Trudeau evokes Stephen Harper during QP

The opening salvos of Question Period today in the House of Commons were extremely revealing in terms of the political posturing that will undoubtedly begin as we move closer and closer to a general election. Notably absent from the House of Commons chamber during Question Period was Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. However, Lisa Raitt opened up the portion of the parliamentary day on the topic of the carbon tax:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was asked a simple question, whether Canadians can expect to pay higher fuel prices with the carbon tax. His response was a bit jarring. He said, yes, and that is what Canadians expect because that is leadership.

What the Prime Minister views as leadership is literally terrifying to widows and single moms across this country. At the very least, they deserve to know one thing. How much will the carbon tax cost them?

The Prime Minister responded to the opposition benches on point but not without reaching to the previous Conservative government (without question exactly where the Conservatives can be defined as weak on the environment):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are yet again demonstrating not just their tenuous relationship with the truth, but also with the understanding that we have to take good, clean action on carbon. After 10 long years of the Harper Conservatives doing absolutely nothing on the environment, the same Conservatives show that they just do not get it.

We are putting a price on carbon pollution because it will reduce emissions and drive growth in the right direction at the same time. While Harper Conservatives believe that by making the economy and the environment work together and that somehow Canada is broken, we will continue to invest in clean technology.

Note how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau out and out calls the opposition Conservatives in this 42nd Parliament the “Harper Conservatives” despite the fact that Stephen Harper is no longer their leader. We can expect the Liberals to come out heavy linking the current caucus to the past and the fact that many front bench members are long in the tooth Conservatives from that era makes it a viable political tactic.

Lisa Raitt would not let the issue of the carbon tax go and rose again to follow-up on her first question:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s lead ministers simply do not understand that they are very much out of touch with the reality of what’s happening and the gravity of the issue that we are speaking of. I remember the days, and a lot of us do, of being able to put just five bucks in the gas tank in order to get to my work at the Dairy Queen, and there are people like that today in my riding who experience that.

This is a serious matter that is going to affect the affordability of life for many Canadians. His government knows how much it costs. Why will he not tell them?

And Prime Minister Trudeau refused to hold back in evoking the name (and apparent puppet master abilities) of Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, we have been putting in place practical, low-cost measures to tackle climate change and drive clean growth, including pricing pollution. It is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of taking climate change seriously and have no plan to promote clean growth in Canada. This is exactly the kind of inaction we saw in 10 years under Stephen Harper, who still very much apparently controls the backbench of the Conservative Party, and these Conservatives are no different. (emphasis added)

It is important to understand and worth mentioning that the linking of Stephen Harper to the current Conservative caucus is a test balloon at this point. The Trudeau Liberals have previously labelled Andrew Scheer “Stephen Harper with a smile” and that line and sentiment will be tested now by the Liberals to determine its strength going into an election campaign. It will be key to watch the polls, in particular the approval rates of Trudeau and Scheer to understand the impact of this tactic and whether or not it will be effective enough to be featured during the next election campaign.

There was a final exchange between Lisa Raitt and the Prime Minister over the carbon tax and again Trudeau linked the current caucus to the previous Conservative government:

The Harper Conservatives still demonstrate that they do not get it. They are stuck in what they were doing for 10 years. Canadians had enough.

It was another Conservative MP, Gérard Deltell, who asked the next question to the Prime Minister, the subject remained the carbon tax:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what I said because it is the truth and it comes from Natural Resources Canada. The Conservatives’ record from 2005 to 2015 is the following: a 2.2% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 16.9% increase in GDP.

That is the Conservative record. We lowered greenhouse gas emissions and grew the economy. We did that without the Liberal carbon tax.

Why does the Prime Minister want to impose a tax on Canadians?

The Prime Minister did not step off message once in his reply:

Mr. Speaker, if these Conservatives want to run another campaign based on how well they did during the Harper years, I urge them to do so. Canadians rejected the approach of the Harper government, which presided over the worst record of economic growth since the Great Depression, was unable to create energy jobs in new markets, and failed to provide Canadians with the future they needed. Canadians made a choice: they rejected Harper and his Conservatives.

The Trudeau Liberal logic goes something like this: the current Conservative caucus is being run by Stephen Harper behind the scenes and their leader is no different than Stephen Harper (note how note once into QP at this point has Trudeau even mentioned Andrew Scheer), Canadians rejected Stephen Harper in the last election, therefore Canadians ought to reject the current Conservative caucus.

The issue of the carbon tax presents a perfect litmus test to begin determining the posturing that will develop as the election period encroaches. For the Conservatives, the issue is their bread and butter in terms of populism (everyone gets talking about the price of gasoline), plays to the geographical base and presents an opportunity to tap back into the 905 around Toronto. For the Liberals the carbon tax is their centerpiece environmental policy that they will hold up as taking real action on climate change in Canada (which is especially important given the mixed messaging of environmental stewardship from the Liberals coming out of the pipeline debates). It is also a great avenue to attack the previous Conservative government because of their quantifiable failure to act on environmental issues. It will be particularly interesting to watch the Liberals roll out their attempt to link the current Conservative caucus to Stephen Harper, whether or not it will be effective absolutely remains to be seen.

