Thomas Mulcair is telling people that he’s had senators approach him to say that they would be willing to work with him to pass a hypothetical NDP government’s legislation, but he won’t name names. While this may well be true, at least to a certain extent – we have been seeing numerous examples in the past couple of weeks of Mulcair exaggerating the truth – this should be unpacked a little bit. The first and most obvious thing is that we need to put aside the Harper Derangement Syndrome conspiracy theory that all of the Conservative senators are going to simply defeat any Liberal or NDP legislation that comes through because the fact that they were Harper appointees will apparently make them extra dickish, or something. Never mind that we’ve had plenty of parliaments where the party not in power held a majority in the Senate and lo and behold, things got passed with little difficulty. This will not change in the future. The second is that these Senators all know that they have a job to do, and that’s to scrutinize bills that come before them. Most of the time they pass. Occasionally they get amended and sent back. On very rare occasions, they get defeated, almost always because those bills are either fatally flawed, out of order, or unconstitutional and got passed on a whipped vote. And if the NDP holds up that climate change bill as an example of one the Senate killed, well, it’s because it was out of order and never should have been allowed to pass the Commons. That said, they are not rubber stamps, and won’t simply pass bills because the Commons did. It’s not their job, and if Mulcair has a problem with that, there’s a Supreme Court reference decision he should read. Third is that even if Senate Liberals formed a quasi-government caucus in the Senate should the NDP form government, it’s because the system needs to operate somehow. They are likely going to have to kluge together some kind of procedural workarounds to the fact that there won’t be an actual Leader of the Government in the Senate who can answer on behalf of the government, and if a hypothetical Prime Minister Mulcair doesn’t appoint a Senate Speaker, that is pretty much a constitutional nightmare waiting to happen. But Mulcair refuses to answer these fundamental procedural issues, while at the same time, he and his people continue to do nothing but hurl insults at the Chamber and its inhabitants while promising their abolition (which won’t happen, but they’re going to try anyway), while continuing to actively ignore the constitutional obligation to make appointments. So no, I’m not reassured by these senators who have allegedly approached him, because there’s more to it than just passing bills. We have a parliamentary architecture that he continues to ignore, and that should be worrying to anyone who cares about parliamentary democracy.
Tag Archives: Philippe Couillard
Roundup: May’s magical thinking
It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.
Roundup: Scaling back on tax promises
With a boatload of spending promises but almost no details in how he plans to pay for the, Thomas Mulcair appears to be scaling back on how much of that shortfall he plans to make up by raising corporate income taxes because as he’s quickly learning, that’s not going to raise all that much money. He also likes to use the phrase “making different choices like cancelling income splitting,” but that’s also maybe a couple of billion, which isn’t going to pay for a whole lot. It also seems to me that by pushing back a number of promises, like the childcare spaces, to full implementation some eight years down the road, it seems to indicate a theory that economic growth is on the way, and soon there will be plenty to fill the coffers. That ignores the fact that a) the projected surpluses depend on continued austerity, which the NDP keep promising to reverse, and b) economists are starting to warn that this slow growth may be the new normal and not just a hangover from the last financial crisis. With no plans to create economic growth coming from any of the parties, it’s going to be uncomfortable trying to come up with promises for major spending plans while maintaining balanced budgets, like they also plan. (And yes, the Liberals still have their own costing figures to produce as well). What the corporate tax piece doesn’t mention are the NDP plans to tax stock options, which economist Kevin Milligan has questions about:
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635570314882125824
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635570827103047680
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635571426313945088
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635571982348644352
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/635581074584682497
On the campaign:
- Stephen Harper announced yet another boutique tax credit, this time for membership dues of service organizations. Also, he’s not changing his limited questions policy.
- Justin Trudeau sent a letter to Quebec premier Philippe Couillard outlining his desire to be a “true partner” of the provinces.
- The Liberals are expected to announce a major policy around veterans’ benefits today.
