Tag Archives: Electoral Reform

QP: The “brains and backbone” to defend Canada

Posted on by

The prime minister was present and ready to take all questions, as is his usual wont on Wednesdays, and nearly all of the other leaders were also there. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and worried about the threat of tariffs from the US, but insisted that our economy, the borders, and the PM himself was weak, and demanded an election so that a “strong leader” could put Canada First™. Just Trudeau said it was ironic because they had given the Conservatives a chance to put Canadians first, but they kept voting against initiatives to help people, such as dental care and the school food programme. Poilievre repeated the mocking falsehood that Trudeau’s only plan was a Zoom call with premiers, Trudeau insisted that while the other guy was putting on a little show, he and his party were there for Canadians, and added that the Conservatives are only sowing chaos and discord. Poilievre switched to English, and once again listed things he considered the government to have “weakened,” and wanted an election so there was someone with the “brains and backbone” to defend the country, to peals of laugher from the Liberal benches. Trudeau said that while Poilievre is concerned only about himself and Trudeau, they were focused on Canadians. Poilievre said that was an example was a sign that Trudeau has lost control, and demanded an election. Trudeau mocked that Poilievre was up all night practicing that line in the mirror, and listed ways that the government was there for Canadians. Poilievre insisted that was a “mass hallucination” and that those programmes don’t exist outside of his head, and again demanded an election. Trudeau said this was an example of Poilievre trying to gaslight Canadians, and used dental care as an example of a programme that is working.

Poilievre says that only he has the “brains and backbone” to defend the country.The Liberal benches erupted in peals of laughter. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-27T19:33:11.389Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and said that nobody wants Trudeau’s vote-buying Christmas gift, to which Trudeau praised the GST holiday as helping those struggling. Blanchet said that those who need the cheques most won’t get it, and demanded a confidence vote. Trudeau said it was up to the opposition parties to vote to help people rather than engage in petty partisan games.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP to raise the story of a woman on disability who can’t work, but her spouse is a high-income earner and he will get the cheque and not her (which doesn’t seem like a great anecdote). Trudeau mocked that he remembered a time when the NDP stood up for workers, but now they are not supporting this rebate for workers, and said that they wanted the rebate to acknowledge the hard work of workers. Alistair MacGregor took over in English to also denounce that seniors were not getting the cheque, and Trudeau repeated his same mocking in English. 

No, that spike of inflation was not the worst we had ever seen. It was much higher and more persistent in the seventies and eighties. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-27T19:39:49.718Z

Continue reading →

QP: Boissonnault out vs caucus muzzling

Posted on by

Fresh from his trips to Peru and Brazil, the prime minister was present for QP today, ready to respond to any and all questions, though his deputy was elsewhere. All of the other leaders were present, and just before QP started, it was announced that Randy Boissonnault was stepping away from Cabinet to “clear his name” from the various allegations against him. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and led off with the various salacious allegations against Boissonnault. Justin Trudeau noted that Boissonnault has left Cabinet to focus on the allegations, but the Conservatives only want to cut. Poilievre raised Jody Wilson-Raybould and tried to compare her to Boissonnault, and Trudeau noted that for a leader who claims to want the truth is muzzling his own caucus. Poilievre switched to English, gave a quip about doubling hosing prices and gun crimes, and up until a minute ago, had a minister with a “double identity,” and Trudeau again repeated the points about Poilievre muzzling his MPs rather than letting them advocate for their communities. Poilievre again tried compare Wilson-Raybould to Boissonnault, and Trudeau repeated that Poilievre won’t let his caucus talk because he’s afraid of what they are going to say about him. Poilievre retorted that twenty Liberals want Trudeau gone, and demanded an election. Trudeau said that MPs on his side were free to share their opinions unlike the other side.

That threw a wrench in a bunch of planned #QP questions.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-20T19:32:28.061Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, said this display proved why Quebec needs to be on its own, and then demanded that the government force the Senate to pass the Supply Management bill. Trudeau noted that his party was in favour of it, and demanded the prime minister personally meet with senators to get them to pass it, and Trudeau noted that he does meet with them often, but regardless, the government will protect the system.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, complained about the cost of living, and demanded the government support their economically illiterate GST cut plan. Trudeau said that if the NDP was so concerned about the cost of living, they would help the government break the Conservative obstruction in the Chamber. Singh repeated the demand in French, and Trudeau repeated his same response. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just which system is privileging the party?

