Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

Roundup: Hybrid sittings are now permanent, and Parliament will suffer

Posted on by

I knew that this was now inevitable, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not infuriating. After invoking closure and ramming it through with little debate, the government has forced through the changes to the Standing Orders that will make hybrid sittings permanent. The government has ignored all criticisms about this move, and blinkered itself to the supposed benefits to this system that are largely a false economy, because it “feels progressive.” They tried to force this before the pandemic, and they certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

The biggest losers out of this are the interpretation staff. Working by Zoom is an absolute killer for them, both from acoustic injuries because MPs can’t be arsed to use their headsets properly most of the time, or simply ignore those rules when it suits them (as the Conservatives did when they pretended to have issues with their voting apps), and because the cognitive load from interpreting this way burns them out. The Speaker, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to enforce rules or guidelines, and merely gently chides MPs that they should be nice to the interpreters, but with no consequences, these behaviours continue undaunted. We’re now accelerating toward a crisis of bilingualism in Parliament because they can’t just hire more interpreters. They’re not graduating enough at a rate to overcome attrition even before the injuries, and fewer of them are going to stick around in order to expose themselves to injury and the possibility of permanent hearing loss. It’s morally repugnant and unconscionable that MPs behave this way, treating the interpreters like furniture, but they’re still in the fuck around stage. They’re going to find out really soon, and Parliament is going to be in a genuine crisis, because the Liberals and NDP in particular are too self-centred to look at the harm they’re causing.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian authorities say they’re staging elections in occupied territories as a sign that they’re in control, as the Ukrainian counter-offensive makes progress but faces “tough resistance,” according to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukrainian officials also say they are still advancing on Bakhmut around the north and northwest.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1669255405610909698

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ad hoc panel assembled to review documents NSICOP should have handled

Posted on by

After months and months of delay, the government has finally unveiled the ad hoc panel that will examine the Winnipeg Lab documents, and that panel will comprise of four MPs and three former judges—two former Supreme Court of Canada justices, and one from the Federal Court of Appeal. Allegedly it took so long to set up because they needed to convince the judges, and then it took forever to get the Bloc and finally the Conservatives on board.

Of course, this whole exercise is completely unnecessary because this should have all been done by NSICOP. This is exactly the kind of thing that it was created for, but the Conservatives have been bad actors about this entire affair (and Michael Chong being among the worst of said bad actors), turning this whole thing into a needlessly drawn-out affair that has involved the government suing the House of Commons over a production order, and years of absolutely unhinged conspiracy theories as to what happened (again, with Chong being among the worst offenders).

I can pretty much guarantee you that this committee is going to find nothing to write home about. There has been plenty of reporting as to what happened. It wasn’t Chinese espionage. It was almost certainly a policy breach related to intellectual property, but this being a highly secured facility, you can imagine that has complicated matters. In any case, this whole thing is going to wind up being one giant waste of everyone’s time and resources because they decided to make a dog and pony show out of it for the sake of trying to embarrass the government rather than being responsible and just letting NSICOP read the unredacted documents that were provided to them in the first place.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There have been more early-morning missiles fired at Kyiv, and falling debris has set fire to one non-residential building, while at least one person was killed in a missile strike on Odessa. While Ukrainian forces continue to make gains around Bakhmut, the Russians are still sending people into the fighting, and there doesn’t appear to be any ammunition shortage, in spite of those Wagner Group videos.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658751950165356544

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658800755946528774

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important Parliamentary anniversary

Posted on by

Yesterday was the anniversary of the great fire that destroyed the original Centre Block, which also meant that it was the day when they use the wooden mace, which was the temporary replacement for the one that was lost during the fire. The Library survived because it was separated from the main building, and the iron doors were closed that kept the fire at bay. While the cause of the fire was never conclusively determined, and there were a lot of worries about German spies (because this was during the First World War), it was most likely caused by faulty wiring catching fire.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 346:

European Union officials were in Kyiv to show support for Ukraine, and talked about upholding sanctions in order to degrade Russia’s war machine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said that they plan to hold onto “Fortress” Bakhmut as long as possible, as Russian forces try to encircle it. Russian missiles struck Toretsk in eastern Ukraine, killing at least six civilians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few notes on the hybrid quotes

Posted on by

Because the hybrid parliament debate will resume in the New Year, CTV has a collection of quotes from MPs both here and in comparable Parliaments abroad about the format, and I find some of the commentary to be lacking. A few notes:

