Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

Roundup: A campaign of lies to demand Parliament’s return

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau opened with an announcement of some $75 million in additional support for off-reserve First Nations people, Métis and Inuit, primarily those in urban situations that require additional supports. He also said that provinces – most especially Ontario and Quebec – were being offered additional federal supports for testing and contact tracing as they open up their economies, which was later confirmed in the readout of the first ministers’ teleconference that took place later in the day. During the Q&A, Trudeau also referred to China not understanding the notion of what a rule of law country is after certain comments about the detention and determination of the extradition of Meng Wanzhou (and the BC court will make its determination next Wednesday).

Meanwhile, in the special COVID-19 committee, Conservative MPs engineered outrage by demanding the government answer questions on the Harrington Lake renovations, and when they were called out for the fact that the agreement between all parties was that the special committee’s ambit was on the pandemic, they tried to justify the question by saying that if the government was granted extraordinary spending powers, they needed to ensure that it wasn’t going to these renovations – which is disingenuous bullshit because the spending for those would have been approved of years ago. Nevertheless, they bundled their outrage clips and started putting shitposts around social media to claim that because we don’t have proper parliamentary sittings right now that they weren’t allowed to ask questions that the “government doesn’t approve of” – again, which is disingenuous bullshit. Those questions weren’t in the ambit of the committee, which is why they were objected to. I’m also incredibly pissed off that they are trying to make an issue out of these renovations, calling them “secret renovations” to “mansions for the prime minister’s enjoyment,” which is out of bounds. These are official residences, and every time they get weaponised like this in order to score political points, it means that we can’t maintain them properly. That’s the reason why 24 Sussex was allowed to turn into a crumbling shitpile, and yet here they are, carrying on the same kinds of accusations that led to this situation. They refuse to learn, and we all pay the price for it.

At the same time, I am exasperated by the fact that the Conservatives are now trying to use yet more lies and disingenuous bullshit to bolster their case to bring back regular sittings of a skeletal parliament. Nobody wants these sittings more than me, but the fact that they are trying to drum up fake outrage against Trudeau, claiming he is trying to permanently sideline parliament in favour of daily press conferences (where they falsely claim that he hand-picks the journalists asking questions), is really beyond the pale. But this is what the party has become under Andrew Scheer – a haven of liars who will say anything, no matter how outrageous, in order to try and score points. The fact that people saw through this and kept him from forming government should be a lesson, but no. They are barrelling ahead with this tactic, and it boggles the mind why they think this a winner for them. Poisoning the well hurts everyone in the end – most especially Parliament as an institution, which they suddenly claim they cherish and are trying to defend.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On Scheer’s silence over Sloan

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau was all about science – specifically, a $1.1 billion package for research on vaccines and clinical trials, plus the launch of an immunity task force that will help to determine the spread of the virus within the population (as many may have been exposed and only ever experienced mild symptoms or had none at all), which will be necessary as we talk about re-opening the economy and how that will proceed. Trudeau also reiterated that the situation with long-term care facilities is untenable, that using soldiers to help the residents of those homes is merely a short-term solution that demands a long-term re-think. During the Q&A, Trudeau was not promising the billions of dollars that municipalities were demanding, but made some fairly vague commitments about working with provinces, given that cities are creatures of provincial legislation. He also said that provinces were going to take their own leads on re-opening their economies given that there are different epidemics playing out across the country and not just one nationally, though there is talk of federal guidelines.

The thing that had everyone talking throughout the day, however, was Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan making a fairly blatantly racist call for Dr. Theresa Tam to be fired while questioning her loyalty to Canada as he accuses her of following Chinese propaganda. And more to the point, that Andrew Scheer refuses to comment on what Sloan says insofar as the racism – he did say that as the opposition, they should be criticizing ministers who make decisions and not officials who give advice. Of course, this shouldn’t be too surprising as the party has already been pursuing this notion of vilifying the WHO because they were too credulous about the information coming out of China and Canada followed WHO advice, and Sloan simply took it one step further. And more to the point, under Scheer, the party has offered succour to racists on more than one occasion (most notably after the incident when Trudeau called out the racist statements of an avowedly racist woman in Quebec at an event, after which the Conservatives insisted that she was merely concerned about the economic impact of “illegal” asylum seekers and that anyone who questioned the government would be called a racist – because being labelled a racist is apparently a worse crime than actual racism). A few other Conservative MPs did denounce Sloan’s comments, and local officials within Sloan’s riding called on him to be denounced by Scheer and expelled from the party.

