Term limits for MPs: A reply to a reply

In this morning's Globe and Mail, former MP Belinda Stronach made a case for term limits for MPs. You can see the whole argument/op-ed  by clicking on the excerpt I've cut and pasted below: 

My proposal would be to limit the number of consecutive terms that an MP could serve to two, and have a roster by lottery, to ensure a turnover of 50 per cent of members in each election cycle.

I found the proposal interesting, intriguing, even. As timing would have it, I read the piece after I was up early, reading some sample chapters of a proposed book by someone who's also  been put off by the whole business of politics -- specifically, the rampant careerism and cynicism at the heart of party machines. It occurred to me that Ms. Stronach and this would-be author should have some kind of public discussion about this unfortunate aspect of politics, which is too little discussed. The Samara organization is the only one that's taken a real crack at it, at least in recent memory. 

Anyway, being a bit cynical myself, I wasn't too surprised to see some of the reaction. Ms. Stronach, probably because of her famous defection to the Liberals, seems to provoke her critics into out-of-proportion reactions to nearly every utterance, or even her mere existence. That in itself is an argument for everyone to detox themselves with time away from Ottawa every now and then, it seems to me. 

Also, again because I'm a bit of a cynic and have been around Ottawa a while, I immediately looked for a motive for Stronach to write this piece. Why is she entering the political fray again? Is she thinking of a comeback? But then I also recalled a conversation I had a few years ago with a pretty senior Liberal MP, who'd worked closely with Stronach, and summed her up this way: "She's dutiful. You don't expect it, but she has a strong streak of duty, especially when it comes to public service." 

So, after this long preamble, let me set out to do what I promised to do in the headline to this blog post. With much respect to Paul Wells, who's a friend, a fellow traveller for many years, and someone whose writing and analysis I much admire, I'm going to part ways with his blogged reply to Stronach's proposal. And I'm going to do this mainly because I take both of these people seriously, and I think that ideas in Canadian politics, like the people in it, deserve a wee bit more than dismissive mockery. (Not that I'd characterize Wells' proposal that way, but more some of the comments I've seen on Twitter.) 

So let's reply to some of  Wells' arguments or musings: 

1. Unlike Wells, I don't think it's silly to say Canada's political system  is unsuited to  the 21st century and I don't believe every op-ed needs to use up its alloted word count to detail the dysfunction. Nor do I share his conviction that Stronach has presented us with a radical operation for political ills. She's saying that overexposure to the machine is making for toxic politics. I seem to recall a guy named Stephen Harper thinking the same thing in the late 1990s and getting the heck out of Dodge; ditto for Jean Chretien in the 1980s. If I really think back hard enough, I recall sitting in a restaurant with that Harper guy, where he told me to get out of Ottawa too (advice I followed, btw, but I too came back.) 

2. Nor do I find it ridiculous to seek "postpartisan" solutions. What Stronach is trying to say, I think, and it's not an original point, is that partisanship goes hand in hand with toxic overexposure to politics -- and the idea that you're right and everyone else is wrong. This is a silly way of looking at things, replicated in no other workplace except maybe professional sports. 

3. Stronach asserts that our current system puts too much focus on getting re-elected. No argument there. Look at what Prime Minister Stephen Harper told CTV's Lisa LaFlamme in his year-end interview, when she had the crazy idea that he might relax with a minority. 

You know, I’ve seen too many majority governments, bureaucracy talks them into going to sleep for three years and then they all of a sudden realize they’re close to an election.

 

Or have a look at what the Prime Minister was chatting about to journalists at 24 Sussex, as described by my colleague Tonda MacCharles -- who usefully reminds us that Harper is very much like Jean Chretien in this respect. 

Indeed, chatting with a small knot of reporters, Harper the Conservative prime minister sounded a lot like Jean Chretien, the Liberal predecessor he often models, when he said the most fun he’d had this year was winning a majority in May’s election.

Chretien famously told a group of Chinese schoolchildren in 2001 the thing he loved most about his job was winning elections.

 

And let's also remember this whole business of "voter-identification" calls in Irwin Cotler's riding, a full FOUR years before the next election. 

Is there a preoccupation with winning and holding power in Canadian politics? Yes, I'd say there is. I'd also argue that some of Chretien's best work as Prime Minister came in his final years, when he knew he wasn't running again, but that's just my opinion. More on that in a bit. 

4. Wells argues that if the Liberals implemented this reform, there would be nothing left of the current caucus.  And so they won't do it. In other words, he's proving Stronach's point -- politicians aren't going to do anything that limits their careers. Which is why it would be a good idea to take careerism out of politics. I think we're going around in a circle here. Stronach is not the first to suggest that careerist politics  gets in the way of good public policy -- have a look at that Samara report mentioned above. Unlike Samara's ex-politicians, however, she's suggesting a  possible remedy for it, instead of just complaining that's the way it is. 

5. Finally, my eyebrows raised at Wells' characterization of the rookie Parliament of 1993, which he juxtaposed with the near-failure of federalism in the Quebec referendum of 1995. We recollect things differently, I'm afraid. What I saw in that early Parliament was a Liberal government borrowing heavily  the  good ideas from its Reform opposition -- getting rid of the deficit, for instance, while the  Bloc Quebecois was  doing a very good job as the Official Opposition and no one was caterwauling about treason and other silliness.

Come to think of it, the near-loss of the federalist side came in part from some complacency from careerist old hands around Chretien. (I think I read a Paul Wells' piece in Saturday Night  around that time, about why the Chretien Liberals  were treating the referendum as no big deal.)

Meanwhile, one of the many rookies in that Parliament, a guy named Harper, was working on a Quebec "contingency act" that would be borrowed by the Liberals to become the Clarity Act. Sometimes the rookies have more sense than the old hands, in other words. And sometimes, as Harper himself used to argue, the best thing for political people to do is to know when to get out of Ottawa. If only temporarily. 