  1. Lots of talk about being able to participate while stick, while ignoring that this is setting up an extremely unhealthy system of presenteeism. MPs should be allowed to take sick days or leave if they require treatment for something like cancer, and not be made to feel guilty about it.
  2. There was some talk about party whips setting up rules for when MPs can appear virtually, but there seemed to be a lot of “when they feel like it” happening, particularly since Niki Ashton only appeared in Ottawa for two days the whole fall sitting, which should be absolutely unacceptable.
  3. Our committees are in crisis because of how they have been limited by hybrid sittings and the lack of interpretation staff. Only two government bills that were not budget-related got passed in the fall. Two. Some bills were in committee the entire thirteen sitting weeks that they sat, and are still not out of committee. Additionally, there are some committee chairs who are only appearing virtually (while not sick or infirm), which should not be allowed because it’s impossible to moderate a room you’re not in.
  4. The piece did quote the interim head of the interpretation service, but absolutely none of the MPs raised a single concern for the injuries that they are telling the interpreters to suffer so that they can appear remotely when they feel like it. The continued lack of basic awareness or concern about this remains unconscionable, and it’s absolutely shameful that MPs can’t arse themselves to care.
  5. Only the Bloc raised the concerns that ministers aren’t accessible because they are moving increasingly remotely, and allowing virtual voting is even worse for that. It used to be the time when MPs could get a chance to catch a minister’s attention about a matter that requires their attention, because they were all in the Chamber at the same time. Now most ministers run out of the Chamber when votes begin and vote on their phones from their cars, and they are no longer accessible, and that is a very big problem. Similarly, the more MPs and ministers are remote, the less they are able to be button-holed by journalists, making them even less accountable than they already are (especially because the architecture of the West Block makes it too easy for them to avoid media, even when they are there).

I don’t care how convenient MPs find hybrid sittings or remote voting, it’s degrading our institutions and it needs to come to an end immediately.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 302:

I could find no stories on the situation on the ground in Ukraine because absolutely all of the coverage was about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington DC. During Zelenskyy’s visit with President Joe Biden at the White House, we got confirmation that the US will be sending Patriot anti-missile systems to Ukraine. Zelenskyy then headed to the Capitol, where he met with Nancy Pelosi (who enthused that this was just like when her father met with Winston Churchill in Congress 81 year ago), before Zelenskyy addressed a joint session of Congress. His message—that aid for Ukraine isn’t charity, but an investment in democracy and security, at a time when a number of US representatives are publicly doubting the “blank cheque” that has been given to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protecting nominations is corrosive to democracy

Posted on by

Remember back when Justin Trudeau promised that the Liberals were going to be the party of “open nominations,” because this was good for democracy and all of that? Well, it seems like once again, his party is firming up their rules to protect incumbents from nominations, which is not open nominations, and is very bad for democracy. Very, very bad. Nomination races are one of the only tools that grassroots party members have to hold incumbents to account without voting against the party in a general election. It’s how the party is supposed to hold its own to account, and if they can fundraise enough and keep their memberships above a certain level, they’re being given a free pass rather than the accountability the system is supposed to provide. This is a very bad thing for our democratic system. It’s bad enough that under Trudeau, the Liberals tore up their party constitution and centralized power in his office. Now they are short-circuiting one more accountability measure and keeping tight control over the nomination process, which focuses even more power on the leader (for whom the party constitution states doesn’t have to face a leadership review unless they lose an election). This is not how a party is supposed to be run.

The practice of democracy in this country is backsliding, as much as our parties like to pat themselves on the back. They have been undermining the rules at every turn, and have hollowed out the safeguards and the grassroots participation. And yes, I know that sitting MPs insist that they need protected nominations because they’re not in the riding to fend off any nomination challenges, but a) you’re in the riding an awful lot, because the number of sitting days has been in decline, and b) you have incumbency advantage already, and if you keep up the door-knocking and activities that you’re required to for these protections, you might as well do it for real stakes. Because yes, grassroots democracy matters, and we desperately need to rebuild it in this country before it’s too late. Protecting nominations just corrodes the system even more than it already has been, and the Liberals cannot pat themselves on the back and talk about how good they are for democracy if they can’t even be bothered with the fundamental basics.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 260:

Russian Forces made a big song and dance about pulling out of Kherson, saying they can’t supply it, but Ukraine is sceptical because it looks like Russia is setting a trap, because they tend to do the opposite of what they say they’re going to. And indeed, they say that they haven’t actually seen signs that Russians are completely leaving the city. Meanwhile, here’s a look at the task ahead of rebuilding Kharkiv after Russian occupation.

