Tag Archives: Foreign Policy

Roundup: Approval voting and numbers with meaning

Posted on by

While everyone has been enthralled with the electoral reform debate (no, not really), and been gripped with substance over process (no, not really), there was an op-ed in the Citizen last week that I never really had a chance to talk about amidst a number of other things going on, so I thought I’d take a moment now to address it. The issue: the electoral system known as “approval voting.”

So what is it? Basically you take the same ballot you have now, and you mark it for as many people as you want to. Supposedly this discourages strategic voting because you can vote more than once and can vote for both the person your heart wants to vote for, as well as the one you hope to defeat the person in there now. And okay, sure, it’s simple, and sure, it gives you that emotional thrill about being able to vote for more than one person (which I don’t think is that big of a concern for most people, but maybe I’m wrong), and if you do something silly like vote for everyone on the ballot (because they’re all winners for participating?), then it basically cancels out the vote and doesn’t come out any worse off. But I keep going back to the basic question: what problem is this trying to solve?

If that problem is the emotional dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes, then I’m not sure that this is the problem that we should be addressing, and I also have to wonder about the unintended consequences of picking such a system. And what could those be? Really, the quality of the data that an election produces, and what that data tells us about the election. Because believe it or not, that actually matters. What percentage a candidate received matters a lot. It gauges support, it sends a message about how solid or tenuous their support is, and about how much support their rivals have, which could mean clues for them as to how to better organise in the following election, and who to target. If the number of votes cast is divorced from the number of electors, what kind of message are we able to send? That would seem to be a pretty important consideration to me, and to a lot of people running, I would imagine.

I also have an issue with how this portrays what a vote means. In our system currently – and yes, this electoral system purports to keep the system otherwise intact, along the lines of “one simple trick to make the system more emotionally satisfying!” – when you cast a ballot it is to decide who will sit in the seat that represents your geographic area. And this is where a lot of electoral reform nonsense falls apart – it becomes about feelings rather than the fact that there is one seat and you have to help decide who fills it. How casting votes for multiple people to fill that one seat seems to defeat the purpose in many ways, and admission that it’s too difficult to make a decision so let’s cop out and muddle it so that I don’t feel so bad when I do it. But democracy is about making choices, and we should make it clear that it’s what it is, and just what that choice is (i.e.: Who is filling this one seat, rather than who is going to form a government, because that is decided once a parliament has been assembled). We’re not making that clear, and we’re constantly talking in terms of horse race numbers and leadership politics, and not about the actual choice that faces people, and I think this is something we should be paying more attention to, and being more vocal and precise about, so that we don’t wind up with yet more pie-eyed schemes that are designed to make us feel better while not actually doing what we’re supposed to. And this isn’t something that I’m seeing in the discussions on electoral reform – just a lot of pouting about “fairness” based on made-up numbers that don’t actually mean anything, and approval voting would make the numbers that do mean something, mean even less.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fundraising moral panic

Posted on by

In case you missed it, the moral panic over the past week or so is ministerial fundraisers, first in Ontario (and to a certain extent BC), but that’s bled over in to the federal sphere, because apparently we were afraid of missing out. And don’t forget, the federal rules are already pretty strict, with corporate and union donations already been banned and the contribution limit is pretty small (and when it comes to leadership contests, the Conservatives and NDP conspired to screw the Liberals, who were mid-contest at the time, but that’s beside the point). The point is that there’s a lot of unnecessary tut-tutting, particularly around a perfectly legal private fundraiser that the Minister of Justice is holding at a Toronto law firm. “Oh,” they say. “Some of these lawyers may want to be judges one day.” And this is the point where I look at people who say that straight in the face and ask if they really think that a federal judicial appointment can be bought for $500. Really? Seriously? Even on the issue of legal contracts, the minister can recuse herself if said law firm bids. There are processes around this kind of thing. The Ethics Commissioner said that there is no apparent conflict of interest here, but that doesn’t stop people from crying “money for access!” And when you have people like Duff Conacher going on TV and decrying that limits should be $100 because that way it’s equal for everyone, you have to wonder if that logic extends to not everyone can have nice things, so we should ban them so that it’s fair for everyone. Also, if you lower the limit too low, then people start looking for other ways to raise money, and all you have to look to is Quebec, where their strict donation regime became quickly susceptible to corruption. Of course, Conacher won’t be satisfied by any ethics regime unless he’s in charge of the parliamentary thought police, and frankly, anyone who quotes him in one of these stories becomes suspect because it means they’re going for cheap outrage. Are there bigger problems of perception in places like Ontario, where there aren’t any donation limits? Yes, indeed. But that’s not the case federally, and the minister is following the rules. Frankly, I’m not fussed that the PM is shrugging this off because honestly, this isn’t something that we should be lighting our hair on fire about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The modernization agenda

