Politics in 2014

[Edward Campbell]

I think young Trudeau has just opened a big can of worm for himself.

While there is no doubt a majority of Canadian, in all provinces, want the senate reformed, it is also true that the very core of the demand for reform is greater, not lesser, democratic accountability.

I just can't see how Trudeau junior is going to get his idea that a senator appointed (not elected) by an alleged independent committee (itself not elected), is going to give us senators that are more accountable for themselves. The current system of appointment by the Pm is not democratic either, but at least we can hold the P.M. accountable for his/her appointments in actual elections. How will we hold the Committee accountable? And in which forum?

Does Junior remember that his own dad exacted a splurge of appointments to the senate and various posh jobs for the boys from John Turner as a condition for stepping down before the election? That led to the infamous rebuke by Mulroney during the leader's televised debate: "You had a choice, Sir. You could have said no." It certainly played a part in the people holding someone accountable for these appointments: Turner's Liberals were democratically defeated in part as a result.

Does Trudeau junior think that, should the auditors report find skeletons in the liberal senators closets for things they did while still in the Liberal caucus, he wont be made to answer for it in the House just because he has now excluded them from the caucus?

That's it! It isn't the "non-partisan" or "less partisan" bit that is the problem, it is the afterthought about appointments. It's the 21st century, M Trudeau, legislators in liberal democracies are elected, not appointed.

What more, David Akin (respectable journalist and Army.ca member) tells us, in this item which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his blog, On The Hill, that most former Liberal senators didn't understand the leader's message:

Those non-partisan Senators are not getting Trudeau’s message

David Akin

January 29th, 2014

In the House of Commons foyer today, Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, said:

    “The Senate must be non-partisan, composed of merely of thoughtful individuals, representing the very values, perspectives and identities of this great country, independent from any particular political brand.”

He said this as he was announcing that the 32 senators who had been part of his national Liberal caucus were getting booted and should now consider themselves independent senators.

The first thing those newly independent senators did was confirm their old leadership, electing Senator James Cowan as leader, Senator Joan Fraser as deputy leader and Senator Jim Munson as whip. Given that a whip’s function in our democracy is, largely, to make sure party members follow the party line, why would a group of independent non-partisan senators need a whip?

Maybe they’re not so independent or, for that matter, non-partisan. Here’s Senator Cowan, speaking to reporters after learning of Trudeau’s decisions:

    We have agreed that we will style ourselves as the Liberal Senate Caucus because we all share the values of the Liberal Party of Canada.  We remain proud members of the Liberal Party of Canada.  We are supporters,
    strong supporters of Mr. Trudeau and his leadership and we’ll continue to do everything we can to ensure that he becomes the Prime Minister.

By any definition, Cowan’s statement is a partisan one. Trudeau had hoped his cast-off senators would make their decisions “independent from any particular political brand” but his faith in his former colleagues to do just that was betrayed within minutes of Trudeau giving those Senators their gift of political freedom. The doors on their cells having swung wide open, the jailed partisans preferred to stay right where they were.

“We all remain proud active members of the Liberal Party of Canada and we will do everything we can in our own way to support Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal team in the next election.  That’s not changed,” Cowan told reporters.

Senator Serge Joyal has been a partisan for 25 years. He was a Liberal MP for a decade and a Senator for the balance. Joyal was not going to be rude about it today but he’ll be damned if Trudeau fils is going to tell him to sit down, shut up and stop being a Liberal.  ”I have a membership card. Like any militant we can attend any nomination meeting,” Joyal said.  ”We can vote for whoever we want as a candidate.  We can propose policies at the national convention.  We are militants of the Liberal Party.  I’ve been militant for 40 years.  I remain a militant for the Liberal Party.”

So back to the leader.

“The Senate is suffering from two central problems:  partisanship and patronage.  Let’s begin with partisanship. The Senate was once referred to as a place of sober second thought, a place that allows for reflective deliberation on legislation, in-depth studies into issues of import to the country and to a certain extent, to provide a check and balance on the politically driven House of Commons. It’s become obvious that the party structure within the Senate interferes with these responsibilities,” Trudeau said.

The Liberal Senate Caucus — a group created as a direct result of Trudeau’s decision today — is, by any measure, “a party structure” within the Senate. But Trudeau’s decision to sever ties with this caucus means he can have no control or influence over this group to correct or ameliorate the “patronage and partisanship” problems he has identified. Instead, he has left it to Senators who clearly do not wish to be non-partisan or reject their partisan role in the Senate to carry on — unelected and accountable to no one.