Okay. So let's get back to the thesis. Belinda Stronach has thrown an idea into the mix -- two-term limits for MPs. I'm not sure it could be practically done either, but I'm also not sure that Michael Chong's proposals will ever be adopted, or that we'll ever have civility in the current Parliament. I also don't think Harper will ever be able to reform the Senate unilaterally. I don't mock him for trying to fix the thing though. Mockery, and its close cousin, cynicism,  are symptoms  of a sick system.  More ideas like Stronach's, please. 

The shopping season

If you're interested in the world where political culture meets shopping and marketing (as I am), the Christmas season presents plenty to ponder. All one needs to do is witness the mass public engagement in Boxing Day sales at the malls and big-box stores, compare it to the public engagement in elections, and you can see where we're tilting in the consumer-citizenship equation. Is it any wonder that the NDP put out a "Boxing Day sale" message to drum up contributions this week? Wouldn't any political party want to appeal to citizens on the terrain where they seem most comfortable? As shoppers? 

Through this lens, it's fascinating to watch some of the old Christmas-standard movies, particularly two  from immediately after the Second World War, when the "consumers' republic" was just starting to burst forth in the United States and beyond.

I'm thinking about  these movies in particular: Miracle on 34th Street (1947) and It's a Wonderful Life (1946) and all the subtle and not-so-subtle political messages they carry about shopping, consumerism, identity and citizenship. Some of those messages linger in our political culture today; some seem hopelessly anachronistic. These are just some top-of-mind musings: 

* In both films, buying a house in the suburbs  is the height of good citizenship. In a Wonderful Life, George Bailey devotes his life to the Building and Loan Society, helping people buy their first homes,  and he turns out to be a bigger hero than his war-medal-toting, wealthy brother. In Miracle on 34th Street, Santa's biggest gift is the suburban home that little Susan has requested. I wonder, in light of the 2008 economic collapse, and all those over-mortgaged homes sitting deserted in the U.S. real-estate market, whether anyone would organize a fairy tale around home ownership today. 

* Selling things, or making money just for the sake of money,  are  seen in both movies as  dark arts. Which is kind of strange, given how those dark arts survive to this day, more than half a century later.  Consumers in 1940s New York --  as depicted in Miracle on 34th St --  were already suspicious enough of salesmen that they were stunned when Santa started sending them to find their items at competitors' stores. In Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter is a bad guy whose evil arsenal against George includes a high salary and large interest rates. Mr. Potter, in modern-day parlance, would be the  1 per cent, I assume. Ditto for the store owners in Miracle on 34th Street. 

* Maybe not an entirely political observation, but a cultural one: Both movies also preach against women remaining single. It's the horrible fate that awaits Mary in a Wonderful Life, when George gets to see how the world would have unfolded without him.  (And let's not even discuss the perpetually single Violet.)  In Miracle, divorce has turned Doris into a bitter, cynical woman who can only be made happy and optimistic  again with a man and  a house in the suburbs (see above.) 

* Facts, education  and evidence, which some say are also under siege in current politics,  take a bit of a beating in both movies (perhaps not surprisingly, since they include an angel and Santa in the cast.) In Miracle, Doris is portrayed as an inferior Mom to young Susan because she encourages her to be realistic and base her world view on facts, not romance. In Wonderful Life, George is seen as far better off for not having gone away to college or to see the world. When his war-hero brother gets off the train in Bedford, accompanied by his soon-to-be wife, we learn that he's going to take a job in Buffalo and not return to his home town. How might we put that today in Canada? "He didn't come back for you, George." 

* Speaking of evidence, though, it's hard to imagine   that the postal service or a bank would be seen as a supreme authority today, as they are presented in these movies. If you'll remember, in the trial of Santa in Miracle on 34th Street, it's the U.S. Postal Service that ultimately gives Santa his legitimacy. No argument with the Post Office there; if it says so, it must be true -- even if it's just a couple of workers trying to unload dead letters. And what about the bank auditor in Wonderful Life? He too seems to be invested with massive, unchallenged  authority against the average citizen -- apparently he could just throw George in jail on Christmas Eve for some missing money, regardless of circumstances or explanation. 

 Finally, it's been said that the mass-consumer society couldn't have arisen without the simultaneous emergence of Freud and psychoanalysis. Don't take my word for that -- if you have time this holiday season, take a look at this amazing BBC documentary from a few years ago, called Century of the Self.  (I've recommended this movie before, including to former Liberal MP Glen Pearson, who did some blog posts on it a few months back.) 

It's noteworthy how much of these 1940s-era fantasy movies seem to be a wistful reaction against the Century-of-the-Self-world that was emerging when the films  were made. The extreme hostility to psychological "science," as seen when Santa clobbers the company's human-resources guy in Miracle on 34th Street, could almost be  viewed as a pop-culture rebellion to the ideas in Century of the Self.

More than 50 years later, the movies have endured (at least at Christmas), but what of the culture  they were trying to protect or promote? Not surprisingly, some of it looks outdated, some notions seem still with us today and some ideas, especially romanticism about the "simplicity" of the suburbs and the post-war world, seem to be enjoying a resurgence. 

 

Fixing the big red machine

In today's paper, a story on how the Liberals are proposing  to retool the Big Red Machine, including a $2.5-million plan to set up a permanent "national call centre."  Up to now, Liberal party fundraising has been handled mainly by volunteers and the now-banned practice of holding events to lure corporate cash.  

 That's just one proposal from the members of the national executive, however. For the full, six pages' worth of their ideas to bring the party back from the brink, click on this link. Download FinalConventionDocument.1  

The yellow-highlighted areas show what's changed since November, when the Liberals first unveiled their so-called "roadmap to renewal." On the phone with me yesterday, party president Alf Apps said the amendments are the product of many conversations and meetings between Liberals across the country over the past month. He also gave me some more details of the convention, which promises to be heavily focused on nuts and bolts (never a fun thing for journalists to cover -- we always have more fun reporting on internal Liberal warfare.) A few more details, which couldn't fit in today's story: 

* Scheduled speakers for the convention, booked and confirmed to date, include Don Tapscott, billed as an author, speaker and advisor on media, technology and innovation, as well as Munir Sheikh, former chief statistician of Canada. Apps says the speakers show the party is serious about modernization, as well as facts and evidence. (He did try to make me guess who the speakers were, and I failed.) 