Ah, but that’s part of the issue. The Conservatives, if you recall, voted to adopt certain provisions of Michael Chong’s (garbage) Reform Act which ensures that the full caucus must vote to expel a member, that the leader alone can’t do it. It would be mighty awkward for Scheer to pull that trigger regardless, considering that he’s in an interim, outgoing position and not really the leader any longer, and that Sloan is vying to replace him (and it will be a doomed effort), but I will say that regardless of the circumstances, I have long been uncomfortable with both leaders expelling members, and with the more recent notion that MPs (and senators, where applicable) should be expelled at the first sign of trouble, rather than managing them better from within the fold, or leaving it up to their riding association to decide whether or not to keep them in the party, being as they are really the ones who should be deciding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A negotiated solution

Posted on by

In the end, a compromise was reached – MPs shuffled back into the House of Commons by 3 AM, and had passed the bill by six, after grilling the ministers who were present. Parliament did its job, democracy was saved, and the Conservatives spent the day patting themselves on the back to let you know just how brave they were in saving it. As the bill was over in the Senate on schedule – and it had always been scheduled to reach there yesterday for debate and passage and not on Tuesday, as many hysterical media outlets failed to mention – Trudeau held his daily presser, outlining the measures that were passed within it, which included a streamlining of several of the earlier-announced benefits into a more catch-all $2000/month benefit over the course of four months for anyone who wasn’t working, whether they had been laid off or not. Trudeau also announced new support for journalism (mostly ad revenues) and an acceleration of their tax measures. During the ministerial briefing, more details on supports for Indigenous communities was outlined, and shortly thereafter, Patty Hajdu also announced that the Quarantine Act was being invoked to ensure travellers returning to Canada actually self-isolated, even if it meant the government putting them in a hotel room for two weeks and providing them food.

[Maclean’s has updated their information on symptoms and where to get tested].

The tales of the negotiations are fairly interesting to me, in part because there seem to be breakdowns across the board. The Conservatives went into this saying “no surprises” and were surprised by the outsized spending powers, which they say broke their trust. The Liberals were on the one hand apparently surprised to see them in there (and it’s a question of whether it was the drafters in the Department of Justice who are to blame, or perhaps some of the people in Bill Morneau’s office who seem to operate pretty independently of the minister, if testimony from the Double-Hyphen Affair is to be believed), while also justifying that they needed enhanced powers because of the shifting nature of the pandemic emergency, and how fast everything has been changing. Which mostly just reinforces my own previously published points that if we kept the Skeleton Parliament in place, the government could more easily pass new fiscal measures in short order rather than do the song and dance of recalling MPs while providing more constant oversight while still respecting physical distancing and other protective measures. But who listens to me?

Paul Wells gives his take on the whole affair here, which is well worth your time reading. (My own take on what brought us to this point, in the event that you missed it, is here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspended for negotiations

Posted on by

For his daily presser yesterday, Justin Trudeau first gave some bland assurances about believing in democratic institutions before updating on his conversation with the premiers the day before, stating that now was not the time for the Emergencies Act to be implemented, but it remained the tool of last resort. (He also gave some information on other flights they have secured for stranded Canadians, said that faster testing was coming, and that they’re not ruling out using telecom data to find social gatherings so that they can shut them down). But the drama for the day started moments later when the House of Commons convened for the Skeleton Parliament, and immediately suspended in order to continue negotiations because the Conservatives in particular were not going to let the government give itself the power of unlimited spending without any parliamentary oversight – as well they shouldn’t. Even more to the point, Conservative MP Scott Reid showed up, despite not having been on the leader’s approved list, and posted a 2500-word essay online about why he was going to deny any unanimous consent, why it was improper for his party to try to keep him from being there, and his (proper) concern around Parliament passed three bills sight-unseen in one fell swoop before they suspended. And he’s absolutely right.

