Tag Archives: Lobbying

Roundup: Cullen pens a hot mess

Posted on by

NDP MP Nathan Cullen penned an op-ed for National Newswatch over the weekend, and it’s a total hot mess. Hot. Mess. Where to begin, where to begin? Let’s start with the opening paragraph:

One of the recurring conversations I’ve had over the years, with folks of all political leanings, is the condition of our democracy and how our voting system doesn’t reflect their voices at the national level.

Demonstrably false, since what we vote for are who to fill individual seats. People who are elected to those seats are the reflection of the wishes of that riding. Ergo, our voting system actually is reflective of voices at the national level. The entire second paragraph is a gong show:

It’s not a new charge that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system too often produces false majorities. Our current voting system is broken. Too many Canadians simply feel their vote does not count. Something is deeply wrong if our very voting system encourages people to tune out of our democratic process.

Nope, nope, nope, and nope. There is no such thing as a “false majority” because the popular vote is a logical fallacy. You can’t extend 338 separate and simultaneous elections, mash them together and come up with a figure when you don’t have the same number of parties running in all ridings, nor does it reflect the fact that we elect individual seats, not parties. The voting system is not broken – it accurately reflects that we elect individual seats in individual ridings. Canadians feel their vote doesn’t count because of sore loserism, and apparently votes only count when the person you voted for wins, which is childish and wrong. Our voting system does not encourage people to tune out of our democratic process – our appalling lack of civic literacy does. From there, Cullen goes on to defend his idea of a “proportional” Commons committee to consult on electoral reform, except it’s a) not proportional, b) it’s designed to play up his desire for proportional representation (if the committee can be proportional…) and c) it’s designed to game the process, while he professes new ways of doing things. From there, Cullen meanders into a defence of the NDP as “progressive opposition,” which sounds more defensive by the day as the Liberals continue to outflank the party on the left, and finally, the piece moves into a defence of Thomas Mulcair as party leader, with Cullen professing support – you know, to look like he’s not angling to replace him should Mulcair happen to fall well short of expectations at the upcoming leadership review vote. After all, the federal NDP have a culture of it being unseemly to not be in complete and total lockstep at all times when the cameras are on. So there you have it – a complete hot mess. What is that old journalistic expression? Get me rewrite.

https://twitter.com/jameslhsprague/status/699297692837666816

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mister Speaker is a meanie

Posted on by

While astute readers will know that I have my issues with the way that Speaker Regan is attempting to crack down on heckling in the Commons, one thing I will not countenance is the kind of whinging that the opposition – and in particular the Conservatives – are engaged in as a result. Yes, the Speaker does call them out more, because *gasp* they heckle more! Science! But what gets the Conservatives most are the ways in which Regan will sometimes editorialise in his interventions, whether it’s his admonition to keep the Chamber from sounding like a 1950 boys’ club, or in reminding two front-bench Conservatives that Question Period is not the Muppet Show. It is a different tone from the Speaker than we’ve seen in the last several parliaments, and Regan is adopting a more forceful tone when it comes to trying to put an end to heckling. I may disagree with how he’s doing it, and in particular his sanctimonious tone, but his naming actual MPs who are heckling is part of the process of trying to turn the tables so that they are being held to account for their behaviour. It’s a legitimate tactic, but to complain that he’s picking on the Conservatives is a bit rich. Yes, the Liberals were boisterous when they were in opposition, and nobody is saying that’s a bad thing, but even when in government, the Conservatives tended to be boorish hecklers, and their behaviour in opposition is not much improved. If they had instructive cross-talk or clever retorts, then yeah, it might not be so bad, but most of the time, it’s not clever. I will also add that this is part of the problem with the issue of heckling in the Commons – everyone agrees that it’s a problem, everyone insists that they don’t do it, even when they do, and it’s always someone else who’s worse and needs to be dealt with instead of them, because they’re always the victim in this. None of it is true, but MPs like to tell themselves that it is. It’s also a problem in that making the Speaker crack down on it is more about trying to treat symptoms than it is the actual cause of why they’re doing it in the first place, but that would mean more broad changes to the rules and the way that things run, and there seems to be even more resistance to that. Until MPs can have a grown-up conversation about the issue of heckling, we’re likely to get more whinging on all sides of the issue rather than actual progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A hedge on refugees?