https://twitter.com/StratCom_AFU/status/1589649656338067464

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to dispel yet another conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was Environment Canada’s turn to take to Twitter in a series of plain-language tweets in order to dispel the conspiracy theories that Justin Trudeau is creating “climate cops” that are going to arrest people for…reasons. They’re not climate cops, they’re Environment Canada enforcement officers, they’ve been in existence since 2008 (you know, when Stephen Harper was prime minister), and they enforce environmental regulations. The theory, which seems to have originated from a far-right former Rebel fabulist, has been broadcast by UCP leadership hopeful Danielle Smith and several sitting Conservative MPs, and it’s utterly bonkers. It’s even more concerning that MPs are willingly spreading conspiracy theories in order to keep up the rage-farming that they think will get them votes, and that they have absolutely zero self-awareness that this is utterly corroding democracy. None.

Meanwhile, Conservative has-been and ongoing shitposter Andrew Scheer is trying to discredit the Bank of Canada’s correction about the false narrative of “printing money,” using the same kind of faux-logic that Flat-Earthers use. So yeah, the discourse is going great. They’re really respecting democracy. (We’re doomed).

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 190:

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors arrived at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant for real this time, and conducted their initial inspection of the facility, with the intention to remain on the site, and yes, they avoided shelling and gunfire to get there. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that independent journalists were prevented from covering the visit, which allows Russia to present a one-sided picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An end to hybrid sittings?

Posted on by

Now that the Commons has risen for the summer, the parties are starting to evaluate the hell that is hybrid sittings, and lo, they are largely in favour of returning to regular, in-person sittings once again. Praise the gods on Olympus! They recognise that it’s harder to hold government to account when you can’t see the minister in front of you, and that you can’t build comradery with your fellow MPs, and that there is a sense of futility debating video screens. (And in an interview a week ago, outgoing MP Wayne Easter also noted that it’s harder for MPs within a caucus to form groups to push back against the leadership if they can’t be in the room together).

I’m going to temper that praise a little bit, because they’re already talking about exceptions, whether it’s for MPs with illnesses, or those with small children, and this is where it starts. When they return in the fall, or in the next parliament, whichever comes first, you can bet that the Liberals in particular are going to keep pushing for a number of exceptions so that the hybrid format never really goes away, and therein lies the danger – that the longer it’s able to carry on, future cohorts become more used to these sittings than the ones who are used to in-person sittings, the easier it will be for future populists to start abusing the system to stay out of Ottawa as a point of pride. It won’t happen overnight, but once you open the door a little bit, it will get used and abused.

There was one area where I could be persuaded, which was around committee meetings during weeks when the Chamber isn’t sitting – particularly emergency meetings. Often times, those involve flying into Ottawa for a single hour-long meeting, then flying home, which is a huge waste of time and resources (not to mention the carbon footprint). So I could be persuaded – but the flipside of that is that it removes an element of deterrence for not calling these emergency meetings, which are often done for the sake of a political performance. It’s something to consider in the longer term, but again, now that Pandora’s box is opened and the evil is out in the world, we should try to limit the damage as much as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee rudeness undermines their work

Posted on by

There is a piece on the Canadian Press’ newswire right now about how victims of sexual assault who went before House of Commons committees to testify, whether it’s on the PornHub issue or the Canadian Forces’ problems with sexual misconduct, have been ill-treated by MPs, usually by rudeness, or not allowing them time to deal with the trauma related to this kind of testimony. And they’re absolutely right – and Commons committees are some of the worst offenders for this kind of behaviour.

Why? Part of this is because MPs lack some basic self-awareness. There are tight rules around timelines in committee hearings, as to how long an MP has to ask questions and get answers, and they get so wrapped up in the issue of their time that they get tunnel vision, and witnesses essentially get railroaded by it. The bigger and more prevalent part, however, is that MPs are more concerned about scoring points at these hearings that they are simply being partisan dicks about everything. Ask anyone who has testified before both Commons and Senate committees, and they will tell you that Senate committees are far more preferable, as they are more interested in the subject matter and the actual expertise or experiences of the witnesses than they are in using those witnesses to score points on their behalf. And much of the time, they’re barely paying attention, because they don’t have to actually write the report at the end – the analysts provided by the Library of Parliament do, and MPs simply approve it or write dissenting recommendations. It’s a problem and it really, really devalues the role that Commons committees should be playing in our basic democratic processes in this country.