Or, perhaps, the senators got the real message: this is just window dressing, aimed at embarrassing the Conservatives; it's business as usual, at the trough, for you!

Less partisan sturm und drang would be welcome in both legislative chambers in Ottawa so, in fairness, expelling senators from the Liberal parliamentary caucus is, on its face, a good thing. I also understand that former Liberal senators are shut out of committees ~ where the real work is done ~ unless they have a caucus, a "party" affiliation, so their actions are understandable.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, to muddy the waters further, the Globe and Mail reports that: "Trudeau’s coup sows confusion in the senate over who owns the Liberal brand." The article quotes former Liberal Senator Joseph Day, appointed by Jean Chretien in 2001, as saying “We all are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we’re all senators, so we’re Liberal senators.”

It looks like a few (just one or two?) might have heard M. Trudeau's main message and will be independent senators, but the Senate rules will limit their abilities to do committee work.

 

[ModlrMike]

And, to muddy the waters further, the Globe and Mail reports that: "Trudeau’s coup sows confusion in the senate over who owns the Liberal brand." The article quotes former Liberal Senator Joseph Day, appointed by Jean Chretien in 2001, as saying “We all are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we’re all senators, so we’re Liberal senators.”

It looks like a few (just one or two?) might have heard M. Trudeau's main message and will be independent senators, but the Senate rules will limit their abilities to do committee work.

Speaking of committees, if they're all independent now they can't simultaneously be a caucus. That being said, who now stands as the opposition in the Senate, and what happens to the previously Liberal seats on committees?

 

[Remius]

Ok, for those that are wondering what their new status is, here is an article that explains it more or less.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/29/senators_both_independent_and_liberal_says_senate_leader_james_cowan.html

The speaker basically ruled that they have party status.

Now remember, he didn't kick them out of the party.  Just out of caucus.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Always good to go back to first sources.

I dusted off (and I mean a lot of dust) my old constitutional law treatise section on the Senate.

Basically, the Senators are "summoned" (that is the exact term in the constitution - I guess if you are summoned to the Senate and decide not to come, the Queen can send round the Bailiff to pick you up ) by the Governor General, acting as the Queen's representative. Therefore, it means he must act on advice of the Privy Council (not the ceremonial full one but the limited functioning one, meaning the cabinet as chaired by the PM).

Trudeau says he does not want 10 years of constitutional wrangling over how to improve the Senate. However, his proposal of using an "independent body" to select and appoint senators (even if ultimately  summoned by the GG) means that he would be amending an aspect of the constitution that is even worse: the executive power of the crown, which requires unanimity. In other words, even if Parliament was to enact legislation to create this "committee", the GG would have no choice but abide by the recommendation of the PM as representative of the Privy Council if it was different than the Committee's choice.

Trudeau would have been further ahead to say: I will create a committee to seek, select and present great Canadians with no political affiliation to the Cabinet from which the Privy Council can chose the best independent ones to suggest to the GG for summoning to the Senate. You can then judge ME on these appointments.

By the by, interesting little did-bit here: We know that one of the aspects of the audit of the Senate is the issue of location of the residence of the Senators. I wonder, however if the residency requirements for the Quebec Senators will be done according to the constitution. Quebec's 24 Senators have a residency requirement that is different than that of any of the other Senators: Where all Senators must reside in the Province they r"represent", the Quebec ones also have a requirement to come, one each, from the 24 specific ridings that existed in Lower Canada at the time of confederation.

 

[ModlrMike]

From the TorStar article:

“It’s business as usual,” he added, with a laugh.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Without checking age profiles, I hazard a guess many of the Liberal senators are still going to be there after Trudeau's tenure as leader is over.

 

[DBA]

I think throwing the Liberal senators under the bus just cost him the next election. It was done in the very heavy handed manner they keep accusing PM Harper of acting in and it will have lasting repercussions.

 

[Remius]

I think throwing the Liberal senators under the bus just cost him the next election. It was done in the very heavy handed manner they keep accusing PM Harper of acting in and it will have lasting repercussions.

I'd hardly say that.  People feel no sympathy for senators right now.  Conservative or Liberal.  And when the AG report comes out they'll feel even less sympathy.

I think there are a lot of things to take away from this move besides the whole smoke and mirror thing.

1)  It is a concrete decisive move.  Trudeau has managed to effect change in the senate without having to go to the supreme court, or the provinces.  It may not seem apparent now but  it will have an effect if not in the day to day operations certainly in the perception of being independant of the Liberal Caucus.

