Friday, December 22, 2006
The Gomery Recommendations: Harper Nails It
I'm impressed.
When I'm opposed to recommendations designed to empower the legislative branch, that's a pretty good indicator that those recommendations are badly flawed. Deputy Ministers are already quite politicized enough - the last thing we need is to increase this politicization by requiring them to account to the Public Accounts Committee, which is properly concerned with political accountability - you know, like the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. The sort of accountability that is enforced, in part, by having Ministers account to the Public Accounts Committee.
Beyond that, there's already going to be huge inertia in an organization the size of the federal government. Making Deputy Ministers accountable to anybody but their political masters would only increase this inertia. If there's a tradeoff here to be made between good governance and empowerment of elected officials - and I'm not at all convinced that there is - we need to err on the side of empowerment of elected officials, or democracy ceases to have any meaning (this sounds like histrionics, but it's no exagerration).
The one area where I'm somewhat undecided is on the question of division of the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council. There's no question the current structure of the civil service, where Deputy Ministers report both to their Ministers (who report to the Prime Minister) and to the Clerk (who reports to the Prime Minister) is a little odd. Gomery hadn't proposed making it any less odd, however - he just proposed dividing their reporting structure between their Ministers and some unspecified member of the Civil Service who wouldn't be the de facto Deputy Minister to the PM (as distinct, confusingly, from Deputy PM), but would still report to the PM.
Frankly, this episode is increasing my conviction that the Conservatives are the strongest party on governance issues, Senate reform notwithstanding. Now if only they weren't such an egregiously bad match for my economic (and, to a lesser extent, social) views...
|
I'm impressed.
When I'm opposed to recommendations designed to empower the legislative branch, that's a pretty good indicator that those recommendations are badly flawed. Deputy Ministers are already quite politicized enough - the last thing we need is to increase this politicization by requiring them to account to the Public Accounts Committee, which is properly concerned with political accountability - you know, like the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. The sort of accountability that is enforced, in part, by having Ministers account to the Public Accounts Committee.
Beyond that, there's already going to be huge inertia in an organization the size of the federal government. Making Deputy Ministers accountable to anybody but their political masters would only increase this inertia. If there's a tradeoff here to be made between good governance and empowerment of elected officials - and I'm not at all convinced that there is - we need to err on the side of empowerment of elected officials, or democracy ceases to have any meaning (this sounds like histrionics, but it's no exagerration).
The one area where I'm somewhat undecided is on the question of division of the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council. There's no question the current structure of the civil service, where Deputy Ministers report both to their Ministers (who report to the Prime Minister) and to the Clerk (who reports to the Prime Minister) is a little odd. Gomery hadn't proposed making it any less odd, however - he just proposed dividing their reporting structure between their Ministers and some unspecified member of the Civil Service who wouldn't be the de facto Deputy Minister to the PM (as distinct, confusingly, from Deputy PM), but would still report to the PM.
Frankly, this episode is increasing my conviction that the Conservatives are the strongest party on governance issues, Senate reform notwithstanding. Now if only they weren't such an egregiously bad match for my economic (and, to a lesser extent, social) views...
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Dept. of Stupid Ledes
From this story:
A 24-year-old Hamilton man faces charges in what may be the first case of police using the Internet as an investigative tool.
If this is true, I officially resent paying whatever portion of my rent goes towards property taxes.
|
From this story:
A 24-year-old Hamilton man faces charges in what may be the first case of police using the Internet as an investigative tool.
If this is true, I officially resent paying whatever portion of my rent goes towards property taxes.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Questions The Occur to Me While Reading Right Side Up: Part 1 in a series of at least one part
Yeah, whatever did happen to that office of public prosecutions we were promised?
|
Yeah, whatever did happen to that office of public prosecutions we were promised?
Itemized List
Item: Bob Rae to help write Liberal election platform.
Item: Liberal slogan during 2007 election to be "You're electing a Parliament, not a set of policies."
|
Item: Bob Rae to help write Liberal election platform.
Item: Liberal slogan during 2007 election to be "You're electing a Parliament, not a set of policies."
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Ambivalence!
Well then.