* Apps predicts that the most intense, heated debates on the floor of the convention will revolve around this new class of Liberal "supporters" and just how much clout they will have. Some long-time Liberals want to make sure that  membership still has its privileges, as they say. 

* Apps is surprised at how little resistance there has been toward the idea of centralizing the party's machinery, and away from the traditionally turf-protective commissions at the provincial and territorial level. The idea of one, national bank account, one centrally managed list of members, for instance, appears to be going over well. 

* This whole business of the call centre is largely aimed at building a voter database that's competitive with the Conservatives. Apps says that the Liberals have a database -- called Liberalist -- which is the same model used by the U.S. Democrats. He says it's superior technology to the Conservatives' brand. However, the fancy system is useless without data, and he says Liberals have a "fraction" of the information in their database that the Conservatives have. (The New Democrats also reportedly have some sophisticated voter-database technology too, by the way.)  To put it in more familiar language, the Liberals have bought a top-of-the-line political tool, but 12:00 is still flashing on the display -- no one has seriously programmed the thing yet. 

* Oh, and I guess I should update on this business of the blogger ban, mentioned in yesterday's post. I still am not sure the whole thing is solved yet -- for what it's worth, Apps said the management committee hadn't even made any policy yet yesterday. When they do get to sitting down and working it out, I think they should be reading Jeff Jedras' excellent blog post from yesterday. Or just let Jedras write the policy. 

 

The sort-of open Liberal Party

The Liberal party has decided, for some reason, to put strict limits on bloggers covering the January convention. Here's how it's been transmitted (this one from OpenFile.ca) 

Thank you for your interest in attending the Ottawa 2012 - Liberal Biennial Convention.
There are many ways to attend the Convention. We are encouraging everyone to attend as a delegate or an observer, and hope you will join us in that capacity. To learn more about how to become an observer, please visit our Convention website: https://www.liberal.ca/register-convention/.

As well, freelance and social media representatives who are sponsored by a recognized news organization can complete the Media Accreditation form, that will be posted to our site closer to the Convention date, and attach a letter of assignment.

Not surprisingly, the controversy has been lighting up on social-media sites, with some particularly sharp words from my friend and colleague Kady O'Malley. Basically, unless you get the blessing of the mainstream media, even if you're a freelancer, you're shut out of the Ottawa convention. Oh -- you could pay $1,100 to be an observer. 

After some consideration, I've come to the view that Kady and other critics are  correct  -- this is a ludicrous idea. While I see that the Liberal party may have some concerns about mischief-making, just as every party fears before a large gathering, context is everything here. 

Just last month, the Liberal Party unveiled a huge "roadmap to renewal" document, in which the party brass proposes  to open up the leader-selection process to non-members. Here's the wording, emphasis mine.  

That the Constitution be amended to create a new opportunity for engagement with the Party for individuals who do not wish to become full Members of the Party, leading to a new, more open and more flexible framework for active engagement as a Liberal partisan.

That same renewal document, by the way, also flatly declares: 

The future health of the Party will be dictated by how well it uses technology.

So, in the spirit of being bold and modern and risky, the Liberal party is saying it's willing to shape its old rules for a new time -- on a matter as important as choosing a new leader. When some of us sat down with party president Alf Apps in November to talk over the proposals for change, we asked whether he was worried that this measure would leave the party vulnerable to hostile interests or mischief makers. No, Apps reasssured us, this is worth the risk. Apps' sweeping state-of-the-party document also makes several compelling cases for risk-taking in the interests of Liberal party survival too. Apps also told us that there were several steps they could take, by way of screening, to weed out people who might be trying to take advantage of the looser rules. 

Yet now, figuratively in the same breath, the Liberal Party is   also saying that coverage of its convention will be limited to the old media rules and the usual suspects. Hello, Liberals? Your decline has come in part because you're seen as a closed (dysfunctional) society, too tied to the Ottawa/Toronto establishment to see how the world has changed. 

Those of us in the old media can attest that the rules and the game are  changing. You're reading this on a blog, right? I simply don't understand why the Liberals would fear the presence of bloggers, of any stripe, at the convention. And I don't see why you would put in place a media policy that stands in direct contradiction to the modernizing, open-up aims of the convention. If you're worried about people trying to use the "blogger" designation to get around other rules/fees, just set up a screening system or filter. 

I'd urge the party to reconsider this decision before it becomes a symbol of a party getting dragged into the future, or just simply getting left behind. 

Drive on, nothing to see here

Wondering where the dirty-tricks controversy will go, now that the Commons  Speaker has declared it reprehensible? Chances are it will dissipate, through  what's become a tried-and-true method for getting past political trouble. 

Macleans' columnist Paul Wells has recently given us a little glimpse into the PMO's media-management techniques, telling us the existence of a "media barometer." 

 "The Prime Minister’s Office distributes a daily “media barometer” that lists the stories getting the widest coverage and generating the most buzz on blogs and talk radio....Standard PMO procedure is to do what it takes to get a story off the top of the barometer." 

How do you lower the barometer reading? Allow me, as a public service, to set out the five  steps (and thus save someone from spending a lot of money on fancy advice.) 

It is this simple: 

1. Acknowledge the error in as vague, general  a fashion as you can: 

"I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate." -- Bev Oda (doctored-document controversy) 

 

2. Thank the error finder for  good work.  

"We thank the Auditor General for her recommendations. We are working on and streamlining the processes for procurement. In fact, we have, as a result of our current efforts, on average been able to reduce the time to get a contract award from 107 months to 48 months." -- Peter MacKay (cost overruns on Chinook helicopters.) 

