A quick look at just a couple more days of developments in the NDP's leadership race...
- Niki Ashton proposed an increase in immigration, particularly when it comes to family reunification.
- Paul Dewar challenged Thomas Mulcair to take a position on bulk water exports, provoking at least somewhat of a contentious exchange between various camps.
- Meanwhile, Mulcair released a plan on women's equality to ensure equal representation on the boards of public institutions and push toward the same end in the private sector. And tonight he'll appear on This Hour Has 22 Minutes in a sure sign that the leadership campaign is starting to sink in with the general public.
- Peggy Nash put to rest any doubt about her ability to rally a crowd in a post-protest speech in London.
- Finally, Brian Topp unveiled the endorsement of Bill Siksay - a notable addition to the extent it goes beyond the perceived NDP establishment to include an MP who was disciplined by Jack Layton for not going along with a vote for a Con crime bill. And Topp also made the point that the NDP shouldn't want to copy the Cons' voter suppression - though that would seem to make for a fairly obvious contrast to the extent limited turnout is seen to benefit right-wing parties.
- On the commentary side, Tim Harper compared the NDP's campaign to the Republican presidential primaries - and it's indeed worth noting that we have much less data to work with in analyzing the NDP's race than pollsters and pundits can sift through in the latter. And Joel French offered more thoughts on three candidates who made recent appearances in Edmonton.
Showing posts with label bill siksay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill siksay. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, February 10, 2011
No certain defeat
I noted this morning that Bill Siksay's C-389 figures to face some challenges in getting through the Senate. But I don't see them being quite as insurmountable as John Ibbitson seems to think - particularly since the mere fact that Stephen Harper doesn't personally support it didn't serve as reason for the Cons to whip their vote in the House of Commons.
Instead, there would seem to be two obvious means to get the bill through: either by appealing to Cons in the Senate who may be personally supportive of the issue, or by shaming the Cons generally into allowing the bill to pass by turning Ibbitson's analysis into a criticism rather than a fait accompli. And I'd hope both options will be pursued in trying to achieve something positive before Harper pulls the plug on the current Parliament.
Instead, there would seem to be two obvious means to get the bill through: either by appealing to Cons in the Senate who may be personally supportive of the issue, or by shaming the Cons generally into allowing the bill to pass by turning Ibbitson's analysis into a criticism rather than a fait accompli. And I'd hope both options will be pursued in trying to achieve something positive before Harper pulls the plug on the current Parliament.
The obstacles ahead
It's great news that Bill Siksay's Bill c-389 to protect transgendered rights has passed third reading in the House of Commons - leaving no democratic barriers in the way of its becoming law.
But that doesn't mean there isn't still a battle ahead. And the treatment of C-389 may serve as a litmus test as to just how urgent a need there is to rein in the Senate.
After all, it wasn't long ago that another major NDP bill which passed with the support of a majority of elected MPs was stalled then shredded by the Cons' unelected, unaccountable patronage appointees.
At the time, the Cons made implausible excuses about the bill following an unusual process in the Senate. But if they go back to the same bag of tricks to torpedo C-389 as well (notwithstanding that even a few Con MPs voted for it), then I'm not sure there's any possible conclusion but that the Senate is irreparably broken - and that Harper and company are determined to keep it that way.
But that doesn't mean there isn't still a battle ahead. And the treatment of C-389 may serve as a litmus test as to just how urgent a need there is to rein in the Senate.
After all, it wasn't long ago that another major NDP bill which passed with the support of a majority of elected MPs was stalled then shredded by the Cons' unelected, unaccountable patronage appointees.
At the time, the Cons made implausible excuses about the bill following an unusual process in the Senate. But if they go back to the same bag of tricks to torpedo C-389 as well (notwithstanding that even a few Con MPs voted for it), then I'm not sure there's any possible conclusion but that the Senate is irreparably broken - and that Harper and company are determined to keep it that way.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Friday Afternoon Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Paul Wells posts the definitive epilogue to the Cons' hijacking of Rights and Democracy:
- Susan Riley is frustrated with the lack of popular outrage over the Cons' F-35 money pit and other issues - but points out why the public has reason to be cynical when it comes to both the Libs and the Cons:
- Finally, it shouldn't be much surprise that Bill Siksay's retirement has some opponents trumpeting the possibility of winning Burnaby-Douglas away from the NDP for the first time in over two decades. But let's note that the incumbent advantage is normally traced to opponents putting up something less than the toughest possible challenge - so given that the NDP has been outspent by one or both of its competitors in all but one of the elections where it's held Burnaby-Douglas, there's little reason to think the dynamics that have seen the NDP hold the seat will change.
