Trudeau Government: Omnibus Bills
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “TrudeauMeter.” We are reminded Trudeaumeter On the use of Omnibus Bills: Parliament: “Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using inappropriate omnibus bills to reduce…
An excellent tool to keep track of whether or not the Trudeau Government is fulfilling the promises made in its election platform is the non-partisan collaborative citizen initiative website called the “TrudeauMeter.” We are reminded
Trudeaumeter On the use of Omnibus Bills: Parliament:
“Change the House of Commons Standing Orders to end practice of using inappropriate omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures.”
As it happens (although the Trudeaumeter hasn’t caught up as of this writing. But far from keeping this promise, the Trudeau Government has chosen to use an inappropriate omnibus bill to change the House of Commons Standing Orders to reduce what little power opposition parties in phony majority governments (such as Mr. Trudeau’s Government which he likes so much he’s disavowed his clear electoral reform promise to replace our unfair winner-take-all voting system).
“We’re filibustering to protect the right to filibuster. Who would have thought it would be this government, under this prime minister” to try to use its majority to make changes to the Standing Orders without all-party backing, he said. “It’s not your House… we have rights, too.”
NDP MP David Christopherson quoted in Hill Times: Opposition MPs declare ‘war’ over feds’ efforts to ram through sweeping changes to House rules, ‘we’re filibustering to protect the right to filibuster’
Follow intrepid reporter @Kady O’Mally’s Twitter Stream:
You can read her whole twitter stream on this own article complete article behind the iPolitics paywall by logging in if you are a memnber or by signing up for a free trial if you are not.
Rather than making Parliament more transparent, this is yet another attempt to make it more efficient for a party with a phony majority to undemocratically impose its will on our nation. Promising one thing and not doing it is bad enough, doing the opposite of what you’ve promised is unacceptable. In a democracy, that is.
Although CPAC is not covering this, @Kady is LiveTweeting, so Canadians can follow along and watch this unfold…
PARLIAMENT HILL—Opposition MPs spent nearly 15 hours in the basement of Centre Block on Tuesday, holed-up in a committee meeting room filibustering the Liberal government’s attempt to expedite a study on possible sweeping changes to how the House of Commons rules, and the saga is set to continue on Wednesday too.
After going through much of the day and well-into the night with just a handful of suspensions for votes and a pizza dinner, the Conservative and NDP members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee will be back at it on Wednesday following their caucus meetings—a deal that was agreed to at about 3 a.m., according to Conservative MP Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, Alta.) who is not a regular committee member, but is one of the Conservative caucus members who spent the night on the Hill to lend support to caucus colleagues.
NDP MP David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, Ont.), a member of the House Affairs Committee, is calling it “war,” and told the committee on Tuesday evening that he would be addressing caucus on Wednesday with the plan of having everyone of his New Democrat colleagues “on the ceiling” and “ready to bleed” to defend the House rules from the Liberal majority interference.
[…]
Conservative MP Scott Reid called it a “despicable attempt” by the government to ram through sweeping changes to how the House of Commons operates, even including when it sits. Mr. Reid (Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, Ont.) made the comment about two hours into the filibuster. He said the way the government is going about forcing the vote to change the Standing Orders, or House rules, is a “contemptible abuse” of the system.
Throughout the evening, members of the opposition took turns holding the floor, including Mr. Christopherson, who went over previous parliamentary studies of the Standing Orders and the much longer timelines they had to complete them, compared to the time frame proposed by this motion. He also took every opportunity to highlight previous broken promises or contradictions of the Liberal government’s word on things like electoral reform and the independence of committees.
“We’re filibustering to protect the right to filibuster,” Mr. Christopherson said. “Who would have thought it would be this government, under this prime minister” to try to use its majority to make changes to the Standing Orders without all-party backing, he said. “It’s not your House… we have rights, too.”
The Trudeau Government is doing this via Omnibus Bill, breaking yet another election promise,
They call it “the Red Chamber” but it sure seems like Canadians have been singing the Senate Blues for most of my life.