Posted on by

It looks like the new Liberal government may be walking back a little on their first election promise, around the 25,000 Syrian refugees. Initially the promise was 25,000 government-assisted refugees with additional privately sponsored refugees on top of that figure. Yesterday, it sounded like the 25,000 will be a combination of the two based on comments by the minister, but Trudeau seemed to contradict that in his press conference while the minister’s spokesperson was hedging somewhere around the fact that there may be some privately sponsored among the 25,000 this year with more to come in 2016, but I’m not sure that the privately sponsored numbers will be that significant in the short timeframe that it would be too much of a difference for that 25,000 target. Meanwhile, it sounds like plans are being developed to fly a thousand Syrian refugees per day out of Aman, Jordan, while temporary lodgings are currently being worked out. No doubt we’ll hear more details in the coming days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Assisted dying heating up

Posted on by

The issue of doctor-assisted dying is heating up the closer we get to Trudeau and cabinet being sworn in, seeing as there’s a looming February deadline on the horizon. Trudeau signalled that he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an extension to their decision to strike the existing laws down, but that too poses its own challenges. The federal government had initially asked the Court for eighteen months, and they gave them twelve, at which point the government sat on it for several months before creating what looked to be a stacked advisory committee to study the issue. That committee is also in the crosshairs, as advocacy groups say that it should be abolished because of its stacked nature. The chair of said committee said that its members’ former positions against assisted dying are no longer relevant because the Court has ruled and they now have to come up with a system that will work to protect the vulnerable while enabling those Canadians who wish to die with dignity to do so on their own terms. It certainly couldn’t hurt Trudeau to let them report and see what they have to say, and then choose to accept or disregard it at that time. The very fact that he’s now forming government should also be a signal that he expects this consultative process to be something other that the one the government engaged in around the prostitution question, in that he is not expecting them to give one response in particular but to have a more thoughtful result in the end. I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, advocates of religious communities came out against assisted dying again, insisting instead on more resources for palliative care, as though they were mutually exclusive, never mind that the Supreme Court has also made a clear ruling. (And one would think that if they allowed people who wanted to die on their own terms rather to do so, it would free up those resources that were otherwise needlessly prolonging their suffering that could be applied to palliative care, but maybe I’m wrong on that one).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/659187808322605056

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/658299297897824256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting the ballot question

Posted on by

Last night, the At Issue panel pondered the kind of existential question of the past eleven weeks – what is the “ballot question” in the election. With so many weeks and so many events that have come up along the way – Mike Duffy, Syrian refugees, the niqab debate, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and as of yesterday, the poor judgement of Justin Trudeau’s now-former campaign co-chair. Oh, and I guess the economy, but that’s always been a bit of a backdrop that’s built on a bunch of ridiculous and false premises (no, the Prime Minister can’t really control the economy, or create jobs out of a hat). And while the At Issue panel pretty much all chose “change” as the ballot question, I almost think it may have been something more specific – something that the Conservatives themselves telegraphed from the very beginning of the election, when they started running those ridiculous ads with the “interview committee.” That question was “is Justin ready?” Coming into the Liberal leadership, he became Teflon to a certain extent – none of the attacks would stick to him, and his only wounds were the self-inflicted kind. So how did the Conservatives play it? Trying to question his readiness, and their tag line was “I’m not saying no forever, but not now.” And then the government decided to drop an eleven-week campaign instead of the usual five, the intention being to give Trudeau plenty of rope with which to hang himself. They drove expectations so low as to question his ability to even put on pants before a debate. And then Trudeau turned around and performed well in debates, and gained confidence on the campaign trail. Instead of tripping him up, those eleven weeks galvanised him, and people started to see that. He wasn’t making stupid blunders, and he stopped shooting himself in the foot. The NDP, by contrast, started to look increasingly craven as their promises outstripped reality (witness the “Swiss cheese” of their platform costing), and Harper looked increasingly tired and worn out, unable to come up with answers to issues of the day, his ministers (like Chris Alexander) imploding under scrutiny, and by this late point in the campaign, there is a sense of desperation, Harper now trying to insist a campaign branded around him is not really about him, while he associates himself with the Ford brothers, and is visiting ridings he already holds in the sense that he looks like he’s trying to save the furniture. And yet, he placed the very ballot question in people’s minds from the start. Trudeau answered it, in defiance of the rules of never repeating your attacker’s lines, and said yes, he’s ready. And increasingly, it looks like the voters believe that. Does that discount Mulcair? To a certain extent, but he was never the credible threat to Harper, nor was he ever intended to be. (Remember, the plan was for the Conservatives and NDP to wipe the Liberals off the face of the map and become the two party state that they both dream of – something which didn’t end up happening). Harper put the wheels in motion, and it looks like his creation has gotten away from him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s troubling QP pledge