- Paul Wells posts the definitive epilogue to the Cons' hijacking of Rights and Democracy:
Today the audit was released — not through a formal process, but because somebody leaked it to the Globe‘s Daniel Leblanc. You can read it here. (Well, the main narrative of the audit, anyway. Thousands of pages of annexes, including lengthy email correspondences, time sheets and so on, remain unreleased.)But it's worth asking as well whether there's anything to the story that figures to actually motivate citizens to take action. And on that front, surely Beauregard's treatment should end any illusion that merely doing one's job effectively and without doing anything which could possibly be seen as an affront to the Harper government (which after all appointed Beauregard in the first place) serves as any protection from the danger of a political witch hunt.
It shows what Beauregard’s defenders have long asserted: that the agency was run without scandal, and without unusually lax management, even before his arrival; that he was taking clear steps to improve its management; and that specific claims against him and his staff from Gauthier and others hold no water. In short, that Rémy Beauregard died while fighting back against an unfounded witch hunt perpetrated by scoundrels who today stand unmasked and humiliated. The government of Canada under Stephen Harper and his minister Lawrence Cannon today continues to support those scoundrels, to its shame and ours as citizens.
- Susan Riley is frustrated with the lack of popular outrage over the Cons' F-35 money pit and other issues - but points out why the public has reason to be cynical when it comes to both the Libs and the Cons:
Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have all postponed, or reduced, their initial orders without noticeable penalty.- Fortunately, the heirs to the austere Prairie preachers do live on. But can they do more to claim a governing place on the federal scene than their predecessors? Let's check with Brian Topp:
Not Canada. That isn't the way the Harper government does business. It decides on a course -- in this case, an impetuous and counter-intuitive course -- and then accuses critics of disrespecting the troops. From a distance this may pass for decisive leadership; up close, it looks weak.
Not that the Ignatieff Liberals -- who are calling for an open competition to replace the existing CF-18s -- would necessarily do better. They signed the original memorandum launching the F-35 program and seem as eager to join the U.S. military-industrial complex as their rivals.
What ever happened to the Presbyterian penny-pinchers of old, the careful Scots, the austere Prairie preachers and dust-bowl farmers, the Reform populists who didn't only rail against government waste but tried to respect "the taxpayer dollar"?
They live on, but only in myth. Not that anyone appears to notice.
What are Mr. Layton’s strengths? Clearly, as set out in many public-domain opinions polls, Canadians genuinely like Mr. Layton and appreciate his open, collaborative and sunny commitment to getting some positive things done. Mr. Layton’s bout with illness has caused Canadians to take a second look at him, to his benefit. And Mr. Layton’s extended experience with the balance of power in Parliament has matured him as a politician and a statesman in the eyes of the public. He is no longer prone to over-the-top statements rooted in the absolute necessity, early in his term, to be visible on the federal stage. Instead, Mr. Layton is an increasingly thoughtful and substantive contributor to the national debate – and has proved to be right on many issues. Canadians are responding by finding it increasingly easy to imagine him as (Prime Minister), a journey they have also made with Mr. Harper. Interestingly, in particular, Mr. Layton has developed substantial appeal among soft Liberals, of whom there are a generous supply these days.If anything, Topp may undersell the degree of public support for the NDP's policy agenda as they understand it. But there's little room for doubt that the "Libs as default alternative" factor is the main obstacle standing in the NDP's way.
