Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity

Roundup: Earnest Scott Simms

Posted on by

As is becoming a daily occurrence, we have yet another voice weighing in on the Standing Orders debate, and this time, it’s the mover of the motion that’s causing so much Sturm und Drang in the House of Commons (and the Procedure and House Affairs committee) right now – Scott Simms. Simms, I believe quite earnestly, insists that we need to give reform a chance, and he lists all of the wonderful things he hopes to happen out of Bardish Chagger’s discussion paper, and I believe he’s earnest because he has recently co-edited a book on parliamentary reform with noted notoriously wrong-headed would-be reformers Michael Chong and Kennedy Stewart.

Of course, nothing in these proposals will fix what ails parliament, and will only create more problems than it solves. We’ve established this time and again, and I’ve written a book to this effect, but the problems are not structural. MPs, however, don’t necessarily see that because they’re trapped in a sick and dysfunctional parliamentary culture and looking around for fixes, they see some levers that look easy to pull, never mind that those levers will make things worse. Digging into the underlying cultural problems are harder to see and do, and that’s why MPs have been assiduously avoiding them, but we shouldn’t let them get away with it. Granted, it would be far more helpful if more members of the media could see that fact as well and not get lured by the shiny reform ideas that keep getting floated around, followed by the drama of the outrage, which is all too easy to get sucked into. Because who doesn’t love drama?

So with all due respect to Simms, no, the time for being open-minded about these reform ideas has passed. We’ve lurched from one bad reform idea to another for the past half century (century if you want to count the granddaddy of all disastrous reforms, which the Liberals promulgated in 1919 when they changed the leadership selection process) and things haven’t gotten any better. It’s time to take that hard look at where things are situated, and means slapping MPs’ hands away from those shiny, easy-looking levers. It’s time to have a meaningful re-engagement with the system, and nothing in these discussion paper ideas does that. In fact, it does the opposite.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Top-down incentives

Posted on by

To the excitement of certain federal MPs, the New Brunswick government has decided that in order to encourage more women to run for the provincial legislature (currently there are a pathetic eight out of 49 MLAs), they are going to offer richer per-vote subsidies for parties for women candidates over male ones. While there is a school of thought that insists that this is a great way to get parties to put more women on the ballot, I remain unconvinced.

Part of the problem is that this is trying to impose a top-down solution, which defeats part of the purpose of how our system is supposed to work. Candidates are supposed to come from the ground-up, and candidates should be chosen by the local grassroots, which means giving them tools to help recruit more women (and other minorities). That means removing barriers on the ground, whether it’s being persistent in asking them to run (there is research that shows that you need to ask women an average of five times before they’ll say yes – a strategy the federal Liberals successfully adopted before the last election), or arranging childcare, or ensuring that your local fundraising networks aren’t excluding them because many women candidates don’t have access to the same kinds of networks. It means organizing on the ground, not simply naming or nominating women candidates from on high and expecting people to vote for them.

I will grant you that the New Brunswick Liberals think they’re being clever by tying the increased per-vote subsidy to women as a tactic that would incentive parties to run them in ridings where they’ll get more votes rather than in no-hope ridings (because it’s true that simply offering financial incentives or penalties based on the percentage of women running often results in women carrying those no-hope ridings), but it still smacks of a top-down solution that will result in accusations of tokenism – that they’re only running women so that the party gets more money rather than because she’s the best person for the job. Top-down impositions based on perverse incentives can’t and shouldn’t be the answer. The answer should be proper grassroots engagement and understanding the barriers women face so that they can be removed at the ground level. If we can do that, combined with getting a greater number of straight white male incumbents to step aside to give more space to women and minority candidates to take their places, we’ll find a better and more sustainable engagement with the system.