British Columbia’s Per Vote Subsidy Problem

British Columbia’s Premier, John Horgan, recently unveiled his government’s intention to reform the financial laws surrounding political donations. As has been noted in editorial, after editorial on the subject, BC before these proposed measures could accurately be called the Wild West when it came to the political donation regime– in that there were virtually no rules regarding who could donate, and how much could be given. This obviously led to big business money flowing into the pockets of the BC Liberals and big union money flowing into the pockets of the NDP, while smaller parties such as the Greens and the (barely a party) Conservatives, would be left with very little to compete against big money in general. Among the measures proposed is a $1,200 personal contribution limit, a ban on corporate and union donations and measures to ban and protect against third party advertising within the province. However, the proposal also includes a controversial addition to introduce a per-vote subsidy programme that would start at $2.50/vote and work down to $1.75/vote in 2022. It is estimated that this programme will cost the taxpayers $27-million over its lifespan (which actually does not have a definitive expiration date). It is similar, almost down to the letter, to the programme that was introduced on the federal level by Prime Minister Jean Chretien after his reforms to the political fundraising system in federal politics. It was wrong for Chretien to introduce that measure then and it is wrong for Horgan to do it now.

We can dispense immediately with the obvious elephant in the room that Premier Horgan has flip-flopped on his previous commitment not to introduce a per-vote subsidy programme. In addition to being dishonest in this case (and I will give him credit and say he has come forward about his lie), this promise-breaking removes any sort of popular mandate from the measure itself. Premier Horgan cannot stand and say that British Columbians support this measure as packaged up in measures that almost every British Columbian does support, he does not have a mandate on this measure. But in this editorial I will entertain the arguments that are being made for this measure, because even without a mandate, it could perhaps still be a good idea.

A change like this to our electoral system (because that is what begins to become the issue here, beyond just political funding) carries with it the onus being placed on the proposer of the reform to articulate why the measure is required. It is not for me, as the person standing in the position of the status quo, to explain why the proposal should not exist. The fact is that it does not exist at the moment, and it is a change to the system that must stand on its merits in debate before it can be implemented. So we can surely ask why such a measure is required alongside the package for reforms that are indeed required (if not because we are one of the last jurisdictions in the world not to have some measures on this subject). And the answer we get is that this programme is require because the political parties require an adjustment period to tool their fundraising systems and evolve to the new changes. The problem with that argument is that it paints a situation where one is essentially being told that political parties are designed to have only two options right now for fundraising; either depend on big money and the ethical rollercoaster that comes along with that or lean on handouts from the government based on votes. But we know that there is a third method, in fact it is the method that is supposed to be used by political parties and that is grassroots engagement. A political party that cannot build and engage a base that can offer financial and other supports to it should not exist. The basis of parliamentary democracy is civil engagement at the lowest level within the political party. And I get that we have moved from this concept, which will actually bring me to the real problem here.

Now retired esteem parliamentary journalist Susan Delacourt has penned an amazing book called Shopping For Votes that articulates the changes that have come into politics as a result of the expansion of consumerism and specifically the advertisement industry. She compares an elector walking into a voting booth on Election Day to a shopper walking down an aisle trying to pick out a can of soup. And she get gets to run with this analogy precisely because that is how political operatives at all levels view the elector– they are all out shopping for their candidate. A system like this does not require grassroots engagement, it requires money for technical resources which are guided and manipulated by a small, elite group of political operatives. These people usually all have backgrounds in communications, advertisement, polling or media relations. There is no reason to sell as many memberships, no reason to solicit donations from individuals, no reason to engage in order to retain members and develop a pool for potential candidates. No, the system can all be run through a giant communication strategy, usually focused solely on the leader and all it needs is a steady stream of money to keep the machine operating. And this where the per-vote subsidy feeds the machine.

By handing money to political parties alongside each single vote, the incentive for political parties to engage citizens shifts from grassroots to merely getting people to show up to vote. No need to build a dedicated political base, especially when you get $2.50/vote, and I’m sure they’ve done the math and know what segment to target and just what to say to get them to show up to vote. And after Election Day, that is it, they do not need your membership, they do not need your opinion, they got your vote and they got your $2.50. At its core the per-vote subsidy breeds a system where there is absolutely no incentive for political parties to develop a political base. And what suffers as a result is the civil discourse within society. Which brings me to my second point.

