Oh, those poor delicate flowers that dwell in the House of Commons. Their poor nerves are so affected by all of the terrible heckling during Question Period that they all need to collapse on a divan, and get out the smelling salts, and blah, blah, blah. Samara just released a report on heckling, and wouldn’t you just know, everyone is aghast by all of the heckling that goes on. Why, it’s just terrible. But here’s the thing – every MP says they hate it, and insists that they don’t do it, except they do. They’ll even deny it when caught on camera. Heckling of course comes in a broad variety of taunts, jeers, and outright boorish behaviour, but really, sometimes it’s more instructive than what passes for debate. Yes, some heckling is sexist and boorish and should be called out, but not all heckling is sexist and boorish. And when there are complaints that women get heckled more, sometimes it’s because of how they’re reading scripts – one of the things about heckling is that it’s trying to knock people off of their talking points. Sometimes it’s clever and witty, and sometimes it’s not. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in knocking people off of their message tracks. And if anyone thinks that simply having more women in the place would change that, well, the most vigorous (and indeed some of the best) hecklers in my experience have been the women. And honestly, I can’t think of anything more dreadful than a QP that lacks it. Why? Because we need an injection of theatre into the sitting day, lest we all develop narcolepsy. Has anyone who moans about heckling sat through the rest of the day’s debates? Probably not. I’ve learned more about some issues by the heckling than I have in the scripted responses by ministers. Can it be too vigorous at times? Sure. Can people take it too far? Of course, and it should be dealt with when that’s the case, but this constant pearl-clutching about it is ridiculous, disingenuous, and in most cases, hypocritical. I’d rather a commitment to improving the quality of heckling than to see its elimination, and we’d be better off for it.
Tag Archives: Iraq
Roundup: An appointment panel is named
The government announced the composition of the permanent members of the Senate appointment advisory board, along with the ad hoc members of the three provincial members for the Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba seats that they plan to fill immediately. The federal members are headed by Huguette Labelle, a former senior civil servant and chancellor of Ottawa University, along with Indira Samarasekera, the former president of U of A who comes from a physical sciences background, and Daniel Jutras, a dean of law from McGill University. The provincial members have more varied backgrounds, including one Manitoba member who is a folk singer who also dabbles in pseudoscience around past lives, so oops there. They expect to make their first round of recommendations by the end of February – later than would have been hoped, but it’s only about three sitting weeks, so not too long to delay processes in the Senate, particularly as one of those first five appointments is to be the government’s new “coordinator” in the Senate (which remains a boneheaded suggestion if you ask me, considering that they will have no Senate experience whatsoever). And then come the complaints, mostly from the Conservatives (though the NDP did their share of tutting and shaking their heads about the “undemocratic” nature of the Senate). The problem with the complaints, largely coming out of Conservative Senate Leader Claude Carignan’s office, is that they’re grasping at straws – two of the academics were Trudeau Foundation scholars, so that obviously means they’re Liberals and can’t possibly be independent, right? No, seriously, that was Carignan’s argument. Also, that they were too elitist to pick “ordinary” Canadians to sit in the Senate, which actually isn’t their mandate. They are supposed to look for people with distinguished public service or who have some legislative experience. While I have my particular issues with the notion that the new Senators appointed through this process will all be independent (no, that’s not a guarantee, and nothing can stop them from joining whichever caucus they choose), there is this endemic chattering amongst Conservative senators that they’ll just all be Liberals by any other name, and as a result, they denounce the whole process. Never mind that the process by which some of those same senators got appointed was not particularly well run (the panic appointments of 2008 produced a number of senators of dubious merit), it makes their objections to this process to seem a bit precious. The other complaints – that because the appointment panel was not chosen by all-party consensus, that their deliberations are secret, that the short-lists are similarly kept secret, that the PM isn’t bound by the list – are all frankly out of step with the practice of Responsible Government and the constitution, and make no sense. Scott Reid’s complaint that it’s a process insulting to Albertans and their “elected” senators is also farcical considering the sham election process and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senate reference case. And while there is plenty of things that could be criticised about the way this process is happening, the fact that the Conservatives are choosing the most ridiculous and specious arguments is a sign of that they’re not taking this seriously, which blunts the effectiveness of their role as official opposition.