What are Mr. Layton’s weaknesses? Canadians remain to be convinced that his agenda hangs together or that his party can win. Mr. Layton can cure the first problem by articulating a clear, coherent and responsible plan – including, in compelling terms, when people are paying attention to the details at election time. Mr. Layton can cure his second problem – perhaps – by speaking directly and credibly to how modern multi-party Parliaments can be made to work for Canadians. And by having a healthy dose of that essential ingredient in all winning campaigns, continuing luck in his opponents.
- Finally, it shouldn't be much surprise that Bill Siksay's retirement has some opponents trumpeting the possibility of winning Burnaby-Douglas away from the NDP for the first time in over two decades. But let's note that the incumbent advantage is normally traced to opponents putting up something less than the toughest possible challenge - so given that the NDP has been outspent by one or both of its competitors in all but one of the elections where it's held Burnaby-Douglas, there's little reason to think the dynamics that have seen the NDP hold the seat will change.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
A glimmer of hope
Since the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act was unceremoniously shredded by the Cons' unelected and unaccountable senators, there's been reason to wonder whether any opposition bill will see the light of day as long as Stephen Harper remains in power. But the voting on Bill Siksay's transgender rights legislation signals that all hope may not be lost for at least some good to come out of the current session of Parliament:
Want to know who are the most socially liberal MPs within the Conservative caucus? A vote Wednesday provided some clues.Now, it's far from clear whether any Cons in the Senate are supportive of the bill. But the mere fact that the Cons didn't whip the vote in the House of Commons would seem to suggest that they're not dead-set against seeing C-389 passed - meaning that it figures to at least stand a better chance of surviving than most opposition private members' bills.
By our count, five Conservative MPs—Heritage Minister James Moore, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, and parliamentary secretaries Shelly Glover, Sylvie Boucher and Gerald Keddy--voted in favour of an NDP-sponsored bill that would enhance the rights of transsexuals and transgender individuals.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Time for some good news
Naturally, there's every reason to disagree with Charles McVety's framing of Bill Siksay's Bill C-389 on gender identity and gender expression. But it's rather interesting that he's applying pressure to the Cons - who have done nothing at all but vote against the bill - for refusing to make more of a public stink out of it. And it seems entirely possible that this may be the point where the Cons' culture warriors break their muzzles - with what are bound to be entertaining results.
That said, it's well worth pointing out the remarkable progress the bill has made with the Libs and Bloc both supporting it. And while there will surely be at least some shenanigans yet to come in the Senate, there's reason to hope that at least one positive social step might yet find its way into law even over the objection of the governing Cons.
That said, it's well worth pointing out the remarkable progress the bill has made with the Libs and Bloc both supporting it. And while there will surely be at least some shenanigans yet to come in the Senate, there's reason to hope that at least one positive social step might yet find its way into law even over the objection of the governing Cons.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
On questionable motives
Following up on my earlier post, it's now official: with a "pass" that deserves to live in infamy, the Libs have effectively eliminated any chance of holding the Cons to account for declaring their desire for secrecy to override Parliamentary supremacy. But I have to wonder whether the commentary so far is accurate in its assessment of the Libs' motives.
Granted, the move is consistent with the Libs' track record of rolling over every time they're pressed by the Cons. And that probably explains why words like "spineless jellyfish" and "meaningless empty puppets" are being tossed around.
But this time, they never actually faced any particular pressure from outside forces. They're in a better relative position in the polls than they've been for some time, meaning that they have less reason to fear an election than usual. And the Cons didn't even bother saying much of anything about either Bill Siksay's motion or the Libs' delay tactic.
Yet despite the fact that nobody was actually testing for any trace of a backbone, the Libs nonetheless chose on their own to make it harder for Parliament to hold a secretive executive to account.
Now, that might simply be a matter of force of habit. But might it instead be a matter of the Libs counting their own electoral chickens before they're hatched, and figuring that the ability to shield political staffers from democratic accountability might might prove useful in some future stay in government?
Granted, the move is consistent with the Libs' track record of rolling over every time they're pressed by the Cons. And that probably explains why words like "spineless jellyfish" and "meaningless empty puppets" are being tossed around.
But this time, they never actually faced any particular pressure from outside forces. They're in a better relative position in the polls than they've been for some time, meaning that they have less reason to fear an election than usual. And the Cons didn't even bother saying much of anything about either Bill Siksay's motion or the Libs' delay tactic.