In the dying days of the Harper Government, the misadventures of Senator Mike Duffy proved to be a major embarrassment for the Canadian Government. By the time the dust settled, Duffy had resigned from the Conservative Caucus, the criminal charges against him were dropped, and Duffy, now an un-aligned independent, resumed his seat as Senator for PEI (even though he still doesn’t actually seem to live there). Then Prime Minister Stephen Harper was certainly mixed up in Mr. Duffy’s case, but was never properly investigated or held to account.
But Duffy’s case was just the tip of the iceberg. The Auditor General report identified thirty (THIRTY!) past and present Canadian senators or former senators as having “made inappropriate or ineligible expense claims.” In addition to being implicated in the expense scandal, 39 year old Senator Patrick Brazeau had a host of still unresolved other problems. About a year ago Press Progress shared an Angus Reid Opinion Poll that suggested only 6% of Canadians were happy with the Senate as is.
Canada’s new Trudeau Government had ostentatiously promised, ahem, real change.
And yet, once again, there are Senators making news in ways that reflect very poorly on Canada’s Upper House.
Interim Conservative Party Leader Rona Ambrose has called for the resignation of Stephen Harper appointee Senator Don Meredith after Senate Ethics Officer Lyse Ricard’s investigation exposed his inappropriate sexual relationship with a teen.
Senator Meredith has made it abundantly clear he has no intention of going quietly, even though the other Senators are determined to expel Don Meredith after his relationship with teenage girl.
It has become increasingly clear that a code of conduct that hopes miscreants will quietly resign in the face of exposure is simply not sufficient. Real change requires a framework that allows for summary suspensions of Senators (and MPs) accused of impropriety and/or lawbreaking, removing them from office if such charges proven. Our Westminster System of government was designed for a feudal society that allowed the nobility to get away with a great deal. But in a society that aspires to citizen equality there is no place for such abuses of power.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, now we learn Senator Lynn Beyak, member of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has spoken up in defence of the “abundance of good” in Residential Schools.
I speak partly for the record, but mostly in memory of the kindly and well-intentioned men and women and their descendants — perhaps some of us here in this chamber — whose remarkable works, good deeds and historical tales in the residential schools go unacknowledged for the most part and are overshadowed by negative reports. Obviously, the negative issues must be addressed, but it is unfortunate that they are sometimes magnified and considered more newsworthy than the abundance of good.
As might be expected, Senator Beyak’s attitude has not gone over well. CBC reports Senator’s residential school comment ‘hurts the integrity of the Canadian system,’ survivor says. The Liberal Indigenous Caucus issued a statement asking Senator Beyak to “resign from the Senate as her views are inconsistent with the spirit of reconciliation that is required in both chambers of Parliament.” Committee Chair Senator Lillian Eva Dyck agrees Senator Bayek’s should resign after her ill-informed and insensitive comments.
Even the United Church had some strong words for the Hon. Ms. Beyak:
“Indigenous peoples and organizations have responded to Senator Beyak’s comments. As one of the parties responsible for the operation of residential schools, The United Church of Canada also feels a responsibility to respond.
“Senator Beyak spoke of the “good intentions” behind the residential schools system. Thirty years ago, The United Church of Canada apologized to First Nations Peoples for our role in colonization and the destruction of their cultures and spiritualties. In the process of preparing, delivering, and attempting to live out that Apology, we have learned that “good intentions” are never enough, and that to offer such words in explanation is damaging and hurtful.
“The United Church of Canada participated in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission not just as part of a legal agreement but also as part of a moral and ethical commitment to understand the impact of our role in the residential schools system, to atone for it, and to participate in healing and building of a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.”
— Moderator: Senator Beyak’s Comments on Residential Schools
Not everyone is right for every job, and it’s pretty clear to everyone but Senator Beyak that she is not a good fit for the Senate of Canada. Again, there doesn’t seem to be any provision to remove her in spite of the growing outcry. The longer this goes on, the worse the Senate, and, indeed the Government of Canada looks.
Canadians need a government capable of governing itself with decorum and accountability.
As often happens in Canada’s unrepresentative democracy, there is a Petition:
The second pie in:
Bardish Chagger: An Electoral System Based on the Principle of Fairness
helps make sense of the first by showing how a First Past The Post minority of votes gifts the winner a majority of power.
