NDP-turned-Green MP Bruce Hyer is warning that Thomas Mulcair will be as dictatorial of a Prime Minister as Stephen Harper if elected. To which I would reply “quite possibly.” While some of Hyer’s criticisms are that Mulcair will say anything to get elected, that’s fairly standard practice across a host of different parties and even leaders – and don’t think the Greens are much better, if you looked at how Kevin Milligan eviscerated their election platform’s costing over the weekend. But Hyer does have a point in that Mulcair’s NDP has been a very tightly controlled ship. Iron-fisted in many respects, but it does go back to the 2011 election, when Jack Layton was still in charge. The moment the election was over and they had accidentally won that wave of Quebec seats, with all of those paper candidates, the party went into communications lockdown and messaging became even more tightly controlled than that of the Conservatives. The NDP went so far as to centralise their communications media relations – something even the Conservatives hadn’t done, with their famous control from the centre. This carried on through the leadership and was adopted by Mulcair when he became leader, so it’s not just him that’s doing it – it’s the party’s entire apparatus. And it’s not like the NDP was this bastion of free voting even when Layton was in charge – MPs were routinely punished for stepping out of line with their votes, be it with QP slots taken away, or what have you. Solidarity was enforced, much as it continues to be under Mulcair. While I find José Nunez-Melo’s sour grapes at his nomination not being protected to be a bit rich, it does bear reminding that there is a darker side to the NDP that they don’t like to show or talk about, but it is there if you pay attention, even if Hyer is trying to pin it on Mulcair personally.
Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair
Roundup: Challenging Responsible Government
Last week, a group of lawyers wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail, calling for a constitutional challenge to judicial appointments, bemoaning the political process and concern trolling over an apparent declining lack of public confidence in the system – never mind the fact that no such lack of confidence is being expressed anywhere. Leonid Sirota writes an excellent takedown of the proposal here, but there is another concept that this group of lawyers ignores entirely, which is that of Responsible Government. Under our system, a prime minister and cabinet can legitimately make appointments so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Being as we’re a democracy and not a technocracy, it’s a system that allows the government to carry on its necessary business while having a mechanism to be held to account, not only at the ballot box but at any time, the House can withdraw its confidence if they feel the government has abused its powers. It cannot be understated that the whole reason we gained Responsible Government in the colonies pre-confederation is that we wanted control over our patronage appointments, so that they weren’t coming from London. It’s one of the foundational cornerstones of our whole democratic system. That this group of lawyers wants to undermine it with no actual evidence that there’s a problem – rather, what seems to be some fairly partisan sour grapes because they don’t agree ideologically with a small minority of appointments – is troubling. They should know how our system of government works. That they apparently don’t is a very big problem.
Roundup: Dubious travel bans
As a new policy announcement yesterday, Stephen Harper said that if the Conservatives were to continue to form government after the election, they would introduce legislation to curb “terrorist tourism,” all of which is an entirely ridiculous plan, whether it’s as an issue of mobility rights, of letting the RCMP or CSIS determine who is a “professional journalist” or humanitarian organisation, or the fact that this betrays any shred of libertarianism that the Conservatives profess to hold. (But then again, we already knew that they’re not an ideological party, but rather right-flavoured populists, right?) Justin Trudeau says this is just a distration from economic issues and that Harper has to answer more questions about limiting rights, while Thomas Mulcair doubted the move’s efficacy (while continually repeating that they’re not going to be against any move that reduces terrorism). Anyway, Paul Wells demolished the whole thing in a series of tweets.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499372606877696
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499578689814529
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630500563919204352
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630502075395346433
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630503234944241664
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630505023206752256
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509157045661700
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509646487359488
Roundup: A moratorium courting constitutional crisis
Without going too deeply into this (something I’ll save for later), Stephen Harper decided that his best way to “differentiate” himself on the Senate was to flout the constitution, and declare a moratorium on any future appointments. There are already 22 vacancies in the Chamber – a full fifth of its complement, and more than any in history. It’s unconscionable, because there are supposed to be 105 senators, and not a maximum of. It’s a complete abrogation of the compromises made by the Fathers of Confederation, and furthermore, it’s also flouting the decision of the Supreme Court who said explicitly that the Senate has a role with sober second thought. That role is already being compromised because they’re having trouble filling committee seats, and this is a very serious problem. On the one hand, this official declaration of a moratorium is a gift to Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani, who has launched a challenge in Federal Court to get a declaration that the Prime Minister is obligated to make appointments as they happen. It’s also courting problems with federal-provincial relations for a couple of reasons – one is that Harper is now attempting to do through the back door what he won’t do from the front door (again), and he’s using a childish tactic of throwing this problem into the laps of the premiers to come up with some kind of solution without him. It also highlights that there is again a choice for voters in the election – you can vote to keep in a party whose leader flouts the constitution and the Supreme Court; one who promises to do the very same while chasing the pipe dream of Senate abolition; and one who has promised concrete and constitutional measures to reform the appointment process in the same way that Harper did with vice-regal appointments. Oh, and in case you were wondering, if the courts declare that a Prime Minister has a constitutional obligation to make appointments as they happen – and that’s pretty much guaranteed – and the PM still refuses to, we’re into constitutional crisis territory where the Governor General will have the very real need to dismiss said PM. This is what we’re courting here. It’s not a trivial matter.
