Tag Archives: Reform Act

Roundup: Trying to make a garbage bill relevant

Posted on by

Over the past couple of weeks, Conservative MP Michael Chong has been trying to make “Fetch” happen – or rather, trying to make his Reform Act relevant again, first by taking to the Twitter Machine to outline the process outlined in the Act for ousting a party leader (as though the Liberals were seriously considering dumping Justin Trudeau), and later to insist that it laid out a process for expelling MPs from caucus. The problem? Well, there are several, but the most immediate one is that the Act requires each party to vote at the beginning of each parliament whether they will adhere to the provisions or not – and lo, none of the parties voted to. Not even Chong’s. It was always a garbage bill – I wrote a stack of columns on that very point at the time it was being debated – and it made things worse for parties, not better, and ironically would have made it even harder to remove a party leader by setting a public high bar that the pressure created by a handful of vocal dissidents or resignations would have done on its own. It also has no enforcement mechanisms, which the Speaker confirmed when Erin Weir tried to complain that it wasn’t being adhered to. But why did this garbage bill pass? Because it gave MPs a warm feeling that they were doing something to “fix” Parliament (and in the context of doing something about the “dictatorial” style of Stephen Harper under the mistaken belief that his caucus was searching for some way to get rid of him, which was never the case).  It had so neutered it in order to be palatable enough to vote on that it was a sham bill at best, but really it did actual harm to the system, but Chong was stubborn in determining that it should pass in its bastardized form rather than abandoning it for the steaming hot garbage bill that it was.

And now, with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott’s ouster from caucus, Chong has been trying to make the rounds to claim that the move was illegal without a vote – err, except no party voted to adopt the provisions, which is pretty embarrassing. And yet he keeps trying to sell it to the public as though this were a done deal.

Continue reading →

QP: Assurances that the system works

Posted on by

While the PM had initially promised to be in QP today, he cancelled earlier in the morning, leaving Andrew Scheer to square off against another front-bencher — likely Bardish Chagger. Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, and went through previous statements of the PM on the Double-Hyphen Affair and demanded the truth on the matter. Chagger reminded him that everything was in public and people could make up their own minds. Scheer tried again in English, and got the same response in English. Scheer read that nobody bought the prime minister’s line, and he read statements from the transcript of the Wilson-Raybould/Wernick call, to which Chagger reminded him the committee heard testimony in public. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to accuse the justice committee of being obstructionist, and Chagger reiterated that all of the facts were now public and the system was working. Paul-Hus listed the staffers who the committee hadn’t heard from, and Chagger repeated that everything was in public, and that the prime minister already took responsibility. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, and read a defence of Wilson-Raybould’s decision to record the conversation with Wernick and turned it into a question about not standing up for women. Chagger calmly repeated that all of the facts were now public, and accused the NDP of playing politics. Brosseau then read a demand that the PM visit Grassy Narrows immediately, and Seamus O’Regan responded that they were moving ahead with building the health facility there. Charlie Angus then self-righteously demanded the PM personally call the chief of Grassy Narrows to apologise personally, and O’Regan said that he was going to meet the chief personally to ensure they would move ahead with the health centre. Angus then thundered sanctimoniously about the recorded call, and Chagger remarked that in their own caucus, they allow robust discussion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caucus drama and another vote-a-thon

Posted on by

Yesterday was another non-stop day of shenanigans and ongoing fallout from the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair, so let’s walk through it. The day began with caucus meetings, and on the way into Liberal caucus, Justin Trudeau stated that he was satisfied that Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott wanted to still work for the Liberal cause, so he would let them stay in caucus – though apparently Philpott got something of a rough ride from her fellow Liberals, according to various sources. Nearby, Andrew Scheer opened the door to the media for a speech about how terrible the budget was, except it was the same kind of jejune talking points that we’ve come to expect, such as how these deficits were terrible, unsustainable, and would lead to future tax increases – all of which are objectively untrue given that the deficit is actually small, sustainable, and with a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, will not require future tax increases. Because remember, a federal budget is nothing like a household budget, and people should be smacked for comparing them. Scheer also told some complete falsehoods about the deficit (detailed in this thread by Josh Wingrove), and it wouldn’t be his first lie of the day – his whole shtick during QP was another complete falsehood about parliamentary procedure.

Just before QP, there were more developments – Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes decided to quit caucus, and later cited that her tweet and subsequent interview about her tense meetings with the PM around her departure led to unintended consequences “for those she cares about,” and she felt it best to sit as an independent for the remainder of the session. Also, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said that he never said that 9000 jobs were in danger – but if you also recall the testimony from committee, that seemed to stem from a memo from the department of finance, and there is also a hell of a lot of nuance to this figure of the 9000 jobs and what is at stake for SNC-Lavalin (thread here). And then not long after QP, the Conservatives started their vote-a-thon as a “protest” about the handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, during which they again made the tactically inept decision to vote against all of them, opening themselves up to all manner of Liberal social media about all the good and necessary funding that they “threatened.” The Liberals, meanwhile, went into full drama queen mode and got cots put into the space behind the House of Commons so that MPs rotating off of votes can nap (which the Conservatives tried to mock in their own tweets). It’s all so very stupid.