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada put out a press release that, straight-faced, said that Pierre Poilievre’s refusal to let his MPs advocate for Housing Accelerator funding is because the current single-member plurality voting system means that it’s always “party first,” which is hilarious because one of the defining features of proportional representation, which they advocate for, is that it privileges the parties over the MPs—so much so that certain PR systems don’t even allow for independents because of how the voting is structured.

Hilarious nonsense from the charlatans at Fair Vote Canada.PR privileges parties over MPs. This kind of behaviour would be worse under PR, not better, because the party has more control over individual MPs, not less.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:30:33.890Z

Their argument was more along the lines of “If you have more than one member in a riding, they don’t have to fight to be the sole voice” or something like that, which is only a feature in certain forms of PR (because there are many), but one that is wholly unworkable in Canada. Why? Because of our vast geographic distances. Some ridings are already the size of France, and allowances need to be made for some of these rural and remote ridings to have a smaller population than the median riding size because the distance is just too great otherwise. Each of the Territories is a good example of that. Expanding those ridings to be multi-member is a non-starter, and if you think that means that we can have two different systems—multi-member ridings in cities, single-member ridings in rural and remote areas—well, good luck convincing the Supreme Court of Canada that the inequities are constitutional.

Nevertheless, it will never not be hilarious for Fair Vote Canada to try and claim that the current system puts the party first when in actual fact, it privileges the rights of individual MPs to make their own choices, and allows them the freedom to buck their party lines if they have the spine to do so, because they are elected as an individual, not as a name on a party list. That matters a lot in terms of the rights of an MP, and for them to dismiss it is yet another sign that they’re a bunch of pretenders who don’t actually understand the system, or let alone enough to want to change it for some hand-waving that pretends it will be a panacea to problems when in fact it will just trade one set of problems for a new set that could very well be worse.

Especially when it consists of three-word slogans, or feel-good pabulum.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-11-18T14:18:06.943Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile hit a residential building in Sumy late Sunday, killing 11l and wounding over 89. On Monday, a missile hit a residential neighbourhood in Odesa, killing ten and wounding over forty-four. President Zelenskyy visited the frontline towns of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has found evidence of Russia using tear gas last month in battles in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Here is a look at how the 1000 days of Russia’s invasion have changed the landscape of drone warfare, and what the invasion has cost Ukraine. Here is a look at what the US’ decision to allow Ukraine to use its weapons for strikes in Russian territory could mean.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1858432305305424302

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another Longest Ballot initiative

Posted on by

The chuckleheads at the “Longest Ballot Committee” have struck again, this time with the by-election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, where they have ensured that there are 91 names on that ballot, which surpasses the number they have on the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election ballot. And no, this is not Conservative skullduggery as many people like to suggest—this is the work of proportional representation fetishists who think that stunts like this will somehow convince the federal government to bow to their demands and institute PR, which isn’t going to happen. Why? Because we’ve been through this process before, and the hot garbage report that the parliamentary committee produced called on the government to invent a bespoke PR system whose main features were going to essentially be impossible to implement without massive constitutional change (because seats have provincial allocations and you can’t achieve a low Gallagher-index score with as few seats as many provinces have) or massively increasing the size of Parliament.

These stunts, however, are pretty much going to guarantee that electoral reform is coming in the form of increasing the thresholds for getting on the ballot, and restricting the kinds of nonsense that enabled these stunts, such as allowing a single person to be the official agent for the vast majority of these names. There is already an electoral reform bill in front of the Commons, which was intended to do things like allow for more early voting days and greater accessibility options, and that means it’s going to be very easy to add in an amendment that will help thwart these kinds of cockamamie tactics going forward. They haven’t helped their cause, and their self-righteous justifications for doing so have actually hurt themselves more than anything.

Ukraine Dispatch

The latest barrage of Russian missiles killed six people across two regions, which included another hotel being targeted. Ukrainian forces also noted that many of those missiles were shot down by their new F-16 fighters. While Ukrainian forces continue to advance in Kursk, Russian forces continue to press toward Pokrovsk because it is a strategic rail hub. Ukrainian drones have hit a Russian oil depot in their Rostov region, and started a fire. President Zelenskyy says that he will present a plan to Joe Biden to help pressure Russia into ending the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Impossible to extrapolate

Posted on by

As with so many elections these days, it brings out the electoral reform fetishists, and they get self-righteous and say dumb things all over social media, and this week’s general election in the UK is no different. And lo, those fetishists are again making pronouncements about things like “voters’ wishes” because they’re trying to find a grand narrative that confirms their priors, and I fear I may lose my gods damned mind over this.