A vote does not equal a financial commitment. I would wager that a number of electors in the last BC general election voted for a political party that they would not go so far as give $2.50 of their own money to. I know that was the case for me. I would say it was the same case for many in the last federal election as well. I would go so far as to say that in the United States, during their last Presidential Election, that I am sure there are many voters who voted for a candidates that they would never give $2.50 otherwise. Voting is a civic responsibility wherein a citizen expresses their democratic will in determining who will represent their interests in an elected legislature. As a result of responsible government, this decision can also determine who will go on to form government. It is an important question on its own merits, so important that it should not have any other obligations attached to it other than that democratic expression. Just because a person votes for a candidate or a political party does not mean that they wish to support that party financially. No for that to happen for many people the party would have to become more relevant to them, it would have to actually try and engage that voter beyond the ballot and include them in the democratic process. Perhaps now you see how this per-vote subsidy programme encourages just the opposite.

Donating money to a political party is a matter of freedom of expression. I am free to express my support for a political party by offering it financial support to exist (and perhaps remain in or gain power in the next election). By forcing a form of expression on the elector through a per-vote subsidy programme, the provincial government is essentially violating my own freedom of expression. Showing up to vote is not an agreement to give $2.50 to a political party, it is not an agreement for me to make the specific form of expression of donating to a political party. And yet, with this per-vote subsidy proposal, the government is seeking to make it law, that regardless of how you wish to express yourself on this point, you must make this expression alongside your vote. It is a violation of one’s freedom of expression to attach any strings to the act of voting; voting itself as an expression has one purpose only. It would be absurd for the government to demand that each elector show up to vote with $2.50 in their pockets, payable to whichever party they had ticked in the box. It would be anti-democratic. And although there exists a certain level of cognitive separation because it comes in the forms of taxation, but the fact is that with this proposal you are essentially showing up to vote, and it has a cost to the tune of $2.50 (but don’t worry it’s supposed to go down by 2o22, what a bargain!) payable to political party X.

Never mind that Premier Horgan flip-flopped, never mind that he does not have the mandate for this change, never mind the sheer political greasiness of wrapping this flip-flop in a package of what are otherwise almost all universally agreed upon measures, never mind the $27-million (plus) cost, and the fact that this programme is never set to come to an end at this time; a per-vote subsidy programme undermines the base of the civil democratic system. It provides a strong incentive for political parties to avoid grassroots engagement and removes any incentive for a political party to engage and develop a political base that it can rely on for financial and other types of support. Furthermore, it is a violation of an electors’ freedom of expression because it forces a financial commitment to a political party based solely on a democratic vote. A political party that is unable to raise funds when they cannot rely on big money or cannot rely on grassroots fundraising should not exist on any democratic stage– no adjustment period required.

Photo credit.

Tear Down This Name!

During a recent segment on TVO’s The Agenda, host Steve Paiken explored the issue of removing Sir John A. Macdonald’s name from schools across Ontario. Niigan Sinclair (son of Senator Sinclair), Tori Cress and Christopher Dummitt offer their opinions on the subject and shed light on the various positions concerning the removal of historical figures across Ontario and Canada in the name of aboriginal reconciliation. I have to add that I am very fond of The Agenda with Steve Paiken, and the work that he and producer Harrison Lowman do is fantastic and adds an articulated point of view to the national discussion on a variety of topics. However, I do take particular issue with this segment. Certainly not in The Agenda hosting it, if anything we need more of this sort of a discussion, but because of the points that were brought up and the inability for any of the panelists and host to adequately address what was being said in the course of presenting each point.

I will first start with the scene that Sinclair sets up when he asks us to imagine “that we have a leader who has commanded the deaths of your family, the removal of your children and the forcible relocation of your lives.” Adding that one should also imagine living in a society where that particular leader is revered. I can imagine such a scenario, although I will admit that I cannot truly understand what it would feel like emotionally to be in such a position beyond the limitations of human empathy. And when I do imagine such a scenario, I am most certainly moved to change my own perspective when I come back to my own reality– which is not that imagined scenario, in fact it is much different. This is important and effective, which is why Sinclair is wise enough to invoke the exercise early in his portion of the segment. It would be a cold-hearted person who would honestly learn about the history and the perspective and walk away without feeling a need to change one’s own perspective. And for the vast majority of Canadians, this is most certainly the case when we talk about reconciliation with aboriginal peoples. No one with a proper mind is denying that we are in a terrible state with regard to our relations and that action is need to rectify what are empirical difference in government and social policy. And if you are truly paying attention to things like the report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the current Commission on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and with articulations made by activists, especially those during the Canada 150 Canada Day celebrations, than you ought to walk away with a drive and determination that change needs to happen.