So my standalone graphic became a series
When I was putting together the video
Bardish Chagger: An Electoral System Based on the Principle of Fairness
I thought it would be nice to illustrate her comments about what was wrong with the current system with a pie chart.
Then it seemed a good idea to make the pie into a standalone graphic. TaDa!
50% population, 25% representation: Why the parliamentary gender gap persists:
The Parliamentary gender gap persists because we don’t have Proportional Representation.
In 2015 twelve members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet (approximately 30%) were women.
The Harper Government: 77 female MPs ~ 25%.
The Trudeau Government: 88 female MPs ~ 26%.
More women in Cabinet is undoubtedly better for women than under-representation. Government Ministers are more influential than back bench MPs, which is why these figures are tracked by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.
But we need to remember the reason Prime Minister Trudeau’s gender balanced cabinet was newsworthy — it did not happen naturally. Although Canadian women make up about half the population, electing 25% women to the House of Commons was a record when Mr. Harper’s government managed it, just as electing 26% was a record for Mr. Trudeau’s government.
Whoop de doo.
That’s not exactly fair representation, but that is what you get with a First Past The Post electoral system.
That’s why Canada is way down the list “at 63rd internationally when it comes to women’s political representation.”
While Mr. Trudeau is to be commended for attempting to redress that wrong, implementing a gender quota is an artificial fix. One side effect is that such a policy severely limits the pool of cabinet choices when half the cabinet must be chosen from a quarter of the MPs. Whether true or not, whenever a quota system is used, there are always mutterings asking if those who are chosen may not in fact be qualified for the job.
Cabinet Ministers are chosen entirely at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Any MP can be quickly scooped up for a Cabinet position, and just as easily turfed out again, all at the discretion of one man: the Prime Minister.
In Mr. Trudeau’s Cabinet, however, the male members are being chosen from three quarters of the MPs, so there will be no doubt they are worthy of the power and authority they’ve been given. But female members are being chosen from a mere quarter of the MPs. This certainly can be easily used to undermine the public perception of the value of female Cabinet Ministers. The optics of this combined with a quota certainly undermines the idea that Ministers are chosen purely on merit.
The very existence of this quota is entirely at the Prime Minister’s discretion. Which means it us not a permanent fix: it can be discarded at any time. This Prime Minister could easily change his mind about gender parity (just as he did with his Electoral Reform promise). Or the next Prime Minister may as easily choose to exclude female MPs from his Cabinet altogether. Like any policy developed under First Past The Post, this could become a pendulum issue swinging back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.
Women chosen to serve as Ministers are well aware they owe the PM a debt of gratitude for bestowing this honour on them. When the man with the power tells the Minister of Democratic Institutions that Proportional Representation is not an option, what can she do but go along. Because female Cabinet Ministers surely know the prize can be peremptorily withdrawn at his discretion for any reason. Or none. Such context will most certainly guarantee that some (if not all) women Ministers will be very careful to do as they are told. Will they fight for what they know is right or will they toe the party line to protect their status and position?
On the other hand, if Canada elected women in more proportional numbers in a more natural way, such a quota would hardly be necessary. There would be a reasonably large pool of women MPs from which Ministers can be chosen on merit. If they share a level playing field, women and men could assert themselves with confidence (and hopefully do what’s right). Wouldn’t that be something!
It also seems the claims that Prime Minister Trudeau’s Cabinet is “the country’s most diverse” need also be taken with a grain of salt.
AS Rachel Décoste points out, “The previous Harper cabinet included women, Aboriginals, South Asians, East Asians, Quebecers and a person with a disability. If that’s not diversity, I don’t know what is.” Ms. Décoste goes on to explain:
“For visible minorities, PM Trudeau’s inaugural cabinet is decidedly less diverse than PM Harper’s. The absence of East Asians (Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) is jarring.
“The presence of black Canadians, the third largest racial demographic, is also deficient. Despite a record four Afro-Canadian MPs elected from a voter base blindly loyal to the Liberals, PM Trudeau shut them out of cabinet.
