Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Cullen’s silver-tongued swindle

Posted on by

It should not surprise me, but Nathan Cullen’s capacity for deceptive stunts continues to both amaze and gall me at the same time. Previously it was conning Maryam Monsef into his “proportional” electoral reform committee composition (which was not proportional, but a racket that was designed to merely look more “fair” but was in fact a calculated gambit to give the opposition a disproportionate say in the process), for which we got a report that was a steaming pile of hot garbage. With Karina Gould now in the portfolio again, Cullen now proposes that they “co-draft” an electoral reform bill.

No, seriously.

I cannot stress how bad of an idea this is for both of their sakes. For Gould, this is Cullen trying to swindle her like he did Monsef. He played her – and the public – in trying to push proportional representation and ended up recommending (along with Elizabeth May’s whole-hearted endorsement) one of the absolute worst possible electoral systems possible. And now he’s trying to ensure that she puts it into legislation for his party’s benefit. This has nothing to do with bills being drafted secretly “backrooms” (otherwise known as the Department of Justice under the cone of Cabinet confidence) or with the spirit of bipartisanship. This is about Cullen trying to manipulate the process.

If that weren’t bad enough, what is especially galling is that he’s undermining his own role as an opposition critic in the process. He is not a minister of the Crown. His role, therefore, is not to govern, but to hold those to account who do (–William Ewart Gladstone). This is an important job because parliament depends upon accountability. That’s the whole purpose behind having a parliament – to hold government to account. And it would be great if our opposition critics would actually take that job seriously rather than pretend they were ministers with their faux-bipartisanship and private members’ bills that cross the line when it comes to acceptable bounds of setting policy. It would be great if MPs actually did their jobs. Perhaps most troublesome in all of this is that Cullen is his party’s democratic reform critic. If he can’t grasp this most basic fundamental point of Responsible Government, then can we actually trust him on attempting to find a different voting system? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No health deal with the provinces

Posted on by

So that was that. The federal government came to the table yesterday with some more money for health transfers plus another $11.5 billion over ten years for targeted priorities, and the provinces balked, so there’s no deal and the federal government is sticking to the existing 3 percent or GDP growth (whichever is higher) escalator. But really, the whole thing was a bit of a charade to begin with.

Andrew Coyne pretty much savaged the whole affair over the Twitter Machine all day, and he’s certainly not wrong about any of it.

So both Bill Morneau and Jane Philpott say that they’re willing to work on ways to help the provinces, but Morneau went into it basically saying they’re in the middle of writing the budget, so now is the time. They said no, so that may be it. Well, except that New Brunswick is saying they’re open to a bilateral deal, because with their stagnant population growth, the current escalator is a lot of money for them. Will this shame other provinces into signing on, or at least enough that the rest will start looking foolish for rejecting it out of their ritualized Busting of the Gaskets? I guess the next couple of weeks will tell. Incidentally, Justin Trudeau seems to be having difficulty in remembering just what was promised on funding during the election, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving the PMO too much credit

Posted on by

Over the past day-and-a-half, everyone and their dog has had an opinion about just what Maryam Monsef was thinking when she stood up in Question Period and said that the electoral reform committee hadn’t done their job in bringing forward a recommendation and then tried to use the Gallagher Index equation as a way of ridiculing their work. And when she stood up in QP to apologise yesterday no less than five times, the opinions got more and more “sure” that everyone knew just what was going on.

And while I am always happy for a Thick of It reference where I can get it, I’ve seen a lot of tweets over the day that have basically posited that Monsef is this vacuous cipher for the PMO, and that she’s just reading the lines assigned to her, and it bothers me. Why? Because Monsef isn’t vacuous. Quite the opposite in fact, and while she may stick to her lines in QP and have all the sweetness of saccharine, she’s very deliberate in the way she responds (as she articulated to John Geddes here). So yes, she prepared for Thursday’s QP and had some lines prepared, including the one about the Gallagher Index, but she also knew that she was going to be bombarded with a bunch of ridiculous questions from the opposition parties who overread the conclusions of the report. Did she go too far? Yes, absolutely, and I think she recognised that. But she’s also been handed a really shit file to manage, and she’s got a tonne of work to do in stick-handling it.

