Tag Archives: Nancy Ruth

Roundup: Housakos vs Harder

Posted on by

It took a couple of weeks, but I will say that I was encouraged to read that Senator Leo Housakos was in the press pushing back against Senator Peter Harder’s comments that the Senate hasn’t been implementing changes to its processes as recommended by the Auditor General. As chair of the Internal Economy committee, Housakos has corrected the record to point out that yes, a lot of changes have happened (and in fact were happening since long before the now infamous audit happened), and also hit back at the issue of an audit committee. Harder it seems has bought into the AG’s wrong-headed notion that an external audit body be formed, which I will reiterate is absolutely an affront to parliamentary democracy. The Senate is a parliamentary body, and parliament is self-governing. It needs to be, full stop. Making senators answerable to an outside body puts a stake in the ability to be self-governing, and pretty much says that we don’t deserve to be a self-governing country anymore, and should just hand all of the power back to the Queen. That Harder can’t see that is blind and a little bit gobsmacking. While the Senate does plan to announce an audit body soon, it will be of mixed composition, and if they’ve paid attention to Senator McCoy’s proposal to mirror the House of Lords’ body – basically three senators and two outside experts – then we’ll be fine. But make no mistake – such a body must be majority senators and be chaired by a Senator. Otherwise let’s just start the process of shuttering parliament, and no, I’m not even being dramatic about it.

While we’re on the topic of the Senate, I just wanted to give a tip of my hat to now-retired Senator Nancy Ruth (who was on Power & Politics yesterday at 1:49:00 on this link). Nancy Ruth (that’s one name, like Cher or Madonna) was one of my early entry points into political journalism, when I came to the Hill writing for GLBT publications like the now-defunct Outlooks and Capital Xtra. As the only openly lesbian parliamentarian, and the only openly LGBT member of the Conservative caucus who wasn’t media shy, she was my point of contact into that caucus and that particular political sphere. The relationship I built there gave me my first by-line for The Canadian Press, and I eventually moved into more mainstream outlets. She was an absolute joy to cover, and I will miss her terribly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Use your Australian comparisons wisely

Posted on by

If it’s not the leadership omnishambles in the UK that’s holding our attention, it’s the indecisive election result in Australia. While that would be something in and of itself, we find ourselves with pundits eager to take some lessons from Australia, only to completely balls things up along the way. To wit, Kelly McParland writing in the National Post delivered this hot mess yesterday which manages to conflate every possible thing in Australian politics in order to prove a point – not necessarily a bad point – but went about it in entirely the wrong way. So, for Mr. McParland’s edification, let’s break it down a little.

First of all, the “six prime ministers in six years” has virtually nothing to do with the ranked ballots in Australia. The system of caucus selection of leaders there (which is how leaders should be chosen, as I’ve argued elsewhere numerous times) has gone to extremes, creating a culture of paranoia and betrayal. But that’s not the fault of the ranked ballots since it’s a different process. That parties will spill leaders shortly before an election in the hopes of having a more appealing leader is party politics enabled by the ability to have spills, rather than the ranked ballot effect. Conflating them is not helpful.

The ranked ballots themselves allow for more small parties to exist independent of “big tent” brokerage parties because ranked ballots discourage tactical voting – something McParland neglects to mention while returning to the Canadian canard that the Liberals only want ranked ballots because they think they’ll clean up by getting everyone’s second place votes. That has led to the need for the Australian Liberals (read: conservatives) to require a coalition partner to govern, which is a consideration to make if we want ranked ballots, but it is a giant conflation to mix this in with the stability of their system and leadership woes.

The problem of the Australian Senate is the bigger nub of the argument, but which gets lost in the rest of the McParland’s confusing mess. The Australian Senate is chosen by single-transferable proportional voting, and the system has been effectively gamed in the previous election so that a bunch of marginal players got seats and subsequently created a huge problem in their upper chamber, requiring more tinkering of the system to be forced through and the Prime Minister calling for double-dissolution (so that both chambers be elected at the same time – a rare occurrence usually reserved for political crises) in order to break the legislative deadlocks. Those tweaks appear to be causing even more problems with this election, but we may see how it all shakes out in a few weeks. (Note that these ballots tend to be the size of placemats, because of the way they’re structured with the enormous number of parties running). And while the problems with these marginal parties being given outsized powers of persuasion in the previous parliament are very valid points to make, it gets lost in the sea of conflations that plagued the rest of the piece.