But there is a massive problem with what Sinclair wants to do and it comes up later in his portion. During an exchange with Dummitt, Sinclair admits that what most Canadians think makes up their history is in fact a lie and he adds that his version, the one presumably that he had me imagine earlier, is the right one. The problem with this approach is that it is no different, not one bit, from saying that my understanding of history and the colonization of North American by the British and French empires is actually the truth and his version is a lie. That argument does us no good. Reconciliation is not about taking worn arguments used in bad faith by one side and exchanging them to the other side. We know for a fact that this kind of approach gets us nowhere. Even Sinclair’s father, Senator Murray Sinclair, treaded carefully speaking of the approach of tearing down historical figures in the name of reconciliation by saying that it almost “smacks as revenge.” And it does most certainly almost smack as revenge, because it is revenge. And revenge is not reconciliation.

Professor Dummitt holds his position well during the course of the discussion. As a professor of history, he rightly points out that no doubt his role on the panel is to represent the other side of the debate in this matter. But Dummitt does not pass up worn arguments about British superiority, civilizing the “savages” or undermining the suggestion that Sir John A. was a terrible person. He rightly points out that we do not get to pick our national leaders, they are handed down to us, and there is a remarkable list of good things that Macdonald did as a leader in Canada. The British North America Act of 1867, as Dummitt points out, being chief among them. But these things do not undermine that for an entirely different segment of society, and one that has been forced to have no voice in this historical process, Macdonald’s role in Canada was different. Because history is different for everyone, even people within a particular segment of society, and that is okay. What is not okay is when we start to separate versions of history based on who is right and who is wrong, than it becomes a fight because only the victor gets to write history in their name and claim superiority. And this kind of way, which is how we operated as humans for far too long, is certainly not compatible with a free, just and multi-cultural society. There concepts we agree to as human beings, nothing more and nothing less.

The conclusion that both Paikan and Dummitt seem to dance around is that keeping the names and the statues but adding plaques or erecting new buildings and statues with a focus on aboriginal and other historical figures seems to be the right approach. It is a new perspective that comes about when one begins to understand the issues that aboriginal people in Canada have faced for generations. It allows all segments of society to have their own perspectives and understanding of history and the importance of the figures littered throughout it, without undermining one or the other or claiming that one is true while the other is not. It would be, without question, a very Canadian approach to solving the issue of the names of historical people on public buildings. And it would allow history to remain personal for each individual which is how a free, just and multi-cultural society would approach the issue.

I find Sinclair’s position to be extreme. And since political extremes can be plotted along a spectrum, I would place it along the same axis as a white person who would still today preach British superiority and greatness. These are worn and tired arguments that are rooted in emotion and not logic or relevance. Worse, they are both charged with revenge and hatred for the “other” in each scenario. That solves nothing. I think that Dummitt presented a well thought out and reasonable argument that represents the civil and cautious approach this issue– certainly warranted in this specific case given the poll from Ontario on the subject. It was a great segment without question, but I couldn’t walk away from it without feeling there is still a need for much more discussion.

Hung Parliament in British Columbia

The final results of the 41st general election in British Columbia have been tallied and the parliament is hung. The incumbent BC Liberals hold a total of 43 seats (one seat short of a majority mandate), the BC NDP hold 41 and the BC Green Party holds 3 seats. As of yesterday, BC NDP leader John Horgan and BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver have reached an agreement that would see the BC NDP form a minority government while being propped by the Green Party for the next four years. I feel the need to be absolutely clear here, because the media at times has not, but this is not a government-in-waiting scenario. In fact, Christy Clark is still the Premier of the province, and will remain the Premier until her government falls or she resigns. However, with this new agreement there are several outcomes for this BC parliament. This post will examine those outcomes and the road to each with some commentary on the fallout from each potential scenario.

Clark Resigns as Premier

In this scenario, Premier Clark looks at the seat-count in the legislature and the agreement between the BC NDP and BC Greens and decides that she won’t present a Throne Speech in the opening of parliament and resigns as Premier. She would have to go to the Lieutenant-Governor of BC, the Hon. Judith Guichon, and request that her ministry be dissolved (but not the legislature, thus not leading to an immediate election). In this scenario the L-G would have the option of asking Mr. Horgan to form the government as per the agreement between the BC Greens (being the party and leader that seemingly are able to establish the confidence of the legislature) or she could ask another MLA from the BC Liberal Party to form government (unlikely). Additionally, in this scenario could also decide to dissolve the legislature and trigger an election but this is the most unlikely course as it would be unconventional for her to dissolve the legislature without the advice of the Premier (and a legitimate question of constitutional law would arise as to whether or not she actually has the authority to do it without said advice). It is also important to note that in this scenario, Horgan would still need to prove that he has the confidence of the legislature through the passing of a Throne Speech.