Essentially, the Liberals made a foolish promise that they probably knew they couldn’t keep, but they also managed the expectations around it somewhat with promises for consultation that gives them an out. It was also just one item in a comprehensive reform package, most of the rest of which is well on the way of being implemented, but they went and oversold this one item and now they need to figure out how to break it without looking like they’re breaking it for self-interested reasons. And no, I don’t think they want to break it just because the current system worked out for them – rather, they realised that the alternatives are not actually better for our system in general. Part of how they can hope to break it is to show that the other parties are unreasonable and no consensus can be reached, and to a great extent, the electoral reform committee report demonstrated that, but Monsef went and overshot and her own party members got hit with friendly fire as a result. And now they need to keep up the charade a while longer, but this is something that they need to smother, but they can’t look like that’s their plan, and Monsef has a hell of a job trying to manage that.

Oh, and for everyone who asserts that this is just the PMO pulling the strings instead of the minister, I’m less convinced. I’ve had conversations with people who’ve worked in Queen’s Park who now work here, and their assessment is that this actually is government by cabinet – the centre is not stickhandling everything, and I’m not convinced that Monsef, as junior as she may be, is just a puppet like so many Harper ministers were. The evidence just isn’t there for me.

Meanwhile, Colby Cosh offers some more context for that whole Gallagher Index nonsense, while Paul Wells manages to better interpret Monsef’s reaction and the real reason why the committee failed, which has to do with the referendum question. Andrew Coyne mystifyingly tries to equate the issue with free trade, while again insisting that Monsef is just a cipher for the PM.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gallagher and the electoral reform garbage fire

Posted on by

Yesterday’s release of the electoral reform committee report was a giant headache for all sorts of reasons – the way in which the majority report was cute in their recommendations, the Gallagher Index nonsense, Monsef’s being cute in reply to the ways in which both the Conservatives and NDP were over-reading their own report, and the repeated demands that the Prime Minister respect his ill-considered promise that 2015 would be the last election under First-Past-the-Post. It was an utterly exasperating day.

While are all aware that I am team status quo because the system is not broken and any problems are not the result of the electoral system, I will offer a few observations. Number one is that the Gallagher Index is one of those devices favoured by poli sci undergrads, electoral reform nerds, and sore losers to “prove” that their preferred system is “mathematically” better than others, but it’s predicated on a couple of false notions – that in evaluating the current system that it’s a single event when it’s actually 338 separate events; and that the translation of votes to seats in this as-close-to-perfect proportion is actually desirable when it is in fact distorting the meaning of the vote itself. When we vote under our system, we are making a simple decision on who fills an individual seat, and because there are more than two candidates (and we don’t use run-off elections), it tends to rely on a plurality result rather than a simple majority. When you start demanding proportionality, you distort the meaning of that simple decision, and yes, that is actually a problem. That the report wanted a system with an Index of 5 or less, that’s not actually a simple choice of one or two systems. (If you want an explanation of the math, read this thread). Simulations of the Index under the Canadian system can itself be distortionary because of the regional nature of our elections, which why some use a “composite” Index that can produce different results from a strictly national Index figure when you try to correct for those.

The NDP/Green “supplemental report,” aside from being nigh-unreadable for all of its collection of demonstrably false talking points, recommends either an MMP system or this “Rural-Urban Proportional,” but in order to get their Index scores below 5, it means a large number of new seats particularly for MMP, while the RUP concept in and of itself is unlikely to be considered constitutional – using two separate electoral systems depending on your geography is unlikely to pass the Supreme Court of Canada smell test, but this is a decision they wanted to put on the government without that particular context. It’s all well and good to wave your hands and say you want a more proportional system, but designing one that works for Canada’s particular geography and constitutional framework is not as easy as it sounds, nor does it actually respect what you’re actually voting for. And so long as the loudest voices on this file are mired in sore loserism who figure that it’s the system that’s keeping them down and not the fact that they simply don’t have policies and candidates that can appeal more broadly, we’re going to continue to be mired in debates based on a load of utter nonsense. But hey, the government needs to make it look like they’re going to keep trying to tackle this file for another few months before they give up rather than just smothering this Rosemary’s Baby in its crib right now like they should, and just take their lumps for a foolhardy promise.

