Tag Archives: Democratic Reform

Roundup: Trying to game the committee

Posted on by

As we heard late last week, the NDP’s democratic reform critic, Nathan Cullen, has been pushing his new idea of a “proportional” committee to better examine electoral reform options and come up with an idea that can be presented to Canadians. It’s a gimmick, of course, and it one has to be cognisant of Cullen’s agenda, which is of course a certain kind of proportional representation system that his party favours, just like Cullen’s other suggestion of “trying” an election with a new system and then asking voters for forgiveness by means of a referendum after the fact. It’s trying to game the system in a way he prefers, as Colby Cosh pointed out over the weekend, which should raise any number of red flags for those who take Cullen’s proposition seriously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On “mature” democracies

Posted on by

Oh, Maryam Monsef. I try so hard to be optimistic that your democratic reform mandate won’t be one big gong show, and yet I keep finding myself disappointed. The latest example – Monsef insisting that First-Past-The-Post is okay for fledgling democracies, but “mature” democracies can “do better.” And then my head exploded. If there is anything that makes me insane is this notion that somehow proponents of FPTP are just too stupid to grasp all of the wonderful things about various other voting systems (most especially the unicorns-and-rainbows that fans of proportional representation will extol), when some of us are quite learned, thank you very much, and have no interest in alternative voting schemes because they’re predicated on a lot of emotional bunk rather than solid civics. The cries that somehow FPTP is “unfair” or ensures that “votes don’t count” are the siren songs of sore losers who are actually the ones who don’t understand the way our system works, and when you try and point out the inherent flaws in their logic, they get huffy and try to change the goal posts. (I have had innumerable conversations like this. They always wind up the same. Always). And no, proportional representation won’t increase voter turnout. That’s been proven. Declining voter turnout in western democracies is part of a broader problem that is tough to grasp, but I would hazard that a lack of civic literacy is the bigger problem there – just like Monsef’s argument that somehow FPTP isn’t a “mature” system. I’m going to turn that around – I think FPTP is a mature system, and it’s one that, if we were a mature democracy, we would actually understand its intricacies as well as is pleasant simplicity, but no – we are a civically illiterate culture who doesn’t learn about how the system works, so we complain instead that it’s somehow “broken,” when what’s broken is our understanding and political discourse around it. If Monsef wants legitimate democratic reform, then tinkering with the system with abhorrent notions like online voting, lowered voting ages or alternative voting systems aren’t going to actually solve anything. What will solve our democratic deficit is a real push for civic literacy that will re-engage Canadians with the system. But that’s a hard, long-term problem, and everyone wants a quick fix. Those quick fixes will only serve to make things worse, as they always have (and past quick fixes are part of what’s broken about our system as it exists), and Monsef needs to start grasping this reality. One would think that a “mature” democracy would have that level of self-awareness, but I fear we’re not there yet.

Continue reading →

QP: Demands for free votes on Energy East

Posted on by

Monday, and old habits are starting to rear their heads — neither Trudeau nor Mulcair were present, Trudeau in meetings, and Mulcair in La Loche, Saskatchewan. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, and read a question about jobs in the resource sector, demanding support for their opposition day motion on Energy East. Jim Carr noted that they needed to establish a credible process if they wanted to get resources to market. Ambrose decried Trudeau killing off Northern Gateway with the tanker ban on the west coast, to which Carr reminded her of the lack of trust in the regulatory process under the previous government. Ambrose tried again to get support for the motion, but got another reply about the environmental assessment process. Maxime Bernier was up next, decrying deficits, to which Bill Morneau reminded him that the debt-to-GDP ratio was still going down. Bernier cried that only businessmen create investment, not governments, and then demanded confirmation that the Conservatives left a budget surplus. Morneau insisted that the fiscal update released at the end of last year showing a deficit was accurate. Leading off for the NDP was Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, who raised one of the interviews from last night’s CBC special, and demanded help for the manufacturing sector. Navdeep Bains rose up, and said that an innovation agenda for the sector was on the way. Boutin-Sweet demanded a plan yesterday, to which Bains insisted that they have it. Irene Mathyssen took over to read the same again in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Thanks for your pre-arranged meeting

