Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: Performative or procedurally correct?

Posted on by

The NDP held their first post-election caucus meeting yesterday, saying goodbye to departing MPs and welcoming their rookies and returning MPs, and when they met the press afterward, Jagmeet Singh announced that he is going to press for pharmacare and for the government to abandon their application for judicial review the Human Rights Tribunal compensation for First Nations youth. But there are problems with both – on the former, he is proposing the party’s first private members’ bill be taken up with the matter, and on the latter, the substantive problems with the Tribunal likely exceeding its statutory authority to make that kind of compensation order is kind of a big deal and as a lawyer, you would think he might have an appreciation for bad jurisprudence while still pushing for the government to go ahead with the compensation that they said they would honour. But you know, performative outrage.

Which brings me back to the notion of pharmacare legislation. The whole promise is built on both bad practice and bad procedure. Remember that when it comes to private members’ bills, they are allocated by lottery, meaning that it’s random as to who gets what slot, and Singh is not proposing as leader to take away the slot of the first NDP MP whose name comes up so that he can dictate what bill will be presented. That’s not only heavy-handed, but it actively removes the independence of that MP (which the NDP is used to doing while pretending they don’t, but let’s call a spade a spade). So much for any of the issues that MP cares about – the leader demanded their spot. The second and more important aspect is that private members’ bills can’t initiate government spending, and pharmacare is provincial jurisdiction, meaning that it’s depending on negotiating with premiers. The bill, essentially, is out of order, unless it becomes an exercise in demanding a national strategy, which the NDP love to do, but one of their MPs went on TV last night to say that they intend to use it to lay out the framework they want to implement. I can pretty much guarantee you that it means the bill will be dead on arrival, and that the committee that decides on what private members’ business is voteable will decide that it’s not. (The sponsor who was forced to give up their spot for this bill will then demand that the Commons vote to override the committee, and when they don’t, the NDP will wail and gnash their teeth that the Liberals don’t care about Pharmacare, which is a script so predictable it might as well be a Hallmark Channel Christmas movie).

What the NDP could do instead is use their first Supply Day to debate a motion on Pharmacare, which would then have a vote and let them scream and moan if the Liberals don’t adopt it for the reason that they’ve already committed to the implementation plan in the Hopkins report (which the NDP decry as not being fast enough), but at least that would be procedurally sound. But their apologists have been telling me on Twitter that all private members’ bills are theatre and only exist to make a point (untrue), or that they could simply get a minister to agree to it in order to spend the funds (never going to happen), but hey, it’s a minority parliament so the NDP can pretend to dictate terms as though they actually had bargaining given the seat maths. It’s too bad that they can’t be both performative and procedurally correct.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s the same government and words matter

Posted on by

Concern for civic literacy in this country took another blow as numerous media outlets started reporting that prime minister Justin Trudeau was meeting with Governor General Julie Payette to “signal his intention to form government.” They took this obviously wrong line directly from the PMO press release, but let me reiterate that it is wrong. Worse, Power & Politics said that Trudeau went to Payette to ask permission to form a government, which is so wrong that it should make the walls bleed with anguish. Payette doesn’t give permission. Trudeau is already the prime minister and the election doesn’t change that. Government doesn’t change – it merely carries over into a new parliament. What Trudeau was really doing was meeting about his intentions for the upcoming parliament, including when he would like her to summon it – but this was not actually or accurately communicated to Canadians. And true, he could have theatrically resigned and got sworn in again, but that would be both counterproductive and dumb, but again, this is the language that we’re using to describe this routine bit of government business.

Shortly thereafter was news that Trudeau had tapped Canadian ambassador to France, Isabel Hudon, and Anne McLellan, for his “transition” to his “second term,” at which point my head exploded because there is nothing to transition, and we don’t have “terms” in Canada. He may be shuffling his Cabinet, and there may be shakeups in PMO or in their Machinery of Government shop, but it’s the same ministry. There is nothing to actually transition to or from. It’s just a Cabinet shuffle. And again, this was not accurately communicated nor explained to Canadians.

