Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Chagger on fundraising

Posted on by

Government House Leader Bardish Chagger talked to the Huffington Post, and the headline had all of my media colleagues grasping for their pearls as she declared that the House of Commons was not the place to discuss Liberal fundraisers. And if I’m going to go full pedant on this, she’s right – to an extent. On its face, fundraising is party business and really nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the government. Why this current round of eye-rolling nonsense around so-called “cash for access” fundraising (which isn’t actually cash for access in the sense that we got used to talking about with Ontario) is because the opposition is trying to link those fundraisers with conflicts of interest from the government, all based on insinuation with no actual proof of quid pro quo. But because there is this tenuous connection, the questions are being allowed, and they get to make all manner of accusations that would otherwise be considered libellous before the cameras under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Indeed, when Ambrose accused the government of acting illegally with those fundraisers, Chagger invited her to step outside of the Chamber to repeat those accusations. Ambrose wouldn’t, for the record.

Where this might resonate are with memories of the previous parliament, with endless questions about the ClusterDuff affair, and the operations of the Senate, and those various and sundry questions that came up time and again, and which were rarely actually about things that were the administrative responsibility of the government. And every now and again, Speaker Andrew Scheer would say so. But contrary to the opinions of some, this wasn’t something that Scheer made up out of thin air.

https://twitter.com/MichaelSona/status/811242072288141316

https://twitter.com/MichaelSona/status/811242862373388288

In fact, Scheer was too lenient for many of these questions, and there are sometimes that I think that Regan is even more so. Most of the NDP questions asked during the height of the ClusterDuff affair were blatantly out of order, asked for the sake of grandstanding. That the questions with the current fundraising contretemps have made this tenuous link to government operations and decisions is the only thing that makes them marginally relevant to QP. That said, the hope that this will somehow tarnish the government or grind down their ethical sheen generally depends on there being actual rules broken or actual impropriety, which there hasn’t been. Meanwhile, a bunch of issues that the opposition should be holding the government to account for are languishing because they need to put up six MPs a day on this. But hey, at least they’re providing clips to the media as opposed to doing their jobs, right?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Linda Frum’s misplaced concerns

Posted on by

Conservative Senator Linda Frum has decided to take on the topic of the current batch of Senate reforms, and I can’t even. And yet, I must. So here we go. Her two main points are about the institution’s lack of accountability and lack of legitimacy, and while she notes all of the changes with the former, she is way off base with the latter – but more on that in a moment. Much of the problem with Frum’s whole thesis is that it ignores historical context and perspective. With the lack of accountability, she correctly laments that the Duffy incident highlighted poor financial controls, but this is not unique to the Senate – most elected legislatures also lacked adequate controls until very recently, hence we had the moat cleaning imbroglio in the UK, or the Nova Scotia MLAs who bought flat screen TVs and generators as office expenses, or federal MPs improperly claiming their own housing allowances just a few years ago. It’s a process and the Senate was actually ahead of the curve of the Commons for much of the last number of years. And good for her for denouncing the “everybody does it” excuse. But her analysis of the Senate’s legitimacy issue is, frankly, jejune. The Senate does not need to derive its legitimacy from popular elections because it comes from the constitution and from Responsible Government – as with all Governor-in-Council appointments, the Prime Minister is empowered to make them so long as he or she maintains the confidence of the Commons, and he or she is accountable for making them. That is where the Senate’s legitimacy is drawn from, and people who insist otherwise tend to be more enamoured with Americana rather than the actual function of our own Senate – a body geared toward more deliberation than as a competing legislative body. Popular election would make the Senate just that – a competing chamber more inclined to gridlock if it is controlled by an opposing party to the government in the Commons, and otherwise full of 105 backbenchers for the Commons parties to boss around, seeing the great expense and organisation that would go along with Senate elections (even more than MP elections given that senators represent a whole province and not a small riding). Leaving aside Frum’s conspiracy theory that all of the new independent appointments are just closet Liberals (and I will give her the point that Peter Harder’s insistence on styling himself an independent is deeply problematic), Frum is boggled by the notion that a body that is not a confidence chamber can operate without defined government and opposition sides, and that Senators could weigh legislation on its merits rather than on the basis of the whip. In fact, Frum goes so far as to posit this baffling gem:

So long as we senators are not elected, our democratic legitimacy depends on government-appointed Senators following the leadership of a government that is elected – and that government, in turn, must honestly acknowledge its responsibility for the actions of the senators it appoints.

