The big announcement came first thing yesterday morning – seven new senators are to be recommended, one of them to be the government’s “representative” in lieu of a caucus leader in the Senate. Some of the names appear to be good ones – that “representative” is former senior bureaucrat Peter Harder (who did lead Trudeau’s transition team when they formed government), plus Justice Murray Sinclair, editorialist André Pratte and Paralympian Chantal Petitclerc, among others. One of them is a former NDP minister in Ontario. Harder used to be a Progressive Conservative staffer, before transitioning to the civil service. There don’t seem to be any obvious Liberal patronage appointments in the bunch (i.e. party fundraisers or the like), and there does appear to be some semblance of merit-based appointments in here, as well as respect for gender and diversity.
Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair
Roundup: McQuaig’s “lessons learned”
Former NDP star candidate Linda McQuaig penned a column in the Toronto Star about her “lessons learned” after two unsuccessful attempts at running for office (and no plans to run again), and as one could expect, it’s a little self-serving. In it, she bemoans her loss of freedom to discuss topics thanks to party discipline and central messaging, and the fact that she knowingly walked into a trap about oil sands staying in the ground despite the fact that it went against the party line. Her takeaway: that the rush to avoid complexity and controversy infantilises voters, and somehow the NDP’s apparently popularity over their position on C-51 (despite the fact that it too was facile and unworkable, according to the very same security experts they cited over the bill’s problems) must somehow be an indication of they’re actually hungry to be treated like citizens. It’s a bit of a leap in logic because part of what the issue was when she went against the party line was that after it happened, she went into lockdown and didn’t really talk her way out of what she said, and the spin machine of “you want to destroy the energy industry” filled that silence. It was a self-inflicted wound that could have been managed, but wasn’t. As for her contention that voters are looking for adult conversations on issues, that may very well be true, but the NDP weren’t offering it while the Liberals certainly were better suited for it with their comprehensive platform. What we got from the NDP were some platitudes about “competent public administration” and promises to balance the budget based on fuzzy numbers (and recall that their first “costed” platform document was little more than buzz-words with dollar figures attached that meant nothing). So really, if you think that voters want an adult conversation then provide them with one, not what the disingenuous platitudes being offered (that C-51 could be repealed wholesale, that the NDP “only needed 35 more seats,” word games over the “federal minimum wage,” the aforementioned fuzzy costing documents). Voters aren’t as stupid as the campaign was treating them. Michelle Rempel responds to McQuaig here, while Rob Silver had a few other comments over the Twitter Machine.
1. She started as a reporter 42-years ago. How is it possible that she didn't pick up how elections work (for better or worse) in that time?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
2. Is her argument that if Mulcair had "let" her say what she really believed (party platform be damned) the NDP would have done better?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, does she have any evidence for that beyond "the NDP was doing well in the summer…because C51" because…
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
4. If her personal views are political winners (per her), what would have happened to her if she had expressed herself freely all campaign?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
5. Given that she knew that "party discipline" is a thing (again, for better or worse), why did she decide to run not once but twice?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
6. It's not like Mulcair kept it a secret that he was running on a platform that diverged pretty clearly from her lifetime of writing.
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
Roundup: Revolving door alarmism
Oh noes! Civil servants take positions in ministers’ offices! How terribly partisan of them! Yes, it’s time for another head-shaking column from some of our more alarmist media friends, bemoaning sweetheart deals and revolving doors, but as usual, it lacks all pretence of nuance or much in the way of a reality check on the way things work. I find it mystifying that someone would rather have a twenty-something fresh out of university, whose only real qualification is loyalty to the PMO, filling those ministerial office positions rather than professionals with years of experience in the department. Because while yes, some civil servants went to work in ministers’ offices in the Conservative years, there were a lot of these twenty-somethings on power trips, trying to play power games with departmental officials, which one presumes that people who have civil service careers would be less likely to do. And yes, they get good salaries in those positions, but they’re also a) quite ephemeral given the nature of party politics, and b) enormously stressful jobs that have some people working eighteen-hour days, and they should be compensated for it. And the “revolving door” back to the civil service afterward? Again one asks why they shouldn’t be able to translate government experience into the civil service, particularly if they’ve gained some policy expertise? So long as they perform their duties in a neutral fashion once back in the civil service, I’m not seeing why this is a problem. We need good people doing public service in this country, and we have already set up so many barriers that make recruitment a real challenge for anyone not being bridged in from school, and the growing list of restrictions makes work in ministerial offices increasingly unattractive because their post-political opportunities have become increasingly limited. If we’re not careful, all of our political staffers will be twenty-somethings trying to get experience rather than established people of substance, and I’m not sure that’s a situation that anyone relishes.