Posted on by

Tuesday, and it was the first regular QP not attended by the new prime minister. Rona Ambrose led off, reading her thanks for Trudeau taking her advice and meeting with Denis Coderre — you know, the meeting he had already had planned before QP yesterday. Ambrose suggested that if he wanted to create other jobs, the government could permit the extension of the Toronto Island Airport, which would hopefully help Bombardier sell more jets. Marc Garneau responded by saying they took an undertaking to respect Toronto’s waterfront plans. Ambrose then raised the spectre of ISIS, and conflated the AQIM attack in Burkina Faso with the other conflict. Stephane Dion insisted that Canada was part of the fight against ISIS. Ambrose then called ISIS the greatest threat to women and GLBT rights, to which Sajjan insisted that ISIS was a threat that he was taking seriously. Gérard Deltell then repeated Ambrose’s first question with the spin of other Quebec industry, and got a response from Jim Carr about the importance of resource development, and took a a second question on Deltell in the same vein. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded that the government not appeal the Human Rights Tribunal decision on First Nations child welfare, to which Jody Raybould-Wilson assured him that they would reform the child welfare system, but did leave the door open for judicial review. Mulcair then turned to the issue of existing pipeline approval processes, to which Catherine McKenna spoke about rebuilding trust with stakeholders. Mulcair demanded that the assessments be redone, but McKenna’s answer didn’t waver. Mulcair thundered about broken promises before pivoting to his scripted question about EI eligibility, to which MaryAnn Mihychuk assured him that they were conducting a comprehensive review.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Religious Freedom office on the line

Posted on by

In a month, Canada’s Religious Freedom ambassador’s first three-year term will expire, as will his office’s budget. He’s been making the rounds, once again, to talk about how much value there is in his office in helping our diplomats understand the religious points of view that dominate certain other countries, and uses that as the justification for his office. In a piece by the Citizen, there are a few other voices who say that he’s been doing a good job, and that he’s been available and accessible to talk about certain foreign policy issues, which is all well and good, but there does remain a certain discomfort around the very existence of the office and its raison d’etre. Part of that has to do with the suspicion that this was an office designed like its American counterpart to essentially be an office of Christian proselytising around the world – and to a certain extent, the press releases we did see out of that office seemed to weigh in particular to countries where there was a Christian minority in some level of persecution. But what the Citizen article misses is a more existential problem that the office faces, which is that its very existence creates a problem of perception in terms of a hierarchy of rights. The previous government in many statements it made in the Commons and elsewhere seemed to point to freedom of religion being a more fundamental building block to other rights and freedoms, which is fairly anathema to human rights academia. Back when the office was created, I spoke to a number of scholars who were sceptical because it introduced the notion that there was a hierarchy of rights, when all rights should be treated equally, lest they get their own departments within Global Affairs, and the jockeying for status, position and funding would take over. It remains to be seen what Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government thinks of the Office and whether they will be inclined to keep it around, or possibly absorb it into some other department within Global Affairs, of if they are persuaded by the argument of the perceptions of hierarchy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Prairie drama queens

Posted on by

Finance minister Bill Morneau was in Calgary yesterday as part of his pre-budget consultations, and while listening to the questions during his televised press conference after the meeting, I am forced to wonder if Albertans aren’t trying to be Confederation’s biggest drama queens about their current economic woes (and yes, I say this as a former Albertan). You’d think that the province was actually disintegrating, but if you look at their numbers, their unemployment rates are only now reaching the national average (around 7 percent), and those that are employed (being the vast majority) are making more money in those jobs than the national averages. Yes, their provincial budget has a huge hole blown through it with the fall in oil revenues, but it’s nothing compared to what Newfoundland & Labrador’s budget hole is looking like with their own oil shock. Meanwhile, I don’t hear the pundit class bemoaning the job losses in that province, or people threatening their premier (though he’s been on the job only a couple of months). People were asking Morneau about extraordinary funding mechanisms outside of equalisation, and while he demurred on answering most of it, I am reminded of the usual Twitter snark of some economists like Mike Moffatt, who quite rightly point out that nobody would have even contemplated the kinds of bailouts for southwestern Ontario when their manufacturing centre crashed the way you hear about what they’re demanding for Alberta. The other problem that the loudest of critics (especially Kevin O’Leary) can’t seem to grasp is that there is a global supply problem with oil – there’s too much in the market, which has depressed prices. What exactly can Alberta’s provincial government do to prop up the sector when there’s already too much supply in the market? Even getting that oil to tidewater would just be adding even more to the global supply chain, which one would imagine wouldn’t help with the depressed prices. Supply and demand, and all of that. Yes, it’s a challenge, and it’s a long-term one that’s rearing its head now. Yes, there is a need for some bigger transformation initiatives, and the provincial government is looking to make changes, and I’m sure the federal government will try to get in on that action, but transitions are difficult things. There are going to be hard periods ahead, but simply demanding federal handouts and calling for Rachel Notley’s head aren’t helping matters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: I Lost My Talk