And if you won’t take my word for any of this, here’s Kady O’Malley evaluating the report, what happened today, and the trap that the NDP and Greens may be setting for themselves. Meanwhile, The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ asserts that Trudeau’s election promise was “full of baloney,” while it can credibly be pointed to the fact that they acknowledged the need for consultations which gave wiggle room.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/804333379751739392

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back against Leitch

Posted on by

In the wake of Wednesday’s Conservative leadership “debate” – and I use the term loosely because there was no actual debate, just presentations sans Power Point – the wedge that Kellie Leitch has been nursing in her campaign became all the more stark. While Michael Chong may have been first out of the gate with his condemnation, Deepak Obhrai has used it to crank his campaign up a notch yesterday, with both an appeal for support in order to oppose Leitch specifically, and also told tales about messages he’s received from Leitch supporters telling him to leave the country.

At one point during the presentations on Wednesday, Leitch held up a book Points of Entry from sociologist Victor Satzewich to justify her screening proposals. The problem? That Satzewich’s conclusions in the book were the opposite of hers, that the system was working, that demanding more face-to-face interviews for all visa applications would make the system grind to a halt, and that while he went into the research sceptical, his research convinced him that things were better than he had initially surmised. So that’s kind of embarrassing for Leitch (or would be if she had any demonstrated capacity for shame, which I’m not convinced is the case).

Meanwhile Leitch, whose other Trumpian note has been to rail against “elites” – as though she were not the epitome of one – has been holding fundraisers in Toronto with Bay Street lawyers for $500 a pop. You know, more of those elites which she’s totally not one of. Also, if she’s so convinced that she’s going to be Prime Minister by 2019, isn’t this some kind of ethical conflict for her to be holding these kinds of cash-for-access fundraisers?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Seriously, stop calling it cash-for-access

Posted on by

Apparently we’re still on this bizarre witch hunt against Liberal Party fundraisers, because I’m guessing we have little else to obsess over right now. Best of all, we’re now inventing conspiracy theories, like how the head of drug company Apotex is apparently fundraising because his company is both lobbying the government (as a drug company does) and because they’re involved in a lawsuit, and no said company head isn’t the company’s lobbyist, but yet these connections are being drawn by both media and echoed by the opposition, and I shake my head wondering people in their right mind think this is some kind of a scandal or breach of ethics. You really think the federal government is going to throw a lawsuit because they got a $1500 donation? Really? Honestly?

That media – and in particular the Globe and Mail continues to characterise this as “cash for access” is bizarre. Sure, your “average family” isn’t going to pay $3000 to meet a minister, but why would they? I mean, seriously? What would be the point? And it’s not like they don’t do other events either, and we’ve previously established that this is a government that loves its consultations, so it’s not like you couldn’t have your say. It’s inventing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Do you think ministers shouldn’t attend fundraisers at all? Do you think that they can be bought for $1500? How about $500? $100? And they’re not hiding these fundraisers either. VICE asked for the list, and lo and behold, it was provided. But here’s the most bizarre part of all – mere months ago, the Globe declared that the federal system was the best in the country and urged provinces to all adopt it (while in the midst of their zeal against the much more dubious practices that were taking place in Ontario where ministers were soliciting donations from the stakeholders lobbying them, which is not what is happening at the federal level).

