Strange Days: John Robson & MPs Right, Sheila Fraser & Acolytes Wrong

Robson: Don't Audit MP Expenses. I was going to ignore the issue, since I foresaw it was likely an impossible battle, and I can't think of a time I've ever previously come across any column by Robson with which I agreed, but hey-ho, I don't think I disagree with a single word in his column, and I can't let the guy twist in the wind by himself, however big a fool he is, usually. It is of course, when considered calmly and objectively, a ridiculous waste of time for the AG, given all the other issues around, a point only underlined by the processes and supervision Parliament has already put in place, of which, whenever any honest person is told or explained, they have to admit. So cost-benefit-wise, the AG's request is stupid. But she has the right to make it, and MPs have the right to refuse, and explain why. But given Fraser's status, and her media cheerleaders, who could care less about accounting practices and productivity, and are predictably slavering at any possibility of stories of abuse, the MPs will likely lose, because they are afraid and unwilling to take Fraser and her supporters' arguments on directly ("There should be strict controls. And there are. So the whole thing is a waste of time, in relative terms, and yet another episode in Fraser's unending quest for stardom, with her media claque's support. Of course, everything, always, could use more scrutiny, but there are many larger, more pressing issues of public policy management and accounting than those of a minuscule amount that is already strictly audited, controlled, and for which sanctions exist and are applied. So we refuse her request, because she's wrong to make it, given she could much better spend her time doing more productive work.") And however few supposed scandals, however minor, there will inevitably be something, which, if Fraser is true to form, she'll oversell to an appreciative press, only to revise her evaluation upon further consideration and questioning, but no-one will make note of that. But this episode reflects a serious problem with commentators' contradictory positions, pro-parliamentarianism in theory, and opposed in practice, as well as how overrated Fraser has been as AG, and frankly, noxious for parliament and Canada.

First, Fraser. Desmond Morton was wrong, separatists, or the Bloc at least, should build two statues in front of the National Assembly, not one: one for Gomery and one for Fraser. Both were and are vastly overrated, suffering from the typical "stars in their eyes" syndrome of the quietly narcissistic technocrats who've climbed to the top of the field, in limited, circumscribed roles where their jobs require them to be convinced of their own rightness at all times, which only reinforces their own ridiculously high opinion of themselves, and their concomitantly low opinion of everyone else, who they spend their lives correcting and judging, "and if only they were in charge, they'd get everything right, and the world would finally see what incomparably brilliant stars they are." Gee it's hard to figure why the commentariat feel such a kinship with them....

But it is bizarre. Gomery was given an open goal, and proceeded to trip over his own feet. He resembled the penalty taker in soccer who tries to demonstrate his superiority by chipping the ball into the net, instead of simply slotting it, and watches as the goalie easily gathers his useless slow looping ball. Of course, like megalomaniacal strikers the world over, it was the ball's fault, the turf moved, the ref put him off, etc.. But when one is supposed to preside an impartial inquiry and plays such silly buggers as to be criticised and repudiated by the courts, and whose final report issued a ton of recommendations which were mostly stupid, impractical and anti-democratic, as their full adoption would have signalled the end of responsible government - which of course was no surprise, since buddy spent his life squirrelled away in the courts, and never had the slightest idea of how government and politics actually work, let alone a coherent philosophy of capital-P Politics - then one really is a complete duffer. But his astonishing underachievement was only possible thanks to the idiocy of another megalomaniacal technocrat, Sheila Fraser. They are such arrogant nerds, real Zuckerberg types, those angry D&D aficionados who can't understand why the world doesn't appreciate their genius.

In her quest for glory, Fraser's language on the sponsorship question was extraordinarily inflated, her initial estimates shockingly torqued. When one considers her subsequent committee appearances, much later, and her false claims that it was the media that revved her words, and they may have been off on the actual abuse by, oh, what, 95% or so, and how little coverage this received, and how utterly blithe she was, it is disgusting. And this is supposed to be the cool, calm, efficient national auditor!? Given the mandate of the AG, and the sensitivity of what she was studying, any half-decent AG should have been extremely careful with their language, and scrupulously accurate in her numbers. She failed badly, on both. And the AG is one of the few jobs where you're absolutely not supposed to fail in this way. She's not some Business Page Editor tosser, who can scream Bull one day, and Bear the next, shamelessly, without recognising any mistakes. She's supposed to be the AUDITOR GENERAL! For Gods' sakes. What a complete tool. Her empire-building attention-seeking megalomania should have been made clear, even for the slow learners, when she effectively subjugated the Environment Commissioner - it was odd observing the media, who'd built her into this great hero as the antithesis to all the "EVIL" in Ottawa, deal so briefly and awkwardly with that episode. But consider, her argument then was exactly the same as MPs' now: the law gives us certain prerogatives which we intend to use for our own political purposes. Just as Fraser says now, so then, whatever the law said, it wasn't meant to be used to prevent certain ends, in this case the audit of expenses, then, the environment commissioner's independence. Fraser could easily have allowed the freedom and independence necessary, if she were reasonable. But she was determined there was only going to be one big Officer of Parliament Star, and it wasn't going to be Gélinas, "that uppity bitch", in Fraser's internal monologue. The difference was, the MPs' situation is already under control, legitimately, while Fraser-Gélinas was needlessly conflictual, because Fraser Must Be Boss Of Everything.