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/624675200358055936
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/624675923984576512
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676159687671809
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676449245638656
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676790179655680
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624677092953858048
Roundup: Bemoaning members’ statements
Over in the National Post, Tristin Hopper despairs at how much of Hansard is taken up by ridiculous and ultimately meaningless members’ statements, not to mention the plethora of petitions. And while the notion of members’ statements used to be kind of sweet and noble, it’s largely degenerated into a daily dumpster fire in the Commons, with a handful of feel-good statements followed by a number of increasingly nasty partisan attacks. Petitions, however ridiculous many may be, is a measure of political engagement so we shouldn’t discount them just yet – and we’re about to see a whole bunch more of them now that they’re going to all electronic petitions. Hopper suggests we follow the European example and put Members’ Statements at the end of the day. I tweeted some thoughts on that.
I can see why they put Members' Statements before QP – so that people would actually see them. And they're supposed to be feel-good. 2/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
MPs have decided not to let the Speaker weigh in on the content of messages (other than if it's a personal attack, which the do cleverly) 4/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Anything to mention the riding. They love that sort of thing. But then parties decided this was great for warm-up attacks for QP. 6/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
And if the rules changed, if it were shunted to a different time of day, would it change? Maybe, but maybe only temporarily. 8/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Unless MPs can start learning to say no to the leader's office, they'll just find a new time of day to do similar nonsense. 10/10
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
@kady Maybe, but I foresee nothing but whinging that it's not fair they're not prepared for surprise bells, or in drawing up a schedule.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
@kady Also, makes it easier for the leaders' offices to have a stack of SO31s ready to go for just such situations.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Bottom line: Pretty much all of Parliament is terrible right now with speeches because we’re electing a cohort who has largely lost the ability to think for themselves on their feet, whose greatest skill now is reciting the lines that are given to them. (Not all are like this, but most are, and I will note that the Liberals seem to be the least scripted from the leaders’ office these days). While I can sympathise with Hopper, it’s not the rules that are the problem – it’s the fact that we have apparently stopped valuing MPs who can speak or think for themselves in favour of ciphers for the leader.
Roundup: Totally not buying votes
With those new child benefit cheques starting to flow, a couple of bits of analysis were done over the past few days. One was to use census data to look at the demographics of ridings where people stood to gain the most from the new cheques, and wouldn’t you know it, of the 338 ridings, most were either Conservative or had a good chance of leaning that way in the next election. The other piece did some detective work into Pierre Poilievre’s big hunt for families who had not signed up for the benefit, and how he was able to derive numbers of how many families in certain regions had not done so. Why target regions? Why, electioneering, of course. There were also some pretty artificial deadlines being floated for getting people to sign up to the programme, so that cheques would handily flow just as the election is kicking off. Because that’s not trying to buy votes with people’s own money either, apparently. Among the places Poilievre visited on his “ finding families” tour were, you guessed it, Conservative ridings, while First Nations communities, who were less likely to be signed up, didn’t merit visits at all as they were unlikely to vote Conservative. So in case you really did think that these child benefit cheques were really about helping families and not about trying to buy votes, well, the analysis doesn’t support that kind of altruistic viewpoint.
I fear you may be near to overselling this. @PierrePoilievre 1 more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads! #http://t.co/lVGwdQF07P
— kady o'malley (@kady) July 19, 2015
I mean, first of all, this is supposed to be money for child care expenses, not FREEEEE MONNNNNEEEYYYY WHOOOOOO. So, not really Christmas.
— kady o'malley (@kady) July 19, 2015
Anyway, Happy Boosted Baby Bonus Bonanza Day, parents! Remember, you're also supposed to spend us out of recession, but no pressure.