I barely even know where to start with this, other than to say “Nope. Nope, nope, nope. So much nope.” You see, the Senate has institutional independence under the constitution. The whole point of the Senate is that it’s supposed to push back against a prime minister when that prime minister tries to ram through dubious legislation through a majority Commons that they control. If said PM also has senators under their thumb, then it kind of defeats the purpose of it, no? And no, as I explained in my column this week, the PM doesn’t have the responsibility to police the Senate because of that institutional independence. And I get that Frum is doing yeoman’s work in trying to defend her partisan affiliations, which are totally legitimate. I too don’t think that a Senate full of independents is the best thing for our system, but that doesn’t mean that a greater presence of independent senators – enough to ensure the balance of power is no longer weighed in the favour of any one party – is illegitimate or unconstitutional. Frum is wrong on that point, and it needs to be said.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The problem with paper candidates

Posted on by

Yesterday, the quixotic Jean-François Party released a rare bilingual statement to decry the use of “paper candidates,” citing a case of a Green candidate from BC who had never visited the riding he or she is contesting in Quebec. If there was to be a cautionary tale around the use of paper candidates, it should have been with both the NDP in the 2011 federal election, and more recently in the Alberta provincial election. In both cases, paper candidates accidentally got elected in popular “waves” where it was clear that the voters of Quebec and Alberta were motivated to vote for the party for their particular reasons (affection for Layton in 2011, anger with the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta this year). In both cases, some less than stellar MPs/MLAs were accidentally elected – one of them, incidentally, joined the Jean-François Party. While Jean-François Party co-founder (and now party president and candidate) Jean-François Larose was one of those NDP MPs who was part of the sweep, then-fellow NDP MP Manon Perreault was an example of how a paper candidate turns out to be trouble. Over the course of the 41st parliament, Perreault was charged and convicted of criminal mischief when she falsely accused an assistant of theft, and was also later investigated by the RCMP for problems with travel claims expenses (though I’m not sure we heard the outcome of said investigation). Nevertheless, she was turfed from the NDP caucus during her trial, and after the writ dropped, she joined the Jean-François Party. So really, that the party is now coming out against paper candidates when their very existence is dependent on the victory of such candidates is curious. The problem, however, is that the parties have an incentive to create these candidates, and that incentive is that running full slates, regardless if those candidates have ever been to those ridings or not, allows them to claim the maximum spending cap. Hence, as especially in Quebec in 2011, ridings which barely had NDP riding associations all accepted the “nominations” of those paper candidates which included Ruth Ellen Brosseau and the McGill Four, because the NDP wanted their spending cap. So what to do about it? It’s a sticky situation because it would seem the answer is to remove the incentive of the spending cap, but how does one enforce that the candidates have actually been to the riding, or are actually campaigning? Do we really want Elections Canada to become an intrusive body to not only poke their heads into the party nomination process and to check up on those candidates in the ridings? It’s hard to say. I do think that paper candidates are an affront to our democratic system, but without turning Elections Canada into Big Brother, I’m at a loss as to a workable solution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ramping up the moral panics

Posted on by

With the end finally nearing in sight with this interminable election, and the logjam still present in the polls, this nasty undercurrent of identity politics has been creeping in. What started out with the niqab ban issue has been growing, all of it with seeds laid in the last parliament. That niqab ban challenge has been inflaming passions, but when Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi called out the xenophobia behind it, Jason Kenney retorted that the mayor “and people like him” are politicizing it. While people could take this as a racist jab, knowing Kenney it is more likely this dismissal of Nenshi as some bleeding-hearted liberal who is too politically correct for his own good. Or as Nenshi responded, “thoughtful people.” Elsewhere, Pierre Poilievre wouldn’t rule out the idea of banning face coverings in the public service period, which start to sound a lot like the PQ “Charter of Quebec Values” proposal. But it’s more than the niqab issue – it’s also this citizenship-stripping process that they’re pushing, and trying to deport people despite the fact that in at least one case, it’s involving a person who was born in Canada and has lived their whole life here – deporting him to Pakistan, where he has never lived or visited but only has a connection there though his parents – it’s a perverse and hugely unconstitutional measure. It’s also a big problem because it no longer becomes a question of dual citizenship, but rather the presumption that this person can get it with another country, so we would insist that they do and then deport them there. Not only does it not make any sense – if you really think that rehabilitation isn’t possible, why does dumping these terrorists into another country that doesn’t have our security services or monitoring regime for recent parolees, then you’re asking for them to join a terror group in that other country. To make it worse, Harper was musing openly on a radio show about extending this to other heinous crimes. But when you boil it all down, this is more security theatre – it looks like it’s keeping us safe, while it’s really just putting on a show and likely making things worse in the long run. But it’s just about looking tough, right? Damn the consequences.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729354918985729