Posted on by

Conservative Senator Thomas McInnis, chair of the new modernisation committee, took to the op-ed pages of the Chronicle Herald to talk about just that – their process of modernising the Upper Chamber by non-constitutional means. While much of the op-ed is pretty standard stuff, he did say a couple of things that intrigued me, so I’ll make brief mention of them. First is that as they contemplate changes and incorporating the increasing number of independent senators, that they need to recognise that since the Senate is not a confidence chamber, it doesn’t need to organise itself on party lines in the same way that the Commons does. This is an important point, because as much as it is an important concept to have a government and opposition side in our Westminster system of government, the role of the Senate means that it doesn’t need to hew as closely to that model. Now, I do still think that the Government Leader in the Senate should have remained a cabinet minister for the sake of there being someone who can answer for the government in the chamber, as well as to properly shepherd government legislation through the Chamber (the minister-in-all-but-name model that Harper used for Claude Carignan was very much a poor idea that limited the exercise of Responsible Government), the fact that the Senate is not a confidence chamber does blunt my criticisms to an extent. McInnis also dropped hints about one of the modernisation committee’s goals being to strengthen the role of being an “effective” representative for regions and provinces. This is interesting because I do wonder if it means that there will be a push to form regional caucuses within the Senate, as is occasionally brought up. I’m not sure how it would really work – essentially having four or five party-like structures (Ontairo, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the West each being 24-seat regional divisions, plus the additional six seats for Newfoundland and Labrador and one each for the territories could either fold into one of the other regional caucuses or forming a caucus of their own), and how they would then translate that into the committee memberships and so on, but it is an idea that has been mentioned before, so we’ll see what kind of appetite there is for it, or if the new Independent Working Group will hold more sway in terms of keeping the current structure but giving more power to independent senators for committee memberships and the like. With there being no opposition MPs from the whole of the Atlantic provinces, this is where the Senate’s regional role becomes more important – and they have been flexing those muscles when ministers have appeared before them in the new Question Period format – but it remains to be seen how this will translate into workable reforms. Suffice to say, these are conversations that are being had, and we’ll see what the committee reports back in the weeks ahead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and the line of accountability

Posted on by

The punditariat continues to lose their minds over Senate independence, and I’m almost at the point of exasperation with it. After years – decades – of hand-wringing about how senators aren’t independent enough to do their jobs of sober second thought, we are suddenly overcome with hand-wringing about them being too independent and the government being unable to pass legislation (as though the opposition having a Senate majority has never happened in our country’s history before…oh, wait). It’s kind of like how We The Media keep demanding MPs be independent and vote for their constituents’ wishes and so on, and yet the moment one of them shows a little bit of backbone, we thunder that the leader is losing control of his or her caucus. Because that’s helpful. And so, Campbell Clark bemoans that poor Peter Harder doesn’t have any levers of power in the Senate to do Trudeau’s bidding, and lo, he may not even have much of an office budget either (though he can always ask the Internal Economy to increase it – this is not something that is set in stone for all time). Add to that, Clark worries that all of those new independent senators are going to have to find some new process of working things out – completely ignoring that they have already started getting that ball rolling with the Independent Working Group. It’s like he hasn’t paid attention to what is actually going on there and has been going on for the past several weeks. Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at André Pratte’s history and notes his differences with Trudeau’s philosophy, then bemoans that with all of those incoming senators, that the party leader won’t be responsible for their behaviour as they once might have been. And what is Hébert ignoring? Only the most fundamental principle in Canadian democracy – Responsible Government. Trudeau will be responsible to voters for the conduct of his appointees, whether he can whip them or not. That is a fundamental tenet of our system. If he makes a bunch of dud appointments, then guess what – voters can have their say, just as they had their say with Harper after the extent of the ClusterDuff business came out in court. This is a basic concept, and it’s disappointing that a long-time observer of Canadian politics has to be reminded of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A cynicism prescription

Posted on by

We’re still talking Trudeau’s trip to Washington? Of course we are. Today some of it was a bit more oblique, but during his video town hall with Huffington Post, Trudeau was repeatedly asked about Donald Trump, and most of it he tried to avoid answering, talking about how lovely Cape Breton is (context: it’s become a kind of joke about how Americans fleeing Trump would move there), but he did offer that Trump would likely tone down his rhetoric should he win the nomination and start running for the general election instead. He did offer a few other, broader comments on what he’s witnessed in the American election cycle, about the cynicism that is on full display, and how it may need broad-based campaign finance reform like we saw here in Canada in the late nineties, and again after Harper came to power in 2006, where we got big money out of our politics. He’s got a point, but one suspects that there is more than just campaign finance laws that are broken in American politics. As for the big state dinner, Stéphane Dion said that it will help showcase that environment and the economy can exist together, as evident by some of the choices (like Catherine McKenna’s apparently inclusion). Meanwhile, it looks like we can probably expect an announcement on protecting the environment in the Arctic, as well as some overdue progress on thinning the border.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Foreign Policy on the floor