This would make the Senate better-equipped to fulfill its purpose, which puts those (like me) who don't believe that it has any legitimate purpose in something of a bind. Is it worth making an undemocratic body slightly less undemocratic if doing so has the effect of making it more aggressive in its undemocratic behaviour? Right now, the Senate doesn't qualify as much more than a waste of money and a theoretical blight on Canada's democratic landscape - if this bill passed, it would still be a waste of money, will be less of a theoretical blight, and likely more of a practical blight.
I honestly have no idea where I sit on this.
|
Well then.
This would make the Senate better-equipped to fulfill its purpose, which puts those (like me) who don't believe that it has any legitimate purpose in something of a bind. Is it worth making an undemocratic body slightly less undemocratic if doing so has the effect of making it more aggressive in its undemocratic behaviour? Right now, the Senate doesn't qualify as much more than a waste of money and a theoretical blight on Canada's democratic landscape - if this bill passed, it would still be a waste of money, will be less of a theoretical blight, and likely more of a practical blight.
I honestly have no idea where I sit on this.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
And Pete Townshend agrees!
I've never seen an episode of CSI: Miami. This fully justifies that decision.
|
I've never seen an episode of CSI: Miami. This fully justifies that decision.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Belated Post on Dion and Citizenship
I'm not entirely decided on this, though I'm leaning strongly in the direction that he shouldn't have to give up his French citizenship, if only on the basis of precedent.
You can help me think this through, though: what do you consider the obligations of citizenship? I understand the legal obligations, but what are the moral ones? Besides the legal effects, none of which preclude a French citizen from serving as Prime Minister of Canada, what is the difference between my relationship with Canada and my German girlfriend's (said girlfriend being a Permanent Resident of Canada)? For that matter, besides the legal effects, what's the difference between my relationship to Germany (which is essentially nonexistent) and hers?
Honestly, the more I think about it citizenship in any country strikes me as being basically a passport and the right to vote. Is there more that I'm missing (preferably something that has some effect on the dual citizenship debate)?
|
I'm not entirely decided on this, though I'm leaning strongly in the direction that he shouldn't have to give up his French citizenship, if only on the basis of precedent.
You can help me think this through, though: what do you consider the obligations of citizenship? I understand the legal obligations, but what are the moral ones? Besides the legal effects, none of which preclude a French citizen from serving as Prime Minister of Canada, what is the difference between my relationship with Canada and my German girlfriend's (said girlfriend being a Permanent Resident of Canada)? For that matter, besides the legal effects, what's the difference between my relationship to Germany (which is essentially nonexistent) and hers?
Honestly, the more I think about it citizenship in any country strikes me as being basically a passport and the right to vote. Is there more that I'm missing (preferably something that has some effect on the dual citizenship debate)?
Whither the NDP?
Chantal Hébert's column suggests that the NDP has lost all ownership over the environment issue, and that, as a result of this and other factors, the party's very existence is in jeopardy next election.
If Hebert's right - and she hasn't been right about much else lately - this is a shame. I'm often pretty hard on the NDP, mostly because it pains me to see what ought to a party of principles - my principles, for the most part - sell out, where I basically expect it from the other parties, but they've a history of stronger environmental policy than any of the other parties. This includes the Greens - just ask the Sierra Club, which endorsed the NDP over the Greens at a time when its President was a lady named Elizabeth something.
I don't think the NDP's in jeopardy; it emerged from much direr straights after the e1993 election. But if it is, it's not the end of anything but a label. There will still be aggressively pro-environment MPs in the House, be they Greens, Blocquistes, independents, or even Liberals. In fact, given the direction that federal politics seem to be going, there will probably be more than ever. Getting attached to a specific party and elevating its importance to a higher plane than the issues for which it stands goes against most of what I advocate.
Let the chips fall where they may.
|
Chantal Hébert's column suggests that the NDP has lost all ownership over the environment issue, and that, as a result of this and other factors, the party's very existence is in jeopardy next election.
If Hebert's right - and she hasn't been right about much else lately - this is a shame. I'm often pretty hard on the NDP, mostly because it pains me to see what ought to a party of principles - my principles, for the most part - sell out, where I basically expect it from the other parties, but they've a history of stronger environmental policy than any of the other parties. This includes the Greens - just ask the Sierra Club, which endorsed the NDP over the Greens at a time when its President was a lady named Elizabeth something.