3. You know how parenting experts talk about distinguishing between bad child and bad behaviour? When you are a politico  trying to get out of a jam, you don't talk about specific behaviour -- you talk instead, tangentially, about what a good person you are. 

"It's the government's policy that departments are to respond in the timeframes contained in the act or extend time in accordance with the act, subject to the right of a requester to go to the information commissioner and ultimately to the Federal Court." -- former PMO chief of staff Guy Giorno, testifying about political interference in access-to-information requests.

(Actually, the entire testimony is a textbook case of how to answer a specific question in the abstract. Read it if you have the time/interest.) 

 

4. Say it of course won't happen again. 

“I don’t think there will be any more use of suggestions that a byelection might happen." John Williamson, re: Cotler calls. 

5. When  further questions arise, say it's old news. Time has marched on. Insinuate that the person who keeps bringing it up is holding a grudge or has an axe to grind. 

 

Mr. Speaker, the same old, same old. There is nothing new here whatsoever.

The Auditor General came forward with her report and we thank her for her work. She came forward with specific recommendations on how we could be even more transparent to Parliament, specific recommendations on improving program administration. (John Baird: G8/G20 spending.) 

And that's it! As they say on the shampoo bottles: lather, rinse, repeat. Or, in this case: Admit, Thank, Boast, Repent, Move On. 

 

The current government did not invent this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the current Prime Minister watched Jean Chretien employ this technique over and over again through his tenure, and learned something. In politics, it's better to bury a controversy than to give it a full airing. (The Gomery commission, into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, is now seen as Paul Martin's greatest PR error, for instance.) 

As you've noticed, we're at Stage Four in the Cotler-call controversy. Error admitted, Speaker thanked, principles stated, never-again vow has been made. By the end of the week, it'll be called old news. 

 

Cotler and what's "reprehensible"

Irwin Cotler was not all that happy with the Speaker's ruling today, even if it does yield an end to the calls that Andrew Scheer described as "reprehensible."

Scrums with Mr. Cotler are always somewhat educational, so let's have a look at what he said to reporters today. By the way, I found this unusual. I've been around here a while and I'm not sure it's okay to disagree this vehemently with a Speaker's ruling. Which would be a bit ironic, actually, if Cotler was found to be in violation of Parliament's rules, but the phone-call campaign was not.

Anyway, here's the scrum. Skip to the end if you want to see whether Mr. Cotler still believes in politics and the job of an MP.

 

Cotler: I was naturally disappointed with the Speaker’s ruling.  We presented the Speaker with compelling evidence which clearly, in terms of the Speaker’s authority, represented a prima facie breach of privilege.  We cited an abundant set of principles and precedents from Bosc and O’Brien, former Speaker Fraser and the like, and I might add we didn’t hear one principle or precedent quote from the Conservatives in this regard.  And I found it surprising both on matters of fact and on matters relating to breaches of privilege with all the precedents we cited that the, the Speaker ruled the way he did. 

 

I might add that there were some arguments that I deduced that he did not deal with or deal with effectively.  He seemed to base his entire ruling on whether it had impeded me in the performance of my duties, saying that I seem to be very active, therefore it could not have impeded me in the performance of my duties.  To me, this is a, a straight issue, not as to whether I continue to be active, but I am active in spite of the fact that it sought to impede me in the performance of my duties and it misrepresented and ignored the importance of Speaker Fraser’s ruling did the matter did false and misleading information?  He did not relate to that.

 

Do you think the calls will stop now?

 

Cotler:  I hope they, there’s an important point here and that is did the matter, the false and misleading calls sow confusion in the minds of my electors.  They clearly did.  We gave abundant evidence.  He really did not deal with this matter.  I also dealt with the matter that this caused damage to the reputation of Parliament as an institution.  He did not deal with that at all.  There’s a whole serious issue here about the integrity of these practices and the integrity of the institution not dealt with.

 

 

Question: Does this have anything to do with the fact that he’s a Conservative, do you think? 

 

 Cotler: I don’t want to impute and I never do, you know...  bad faith.  I think that the judgment, his judgment today, his ruling was mistaken, both in relation to the facts, in relation to the principles, in relation to the precedents, in relation to the law on breaches of privilege.  So I think it was a mistaken judgment taking all those things into account.

 

Question: The fact that, the fact that he did say, even though technically he could not do anything about it, he said it was reprehensible.  He is a Conservative himself, the fact that he is saying that, is that a small victory of sorts?

 

 Cotler: The fact that he said it was reprehensible, that has been, from what I can see... in the court of public opinion, everybody has been saying that it’s reprehensible.  I’m surprised that given the consensus that it’s reprehensible, that even he concurred and somehow he was at the end of the day, not able to find that there was a prima facie breach of privilege.  He doesn’t have to find a full breach of privilege, just whether on its face, on first impression, there was a breach of privilege.  That he could not find that, I’m, I’m disappointed more in the manner in which I think it does not fall within the principles and precedents before him.

 

 

Question:Why is it important to you that he issue this ruling in your favour?  

 

 Cotler: Well, as I say, it was not, what I wanted and what I thought was important for the House was number one, that the Conservatives should have acknowledged the wrong and not bring up bizarre issues like this is freedom of speech.   Number two, that as you put it before, that they would cease and desist from this practice.  I think given that the Speaker said it was reprehensible that they would at least cease and desist from this practice and would undertake not to replicate this practice again.  That is important that he did make the characterization of it as being reprehensible but having made that characterization, I’m sorry and regret and don’t understand and don’t understand why he did not make the proper ruling.

 

Question: Isn’t he also recognizing that there’s limits to what the purview of the Speaker of the House of Commons?  These actors are beyond the House of Commons.  They’re a political party.  I mean, he said it’s reprehensible but he’s also recognizing that, I mean, what’s his purview for a political party making phone calls? 