While the negotiations carried on for at least the next twelve hours (by the time I gave up waiting and went to bed), it sounded like the government was walking back on some of the measures but a new text of the bill still hadn’t been forthcoming. But that didn’t stop the absolute inane partisanship from all sides, which was not helped at all by ministers like Mélanie Joly saying asinine things like “the parliamentary process is too slow” for the government’s pandemic response, which is utterly infuriating. People defending the government’s move to try and bypass parliament seem to forget that this is how democracy works, and it’s not a bad thing. If they don’t like that, then they can tell the Queen that we’re turning over all power to her because it’s easier that way. And then there were the conspiracy theories that the Conservatives had somehow set up Reid as the weasel so that they could be partisan spoilers over the government’s response, which is so mind-blowingly stupid that I can’t even. Reid, who is on the outs with Scheer, somehow cooked up a scheme to be spoilers? When the government went and put an unconstitutional provision in the bill and expected parliament to swiftly pass it and just trust them? Seriously? And the harrowing cries that this was causing people to die, never mind that the plan was always that the Senate would receive the bill today and that it would get royal assent today, not yesterday. Because why should two centuries of Responsible Government matter? And Westminster parliaments going back to the late 1600s? It’s not like turning over more power to governments in times of fear without proper oversight ever goes badly, right?

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt has some of the behind-the-scenes details on how those offending passages got into the bill, though I’m not mollified by the notion that this was all to be negotiated because I’ve heard from people at briefings who say that this wasn’t how it was presented to them. Heather Scoffield isn’t reassured by the government’s words, considering they wanted to enhance their spending powers until the end of 2021. Chris Selley praises Scott Reid for standing up for Parliament in the face of a government that would have trod all over its rights.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The cause, not the cure

Posted on by

The particular turmoil of the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership is difficult to turn away from, particularly given that right now it’s grappling with a fairly fundamental point about what is ailing our Westminster parliamentary system, which is the way in which we choose our leaders. Andrew Coyne lays it out really well in his latest column, which notes that another leadership contest won’t solve the party’s problems precisely because it’s the cause of those problems. And Chris Selley notes that with the inclusion of Doug Ford in this new race, that system of leadership selection is just as likely to result in a civil war within the party as it will do for anything else. (On a side note, Selley’s piece notes how Ford is attracting the evangelical endorsements in such an eerily Trump-like way).

Another point that Coyne gets to is this particular fetishization of the membership figures that Brown was able to attract to the party, but it ignores the fact that most of those who are signing up memberships have little connection to the party itself, and are little more than tools to be used by the leadership winner who sold them those memberships. And the point that I would add is that these memberships don’t actually strengthen the party because they’re being used to justify central control by the leadership rather than being a vehicle by which the riding associations are interlocutors between the grassroots and the caucus. These “rented” memberships are meaningless and do little to enhance the party, the way the chatter would otherwise suggest. If anything, they weaken the meaning of what the grassroots is supposed to represent. That’s why we need to get back to the proper working of a Westminster system, and restore caucus selection, so that we can reinvigorate the meaning of the grassroots.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/958171212944830465

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958151196933423104

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/958154061873758208

Continue reading →

Roundup: No more gimmicky rules

Posted on by

In her latest installment of her occasional “Dear Process Nerd” column series, Kady O’Malley takes on the subject of heckling, and offers a sympathetic answer about the frustration of MPs who can’t get a word in edgewise given the way in which debates and QP are structured to all but discourage actual debate. And she’s right – that is a very serious problem that we should address. The problem? The solutions that she offered were not solutions.