- Here’s a recap of last week on the campaign.
Good reads:
- The Ontario government disputes Mulcair’s claim that they support his childcare policy because they don’t have enough information about how it will be funded.
- Apparently we rank fairly low among OECD countries for public pensions.
- Here’s a video comparison of the three parties’ childcare benefit promises.
- Here’s a fact-check of Trudeau’s flexible work hours announcement (spoiler: It won’t amount to much).
- Christopher Curtis offers a portrait of Trudeau on the campaign trail.
- Aaron Wherry muses about the issues of control and how that erupted into the ClusterDuff mess.
Odds and ends:
As part of their announcement to protect BC salmon, the Conservatives used a picture of an Atlantic salmon. *slow clap*
Here’s a bit of Ottawa history related to our first general election.
Scott Feschuk gives us his take on the election to date.
The #LPC had a big contingent at #CapitalPride. Saw @Mauril_Belanger and @Yasir_Naqvi marching. #elxn42 pic.twitter.com/5p2Cj1ugLg
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 23, 2015
The Greens had a fairly small contingent at #CapitalPride. pic.twitter.com/G50NCzTbLA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 23, 2015
The #NDP had a pretty big contingent at #CapitalPride. @PaulDewar was the only incumbent I saw. #elxn42 pic.twitter.com/1OYIgzh0vz
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 23, 2015
First time the Conservatives have marched in #CapitalPride. No federal MPs, but MPP @MacLeodLisa was front and centre pic.twitter.com/w2Y1fGtcB2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) August 23, 2015
Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan
A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.
Roundup: Prentice the winner
It’s not a huge surprise, but Jim Prentice won the PC leadership in Alberta, and now needs to win a seat in a by-election. The turnout for said leadership was incredibly poor in comparison to leadership contests past, which some are reading as a bad sign for the state of the party. The fact that their e-voting system was one giant colossal disaster didn’t help either, and once again serves as a warning as to why paper ballots remain best. It also serves as one more reminder as to why we need to return to the system of caucus choosing the leadership, given how ridiculous the whole contest was from start to finish. (Also, please stop using the term “premier-designate.” It’s not a Thing.)
Roundup: Buh-bye, Pauline Marois
It was akin to a massacre. The results are in, and it’s certainly a majority and almost a landslide for the Quebec Liberals considering the predictions going in, while Pauline Marois lost her own seat, and the Charter of Quebec Values is being consigned to the dustbin of history. And yes, Marois is stepping down as leader, while Pierre Karl Péladeau all-but declared his leadership intentions. Mark Kennedy looks at what Couillard’s win means for federalist forces in the country, which might mean an effort to rebuild some bridges, and remember that Couillard has even mused about getting Quebec’s signature on the constitution at long last. Andrew Coyne says that after this many elections were a referendum has been resoundingly rejected that in essence, Quebeckers have not only accepted the constitutional status quo but have pretty much signed the constitution. Paul Wells writes that the PQ is stuck between an electorate that won’t buy their policies, a party base that won’t retreat, and the looming threat that they will become the Tea Party of Quebec. Here’s the At Issue panel’s reading of the election results.
Roundup: “Inexperience” and other likely excuses
Peter Penashue’s “inexperienced” former official agents says that the corporate donation was “unintentionally” accepted, that Penashue himself didn’t know about the donation, and that the last four or five days of the campaign, “all hell was breaking loose” trying to get money in before the deadline, so the rush totally explains all of the ineligible donations. So really, it’s nobody’s fault because nobody takes responsibility for the documents they signed off on, right? Well, maybe not. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, notes that as the Elections Canada investigative process continues, charges may yet be laid, though not in time for the by-election. The CBC’s David Cochrane looks at the whole affair from the local angle and wonders if Labradoreans want a cabinet minister or to re-elect someone who ran an incompetent campaign and blames others for mistakes that he was responsible for.