Once again, let us remember what this election is—650 separate and simultaneous elections, each one for a specific seat. So yes, the voters’ wishes are reflected because they chose who filled each seat. As well, I will once again remind you that the so-called “popular vote” is a logical fallacy because there is too much variation between each electoral contest to make any kind of grand aggregate that is meaningful—particularly in the UK, where the smaller countries have regional parties that England doesn’t, and yes, that does distort the “national picture” (as what happens in Canada with the Bloc). And no, every vote that is cast does not deserve their own seat. That’s not democracy, and it’s actually sore loserism if you believe that your vote doesn’t count if the person or party you prefer doesn’t win.

This is the other aspect of these fetishists spouting off and producing their own graphs of how they claim that Parliament “should” look if they had a PR system, erm, except they seem to always insist that it would be pure-PR (which is almost entirely unlikely), and it discounts that voting behaviour would change, but so would party formation under a system that no longer rewards big-tent brokerage in favour of post-election negotiation for coalitions. In no possible way can you extrapolate a vote like Thursday’s and come up with what a Parliament “should” look like, but that won’t stop the fetishists from trying.

Oh, and if one of these fetishists also tries to bring up lines about how the current single-member plurality system is “bad for democracy,” I’m not sure that PR is having a great run right now, as it legitimizes far-right and extremist parties that is almost impossible under SMP, and that legitimacy afforded to them is allowing them to grow across Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is also cause for concern, given that the far-right parties there have taken months to try to cobble together some sort of working coalition and may prove completely unworkable or ungovernable, and that’s not good for anyone.

Ukraine Dispatch

The Russian advance toward Toretsk in the Donetsk region means that time is running out for any Ukrainian citizens that want to flee. While Ukraine managed to destroy all 32 Russian drones launched Friday night, early Saturday morning was another story—drones hit an energy facility in Sumy, and hits on Selydove and Komar killed eight combined. Meanwhile, the head of Ukraine’s navy says that Russia has  nearly re-based all of its combat-read warships from occupied Crimea, because of the number of successful Ukrainian strikes on the region.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Electoral reform tries to take the spotlight

Posted on by

In addition to the constant wanking of pollsters and polling analysts, while the Elder Pundits continue to pronounce the end of Justin Trudeau’s political career, there has been an entire sub-category of commentary that is trying to tie this by-election loss to the failure to enact some kind of electoral reform, even though Trudeau has won two elections since then. Justin Ling wrote up a whole op-ed about this for the Star yesterday, given that the 84 candidates on the by-election ballot were because of a tantrum by electoral reform group to use the stunt to call attention to Trudeau’s broken promise. And Ling makes some wild assertions along the way.

This notion that MPs are more beholden to the party than to their constituents would not be fixed by changing the electoral system. In fact, the current system is the one that most empowers MPs to be beholden to their constituents, as most PR systems rely on party votes, and party lists to fill “proportional” seats, and that makes those MPs even more beholden to the leader because they don’t have the connection to a riding as a result. That’s an even worse outcome, and hands even more power to the leader to centralise, worse than they already do. The ability to be independent under such a PR system is even less than under the current system, so I have a hard time fathoming why anyone thinks that this solves any of those problems.

The current dysfunction that Ling complains about in the piece is not a result of the electoral system—it’s because of the perverse incentives that have developed, compounded by the Trump Effect, that have made rational discourse impossible because everything is about driving engagement over social media, not in the Houses of Parliament. Changing the electoral system wouldn’t change that—in fact, it could make it worse as parties fragment and fragile coalitions emerge that rely on extremists to play kingmaker, forcing parties to behave in even more outrageous fashions. Electoral reform doesn’t solve problems—it takes an existing set of problems and replaces them with a new set of problems. Resurrecting this debate in order to once again flog this dead horse is not helping anyone, and if anything, is just distracting from the actual frank conversations that parties need to be having amongst themselves with their members about how to meet the moment to solving the problems this country faces. PR won’t make that happen, and we have to stop entertaining the notion that it somehow will.