Clark Dissolves the Legislature

In this scenario, Premier Clark still heads to Government House to speak with the L-G but in this case she asks that the entire legislature be dissolved. This would trigger a new election. The downside to this approach is that the L-G could decide that Clark’s request is not in the interest of the province and undermines her responsibility to ensure a democratic government is in place in BC, and could ask the BC NDP to attempt to form government. We are getting into Byng-King territory here and so it rapidly becomes a constitutional minefield. I personally, cannot see Clark going this route for two reasons: (1) having to overcome the whole “you brought us into another election merely a month apart” will be hard to overcome on the campaign trail and (2) there is too much uncertainty in what the L-G could do (there will be a lot of egg all over Clark’s face if she requests an election only to see the L-G ask the BC NDP to form government and go on to have a successful mandate).

Clark Presses Onward

In this scenario, Premier Clark maintains power as the incumbant government under a party with a plurality of seats in the legislature. This would allow her to open parliament and bring down a Speech from the Throne that outlines her plan for the next session of parliament. If she was shewrd (and she is), this speech would include a laundry list of “goodies” for the BC NDP and BC Greens, which would put them in the awkward position of voting down something that has a policy plan in their own favour. It would bring to light the power-grab nature of the opposition’s approach leading up to the opening of parliament. If the chips fall as the seat-count shows in light of the agreement, than the Clark government would fall but she would have some ground to stand on in presenting a plan that accomodated the opposition, and it would leave the onus on them to explain why they voted down the plan.

The Speaker Issue

The last scenario with Clark pressing onward as Premier and presenting a Throne Speech also has another aspect to it; the election of the Speaker. The first act of any parliament is the election of the Speaker. Because the BC NDP and BC Greens would be holding on to power with a slim majority in the legislature between them, chances are they will turn to the BC Liberals to supply the Speaker (standard in a minority government situation for the opposition to attempt to pick off another seat from the government by sending a member to the Chair). However, the individual elected as Speaker in BC must agree to actually take the job. A scenario could very well play out where the legislature is unable to elect a Speaker because no BC Liberal MLA will accept the job. The BC NDP and the BC Greens could offer up one of their own to be the Speaker, but in a tie between the government and the opposition following a vote on the Throne Speech, conventionally the Speaker would be compelled to vote in favour of the government. So it would break up the agreement regardless. If the legislature cannot elect a Speaker and thus cannot offer confidence to a ministry, the L-G would be compelled to dissolve the legislature and a new election would be called.

Final Word

I am probably going to pen an editorial on the topic shortly, but since we are going down the path of scenarios I will mention my thought-process briefly here. There is certainly nothing immediately wrong with the politicking that we are seeing right now in BC between the BC Liberals, BC Greens and BC NDP. This is how parliament works. But there are many other principles at play here. For example, a fundamental principle of parliament is stability and the continuance of the ministry. This is a strong aspect of parliamentary democracy, the fact that it is designed to withhold extreme changes back and forth in how government’s get formed and how the legislature props up or takes down said ministry. This is evident in the incumbency convention which dictates that the incument ministry remains in power until actually defeated in the legislature or upon resignation of the Premier. It is also evident in the convention that the Speaker sides with the government or more specifically the status quo. Nothing changing things quickly and limited dramatic moments are the centerpiece of the parliamentary system. What Andrew Weaver did by playing king-maker with a meagre three seats in the legislature is unparliamentary and unstatesmen-like. It is a power grab and an attempt to subvert the legitimate government in British Columbia. This is not to say that Weaver had to support the government, he didn’t, but he could have at least heard the Throne Speech, could have at least given Clark an honest go at governing in accordance with our conventions and the formation of parliament. Instead we get backroom deals and a king-maker who essentially lost the last election. I am the last person in line to call what is happening right now undemocratic, but I am first to label Weaver what he is: a power-hungry partisan politician.

The Path to Electoral Reform

Canadians from coast to coast to coast will soon be receiving a shiny postcard in the mail from the Government of Canada inviting them to participate in a new online survey on electoral reform that the Liberals are calling MyDemocracy.ca. The purpose of the new survey, according to Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef, is to engage all Canadians on the issue of electoral reform and to gauge the public desire for the kind of change the government should seek regarding electoral reform. During her brief interview on The Agenda with Steve Paiken last week, the minister explained that several Canadians were unable to attend the ERRE committee meetings that were held in every province and territory in Canada and specifically mentioned rural Canadians who did not have a chance to get out to meetings that were more often than not conducted in large urban centres.