Add MP Scott Reid to the list of people who apparently can’t grasp Responsible Government. #SenCA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/7l0DVzOMjI
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 19, 2016
Roundup: Different approaches to transparency
The government announced yesterday that they would be halting compliance measures related to the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, and would restore the funds frozen to those 38 bands that had not reported yet. It was a move that First Nations applauded, while Conservatives and other small-c conservative types decried as making things less accountable. We also found out that the previous government was considering putting those non-compliant bands under third party management, which sounds fairly drastic. It’s not that First Nations are against being accountable – for the most part, they have indicated that they want to be, but that the previous government’s legislation was ham-fisted and in some cases unfair because it forced the reporting of revenue streams that didn’t come from taxpayers. In fact, they have long raised the notion of the creation of a First Nations Auditor General, but the Conservatives were never in favour of it. And to be sure, there are bands that do require a closer eye because in some First Nations, there are problems with nepotism and corruption, and it does need exposure. The question becomes what tools are best able to accomplish the goal that aren’t paternalistic or steeped in racist assumptions. It’s something that the current government is looking to engage with, and we’ll see where their consultations take them, but this will no doubt be part of their move to transform their relationship with Indigenous Canadians.
Roundup: More calls to keep the bombers
ISIS forces launched a surprise attack against Kurdish forces in five different places in Iraq yesterday, and Canadian Special Forces trainers in the area helped fight them off, which did involve calling in air strikes from our CF-18s. No Canadians were injured in the fighting, but it did lead to a new round of calls, primarily from the Conservatives, to keep the CF-18s in theatre, regardless of the promise to withdraw them in favour of a more robust training presence on the ground. Some even went so far as to claim that if we didn’t have our planes in the area, our allies wouldn’t be as quick to respond to Canadian troops coming under fire (but that has been shut down by experts in the field right away). Michael Petrou remains unconvinced by Trudeau’s position on pulling out the CF-18s from Iraq, while Michael Den Tandt sees it as a kind of political calculation that isn’t so much related to pre-election promise, but rather the broader political implications of a ground war in the region.
https://twitter.com/michaelsona/status/677677335794073601
Today's news from Iraq might suggest CF-18s pullout would leave CANSOF w/o air support, but not the case. US/allies would show up
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
As I have said before, I think it is a dumb stance, forced by domestic politics to differentiate Liberals from NDP/Tories. But
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
6 CF18s are not a big difference maker. Again, the Auroras and Polaris have much more added value to the allied effort.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
I will say that I am impressed with how this govt and DND/CF are pushing out the news on this, including emails to those who study CF.
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
Yes, but US also has lots of hotspots, lots of places that need those capabilities. 2 Auroras + 1 Polaris > 6 CF18s https://t.co/ZYlQLV85WJ
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) December 18, 2015
Roundup: Demanding a referendum
The issue of electoral reform has boiled over into what could be seen as the first major disagreement of the 42nd Parliament. The Conservatives have become quite vociferous in demanding that any change to the electoral system be put to a referendum – no doubt out of selfish considerations, knowing that most forms of alternative voting would be seen to disadvantage them, and secure in the knowledge that every time that such alternative ballots have been put to a vote either in Canada or the UK, that the existing First-Past-the-Post system ends up winning out. (Kelly McParland and the Maclean’s editorial are also in favour of a referendum). Even in Canadian polls on electoral reform, there remains a preference for a simple ballot that can deliver a stable government – something that most forms of alternative voting won’t deliver. While some pollsters have had fun with the numbers, trying to build models of what the election results would have delivered under different systems, the truth is that we can’t know what would have happened because there’s no guarantee that we would have had the same parties or configurations thereof in the election – particularly under a proportional representation system that encourages fringe parties, and given the country’s geographical, linguistic, and cultural diversity, a system that rewards smaller parties could very well fragment the “big tent” parties that currently exist. While people insist that we wouldn’t turn into Israel or Italy, the real worry is turning into Belgium, where the linguistic divisions in their PR system were so fragmented that they couldn’t form a workable government for over a year. While the government (and in particular Dominic LeBlanc) say they will engage in a broad consultative process and try to come to a consensus, I’m pretty sure that political consensus with the other parties won’t happen – the NDP favour one form of MMP, the Greens favour a PR system of some variety, and the Conservatives favour the status quo while the Liberals are more keen on ranked ballots, it’s hard to see how consensus will be built out of that. And at least LeBlanc concedes that consultations may show that the status quo ends up being preferable, and if there is an argument for that, it’s that our system right now allows you to throw the bums out – something that becomes all but impossible in PR systems where coalition partners get shuffled around but the central party remains in power for decades. It’s hard to see how that can in any way be preferable in a robust democracy.