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/792103096696659968

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/792103490092953600

https://twitter.com/RobSilver/status/792104056294674432

Meanwhile, the president of the Liberal Party wrote a response to the Globe, but they wouldn’t publish it, so it’s on their website. Howard Anglin expands on his criticism of the reporting on fundraisers, and defends our system as being clean on the whole, and seriously, this is getting tiresome.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about ordered repayments

Posted on by

Conservative-turned-independent Senator John Wallace is asking questions around the decision to withhold Senator Mike Duffy’s salary to repay inappropriate expenses that were uncovered as part of his court case, and in particular, whether the Internal Economy Committee’s three-member steering committee has been exceeding its authority in making decisions without the full committee signing off. The steering committee after all is supposed to be limited to some administrative matters, but in cases of “emergency,” they can do more. So was this an emergency? There is the argument that the decision was made over the summer when the full committee could not meet, and it was in accordance with rules laid out as part of the broader expenses issue and dispute resolution process, which Duffy did not avail himself of, his lawyer insisting that he was “fully exonerated” by the judge in his court case (which is not what the judge said, but rather that what he did simply didn’t meet the threshold of being criminal, and yes, there is a vast difference). With a case as high-profile as Duffy’s, the fact that inappropriate expenses have been flagged meant that the appearance of doing something about recovering those expenses was a very real consideration for the continued public legitimacy of the institution whose reputation has taken a beating, and letting Duffy get away with those inappropriate expenses would continue to damage the institution in the eyes of the public. But, that having been said, was this a decision that could or should have waited for the full committee to decide up on in the fall, and is this a case of procedural unfairness or worse, of a lack of any kind of due process, as has happened on more than one occasion as this whole expenses issue has reared its head? I’m not sure, but it does bear asking. I do think that something needed to be done to address the issue in a timely manner because the Senate has to rebuild its public image after senators like Duffy have done so much to muddy it, but whether what happened was right, well, that’s not a question I can answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not cash-for-access

Posted on by

This latest round of pearl-clutching over political fundraising is reaching its fever pitch in a most tiresome way possible, and I’m losing all patience with it. Determined to try and label it “cash-for-access” in order to tie the story in with the gross lack of fundraising rules that existed in Ontario, and the very dubious practices of the government there of having ministers essentially asking for donations from companies lobbying them, what’s going on at the federal level is nothing like that at all. However, bored journalists are drawing lines on between people who are attending or organizing fundraisers and lobbying activities, despite everything being reported and above board, are going “Look! Look! Smell test!” But I’m having a really, really hard time buying this. Likewise with opposition parties going “Sure, it’s in the rules, but Trudeau’s letters said that nobody should have the appearance of conflict of interest and this has the appearance!” No, it actually doesn’t. Just because you say it does, it doesn’t mean that there’s a problem.

I’m trying very hard not to come off as some kind of an apologist, but for the love of all the gods on Olympus, we have a really, really clean fundraising system with clear rules, and it shouldn’t bear repeating (and yet here we are) that you can’t buy influence for $1500. You just can’t. Sure, you might get to meet a minister, but what is that going to get you? You think they’re going to engineer a special loophole in the law for your company because you donated $1500 to their party – registered through Elections Canada, and the lobbying registry? Honestly? And it’s not like there aren’t a hundred other consultations that you could offer your suggestions to a minster or their staff with, because as we know, this government loves to consult. And further to that, are we actively trying to insist that no minister should ever fundraise because, well, “smell test” or “appearance.” Give me a break.

Meanwhile, we get inundated with everyone giving their “solution” to this, whether it’s returning the per-vote subsidy as Susan Delacourt suggests here, or if it’s Duff Conacher howling in the corner that we should adopt the Quebec donor limits of $100 (ignoring that limits that are too low means that money starts getting funnelled in other ways). But maybe, just maybe, we should all take a deep breath and realise that the more we get hysterical about this perfectly above-board fundraising in a clean and quite transparent system, it’s that we’re turning it into some zero-sum game. If we keep inventing scandal, shouting “smell test!” and “appearance!” when no, a reasonable and rational look at the situation shows that there isn’t actually a problem, we’re going to wind up giving excuses for parties to start hiding these activities. To paraphrase Rick Anderson on last night’s Power & Politics, there’s only a perception problem around this fundraising because people are throwing mud. It’s time to stop throwing mud and be grown-ups about it. This isn’t cash-for-access. $1500 is not buying influence. Stop lighting your hair on fire.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/791117661476388866