There are clear concepts in Westminster parliaments that are not being accurately described, either by the hapless fools in Trudeau’s PMO, or by any of the media bureaux, who should know better. We are inundated with Americana politically, and there are so many people – both politicians and journalists – who want to playact American politics in Canada because it’s “fun” or “sexy,” when we’re a different country with a very different system, and “borrowing” terms or concepts (or in the case of the NDP, entire election planks that don’t make sense) that don’t actually translate here don’t help anyone. Instead, they create confusion that bad actors exploit to their own purposes, who know that they won’t be corrected when they deliberately misconstrue things. This is a problem, and would that our media outlets could see that this is a problem that they have the power to fix – but they don’t, and here we are. Do better, everyone. Seriously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Considerations on Trudeau’s Alberta problem

Posted on by

Talk about what Justin Trudeau is going to do about his Alberta/Saskatchewan problem continues to swirl, with few answers so far. Alison Redford says she’s willing to help in some capacity – not that she’s been asked yet – but I guess we’ll see if there has been enough time and space from her aura of power problem that led to her ouster. Meanwhile, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some important thoughts about the issue:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188550490084257792

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188551735398277121

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188554137232990211

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188555710851878914

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1188558518300872704

Meanwhile, Carla Qualtrough says all options are on the table which can include some changes to equalization, but as this piece explains, there is so much misinformation about how equalization works that it’s important we separate facts from lies about it – and there are a whole lot of bad actors, Jason Kenney chief among them, lying about the programme in order to stir up anger that he hopes to use to his advantage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Judicially-determined science

Posted on by

One of the lesser-reported stories yesterday was the fact that a group of youths “launched” a lawsuit in Federal Court against the government to claim that their Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person are being violated by the lack of climate change action, and want the courts to mandate the government implement a climate plan “using the best available science.” Well, it wasn’t really the youths themselves, but a group of lawyers and activists who are using a group of children and teens as the face of their campaign, because teen climate prophetesses are so hot right now.

The problem with this tactic, however, is the two-fold – one, that it’s going to be an exceedingly difficult argument that just because these specific youth had contracted ailments that could be climate-related (such as Lyme disease), it’s hard to make a generalized Section 7 argument as it relates to climate change; and two, this is public policy and should not be justiciable in the same way that Criminal Code provisions are where they touch social issues. Why? Because it shouldn’t be up to the courts to determine whether or not the government is living up to their climate change obligations. Are judges also climate scientists, or economists specializing in this area? The whole “best available science” line sounds good, but it’s hugely subjective as to how you reach those goals mandated by “science,” particularly when it comes to not devastating the economy and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. How does a judge determine what the correct public policy should be? They don’t, but that’s what is being asked of them to determine here.

More to the point, this is yet another example of people trying to going to the courts when they lose at politics. Why I’m not surprised by this tactic being used by climate activists is because that Extinction Rebellion group is demanding the suspension of democracy to deal with the climate crisis, which should be alarming to anyone who follows their rhetoric. Trying to get judges to make policy determinations is just as much of a problem, and I eagerly await the Federal Court telling them to go drop on their heads.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Finding that Alberta voice

Posted on by

The questions about how prime minister Justin Trudeau will get Alberta and Saskatchewan voices into his reshuffled Cabinet continue to swirl about, and we’re already hearing some fairly crazy theories being bandied about – particularly that Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi is going to be tapped for Cabinet, either as an appointee to Cabinet who is not a parliamentarian, or as a Senator. Oh, but there aren’t any vacancies? Well, there is always the emergency provision in the Constitution that the Queen can appoint four or eight additional senators in order to break a deadlock, as Brian Mulroney did to pass the GST. Would this count as a deadlock? Probably not, and the Queen may privately warn Trudeau that this would likely be construed as an abuse of those powers for his political convenience.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187454644315983872

Naming senators to Cabinet is actually routine – in fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is supposed to be a Cabinet minister, and while Stephen Harper ended the practice in a fit of pique over the ClusterDuff Affair, needing to give himself more distance from the Senate; Justin Trudeau carried over the practice in his bid to make the Senate more “independent” while appointing Senator Peter Harder to the sham position of “government representative,” while Harder maintains the half-pregnant façade that he is both independent and represents the Cabinet to the Senate and vice-versa (which is bonkers). There should be no issue with Trudeau appointing one of the existing Alberta senators to Cabinet (more from David Moscrop here), or appointing someone to the existing vacancy in Saskatchewan (and Ralph Goodale has already said he has no interest in it).

As for the notion of appointing someone who is not a parliamentarian, the convention is generally that they will seek a seat at the earliest opportunity – usually a by-election to a relatively safe seat. Jean Chrétien did this with Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew, so there is recent enough precedent. The hitch is that there are no seats in Alberta or Saskatchewan that they could run someone in during a by-election, and the closest would be a promise to appoint someone to the Senate seat from Alberta that is due to become vacant in 2021 (lamenting that it will be the mandatory retirement of Senator Elaine McCoy). It’s not very politically saleable, however. Nevertheless, Trudeau has options, but some of them involve swallowing his pride. (I have a column on this coming out later today).

