Tag Archives: Stephen Harper

Roundup: A “quiet” housekeeping bill

Posted on by

Do bills get passed “quietly”? There was a bit of debate over the Twitter over this fact yesterday, where it was conceded that a bill was passed with little fanfare, but I wanted to dissect this a little bit. The bill in question was one that was a technical housekeeping bill that legislated that several Minister of State positions were bumped in status, salary and precedence to full ministers, and that they had line departments split out from the previous departments they existed under the envelope of. It had been on the Order Paper since 2016, and signalled that it was happening since the Cabinet was first unveiled in 2015, with Orders in Council doing effectively what the bill did on an interim basis. It garnered attention yesterday because amidst the Cabinet shuffle speculation, it was noted that the bill allows for a couple of more seats to be added to the Cabinet table under this new framework, so Trudeau could theoretically increase the size of his Cabinet (and he yet might). But regardless, because this was passed without fanfare, it was termed as being passed “quietly.”

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1017468288207552512

Part of why I have a problem with the use of “quietly” – not just in this circumstance but in others – is because it implies that that there was intent. A recent egregious example was the renewal of the equalization formula – something that was in the budget document, in the bill (clearly marked), and came up at committee, and on top of that, was the subject of discussions between the federal and provincial governments for months. But nobody batted an eyelash until the Globe and Mail said it was passed “quietly” (apparently because they didn’t report on it, which is like a tree falling in the forest). And like I said with that equalization issue, it’s not the media’s job to flag every little thing for MPs – they can do their own homework.

My other issue with this is that not every bill is going to get fanfare – a lot of it is technical and relatively uncontroversial, there are a number of bills that are financial measures that are eye-glazing that most MPs don’t pay attention to (though they should) and simply pass of to the PBO to do their homework for them on. This particular bill was, as I said, on the Order Paper since 2016. There was nothing really controversial about it because it purported to fix inequities that would otherwise have ensured that a number of the women in the gender-equal cabinet were not equal in status or pay because they were in portfolios that had previously been relegated to “junior” positions, and a few reporters tried to make hay out of that fact when the Cabinet was first announced in 2015. This is not a bill that deserved fanfare. Expecting it is unrealistic and frankly comes off as a bit whiney when reporters can track these things on LegisInfo like everyone else. It didn’t pass “quietly” – it was a technical bill that passed like all technical bills do. And it’s time we struck “quietly” from the political lexicon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Barriers and non-solutions

Posted on by

As part of a discussion on Power & Politicsyesterday on barriers women face in politics, there were a few well-worn tropes thrown out there, but I wanted to poke into a couple of the items discussed (much of which I’ve already written about in my book, but a refresher course never hurts):

  1. This needs to be an issue addressed by the parties at the grassroots level and shouldn’t be legislated top-down. Parties are already too centrally controlled, and if you want empowered MPs that are women and those who are from diverse communities, they need to participate from the ground-up rather than be appointed top-down.
  2. The side-effect of quotas, be they de facto or de jure, tends to be that women and minorities are nominated in “no-hope” ridings. We’ve seen this time and again, even from the NDP, who have their “no nomination can be run unless the riding association has exhausted the possibility for an equity-seeking candidate” rule. That rule is often conveniently broken if they think they have a winnable straight, white male candidate, and 2011 is a perfect example of how they loaded a lot of women and racialized candidates in “no hope” Quebec ridings that got swept up in the “orange wave.” Most were not good MPs, and some had never been to their ridings before winning, which is the opposite of how nominations should be run.
  3. The voting system is not the problem – it’s entrenched barriers in the nomination system where not enough encouragement is given to women to run (i.e. until this last electoral cycle, they didn’t recognize that women need to be asked several times before they will consider running, and they may have things like childcare issues that need to be sorted when running). A PR system usually creates some manner of list MPs, where your women and minority MPs come from lists rather than having had to run and win ridings, which creates two-tiers of MPs. This also manifests itself in countries with quotas, and women MPs in places like Rwanda have seats but little power as a result.
  4. We can’t do much more to make our parliament more “family friendly” without hollowing it out even more than it has been. While there are issues with childcare, MPs are not without resources to address it (like hiring nannies) rather than forcing the institution to hire precariously-employed childcare workers for part of the year with no sense of numbers on a daily basis. While 60-day parental leave is not objectionable, remote voting and Skyping into committee meetings is very much a problem that we should not encourage in any way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performing partisanship

Posted on by

Andrew Potter put out a very interesting post yesterday about self-help for partisans, given the tone of the rhetoric right now, and it came at a particularly apropos moment given how unreadable my Twitter reply column has become since the publication of my fact-check piece for Maclean’s. And no, it’s not just Conservatives who are sore that their team has been caught out, it’s also an equal number of their opponents who are utterly obnoxious in using the piece to prove something about the Conservatives.