On the face of it, there should be no issue with the government in our modern digital age drafting and sending out an online survey to gauge public opinion on any given issue, the problem here comes from the fact that we have already had an all-party parliamentary committee review the issue and engage Canadians and they submitted a report that was well over 300-pages that provided recommendations to the House of Commons on moving forward on this issue. But the report did not detail what the government secretly wants for electoral reform, specifically that there be no national referendum on the issue and that a ranked ballot PR system form the way ahead in Canada (the Liberals support a ranked ballot system because as the traditional centre party, they will almost always capture run-off second and third choice votes). The NDP has been pushing for a RP system for quite some time, as have the Greens and the Conservatives maintain that any changes to our electoral system required a mandate directly from Canadians in the form of a referendum on the question. The report from the ERRE committee was a product of the current lay of the land in the House of Commons, namely that the Conservatives as official opposition were able to secure the position in the report that a referendum is probably the best way forward and the NDP and Greens both were able to secure a mention that PR was probably the best system to use in Canada. It is important to note that this current “lay of the land” in the House of Commons is the result of the democratic will of Canadians expressed in the previous general election that sent the Liberals to the government benches. These conclusions made Minister Monsef quite upset which lead her to outburst in the House of Commons, attacking the committee for not doing the work it was suppose to do. She later had to backtrack and apologize, but the damage was done. It was also one of the first times in recent memory that a majority government has submitted a minority report alongside a committee report in Parliament.

Monsef has stated that the government’s plan all along was to propose this survey to Canadians, which is mind-boggling because they allowed the ERRE committee to continue what was essentially parallel proceedings without once mentioning that they had a plan to do their own thing down the road. But it gets worse, Monsef was clear during her interview with Steve Paiken, that the government believes the positions outlined in the committee report do not reflect the will of Canadians and that the Liberals, somehow, have some greater insight into the electorate that requires going outside of parliament to get to the source of the concerns of Canadians. There are serious democratic implications for the position of her government, namely the richness of claiming that a report compiled by duly elected Members of Parliament somehow does not and cannot reflect the will of Canadians. Does she understand that such a statement is clearly laying bare the fact that this government does not in any way feel beholden to parliament on the issue? What makes electoral reform so different that the government is not required to have support in the House on the file?

I think that an easy way of understanding how the government is approaching the file can be articulated in an analogy of tree shaking. The Liberals stand around the tree of Canadian opinion and shake and shake and when an apple falls that is not to their own particular liking, for example that Canadians support a referendum on electoral reform, they shake and shake some more saying that “well, not everyone was consulted so we have a duty to ask again.” And when another apple that is not to their own liking falls again they put up their hands and say, “we are here to include all Canadians from all walks of life, and this tree is flawed, let’s try again to get their opinion.” And they shake and shake again until an apple of their liking has fallen to their feet all of the while coming up with vague and soft points on why the previous tree shaking was inferior to the next. Never minding the fact that Canadian taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the institution of parliament running as a means of governing the country and expressing their will between election periods. We have a Liberal government that is committed to the people, and thus committed to circumnavigating parliament on this file— at least until the right apple falls.

Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Dec.7, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef answers a question during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Dec.7, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

Furthermore, the Liberals are becoming extremely dismissive with Canadians on the file. When questioned why her government did not include more specific questions on forms of electoral systems that could be implemented in Canada, Monsef explained that Canadians do not understand FPTP, MMP, PR and STV and that the issue was too complex and too technical to engage the majority of Canadians. I feel as if Minister Monsef might be projecting her own misunderstandings and difficulty comprehending our Canadian democracy and various electoral systems on to Canadians. At best it is government handling an electorate with kid gloves, at worse it is condescending and arrogant. Either way it does not make good politics for a government that is supposed to be sunny-ways and supportive. You cannot, with one side of you mouth, say that you value engagement and then criticize the quality of results from said engagement, that is double-speak. However, if Canadians are in fact not informed on this subject, it does start to beg the question of it’s importance to everyday Canadian at the moment. Is it possible that the government has created a mountain out of a mole hill here on electoral reform? Especially when we consider how many Canadians are currently out of work, how many are looking down the barrel of losing they jobs and how many young Canadians are fearful for employment in the future. Is electoral reform really something that the government should be pushing at the moment?

At the end of the day, Justin Trudeau made a promise to Canadians that the 2015 election would be the last under first-past-the-post in Canada, it is arguable whether or not this promise and his election victory earned his government a solid mandate to move forward on the file unilaterally. Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose has handed the government an out in saying that they should drop 2019 as a goal line and should focus on more pressing issues in the country. I am inclined to agree with her, it is time for the Liberal government to drop electoral reform, at least during this current parliament.

Leadership Term Limits in Canada

An interesting question was raised by Samara Canada this morning over twitter:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

…without question something worth taking a look at, especially in light of recent rumours that Conservatives are looking to impose term limits on their leaders. Stephen Harper served as Prime Minister of Canada for nearly nine years after winning three elections as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. However, he is not the longest serving prime minister in Canadian history, that honour rests with William Lyon Mackenzie King who served just over 21 years after winning six elections as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Four prime ministers in Canadian history have served mandates that were not consecutive, meaning they stayed on as leader of their party (or in one case, briefly retired) regardless of a general election loss from an incumbency position. Over half of Canadian prime ministers have served over 5 years in office and of those eleven, only one managed in with only a single mandate (the average number of mandate for that top half was two).