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187536180017061889

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187547076470755328

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s first minority steps

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau met with the press yesterday and offered a few bits of post-election news – namely that he was not going to seek any kind of formal or informal coalition (not that he would need to, given how the seat maths work out), that the new Cabinet would be sworn in on November 20th, and that yes, the Trans Mountain pipeline is going ahead, no matter how much huffing and puffing certain opposition parties may try to engage in (for all the good it will do because it’s not something that would come before Parliament in any meaningful capacity in any case). Not that there should have been any doubt – he has expended so much political capital on the project that not doing so would make no sense. The November 20th date is later than he took to decide on a Cabinet after the last election, and Trudeau remarked that he has a lot of reflection to do with the loss of all of his Alberta and Saskatchewan seats, and that is no doubt part of the task ahead.

To that end, Trudeau didn’t give any indication whether he would appoint a senator or two to Cabinet to fill those geographic holes (and I will be writing more on this in an upcoming column) – but did say he was going to introduce changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to make the “independent” Senate more permanently so (not that he can legislate the new appointment process, but rather it deals operationally with salaries for caucus leaders). The “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group is already decrying that any plan to put senators in Cabinet would be somehow “counterproductive” to the whole independent Senate project, which is of course ignorant of history and Parliament itself. I do find myself troubled that Trudeau singled out the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton as people he would be consulting with as part of his “reflection” on how to rebuild trust with Alberta and in terms of how to somehow include them in his Cabinet-making process, because they have agendas of their own, and it would seem to just exacerbate the whole urban-rural divide that the election results are so indicative of.

Trudeau has some options for getting that Alberta and Saskatchewan representation in Cabinet, from Senators, to floor-crossers, of simply appointing non-Parliamentarians to the role (which is permissible, but goes somewhat against the convention that they seek seats as soon as possible). Here’s Philippe Lagassé explaining some of the options and dynamics:

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081027254194183

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187081821948915717

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187083301086990336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1187084679859638272

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s a Liberal-led minority

Posted on by

A hung parliament is not a big surprise, with the Liberals remaining in power, but the seat math is perhaps a bit closer than some had anticipated. The Conservatives only gained a handful of seats, and probably not enough for Andrew Scheer to quell any discontent that will start bubbling up in the ranks after such an uninspiring campaign. The NDP have lost almost half of their seats, meaning all the supposed “momentum” and the “upriSingh” that they kept touting didn’t translate into votes – but that’s what happens when you don’t have the organization capable of mobilizing your votes. The Greens only picked up an extra seat (at the time of this writing), one in Fredericton, where they had provincial strength, but it was certainly not the “Green wave” that they kept boasting about (not a surprise there either). The Bloc is now the third party in the Commons, meaning they’ll have a bigger role to play on committees – something they used to be very good at, once upon a time – but we’ll also see if any of the other parties will start to cope with the “new” block that is far more about Quebec nationalism than it is sovereignty, and that they are the federal voice of François Legault. And Maxime Bernier has lost his seat, so hopefully the fan club that he masqueraded as a party will dissolve entirely rather than solidify into a far-right movement.

To that end, Jack Harris won for the NDP in St. John’s, and he was a good MP in previous parliaments, so he’ll have to carry a lot of weight now that their ranks are diminished. Ralph Goodale was defeated in Saskatchewan, which is a huge loss of capacity for the Cabinet, because he did so much of the heavy lifting. The Liberals lost their Alberta seats, Amarjeet Sohi losing to Tim Uppal, who lives in Ottawa and has no plans to move back to the riding; Kent Hehr also losing the only Liberal seat in Calgary. Also, Lisa Raitt lost her seat to Adam van Koeverden, which will also hurt the Conservatives.

