Tag Archives: Patrick Brazeau

Roundup: Starting the Big Move

Posted on by

Yesterday was the final day that Centre Block was officially in operation. As of today, the big move starts happening, starting with the House of Commons chamber, and will be followed by the other major offices, like the Speaker, the prime minister and leader of the opposition, with the heritage furniture that will continue to be in use. And once that’s done and the building is empty, they can start to open up walls and ceilings to figure out the state of the building, and determine what needs to be done in terms of renovations and restorations, and from that point determine a price tag and timeline. At present, everything is just a guess, so we’ll have to stay tuned. (Here’s a photo gallery of the current House of Commons and Senate, and the new Commons).

The Senate, however, is a different story. Recent testing of the new chamber brought to light the fact that there are acoustic problems related to sound leakage that were first identified two years ago, and despite assurances from Public Works, it wasn’t addressed. That means they have to install new sound baffles which will delay the move by several weeks, which means that there will be even fewer weeks for the Senate to address its full Order Paper in the New Year. Committees can still meet in the meantime, but it seems the Conservatives have decided to engage in some gamesmanship over Bill C-69, which has the Independent senators are complaining about stall tactics.

Meanwhile, here is a lengthy thread looking at the new Senate building, and six facts about the building, its history, and the new renovations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time allocation’s a-coming

Posted on by

Getting people worked up over the weekend was the revelation that Government House Leader Barish Chagger had sent a letter to her opposition counterparts noting that she planned to use time allocation a little more often this fall, in order to help get the government’s agenda through (with the note that things were taking longer in the Senate as a consequence of some of the changes there). And immediately, a number of pundits got upset with the whole notion, because Trudeau was supposed to be different, and time allocation is a great evil that’s used to “clamp down” on debate, and so on.

Let me be the first to remind you that in and of itself, time allocation isn’t all that bad if used responsibly. Part of why it became a big issue in the last election was because the Conservatives – and most especially then-Government House Leader Peter Van Loan – used it for everything under the sun, because they were inept at House management, and they had so abused things like omnibus legislation that the whole legislative process itself had largely broken down, hence why it became necessary to schedule by means of time allocation. It wasn’t pretty, and it wasn’t responsible, but it got done.

Part of our problem is that all parties in this country have lost our ability to manage our debates. One of the most pressing examples is with Second Reading debate, where it’s supposed to be about the general principle of a bill – is it a good idea or not – and that’s it. It shouldn’t take more than an afternoon, but no. Instead, we have to speechify into the record, and for some reason insist that on routine bills, take days for “is this a good idea or not” debate. More time should be spent at committee, but that’s often where we have been clamping down even further, because apparently, we need more terrible, scripted speeches being written into the record that aren’t debate. The logical result of this broken system of debate is that time allocation becomes a more regular feature because we’re no longer actually debating, we’re speechifying. So if we don’t want to see the government resort to time allocation, then maybe we need to start thinking meaningfully about fixing our broken debate practices so that our debate actually have meaning again. But that may be too novel of a suggestion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit O’Leary

Posted on by

So the big news, in case you missed it, was that Kevin O’Leary dropped out of the Conservative leadership race hours before the final debate, and endorsed Maxime Bernier (never mind that Berier just weeks ago referred to him as a “loser”). And that they came to a late-night agreement, but O’Leary’s team still sent out fundraising pleas the next morning, hours before the announcement. Oh, and the ballots have already been mailed out with O’Leary’s name on them (and any votes he gets will just fall off and second choices will be counted instead, given that this is a ranked ballot). O’Leary cites winnability, and the fact that he can’t win Quebec (just like everyone has been saying the whole time), so that’s why he’s going to Bernier (who, incidentally, may also not be able to win more than his particular corner of Quebec given his ideological hostility to much of what they seem to hold dear).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/857287321372291073

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/857306842334203906

In the wake of the departure, here is some reaction from O’Leary’s campaign manager, Michael Chong, CBC’s poll analyst Éric Grenier, and Paul Wells delivers a signature thumping that you really need to read.

As for that debate, or “debate” as it should more properly be known (as with any of them held in this leadership contest), it was a weird mix of pointed attacks on perceived rivals, along with sucking up to others to try and win second-place support on those ranked ballots, because they very well know that it could be their path to victory. Some of the pointed attacks were expected – toward Kellie Leitch for fostering the image that the party is intolerant to the immigrants in suburban ridings that they rely on for electoral victory, and toward perceived front-runner Maxime Bernier. The one that was most surprising – and galling, to be frank – was Erin O’Toole going after Andrew Scheer because he became Speaker in 2011 and was apparently too busy “hosting functions at Kingsmere” than being “in the trenches” with the rest of the party (never mind that O’Toole wasn’t even an MP yet at the time).