This picture of our head of government in Canada is in stark contrast to the United States which, through constitutional amendment, have limited the terms of their Presidents to two four year terms. The exception would be in time of great needs, for example a time of war, which has only occurred once in the history of that country. The argument articulated in the United States justifying term limits rests on an overall check and balance that limits the control of a powerful personality occupying the White House.

But there are also arguments against terms limits which are entirely valid. For example, it is argued that an eight year cycle of leadership results in short-sighted executive government. There is also an argument to be made about an executive formulated on a mandated short term against a legislature that can have members re-elected for an indefinite period of time, and the power imbalance which is created in such a situation.

We can debate the merits of term limits back and forth, but the fact remains that in Canada the office of the Prime Minister is not an official office within the structure of our executive and legislature. In fact, the title of Prime Minister is not used once in any constitutional document in Canada (same for in the United Kingdom). This is significant and there are important reasons why this apparent oversight is in fact intentional. Primarily, the prime minister of Canada is first and foremost a member of the legislature. This is a fundamental tenant of responsible government in Canada; the practice of executive members of the government being drawn from elected members of Parliament. This is in contrast to the government system in the United States where the head of state is separate from the legislature, not infused as in our British parliamentary model. In the US system, the President is directly accountable to the people, in Canada the prime minister is directly accountable to the House of Commons which is composed of members who are directly accountable to the people (which include the sitting PM directly as a member).

In the United States, the president is chosen in an election which is separate from that of the legislature. Each of the two major political parties have established primary systems designed to determine their respective candidate for the presidential election. It is all done separate from the mechanisms that support the election of the legislature. In Canada, the prime minister is chosen based on which party is able to establish and maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Canadians play no role in choosing the prime minister aside from electing their respective member of Parliament. Our accountability of this system is based on the fact that the person chosen by our head of state (the Queen delegated to the Governor-General) will only come from the elected batch of members in the House of Commons. And the mechanisms of who goes forward from that batch is entirely based on partisan politics. We do not chose, as Canadians, who leads the various parties and thus has a chance of becoming Prime Minister. As members of the respective parties we may have a say, and the mechanism of that voice is determine through internal party constitutions and by-laws. A party could very well select a leader among only elected members of their own caucus (as was done in the United Kingdom for centuries).

In our current political system in Canada, it would be impossible and irresponsible to impose term limits on the prime minister. It would be terribly undemocratic to impose restrictions on who a group of Canadians formed as a political party can elected as their leader and for how long. Political parties themselves are free to impose limits on their leaders, and indeed can indirectly impose limits on the prime minister by having these limits internally. But there simply would be no statutory avenue for the legislature to establish law that would impose a limit on the prime minister without their being a limit within their own party.

Photo credit.

Brexit, Canada and Federalism

The Globe and Mail recently published an editorial by former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson on the topic of the European Union which called on Canada, as the great success-story of federalism, to stand up for Europe. Undoubtably, Robertson is referring directly to the recently ramped-up Vote Leave campaign in the United Kingdom, which seeks a withdrawal of that country from the European Union in general. I have personally been following the Brexit campaign half out of a desire for a good political story (look no further than Europe for great politics) and half because the outcome represents one front (of four) in which the European Union is facing a modern identity, and consequently, existential crisis. And, I can say, with confidence, that I disagree whole heartedly with the sentiment presented by Colin Robertson in his recent editorial. My disagreement is based on one chief complaint; the European Union is not a federalist experiment in Europe. And furthermore, a suggestion that it is as such is a prime reason why the United Kingdom, or any self-respecting democracy for that matter, should not advance membership in the European Union.

Robertson reaches back to the days of Trudeau to paint a very rosy picture of federalism. He is indeed correct when he reminds us of the strength Trudeau placed on federalism by claiming that it was a representation of great compromise between mature political actors. There is no question that within pluralistic states, federalism is a democratic option that presents the strongest case for stability and growth. There are not many politically minded people who would deny that fact. However, the crux lay in the fact that federalism requires an overarching state which can be composed of one or more nations. A state which would require the social contact between the people to exist in the first place. The European Union is not a state in this sense, and never was meant to be as such. I would concede that there are powerful European political forces who would like to see the European Union become a federalist super-state above the nation-states of Europe formerly known as countries. But the fact is that the European Union is first and last an economic union. It was conceived as such, it developed initial regulation as such and since has spawned into something that I absolutely do not slight Robertson for observing as being a federalist state from across the pond but at the end of the day is merely an economic union.

The chief organ of the European Union is the European Council which is composed of members who are at best unelected and at worst have been previously rejected in elections within their own countries. That is a fundamental democratic flaw within the European Union construct that would certainly prevent the country which founded the common law concept of responsible self-government from subscribing. There is absolutely no reason why the United Kingdom would require an unelected and foreign executive and legislative branch above the duly elected government and House of Commons to pass laws for their people. Any country that would allow the apparatus of the state and law to fall into the hands of a small and distant unelected body would be in breach of the social contract established between the people and the state. Federalism requires first and foremost the presence of democratically elected representatives and responsible government. Both of which are not present within the European Union.