Continue reading →

QP: Howling denunciations

Posted on by

With the budget lock-up going on down the street, procedural warfare taking place at committee, and news from the attacks on Westminster filtering through, there was a lot to distract from QP. Rona Ambrose led off, asking about the Westminster attack, and Trudeau offered both condemnation for the attacker, and condolences for the victims. Ambrose then moved onto the topic of immigration policy and those who follow the rules. Trudeau said that they are ensuring that all Canadian laws are being followed and police and border agencies have the resources they need. Ambrose then moved onto the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, and Trudeau said that they were pleased to put forward a broad discussion paper, with a number of platitudes. Ambrose pressed on changes to Question Period, and Trudeau insisted he was pleased to answer questions but he was open to improvements. Ambrose wondered how Trudeau would respond if Stephen Harper proposed showing up in QP just once a week — never mind that once a week was Harper’s average. Trudeau hit back that Harper would never put forward a paper or have a discussion about it. Mulcair was up next and asked the same thing, and Trudeau instead admonished the opposition for their heckling with all of the school children in the gallery. Mulcair went another round, and got much the same admonishment. Mulcair then turned to a question about what should happen if a minister should break the Conflict of Interest Act, and Trudeau said that they follow the rules. Mulcair accused Trudeau of taking illegal gifts and breaking the law, and railed about how little Trudeau repaid for his vacation. Trudeau noted that they put a policy into place for reimbursement, and that the RCMP makes determinations about his safety.

Continue reading →

Roundup: How to dissect a handshake

Posted on by

So, the Justin Trudeau-Donald Trump meeting happened, and we got our expected blanket coverage, starting with the handshakes. And how they were endlessly dissected, and made memeable.

https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/831176588842655744

https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/831178895898599429

https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/831181554688860160

https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/831186238992433152

Trudeau and Trump then had a “working luncheon” with female business leaders, Trudeau having ostensibly recruited Trump’s daughter Ivanka to the cause. Around that time, Trudeau gave Trump a gift of a photo of his father having met Trump in 1981, while Trump said that he admired the elder Trudeau, though how well he actually knew Pierre Trudeau is somewhat in dispute. (and it’s exactly the kind of photo that would appeal to Trump’s vanity).

Later, during the press conference, there were two takeaways – that Trudeau wasn’t going to lecture Trump on how to run his own affairs, and that Trump felt they were only going to “tweak” NAFTA as far as Canada is concerned. Also, no talks of walls, and hints that maybe we’ll be exempt from “Buy American” provisions, while any talk of the climate change file was done in coded language.  Trudeau later met with the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader before heading home, reminding each of the importance of trade with Canada in case they got swept up in any talk of border taxes or the like. Oh, and we’re being told that Sarah Palin won’t be named ambassador to Canada, so you can exhale now.

In commentary, we have Chantal Hébert considers it a first date that went well, while John Ivision asserts that flattery got Trudeau everything he needed out of Trump. Carl Meyer wonders how different things are in the Trumpocalypse from our own Harper years, pointing to the number of parallels. Paul Wells demonstrates how Trudeau used the photo of his father and the meeting with Ivanka to play into Trump’s particular instincts in order to gain the “insider” status that he needs to effectively deal with him.

Continue reading →

QP: Electoral reform apoplexy

Posted on by

After the howls of outrage by the NDP and Elizabeth May in the Foyer about announcement that the government was abandoning its plans for electoral reform, it was promising to be a rowdy QP. Rona Ambrose led off, worrying about the state of the deficit on future generations. Justin Trudeau responded by reminding her that the Canada Child Benefit was giving direct aid to the middle class. Ambrose worried about the bogey man of taxes on medical and dental benefits, and Trudeau started off with the usual points about the middle class tax cut before saying that he would not raise those taxes. Ambrose was a bit thrown from her points, and asked something vague about youth, and Trudeau noted the various programs they’ve implemented. Denis Lebel was up next, and clearly having prepared a question on the benefit taxes, he wanted Trudeau to repeat the answer in French, and Trudeau dutifully did so. Lebel then asked about softwood lumber, and Trudeau listed the many files they had worked on with the Americans and softwood lumber was on that list. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and wanted Trudeau to admit that he lied on electoral reform. Trudeau listed the many positions out there, said there was no consensus and didn’t want to harm country’s stability at this time. Mulcair went another round, got the same response. Mulcair hounded Trudeau on the topic, but Trudeau said he wasn’t going to just check off a item on a list if it was the wrong thing to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senators get their funds

Posted on by

In case you missed the news, the new Independent Senators Group got core funding to hire staff to help coordinate independent senators’ activities and logistics. This came around the same time that they managed to strike a deal when it comes to getting more independents on committees without waiting for a prorogation to hit the reset button as the rules would otherwise dictate. Why this matters is because it allows the ISG to effectively organise their own members, to help them hire staff and do things like that – efforts which Government Leader – err, “representative” Senator Peter Harder has been attempting to bigfoot with his own offers to help these senators get staffed up and offering briefings and assisting in legislative coordination and so on. The fact that he represents the government and has been sworn into the Privy Council – regardless of his protestations that he’s independent because he’s actually not (you can’t be both an independent and represent the government – it’s like being half-pregnant) – makes this a blow to actual independence that these senators are supposed to be exercising. Giving the ISG the funds to do that on their own is an important step. Of course, the same piece mentions that Harder plans to move motions in the Senate in the spring related to his ability to restyle his title as he wishes, and that I have a problem with. This particular semantic game that he and the Trudeau government are playing around his role is a very big problem when it comes to how the chamber operates in our Westminster system, and Harder playing silly buggers with what he calls himself in order to cloak his role with the government is a problem. He and this government need to drop the charade and just come clean – Harder should be a cabinet minister in keeping with the role, and be the point of contact for accountability in the Senate. Playing games around it weakens accountability and the duty of the Senate in that role.