The one thing that did irritate me the most, however, was the continued fetishism of private sector experience as somehow being a qualifier for political leadership, never mind that there is zero crossover between the two. With O’Leary now gone from the race, you had this mad scramble to try and claim this particular tin crown, and it was pretty sad. Rick Peterson was loudest – having never stood for office before – while Andrew Saxton, O’Toole and Bernier all tried to pile onto claiming their own experience. Government and business do not operate the same way. You cannot run a government like a business because there is no “bottom line.” Trying to claim some kind of credit for “making payroll” is meaningless noise in politics. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you can have a proper debate about issues.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Non-binding unanimous support

Posted on by

Supply day motions – also known as opposition day motions – can be tricky business, and unless the opposition party that moves it isn’t careful, they can wind up giving the government a free pass on supporting said motions without fear of consequence. Never mind that the point of supply day motions is to debate why the government should be denied supply (and hence confidence), these have largely turned into take-note debates on topics of the opposition’s choosing. These free pass motions happened with surprising regularity in the previous parliament, with the NDP frequently offering up mom-and-apple-pie motions that the Conservatives would obviously support the intent of, despite never having the intention to follow through with substantive action on, because hey, the motions are non-binding, and why not look like they support the idea of the motion? And lo and behold, the Conservatives offered up just such a motion around the Supreme Court of Canada, imploring the government to “respect the custom of regional representation” when making appointments to that court, “in particular, when replacing the retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell, who is Atlantic Canada’s representative on the Supreme Court.” While I will quibble with their use of “custom” as opposed to “constitutional convention” (which it really is at this point), this was one of those motions worded just loosely enough that the government could vote for it (and it did pass unanimously, as these kinds of motions often do), and should they go ahead and appoint a non-Atlantic justice to the court, they have room enough to turn around and give some kind of a nonsense excuse like “Oh, we felt that such-and-such diversity requirement was more needed at this point,” or “we felt that the Atlantic nominees were insufficiently bilingual,” or what have you. Or, as the talking points have been turning to, they will point to the number of Atlantic nominees on the short-list and said that they got equal opportunity and were not prejudiced against or some such, and make the merit argument. Suffice to say, there is more than enough wiggle room, and for a party that was so recently in government, the Conservative should have known better than to word a motion in a way that the government can support and later wiggle out of. This having been said, the government has been under enormous political pressure from the premiers regarding this Atlantic seat, so it is not inconceivable that this as a step in walking back from having the nominations being too open, but that remains to be seen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Segal’s misplaced demand

Posted on by

Oh, Hugh Segal. While I can understand your concern for your former colleagues, and that there were problems around due process for the trio of formerly suspended senators, I have to say that your demand for a formal apology from the Senate to Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau seems a bit…off-base. The three were suspended in large part because of the ill repute that they brought to the Senate, and just because the Crown abandoned charges against two of them in the wake of Duffy’s acquittal, nobody is saying that none of them did anything wrong. A finding that Duffy’s actions were not criminal is far from finding that there was no wrong that had been done – the Senate’s own rules were broken, even in Donald Bayne managed to convince a judge that the rules were vague. Segal is also off-base when he says that the Senate should have spent their energies fixing those rules instead of throwing people under the bus – in fact, the Senate has been working on updating their rules for years, even before the Duffy expenses were brought to light, and that trial hastened the reform process that had already been underway. Saying that they are owed back pay and again forgets that they brought disrepute onto the institution, and were punished for it within the rules of the Senate. Yes, as stated, there were problems with the due process of it, but rules were broken. Expenses were claimed when they should not have been. Calendars were altered, meetings were claimed that did not happen. Official addresses were made where senators did not live. These facts are not really in dispute, and the Senate had an obligation to do something about it, if not for any other reason than to be shown to be addressing the problems that were addressed rather than letting them slide and opening themselves up to even more criticism about letting people get away with it just because they’re senators. Was it embarrassing for everyone involved? Yes. Is it “torture” to still demand that Duffy repay expenses that were proven to have broken the rules? Hardly. Is it the Senate’s fault that the RMCP and the Crown didn’t do a thorough enough job? Not really. In light of all of this, I find Segal’s insistence on apologies to be hard to swallow.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not really elected, not really a betrayal

Posted on by

Alberta Conservative Senator Doug Black announced yesterday that he was going to sit as an independent, and a bunch of tongues started wagging because Black is one of the “elected” (and I do use the term loosely) Senators. A number of people also said a bunch of boneheaded things about the move, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but first, a refresher on the “election.”