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729812194570240

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730053836812288

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730543643455488

Continue reading →

Roundup: TPP a Caretaker conundrum

Posted on by

The Trans-Pacific Partnership talks are taking place right now, with the possibility that a deal could be struck with Canada while we’re in a writ period. The optics of this are a bit fraught, because if the government gets the deal signed, then they can crow about their prowess on the campaign trail, and how they’re signing deals to boost our economy. But the flip side of that coin is that a really big deal may be a kind of violation of the Caretaker Conventions that govern how an incumbent government operates during a writ period. Remember that we can never be without a government even when Parliament is dissolved – they just need to exercise restraint, and can’t implement major policy changes or make appointments during that period. This time around, however, the government released the Convention guidelines publicly while adding specific exemptions about negotiating trade deals. On the one hand, there is a certain amount of sense – do we really want to hold up the eleven other countries while we are in an extra-long election period? (Note that there seems to be a desire to conclude the deal before the American election gears up to full-on insanity mode). One of the arguments is that there should at least be some kind of consultation with opposition leaders if the negotiations continue during the writ period, and there are complaints that the TPP negotiations are unprecedented in their secrecy. What is not mentioned is that secrecy is deliberate considering how game changing this pact could be, particularly when it comes to weakening some of the tough subsidized markets in several member countries. And if you look at the reactions that rumours of deals around weakening Supply Management or auto parts content rules, and promises by other party leaders to maintain those protectionist policies, it’s hard not to see why they want to keep a lid on things until they’re finalised – particularly if the goal is actual trade liberalisation rather than just lip-service. It’s a delicate balance, and arguments can be made on both sides of the propriety of the government’s negotiations under the Caretaker Conventions. For example, Susan Delacourt argues the government is going beyond the Conventions. I’m not sure I have any answers, but I guess we’ll see what gets decided, and let the chips fall where they may.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Munk debate a success

Posted on by

The Munk Debate on foreign policy was actually really well done – probably the best and most substantive debate we’ve had so far during this election, with a good format, good moderation, and bilingualism that more or less worked out (though there could have been a bit more effort into the French). (Kady’s liveblog here). We also started to see a bit more of a change in the leaders. Harper was more or less his usual self, and in foreign policy, well, he’s got ten years of experience, but he also has a record to defence. Trudeau stepped up his game in this debate, and was the most confident and self-assured he’s been of any debate. The improvement was marked, and given the low expectations going in, where people figured that foreign policy was his weakest area (especially as it’s where most of his notable gaffes going into the election were), but those fears were largely put to rest. As for Mulcair, people expecting a statesmanlike performance were largely dashed as he tended to more personal attacks and swipes, while avoiding a number of answers – possibly because his party’s foreign policy platform is the thinnest of the three. Trudeau also defended his father’s record from attacks by Mulcair, and seemed to have a few of his best moments doing so, and it did get notice over the Twitter Machine. (It was also, he noted the fifteenth anniversary of his father’s death, so that certainly did weigh on his mind at the time). Here is some debate reaction from Michael Den Tandt, the Ottawa Citizen’s panel, and over Twitter, Bob Rae (who was subject of another of Mulcair’s swipes on stage). Oh, and audience polls seem to indicate that Trudeau was the big winner. Make of that what you will.

https://twitter.com/carbonexplorer/status/648663698819694592

https://twitter.com/kateheartfield/status/648657546933325824

Continue reading →

Roundup: Let the equivocation begin

Posted on by

With three weeks left in the race, we’ve started seeing Thomas Mulcair start equivocating – or clarifying in any case – some of the policy planks he’s been running on. In many of those cases, it’s starting to make his promises look far less impressive. Take childcare – he is now talking about sitting down with provinces and using some of their existing spaces toward his “one million spaces” goal. One example was with Ontario, and the two years of full-day kindergarten offered in this province, so how does that get counted into with is childcare pledge, and the funding questions that go along with it? Add to that, with some 900,000 spaces already in existence across the country, does that mean that his plan will simply be to add another 100,000 spaces over the next eight years and make sure that they simply cap the fees at $15/day? Or is it still supposed to be a million new spaces? With his cap-and-trade announcement, he says that provinces can opt-out so long as they meet or exceed the federal objectives. But does that not then become essentially the Liberal position, where the provinces take the lead while the federal government establishes the targets? And didn’t he denounce that very notion? Mulcair has even started back-pedalling a little on his criticism of “useless” senators, saying it was only the institution he was denouncing (which, I’m sorry, is absolutely not what he said at the time). As crunch time approaches I’ll be interested to see how much more “clarifying” happens between the different parties, and how much of that clarifying goes against what they were saying the whole time.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two senators are not enough