“Harper did not name any African-Canadians to cabinet. He had no black MPs to choose from. Despite a record four Afro-Canadian MPs elected, Trudeau shut them out of cabinet.”
Instead of relying on the temporary fix of patchwork quotas, the Canadian Government’s continuing failure to reflect the diversity of Canadians in the House of Commons could be addressed in a more stable and balanced manner through adoption of some form of Proportional Representation. As demonstrated in my graph, as a rule it is the countries using Proportional Representation that outperform Canada in both gender parity and overall citizen representation.
Equal Voice thinks it could take the Canadian Government 90 years to achieve gender parity naturally if we continue on as we are. Frankly, if we keep First Past The Post I think that’s wildly optimistic. Any way you slice it, this is simply unacceptable in a representative democracy.
It’s great that the suffragettes fought for our right to vote; but it’s too bad they didn’t win effective votes for Canadian women. On this International Women’s Day, it is important for all Canadian women to understand: if the Canadian Government is serious about gender parity it must begin with Proportional Representation.
This is the thirty-first article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
• Proportional Representation for Canadaand don’t forget to check out the PR4Canada Resources page!
When we have Proportional Representation I’ll have time for photos like this..
Raj discussed his view of the different Proportional Representation systems possible, as well as clarifying the Liberal Party promise to have a new system chosen within 18 months of forming government. Raj told the audience his personal choice for Proportional Representation was Stephane Dion’s P3 system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLB5b…
Raj Saini was elected MP for Kitchener Centre. And enough Canadians believed Liberal promises that the party didn’t just form government, it replaced the Conservative Government’s phony majority with its own phony majority based on only 39% of the vote. And yet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed his commitment to replacing our unfair First Past The Post system with one that will “make every vote count” in the throne speech.
The Electoral Reform process unfolded much as Raj said it would in this video. Although four of the five Waterloo Region Conservative MPs were replaced by four brand new Liberal MPs, as it happened none of them managed to host a town hall in which they could speak to Canadians “person to person.” Most of them promised to do their best to bring the ERRE Committee to Waterloo, but that never happened. What we got instead was a consolation prize visit from then Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef, which all four Liberal MPs seem to have used as an excuse not to hold their own Electoral Reform Town Hall.
The promised All Party Committee sat through the summer, listening to the expert witnesses Raj had promised, an overwhelming majority of the testimony supported adopting Proportional Representation. When the ERRE Committee took their consultation on the road to talk to Canadians, there was little advance notice of the Committee’s itinerary. And still Canadians showed up. A preponderance of the Canadians who managed to show up also clearly supported adopting some form of Proportional Representation. At the 11th hour, Minister Monsef announced an online survey, but refused to take guidance from the ERRE Committee, instead spending a vast amount of money on a campaign widely ridiculed for it’s ambiguity from coast to coast to coast. In spite of the fact the Liberals never actually asked Canadians to choose a specific system we wanted, we made it clear we wanted a system on which MPs worked together across party lines for the good of Canada – a characteristic of Proportional Representation (something no winner take all system does).
When the ERRE Committee made it’s report, Canadians were startled to learn all the parties – except the Liberals – reached a consensus on Proportional Representation with a Gallagher index of 5 or less and a confirmation Referendum.
In spite of all that support for the Liberal Promise, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unilaterally decided to pull the plug on his election promise to make every vote count, the promise that 2015 would be the last unfair election did not go over well with a great many Canadians across the political spectrum.
But it is not too late to get the process on back on track.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Kitchener Centre, Mr. Saini has not supported Electoral Reform as he so clearly promised in this video. Although his constituents are calling and writing and visiting him about the electoral reform promise made by both the Liberal Party and himself he continues to maintain no one cares.
Yesterday his constituents held a “Reminding Liberals” rally outside a downtown Kitchener church where Raj and the other three Waterloo Region Liberals hosted a meet and greet for the Hon. Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage.
http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1069747
Canadians need fair representation. This issue is not going to fade away.
Whoa!Canada Proportional Representation 4 Canada series
Fair Vote Waterloo
Fair Vote Canada