Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Camembert and clutched pearls

Posted on by

In the media feeding frenzy yesterday morning, appetites whetted by unconfirmed reports by CTV that some 40 senators got additional letters from the Auditor General looking for further clarifications on expenses audited, one particular senator got swarmed while waiting at an elevator. Senator Nancy Ruth, who is a character who shoots from the hip and a pretty deadpan sense of humour, expressed her concerns about the Auditor General not understanding the role that a senator plays – in her case, as a feminist activist who brings a gender analysis lens to the work she does in the Upper Chamber – and then noted that the auditors were getting really picky to the point of being weird, like asking why her assistant expensed a breakfast when she should have eaten on the plane on her flight from Toronto to Ottawa. Nancy Ruth, deadpan, said that airplane food was awful, with “ice cold camembert and broken crackers.” But immediately We The Media clutched our pearls that she made such a quip. Camembert? That sounds awfully fancy! Why, normal Canadians would only eat blocks of Kraft cheese, thank you very much. And suddenly it became held up as a symbol of the Senate’s problems, and its members’ “entitlements.” There is this terrible strain of petty cheapness in our media – we’re aghast that things cost money (look at the renovations to Parliament Hill, much of which had been allowed to deteriorate because of the optics of spending money), and if someone puts up a dollar figure without context, it’s all the more fodder. If someone makes a legitimate expense, well, “ordinary Canadians” don’t get these expenses (err, except they do), so we try and shame them for claiming things that are within the rules. The moral panic around taxpayer dollars can be terribly provincial because it tends to be so very petty, this enviousness that some people are rewarded for doing long and difficult work – and make no mistake, the life of a senator is far less glamorous than people like to make it seem, particularly if you have a gruelling travel schedule to a lonely city like Ottawa and back. And it is a lot of work, both on Senate files and the kinds of projects that Senators take on because they have a position and a platform by which to champion them. But rather than acknowledge it, we begrudge it and we try to make everyone resent it too. Is it any wonder there is such cynicism about politics in this country? We stoke it at every opportunity. Maybe the problem is us, and our inability to roll with a quip or a joke, too busy clutching at our pearls instead.

https://twitter.com/jordanowens/status/583346556625154048

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/583450918303232000

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gearing up the political advertising

Posted on by

As we move closer to an election, there is going to be a lot of talk about political ads. An awful lot of talk. One of those talks is going to be about third-party advertising, and how much we’ll see because the federal spending limits are low as to render them fairly marginal, not that it’s stopped groups like Unifor or the National Citizens Coalition from grousing that the limits are too small for them to be of any good. Curiously, Stephen Harper used to be against these kinds of limits but he’s been in power for nine years and has done nothing about it, but you’ll have to guess as to why he’s had such a change of heart. Another thing we’ll see more of are social media ads which are cheap to produce and distribute, and can be used to refine and retool until they are considered “ready” to go for a major national buy – assuming that they don’t already get “earned” attention from news outlets without them having to actually pay for them to get wide distribution. Of course, we can look forward to being bombarded by ads outside of the writ period over the summer, so we should all be thoroughly sick of it by the time the election rolls around in October.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Adams nomination

Posted on by

Day three of the Eve Adams floor crossing fallout, and once you wade through some of the sexist columns and tiresome Biblical references, a few things start to emerge. Adams had a very interesting interview on CP24 yesterday, and the host pressed her on a lot of issues and Adams seemed to have some coherent answers about changing her mind about income splitting when Flaherty came out with his objections, and that she was a loyal foot soldier for the Conservatives so their excuses about being happy to be rid of her are ringing hollow. She also said that she would be moving to riding she plans to run in, Eglington Lawrence, and that has already begun reaching out to the community there. The riding president says she’s welcome to run, but reminds everyone that it’s an open nomination. Trudeau told the media while in Winnipeg that he gave some reflection to accepting Adams into the fold, and said that it was Adams’ willingness to do the tough slog to win a difficult riding was what convinced him – and I think that’s borne out it in the fact that it’s going to be an open, contested nomination, and that Adams is going to have to do the hard work of convincing the grassroots members that she is the leopard who has changed her spots. And it’s going to be tough – here is one of the nomination candidates that she will be running against, and it’s going to be tough for her to beat someone of his credentials. I also believe that having Adams lose in a fair fight is part of Trudeau’s actual plan, where he gets the news value of her embarrassing the PM and then saying that the open nomination system worked. The fact that she was slotted into the riding’s nomination race without consultation seems to fit with that fact. But then again, what do I know?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Liberals say okay

Posted on by

It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Baird bows out

Posted on by

In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A look at the weeks ahead

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and to set the stage, Stephen Harper delivered a speech to supporters in Ottawa to announce that he would balance the budget, deliver new anti-terror legislation by Friday, and generally set the pre-election stage that this sitting is going to consist of. Because if there’s anything Canadians are really looking forward to, it’s a nine-month-long campaign. Meanwhile, can someone please point out to me where exactly a Liberal government dramatically hiked taxes, as Harper claimed? Because I’m drawing a blank on that one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rate cut, dollar drop