I don't think the NDP's in jeopardy; it emerged from much direr straights after the e1993 election. But if it is, it's not the end of anything but a label. There will still be aggressively pro-environment MPs in the House, be they Greens, Blocquistes, independents, or even Liberals. In fact, given the direction that federal politics seem to be going, there will probably be more than ever. Getting attached to a specific party and elevating its importance to a higher plane than the issues for which it stands goes against most of what I advocate.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Friday, December 08, 2006
My Three Hundred and Ninety-Fifth Post
Elizabeth May does realize that discrediting Stéphane Dion on the environment is going to have to be a critical part of her party's campaign in the 2007 election, right?
I mean, it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't feel compelled to automatically attack a colleague on the basis of party affiliation, but there's also a point at which you have to wonder why she's leading a party that is, presumably, opposed to the Liberals. Is she really suggesting that she and Dion are that close on what is, for both of them, their flagship issue?
It does raise a fun hypothetical, though - suppose the Liberals win a minority government (more likely than they're being given credit for) and May wins Cape Breton-Canso (unlikely right now - made all the more unlikely, ironically, by Dion's win - though it's been one of the most bizarrely unpredictable ridings in the country since 2000), what are the odds she makes it into a Dion cabinet? Probably slim, but amusing to think about.
|
Elizabeth May does realize that discrediting Stéphane Dion on the environment is going to have to be a critical part of her party's campaign in the 2007 election, right?
I mean, it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't feel compelled to automatically attack a colleague on the basis of party affiliation, but there's also a point at which you have to wonder why she's leading a party that is, presumably, opposed to the Liberals. Is she really suggesting that she and Dion are that close on what is, for both of them, their flagship issue?
It does raise a fun hypothetical, though - suppose the Liberals win a minority government (more likely than they're being given credit for) and May wins Cape Breton-Canso (unlikely right now - made all the more unlikely, ironically, by Dion's win - though it's been one of the most bizarrely unpredictable ridings in the country since 2000), what are the odds she makes it into a Dion cabinet? Probably slim, but amusing to think about.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A bad start
Stéphane Dion has wasted no time dragging out the tired (and utterly disingenuous) old Paul Martin "why do the Conservatives want to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" line.
Once the federal government has unsuccessfully defended the position that marriage can be legally defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others before the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be fair to say that the Charter requires the legalization of gay marriage. Once the Conservatives advocate the use of Section 33 to preserve this definition, it will be sort of fair to accuse them of trying to override the Charter (I say "sort of" because Section 33 is, of course, *part* of the Charter).
Of course, ideally we won't reach this point, because the House of Commons will decide that, irrespective of whether or not the right of people to marry members of their own sex is protected by the Charter, allowing same-sex marriage is the right policy decision. But I'd really like to see a Liberal leader come out and say that gay people *should* be allowed to marry, instead of just that the Supreme Court will probably leave the government no choice on the matter in the purely hypothetical event that such a question is argued before it. I was hoping Stéphane Dion would be that leader. I am disappointed.
|
Stéphane Dion has wasted no time dragging out the tired (and utterly disingenuous) old Paul Martin "why do the Conservatives want to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" line.
Once the federal government has unsuccessfully defended the position that marriage can be legally defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others before the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be fair to say that the Charter requires the legalization of gay marriage. Once the Conservatives advocate the use of Section 33 to preserve this definition, it will be sort of fair to accuse them of trying to override the Charter (I say "sort of" because Section 33 is, of course, *part* of the Charter).
Of course, ideally we won't reach this point, because the House of Commons will decide that, irrespective of whether or not the right of people to marry members of their own sex is protected by the Charter, allowing same-sex marriage is the right policy decision. But I'd really like to see a Liberal leader come out and say that gay people *should* be allowed to marry, instead of just that the Supreme Court will probably leave the government no choice on the matter in the purely hypothetical event that such a question is argued before it. I was hoping Stéphane Dion would be that leader. I am disappointed.