 

 Cotler: Well, I cited extensive principle and precedents in that regard.  I myself, as he mentioned in his ruling, I cited that the Speaker has limited authority but with respect to that limited authority, there are principles and precedents which cover this exact situation of matters that occur outside the House of Commons where the Speaker rules within the Commons on those matters.  There is precedent to that effect. 

 

 

Question:        If there's no punishment...does it mean it’s open season on, on any politician?  They can lie about them to their heart’s content?

 

 Cotler: I have a, you know, an abiding trust in the Canadian people.  I have an abiding trust in the good sense of the Canadian people.  I think they’ve already indicated through their reactions and through the reactions of commentators of Conservative as well as, as stripes, of any political stripe, that not only is this practice reprehensible, but as they have referred to it as something be, beyond the pale. .... 

I’m hoping that the Conservatives will respect the court of public opinion, will respect nonetheless the privileges of the House and regard this as having been only a technical ruling, but on the merits, it remains reprehensible.  The Speaker, on the merits, said it was reprehensible and I hope that they will cease and desist from it and that we’ll not see the likes of these practices again.

 

Question: On  a practical question... What other options do you have at this point in time?

 

 Cotler: ....There are other options.  For example, people said to me 'why don’t you take the matter to court and my response is that since I take my responsibilities in Parliament so seriously, this is the forum in which I work, this is the forum in which I make submissions and the Speaker has ruled, as I said, mistakenly but has ruled.  I don’t have the time to start going to court because I’m concerned about being able to discharge my duties.  I think these reprehensible practices did so confuse in the minds of the electorate.  I think they did impede me in the performance of my duties.  They did take me away from what I much more wish to have focused upon.   

 

 

 .... Look as I said, but you and I know how the courts work and that is if I go to the courts now, I will have to expend a lot of time, a lot of money, you know, for a number of years for an outcome that if it’s in my favour, at the end of the day, will long have been forgotten what the whole thing was all about to begin with. So I rely on the court of public opinion.  I’ll make the case in the court of public opinion.  For me, this still serves as a, a relevant precedent and principle in the court of public opinion and as I say, the Canadian people have yet to speak and they will speak. 

 

Question: Does this make you at all a little sick of being a Member of Parliament?  Do you think what am I doing here?  I’m wasting my time? 

 

Question:  Are you planning to retire? [Laughter]

 

  Cotler: To the answer does it make me, you know, sick or cynical about being a Member of Parliament?  I happen to always have a, an optimistic disposition.  I have a lot of work to do.  As we are speaking, today I’ve got, you know, 26-year old Egyptian blogger.  Now maybe people will turn to that case whose life is on the line and I’m his international legal counsel.  Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill’s moving into the Senate.  I’ll have something to say while it’s in the Senate and increasingly in the court of public opinion.  We’ve got the imminent danger to the residents of Camp Ashraf and our Foreign Affairs Subcommittee just today adopted unanimously a motion to sound the alarm about the danger to the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq.  I’ve got concerns with regard to the hate speech legislation that the Conservatives want to repeal Section 13. 

 

I can go on and on.  I’ve got a lot of work to do and I’m going to continue it. 

 

Question:Would you tell somebody else to go into politics if this is the kind of thing that would happen?

 

 Cotler: I would still recommend people going into politics.  I go back to what, you know, John Turner once said when I first tarted to work with him in, in my late 20s, and he said politics is the highest form of public service.  I still regard is as a, the highest form of public service and I was brought to this House when I was 12-years old and my father turned to me and said, and I still remember his words, and he said son, this is vox populi.  This is the voice of the people. 

 

Today, people might react cynically.  I don’t.  I still think this is the voice of the people.  I intend to speak and work on behalf of the people.  And on this issue, their voice has not yet spoken the final word either. 

 

Question: Mr. Cotler, would this make you more likely to stick around? 

 

  Cotler: Look, as I said, there’s no imminent or pending by-election.  I’m not resigning.  I hit the ground running soon after I was elected.  I will continue to be hitting the ground running.  I’ve got a full plate of undertakings and commitments on the domestic justice and human rights agenda, on the international justice and human rights agenda that are far more compelling than only dealing with this issue.  Whenever you guys would ask me about the calls, as you will know, I used to say guys, I’m involved in A, B, C and D.  Write about those things.  Those are what’s before the Canadian people, the international community.  That’s what I’m going to continue to do.

 

Question: Do you think you’ve actually done some good by at least having this public, I mean shining a light, spotlight on this practice, because you have colleagues for example, who are before Elections Canada  .... in terms of regular calls that are being conducted by political parties during an election campaign.  Many of them hesitated coming forward with this stuff thinking well, it’s all water under the bridge.  Do you think there’s a benefit, at least you raised the issue and these people didn’t?

 

 Cotler: I think it was important to raise the issue.  I think it was important that public opinion engaged on the issue. I think it was important that the Conservative Party was called out for what, a practice, that the Speaker himself characterized as reprehensible.  I think that in the light of this, they’ll have to cease and desist from this practice cause they can’t just because it was a technical ruling, as the Speaker put it, that did not come down as we might have liked, you can’t continue practices that have been uniformly regarded as reprehensible.  They may not want to acknowledge their wrong, but they’re going to have to cease and desist from these practices, undertake not to do it again. 

 

For those reasons alone, I think all this was worth raising.  And I think at the end of the day, both the House and the members in it will be well served by this having been raised.  We can protect people in the performance of their duties.  We can protect people from false and misleading information.  We can seek to assure that such reprehensible practices are not repeated.  I hope the Conservatives learned a good lesson from this as well. 

 

Question:Mr. Cotler, long before you came to this place, you were a champion of human rights, a champion of democracy around the world.  Taking a step back, what’s your assessment of the evolution of democracy and human rights in Canada over the past six months or so?