What has really gotten me, however, are the number of partisans whom I’ve worked with, who have been sources for pieces I’ve written that have savaged the Liberal government, who are taking to Twitter to accuse me of bias. And I had to step back from my reactions to realise something that Potter articulated in his piece:

And maybe that’s the big problem — that everyone has stopped arguing with their opponents, and has decided to simply perform for their supporters.

And this is it exactly – they’re not engaging critically with what I wrote or acknowledging that I have a record of being just as critical on the government on very substantial issues (as opposed to cheap outrage and the usual hairshirt parsimony that means nothing). They have to take to social media to denounce me in order to perform their partisanship. And I get it. But it’s really, really disappointing.

But as Potter also points out, this is also reflecting itself in how Parliament is operating these days – MPs aren’t debating with one another. They’re performing for their base, and we can see that in the way that we went from debate to reading speeches into the void, and from QP that engaged on issues to one that is now solely focused on generating outrage clips for social media. Parliament is ceasing to be about debate or ideas, or about governance or accountability – it’s about performing for your base so that you can win a few more votes. And that’s not only sad, but it’s terrifying for what it means for the future. And that’s why I think we need to have a rethink of where rules changes have gotten us, and start reshaping those rules that will force MPs to re-engage with Parliament in the way it’s intended to run, rather than allowing it to further degrade into this puppet show we’re careening toward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s poor arguments

Posted on by

Day two of Duffy’s bid to sue the Senate, and his lawyer came up with some…novel arguments. And it sounds like the judge wasn’t buying many of them. For example, they tried to argue that because PMO was exerting influence on the Senate’s leadership that it should nullify privilege. That’s…creative, and utterly ridiculous. When he tried to argue that the suspension should be invalid because it was done for political purposes, the judge wondered aloud if that meant she would have to call every member of the Internal Economy Committee to testify as to their motives – and no, that wasn’t going to happen she quickly decided. They also tried to argue that because the suspension wasn’t related to legislation that privilege doesn’t apply. But that’s also ridiculous because the ability to discipline its members is among the privileges outlined in Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867. So good luck with that.  Oh, and the “indefinite suspension” argument is also void because it wasn’t indefinite – it was until the end of the parliamentary session, and there was a fixed election date, so it would expire at that point regardless. (Also, the Senate’s privileges allow it to expel a member, so arguing that indefinite suspension is tantamount to expulsion is also not a solid argument).

The final argument was a plea to put the Charter ahead of privilege, which would go against previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings that stated just the opposite – that the Charter doesn’t trump privilege, because that would open up a floodgate to litigation against the parliamentary process. There’s a thing called stare decisis, the doctrine of precedent that binds our common law system, and while there are rare cases where it can be challenges, this isn’t one of them. It’s actually quite audacious that his lawyer would make the case, and I’m not seeing any particular argument about how the judge should invalidate a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. So yeah. Good luck to this case, because I really don’t see it going anywhere fast.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fighting to preserve parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Senator Mike Duffy’s court challenge started yesterday, and the Senate as a whole fought back to have the Chamber excluded from his lawsuit under the rubric of parliamentary privilege. The Senate’s privileges include the ability to discipline its members – and this needs to be reiterated firmly, because as a self-governing body with institutional independence, that’s the only way that senators can be disciplined outside of a criminal process. This is also why there is a differentiation when it comes to the judge asking the hypothetical about the Speaker shooting someone – privilege does not necessarily cover criminality.