Posted on by

The first hybridized Senate QP having deemed to have been a success, the Upper Chamber was ready for a second round, and this time, the featured guest star would be foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion. When the Senate was called to order, and Dion brought onto the floor, Claude Carignan led off, asking about the relationship with Russia. Dion responded that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are unacceptable, that their assistance to the Assad regime was a problem, and that even at the height of the Cold War, we had diplomatic ties with the USSR to facilitate dialogue. Dion also noted the cooperation on the Arctic Council, and noted that cutting off relations won’t work.

Continue reading →

QP: In advance of the deployment motion

Posted on by

As Ottawa dug itself out from a record snowfall, everyone was ready to go in advance of the debate on the new ISIS mission that would happen after QP. Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern ready to go, and she read a question about how the PM could possibly withdraw our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS. Justin Trudeau noted that one opposition party wanted them to do more and the other wanted them to do it less, and they had a comprehensive plan. Ambrose accused him of stepping back against the fight against terror, to which Trudeau assured her that our allies were happy with our stepping up our efforts. Ambrose accused Trudeau of picking and choosing Canadian values, to which Trudeau reminded her about what people voted for. Ambrose then accused the government of burning through the surplus her government left — eliciting laughs from the government benches — and wondered how much deficit they would pile on. Trudeau reminded her that they actually left a deficit, and they were committed to delivering growth. Ambrose lamented job losses, to which Trudeau again noted committing to growth. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and blasted the government for not preventing job losses at Bombardier. Trudeau insisted that they would grow the economy in responsible ways. Mulcair demanded again in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer with an added lament about shouting about problems. Mulcair then changed topics and demanded to know if the new mission was a combat mission. Trudeau said that they were doing what was most effective. Mulcair gave another go, and got pretty much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Second verse, same as the first

Posted on by

A very blustery day on Parliament Hill, and all three main leaders made it through the rapidly accumulating snowfall in order to make it to QP on time. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about pulling the fighters out of Iraq, insisting that it means that Canada is not fighting terrorism. Justin Trudeau said that they consulted with allies and came up with a robust new plan to do what was needed. Ambrose insisted that military action and fighting was necessary, to which Trudeau quoted to her the US coalition leader saying that they couldn’t bomb their way out of the crisis, and that they needed training. Ambrose switched to the issue of new funding for UNRWA, which was found to be linked to Hamas. Trudeau noted his meeting with Ban Ki-moon, and the commitment to re-engaging with the world. Stephen Blaney was outraged that some of our aid money could find its way to terrorists groups, at which Karina Gould reminded him that our aid money was neutral. Blaney then called the decision to send Griffon helicopters with the new trainers “bungling,” but Harjit Sajjan merely confirmed that yes, the helicopters would be deployed. Thomas Mulcair was up next, outraged that more trainers over in Iraq would mean more risk. Trudeau reminded him that Canadians always stand up to do their duty when called upon. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer in French. Mulcair mentioned his trip to Saskatchewan, and demanded EI reforms to help people in the oil price drop. Trudeau said that they were working hard to meet that demand. Mulcair decried a $6.5 billion shortfall for grain farmers without the Canadian Wheat Board. Lawrence MacAulay noted that government no longer had ties to the former Board.

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: Concern for jobs and Iran 

Posted on by

While it was caucus day, and all of the leaders were present, but things got off to a late start for a rather unfashionable reason. When QP started, Rona Ambrose started, mini-lectern on desk, reading a question about the lack of concern by the government over mounting job losses in Alberta. Justin Trudeau reassured her that he was preoccupied with the issue, and that measures were coming in the budget. Ambrose repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and then turned to the lifting of sanctions on Iran but tied it into the Syria mission. Trudeau said that the world was safer with a nuclear deal with Iran, and that Canada needed to engage in a responsible way with that country. Tony Clement railed against Iran in French, to which Trudeau repeated his previous answer about engaging responsibly, and then went for another round in English on the topic. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded action on restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they campaigned on a moratorium, which they did, and they were now engaging with Canadians on the issue. Mulcair then demanded that OAS be restored to people at 65 immediately, to which Trudeau reminded him that it’s already the case. Mulcair read the same question again in French, got the very same answer, that they age increase wasn’t going to happen until 2023, and suggested that Mulcair check his facts first. Mulcair asked about provincial pension enrichments, to which Trudeau reminded him that the finance minister is currently engaging with provinces.

Continue reading →