Politics in 2014

[SeaKingTacco]

Maybe...maybe not.  There is a school of thought that says it makes it easier for the federal party if your provincial opponent is in power in Ontario.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the CPC made a mistake in attacking the Chief Justice of the SCC, even if it appeals to part of the base, I think it was an even bigger mistake to bad mouth former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, that appeals to no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers, but I think the real target, institutional Ottawa as exemplified by Mark Mayrand and Elections Canada, is about right. Thus, kudos to former CPC MP Dean Del Mastro for doing what the PMO should have done: calling for a formal probe of Mayrand and Elections Canada by the RCMP.

My opinion is that we have too many "arms length" agencies and boards ~ some, including the Auditor General are absolutely necessary, but others, including Elections Canada, can and should be part of a normal bureaucratic system ~ and I have long felt (cannot prove) that some of them, and Elections Canada is near the top of the list, are dumping grounds for less than adequate bureaucrats and political favourites.

My problem with "arms length" agencies is that they must be self governing, quite free from political interference or even from the appearance of political interference. Good examples are: the Bank of Canada (Prime Minister Deifenbaker and Governor Coyne set an example (a firm rule, now) for Canada and, indeed, the whole world back circa 1960), the courts, the Auditor General and the Librarian of Parliament. Most of government is, broadly, free from political interference - that's why Deputy Ministers and ADMs exist: to filter the political direction so that the working bureaucracy (directors generals and below, generally speaking) can get on with their jobs without too much concern about what the cabinet wants. I don't think Elections Canada needs or deserves the kind of independence that the Bank of Canada, for example, needs (and deserves). I think Elections Canada can be more like, say, the RCMP or the Justice Department: implementing the law of the land on a fair and unbiased basis.

An arms length agency (the bank of Canada and the Office of the Auditor General, for example) can have, often should have, biases. The Bank, for example, has a formal, stated bias towards controlling inflation. The Governor can, has and will again, position himself, publicly, against a government that is fueling inflation; that's as it should be. The AG checks for "value for money," which is a matter of judgment .. a bias in other words. Elections Canada, on the other hand, just needs to fully and fairly implement and enforce existing laws and regulations, just like Revenue Canada does.

I think Elections Canada is biased in an unnecessary way; I think that its Act needs revisions but Marc Mayrand, like Jean Pierre Kingsly before him, doesn't have the power of a Deputy Minister to work, even to work against his minister, through the PCO to get the laws changed. If the head of EC  was a DM, if EC was "just" a government department, like Justice or Revenue or Tranport, I'm sure the DM would have revised the laws years ago.

 

[jpjohnsn]

I think the CPC made a mistake in attacking the Chief Justice of the SCC, even if it appeals to part of the base, I think it was an even bigger mistake to bad mouth former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, that appeals to no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers, but I think the real target, institutional Ottawa as exemplified by Mark Mayrand and Elections Canada, is about right. Thus, kudos to former CPC MP Dean Del Mastro for doing what the PMO should have done: calling for a formal probe of Mayrand and Elections Canada by the RCMP.

While Mr Del Mastro has a legitimate concern, the cynic in me can't help but think that some of the rhetoric like "Chief Electoral Officer is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his staff" is a backdoor way to start an undercutting of the CEO in a way that's becoming SOP the CPC uses against anyone who they can't bring to heel.  Especially when this sort of statement pointed at a minister in the wake of a scandal is often met with an assertion that the they can't be held responsible - and shouldn't fall on their sword - for the actions of the underlings (I'm looking at you Nigel Wright).

~ and I have long felt (cannot prove)....

Unfortunately, most modern political discourse is based on this premise.

My problem with "arms length" agencies is that they must be self governing, quite free from political interference or even from the appearance of political interference. Good examples are: the Bank of Canada (Prime Minister Deifenbaker and Governor Coyne set an example (a firm rule, now) for Canada and, indeed, the whole world back circa 1960), the courts, the Auditor General and the Librarian of Parliament. Most of government is, broadly, free from political interference - that's why Deputy Ministers and ADMs exist: to filter the political direction so that the working bureaucracy (directors generals and below, generally speaking) can get on with their jobs without too much concern about what the cabinet wants. I don't think Elections Canada needs or deserves the kind of independence that the Bank of Canada, for example, needs (and deserves). I think Elections Canada can be more like, say, the RCMP or the Justice Department: implementing the law of the land on a fair and unbiased basis.