Yet despite the fact that nobody was actually testing for any trace of a backbone, the Libs nonetheless chose on their own to make it harder for Parliament to hold a secretive executive to account.
Now, that might simply be a matter of force of habit. But might it instead be a matter of the Libs counting their own electoral chickens before they're hatched, and figuring that the ability to shield political staffers from democratic accountability might might prove useful in some future stay in government?
Not this again
The fact that the NDP is pushing to have the Cons held accountable for declaring their political staffers above the law is a definite plus. But the Globe and Mail has apparently been drawn into the Cons' spin on the matter once again, with the result being a threat against any vote to keep the Harper government in check:
In other words, there's absolutely no reason to see a process intended to do nothing more than secure accountability from the current government as necessitating an election. And if the Cons do want to engage in their usual threats in the absence of any reason to do so, then once again they should be the ones to bear responsibility for that choice.
Meanwhile, there's another common thread with the detainee issue, as the Libs are apparently eager to give the Cons both the delay and the substantive result they're after:
But there's no reason why an open-ended study on possible guidelines which could be applied by committees in the future would do anything to affect the validity of their past votes and orders. So at most, Ratansi's proposal should be seen as complementing the opposition's previous stands on the ability to call witnesses - not as overriding or negating them.
Unfortunately, though, it looks like the fix may be in among both the Libs and the press to once again give Harper everything he's after. And while it's worth the NDP's time and effort to at least force them to defend that position, it's hard to be optimistic about the outcome.
If Mr. Milliken were to find that privilege had been breached, and the House of Commons then declared the government to be in contempt of Parliament, an election would likely result.As in the case of Afghan detainee documents, there's precisely zero indication that the NDP is looking to make any privilege or contempt motion a matter of confidence. Which means that the only one way an election could result from a contempt motion would be if the Cons continue to make the wholly unfounded claim that the only check or balance in Canada's democratic system is a trip to the polls, and decide to call an election themselves in response to a vote not intended to provoke one.
In other words, there's absolutely no reason to see a process intended to do nothing more than secure accountability from the current government as necessitating an election. And if the Cons do want to engage in their usual threats in the absence of any reason to do so, then once again they should be the ones to bear responsibility for that choice.
Meanwhile, there's another common thread with the detainee issue, as the Libs are apparently eager to give the Cons both the delay and the substantive result they're after:
Earlier in the day, the Commons Procedures and House Affairs committee will debate a motion by Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi to “begin a study to develop guidelines for the appearance of exempt staff and staff of parliamentary secretaries as witnesses before Parliamentary committees.”Now, it's worth remembering that the status quo involves the Cons putting in place an edict that they can trump Parliamentary supremacy at will. So any agreement to delay and study will serve only to give the Cons everything they want in the meantime - while the Cons can be counted on both to drag out the committee study as long as possible, and to do everything in their power to stand in the way of any reasonable outcome.
If that motion passes, the Liberals may argue there is no need to support Mr. Siksay’s proposal.
But there's no reason why an open-ended study on possible guidelines which could be applied by committees in the future would do anything to affect the validity of their past votes and orders. So at most, Ratansi's proposal should be seen as complementing the opposition's previous stands on the ability to call witnesses - not as overriding or negating them.
Unfortunately, though, it looks like the fix may be in among both the Libs and the press to once again give Harper everything he's after. And while it's worth the NDP's time and effort to at least force them to defend that position, it's hard to be optimistic about the outcome.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Friday Morning Links
Since we're all up for some politics for the long weekend, here are a few pieces worth a look...
- Erin slams the National Post for its exceptionally biased coverage of the Fraser Institute's anti-stimulus diatribe. Though it's worth noting that there's likely at least a grain of truth behind the study: while the institute's predictable anti-government bias obviously affects its assessment of the effect of stimulus dollars spent, there's certainly reason to think that the Cons' choice of a photo-op-friendly distribution scheme led to relatively little money actually flowing when it was most needed.
- The Star Phoenix on the HST: getting less plausible by the day, but now prebutted for your convenience.