2)  Trudeau took everyone by surprise.  This in itself is a signal that he is more than just a pretty face but is showing some political manoeuvering.  It accomplishes two things.  One it puts the other parties in reactionary mode.  Reacting to him.  Both the CPC and the NDP were outmanoeuvered.  Two, it keeps the senate scandal (if we want to call it that) in the spotlight which the CPC wants to get away from.  He's obviously listening to his advisors.

3)  It looks like he's trying to counter the whole lack of substance issue (illegal substances notwithstanding).  He's taken a clear positions on the Senate. A position that may resonate with some undecided types.  Basically he's beefing up his policy stances.

4)  He's heading off a storm before it starts.  There will be a storm when the AG report hits. And yes it will affect the Liberal brand maybe even more so than the Conservative one.  But Mr. Trudeau has two things going for him now.  He hasn't appointed a single senator that will likely be implicated and by taking this action now and avoids some uncomfortable questions and actions he may have had to take when this may or may not hit.  This will leave the Conservatives to either take action and react to the AG report when it hits putting them more in the spotlight than Trudeau would be in.

So yes, it will be business as usual and he might lose a few points here and there within his sphere of influence but he is likely making up for it with the electorate, the media and general perception.

The CPC will need to do some manoeuvering of their own to get around this.  How this can be done is beyond me.  But if they can take real action on the senate they might be able to play this to their advantage but I think though by handing the matter over to the Supreme Court they may have hamstrung themselves a bit.  It would be interesting to see if they could make real change while marginalising what Trudeau has done.

We'll see what comes of this.  But this is shaping up to be another interesting year in politics.   

 

[Journeyman]

Trudeau has managed to effect change in the senate

Perhaps you meant to say he's managed to affect, as in to fake or simulate, change in the Senate. 

For substantive results thus far, all he managed to do is announce change in the Senate; the Senators themselves have universally said they don't recognize any changes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Watch/listen to M Trudeau explain what's changed in the Senate.  :

 

[Journeyman]

Watch/listen to M Trudeau explain what's changed in the Senate.  :

Oh those paparazzi, stalking the starlets and glitterati   

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe has two opposing views on M. Trudeau's coup:

    1. Jeffrey Simpson says, and this must come as no surprise that it is 'fresh, brave – and worth considering'; while

    2. John Pepall, a Toronto writer with whom I am unfamiliar, calls it ‘a breathtaking confusion of stupidities’.

 

[Remius]

John Pepall wrote a book a few years ago called "Against Reform".  He's very much against reforming Canadian institutions.  Things like the Senate, proportionate representation etc etc.  I have a copy of it somewhere but never got around to reading it.  Not even sure where or how I aquired a copy but given events of late, I may have to try and dig it up...

 

[DBA]

John Pepall wrote a book a few years ago called "Against Reform".  He's very much against reforming Canadian institutions.  Things like the Senate, proportionate representation etc etc.  I have a copy of it somewhere but never got around to reading it.  Not even sure where or how I aquired a copy but given events of late, I may have to try and dig it up...

I think the Senate serves a useful purpose: it's an echo of previous governments and constrains a new government from making drastic changes as soon as they gain power. In other words I view the frustrations it causes new governments as a feature, not a drawback. It forces them to take the longer view and govern so they can form multiple governments.

Thanks for the book reference, looks like it will be an interesting read.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd hardly say that.  People feel no sympathy for senators right now.  Conservative or Liberal.  And when the AG report comes out they'll feel even less sympathy.

I think there are a lot of things to take away from this move besides the whole smoke and mirror thing.

1)  It is a concrete decisive move.  Trudeau has managed to effect change in the senate without having to go to the supreme court, or the provinces.  It may not seem apparent now but  it will have an effect if not in the day to day operations certainly in the perception of being independant of the Liberal Caucus.

2)  Trudeau took everyone by surprise.  This in itself is a signal that he is more than just a pretty face but is showing some political manoeuvering.  It accomplishes two things.  One it puts the other parties in reactionary mode.  Reacting to him.  Both the CPC and the NDP were outmanoeuvered.  Two, it keeps the senate scandal (if we want to call it that) in the spotlight which the CPC wants to get away from.  He's obviously listening to his advisors.

3)  It looks like he's trying to counter the whole lack of substance issue (illegal substances notwithstanding).  He's taken a clear positions on the Senate. A position that may resonate with some undecided types.  Basically he's beefing up his policy stances.