  Cotler: Well, I would like to think that we will not get to the point where matters of democracy and human rights, as you mentioned, are not being addressed on the merits but are getting politicized.  I get very concerned when a court ruling is not respected.  I get very concerned when we have practices of this kind. So I hope we will return to respect for the rule of law, respect for democracy and respect for Parliament as an institution.  At the end of the day, that will prevail.  Okay. Thank you.

 

An evening with Jim Cuddy

Heritage Minister James Moore has introduced a new kind of event into Ottawa's social circuit: Canadian culture evenings.  Pretty much every month while the House is sitting, Moore invites an eclectic, all-partisan group of Parliament Hill denizens to special performances by some of the country's most accomplished artists.  Moore hosts these evenings as unabashed acts of Canadian-cultural boosterism and they've become marquee, must-attend occasions in Ottawa. 

Last night was an extra-special one. On the same day that his band, Blue Rodeo, received the news of its induction into Canada's Music Hall of Fame, Jim Cuddy was the headline performer for Moore's cultural evening at the National Arts Centre. Also on the bill were the popular Quebec singers Marie-Eve Janvier and  Jean-François Breau. 

The performance took place in NAC's intimate studio, which seats only about 300 people. As we were getting ready to take our seats, we noticed a lot of men walking around talking into their cuffs -- a sure sign of an imminent PM arrival. And yes, right after U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson and his wife Julie filed into the room with their security detachment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Laureen came in and took their places about three or four rows up from centre stage. That of course fed some speculation that we might see a Cuddy-Harper duet of some kind before the night was out, but (spoiler alert) that didn't happen. 

Cuddy, who had spent the day wandering around Parliament Hill with Moore, told the crowd that he'd been struck by how much talking and arguing is part of the job here. He wondered why we couldn't all get along better (he was joking) and he called Moore "a gentle giant" of a host. In what was an obviously deliberate decision -- Cuddy congratulated himself at the end of the evening for pulling it off -- there were almost no direct references to the PM in the crowd. Instead, Cuddy kept accusing someone in the front row (I'm not sure who it was) of nodding off, and made several musical attempts to either rouse or soothe him into deeper sleep. 

Of course, Cuddy is no stranger to politics. His brother, Loftus Cuddy, actually ran as a Conservative candidate, against Jack Layton, in Toronto-Danforth in the 2004 election. But, as the above-linked article notes, Jim voted against his brother. "As you can imagine, it made for some difficult family events," he's quoted as saying. (If memory serves, Cuddy backed Layton.) 

So what do you sing to a political crowd, which includes the top politician in the country, the U.S. ambassador,  at least a couple of dozen MPs and  journalists from most major media outlets? 

First song was "Watch Yourself Go Down." Second song was "I Could Never Be that Man." And then, along the way, songs from Cuddy's solo albums as well as some of the favourites from Blue Rodeo.  

For his final song, before the encore, Cuddy chose: "It Could Happen to You." This is a political song: at past Blue Rodeo performances, I've heard it dedicated to politicians, including Jean Chretien. It was written in support of the building squatters  forcibly evicted by New York mayor Rudy Giuliani back in the 1990s -- the same inspiration for the best-selling musical, Rent.  

Was there a political subtext in Cuddy closing the session with that song? Here are the lyrics -- I'll let you decide. 

They broke off the locks and they opened the doors 
Pushed up the windows and painted the floors
Grew a little garden outside in the rust and sand
Raised up the roof till it touched the sky
Picked up the pieces that were left to die
Brought this building back with a healing hand

When you see trouble
You're bound to move in on the double
Cause you leave your mark upon everything
In your head those Liberty Bells still ring
But we know that you don't even mean
A thing you say

So you brought in the army to do your job
Of kicking in doors and swinging their clubs
Back in the morning to watch
Themselves on the news
You're doing the bidding of the money man
If it turns out right they'll call you friend
One little favour how could you really refuse

Oh my heart is sinking
Same old useless worn out thinking
You live your life in the court of kings 
Bow to the ruler and kiss the ring
But we don't even understand a thing you say

It could happen to you 
It could happen to you
It could happen to you sometime
When you least expect it 
Done by the ones that you never suspected
All your bills come due
It could happen to you

You really got to wonder what you did it for
Cause you don't need an army 
To move out the poor
You brought it out once I know
You could bring it again

Oh my heart is sinking
Same old useless worn out thinking
You live your life in the court of kings
Count your money as the Raven sings
Safe and sound when the wrecking ball swings
But all your riches won't mean a thing someday
Oh it could happen to you
Oh it could happen to you 
Oh it could happen to you
Oh it could happen to you

 

P.S. Last night's show and receptions (before and after) were sponsored in large part by Quebecor, owner of Sun Media. Additional sponsorship came from private-sector firms and organizations. So fear not -- this wasn't a taxpayer-financed extravaganza. It was, as Moore promised, an incredible celebration of Canadian music. Go see Jim Cuddy when you get the chance: it could happen to you too.

PPS: Sorry about the picture quality. It was taken with my BlackBerry. We were told to put them away for the night, but this being Ottawa, no one seemed to manage that feat. 

Colour commentary

Seeing red? Feeling blue?

Apparently there are more political overtones to these statements in Canada than there are in the United States. I learned this in the last couple of weeks, when I attended a lecture at Carleton by U.S. political marketing expert Ken Cosgrove. He said that while red and blue are also colours associated (respectively) with Republicans and Democrats, Canadians are far more likely to see red as an exclusively Liberal colour and Conservatives as exclusively blue.  

To illustrate this contention, Cogrove  said that it is still okay for a Republican to wear a blue tie to a convention in the U.S., for instance, while it  would be a wee bit more risky for a Conservative to wear a red tie to a party convention here. ("Unless it's Red Friday to support the troops," one Carleton prof remarked.) 