And I can speak to some of this from personal experience. I was once invited to testify before the Procedure and House Affairs committee as they were contemplating hybrid and remote voting rules, and it quickly became apparent that I had been asked not for my expertise or my insights as someone who had been watching Parliament longer than any member of that committee had been an MP – I was there to be treated as a reactionary whom they could hold up their proposals to and show that they were being reasonable and my opinions weren’t. It was kind of a gross experience, and I was rudely treated by a couple of Liberal MPs (one of whom has since become a minister), because they were interested in scoring points. I also didn’t have the added weight of having to re-traumatise myself to provide this testimony to be treated in such a way, like some of the women in the piece were. It’s pretty gross, and it’s a poor reflection of how Parliament operates, particularly in the current climate and context. MPs really need to shape up and do better, if they want to retain any credibility at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some pushback on the hybrid sittings

Posted on by

I felt a tiny glimmer of hope over the weekend as I read this piece that talked to three MPs from each of the main parties about their experience with hybrid sittings, and lo, MPs are unimpressed. Praise be! Mind you, it’s a small sample, and it’s all Manitoba MPs (given that it was a piece in the Winnipeg Free Press), but props for having this conversation with them, and props for not letting it simply go by unquestioned, as is often the case.

This being said, I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet in terms of what the lasting implications of these hybrid changes will be, particularly when there are west coast MPs who are loudly praising the hybrid format, and when groups like Samara Canada are already lining up the excuses to allow it to keep happening, which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that I have been warning about since before this began. Don’t forget that the Liberals were pushing for these kinds of changes for nearly five years before the pandemic hit, and this was the perfect excuse for them to finally implement them, even if it was under the rubric of it being for the duration of the emergency. But as you’ve heard me warn before, they will soon find a list of excuses – just as Samara provided for them – to keep them going in some capacity, which will have a long-term erosion on our system and the norms therein. I am especially worried that there will be pressure to keep the voting app system going, even though, as the interviews in the article pointed out, this system greatly benefits the government because it doesn’t allow opposition MPs to use the votes to register displeasure (such as slow-voting). So while it’s great that some MPs want a return to proper sittings (one of them being an advocate for a parliamentary bubble, to little avail), there is still going to be a fight to ensure these changes stay are relegated to the dust heap once the pandemic is over.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending the defence committee study

Posted on by

Something unexpected happened yesterday, in that the Defence committee voted to end the study on the allegations against General Jonathan Vance – the Liberals moving the motion, and the Bloc supporting it (which was the real surprise). Of course, ending the study comes with a number of different narratives. For the Conservatives and the NDP, this is all about the government trying to “cover up” what happened, because they won’t allow staffers to testify – nor should they. The concept of ministerial responsibility is inviolable in our constitutional framework, and the government should be fighting to maintain it, and yes, they have put the minister forward in this case several times, so that does matter. For the Liberals’ decision to move to end the study, it’s also at the request of some victims’ groups, who have stated that every past government is at fault, and that the committee is simply using the victims in order to score partisan points – and they are 100 percent correct in that assertion.

I do find it disturbing, however, that in most of the reporting on what has gone on, media have followed the opposition narrative that staffers are being “blocked” from appearing, and that the only time that ministerial responsibility is mentioned, it’s in quotes and being both-sidesed in terms of the government’s response. This is a real problem because it is undermining this fundamental principle in our democracy. This is something that should be explained, including why it’s wholly improper for the opposition to be demanding that this important principle be violated, and why when the Conservatives were in government, they repeatedly invoked the same principle as well to keep their staffers away from committee. Constitutional principles matter – they’re not just to be dismissed as a “process story” as so many journalists and editors are wont to do in this city, and it cheapens the discourse when this context is being left out of the stories, and when the government’s correct position is being spun as being improper.

Of course, if the government is going to claim ministerial responsibility, that doesn’t just mean Sajjan has to show up (which, to his credit, he did for six hours) – Sajjan has to actually take responsibility as well, and he hasn’t. And more to the point, Sajjan should fall on his sword for this, because he did drop the ball. He remained way too incurious about the allegations and whether an investigation was being carried out – which is not the same as involving himself in the investigation or meddling in it. It’s basic due diligence for someone who is responsible to Parliament for the armed forces and its leadership, and he failed in that due diligence. Sajjan has no choice but to resign over this, and it will be a giant sign that Justin Trudeau is not taking this seriously if he doesn’t insist on a resignation in short order.

Continue reading →