As is so often the case with people who are looking to reform the system to improve the obvious deficiencies, the instinct is always to implement some new gimmick, and my learned friend is no different in this regard. In this case, O’Malley notes that we should give MPs more time to meaningfully engage with legislation (go on…) but decides that the answer lies in rejigging the daily schedule for un-structured, open-interaction with things like quizzing specific ministers on subjects or Urgent Questions.

And this is the part where I heave a great sigh, because my learned friend as completely missed the mark.

When you identify a problem, you shouldn’t go looking for a new gimmick to try and counterbalance it – you should go looking for the source of the problem and solve it there. In this case, it’s the way in which we started regulating speaking times in Canada so that when we imposed maximum speaking times, we incentivised MPs to use up that whole time. That meant speeches that went up to 40 minutes, then twenty, and the ten minutes allotted for questions and comments wound up being just as rote and scripted more often than not because MPs no longer know how to debate. So why not just tackle that problem instead? Restore the old rules – abolish speaking times and speaking lists, have the Speaker gauge how long MPs should have to speak to a bill or motion based on the number of MPs who want to speak to it, and allow for interruptions for questions in a free-flowing manner, and above all, ban scripts so that MPs will be engaged in the subject matter, talking for probably eight to ten minutes, ensure that there is free-flowing debate throughout, and most of all, it eliminates the impetus to read speeches into the record. Just tacking on new rules and gimmicks has made the situation worse over the years. Strip that away. Get us back to the fundamentals. That will help bring about actual change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Renewing the tax change battle

Posted on by

Those proposed tax changes around private corporations were big in the news again yesterday, given that Parliament had returned and there was a sense that the fight was about to begin in earnest, now that everyone was paying attention. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation hired a plane to fly a banner above Parliament Hill that read “No Small Biz Tax Hike,” never mind that the small business tax rate isn’t being raised and that the proposed changes aren’t going to affect the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses. Before the fight got started in earnest during QP, the NDP tried to insert themselves into the debate by trying to insist that the government should instead be attacking the “tax cheats” who use offshore tax havens – which, it must be pointed out, are also using legal instruments and thus are not actually “tax cheats” either, which is language that doesn’t help anyone.

In the Law Times, I have a story on how some lawyers are angry with the Canadian Bar Association over their opposition to the proposed tax changes – something that garnered a fair bit of attention. Global tried to work out what some of those tax changes amount to in terms of how it benefits those able to use the current provisions (though their use of the term “loopholes” rankled some of the economists they quoted). Colby Cosh takes on the semantic warfare in the proposed tax change debate.

And then the Twitter battles were renewed in earnest as well. Lisa Raitt was back at it, but Andrew Coyne took on her points with particular aplomb to show why they didn’t have any particular logic or intenral consistency.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/909940527038164992

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/909941619297746944

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/909942564370952197

Continue reading →

Roundup: Normalizing the system’s problems

Posted on by

On Monday night, I got into a bit of a Twitter argument over the issue of Manitoba MLA Steven Fletcher (former of the federal Conservatives) and his ouster from provincial Progressive Conservative caucus because he was *gasp!* doing the actual job of a backbencher and trying to hold the government to account, never mind that he’s a member of the governing party. It’s what he’s supposed to do, and he got punished for it. Why I gave the first punch in said Twitter fight was because of the notion that Fletcher should have shut up and been a good team player, because politics.

https://twitter.com/davidmcla/status/899798702969237508

This devolved into a bit of tit-for-tat about which legislatures this occurs in, and despite providing Canadian examples, never mind the fact that this is actually the norm in the UK – the mother of our parliament – my dear opponent insisted that this is not the way things work in Canada.

https://twitter.com/davidmcla/status/900009073487171584

And this irritates me. A lot. Because it’s washing our hands of the problems that have slowly crept into our country’s parliament and legislatures, and normalizes the bastardisations that have occurred over the years, usually under the rubric of “modernisation,” or “making things more democratic.” And the laws of unintended consequences being what they are, things get worse instead of better, and we now have very powerful party leaders in this country that have no accountability – something that should be anathema to a Westminster system.

https://twitter.com/DavidMcLA/status/900004936783720449

Why should we be defending the current norms of party and leader-centred politics when it’s not the way our system is supposed to work, and in fact makes our system worse?