Part of what Duffy’s lawyers are trying to argue was that the Senate’s punishment of his suspension without pay should be subject to judicial review because he was acquitted of all charges by the Ontario Superior Court. The problem is that he was found to have broken several of the Senate’s rules, regardless of what the court found, and the Senate is empowered to deal with those breaches as they see fit – not to mention, it was also about making sure that discipline was seen to be done, which was important for a body that was facing scandal and public outrage. This doesn’t mean that they went about it in the best way, however – the pressure (especially coming from PMO, which the Senate leadership at the time capitulated to) wanted to have these suspensions out of the way immediately, and so Duffy’s interventions were cut short, and Senator Pamela Wallin never got her chance to defend herself at all because of the haste. Due process was not necessarily followed, and yes, that’s a problem. However, that is not a problem that can be sorted by means of judicial review, because that would undermine the Senate’s ability to be self-governing (just like the Senate subjecting itself to external financial control like the Auditor General wants would undermine its privileges and ability to be self-governing).

It can’t be understated how damaging it will be if we let the courts start interfering in the operations of Parliament, in either the Commons or the Senate. The constant injunctions to legislation, the threats of lawsuits, the massive breach of the doctrine of separation of powers – it’s not something that we should mess with. Duffy may feel he was treated unfairly – and maybe he was to an extent – but it’s no reason to start pulling bricks out of the wall when it comes to privilege. And if the judge has any sense, she’ll respect that separation and take the Senate out of the lawsuit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A moment for the Queen of Canada

Posted on by

In light of Victoria Day and the celebration of the official birthday of the Queen of Canada (yes, they’re the same day), here are a few gems about the Queen of Canada, and the monarchy in general.

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/998596864311209985

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/998572925249867776

Actor Stephen Fry talks about how the monarch keeps politicians in their place, and while it may seem “kind of preposterous” it a system that works. As he says. “If it works, it’s very foolish to get rid of it, even if it’s unreasonable.”

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/998568760003907584

And let’s not forget that Queen Victoria ensured that we have Responsible Government here in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Decrying unfairness while ignoring logic

Posted on by

As the countdown to Kinder Morgan’s deadline for some kind of reassurance around the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion draws near, we’re starting to see a lot of angry commentary from Western conservatives, and not all of it is very well thought out. Yesterday, former Wildrose leader Brian Jean took to the Financial Postto say that Alberta needs to demand a “fairer deal” from Canada…but made a litany of errors and misrepresentations, and gaps in the logic of his own conclusions. Andrew Leach laid out many of them here:

I would add that Jean also disingenuously ignored the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Northern Gateway process didn’t adequately consult the First Nations to a constitutional standard, which was entirely the fault of the Harper government and not Trudeau. And for his complaints around Energy East, he also ignored the fact that while the NEB said that they would look at downstream emissions as part of their analysis, Cabinet broadcast that their criteria for approval had not changed, and it did not include those emissions profiles. It also ignores the economics of the situation, that Energy East was the most expensive option now that Trans Mountain and Keystone XL had been approved. It also gives the false notion that it would allow Alberta oil to flow to Eastern refineries for the sake of “energy security” when those refineries are not built to handle the kind of heavy crude that Alberta exports, and thus the majority of it would not wind up in Canadian gas tanks. But hey, why do facts matter when you’re trying to stir up anger?

And anger over equalization is so easy to stir up when you constantly misrepresent the issue. It’s not a cheque that the province hands over – it comes mostly out of personal income taxes. It’s a federal programme, and the reason Alberta pays more into it and doesn’t get it is because Albertans have the highest incomes in the country, and the fiscal capacity that their government can offer the same level of services as other provinces without crippling taxes. And when Premier Moe starts tweeting about “shipping out” equalization dollars, I think it’s fair to ask if he thinks that his province wants either the lower incomes or the reduced fiscal capacity that it would take for them to be a net receiver of equalization. (Note: He does have a point about the rail backlogs, and the federal government could have taken measures to deal with that months ago if they so chose). But seriously – these equalization/fair deal gripes are not grounded in fact or logic, and we need to remind people of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A recanted confession