But the problem is, just as when the PQ used Gomery as the premise for questioning about corruption in QC and PLQ responded, accurately, that he was a bad example for them to use, given he was basically found incompetent at his job as Commissioner by the courts, that while that may be true, no-one knows it. "Gomery Good. Fraser Good. Commentariat Good. Chrétien Bad. MPs Bad. Politicians Bad." That's all anyone knows.

Now, if you take the time (takes two seconds, literally) you can find how overjoyed QC ultra-nationalists and separatists were and are by Fraser and Gomery killing off a crucial part of the Federal effort to reassert it and Canada's place in QC. One has to be a real idiot to say "well, we shouldn't need to do such things, etc.". QC is not Brandon, Manitoba, dears. There are only a billion and one studies on the importance of symbolism and visible presence. Separatists & ultra-nationalists have only been aware of this from the beginning and spent a lot of productive effort trying to bring the symbols and identity-influencers over their way, through the decades. Like every other brand on Earth, for Gods' sake. And the Federal Government, faced with a constant aggressive campaign of symbolism and presence by the other side, shouldn't respond? Just how stupid can one be?

But these are not tangential anecdotes, these are essential. Because as many people have pointed out, the rise of these Officers of Paliament, their proliferation, and of "outside experts", is testament to the enfeebling of Parliament, not its empowerment. If representative democracy is about 308 elections, and it is, and those 308 MPs are supposed to be the 308 most important people in Canada, and they are, making policy and holding Government to account, then when these folk have fallen so low in public esteem, and more importantly, in their OWN self-esteem, that they can bullied by "the pure outsider", with all that image's fascistic echoes, then things are in a bad way. The sponsorship program was good public policy but too often badly, corruptly implemented. And MPs, intimidated, threw the baby out with the bath water. Parliament has already got a tight auditing system for expenses that are already very circumscribed and supervised, with sanctions, but MPs seem well on their way to letting an unelected, wrongheaded egotist bully them into submission, with the help of her fellow jealous self-interested D&D nerds in the media. So MPs, which are supposed to be adults, doing the most important work in the country, are letting themselves be turned into irresponsible children, to be chastised by The Almighty Fraser, even though they have perfectly good reason for their initial position on expenses. They, our representatives, think her request is unnecessary, a waste of resources, and hence bad public policy. But they are so hesitant to step up and say so, and tell Fraser off. And of course they get no help from the media, who are Fraser's ennablers.

So we have all these people saying how terrible it is we don't have healthy parliamentary democracy, but then doing all they can, in fact, to act against parliamentarians doing their jobs, and getting a fair shake in arguing their position, and thus, in fact, hurting parliamentary democracy. Of course, MPs would also need to have some balls and willingness to clearly and openly stand up for themselves, but it is a vicious cycle,

The people we elect as our experts on public policy are ever more hamstrung by the same people we claim are essential to the democratic process. Good programs are eliminated because problems are overblown, bad recommendations are implemented that worsen the efficiency and DEMOCRACY of administration, and our elected representatives constantly lose, as does our Parliament, and our democracy. And then media tut-tut at the poor state of things.

Anyway, this post was a waste of time, Robson is right, the MPs are right, but it makes no difference. Until, somehow, MPs recover their self-respect sufficiently to argue for themselves clearly and confidently, for their rights, for their necessary privileges, for their salaries and pensions, and necessary expenses, and all the rest of it, and it is all of a piece, orders of Parliament and work conditions and everything, and until they also somehow get a fair shake from the media when they argue these things, then things will only get worse. I urge MPs to be sharper and more forthright and confident in their own defence, and in criticism of others. But I hold out little hope, nor of their treatment as a result. But I saw Robson speak up, against the consensus, and one can never leave a righteous man to fight on his own (however astonishing it is that it's ROBSON, for Gods' sakes, who is right on this one. Robson! C'est le monde à l'envers.)

Shocking Sexism in Awards & Faculty at Simone de Beauvoir Institute!

Recent media coverage of the appalling sexist bias in grants, applications and positions in the sciences in academia so shocked me that I was moved to wonder if there were not other incomprehensible examples of structural biases elsewhere in academia. I thought I should work from the top down, and there can be no institution more revered for its fairminded conduct than the Simone de Beauvoir Institute, with its commitment to the most progressive of ideals. I assumed that given their professed idealism, there would be little to report, and I could quickly move on. But I have shocking news: there is, from my admittedly cursory examination, clear evidence of a persistent sexist bias in its granting of awards and employment! What a blow! Here are the facts, as best I can tell.
100% of full-time faculty - all of the same gender!
75% of part-time faculty - all of the same gender!
100% of postgraduate award winners - all of the same gender!
96% of research associates - all of the same gender!
100% of postdoctoral scholars - all of the same gender!
Even 100% of the staff - all of the same gender!
The gender quotient of allocation of their four scholarships (go to arts & sciences, and then women's studies) is hard to ascertain, but from the available information it seems no less than 75% for just one gender, and likely much higher!