https://twitter.com/davidmcla/status/899817942669512707

We are in an age where message control and leader-centred politics has reduced elected members to drones. We have very nearly reached the point where we could just replace our MPs with battle droids who could do just as effective a job of reading canned speeches into the record and voting the way the whip orders. Is this really the system that we want to normalise and defend? Or would we rather have elected officials who can think for themselves and do the proper job of accountability that the Westminster system is built on. I know which one I’d prefer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A lack of scrutiny

Posted on by

While again noting that I don’t often write about provincial matters, sometimes they can be a microcosm or a vanguard of broader themes happening in different legislatures across the country, including the federal parliament, and this item out of Queen’s Park raises alarm bells because it is a telling sign. The province’s Financial Accountability Office – the provincial equivalent of the Parliamentary Budget Officer – tabled his annual report that essentially states that there’s not enough scrutiny happening within the legislature. And yes, that’s a very big problem.

While I am a bit surprised that his office is being underutilized, the fact that backbenchers aren’t doing the work of scrutinizing the actions of Cabinet – particularly on budget matters – is not unique to the province. Here in Ottawa, we see too many instances of MPs passing the Estimates with the barest of glances, and when ministers appear before committee to discuss them, they are generally bombarded with questions about issues of the day rather than what’s in the Estimates. That most of the scrutiny of the Estimates now happens in the Senate is Ottawa’s saving grace – something that provinces like Ontario can’t claim.

Part of the problem is that our civic literacy has so degraded that most MPs or their provincial counterparts (MPPs, MLAs, MNAs – style them how you will) don’t understand that their actual constitutionally mandated job is to hold the government to account by means of controlling the public purse. That, by definition, means scrutinizing budgets, the Estimates, and the Public Accounts. That MPs and their provincial counterparts don’t want to do that job – or at the very least are ignorant that it’s their responsibility – has meant the creation of more Officers of Parliament like the PBO, and the FAO in Ontario, to do that homework for them, and that’s a huge problem for the health of our democracy. But so long as MPs and their counterparts opt to stick their heads in the sand and play American lawmaker, spending all of their time and energy on private members’ business (when they’re not cheerleading for their particular leader), then our system suffers for it as governments aren’t held to account properly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The disingenuous framing of a committee report

Posted on by

As you may have heard, the Heritage Committee released their long-awaited study on suggested ways to help the local media landscape in Canada. And I’m not here to talk about that, however, but rather how the narrative got completely spun into “Netflix tax!” or “Internet tax!” which wasn’t exactly what they were proposing either. Still, it became a convenient cudgel by which to try and bash the government with.

And that’s the bigger problem with this whole affair – that a committee report is being used to paint the government when it’s backbenchers who are on the committee. That separation between government (meaning Cabinet) and a committee of the legislature is important, and conflating the two is being wilfully disingenuous and makes the problem of not understanding how our parliament works even worse.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/875529614218731523

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/875530069086744577

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875380786563862530

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875402337665331200

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/875403159463768066

Paul and Aaron both have some very valid points. When the opposition frames it as “Netflix tax!” it’s sadly how most media will report it as well, and I didn’t see a lot of corrections going on about what the report actually said, and that’s a problem. But Aaron also has the point about how the media loves to jump on differences of opinion in parties, but when the parties themselves frame the issue, the media often gets swept up in those narratives.

Remember when there were those Conservative backbenchers trying to float some backdoor abortion legislation or motions that the government distanced themselves from but the NDP screamed bloody murder about hidden agendas and so on? This is not far from the same thing. And they know they’re being disingenuous, but they’re doing it anyway, no matter how much they’re actually damaging the perceptions of the institution.

That said, I could be really mean and point out that it may be hard for the Conservatives to tell the difference between backbenchers on a committee and the government seeing as during their decade in office, they essentially turned the committees into branch plants of the ministers’ offices with parliamentary secretaries ringleading the show and completely destroying their independence…but maybe I won’t.

Continue reading →