An arms length agency (the bank of Canada and the Office of the Auditor General, for example) can have, often should have, biases. The Bank, for example, has a formal, stated bias towards controlling inflation. The Governor can, has and will again, position himself, publicly, against a government that is fueling inflation; that's as it should be. The AG checks for "value for money," which is a matter of judgment .. a bias in other words. Elections Canada, on the other hand, just needs to fully and fairly implement and enforce existing laws and regulations, just like Revenue Canada does.

I think Elections Canada is biased in an unnecessary way; I think that its Act needs revisions but Marc Mayrand, like Jean Pierre Kingsly before him, doesn't have the power of a Deputy Minister to work, even to work against his minister, through the PCO to get the laws changed. If the head of EC  was a DM, if EC was "just" a government department, like Justice or Revenue or Tranport, I'm sure the DM would have revised the laws years ago.

To be honest, I want it to be as difficult as possible to get election laws and regulations changed.  A majority government has a free hand to pretty much do anything they want within the bounds of the constitution and I am concerned that the temptation is far too strong to put a thumb on the scale to tip things in favour of a sitting government.  Personally, I'd like to see a rule that says that changes to the elections act don't take effect until after the next election.  It might force the government to resist the temptation if the possibility exists that a law meant to put them at an advantage might turn around and bite them in the butt if they end up losing the election.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think we already have constitutional checks and balances in place that makes it hard for governments to change laws, including election laws. We have 450+ years of constitutional convention, which is every bit as powerful as written law, to separate the policy functions of elected politicians in cabinet (the 'council') from the implementation and/or regulatory actions of the civil servants. Our system is much, much less formal than is the American one but it is every bit as effective, maybe more so.

Just consider, if you will, what the Chief Electoral Officers, Jean Pierre Kingsley and, now, Marc Mayrand, have been seeking for the past decade: electoral law reform. Now look at what they got: Pierre Poilievre's Fair Elections Act. I am prepared to guarantee that if the DM of, say, Revenue Canada wanted similarly significant changes to the tax laws they would not have waited for ten years or more and the outcome would have been far closer to what they wanted. Deputies, but not heads of independent agencies, are the government, just as much as ministers. They, as a collective have one power ministers lack: they control, through the Clerk of the Privy Council, the machinery of government with which even the prime minister is reluctant to interfere. The Clerk brings all laws and policies together into a cohesive programme, even the Fair Elections Act. My very strong suspicion is that PCO had more input into the recent amendments to that Act than did the Senate, the Conservative Party, the media, academe or, especially, Marc Mayrand. The Fair Elections Act now, roughly, balances laws and customs with Conservative desires. Further changes may be made by the (independent) courts.

But the big changes Messers Kingsley and Mayrand say they need to be effective are not part of the Fair Elections Act. Why not? Because, as an outsider, the head of an independent agency, M. Mayrand, very properly, has no seat at the machinery of government table.

I have seen, very close up, examples of how the system is 'managed' to give both politicians, the cabinet, and officials a balanced programme. (The issues was a "market based approach to spectrum management," spectrum auctions. Several government departments, including DND, had major interests in this but the lead was Industry Canada. I was in the room, sitting behind the DM of DND, while presentations were made and questions, including ones I had written for the DND DM, were asked, answered, debated, etc. The Clerk and another of the Secretaries kept shaving the rough edges off the Industry Canada proposal while, still, preserving its essence. Eventually it was lunch time and the Clerk invited two ministers (of the three or four in attendance) and two or three DMs (not ours) to lunch with him. Our DM told me to come back after lunch, she would not (we had a female DM at the time who later went back to Foreign Affairs) she explained because she was confident that out points had been taken on board. We reassembled (I was smart enough to retain my seat behind the DND DM's chair, not directly at the table, and the Clerk then summarized what had been decided. Almost everyone went away pretty happy. It was a good idea but the initial plan had needed change before it could ever go near cabinet. The balance was achieved in the PCO.) My conclusion is: Our system works ... for those who work within it. It doesn't work for outsiders, including Elections Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson is right, I think, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal, in his analysis of why Prime Minister Harper continues to brand himself as an "outsider" attacking "enemies" in/around official Ottawa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harpers-party-is-defined-by-its-enemies-by-choice/article18636097/#dashboard/follows/

Harper’s party is defined by its enemies. He likes it that way

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 14 2014

By your friends ye shall be known, and by your enemies you will define yourself. That seems to be a plausible way of explaining how Prime Minister Stephen Harper governs and plays politics.

By identifying enemies or hostile institutions, or by picking fights with individuals or institutions, Mr. Harper can better galvanize his supporters. The idea of appealing to as many people as possible in the search for maximizing votes is not how he governs. Instead, he looks to his party’s core vote, tries to energize it as often as possible, then finds slices of the electorate to add to the core.