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chong’s plans are a start

Posted on by

While new Conservative leadership candidate Steven Blaney decided to come out swinging with a niqab ban policy designed to appeal to those Quebeckers still hot for the idea and to give Kellie Leitch a run for her money, Michael Chong also came out with some policy yesterday morning – much more modest policy in line with how he thinks he could start to change parliament for the better if he were party leader. Because it’s not big policy pronouncements, it’s more in keeping with the kinds of things that leadership candidates should be focusing on, but that said, there are a few problems with what he laid out. I tweeted some of those concerns earlier, but I’ll elaborate a bit more.

So yes, Chong made a valiant attempt at doing this with this Reform Act, but it got so watered down in his amending the bill to get it passed that it rendered it useless, and the veto went from the party leader to their designated surrogate. This is a promise that is more difficult than it sounds because there does need to be a quality control mechanism in place (which is why it was introduced in the first place), but it also needs to be arm’s length from the leader, and Chong’s previous proposals for such an officer didn’t fly. He’ll need to try and thread this needle much more carefully going forward.

This one bothers me a fair deal because it’s buying into the nonsense that the Liberal Party has been spreading with their reforms to their party constitution. They claim it’s about “modernizing” the party structure and making it more responsive, but it’s more about populating databases, so that when they come out with top-down policy pronouncements, they can use their Big Data approach to justify anything. If other parties want to simply populate their own databases to target or micro-target policies even more that the Conservatives did during their decade in office, this isn’t actually good for democracy, and it’s not actually good for the grassroots. You don’t have people who are quite literally buying into the process (thus putting some skin in the game) and having an interest in their responsibilities as members when it comes to policy and nominations. It devalues membership, and I do think that’s a problem.

Promising reforms to the way the Senate operates while billing this as part of a package of giving power back to the grassroots is curious, but I’ll run with it only so far as to say that Chong shouldn’t actually be trying to out-Trudeau on this. Trudeau has put some things in motion that are not actually for the better, be it centralizing power in his own caucus, or trying to weaken the accountability role of the Senate, while his current “representative” there is trying to upend the whole system so that he can be the true bureaucrat that he is and empire-build, co-opting the whole burgeoning independent system for his own ends. Chong not grasping the constitutional role of the Senate Speaker, or the role of the Government Leader under Responsible Government is worrying, and I do feel like he should know better and not just try to play the reform-for-the-sake-of-reform card. That becomes a very dangerous thing under our system, especially because the system is not broken, so we should stop trying to break it while insisting on fixing problems that don’t actually exist.

Continue reading →

QP: The menace of millionaires

Posted on by

Despite it being Thursday, there were no leaders present in the Commons today (save Elizabeth May), Justin Trudeau at an Amazon fulfilment centre opening in the GTA, and the others, well, elsewhere. Denis Lebel led off for the opposition, decrying the government not respecting provincial jurisdiction regarding healthcare, and Jane Philpott immediately hit back that the previous government didn’t much care for the file and they were making investments. Lebel asked again in English, and Philpott noted that previous investments did not transform the system as was necessary, which they were engaged in. Lebel then moved onto that Bill Morneau fundraiser in Halifax, and Bardish Chagger stood to take that bullet, assuring him that all rules were obeyed. Candice Bergen took over, decrying the appointment to the Port Authority one of the attendees. Chagger repeated her answer in English, and Bergen took her through one more round of the same. Murray Rankin led off for the NDP, his first time as their new House Leader, and he carried on the same line of questioning. Chagger’s answer didn’t change, leaving it for Brigitte Sansoucy to ask again in French, no avail. Sansoucy moved onto the investments in mental health, to which Philpott insisted that this was not a political issue but one of a responsibility to Canadians and ensuring that the investments translated in better access to care. Rankin asked the same again in English, and Philpott responded with an edge in her tone, assuring him that she does not play politics with mental health.

Continue reading →