QP: The scattershot attack
The week slowly drawing to a close, more desks started to empty out in the Chamber, but hey, Justin Trudeau was there for a fourth day in a row — I’m not sure that ever happened under Harper, ever. Rona Ambrose led off, lectern still on desk, and she read a question in French about the size of the deficit. Trudeau rose and stated that they had pledged to be open and honest about budget figures, and they would reduce the net debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose then accused the government of doing nothing for the plight of Albertans with dropping oil prices. Trudeau reminded her that the previous government did nothing for them. Ambrose changed topics again, and trolled for support for their opposition day motion to maintain the CF-18 bombing mission. Trudeau reminded her that the Americans were just happy with the Canadian position, and that he was even just invited for a state dinner at the White House, something Harper never got. Denis Lebel was up next, and asked the same question to get the same answer. Lebel then asked why Trudeau thought that the 1982 patriation was a good template for electoral reform, but Trudeau reminded him of the promises made during the election.Thomas Mulcair was up next and noted the RCMP Commissioner’s admission that there were racists in his force and asked what the government was doing about it. Trudeau lamented it, but basically said that it was up to the RCMP to deal with their members. Mulcair asked about boil water advisories on First Nations reserves, to which Trudeau noted they were working with those First Nations. Mulcair changed topics again to Canada Post, and got the very same response he got the past three days. Mulcair gave one last change of topic, asking about which refugees where getting health funding for refugees, which Trudeau said they would be doing.
Um, pretty sure that most of those refugees are fleeing Assad and not ISIS. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 10, 2015
Roundup: Action on assisted dying
We’re now less than a week away from the opening of Parliament, and there’s a lot for the Liberals to do. One of those things is deciding what to do about the assisted dying file, and it looks like the Liberals have planned to strike a special joint committee of MPs and senators to quickly examine the issue and provide some legislative recommendations to the government. Remember that the deadline the Supreme Court gave the government is February 6th, and they haven’t decided if they will as the Court for an extension – one they may not be granted, and one where that extension will be a burden to those on the ground who may actually need the law in a timely fashion. There are a couple of reasons why the inclusion of senators in the process is noteworthy – one is that it can help to speed up the process of passing the inevitable legislation, because it can be like a bit of pre-study, getting them involved earlier in the process in order to speed up their own deliberations on the bill when it arrives. The other reason is that the Senate was debating a bill on doctor-assisted dying in the last parliament, which had been sponsored by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, based on her consultations with former MP Stephen Fletcher, and had workable solutions to some of the issues raised in protecting the vulnerable. That bill was debated over several days at second reading, but never was voted on to send to committee, likely because of some foot-dragging, but that debate happened, and those same senators are still there. If it’s something that can help speed the process, it’s not a bad idea that they’re in the loop and participating in solving the problem, which could potentially get legislation in the system before that Supreme Court deadline, and with a little luck, they won’t need to ask for an extension.