Posted on by

In a move that surprised pretty much everyone yesterday, the Bank of Canada lowered their already rock bottom prime interest rate to 0.75 percent as a means of dealing with the effect of falling oil prices on our economy, and in response, the dollar dropped even further. Bank Governor Stephen Poloz said that the upsides of lower oil prices could have positives, but as the economic forecast was also downgraded, he said that it could delay recovery by at least a year. Opposition reaction to the rate cut was that it showed the government was mismanaging the economy, but Justin Trudeau also wouldn’t say if he would run deficits, nor would Thomas Mulcair indicate how he would pay for his childcare promises. Andrew Coyne is not bothered by the falling dollar, saying we’ll adjust, though as I watch my purchasing power evaporate before my eyes at the iTunes store, I can’t say I’m too happy about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Family-friendly has its consequences

Posted on by

It’s one of those kinds of piece that rolls around every few months, and Laura Payton has again taken a look at the toll to family life that an MP’s job takes, especially as several MPs have opted not to run again, citing that very reason. And that’s well and good, but the moment we get to talking about making Parliament more “family friendly,” we immediately start talking about things without acknowledging any of the very detrimental unintended consequences. Beyond better access to childcare on the Hill for MPs (as opposed to staffers), they immediately start talking about things like cancelling Friday sittings, electronic votes, and attending committees by video conference – all of which are actually terrible ideas. Losing Fridays would mean having to make up the time somewhere else, and since we’ve already cancelled evening sittings to make Parliament more “family friendly,” well, that’s out, and let’s face it – nobody wants to sit in July or August because Ottawa is pretty humid and gross – especially in some of those old stone buildings that aren’t very well air conditioned, never mind that MPs generally want to be on the barbecue circuit or spending time with said families now that their children are out of school. Electronic voting is also a bad idea because half of the point of Parliaments are the very important symbolism of having your representatives stand and be seen to be standing for what they believe in. An electronic tally may be more convenient, but it also damages the meaning of the act. The other reason why it’s terrible is because that’s one of the few times that MPs are all together in one place and can see each other and make contacts, whether that means cornering a minister about an issue that they need to have addressed, or simply building relationships. It’s the same with attending committee by video conference. You’re not forming those relationships either with fellow MPs, or with any of the witnesses appearing before you, and even while some witnesses to appear by video conference, that face-to-face contact and the conversations in the hallway afterward are all lost. Those are tremendously important. There are other ways for MPs to better schedule themselves, but already the parliamentary calendar has changed a lot to accommodate families and travel. The loss of evening sittings had a demonstrable impact on collegiality because MPs no longer ate dinner together. Losing more of that contact will have a crippling blow on the institution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two rulings and a report for the Mounties

Posted on by

The RCMP were in the centre of the spotlight yesterday, with two Supreme Court judgements and a fact-finding report on the Moncton shootings all having been released. Regarding the former, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the ban on RCMP from collectively bargaining was unconstitutional, which opens the door for them to form a recognised police association (though they seem to be shying away from a full-blown union). This ruling has further reaching consequences as it also resolved some of the problems in the existing jurisprudence around freedom of association, which has been in a fairly bad state for the past four years or so since a previous decision introduced a great deal of confusion into the law. The second decision related to a challenge of the government’s wage rollbacks imposed on the Force in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis, but the RCMP lost that challenge because of the fairly narrow way in which it was constructed and argued. As for the Moncton report, much of it focuses on the lack of training and slow roll-out of new carbines, confusion among communications and problems related to body armour, many of which are problems that date back to the Mayerthorpe massacre of four Mounties. Where these two stories intersect, beyond the RCMP issue itself, is that police association members are saying that they could have addressed some of these problems and had timelines established as part of a collective bargaining process, which of course they don’t have.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting attendance matters (Part II)

Posted on by

Following up on their report about MPs being absent from votes, the Ottawa Citizen tries to delve into the issue of just what happens to MPs who don’t show up. Usually, as these things go, the whips handle it and do so quietly. And if MPs don’t like what the whips have to tell them, then they have the option of walking – as it seems that Sana Hassainia did from the NDP. And as the numbers bear out, independent MPs with little incentive from party whips to show up, may just as well not. And that’s fine, really – if their constituents look at their voting records and see a whole lot of blanks, well, then they have a pretty good idea about what their MPs take to be a priority. What gets me is that the piece quotes the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation as saying that hey, MPs have plenty of jobs, and sometimes they’re more important than just standing up and sitting down. Except no – that’s one of the most important parts of being an MP, standing up for what they believe in, and being seen to do so, and being on the record for doing so. Voting is how things are decided in a democracy like ours, so when the people we send to make those decisions don’t bother to show up, well, it kinds of defeats the purpose. Despite the fantasy notions that people have about all the varied things an MP’s job is supposed to entail, it pretty much breaks down to holding the government to account, and the mechanism by which that happens is votes. It’s not rocket science. Making excuses for why MPs aren’t doing that job by voting – or having a good reason for why they’re not there to do so – doesn’t help the health of our system.

Continue reading →