Meanwhile, with the appointment process for six upcoming vacancies having been announced, we also got the release of the report on the statistics from the previous round (highlights here). Maybe this time we’ll see an appointment from Southwestern Ontario, a new LGBT senator or even someone from outside of the social sciences!

Finally, Senator Denise Batters appears to have broken the rules to record a video in the Senate Chamber, accusing Trudeau of authoritarian tendencies in trying to destroy opposition in the Senate. While her basic premise – that there is a movement to shut down the position of Official Opposition in the Senate – is correct and concerning, Batters cranked it up to eleven in being completely overwrought about it, and does more harm than good to the issue. I’m not sure how much the move to weaken Official Opposition in the Senate comes from Trudeau or from Harder and his particular vision of Senate “independence” where he can co-opt the independents to his causes, but that remains a concern that I’ve heard from not only the Liberals and Conservatives in the Senate, but a couple of the independents as well. But this kind of stunt doesn’t help.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expat voting just fine as is

Posted on by

Democratic institutions minister Maryam Monsef is saying that she plans to table new legislation around expat voting by the end of the year, and I’m going to come right out and say that while I know it’s not really popular to say so, I’m actually not sure that a five-year time limit for expats is so bad, because of the way that our voting system operates. To be more specific, our electoral system depends on your voting in one of 338 ridings to elect a local representative. You’ve not voting for the party banner or the party leader – you’re voting for the representative, regardless of what your particular electoral calculation is when you’re in the voting booth. And as an expat who has been out of the country – and in particular that riding – for more than five years, does it really make sense for you to continue to cast a ballot in said riding if you don’t actually live there?

And this is the part where people start shouting about their right to vote, which is all well and good, but again I go back to the central premise – how can you vote for a representative in a riding if you don’t live there, and almost certainly don’t know who is actually on the ballot? And don’t tell me that it doesn’t matter, that the majority of people vote based on the party or the leader, because it actually does matter. Our system is constructed in a way that ensures maximum accountability (and that accountability is currently wounded by the rules around party leadership selection, but that’s another story for another day), and that means accountability for the MP who was selected in that riding election for that seat (and yes, each riding is a separate election), and later in the House of Commons, when the government is responsible to the whole of the Chamber to maintain confidence to continue governing. And this is where expat voting gets complicated. How can someone who doesn’t live in the riding know what is going on, and whether the MP is doing a good job or not? Sure, a few expats maintain close enough ties, but I would venture that the vast majority don’t, and that the vast majority are looking to cast a special ballot based solely on party or leader preference, but that’s not how the system works, and yes, that’s important because democracy is process. The vote has to have a proper meaning, and that meaning is for the individual MP to fill the individual seat. This is not the United States where people ostensibly cast a direct ballot for the presidency (which again is complicated by their electoral college), but that makes a special ballot for expats a simpler affair. (They also impose taxes on expats, which Canada doesn’t). What about the voter rolls, where expats would ostensibly be listed at an address where they no longer live? How does that actually work in practical terms without creating yet more headaches for Elections Canada? Unless Maryam Monsef can thread the needle to demonstrate how expats can still vote within our current system in an effective manner which means voting for a candidate in a riding, I’m having a hard time seeing how dropping the five-year rule is either beneficial, practical, or even responsible. (And yes, I’m sure that I’m a monster for thinking so).