Trudeau’s loss of representation in the West is going to be a big problem for him, particularly because he ejected all of his senators from his caucus, and it was not unheard of for the Liberals to fill in the gaps in their representation with their Senators, and now they don’t have that. People have suggested that maybe Trudeau could appoint Goodale to the Senate in order to fill that gap (and there is a vacant Senate seat from Saskatchewan), but that will involve him eating a whole lot of crow, and possibly forcing him to rethink some of his ham-fisted moves around the Senate. It’s possible, but I’m not hopeful for that change of heart. But now we’re going to get a bunch of really bad hot takes about Alberta talking about separation or other such ridiculous nonsense, because Jason Kenney still has his punching bag and scapegoat.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1186353921800863744

And now we’re already getting a lot of really dumb hot takes on hung parliaments, with ridiculous statements like “Canadians voted for a minority,” which no, they did not do, and “Canadians are forcing cooperation because they couldn’t get proportional representation,” which again is not how this goes. As for the seat math, because the Liberals are so close to majority territory, it means that they are unlikely to have to form any kind of form agreement with any other party, but will be able to cobble together votes on an issue-by-issue basis, which makes all of the talk about red-lines and demands beforehand kind of dumb (as I pointed out in this column).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Warnings, theatre, and lunacy

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau began his day in Fredericton, New Brunswick, and after the usual warnings to those who are thinking of voting NDP and Green about a Conservative government, promised that if re-elected he would ensure that the province’s sole private abortion clinic would remain open by way of applying the Canada Health Act (though he didn’t specify how), before spending the day stopping in various communities on the way to Halifax, where he ended the day.

Andrew Scheer began his day in Quebec City where he promised to hold a first ministers’ meeting on January 6thwhere he would totally solve the intractable problem of interprovincial trade barriers…apparently through sheer force of his personality. (I previously wrote about this sort of cheap theatre here). He then toured a few other Quebec communities, finishing his day in La Prairie.

Jagmeet Singh began his day in Toronto, where he claimed that abolishing the Senate would somehow better represent Canadians, which is so much horseshit that I can barely breathe. Aside from the fact that it would require a constitutional amendment with the unanimous support of the provinces – something PEI and the rest of Atlantic Canada would not countenance as the Senate was one of the conditions by which they joined Confederation, but it would cut their representation in half, and the whole counter-balancing effect that the Senate’s structure has against the representation-by-population nature of the Commons would be out the window. It’s the most ignorant statement Singh could possibly make, but hey, applause lines.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hypothetical subways and more traffic

Posted on by

It was a quieter day, post-debate, but the leaders were all back on the road, mindful that there is still another debate later in the week. Andrew Scheer in Markham to promise funds for two Toronto subway projects – while lying about the Liberal record on said funding (the funds haven’t been released because there isn’t an actual plan for those lines yet) – and to further promise that he would fund any infrastructure project designed to ease congestion. Erm, except that this is a promise to induce demand because all of the data show that if you build more traffic infrastructure, that traffic just grows to fill it. It doesn’t actually relieve congestion – it just contributes to making it worse.

Jagmeet Singh was in Toronto to talk student loans, and when pressed about Bill 21 by the media, he said that if it made it to the Supreme Court of Canada that the federal government would “have to” take a look at it then – which isn’t really true, and they could put arguments forward at any court case along the way. This makes Singh’s position to basically punt the problem down the road for a few years, for apparently little electoral gain.

Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, went to Iqaluit in Nunavut, where he spoke about the North being on the “front lines” of climate change, and to meet with elders in that community. It also lets Trudeau make the claim that he’s the only leader to have visited the North during the campaign, for a few hours in any case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Liberal platform and a changing economic narrative

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer took the day off of campaigning, and Jagmeet Sing was in Surrey to promise $100 million in new federal funding for gang prevention, Justin Trudeau was in Mississauga to unveil both the full platform (including costing) as well as a specific announcement around enriching student grants and deferring student loan repayments for longer, and from those who don’t make enough money or who have just had babies.

But the platform is the big news, and it’s probably unsurprising that most of the media questions involved the fact that it has given up promising a balanced budget in favour of the new fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, which the new plans continue to show, albeit at a slightly flatter trajectory than we have seen in recent years. That said, I think it bears pointing out that much of the rhetoric and narratives from media remain those stuck in the frames of the mid-1990s (see: headlines here, here, and here) when the debt situation was far more dire than it is today. We should be having a more robust conversation around current fiscal realities, and what the opportunity costs are for slavishly getting toward a balanced budget when there are way to invest with the fiscal room that the government has now – something they have pointed out (in their irritating way of not being able to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag). And it also means that we’re not calling bullshit when Scheer says things like today’s deficits are tomorrow’s tax increases (they’re not). While there are certain parts of the platform that I’ll elaborate more on in the coming days over other venues, here are some economists with some very good insight, plus threads from Lindsay Tedds and Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178385323975270400

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178386937209425920

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1178403847951093760

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178385088104599554

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178386395804717057

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1178386998438039556

Continue reading →