Roundup: Mulcair losing steam and support
The wheels are starting to come off Thomas Mulcair’s continued leadership of the NDP, as more and more voices are starting to come out to question the direction of the party under his leadership – not that many of them will say that directly, but the implication is certainly there, considering that the whole point of Mulcair’s leadership was in large part for them to occupy more of the centre of the spectrum in their haste in believing that the Liberals were a spent force whose days were numbered. And it’s more than just the fringe socialist wing of the party that’s calling for his head. Yesterday, some thirty-seven NDP members from Quebec, including three former MPs, published an open letter calling for the party to renew itself, and one of those MPs was one of Mulcair’s biggest boosters during the leadership. Most damning was when he went on Power & Politics yesterday to say, and I quote, “I haven’t really heard a compelling reason for him to stay on.” During a press conference, Niki Ashton was asked repeatedly whether she supported Mulcair’s leadership, and she evaded every time, insisting instead on talking about the “team” rather than the individual. Given how much importance that the NDP place on solidarity and showing a united front, and how they treat any kind of public dissent as being unseemly (and sometimes even subject to punishment), Ashton’s silence was actually quite deafening. These new calls from the grassroots that the open letter was showcasing is showing the cracks in Mulcair’s mea culpa, and in the outreach efforts he’s made so far. The message is that he’s still not listening, and that could cost him. And on top of the questions we already had about his continued leadership – in no small part whether he can still be part of the generational change taking place in this country’s political ranks – it seems like the party also has to ask itself if they can really ask Mulcair to be a leopard who can change its spots. They brought Mulcair into the party for a reason, and gave him the leadership for a reason, and those reasons are no longer reflected on the political landscape, particularly if the Liberals keep outflanking them. People ask who are in the wings, and despite Nathan Cullen’s grand protests that he doesn’t want the job, I’m pretty sure he does, and I’m sure there are a few people who are still interested, even if they didn’t win their seats in the last election. Leadership hopefuls will emerge – that’s not the question. The question is whether the party’s grassroots will decide to give Mulcair one more chance, or if they’ve decided that he’s run out of chances.
Roundup: The cheapest ploy
If there is one last bastion of desperation for political parties trying to play the populist card, it’s the “too many politicians” line. We’ve seen it before, with Ontario eliminating seats under the Mike Harris years (eventually aligning provincial and federal ridings with the exception of splitting the Northern Ontario mega-riding in two provincially). We saw the Alberta Party trying to play this card in the last Alberta election. In the previous parliament, we saw the federal Liberals trying to play this card as they argued against increasing the number of MPs as part of seat redistribution. Now, we’re seeing this again courtesy of the Saskatchewan NDP, promising that if they win the election, they’ll reduce the number of provincial seats from 61 to 55. It’s a stupid policy idea, and it’s one that fits into the kinds of populist noise that gives us “tough on crime” policies that generally only exacerbate problems. Why is it stupid? Aside from being desperate, it generally is a signal that you have no other practical ideas for improving any aspect of governance, but rather falls into the narrative trap of “politicians are the problem.” The problem is, is that you can wind up with too few politicians to do what is required of them – particularly in smaller provinces. One of the biggest problems is that when you start reducing the number of backbenchers, you have fewer members to hold the government to account. We’ve seen a few places where the government has tried to go with a smaller cabinet (Alberta, for example), only to wind up having to appoint more ministers to share the workload better. If you reduce the number of total seats, it means that you tend to wind up with a government that has the majority of its seats in cabinet, which is terrible for both governance and for allowing backbenchers to voice dissent – especially if it means that they’re one scandal or screw-up away from a substantial promotion. It means there are fewer bodies for committee work, for dealing with constituents’ issues, and when you’ve got a lot of rural ridings – particularly in places like Saskatchewan – making those ridings bigger to accommodate fewer members becomes impractical, as does the idea of reducing the number of urban members so that they have more population within them so as not to drown of the rural seats (which explains part of the gerrymandering that places like Alberta were terribly adept at for years provincially, and Saskatchewan federally, with no urban seats until this last election). Politicians have important work to do, and having more of them spreads the work around and can make them more effective as they do the job that they were elected to do. Trying to claim that there are too many of them is cheap populism, and in the end, everyone loses as a result of it.