In related news, Bill Morneau’s chief of staff, Ben Chin, denies he did anything wrong in talking to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, saying there’s nothing wrong with staffers talking to staffers. Michael Chong is also trying to keep his hot garbage Reform Act in the news by saying that it would be illegal for Justin Trudeau to kick anyone out of caucus without a vote (though that doesn’t appear to be an issue any longer). Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at how the procedural shenanigans could play out over the next few days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier still hanging on

Posted on by

Apparently we’re going to talk about Maxime Bernier again, because of course we are. Yesterday’s developments included a couple of new Twitter missives, and Andrew Scheer finally, finally, held a press availability to discuss the situation, in which he basically said nothing. While not condemning Bernier’s remarks yet again (thus tacitly endorsing them), Scheer said that Bernier doesn’t speak for the party, that they value diversity, and no, he won’t talk about “caucus dynamics” when it comes to whether her plans to turf Bernier from the party. But that particular dynamic may be slightly more complicated.

There are a couple of reasons why Scheer is gun-shy when it comes to flexing his leadership muscles when it comes to Bernier’s constant stream of eruptions. One of them is that Bernier has a base within the party that Scheer can’t afford to alienate. Or at least that’s the theory – Éric Grenier teases out the numbers of Bernier’s support a bit more, and he’s not really a top fundraiser, nor may his base be as big as it’s made out to be. Part of this is because a number of supporters flocked to him in the leadership because he looked like a winner, and he got frontrunner momentum. Remember that many of these people also supported Kevin O’Leary, because he looked like a winner. So there’s that. There’s also the theory that because the Conservatives have bound themselves to Michael Chong’s greatly flawed Reform Act that the leader can’t expel a caucus member, that they must do it in a vote. That’s of course more of a theoretical consideration than a realistic one, given that the Act is largely a paper tiger – there is nothing binding in it, there is no enforcement, and it was so watered down in the process of passing it that it’s less than useless (and indeed is actively harmful to how leadership politics works in this country). Not to mention, Scheer has the option of threatening not to sign Bernier’s nomination papers for the next election (something the Reform Act promised to solve then didn’t), so it’s not like Scheer is without actual levers to push Bernier out if he so chose, even if he was bound by the useless Act.

Meanwhile, I will turn your attention to something else that Paul Wells noticed over the past few days when these tweets started.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030207649168543744

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030214242023047169

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030215199809105920

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030247683389181952

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1030230923885727744

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 →

QP: Endlessly repeating

Posted on by

Thursday, and Trudeau was again not to be seen in the Commons, as he was off in Calgary meeting with industry stakeholders. Not that it’s not important, but he was only in QP one day this week, and that’s something more reminiscent of his predecessor than he promised to be. Rona Ambrose led off, script on mini-lectern, and read a question about the Port of Quebec. Marc Garneau agreed that it was significant, and said they we examining the request being made. Ambrose then raised her concern that Trudeau said that he wouldn’t promise to approve Energy East if the NEB approves it. Bill Morneau responded, chastising the former government for not being able to get resources to tidewater in ten years. Ambrose tried again, and got the same answer. Gérard Deltell was up next, asking about funding for the National Optics Institute, to which Navdeep Bains praised them and promised a timely response to their request. Deltell wondered again about funding, to which Bains listed the various sectors they were helping. Thomas Mulcair was up next, demanding action for residential school victims cut off from compensation by a loophole. Jody Raybould-Wilson assured him that she had instructed her officials to find a resolution. Mulcair turned to the TPP and the issue of drug costs, to which David Lametti assured him that they were undertaking consultations. Mulcair lamented the theoretical affects of the agreement on intellectual property, and Lametti reiterated his response. Mulcair again hammered on the signing of the TPP, and Lametti again reiterated the consultation process.

Continue reading →

QP: Digging in on the haymaking 

Posted on by

The 100th anniversary of the great Centre Block fire meant that it was the wooden mace on the table today, to mark the destruction of the original mace. Justin Trudeau was absent, however, as he was in Edmonton to meet with Premier Notley there. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on desk yet again, and she read a question about Energy East, surprising no one. Bill Morneau answered, somewhat surprisingly, and he mentioned his meetings in Alberta recently, promising a new approach. Ambrose noted the resolutions of support passed in Saskatchewan, to which Morneau mentioned the meetings Trudeau was having with the Alberta premier. Ambrose gave an overwrought plea for jobs for people who are suffering, and Morneau insisted they were helping get social licence for groups who want to get resources to tidewater. Steven Blaney was up next, asking about job losses in French, and Morneau assured him that they are working together with affected provinces. Blaney accused the Liberals of abandoning workers, bringing in shipyards, to which Judy Foote assured him that they remain committed to the national shipbuilding strategy. Thomas Mulcair was up next, noting his visit to La Loche, Saskatchewan, and demanded funding for Aboriginal languages. Carolyn Bennett noted the importance of the visit, and she vowed to get those languages into schools. Mulcair moved onto the TPP and raised the opposition of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton to the deal. Lawrence MacAulay noted that the signing was just a technical step that allows greater debate. Mulcair switched to French to ask again, and this time David Lametti responded in kind with much the same answer as MacAulay. For his last question, Mulcair demanded immediate changes to the EI programme, for which MaryAnn Mihychuk assured him that changes were coming.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Good riddance, Reform Act