So I get McParland’s point about electoral reform advocates needing to be careful what they wish for, and can even agree with it to a large extent, this was utterly the wrong way to go about it.

Meanwhile, here’s a primer about Australia’s lengthy counting process – so lengthy that their Senate preferential distribution process could take over a month. Closer to home, here are some of the ways in which the electoral reform committee plans to engage with Canadians.

Continue reading →

Conservative Senator criticises foreign money inquiry

Posted on by

Conservative senator Nancy Ruth has occasionally found herself on the other side of positions taken by other members of her party, and today was no exception. In the Senate earlier this afternoon, Senator Nancy Ruth took issue with her fellow Conservative senator Nicole Eaton’s inquiry into foreign money into Canadian non-profit organisations. Eaton and several of her fellow Conservative senators are going after environmental groups primarily, who they see are asserting undue influence on the Canadian political process, as well as our economic interests when it comes to natural resources – thinking primarily of course of the Alberta oilsands, and pipelines needed to transport the bitumen to places where it can be upgraded into more conventional oil forms.

Nancy Ruth says that while she supports the pipeline, she has three questions around the inquiry – why is the net being cast so narrowly in that it targets only charities, what evidence is there that these foreign foundations are pushing Canadian groups into taking positions that they wouldn’t otherwise, and why the current mechanisms for policing charities are inadequate.

“If the concern is about foreign influence, then why is the inquiry not considering the lobbying efforts of foreign corporations with huge interests in the development of the oil sands and the construction of the pipeline?” Nancy Ruth asked. “Why is the inquiry not considering the lobbying efforts of Canadian corporations with foreign investors?”

Nancy Ruth also wonders about the proof, considering allegations made by Senator Eaton of “interference, abuse, political manipulation, influence peddling, manipulation,” and by  Senator Daniel Lang of “money laundering and support for terrorism, and active engagement in elections.” These allegations are coupled with the notion that the foreign funders are somehow exerting undue influence.

“Could it not be that Canadian charities went looking for financial support both within and without Canada to support their positions?” Nancy Ruth wondered. “Furthermore we live in a global culture with global ideas.”

In pointing to the existing policing mechanisms, and the fact that any charity can’t spend more than ten percent of its budget on political advocacy as it stands, and the fact that there are already disclosure rules for non-residents, Nancy Ruth doesn’t see the same issue that Eaton does.

“If you want the CRA, the NGOs or charities to make foreign monies public – that’s fine with me – if it does not infringe on the Canadian laws on privacy and the principle of confidentiality of tax,” Nancy Ruth said. “More transparency suits me, as it would let me see who is funding Ethical Oil and who it’s ‘puppets’ are.”

She drives home her point about the tone being set by the existence of the inquiry as one that attacks Canada’s democratic principles.

“What is really being advocated is that some groups should have influence, and others should not,” Nancy Ruth said. “What is really being advocated is that some points of view cannot be questioned, while others are a waste of time and cause delay.”

Fellow Conservative senator Dennis Patterson, who represents Nunavut, followed up by decrying the misinformation given by these environmental non-profit groups and their “convoluted” financing, which he blamed “lazy journalists” for propagating. As an example, he talked about protests against seismic tests in Lancaster Sound, saying that it was based on falsehoods.

He then said that Canada does not need foreign aid, and that groups in these countries, be they from the States or Europe, they should turn their attention to their own backyards, and worried about “philanthropy as an instrument of foreign policy.”

At the end of the day’s debate, before it was adjourned, Liberal Senator Jim Munson stood up to ask Patterson about why those “poor, impoverished lobbyists” wandering around Ottawa aren’t similarly being asked for the same kinds of transparency.

Senator Eaton was not amused, and called the question ridiculous, though Patterson did concede that perhaps the transparency requirements shouldn’t focus solely on charities.