In energizing the core, it helps to have “enemies” – institutions, groups, causes or issues that rile up the base. Properly motivated, the party’s core supporters will give money to smite the party’s foes and turn out to vote in large numbers.

The best emotion for firing up the core, or base, is anger. For there to be anger, there have to be threats; for there to be threats, there has to be a sense of interests or values put at risk by “others.”

These “others” are invariably depicted as having their own interests to defend – separate from the interests of the “people” or the “hard-working taxpayers,” as they may be called. The “others” have power – economic, legal, constitutional, political – that only the Conservative Party can thwart in the interests of the voiceless. And if the “others” have power, they must be “elites,” who, by definition, are divorced from and antagonistic to “ordinary” people.

This kind of political differentiation is new to Canada. Of course, there has always been political competition among parties. And of course, parties have heaped abuse on their adversaries, exaggerating their faults.

In the past, this competition has tended to be between or among parties – a political game, if you like. But the Conservatives have now focused their sights on other institutions outside of politics to help with their strategy of differentiation.

The media “elite” has always been in their sights. So, in a sense, have elements of the big business community (as Canada’s telecommunications companies can attest). Bureaucratic institutions are set up for attack: the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Chief Electoral Officer, the head of the nuclear safety agency or Via Rail.

Recently, with the impugning of the integrity of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the courts, including the Supreme Court, can become an institution to be criticized publicly and used if necessary to galvanize part of the base.

This differentiation strategy – of defining yourself by your enemies – is something deeply rooted in contemporary U.S. politics, where, with low overall voter turnout, galvanizing core supporters is critical to winning elections. You don’t win elections there by convincing people to switch sides, as much as you do by turning out the maximum number of your party’s core supporters. You accomplish this by targeting the character of candidates from the other party, largely through television advertising, portrayal of fearful consequences and stoking anger. All these tactics are now employed by the Conservatives as part of what they call the “permanent campaign.”

Some of these tactics have been part of Canadian politics for a long time, but at least three developments appear to have turned them into a more permanent fixture.

The first development is the reconfiguration of party competition. There used to be two large parties (the Liberals and Conservatives) and one small one (the New Democrats). The big parties would take perhaps 85 per cent of the vote between them, so the winning party needed 43 or 45 per cent to win a majority. They had to broaden their tents to win. But today, with the NDP much stronger and the Greens and Bloc Québécois in play, a party needs 38 or 40 per cent to win a majority. This reduces the imperative of vote maximization.

The second development is the loss of public subsidies for parties. Since they must rely only on private donations, their pitch has to be narrower than ever, for they depend entirely on the core for financial support.

The third development is polarization, which is largely if not entirely due to the ideology, structure and strategy of Mr. Harper’s Conservatives – central to which is wishing to be defined by enemies – in contrast to the older, more pragmatic Progressive Conservative Party.

I would remind readers that the last time a Canadian party won a general election with more than 50% of the popular vote was in 1984, when Brian Mulroney led his Progressive Conservatives to power with the most seats in Canadian history based on winning 50.03% of the popular vote (the 2nd place Liberals got 44% of the popular vote and the NDP earned 19%). Real majorities, the kind proportional representation advocates want, were always rare in Canada. Pierre Trudeau, for example, never won an absolute majority - at best he and his Liberals got 43.15% of the popular vote in 1974. Before that the last real majority was earned by John Deifenbaker (another Conservative) with 53% of the vote in 1958. So, in over a half century we have elected government with real majority support only twice.

Prime Minister Harper's last (only) majority was won (in 2011) with only 39.62% of the popular vote, and the last Liberal majority was won in 2000, by Jean Chrétien, with 40.85% of the popular vote.

And there is, also, this, also from Greg Perry in the Ottawa Citizen:

Source: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html

 

[Brad Sallows]

>This kind of political differentiation is new to Canada.

Truly?

"These “capitalists” are invariably depicted as having their own interests to defend – separate from the interests of the “people” or the “proletariat,” as they may be called. The “capitalists” have power – economic, legal, constitutional, political – that only the Communist/Marxist/Socialist Party can thwart in the interests of the voiceless. And if the “capitalists” have power, they must be “elites,” who, by definition, are divorced from and antagonistic to “ordinary” people."

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am guessing (maybe just hoping?) that the PMO is trying to dampen down this dispute rather than, as the Globe and Mail suggests, "snubbing" the Canadian Bar Association.