Posted on by

I Lost My Talk performanceIt’s been a while since I’ve done any arts reporting, but this is an exception. Last night I had the good fortune to attend the world premiere of I Lost My Talk, the new original composition commissioned by the family of former Prime Minister Joe Clark as a gift for his 75th birthday. The composition is based on the poem of the same name by Rita Joe, considered the “poet laureate of the Mi’kmaq” people, and it deals with a people losing their language and subsequently culture thanks to the legacy of residential schools. The evening was marked by a talk on Art and Reconciliation, led by Dr. Marie Wilson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, followed by the performance of the work itself. Presented along with other works about the endurance of the spirit – Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 9 in E-flat Major, Korngold’s Violin Concerto in D Major, Op.35, and John Williams’ theme from Schindler’s List, I Lost My Talk was the final performance of the evening. It was presented along with a video projection of a dance performance, also created to accompany the work. While one may not be sure how to turn a very tight poem of a few lines into an eighteen minute musical piece that is done without lyrics – lines of the poem recited intermittently through the piece – it was done perfectly. The composition itself was like an epic score to the poem, that was cinematic in scope and feel, the film and the choreography therein were wonderfully realized, and visually arresting. In total, it’s a powerful new work of Canadian composition that takes on the themes of reconciliation, bringing elements of the Indigenous conversation to more European art forms, and creates something powerful of them together. It was stated in the talk beforehand that reconciliation is not an Indigenous problem – it’s a Canadian one, where all of our society needs to participate. This work is part of that conversation, and reconciliation. One can think of no greater gift to a former Prime Minister like Joe Clark than the one that his family commissioned for him with I Lost My Talk. That the National Arts Centre is carrying on and extending the work with more First Nations artists creates a broader dialogue for the work, and the ongoing project or reconciliation.

Joe Clark – Art & Reconciliation Panel

Continue reading →

Roundup: Airfare obsessions

Posted on by

Oh, the things we obsess over in this country – like the Prime Minister’s air travel. Perpetual source of media copy, as are the strange figures that get attached to it. As previously mentioned, Justin Trudeau and family went on vacation to the Caribbean island of St. Kitts-Nevis, and apparently rented a villa there (which they paid for out of pocket), and got a bit of tabloid attention, because why not? Also, apparently there was a bit of diplomacy as he met with the country’s prime minister and foreign minister, but that’s beside the point. The point is that while Trudeau has promised to reimburse the public purse for the equivalent of economy fares for the trip, the media continues to bring forward the dollar figure of $10,000 per flying hour to operate the Challenger jets, which the PM is obligated to take for security reasons. The problem with using that $10,000/flying hour figure is that it never places it in the context of it being a military aircraft, and it’s not just sitting around waiting to shuttle the PM around – they’re in use for other operations, and even when they’re not, they still get flown empty because those military pilots need to keep up flying hours aboard them. It’s a Thing, but nobody ever mentions it. Instead, when the PM wants to go somewhere on personal business, we drag up the $10,000/flying hours figure because we want a bit of cheap outrage, and if there’s anything that Canadian media loves, it’s cheap outrage. It is a little curious that Trudeau is reimbursing at the economy fare rate, but I guess we’ll see what that rate looks like once it’s repaid. While Paul Martin made it the practice to repay double the going business-class rate, Stephen Harper would occasionally reimburse it at what was alleged to be the lowest possible economy fare, though most of the time when reporters tried to find equivalent flights for what Harper repaid, well, it couldn’t be done. I would say that if anything, repaying less than the economy fare is almost more insulting than not repaying anything and saying “I’m Prime Minister, I can’t fly commercial, so deal with it” because it almost looks like you’re showing contempt than respecting the taxpayer (which is the born-again motto of the Conservative Party post-election). So really, we should suck it up (provided that the trips aren’t egregious) but I see little chance of that happening anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Important praise for the status quo