4)  He's heading off a storm before it starts.  There will be a storm when the AG report hits. And yes it will affect the Liberal brand maybe even more so than the Conservative one.  But Mr. Trudeau has two things going for him now.  He hasn't appointed a single senator that will likely be implicated and by taking this action now and avoids some uncomfortable questions and actions he may have had to take when this may or may not hit.  This will leave the Conservatives to either take action and react to the AG report when it hits putting them more in the spotlight than Trudeau would be in.

So yes, it will be business as usual and he might lose a few points here and there within his sphere of influence but he is likely making up for it with the electorate, the media and general perception.

The CPC will need to do some manoeuvering of their own to get around this.  How this can be done is beyond me.  But if they can take real action on the senate they might be able to play this to their advantage but I think though by handing the matter over to the Supreme Court they may have hamstrung themselves a bit.  It would be interesting to see if they could make real change while marginalising what Trudeau has done.

We'll see what comes of this.  But this is shaping up to be another interesting year in politics. 

I think what DBA is suggesting is that the Liberal Senators represent the supply lines to the old Liberal Party organizers and funding. Unless Junior has got a better supply chain up and running it probably is not advisable to upset the existing one.  Something to do with burning bridges....?

 

[Rifleman62]

Via BC Blue, January 29, 2014: http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/01/

Trudeau caught lying on what he told his Liberal caucus about Senators


I won’t get into right now what a moronic move Liberal leader Justin Trudeau did today in announcing his Senate policy except to point out that his Senate leader James Cowan tripped him up badly.

This is damning evidence Trudeau told his caucus one thing and the media something else:

James Cowan, who had been the party’s leader in the Senate, says the formerly Liberal senators will continue to support Trudeau and call themselves the Senate Liberal caucus.

But when a reporter told Cowan the senators wouldn’t be able to fundraise or do anything connected to the party, Cowan seemed unaware.

“He [Trudeau] hasn’t said that … You’re saying ‘what he said,’ [but] that’s not what he said to us,” Cowan said.

Earlier Wednesday morning, Trudeau told reporters that the senators could remain party members, but that was about it.

“As far as political operatives, these senators will no longer be, you know, Liberal organizers, fundraisers, activists in any form,” Trudeau said. (see here)

Sure didn’t take long for this to start blowing up in Trudeau’s face.

Also: Watch Harper respond to Trudeau today and tell me this is a guy with a worried caucus.


The QP Clip: Harper pooh-poohs Trudeau's Senate gambit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZNqzWRY5DU

 

[Edward Campbell]

Can this be the year in which veterans' issues come to the (political) foe?

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen points to what I believe is an old, and now un-correctable, strategic blunder by the CPC:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Advocate+quits+Conservative+party+veterans+groups+prepare/9460534/story.html

Advocate quits Conservative party as veterans groups prepare to step up pressure

BY CHRIS COBB, OTTAWA CITIZEN

FEBRUARY 2, 2014

OTTAWA — A recently retired Canadian soldier and national veterans’ advocate has quit the Conservative party over what he says is the federal government’s lack of respect and “spectre of indifference” towards veterans.

Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm, director of Armed Forces Engagement for Canadian Veterans Advocacy and a vocal advocate for ill and injured soldiers, also returned his Reform Party membership card signed in 1996 by former party leader Preston Manning to his Member of Parliament, Conservative Cheryl Gallant, along with a letter bitterly criticizing both the MP and her government.

Heading into a week when veterans groups are planning to exert more pressure on the government, the public departure of a veterans’ advocate and core party supporter might prove to be more than one person’s symbolic political gesture.

While emphasizing that his decision to leave the party is an individual one, Westholm, 50, says he has received messages of support and anger through social media over the public row last week between veterans and Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino and Gallant’s statements in the House of Commons.

“There are so many red flags flapping across the country,” Westholm told the Citizen Sunday, “but the government doesn’t appear to see them.”

In his letter to Gallant and copied to other Conservatives, Westholm says he is severing his ties with the Conservatives with “great regret — regret not for my actions, but regret in that the CPC has strayed so far from the path of reason and respect regarding our veterans. Your Party has achieved great things in many areas, but they are now overshadowed by the spectre of indifference and moral usury toward our veterans.

“All Canadians know,” he adds, “the foundation and ultimate success of this country is built upon our veterans and not any political party and/or policy.”

Westholm, who has met Gallant numerous times and worked at her request with senior citizens in her Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke riding, said he was incensed last week when her heard her refer to “self stigma” in mentally injured soldiers — a relatively new concept from senior Canadian military that soldiers with mental injury aren’t getting help they need because they choose not to and not because the help isn’t available.