Posted on by

It was not unexpected that we would get a level of histrionics and performative outrage in Question Period yesterday regarding the revelations that a Canadian ISIS returnee had spoken to a New York Timespodcast about his experiences killing while in Syria. (Never mind that this was the second time they raised this issue, but it never got traction when they tried on Tuesday). But amid the dramatic meltdown that completely distorted the situation – citing his description of the killing as “gleeful” when it was apparently anything but (note: I have not listened to the podcast myself because there aren’t enough hours in the day, but this is basing it on the accounts of those who have), and how it’s a complex and nuanced situation of someone who was recruited and who wasn’t a front-line fighter, but was in the “morality police.” And then, hours later, when contacted by the CBC (who had interviewed him years earlier, when he said he didn’t kill anyone), he recanted the tale he told the Timespodcast, citing that he turned a third-person account into a first-person one possibly under the influence of drugs, as the Postinterview was within three weeks of his return to Canada after a spell in Pakistan where he began abusing substances to cope with trauma. And yes, CSIS and the RCMP have been in touch with him.

First, some thoughts from people who know what they’re talking about:

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995047235946676224

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995048194802413568

https://twitter.com/MrMubinShaikh/status/995106705267666944

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063490866905088

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063493035409408

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063494901874690

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/995063496847970304

Other observations: We keep getting from the Conservatives this false notion that the Prime Minister welcomes back former terrorists with hugs, cheques, and that they send them away to poetry classes, all of which is complete bullshit, and conflates a number of issues that is not helpful in any of this. The Omar Khadr settlement is not because of anything he is alleged to have done as a minor while in Afghanistan, but because he was tortured by the Americans with the full knowledge of our intelligence agencies in breach of his Charter rights. That’s kind of a big deal. And those “poetry classes” are derisive attempts to conflate rehabilitation with de-radicalization in the Countering Violent Extremism programme, which is extremely valuable because it prevents them from becoming terrorists. But instead, we get demands that, in order to look tough, both distort the situation and that would in all likelihood jeopardise actual criminal investigations if they were seriously acted upon. Was the news of this podcast “confession” concerning? Yes. But does a half-cocked meltdown that completely misrepresents the whole situation help? Nope. In fact, it probably does more damage in the long run, feeding the paranoia of the likes of the Quebec mosque shooter, who radicalized by internalizing these very kinds of irresponsible messages. Not that the Conservatives care if there are points to be scored.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sending amendments back a second time

Posted on by

There’s drama with the Senate, after they sent back the omnibus transport bill back to the Commons a second time, after the government rejected several of the nineteen amendments proposed. We haven’t seen this happen in twelve years, that last time being in 2006 when there was back-and-forth on Harper’s Accountability Act, when he had a minority in the Commons, and the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, giving them the necessary leverage. But while much of the focus is on whether or not there’s going to be a constitutional crisis over this (there’s not, and quit being such drama queens about it), there is actually some nuance here that should be explored a bit more.

There are a couple of reasons why the Senate eventually voted to insist on some of the amendments, and one of those had to do with the way it creates unfairness for the Maritimes when it comes to rail transportation rates, as there is a monopoly in the region. What’s very interesting about this is the fact that after PEI Senator Diane Griffin made her speech about the regional unfairness, all subsequent debate became spontaneous and unscripted – something we almost never see in either chamber. This is how Parliament should work, and based on that speech, some senators changed their votes, which shows that the process does work as it’s supposed to, from time to time. It also shows that the Senate is fulfilling its role when it comes to standing up for regions, as they are doing for the Maritimes in this case. (Griffin, incidentally, says she’ll likely back down if the Commons rejects the amendments a second time).

The other reason the Senate is sending these amendments back, however, is the fact that when the government rejected them, they didn’t offer an explanation as to why, and this is important (and I haven’t seen anyone reporting this fact). And this puts the onus on the government, because they owe senators that explanation as to why their sober second thought is being rejected. Just about a year ago, when the Senate sent back amendments to the budget implementation bill, the House rather snippily stated that such amendments would impede the privileges of the Commons – but never stated how they would do so. While the Senate passed the bill, they did send a message back to the Commons that yes, they do have the ability to amend budget bills thank you very much, but they did make sure to let Bardish Chagger know their displeasure the next time she appeared at Senate QP, where they wanted the explanation as to how the amendments would impact the Commons’ privileges (and she never did give them an answer). Trudeau keeps saying he respects the independence of the Senate, but he should demonstrate that respect by offering explanations and not treating the work of the Senate in such a dismissive manner.

Continue reading →