The article, citing an expert, suggests that "the Chief Justice made a minor error by trying to contact the Prime Minister after she was consulted by the committee responsible for selecting the next Supreme Court justice," and, of course, the PMO tried to exploit that - most likely for narrow, temporary, partisan, political advantage: a lot of conservative Conservatives don't much like judges, especially not top court judges who thwart some of their attacks on our social system. Maybe (I hope) the PMO understands that it has done all the damage it can, and it is time to move on.

Has Prime Minister Harper found a creative way out of this mess? Is it one that provides a win-win situation for him and for Qubec's new premier, too? Campbell Clark, writing in the Globe and Mail, thinks so in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/quebecs-input-on-supreme-court-appointments-a-win-win-for-harper-and-couillard/article18880408/#dashboard/follows/

Quebec’s input on Supreme Court appointments a win-win for Harper and Couillard

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 28 2014

It’s rare that a prime minister so neatly paints himself into a corner with something as politically straightforward as a Supreme Court appointment.

Now, Stephen Harper is counting on Quebec’s new premier, Philippe Couillard, to help get him out. It’s a marriage of convenience. Mr. Couillard gets something, too.

Mr. Harper is running out of time, and he needs a new process for picking a Supreme Court justice from Quebec.

So Mr. Harper’s leaving it to Mr. Couillard to draw up the shortlist. Then he can say he got the candidates through consultation. And Mr. Couillard, in turn can claim he obtained satisfaction of a long-standing Quebec demand.

Two months have passed since the Supreme Court ruled his previous choice, Marc Nadon, ineligible because he hailed from the Federal Court of Appeal, rather than one of Quebec’s own higher courts. The prime minister is under pressure to fill a nine-month-old vacancy, pronto.

But he’s got a used shortlist with only one name on it. And the process usually used to create such a list, with a multi-party committee of MPs, is time-consuming and so tainted by the way Mr. Nadon’s appointment was handled that the opposition might be unwilling to take part.

Enter Mr. Couillard, who can step in to help Mr. Harper – and take credit for achieving a long-standing goal of Quebec nationalists, to boot.

Both he and Mr. Harper should count themselves lucky at the way opportunity knocked.

Giving the Quebec government a say in the appointment of Supreme Court justices is one of the so-called “traditional demands” that political parties of all stripes in Quebec’s National Assembly have long made for more powers.

The failed Meech Lake Accord would have guaranteed just that – that Quebec’s premier draw up a shortlist when Quebec’s three places on the court are filled, from which the Prime Minister would have to choose.

So now the freshly-elected federalist premier can say he’s quickly managed to obtain a long-sought role in selecting a Supreme Court justice. And when Quebec confirms the justice chosen came from their list, Mr. Harper can show his government didn’t just make up a list of its favourites.

That’s crucial now, since it’s clear that the government didn’t bind itself the suggestions of Quebec’s government and legal community the last time, when Mr. Harper nominated Mr. Nadon. Instead, they put forward a list packed with their own favourites, from which a committee of MPs had to make a shorftlist.

For the moment, however, it’s a marriage of convenience.

Mr. Harper didn’t let the Parti Quebecois government of Pauline Marois have the same role when he selected Mr. Nadon. It’s not clear if he’ll make it a precedent to be followed when he picks another Supreme Court justice from Quebec. But the test will come soon enough, since Justice Louis LeBel has said he will retire in November.

And of course it still doesn’t really provide the checks that vetting by a multi-party committee of MPs is supposed to provide – to ensure the candidates are deemed acceptable across party lines. It replaces it with closed-door dealings between Quebec City and Ottawa which could, if repeated, simply become part of the backroom trade-offs between premiers and PMs.

That’s far from the kind of open judicial selection process Mr. Harper and his party favoured in opposition. But Mr. Harper should consider it a lucky escape.

Usually, Supreme Court appointments in Canada are simple enough. They’re not like the politically-charged debates over justices the United States. They rarely cause controversy.

But Mr. Harper packed the Nadon nomination process with so much scheming he bumped into himself coming around a corner. He named a little-known semi-retired judge after his government ignored consultations and rigged the list of initial candidates.

That shows that this time he had developed a keen, driving desire to appoint Supreme Court justices to his liking – more conservative, more deferential to government than the obvious choices. It also indicates he didn’t want to make that choice openly, by boldly claiming the prime ministerial prerogative to name a judge of his choosing; instead he tried to force it through a loaded consultation and multi-party vetting process.

Now that process is in tatters. Mr. Harper needed someone to help find a new one, soon. Lucky for him Mr. Couillard came along at just the right time.

For a whole host of reasons, not all of them partisan, political ones (although I am a Conservative partisan), I hope this works for both the government of the day and for the Court, too.