“Your recent statements regarding injured and ill soldiers having to confront issues that are ‘in their minds’ and supporting the new, and stark, CPC catchphrase ‘self-stigma’ have prompted me to remove my support from the CPC,” says Westholm in his letter. “So you’re aware, many of my former peers in the Canadian Armed Forces refer to the sidewalk leading to the Warrior Support Centre (where mental injuries are treated) as ‘the Walk of Shame’ — this is the true stigma that faces our injured veterans.

“When you spoke before Parliament recently to chide our veterans and promote a dysfunctional organization (the JPSU), I was left in shock, disillusioned and most certainly dismayed.”

The JPSU, or Joint Personnel Support Unit is an umbrella unit for a network of support units for ill and injured veterans has been widely criticized — including in a report by the military ombudsman — for being ineffective, understaffed and unable to cope with a growing number of clients.

Westholm claims he risked his career while he was a senior leader in JPSU by sending emails to Gallant outlining problems in the unit and urging the government to take action.

He has now posted that correspondence — Gallant did not respond to it, he says — on the online document site Scribd.

“ Many soldiers have committed suicide since my first email to you, and I can only ponder those that could have been better supported, assisted or saved if action was taken — but no action was taken. Canadian soldiers are expected to fight on foreign land, not their homeland.

“I find it disgraceful that the CPC does not yet understand the issues involved. I hope you, and your Party, have a epiphany of some sort very soon — lives are truly on the line.”

Westholm was a career soldier who quit last year to protest the state of the JPSU system. He was a member of the Canadian Airborne Regiment when it was disbanded in 1995 and also served in Cambodia, Syria and Haiti.

Closure of Veterans Affairs offices across Canada and claims by Fantino and Harper that veterans were being “duped” by the Public Service Alliance have heightened anger, says Westholm.

“I can’t understand how a government that runs the public service can blame the union,” he said. “When I heard Fantino say the union is the enemy of the veterans I thought, ‘What you talking about, man?’

Harper says the closure of the eight VA offices will save more than $3.78 million and improve service.

“But the fact of the matter is that this government and this minister (Fantino) have increased services for our veterans without precedent,” he said in the Commons. “This is important for our government. It always has been to protect those who wear the uniform and who once wore the uniform.”

Westholm says he will continue as an “independent voter.”

“I want you to know without an iota of doubt,” he wrote to Gallant, “that if you can chase me from the CPC, then you can chase anybody away from the CPC (and I heartily encourage them to do so).”

ccobb@ottawacitizen.com">ccobb@ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/chrisicobb

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Now, there is every indication that members here, in Army.ca, share Mr Westholm's view and will desert the CPC in 2015.

If enough Canadians decide this is a moral issue, a matter of trust, then it could really hurt the Conservatives.

How did they get into this mess? Why do I call it a strategic blunder?

We saw the New Veterans' Charter almost nine years ago ~ we, at least we Army.ca members, had some suspicions. Over the years I expressed two views:

    1. The New Veterans' Charter is immoral: not because it is less generous than the former provisions, which I have suggested were overly generous, but because the government of the day introduced it while Canadian soldiers were in battle;

    2. It, the Charter was and ill-considered piece of Liberal legislation that could have been and should have been repealed no later then the first CPC majority, in 2011.

That ~ not branding the NVC as deeply flawed, immoral, Liberal and unacceptable ~ was the strategic blunder. It is too late, in my opinion, to change it now. The Conservatives own this issue now ~ they shouldn't but they do.

I want to reiterate that I believe that the benefits that the veterans of World War II (and their families) voted for themselves (by electing and reelecting Liberal governments in the 1940s and into the 1950s) were too generous. But the bureaucrats in Veterans Affairs 'sold' the NVC to politicians on two grounds: a) vets needed an immediate cash support, and b) it would save money in the long term. Both arguments resonated with Paul Martin's Liberals and Stephen Harper's Conservatives. It seemed to give veterans the financial tools necessary to what they felt was best for them (self reliance is a core conservative value) and it promised to get rid of the costly life time support obligation (and that appeals to Conservatives).

 

[PuckChaser]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we not permitted to be a member of a political party and still be a serving member of the CF? If so, makes it odd that he has a Reform party member card from when he was still serving.

 

[dapaterson]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we not permitted to be a member of a political party and still be a serving member of the CF? If so, makes it odd that he has a Reform party member card from when he was still serving.

Membership would appear to be acceptable; being active in the party would not.

QR&O 19.44 (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/chapter-chapitre-019-eng.asp#cha-019-44):

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.