Roundup: A “third party” option
Six senators have taken the first steps to forming their own quasi-caucus with the Upper Chamber, as a means of trying to better sort out how to deal with life as independent senators. The list includes former Conservatives, Liberals and Independent Progressive Conservative Elaine McCoy, and they are calling themselves a “working group” as opposed to a caucus or party. Their aim is to get “third party” status that will allow them to better control their own destiny. Currently, party whips in the Senate control not only committee assignment duties, but also office allocations, parking spaces, trips for inter-parliamentary delegations, and all of those other administrative details that independents currently don’t have access to. Rather than turn over those kinds of details to Senate administration, they are looking to come up with a means to start controlling it themselves, which is important because it protects their privilege as Senators, which is important in how they govern themselves and are responsible for their own affairs. This is a very important consideration, and as the Chamber continues its process of forced evolution and change with the advent of decreasing partisanship and a greater number of independents on the way, because it has the potential to find a way through some of those process hurdles that are currently tripping them up. We’ll see how many other independent senators join this working group – after all, official party status in the Senate requires five members, which they have for the moment but at least one of their number is soon to hit the mandatory retirement age, and it would be incumbent upon them to keep their membership numbers up in order to carry on carrying on with their own affairs. This will hopefully help have systems in place for when the new senators start arriving, some of whom may opt to stay independent (others of course free to join a caucus if they wish), and allow these senators to assign one of their own as a kind of “whip” to deal with the administrative duties, and hopefully get more resources for their offices when it comes to things like research dollars. Overall, though, it will hopefully give them some organisational clout so that they are better able to answer stand up to the current oligarchy of the party structure in the Senate. Elsewhere, Senator Patterson has tabled a bill to amend the constitution and remove the property requirements for Senate eligibility (which I previous wrote about their relative harmlessness).
#indp #SenCa announcemement https://t.co/UphTnIzagq #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/8Lg1JLlW1c
— Elaine McCoy (@SenElaineMcCoy) March 10, 2016
Roundup: Getting their attention
The upcoming trip to Washington DC continues to headline the news, and introducing Trudeau to the American audience was that segment on 60 Minutes, which wound up being fluffy and pretty lazy – particularly when they used a photo of actress Kim Cattrall in place of Margaret Trudeau. Oops. The celebrity factor could still play well for Trudeau, as it allows him to reach Americans in a way that most other politicians can’t, and it could serve Canadian interests well if we can push forward on some of our issues while we have their attention. One of those issues is softwood lumber, which is up for re-negotiation, but may wind up being another fraught battle, between changing circumstances since the last deal, and American election season making any deal on their end unpalatable, but at the same time, it could wind up back in endless litigation, which one expects that nobody wants to deal with. While Trudeau may not be able to get the issue solved on this visit, it could be an opportunity to get some wheels in motion and put some momentum behind it. But then again, with everyone concerned about the optics of the state dinner, and the celebrity aspects that come with it, we’ll see if any actual issues will penetrate the American consciousness.
'@60Minutes I have a son who is the Prime Minister of Canada? I couldn't b more proud. @CBCTheNational pic.twitter.com/EiqzzJJjOl
— Kim Cattrall (@KimCattrall) March 7, 2016
Roundup: Boutique tax credits for everyone!