The campaign currently underway within the United Kingdom is indeed historical. Not just because of the ramifications that will fall out in the future regardless of the outcome, but even in the very nature of the referendum itself. Robertson is correct in saying that here in Canada we have a unique connection to Europe and the United Kingdom and thus can draw a reason to enter into the fray. It was the United Kingdom that established British North America which eventually became Canada. But there is a lesson there as well, because the relationship that the United Kingdom has today with the European Union can be compared to that of a young Canada and a dying Empire. Rightfully, Canadians sought to shake off the powers and influence of a foreign and unelected power and we eventually grew and developed our own statehood. The United Kingdom has never lost statehood, but the waters have certainly become muddled as a member of the European Union. Just as it was abhorrent for Canadians to be under the direct control of European powers, the people of the United Kingdom have determined that it may be just as abhorrent to be under the direct control of European powers. We do have a common thread here, and we should be rallying behind our democratic big brothers and sisters.

Federalism lastly is about bringing the execution of government closer to the people. The devolution of powers from a federalist state down to the various states and municipalities stands as a system designed to address a fundamental principle of good government, namely that it is administered as closely to the people as possible. The European Union as a concept is the exact opposition of federalism. It seeks to remove the unique nature of each state within Europe and to blend a common economic body of regulations, monetary policy and, more recently, a common body of law. This removes fundamental executive powers of the government and state from the people and brings it closer to Brussels and not the British Isles.

 Image credit.

The Problem with Trump-like Campaigns

I am loath to contribute to the pile-on commentary on the subject of Donald Trump, the US presidential campaign and the state of American politics. I am almost certain that most of you will inevitably read the title, file in under the trove of other similar headlines you have read already today on the same subject, and move on, but I also might have something here worth reading. The focus of this piece will not be Donald Trump himself— I think that the jury is out among most progressive peoples concerning the utterly regressive nature of the politics of Mr. Trump— rather I would like to focus on the nature of regressive campaigns, especially seemingly successful ones as we are currently seeing in the United States. Specifically, I want to talk about why regressive campaigns are a threat to the democratic process.

Donald Trump has put forward many classically regressive policies on his road to the US presidency. He has proposed closing the US border entirely to Muslims around the world. He has advocated the building of a wall to prevent the illegal immigration of Mexican and Latin American people into the US. He has called woman terrible names; projecting the stereotypical image of a man who simply hates women. The problem with what he says however, from the standpoint of democracy, is not the outcomes of what he is proposing, but rather the fact he is able to propose them at all. The problem with what he says is that his inherently regressive policies are nothing new to Western society. Every-single one of them has been dealt with adequately in history and has been disposed of as unsuccessful and regressive. The problem with a campaign the likes of Donald Trump is that it forces the entire electoral machine to react and address issues which have already been put to rest.

Liken the US presidential race to a meeting of a generic club or organization. A major decision is on the table, say the election of candidates to run for the head of said club or organization. A debate is happening over who would best fill the roles. Among the group there is a very loud and very annoying member. This member insists on bringing up decisions of the club which have already been made. We have all been in this sort of situation personally no doubt. The coworker who insists the agenda must move their way. An insistence that they are entitled to be heard and forceful intercessions on how things ought to be done. Eventually the meeting concludes and although decisions have been made, there is no fidelity toward an overall plan. This loud member insisting on rehashing old business has impacted the efficiency of the organization. Meet Donald Trump.

When the organization, or in this case, the entire electorate, are forced to revisit old debates that were settled decades ago, they are forced to devote time and political energy that could otherwise be spent on better things. We can take a case example from the debate on US immigration. There is most certainly a problem with illegal immigration in the US, and the support that Trump gets from Americans who are legitimately worried about illegal immigration should not be completely written off. However, that the country should ban an entire group of people or build a wall is a solution that is not even worth debating. And yet here we are. Rather than have an actual debate on the merits of real solutions (albeit not sexy soundbite-ish ones), the entire electorate is forced to listen, react and eventually suppress regressive, go-nowhere solutions. That is a problem.

The American people deserve the highest fidelity in all debates concerning issues which are impacting the most important country in the world. Given the power and influence of the US, we could say that the entire world deserves candidates in a US election that can present real solutions to these problems. The problem with regressive campaigns in the democratic process is that they force us to have to (re)debate half-baked, already-proven-broken and dangerous solutions when we ought to be debating better solutions.

Author’s Note: This editorial is the first of a new series on this blog. Opinion pieces will be posted periodically on broad political topics that impact Canada (not nessarily always Canadian, as this piece is proof). They will be relevant to current events and my hope is to fill the gaps between my regular parliamentary procedure and law longreads.