid took over to ask if the only way the government was going to hold a referendum was if they knew they could win. Trudeau repeated his commitment from the election that it was to have been the last election under First-Past-the-Post. Reid pressed, and Trudeau said that people wanted change after the last government’s behaviour with a majority. Thomas Mulcair got up next, and demanded that the committee allow all of the members to vote. Trudeau insisted that Canadians were clear when they voted for change in the election. Mulcair declared the fix to be in for preferential ballot which he insisted worked in their favour. Trudeau gave his same answer, and Mulcair moved onto a video about Saudi human rights abuses with relation to the LAVs. Trudeau reminded him that he promised not to break the contract, and that Mulcair did too. Mulcair gave a roaring repeat, and got as sharp of a rebuke from Trudeau.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A committee nobody will love

Posted on by

So, the government has put the notice on the Order Paper about forming their electoral reform committee, and there will be howls of outrage from all corners as this is going to please precisely nobody. Well, except maybe Liberals who will be controlling this process. In short, Maryam Monsef’s principles for democratic reform have been distilled to five points from eight, and the committee will be constituted of twelve MPs – six Liberals, three Conservatives, one New Democrat, one Bloc and Elizabeth May, but the Bloc MP and May won’t have voting rights in keeping with established practice. The committee will invite all MPs to hold town halls in their ridings and submit a written report back to the committee by October 1st, and the committee’s final report is to be delivered by December 1st. Of course, the NDP are going toe be livid because Liberals continue to make up a majority on the committee (which is legitimate given that they have the most seats) and that it doesn’t follow Nathan Cullen’s “proportional” idea – which, let’s be clear, was all about gaming the committee to advance his own proportional representation agenda. May is going to be upset because she’d not getting a vote, and she too is going to be railing that it won’t allow her to advance her own PR agenda. The Conservatives are going to be upset because the possibility of a referendum is not in this proposal, and they see that as their way of holding onto the status quo (which they feel favours their own chances). And I’m going to add my own particular objections that, as I’ve written previously, there are some serious problems with those principles that Monsef has laid out. We’ll see how this exercise goes, and I have a sneaking suspicion that these town halls may start to become sideshows as groups like Fair Vote Canada start trying to Astroturf them in trying to get PR advanced as the model to go forward (and given how PR advocates tend to operate, the insults and nastiness are going to start flying pretty quickly). There is also the (not unjustified) suspicion that the fix is already in, that the Liberals have their preferred model (likely ranked ballots) and that this is all a big production number to make it look like they’ve consulted Canadians, and that may very well be the case. Suffice to say, I suspect the next few months are going to be one giant headache, especially for those of us who are cognisant of the civic literacy issues at play.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730215513821982721

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730216383448031233

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730216678756339712

Continue reading →