Posted on by

The past couple of days, we’ve had yet more attention paid to the Reform Act, and with any luck, it’ll be the last time we pay attention to it, as the three major parties all have largely voted down – or ignored – the law after their first caucus meetings. And really, it’s for the best – it was a terrible law that did nothing like it promised. It did not help to “rebalance” the powers of MPs in the face of their leaders, and it didn’t increase the accountability of leaders, despite people claiming it would. While the original version of the bill would have made the necessary change of taking away the leader’s veto power over a nomination and replace it with a different mechanism, but that got watered down to uselessness. The rest of it was meaningless noise because the problem is less the removal of the leader than the selection. Giving the caucus the power to remove the leader in writing is ridiculous because they really can do it anytime they like and have the gonads enough to do so – Chong’s laying out percentages made it more difficult because it became a dare to get enough open supporters, rather than having one or two courageous people to go forward to the media (witness Alison Redford or Kathy Dunderdale’s resignations). So long as we select leaders by party membership, any attempt by caucus to remove a leader, no matter how justified, becomes seen as a snub to the grassroots by elites, which is the trap that Chong walked into. Party selection of leaders is what created the unaccountable situation, and the larger the membership base that selected them, the less accountable they get. And it annoys the crap out of me that political scientists everywhere don’t take the selection problem into account when they insist that the Reform Act is better than nothing. No, it wasn’t. And as Kady O’Malley quite rightly points out, it was a colossal waste of time. I would go further to add that it was a colossal, cynical waste of time. Chong had tried to move these changes at party policy conventions several times and failed, so he tried in the Commons to exert pressure there. And a number of different voices in the party have told me that this is all building to a leadership bid by Chong, and one has no doubt that he’ll try to come in as the Great Reformer, and build his brand that way. For him to use that much parliamentary time and media airtime to build this profile leaves a bad taste.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Cabinet Eve

Posted on by

Welcome to Stephen Harper’s last day as Prime Minister. Tomorrow is the big day, and if you’re in Ottawa and want to take part, well, Rideau Hall is getting it all set, with big screens on the grounds, and helpful hints on attending (like you can’t park there and you’d better wear comfortable shoes, because you might be standing from 10 am to 1 pm). The cabinet will also apparently arrive by bus rather than everyone in their own individual cars, and it sounds like there will be some sort of interaction with the crowds, so I guess we’ll see how that all goes when it happens. Suffice to say, it again marks a change in tone from the last guy. If you’ve missed the others so far, Kady O’Malley gives a good primer on how to form a cabinet, while Nick Taylor-Vaisey fills you in on some more of the background details, like just what is a cabinet, and what are the oaths you need to sign? And no, I’m not going to engage in any cabinet speculation, because it’s a bit of a mug’s game at this point. I also don’t really want to get into the “gender quota versus merit” debate because it’s not a debate. There have always been quotas, be it linguistic, regional or even religious (when that mattered), more than merit, and I can’t believe that this is even a conversation, but whatever. The real question is how many women get into the “big” portfolios of finance, foreign affairs, justice, or defence.

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661179686009962497

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180078185775104

https://twitter.com/ashleycsanady/status/661180363868278784

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/661291352769064961

Continue reading →

Roundup: Assisted dying heating up

Posted on by

The issue of doctor-assisted dying is heating up the closer we get to Trudeau and cabinet being sworn in, seeing as there’s a looming February deadline on the horizon. Trudeau signalled that he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an extension to their decision to strike the existing laws down, but that too poses its own challenges. The federal government had initially asked the Court for eighteen months, and they gave them twelve, at which point the government sat on it for several months before creating what looked to be a stacked advisory committee to study the issue. That committee is also in the crosshairs, as advocacy groups say that it should be abolished because of its stacked nature. The chair of said committee said that its members’ former positions against assisted dying are no longer relevant because the Court has ruled and they now have to come up with a system that will work to protect the vulnerable while enabling those Canadians who wish to die with dignity to do so on their own terms. It certainly couldn’t hurt Trudeau to let them report and see what they have to say, and then choose to accept or disregard it at that time. The very fact that he’s now forming government should also be a signal that he expects this consultative process to be something other that the one the government engaged in around the prostitution question, in that he is not expecting them to give one response in particular but to have a more thoughtful result in the end. I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, advocates of religious communities came out against assisted dying again, insisting instead on more resources for palliative care, as though they were mutually exclusive, never mind that the Supreme Court has also made a clear ruling. (And one would think that if they allowed people who wanted to die on their own terms rather to do so, it would free up those resources that were otherwise needlessly prolonging their suffering that could be applied to palliative care, but maybe I’m wrong on that one).

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/659187808322605056

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/658299297897824256

Continue reading →