- While I don't agree with Bob Plamondon's view that less choices are better on the federal scene, there's little reason to disagree with his main point about Michael Ignatieff's missed opportunity.
- Douglas Bell is right to note that the federal opposition parties haven't taken a strong enough stance in opposing the Cons' costly and useless "dumb on crime" policies. But while there's room for improvement on all sides, it's worth noting which party has both had MPs take stands on principle, and which has been closer to the mark in rejecting the worst of the Cons' excesses.
- Finally, is this officially Unveil Unpopular Policy Week for Brad Wall's Sask Party government? Because Rod Gantefoer has tossed more fuel on the fire by pointing to health care user fees as a way to deal with unnamed "abuses" in the system. Naturally he's backtracking again, but considering that he looks to have brought them up unprovoked this looks to be even less plausible than his denials about tax harmonization.
- Erin slams the National Post for its exceptionally biased coverage of the Fraser Institute's anti-stimulus diatribe. Though it's worth noting that there's likely at least a grain of truth behind the study: while the institute's predictable anti-government bias obviously affects its assessment of the effect of stimulus dollars spent, there's certainly reason to think that the Cons' choice of a photo-op-friendly distribution scheme led to relatively little money actually flowing when it was most needed.
- The Star Phoenix on the HST: getting less plausible by the day, but now prebutted for your convenience.
- While I don't agree with Bob Plamondon's view that less choices are better on the federal scene, there's little reason to disagree with his main point about Michael Ignatieff's missed opportunity.
- Douglas Bell is right to note that the federal opposition parties haven't taken a strong enough stance in opposing the Cons' costly and useless "dumb on crime" policies. But while there's room for improvement on all sides, it's worth noting which party has both had MPs take stands on principle, and which has been closer to the mark in rejecting the worst of the Cons' excesses.
- Finally, is this officially Unveil Unpopular Policy Week for Brad Wall's Sask Party government? Because Rod Gantefoer has tossed more fuel on the fire by pointing to health care user fees as a way to deal with unnamed "abuses" in the system. Naturally he's backtracking again, but considering that he looks to have brought them up unprovoked this looks to be even less plausible than his denials about tax harmonization.
Friday, March 06, 2009
No closure
It didn't appear to receive much attention at the time. But Bill Siksay's efforts to get answers on Cadscam and the ensuing Con/Lib settlement appear to have been met by a striking talking point:
More importantly, though, it should be obvious that the more serious issues surrounding the Cons' actual offers to Chuck Cadman remain entirely unresolved. And since the Cons have lost the "before the courts" excuse to avoid answering for their actions, now would seem to be the time to make clear that they can't simply declare the matter closed.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):Now, it's arguable that Siksay's focus on the lawsuit could be seen as making for questions about something which is effectively done with. But even then, one would think that Canadians could rightfully expect that the terms and nature of the settlement agreement between the Prime Minister and the Official Opposition would be seen as a matter of some public interest.
Mr. Speaker, despite attempts by the Conservatives and Liberals to sweep the Cadman affair under the rug, Canadians still have a right to know what really happened. Sadly, the secret deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals appears to be an attempt to leave those questions unanswered.
Given the extremely serious allegations and the weeks of fury they caused in the House, and in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, will the Prime Minister make public all documents that would have been produced as part of the lawsuit?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and I am pleased to report to the House that the matter is closed.
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP):
It is not closed to the public, Mr. Speaker.
Weeks before this secret settlement was reached, the Prime Minister's lawyer in the Cadman affair abruptly withdrew from the case. This led to speculation. Did he realize that the case could not be won? Was it an ethical issue? The Prime Minister will know that solicitor-client privilege does not prevent him, as the client, from explaining what happened.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians the reasons that his lawyer, Mr. Rick Dearden, withdrew?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 30(5) of the House provides me with the occasion to respond to questions from members across the way, so I add to my previous answer by pointing out that the matter is closed.
More importantly, though, it should be obvious that the more serious issues surrounding the Cons' actual offers to Chuck Cadman remain entirely unresolved. And since the Cons have lost the "before the courts" excuse to avoid answering for their actions, now would seem to be the time to make clear that they can't simply declare the matter closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)