— kady o'malley (@kady) July 19, 2015
GET OUT THE BEER AND POPCORN! RT @PierrePoilievre One more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads! #UCCB pic.twitter.com/2KxmOrUIDB
— RealChangeBot (@RealChangeBot) July 19, 2015
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/622932565306003456
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/622933109340774400
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/622933409762045953
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/622933528775364608
Roundup: A mixed pipeline message
There was confusion in the ranks yesterday as to just what the NDP position on the Energy East pipeline is. Recently they said that it was the “cornerstone” of their energy policy, and then comes an interview in L’Actualité where Mulcair is quoted as saying that he’s against it. And then Twitter went bananas. The NDP comms staff started rushing out transcripts and partial audio files to counter it, before their youth wing sent out a tweet cheering the opposition to said pipeline – only to have to delete it a few minutes later “for clarification.” Suffice to say, it did look a bit sloppy, and like he’s trying to give two separate messages to two different parts of the country – something that the party has certainly done before.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/621781691946954752
https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/621790674044776452
@kady @BeetonSteve @RosieBarton @NDPHoC_NPDCdC 🙂 pic.twitter.com/xIEVvFS7kb
— David Valentin (@davidvalentin) July 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/bruceanderson/status/621797933323841540
I haven't heard the whole interview. The bit NDP sent doesn't have those words. If there is a bit with those words, NDP is in big trouble.
— Stephen Maher (@stphnmaher) July 16, 2015
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/621808388113100800
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/621808715474317312
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/621809490409734144
OK, Mulcair's position on Energy East makes sense, but only if he's running for Leader of the Opposition.
cf @InklessPW's Fourth Rule.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) July 17, 2015
How does "We oppose Energy East unless we approve of enviro eval process" translate into what the NDP would do as govt?
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) July 17, 2015
Roundup: Disappointed or not, the Senate did its job
With Bill C-377 now passed thanks to procedural strong-arming that sets terrible precedent, the Senate has now adjourned for the summer. In the wake of the bill passing, there we are yet again being bombarded by the howls that the Senate didn’t do its job because it didn’t defeat a bill that clearly has some questionable constitutional merits. Never mind that if the Senate had voted to defeat the bill, they would have equally been lambasted for not having the democratic legitimacy to do so. As an institution, they are forever damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But even though the bill has passed, the Senate did its job. Agree with it or not, former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache did testify at committee that he thought the bill was constitutional, and that’s not meaningless. As well, the fact that the bill got far more debate and scrutiny than it got in the Commons means something. Remember that in the Commons, private members’ bills are limited to a mere two hours of debate at each stage, and rarely get more than that at committee. Because the Senate took far longer with this bill, all of the problems are on the record. That will mean a whole lot when this goes to the courts, and it will – several unions are already promising immediate challenges. The courts will go over the records of debate at the Senate and see all of the problems laid out for them, and it will inform the decision. The courts will be well within their power to strike the statute down if they continue to believe that it’s unconstitutional, or they may strike down certain parts of it if they feel that only part of it is problematic. None of this means that the Senate was asleep on the job. They gave it thorough debate and scrutiny. While many will be disappointed that the bill ultimately passed (because the PMO was using this bill as a government bill in sheep’s clothing), they did their jobs. And hey, a bunch of other terrible PMBs died on the Order Paper, so it’s not all bad news.
Senators Nancy Ruth, Wallace and Bellemare voting against 3rd reading. Senator Black abstains. #C377 #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 30, 2015
#C377 passes 35-22, 1 abstension. #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 30, 2015
The Senate has adjourned to Tuesday, September 22, 2015. pic.twitter.com/a54sWW8vpi
— Senate of Canada (@SenateCA) June 30, 2015
Roundup: And now the environmental policy
Justin Trudeau was out in Vancouver yesterday to unveil the next plank in his party’s platform, filling out his previous environmental proposal to sit down with the provinces to allow them to collectively come up with a climate plan in the short time between the election and the Paris climate conference in December. Trudeau’s new announcements included phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, putting more money into clean tech jobs, restoring the environmental assessment process and adding more teeth to the National Energy Board and its review processes, increasing the amount of protected coastal areas, and cancelling fees at national parks in 2017 to celebrate Canada’s 150th anniversary. Overall, his message was that there will be a price on carbon if the Liberals form government. Predictably, the Conservatives came out with cries of “carbon tax!” while the NDP rolled their eyes and muttered about vague targets with no actual named carbon price. Paul Wells notes that one really can’t criticise Trudeau for being devoid of policy any longer, and that it may force voters to give him and his party a second look.
Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals
There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544