Posted on by

After Thomas Mulcair indicated that he’d been approached by a couple of Senators who would be willing to help him pass his agenda, we now get a couple of names – Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, though the latter isn’t talking about it (and personally I wonder why she would volunteer considering how shoddily she’s been treated by the NDP after she made that joke about camembert, and yes, it was a joke). But it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as Mulcair seemed to make it out to be. Campbell, in an interview with CBC, said he’d be willing to ensure that bills get due credit, but that’s not exactly putting oneself in the position of shepherding through an entire NDP agenda. I also have my doubts when Campbell says that the Senate doesn’t need a leader of the government and a leader of the opposition, largely because it clashes with our system of Responsible Government. The current framework allows for Senators to hold the government to account in the way that MPs can, by asking questions of a member of cabinet – nominally the leader of the government in the Senate, never mind the fact that Harper’s current leader is not in cabinet because he churlishly is trying to distance himself from the Senate. And one of the most underrated ways in which Senators perform this accountability is in the leader’s ability to take questions on notice and provide written responses. Losing this ability would be a blow to the Senate’s accountability function, which is a vital part of their role of Sober Second Thought. You need answers from government if you are to properly consider their legislative agenda, and losing that conduit is going to hamper that ability. Campbell and Senate Liberal whip Jim Munson also mused about making the Senate Speaker elected by the chamber, but I’m not sure how easily this can be accomplished considering that the Senate Speaker has duties beyond what the Commons Speaker does in terms of protocol and diplomatic duties, which is one of the reasons it’s a Governor-in-Council appointment. He or she is the “Queen’s man” (or woman as the case may be) for a reason, and there may be a lot of hoops to jump through in order to make that change. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it may not be easily doable – particularly if you have an NDP prime minister who has no interest in doing anything for the Senate. Suffice to say, it’s not enough for Mulcair to use these couple of senators as an excuse to ignore his constitutional obligations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: French debate, the first

Posted on by

So, the first French debate, and the only one where we’ll see five leaders all on the same stage. It wasn’t a dumpster fire, but it had its trying moments. Not twenty minutes into it, they got into the tiresome niqab debate, of which Justin Trudeau had the clearest and probably best statement, saying that we don’t accept it when men tell women what they can and can’t wear. There was also a ridiculous segment about the Senate, when it got compared to a vestige of our British colonial past (it’s not – the Senate of Canada is actually a wholly unique institution in the world), and Gilles Duceppe dropped the republican gauntlet in calling for an end to the monarchy, and saying an independent Quebec would do so. (Never mind that Quebec’s foundations are actually pro-monarchy, in part because it was the Quebec Act and Royal Proclamation that protected their language, culture and post-France turning the colony over to the British). Harper was pretty laid back in this debate, Mulcair easily nettled – particularly when Trudeau went after him on the bulk water exports issue. Trudeau was more evenly paced and not frantic this time around, Elizabeth May not overly memorable other than calling out the niqab debate as a distraction, and Gilles Duceppe, was as wily as a fox as ever. Here’s Kady O’Malley’s liveblog, while here’s the CBC recap. The Ottawa Citizen gathered four experts to react to the debate.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/647212971484033024

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/647215818904743936

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/647215942712193024

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ignoring legal advice

Posted on by

Looking through the government documents made available to the public during the court challenge on the government’s niqab ban during citizenship ceremonies, a pattern emerges quickly – that the department knew this was a non-starter, and they tried to offer alternatives for accommodation. Jason Kenney, the minister at the time, would have none of it, and pressed ahead anyway. And lo and behold, he used an instrument to implement a ban that was out of order. The Federal Court has said so, and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld it in a ruling from the bench, and this didn’t even touch the Charter arguments. But it shouldn’t be a surprise given the frequency at which this government’s legal and constitutional positions keep getting struck down by the courts, whether it’s with certain mandatory minimum sentences, or the Senate reference. People wonder what kind of legal advice they’re being given, and as this particular case clearly demonstrates in the documents, they’re being told that their positions don’t hold water – and yet they push ahead anyway. As we saw in the Duffy trial that the government created their own legal advisor position within the PMO, never mind that they have the Department of Justice who should be providing them with legal advice. The plain reading of what this means of course is that they didn’t like what Justice had to tell them, so they found a workaround to give them legal advice they found was more palatable. It all seems like such a waste of time, energy and taxpayer’s money – this from a party who insisted that they were going to put an end to waste in government.

https://twitter.com/michaelplaxton/status/646638431653765120

Continue reading →