The very first Private Members’ Bill up on the docket to be debated is one that give me a real headache, and it’s one that should be disallowed from being voteable, all because of a wee little loophole in the rules. The bill, from Conservative MP Ted Falk, aims to increase the tax rebate which charities receive to match the same level that one gets for political donations. The problem? That this is really an expenditure, and private members’ bills are forbidden to spend money without a royal recommendation (though MPs have gone to increasingly ridiculous lengths in recent years to try and contort logic to pretend that those bills don’t spend money when in fact they do). The even bigger problem? That a loophole currently exists in the rules that makes it technically possible for these bills asking for a tax credit to bypass the spending rules because technically (and under the way that procedure is interpreted) the bill seeks to reduce tax paid, not increase or expend taxes. That’s not actually true, mind you – ask the Auditor General or any decent economist and they’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that tax credits are actually expenditures, and unfortunately there is precedent on Falk’s side, particularly with a certain PMB from Dan McTeague several parliaments ago where he got a tax deduction in under that technicality and it was deemed to be in order. The government repealed the measure in their next budget, but the bill got though when really it shouldn’t have. Unfortunately it opened the door to these kinds of bills that are looking to create new boutique tax credits, and that’s a problem. Our tax code is already thousands of pages, and far too complex. Boutique tax credits are actually terrible policy, but governments have decided that they’re good politics because they feel like they’re rewarding certain groups for certain behaviours, and damn the consequences. The Auditor General has sounded the alarm that these measures aren’t being properly tracked because they’re not deemed expenditures (even though they are), which means that they’re not being given proper parliamentary oversight to ensure that it’s money that’s being well spent – and he found many cases where it’s not. But as Falk is demonstrating, the floodgates are opening, and it won’t be long before the Order Paper is replete with these PMBs demanding new boutique tax credits for everything under the sun, to encourage all manner of behaviour that they deem a social good, under the rubric that they’re not spending any money and thus within the rules. It’s a loophole that Parliament needs to set upon itself to close for the sake of the tax code and parliament’s ability to hold these kinds of spending measures to account. Sadly, one suspects that in their self-interest, MPs won’t make the needed rule change and we can expect this situation to get worse with every passing parliamentary session.
https://twitter.com/avelshi/status/704465684797915136
Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown
A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600
Roundup: Mister Speaker is a meanie
While astute readers will know that I have my issues with the way that Speaker Regan is attempting to crack down on heckling in the Commons, one thing I will not countenance is the kind of whinging that the opposition – and in particular the Conservatives – are engaged in as a result. Yes, the Speaker does call them out more, because *gasp* they heckle more! Science! But what gets the Conservatives most are the ways in which Regan will sometimes editorialise in his interventions, whether it’s his admonition to keep the Chamber from sounding like a 1950 boys’ club, or in reminding two front-bench Conservatives that Question Period is not the Muppet Show. It is a different tone from the Speaker than we’ve seen in the last several parliaments, and Regan is adopting a more forceful tone when it comes to trying to put an end to heckling. I may disagree with how he’s doing it, and in particular his sanctimonious tone, but his naming actual MPs who are heckling is part of the process of trying to turn the tables so that they are being held to account for their behaviour. It’s a legitimate tactic, but to complain that he’s picking on the Conservatives is a bit rich. Yes, the Liberals were boisterous when they were in opposition, and nobody is saying that’s a bad thing, but even when in government, the Conservatives tended to be boorish hecklers, and their behaviour in opposition is not much improved. If they had instructive cross-talk or clever retorts, then yeah, it might not be so bad, but most of the time, it’s not clever. I will also add that this is part of the problem with the issue of heckling in the Commons – everyone agrees that it’s a problem, everyone insists that they don’t do it, even when they do, and it’s always someone else who’s worse and needs to be dealt with instead of them, because they’re always the victim in this. None of it is true, but MPs like to tell themselves that it is. It’s also a problem in that making the Speaker crack down on it is more about trying to treat symptoms than it is the actual cause of why they’re doing it in the first place, but that would mean more broad changes to the rules and the way that things run, and there seems to be even more resistance to that. Until MPs can have a grown-up conversation about the issue of heckling, we’re likely to get more whinging on all sides of the issue rather than actual progress.