Posted on by

In an interview with Huffington Post, Justin Trudeau mused somewhat about his proposed changes to Question Period, where he is looking to institute a once-weekly Prime Minister’s Questions Period, akin to Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK, but wouldn’t commit to showing up any more days than that. Under Harper’s time in office, he went from three days to one or two, and only answering the questions of the other leaders when he did show up. Even if a theoretical Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were to show up once a week and answer all of the questions put to him, I’m a bit sceptical because it does limit availability. Part of what’s been the beauty of our QP as we have structured it is that the PM can be called upon to answer any question on any day, with no advance notice. That’s not the way it works in Westminster, where the PM is given questions in advance. Trudeau is also talking about staying out on the road to connect with Canadians, but insists that it’s not a diminution of parliament but rather the opposite, because he’ll have a capable cabinet that can handle things in his absence and it not be a one-man government. Fair enough, but anytime politicians insist that their time is better spent away from Parliament Hill is diminishing the role of parliament. We have a representative democracy, which means that people send their representatives here to debate and make the decisions. If those representatives decide they have better things to do, then what’s the point? I do find it a troubling sentiment because parliament matters. Pretending it’s a distraction from “the real issues” or just a “bubble” ignores that the work that does go on here is important and needs to be accorded with some actual respect. There is more to governing a country than doorstep issues, and it might behove a future Prime Minister to acknowledge that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting out the leg irons

Posted on by

It was the image that launched a thousand attack ads – or probably will, at any rate, as Dean Del Mastro was marched out in handcuffs and leg irons, off to spend the night (at least) in an Ontario prison after being found guilty of breaking election finance laws. “Cheating is cheating,” the judge noted, and that it was a serious enough crime to warrant some kind of jail time, so she decided on a month – though he may get out by tomorrow on bail pending the appeal of his case. Del Mastro’s lawyer also tried to get other exceptions for Del Mastro – jail on weekends, numerous exceptions for the eventual house arrest provisions – because he has a farm and needs to feed the animals, and a job in Toronto, and so on. The judge didn’t appear to be buying it, and made a point about needing a jail sentence onto only to show the severity of the crime (hence denunciation and deterrence), but also the issue of time to reflect on his actions, thought may be asking a lot from Del Mastro, as he walked into the courtroom convinced of his own innocence, and has shown no remorse whatsoever, even though the judge noted that Del Mastro was prepared to falsify his own statements to try and get away with his overspending. Many will argue that leg-irons and jail time are overkill, give that he’s not a dangerous criminal, but it relies on the same logic behind putting white collar criminals behind bars as well – because making them pay a fine or just house arrest aren’t considered punishment enough for the severity of their crimes. Disagree with it all you want, but we have made this choice though our legislative regimes, and if we want to change that, well, there’s an election coming up. Meanwhile, Stephen Maher says the Conservatives’ treatment of the man who testified against Del Mastro leaves a lot to be desired.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An arbiter and a process in place

Posted on by

The Auditor General was making the media rounds yesterday, largely combating the cheap outrage journalism about the supposed spending issues of his office (which wasn’t a story but hey), and confirmed that about 30 senators would be facing some kind of repayment, fewer than 10 serious enough to merit being forwarded to the RCMP – but of course, ten became the headline number when he said it would be fewer, and the number of five to eight has been suggested by other media outlets, which seems more in line with what he claims. The total number of senators examined was 117 current and former, and it certainly sounds like the majority of cases will be fairly minor in terms of repayments. The Senate announced that they are retaining former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie as the independent arbiter on expenses, so that they have a process by which to dispute the AG’s findings if they so choose, and that may be necessary considering the complaints emerging about the lack of knowledge on the part of auditors as to parliamentary functions. This raises the question of fairness – is it fair that these senators will have a process in place, whereas Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin did not, and were suspended without any kind of due process? The answer of course is that no, it’s probably not fair, but this was a fairly consuming crisis at the time, and they were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Politics is messy business, particularly when you were high-profile appointments and had become a political liability. I’m not sure that it should be reason to forgo having a process going forward, but if all three are found guilty on the charges laid by the RCMP, then will it really matter in the end?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Warnings about changes to the CSIS Act

Posted on by

Stephen Blaney has confirmed that the government will table a bill next week to enhance CSIS’ powers to better combat terrorism, in order to enhance cooperation with our Five Eyes allies, and to enhance the anonymity for CSIS informants. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that those sources already have adequate protections, and the fact that the lawyer for Mohamed Harkat warns that the inability to cross-examine this kind of testimony is dangerous. Former Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier also warns that rushing into these kinds of changes could have longer-term human rights consequences. But terrorists!

Continue reading →

Roundup: 18 causes of a disaster

Posted on by

The Transportation Safety Board’s final report into the Lac-Mégantic disaster was released yesterday, and it was pretty damning when it comes to the responsibility that Transport Canada bears for not doing their audits or following up on it with a rail line that was found to be deficient in its compliance several times. (Video recreation of the disaster here). In the end, they came up with 18 different reasons for the disaster, that had one of them been addressed properly, things could have wound up differently. Part of the problem remains the lack of a proper safety culture, which has been criticized by no less than the Auditor General and a Senate committee report, and yet we’re not really seeing movement on it quickly enough. Paul Wells notes the government’s weak response, and asks about just what kind of responsibility they are going to take.

Continue reading →