So it's very hard NOT to think of politics when you see this year's Christmas-light display on the Hill, featuring only blues and oranges in the trees -- red bulbs banished, it seems. Here's a low-quality pic I took with my blackberry as I headed to a reception on the Hill on  Thursday night. 

Colour politics on Parliament Hill? 

Surely not. 

That would be like suggesting that someone took a blue paintbrush to the Government of Canada website. 

 As is the case often these days in Canadian politics, this is one of those stories that is maybe best told through comedy.  Put on your rose-coloured spectacles, or blue, if you prefer, and enjoy this sketch from Rick Mercer's show this week: 

 

Not going anywhere

Despite phone-called rumours to the contrary, Irwin Cotler is not going away. Nor is this controversy, which some commentators believe deserves sustained attention. Yesterday in the House of Commons, Mr. Cotler made another intervention to argue   how these calls in his riding were damaging his work as a member of Parliament. It's not clear to me when the Speaker will rule. 

The full transcript of  Cotler's remarks  are below and I've inserted some relevant links, in addition to the ones contained in the Hansard:

 Mr. Speaker, I rise again in the matter of the question of privilege I first raised on November 16. Simply put, the submission from the member for New Brunswick Southwest on Monday evening misstated the facts at issue, however inadvertently, yet again, while ignoring the attending breach of privilege. Moreover, he did not make any reference to the principles and precedents which support my position and which should guide your ruling.

 

    I want to organize my remarks and ensure that we are all following House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition from 2009 by the recognized authorities O'Brien and Bosc. The member stated:

 

In conducting voter identification, the Conservative Party used its traditional voter ID script, with no mention of a byelection.

 

     Either every person who has called, emailed, mailed or faxed my office, or talked to me in person about these calls is lying, or the member is utterly mistaken as to their content while ignoring the evidence.

 

    May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a Huffington Post article, a copy of which was provided to the table clerks, along with samples of the emails and phone calls to my offices, wherein a constituent says:

 

I kept arguing with them. They kept insisting that there was a byelection and I'm politically aware and there isn't one.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. The constituent, and more importantly this constituent is representative of the calls received and the evidence you have received, said, “They kept insisting that there was a byelection...” “was” being the key word, not “maybe”, “could perhaps be”, “might be”. She said “was” and that she had to argue with the caller otherwise.

 

    Any dispute as to the contents of these calls is quickly resolved by looking at the evidence my office has submitted to the table clerks. But, Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that you need not resolve the actual content of the calls prior to ruling. Indeed, as the Clerk of the House noted before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2002, reprinted on page 145 of O'Brien and Bosc:

 

The Speaker's role ought to be explained, and it is that the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders of the day that are before the House.

 

    Indeed, Mr. Speaker, your role is finding whether there is a prima facie breach which O'Brien and Bosc reminds us means a breach, “on the first impression or on first glance”.

 

    It is standard practice that you would take the matter under advisement as you have done, upon first being presented with it. However, I would assert that it is evident on its face, particularly as we begin a fifth round of interventions on this topic, that the matter is sufficiently serious and sufficiently prejudicial to warrant consideration by the whole House and subsequently at committee.

 

    The member for New Brunswick Southwest asserts that my privileges have not been breached and that my parliamentary duties have not been sufficiently impeded. The member is ignoring that sowing confusion as to a member's identity is actionable on its face and alone a per se impediment.

 

    While l believe that I made a clear and compelling case in this regard in my previous intervention, I would like to remind the House and that member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is another privilege avenue of which I have not yet spoken. Specifically, O'Brien and Bosc explained it:

 

In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.

 

    Admittedly, I have not delved much into the discussion of “contempt against the dignity of Parliament” in my previous interventions because the interference with my parliamentary duties was compelling enough on its face. Accordingly on this point, may I briefly remind all hon. members of what O'Brien and Bosc note re prima facie privilege:

 

...some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation and the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament...

 

    It went on to describe the reputational damage cases which I cited in my first intervention and where the matter at hand accords with the established precedents. While I realize that the precedents in O'Brien and Bosc are somewhat more recent on this point, may I draw your attention to the 1987 remarks of Speaker Fraser:

 

The privileges of a member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.

   (1520)  

 

    While the government member assertions that “calls were within the bounds of typical political discourse”, I believe that once there is a false and misleading statement of fact made that there is or will be a byelection and that the member has resigned or is about to resign, this clearly crosses the line and is constitutive of reputational damage.

 

    Again, Mr. Speaker, it is you who informs the House of vacancy in the representation, not any party and certainly not any unsolicited phone call.

 

    I realize that determining contempt against the dignity of Parliament is a somewhat subjective test. On this point, I would direct you to articles in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, the National Post, an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, columns in Le Soleil and other papers that all similarly conclude that these calls are “black ops”, “sleazy”, “odious”, “disgusting”, “Watergate-like”, “a new low in politics”, and much more, the whole bringing members and this institution into disrepute, let alone the clear reputational damage involved.

 

    On this point, Queen's University professor, Ned Franks, a noted expert on parliamentary procedure, referred to the calls as “disgusting...a perversion of the system of representation”.

 

    Similarly, Carleton University political scientist, John Pammett, said:

 

People are confused and negative enough about politics that they don't need that extra push to make them think politicians are crooks or not telling them the truth.

 

    I think those quotes and other like commentary speak for themselves.

 

    Elsewhere in his intervention, the member for New Brunswick Southwest replied to an intervention from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding a 1985 precedent involving a newspaper ad that identified the previous MP as being the sitting MP. The government member said:

 

This is not comparable to the dispute before us today, for a simple reason. The newspaper ad caused confusion by stating that the seat in question was held by someone other than the person who held it.

 

    While there is no less confusion caused by the misrepresentation in the matter at issue that I have resigned or am about to resign, there is also a long-standing principle in this place, and one need only search Hansard to see it repeated time and time again, such as by the Deputy Speaker on January 31, 2003, by the Acting Speaker on April 7, 2008, and by the Speaker on April 19, 2007, let alone in law generally, “...you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly”.