For those of you who were unaware, Alberta has run a series of nonsense “consultative elections” for “senators in waiting” a few times, and it’s a process that has been problematic on a number of levels, not to mention the fact that the whole thing is unconstitutional. I mean if you want to elect Senators, then there’s a process, which is the general amending formula of the constitution, meaning seven provinces that represent 50 percent of the population. That didn’t happen, however Stephen Harper appointed from this list. Among the quirks of these “consultative elections” is that the candidates were largely running on the tickets of provincial parties – you know, ones that don’t exist on the federal level, not to mention the fact that the provincial Liberals boycotted an unconstitutional process, and the NDP refused because they want to abolish the Senate altogether. So this last time around you Senators running under the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party, both of whom were pledged to sit as federal Conservatives, never mind that the two parties are different and don’t actually stand for the same things. And did we mention that this is an unconstitutional process? Because it is – you can’t do through the back door what you can’t through the front, never mind that Harper and the Alberta government at the time figured you could.

So what does this have to do with his decision to leave caucus? Well, people like Senator Don Plett are angry, calling this a “betrayal,” while his fellow “elected” Senator Scott Tanas was passive aggressive in his “disappointment” with the move. Plett went so far as to start saying that this was Black’s way of avoiding the whip as he apparently has a terrible attendance record (note: this could be verified, if one actually wanted, and I’m not sure that I care enough to go digging), and moaning that these “votes” have been “deprived of a Conservative representative.” And this is all very much like the floor-crossing debate, which is ridiculous. MPs are elected on an individual basis – our first-past-the-post system gives them enormous agency because they are elected as an individual, even if they are running on a party ticket. They are not there because their party won votes and they are apportioned the seat off of a list (which empowers the party, not the MP). For a senator, however, they are appointed with a great deal of institutional independence, because that is what their job requires of them if they are to be able to push back against a majority government when required, or speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And no, Black was not “elected” – he was appointed, despite it being on the basis of a sham “consultative” process. So guess what – with that institutional independence, he can choose whether he wants to sit in a caucus or not. It’s why a Prime Minister should be very careful in the vetting process before they appoint someone (and no, an election is not necessarily a good vetting process, particularly given the way that the Alberta process was run, and gosh, it’s not like bad apples have ever been elected before). So really, the fact that he claims to be “elected” is of little consequence with this move, other than as a kind of “fun fact.” If he wants to sit as an independent, then more power to him.

Meanwhile, Senator Patrick Brazeau’s suspension is now over and he’s back to work, vowing to “clean up” the Senate – which gives one flashbacks of an acquitted OJ Simpson vowing to catch his wife’s killer. And no, Brazeau’s legal troubles aren’t over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Corrosive myths about mandates

Posted on by

It’s official – Theresa May is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thanks to being selected by her party caucus, and thanks to her rival dropping out (after a spectacular media implosion) and she was left with no rival to take to the party membership. (See her first speech here). But that has already started the general nonsense about her being “unelected” or not having a “mandate,” all of which is complete and utter nonsense, as though anyone making those claims doesn’t understand how the Westminster system works – and yes, I’m looking at you, CBC, who used the term in your reporting on her being appointed by the Queen yesterday to the job.

One of the most incomprehensible piece on the subject so far was published in the Guardian, written by Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who seems to be utterly mystified with the way that governments are formed in our shared system of government, or the fact that we don’t elect prime ministers. (He also advocated a bunch of proportional representation nonsense, which didn’t help his arguments any either). Now, while it’s likely that the whole piece was simply his attempt at trolling for the government to call a general election (somehow bypassing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act as though it were no big deal), hoping to reverse their devastating losses from the previous election while running on a pro-Remain ticket, it’s nevertheless shocking just how civically illiterate the leader of a major political party is in print.

There was a great rebuttal to Farron’s nonsense by Robert Hazell, which offers some clarity on the way that Westminster parliaments work, but he makes the very salient point that all of this talk about needing a democratic mandate “has a corrosive effect on public understanding of our parliamentary system, and on legitimacy and trust in government.” And he’s absolutely right, which is why I am especially outraged that media outlets like the CBC are repeating this bilge rather than reporting on our shared system of government as it exists and how it’s supposed to work. Civic literacy should not be a high bar to clear when it comes to reporting on politics, and yet here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Values versus mechanics

Posted on by

I am just about at my limit for hot takes on both Brexit and electoral reform here in Canada, and lo, the Citizen has an op-ed out that combines the two of them. How scintillating! Except not. After dire warnings about what Brexit did for referendums, we get an appeal for a discussion on “values” rather than mechanics when it comes to discussing electoral reform.

Nope. Nooooope.

When I’ve finished banging my head against my desk for the sheer ridiculousness of the piece, I’ve got a couple of bones to pick with it.

The mechanics of any electoral system are important to understand what it produces in terms of government, kinds of parties and representatives. The guide also discusses design variations, which could be good if citizens were being asked to design a system. But citizens are not being asked to do that when they hold these informal meetings. And an obsession about design mechanics only perpetuates the wrong-headed nature of the conversation. It’s like arguing over the options on a car before you’ve chosen the model.