Posted on by

The electoral reform conversation has been going around, and proportional representation fans frequently take to my Twitter feed to harass me about the subject, and we usually end at the impasse where they refuse to deal with our system as it exists in order to comprehend its logic. Regardless, there are few voices out in the mainstream in favour of the status quo option, but I was pleased to see that the Ottawa Citizen’s editorial board wrote a defence of the status quo. While some of it needed a bit more work (particularly in how they went about describing how the current system can “skew” results – it really doesn’t if you read those results properly and don’t import the logical fallacies of popular vote figures), but the nub of their argument is the most important – that our current system is particularly valuable in that it lets the electorate throw the bums out on a regular basis. It’s often said that in Canada, we don’t elect governments – we defeat them. And every few years, we get tired of who is in power, and we punish them and elect someone new who will clean up the mess left behind (and really, most of those parties need the defeats to let them clean house, re-energise, and think about where they went wrong. Sometimes, it takes them a couple of elections to do just that). What the editorial didn’t address very specifically is that in many PR countries, there really isn’t this ability to throw the bums out. Instead, they tend to be dominated by a central party who remains in power for decades, while they simply shuffle up their coalition partners when they need something. This was certainly the case in Germany, and while we don’t know what a PR-landscape in Canada would look like, it is a distinct possibility as there would be more incentive for small and fringe parties who exist to start agitating for their own power and influence within a coalition (as that would be the likeliest way to form future governments in what looks to be a continued sense of minority parliaments). As more small parties grow, the larger ones will likely fracture as there will be less incentive for the interests that they contain would stick around when they could gain outsized influence as a smaller party vying for that coalition power. Add to that, if we adopt a PR system that employs party lists, that makes it even harder for problem MPs to be tossed aside, as their fortunes are in the hands of the party itself, not the electorate. While emotional arguments about perceived fairness and “wasted” votes tends to rule the day, accountability should be a feature that requires greater consideration. Most other systems can’t provide it the way ours can, and that remains one of the reasons why I remain with team status quo on our electoral system.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caution on the veto

Posted on by

The particular bugaboos of electoral reform and the role of the Senate have been colliding increasingly in the past number of days, as there have been threats coming that certain Conservative senators have been threatening to use their majority to vote down any legislation on changes to the electoral system unless there’s a referendum first. And then this particular op-ed in the Citizen by a Université de Montréal law professor urging them to do just that makes me want to just take a moment to talk it all through. First, a few things to keep in mind – the senator who went to the media about this threat was Don Plett, who is, well, singular on some issues. He’s broken ranks before, and is willing to stick to his guns on others, but I wouldn’t ever quote him as the voice of the Conservatives in the Senate, even though he is now the caucus whip. The other thing to keep in mind is that the Senate of Canada, being probably the most powerful Upper Chamber in the democratic world, does indeed have the power of unlimited veto – there is no overriding it if the Senate decides that they want something to die. It’s a power that they very rarely use, particularly when it comes to government bills – it’s kind of like the nuclear deterrent for legislation. No, they’d rather make amendments and send it back, with few exceptions. The reason it’s treated with such caution is that they know they don’t have the democratic mandate to exercise these powers except in rare circumstances. In those rare circumstances, they will do it because it’s their job to have a check on a majority government, and be empowered to speak truth to power, which is why they are afforded the kind of institutional independence that they have. So with this in mind, I will hold up a big caution sign when it comes to encouraging them to overturn any theoretical bill on electoral reform. This all dredges up memories of the Free Trade Agreement, and when the Senate held up that bill from the Mulroney government until it could be put to the people, seeing as this deal was hugely contentious at the time, and it was believed that it was going to be selling out our sovereignty to the Americans. The election was fought on this issue, Mulroney won, and the bill passed, and lo and behold, the sky didn’t fall. But while there was merit in putting that question to the people, it was part of the chain of events that started to polarise the Senate, which prior to 1984, was said to have operated on a much less partisan basis. Tit-for-tat games ramped up the partisanship there, until things became so bad that Mulroney exercised the emergency powers of appealing to the Queen to appoint an additional eight senators in order to get the GST passed. The Senate is currently in a vulnerable spot, and while I wouldn’t ask them not to do their jobs because they are in a period of intense scrutiny and this would get blown completely out of proportion by an ignorant pundit class and MPs with agendas harmful to the independence of the Senate – but it would hurt them. That’s why this discussion needs to be approached extremely cautiously, and rash actions scrupulously avoided at all costs.

Continue reading →