 

[George Wallace]

She has done it again.  Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant has once again proven to be an embarrassment to the Canadian Government and the electorate who have elected her.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://renfrewtoday.ca/default.asp?pid=1133610&wireid=01035_ARP_GallantPapers1web_080904

MP GALLANT LEAVES NATO DOCUMENTS BEHIND IN AIRPORT

RENFREW TODAY
6/4/2014 8:12:57 AM

Local Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant finds herself fending off criticism once again, this time for leaving NATO documents in the Ottawa air terminal on her way to a meeting in Lithuania. The 200 page briefing paper was found about three hours later by former Liberal cabinet minister Sheila Copps who was on her way to Prince Edward Island. She apparently recognized what the document was, and turned it back over to the government. Gallant executive assistant Malcolm Montgomery says there was no classified information in the papers and explains what happened.

Local Liberal spokesperson Ryan Lunney says he agrees everyone makes mistakes and accepts there were no secrets in the papers, but it concerns him how many mistakes Gallant has made.

The papers including briefings on bribery in Afganistan and the future role of the Taliban in that country and the spread of ballistic defence missile systems to other countries. 

 

[CougarKing]

Bad news for Joe Fontana and the Liberal brand:

CBC via MSN news

Updated: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:15:00 GMT | By CBC News, cbc.ca
Joe Fontana, mayor of London, Ont., found guilty of fraud

ondon, Ont., Mayor Joe Fontana has been found guilty on three charges of forgery, fraud and breach of trust related to $1,700 of spending in government money from the time he was a Liberal member of Parliament nearly a decade ago.

The Ontario Superior Court decision Friday comes after Fontana was accused of spending $1,700 on a reception for his son's wedding at London's Marconi Club, then getting the money reimbursed as an MP.

He had pleaded not guilty, saying the funds were used for a reception for then Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale.

(...EDITED)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Speaking of municipal politicians, do we have another one in the making?

New poll fans rumours of Veterans Affairs Minister leaving federal politics

Polling in the Toronto suburb of Vaughan continues to fuel suspicions that Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino may soon be leaving federal politics -- and seeking a potential mayoral run ....

Strange robocalls fuel rumours of Fantino's forthcoming resignation

Amid calls for his resignation, curious robocalls in Vaughan fuel rumours that Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino may soon be leaving the Harper government ....

 

[Crispy Bacon]

Speaking of municipal politicians, do we have another one in the making?

These have been rumours since at least 2009. I'd also prefer to read local news sources rather than a Vancouver paper about a (supposed) Toronto-area mayoral candidate.

 

[dapaterson]

In the "Future Supreme Court Nominee" department, it seems that the federal government has appointed a judge from the Federal Court of Appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal.  The Globe and Mail claims that Judge Robert Mainville was on the short list that saw Judge Nadon named to the Supreme Court (and then rejected by the Court).  By naming him to the Quebec bench now, he'll be eligible for appointment once Justice Lebel of the Supreme Court retires in December.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/pm-moves-judge-from-federal-court-to-quebec-court/article19171876/

 

[The Bread Guy]

These have been rumours since at least 2009. I'd also prefer to read local news sources rather than a Vancouver paper about a (supposed) Toronto-area mayoral candidate.

To be fair, the guy who wrote the story is based in Ottawa, so it is a local story to him. 

It IS interesting that polling appears to have been carried out after Fantino's latest denial he's interested in the mayor's job.  Isn't that the first stage of wanting a political job:  denial of interest?

 

[jollyjacktar]

God, I hope it's got legs.  Sorry, Toronto, but I'd rather see him become your problem than remain where he is everyone's problem.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

God, I hope it's got legs.  Sorry, Toronto, but I'd rather see him become your problem than remain where he is everyone's problem.

As of last Thursday, I have no pity for Toronto at all. In fact I hope the Ford nation mobilizes and gets old Rob elected again. 

 

[dapaterson]

As of last Thursday, I have no pity for Toronto at all. In fact I hope the Ford nation mobilizes and gets old Rob elected again. 

I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack.

 

[dimsum]

I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack entertainment for everyone else.

 

[a_majoor]

I'd rather see them elect John Tory.  Similar politics, less weed and crack entertainment for everyone else.

But we are living in an age of bread and circuses, so you should not discount the power of entertainment for the masses.....

 

[a_majoor]

Joe Fontana has resigned now that he has been convicted. For interested readers in the London, ON area, the first challenger pout the gate is a gentlemen named Paul Cheng: http://paulchengformayor.com

It will be interesting to see the rest of the slate of challengers

 

[Remius]

When is he being sentenced?