Programming Note: I’m taking the long weekend fully off of blogging, as well as a few days next week in order to work on another project.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces say that they have forced Russian troops out of part of Chasiv Yar. Some Ukrainian commanders are complaining that the Canadian-built Senator armoured vehicles aren’t built for off-road capability, break down too often, and aren’t well suited for the front lines. With the EU security pact now signed, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on European allies to fulfil their promises around arms and supports.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1806344642041917773

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1806321424446951489

Continue reading →

Roundup: The hit piece that wasn’t

Posted on by

Remember a week ago when Pierre Poilievre put out a tweet declaring that the Toronto Star was attacking him, and he tried to pre-spin a forthcoming story about he and his wife buying a $300 splash pool for their kids? Well, we finally saw that story on the weekend, and lo, it was nothing at all like Poilievre whiningly described. Instead, it was about how security upgrades have been made at Stornoway because of concerns that included those from the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House of Commons. Some “attack.”

This is, of course, how Poilievre likes to frame every media interaction, no matter what. The attacks he’s been making against The Canadian Press for the corrections they made to a story were not misquotes or certainly not a “hit piece” like he keeps saying—the corrections were because the journalist drew the links that Poilievre was hinting at in the remarks he made to a radio station. That was it. With the stories about Danielle Smith’s anti-trans policies and trying to get comment from Poilievre on them, he keeps accusing them of “disinformation,” when it’s nothing of the sort. We all know, of course, that this is him playing for clips that he’ll feed to his base on his socials, and that his friendly outlets like Rebel and True North will pick up on his behalf, but come on. At some point, you would think that people would see that the stories were not attacks and that he’s being a big crybaby over nothing. Of course, that would mean that their cognitive dissonance wouldn’t also kick in to avoid criticizing their leader, but come on. You’re not the victim here.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched 45 drones over Ukraine early Sunday, after they previous hit Kharkiv the day before, which killed seven. Russian forces are pushing into Avdiivka, and getting close to main supply lines, which creates a major challenge for the new commander-in-chief. Russians have been found using Starlink terminals in occupied territories in an organised manner, while Starlink insists that they haven’t sold terminals directly or indirectly to Russia.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1756210514835722290

Continue reading →

QP: Quoting the Criminal Code to one another

Posted on by

Neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present today, in spite of both being in Ottawa, though most of the other leaders were present. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, fresh from his press conference earlier this morning in Brampton, and he tied the Bloc to government legislation around bail conditions and conditional sentencing, blaming them for the rise in auto thefts (which is pretty specious at best), before asking the government to reverse those positions. Steven MacKinnon says that the Conservatives were pretending to care about auto theft like they pretended to care about grocery prices, and tried to connect Poilievre’s campaign chair, Jenni Byrne, with lobbying Loblaws. (She wasn’t the lobbyist, and they were only lobbying about beer and wine sales, for the record). Poilievre declared that he announced “common sense” solutions for ending auto thefts, most of which are unconstitutional. MacKinnon repeated the insinuations that Poilievre had made promises to Byrne, who is advising the caucus. Poilievre switched to English to again claim that “catch and release” bail was to blame for the rise in car thefts, and MacKinnon repeated his claim that the Conservatives were only pretending to care, and made the insinuations about Byrne in English. Poilievre insisted that Byrne’s advise was the slogan he repeated, and once again blamed the government for increasing car thefts and touted his “common sense” plan. Arif Virani reminded him that mandatory minimums for auto theft are already on the books, so he’s demanding a policy that already exists. Poilievre insisted that bail reform didn’t apply to auto theft so he should have read his own legation. Virani responded that he listens to police and noted that this isn’t an issue of individual crime but organised crime, and that the Conservatives are blocking measures to combat money laundering.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and railed that Quebec is owed $470 million for asylum seekers, no less. Marc Miller said the money they have sent is not nothing and that they are working with the province. Therrien listed grievances related to immigration and asylum seekers, to which Miller accused them of being “armchair managers,” and cherry-picking statistics.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and took credit for Manulife walking back their decision to only fill certain prescriptions at Loblaws, and demanded the government stop working for Big Pharma. Mark Holland pointed to actions they have taken to lower drug prices across the board. Singh switched to French to complain that the government met with Loblaws lobbyists 60 times—which means nothing—and Holland repeated his response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ridiculous court appeal

Posted on by

There is a court case in Ontario, now being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, filed by election reform advocates claiming that the existing single-member plurality voting system is unconstitutional because it violates Charter rights. It was rightfully dismissed by the Superior Court judge, because obviously, but there is something I did want to remark on. No, I’m not going to go into another rant about why I’m not a fan of proportional representation systems, or how most of their arguments deliberately misconstrue how single-member plurality works, but rather about how this is yet another attempt to use the courts when you lose at politics.