Continue reading →

QP: Carbon tax woes

Posted on by

While Rona Ambrose was still away, we had both the PM and NDP “interim” leader Thomas Mulcair present for the day. Denis Lebel led off, decrying federal interference with the provinces with the imposition of their carbon tax. Trudeau insisted that they were working with the provinces to move ahead with tackling emissions. Lebel switched to English to ask again, and got much the same answer, with Trudeau making a few more digs about the previous government not being willing to work with provinces. Lebel went another round in French before Ed Fast took over to ask the same question yet again in English, concern trolling about the three provincial environment ministers who walked out of the meeting with federal ministers. Trudeau largely repeated his points about working with the provinces to create a strong economy and a clean environment. Fast read out condemnation from those ministers, and Trudeau ensured him that their plan would create jobs. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying the endorsement of “Stephen Harper’s targets,” and lamented the too-low carbon price. Trudeau replied with his established points about showing leadership in creating jobs and protecting the environment. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer, and then moved onto concerns about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the wake of the Environment Commissioner’s report, to which Trudeau said they would follow up on the recommendations. For his final question, Mulcair demanded that the government agree to the NDP motion on a committee on arms sales, but Trudeau did not agree, and pointed to their adopting the small arms treaty.

Continue reading →

QP: Taking the provinces’ phone calls

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was not only present, having already participated in the debate of the day (a rarity for any PM these days), his leaders opposite were not. Rona Ambrose was off to the UK Conservative caucus in Birmingham, while Thomas Mulcair was elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the Conservatives, demanding a signed softwood lumber agreement before it was too late. Trudeau responded by reminding him that the previous government neglected the file while his government has been hard at work in negotiations. Lebel moved onto the healthcare transfers file, demanding the government respect provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau shook it off, ensuring that they were working together. Lebel insisted that there was peace with the provinces when the Conservatives were in charge and why wouldn’t the federal government just let them be rather than meddle? Trudeau insisted that the provinces were much happier now that the federal government answered their phone calls. Ed Fast got up next to decry the “carbon tax grab” being shoved “down the throats” of Canadians. Trudeau hit back that the previous government ignored the file and made no progress, while his government was. Fast tried again, decrying it as an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, but Trudeau reminded him that they were indeed respecting said jurisdiction. Robert Aubin led off for the NDP, lamenting the “Harper targets” for GHGs, and Trudeau noted that they had just tabled their plan, and soon all Canadians — not just 80 percent — would be in a carbon priced jurisdiction. Aubin went again another round, got the same answer, and Linda Duncan took over in English, decrying that the announced starting carbon price was too low to be effective. Trudeau noted they were simultaneously developing a strong economy while being environmentally sustainable. Duncan worried the government was abandoning the clean energy future, but Trudeau reiterated his answer a little more forcefully.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poisoning the expenses well

Posted on by

With the story out yesterday morning about Rona Ambrose’s expenses claimed while staying in Stornoway, I think we’re starting to approach peak ridiculousness with the growing war over expenses, and accusations of poor judgment across the board. That the Conservatives have spent the past two days pushing a non-story about Dominic LeBlanc giving a speech at an event sponsored by a law firm with Irving connections, claiming poor judgment and a conflict of interest where clearly none actually exists (it’s not a fundraiser, no decisions are being made, it’s a speech, FFS), it’s desperation and grasping at straws.

https://twitter.com/robsilver/status/781902059440181249

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902332837687296

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/781902590615359488

The bigger problem, however, is the corrosive effect this continues to have, fuelling not only the cheap, petty outrage that voters are being encouraged to feel anytime government spends money, but it is starting to burn the very real bridges for why we have expense regimes in the first place.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/781863718799941632

Like Rob Silver above, Wherry may be exhibiting his trademark sarcasm, he’s got a point – we are rapidly approaching the point where We The Media have stoked such public opposition to legitimate expense claims by clutching our pearls at seemingly large numbers presented without context while crying “Judgment!” and “Taxpayers’ money!” that people are developing the wrong impression. We had NDP MPs last parliament declaring that if we’re to have senators, then they should all work as volunteers, and lately I’ve had jackasses barking at me on the Twitter Machine saying that senior political staff should also be volunteers. We’re half-a-step away from people demanding it of MPs.

Which gets back to the whole point of expense regimes in the first place – so that it acts as an equaliser, so that you don’t have to be inordinately wealthy in the first place in order to participate in political life, be it as an MP or senator (or senior political staffer, apparently). Do we really think it’s for the best that we return to an era where only the wealthy can afford to participate in political life and let them dictate policy for us? Or where a lack of an expense regime would encourage actual graft (as opposed to this nonsense we’re currently getting the vapours over with moving expenses and whatnot) from politicians to help make themselves financially whole from the expense of doing their jobs? Seriously, we need to grow up and stop poisoning the well because we don’t want to go where this road leads. Only certain doom lies that way.

Continue reading →