Roundup: Nonsense parliamentary suggestions
It’s not just the Senate bat-signal I see in the sky, it’s also the Parliament bat-signal as a whole. Starting with the Senate, one of those so-called “Senator-elects” in Alberta writes a baffling column about “restructuring” the Senate to better reflect regions, while moaning about how Alberta’s oil industry isn’t getting the same help as the auto industry would when being faced with job losses. I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to get at, but the thing with the traditional moans about “Western alienation” and hoping that cockamamie schemes like a “Triple E” Senate is that it would do precisely zero to counter the problem, particularly as the problems they’re trying to fix generally can’t be solved by the Senate in the first place. Moving along, former NDP MP and former democratic reform critic Craig Scott pens a gong show of an op-ed about changing the Office of the Speaker in the Commons, supposedly to better insure its independence but it comes off pretty much as the sour grapes of third party grumbling that it really is. Giving the Speaker all kinds of new powers with no real checks on them? Giving him or her the independence to rule with an iron fist despite the real threats inherent within Responsible Government? Plus a bitter kick at the protocol position of the Senate Speaker? It’s incoherent nonsense. Speaking Speakers, outgoing Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer has some thoughts about reforming Question Period, most of which make more sense than what Scott had to say. I have a column out later today that picks up on these points, and I promise you it’ll make far more sense than Craig Scott’s rambling.
#WBIT https://t.co/ZeGazy0jnY pic.twitter.com/81pmkXXtuS
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 24, 2015
Because seriously, if this is the state of the democratic reform debate, this is pretty much the state of play: pic.twitter.com/IeeA3oaYnO
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 24, 2015
Roundup: Senate drama a hopeful sign
Drama in the Senate! Conservative Senator John Wallace quits the Conservative caucus over what he calls irreconcilable differences with the current leadership and fellow Conservative senators over their constitutional role. Will this streak of independent thinking spread to more Conservatives as the iron grip of the former Prime Minister weakens? (Note: Please read those preceding sentences in Clone Wars newsreel voice). In all seriousness, this was bound to happen, and it may not be the last we’ll see either. You see, Senators generally get more independent the longer they’re on the job, and historically that independence goes into overdrive once the Prime Minister that appointed them is no longer in charge, and it gets even more pronounced during a leadership contest. Wallace was part of the Class of 2009 in the Conservative Senate caucus, making him one of the longer-serving members, and he’s starting to feel his independence much more now. With Harper out of the way, and the inappropriate attempts by the PMO to exercise invisible levers of power within the Senate now over – attempts which only succeeded because mass appointments created a situation where those newbie senators were given the false notion that they could and should be whipped, alongside a sense that they needed to go along with what they were being told to do in order to “support the prime minister.” That pressure is gone, and things that have been bothering Wallace for the past couple of years – things like the shabby treatment of those formerly suspended senators who were not given an appropriate chance to address the accusations made about them, or the ways in which deeply flawed Conservative private members bills were passed without amendment “because amending the bill would kill it” they were constantly told (never mind that it should be an object lesson to MPs to do their jobs of due diligence instead of passing bills blindly). From the sounds of it, the current Senate leadership is looking to try and keep up some of their heavy-handed practices, and Wallace has had enough. There have been other Conservatives who bucked the party line on a number of other bills in the last parliament (the revolt over C-377 the first time around being a good example, and those holdouts who kept up their objections the second time around being ones to watch), so we may start seeing more Conservative senators ready to do their jobs more diligently. Nevertheless, Wallace’s stand this week is a good sign.
DRAMA! Conservative Senator John Wallace resigns from caucus out of "irreconcilable differences." #senCA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/40mplO2z1w
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 18, 2015
Roundup: Return of the airplane pressers
After very little media time at the G20 in Turkey, Prime Minister Trudeau held a press conference on the flight to the Philippines yesterday, taking every question, and generally being far more open than Harper ever was on an international trip. There were a number of messages – first, that while the plan remains to withdraw the CF-18s from combat in Iraq and Syria, we would be stepping up training on the ground beyond the 69 special operations trainers there currently, and the what that training might look like is still being determined. Second, he spoke about his forthcoming bilateral meeting with President Obama while at the APEC summit, and that there was a lot of climate discussion at the G20 that will continue right through to the Paris summit, with Canada looking to get on board with more robust discussions and pushing more recalcitrant countries to step up. Finally, when it comes to Syrian refugees, yet more assurances that security is not being compromised as part of the push to get the promised 25,000 here before the end of the year. As for that APEC summit, Stéphane Dion and Chrystia Freeland were there in advance of Trudeau talking trade and in particular the TPP, since that looks to be one of the dominant themes on the agenda there.