Beyond this kind of challenge being just on this side of lawfare, what gets me is how these kinds of groups seem to have zero conception of just what they want the courts to order in terms of a remedy, because that’s a pretty big deal. You want the courts to declare that the current system violates the Charter? Ignoring for the moment that their arguments are specious and jejune, what exactly do they think the courts are going to do? Order the federal government to implement a PR system? Which one? Because that’s kind of a giant sticking point. One of the main reasons why the electoral reform committee in Trudeau’s first parliament failed is because the recommendations in that report were hot garbage—design a bespoke system with a bunch of factors that rendered it virtually impossible to achieve without some major constitutional changes. PR is not one system you can just plug-and-play—there are so many variations of it that can wildly affect outcomes that it’s not inconceivable that it would degenerate into a major fight for years, while the court’s declaration of invalidity hangs over them. How does that work, exactly?

There are similar problems with other court challenges, such as the ones purportedly launched by youth over climate change. What exactly do they think the courts are going to propose as a remedy in that kind of a situation—and if you say “follow the science,” you deserve a smack upside the head, because science is a process, not a declaration. Science is not policy. The courts cannot impose policy, which is why it’s a really dumb idea to resort to the courts when you lose at politics. But that’s what we’re getting a lot of, and it means using the wrong tools and wasting a lot of time and energy to attack the problem in entirely the wrong way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian drones attacked an oil storage depot in western Russia, causing a massive blaze, as a way of unsettling voters ahead of their presidential election.

Continue reading →

QP: Repetitive demands for Mendicino to resign

Posted on by

The prime minister was away on a Wednesday, which is unusual, as he was in Quebec touring areas affected by the wildfires. His deputy was also in town and had addressed the media earlier, but she was also absent, and with that absence, the Bloc leader also opted not to show up. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that an entire generation of women will need to relive the trauma of Paul Bernardo with news that he has been transferred to a medium-security facility, and that Marco Mendicino was aware for three months, insisting that what he said was false and demanded his resignation. Mendicino said he was shocked by the news because he wasn’t informed until the day after the transfer, that it was a mistake within his office and he will take tangible action and that they always stand up for victims’ rights. Poilievre repeated his over-the-top accusation in English, and Mendicino repeated his same response, noting that there is an review process underway at Corrections. Poilievre accused him of throwing his staff under the bus, but because nobody got fired, he must be lying and needs to resign. Mendicino invited him to repeat the accusation outside of the House, and the Speaker how to call order among the yells that he already did, and when calm was restored, Mendicino accused Poilievre of misleading the House in his assertions. Poilievre insisted that Mendicino was trying to say that his staff forgot to walk down the hall to inform him and claimed he has the authority to designate all mass murders go to maximum security. Mendicino insisted that this question was a prescription for political interference, and that he was going to be issuing new ministerial directives to the Correctional Service. Poilievre again insisted that Mendicino has the power to designate prisoners, and demanded Mendicino be fired. Mendicino repeated that he is issuing new directives to the Service.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded a public inquiry be launched before the House rises for the summer, and demanded clarity and not talk of a “public process.” Dominic LeBlanc insisted that he shares the desire to get to the right process, and that a public inquiry is an option provided they could find the right way to do so. Therrien insisted that they must declare it be an inquiry, and LeBlanc repeated that it could be an inquiry if it can be done the right way.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and returned to the Bernardo question, saying that Mendicino can’t keep his house in order and told him to stop waiting by the fax machine and check his emails. Mendicino said that he corrected the matter in his office. Singh switched to French to point to the testimony about Blair being meant to read the briefing about Chong, and told him to check his emails again. This time Bill Blair stood up to clarify that ministers and their offices don’t have access to the top secret network and that he was not briefed by the CSIS director. 

Continue reading →