   (1525)  

 

    Accordingly, stating that there is a pending or imminent byelection clearly implies that the member is no longer serving. I do not think for a moment that, just as we would not tolerate calls that say “so and so is no longer your member of Parliament”, we should equally not tolerate these calls which, in their effect, if not also in their intent, convey the same false and misleading information that breaches a member's privilege.

 

    Again, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to Speaker Bosley's 1985 ruling, which reads:

 

...anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member’s functions. Any action which impedes or tends to impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by addressing the final remarks made by the government member. He asserts that this practice will result in you being called upon to “rule on all matters of political activity” and that “You are being asked to send the House into territory where it does not belong”.

 

    While my previous interventions sought to demonstrate that the conduct at issue has nothing to do with normal political activity, let alone the absurdity of trying to validate it under free speech, false misrepresentation is simply not protected speech inside or outside this House. This misconduct clearly falls into the territory of a breach of privilege on which you are asked to rule and for which ample precedent, as I have cited, already exists and has yet to be countered by anything said by government members who have yet to cite any relevant and pertinent authority in this regard.

 

    Any ruling you make, Mr. Speaker, is directly on the point of parliamentary privilege. In other words, people can still discuss politics and people can still traffic in rumours, however distasteful that may be, as I noted already, but the line is crossed when false, misleading and prejudicial information is presented as if it were fact. This is when it becomes and constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege and becomes actionable in the House as past Speakers in the House itself have found.

 

    In this regard, I would draw the attention of all members to the finding of a breach of privilege in the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the first session of the 38th Parliament on a matter regarding ten percenters and applicable to the matter before us. In the privilege case discussed in that report, mailings were sent to the wrong riding and, as such, contained references to “your MP that were inaccurate in terms of the member's positions, voting record and committee assignments”. This was found to breach the member's privileges.

 

    Simply put, while I have intervened already in this matter to demonstrate that it has no relation to free speech, I would note that, with specific regard to false statements made about members, it has already been found that such matters may constitute a breach of privilege.

 

    As such, whereas the government member asserted on Monday, Mr. Speaker, “you are being asked to send the House into territory where it does not belong”, let it be known that the House has already been there, has already pronounced and has already found that such actions may constitute a breach of privilege.

 

    Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that there need not be anything more said on this matter, lest we spend more time discussing matters irrelevant to your ruling such that a breach of privilege somehow becomes protected speech or that false, misleading and prejudicial misrepresentations of fact are somehow said to be within the bounds of political discourse, or that somehow it is relevant as to what members did or did not invoke such privileges in the past as distinct from the principles and precedents where such privileges were invoked and applied.

 

    In closing, Mr. Speaker, you have the authorities before you. The table clerks have been provided with the evidence. I have canvassed all the principles and precedents in this matter and applied them to the case at hand. It should be abundantly clear that the matter is one for the whole House to resolve and, as such, I urge you to find a prima facie breach of privilege with all deliberate speed.

Yes to democracy, no to politics

We keep hearing that more and more people don't vote in Canada. The Samara organization wondered why. Here are the results of their study, in a story I hope will be posted online soon at the Star, but in the meantime, I'm posting the story below, as well as this link to the full study: 

 

Politics and democracy as opposites   Voter-apathy study reveals crushed ideals about system   Are non-voters in Canada apathetic about democracy? Not at all, a new study finds. In fact, some of the apathy stems from bitter experience.   Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau     OTTAWA — Canadians who don’t vote actually believe in democracy — they just don’t believe politics or politicians are very democratic, according to a new study of voter apathy in Canada. “People’s disappointment with politics is driven by their sense of what democracy should be,”  says the study, by the Samara research organization, which conducted in-depth interviews with “disengaged” Canadians to see what was keeping them away from the ballot box. What’s more, many of the vote-averse Canadians have become that way through bitter experience with politics – not through lack of interest or knowledge, as is often assumed, Samara says. “Declining political engagement is, at least in part, due to concrete experiences with politics,” says the report. “Disengaged people felt that politics is a game that does not produce results for them…. The overall point seems to be that there is very little reason to be engaged.” Samara, a non-profit research organization that probes  democracy and public policy in Canada, carried out the study of voter apathy  through a series of eight focus groups between August and October this year. The study – an attempt to look for causes of deepening voter apathy in Canada – involved interviews with people who didn’t vote as well as with people who described themselves as active participants in politics and democracy. The findings blow some holes through the oft-repeated reasons for declining participation in politics – often written off as cynicism or simple lack of education or interest in democracy. In fact, the focus groups showed a good measure of idealism about democracy and democratic principles, and often, a contempt for politics bred by familiarity with its flaws and shortfalls. So while “insiders” in the Canadian political scene may see politics and democracy as intertwined, disengaged Canadians – “outsiders,” as Samara calls them – actually see democracy and politics as opposite concepts in current practice. And it’s a bitter truth they gained from their brushes with the system. “In the past, they believed that the political system was open to them and wanted to hear from them,” the report says. “But once they had an actual concern that needed to be resolved, they found that no one was responsive. From these experiences, the disengaged took to heart the lesson that engaging with the political system is at best a waste of time, and at worst a discouraging and disempowering experience.” Some of the frustration echoes the type of complaints being heard at the “Occupy” protests of recent weeks too – a sense of deafening distance between the decision makers and those affected by their decisions. This kind of experience was at odds with that of the people who described themselves as engaged – who had enjoyed rewarding or responsive experiences with the political system or government, Samara found.  This may be a clue on how to address voter apathy, Samara’s report says – by increasing the responsiveness of politicians and government to citizens’ concerns. As things now stand, Samara says, Canada’s citizenry appears to be locked in a divide between the “insiders” who are engaged, and the increasing ranks of the “outsiders,” who believe that politics doesn’t have much to do with cherished democratic ideals. -30-