The problem is that nobody is actually talking about the mechanics. Sure, you have a couple of people griping over MMP versus ranked ballot, but nobody is talking about the bigger picture. There is no obsession about design mechanics – it’s all been about feelings and “fairness,” and this fantasyland notion that somehow parties will be forced to be more cooperative under whichever system is eventually chosen (which is utter tripe) or that voters will somehow turnout more (also tripe), and nobody talks about what it means that you are no longer voting for an MP in a direct and meaningful way that gives them direct agency. Mechanics matter, and nobody is discussing it, so I don’t know where this prof is getting the idea that there’s an obsession with it.

The focus of these town halls should be on what values matter most to Canadians in an electoral system. I think citizens care less about the allocation of seats than they do about how each system embodies principles such as accountability, fairness, simplicity and inclusiveness.

Wait – how much ink has been spilled to date over the allocation of seats? It’s the very first thing that the sore loser brigade starts whinging about. So yes, apparently Canadians do care about it insofar as they misunderstand how the current system works and are being told that it’s unfair based on the fantasy number of the popular vote (which we’ve already established is not a real number). Also, nobody is talking about what actual accountability means (like being able to turf a government) rather than the fuzziest of notions about your MP responding to you as a voter. And there’s that “fairness” word again, which is that emotive word that people whinge about without understanding how the system works – just that the party they support didn’t get as many seats as they feel they deserved, based on numbers that don’t exist in reality.

Should an electoral system offer greater voter choice, create effective parties, be simple and practical or offer fairness of representation? These are ideals that both reformers and non-reformers can rationally discuss without getting lost in the weeds of how votes are transferred under single transferable vote.

And here we get to the part where we apparently want a discussion about unicorns, because that’s all these ideals are. Everyone wants a magical electoral outcome, but they don’t actually understand how the system works now, so this is all about wish fulfilment and fantasy projection. This is why a discussion about mechanics matters. We can talk values until doomsday, and it will be worthless because unless you have a solid conception about what your vote actually means from a mechanical perspective, then it might as well be pixie dust.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Perverting the Westminster system

Posted on by

Amidst the various detritus floating out there of post-Brexit thinkpieces, one could blink and miss a pair of posts the Andrew Potter made yesterday, but let me state that it would be a mistake to do so. The first post was a response to another trolling post from someone else who stated that a Brexit vote would never have happened in the American system because of all of its various checks and balances. Potter, however, doesn’t rise to the bait in quite the way you would think, and instead looks at the ways in which Responsible Government in the UK has gone wrong of late, which led to this situation. Things like the referendum itself not being a usual parliamentary instrument, or the fixed-parliaments legislation, and the ways in which party leadership contests have done away with the usual accountability mechanisms on the leaders that are being elected rather than selected. In other words, it’s the perversions of the Westminster system that have caused the problems at hand, not the system itself that is to blame as the original trolling post would otherwise indicate. And for those of you who’ve been following my writing for a while, this is a recurring theme with me too (which you’ll see expounded upon in my book when it’s released next year) – that it’s the constant attempts to tinker with the system that wind up being the problem because we’ve been forgetting how the system is actually supposed to operate. If we left the system alone and used it the way it’s intended, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems creeping in, forcing people to demand yet more tinkering reforms.

The second post from Potter is a continuation from an aside in the first piece, but it’s worth a read nevertheless because it’s a quick look at ways in which the changes that America needs to its system go beyond simple electoral reform, but rather a change to a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than its current morass that more resembles a pre-Responsible Government reflection of the “balanced constitution” model that the UK was experimenting with at the time. One imagines that it would mean turning their president into a more figurehead role than also having him or her be the head of government as well as head of state as the office is now (this is the part that Potter glosses over), but the rest of the points stand – that a confidence-based system instead of term limits would allow its heads of government to burn out in a third term rather than create independent power bases that are then used for dynastic purposes (witness both the Bush and Clinton dynasties), that problems with things like Supreme Court appointments would rectify themselves, and that it would force reforms to their party system that would largely prevent the kind of outsider demagogue problem that we saw in the current election cycle with Trump and Sanders. It’s certainly thought provoking, and a timely defence of our parliamentary institutions as they are supposed to function.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy Dominion Day!

Posted on by

Happy Dominion Day! In lieu of the usual rant, today I leave you with a few items for your perusal: a look at ten animals that helped shaped Canada, a look back at the creation of the flag, 40 famous Canadians giving their memories of childhood summers, and Maclean’s has 111 stories from Canadians. Now go enjoy the day, to the sounds of my July 1st theme song.

Continue reading →