In light of this shocking news, and given the statements some of its faculty have recently made regarding the illegitimacy of other contributing factors in the allocation of positions and prizes for research, it is clear the Institute must initiate a serious reflection on its own, undoubtedly unconscious, sexist behaviour. And I haven't even gotten into the unconscious racism: under-representation of the Chinese (20% of the world population, and zero representation at the Institute!), Indians (17% of the world population but almost zero at the Institute!), etc..

There is no shame in admitting these biases - it is in fact all to one's honour to be able to recognise one's errors, however unconscious. Speaking of the Chinese, I think they used to have an excellent re-education system for all the benighted and unenlightened - perhaps that is something that could inspire the Institute as it engages in the crucial "re-visioning" exercise which must inevitably follow these shocking revelations. Sisters and brothers, it is time to gather your yoga mats, your best uruguayan folk mixes, your strongest chamomile teas, your least flatulent bean-based vegan takeout, your strongest bulgarian red wine, and all other necessary supplies (don't forget your fair trade sandals - for safety's sake, it may not be possible to always go barefoot), and gather for a fundamental reexamination of your minds, yourselves. I know that you engage in such re-examinations on grueling daily basis in any event, but this one, considering the issues of unconscious structural racism and sexism that strike at the very soul of the Institute, must be especially profound. Remember, spare nothing, bring the very strongest chamomile teas!

I feel your pain. In solidarity, in this difficult time,

EFL

Coalitions: Pro- (Parliamentary) Democracy = Pro-Democracy by Parliamentarians!

It is exceedingly strange to observe virtually the entire Canadian commentariat repeatedly bemoan the excessive presidentialist distortions of our political system, and call for a return to our parliamentary democracy's roots, empowering MPs, and their concurrent calls for more politics of the real, and less superficiality, and then, almost in the same breath, accept presidentalist assumptions in their evaluation of politics. Their commentary on coalitions has been the most incoherent in this regard, from December 2008 onwards. We do not elect Prime Ministers, we elect MPs, correct? No-one denies the importance of party leaders in the electorate's decision-making, but at the end of the day, our democracy is all about 308 separate elections. The MPs we elect, however flawed our electoral system, are the repository of all democratic legitimacy. They gather in the House of the Commoners, usually GROUPING themselves into parties that represent their broad political philosophy, the better to achieve their goals, whatever compromises are made within those GROUPINGS, "internally, behind closed doors", as some might say.

After an election, to ensure basically functional governance, the State, embodied in the Crown and in her Governor General, needs a government that can BEST command the CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE for the forseeable future. How best to ensure that a majority of MPs will support the government on matters of confidence? Obviously, as convention dictates, the largest parliamentary GROUPING is usually favoured by the Crown.

In the hypothesis that, for example's sake, MPs of one party, the outgoing government perhaps, win a plurality of seats, but discover that the parties with the 2nd and, say, 4th most seats, have formed A LARGER PARLIAMENTARY GROUPING, MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC WILL, then by convention, the PM would ask the Crown to accept his resignation as her principal advisor, and that of his government, and advise her, in his last act as PM, to invite the leader of this grouping to become her first advisor, her Prime Minister, and his grouping to fill the positions of government, as this grouping, being the largest, would seem to have the best chance of maintaining the confidence of the House.

It is possible, I suppose, in this hypothesis, that the outgoing Prime Minister and his party, though representing fewer Canadians and comprising fewer MPs than another parliamentary grouping, might be so vile as to attempt to ignore the constitution, and remain in government. No matter. Whatever hypothetical machinations might be attempted, one would expect the Crown to dismiss her outgoing Prime Minister and his government, were they tardy in their duty to resign, and call on the largest grouping to form the government. Should the Crown, upon the advice of her outgoing Prime Minister, wish to give the incumbent government the chance to test their support in the House, the Throne Speech would rapidly provide the first such occasion. Should the Throne Speech be defeated, and there be a larger parliamentary grouping with a greater chance of maintaining the confidence of the House, the Crown would give them the opportunity of forming the government. After all, Canadians having just elected 308 MPs, these MPs representing the individual wills of Canadians, made collective, as best understood through our electoral system, one would hope that they might find a way to provide peace, order and good government for some period, without plunging us into another election, into constant elections.

So it is that there is nothing remarkable about such a hypothesis. The largest parliamentary grouping inevitably forms the government, whether the Conservatives in 1979 or in 1984, the Liberals in 1968 or in 1972. Through the centuries, the formation of such groupings has always been the affair of negotiation and compromise, some more public, much private, some earlier, some later.

It has indeed been entertaining, since 2004, to observe the rediscovery of parliamentary democracy, of parliament's and parliamentarians' powers. One of the most piquant illustrations of unreflective doublethink is that of commentators still coming to terms with our system, as their political education seems to have been woefully betrayed by our historically deficient education systems. Given the American influence that seems to afflict many of them, might I suggest they think of the American House of Representatives, and the Speaker of the House, currently Nancy Pelosi, as the closest thing to a Prime Minister, were the Americans to magically abandon their Presidential system overnight (I'm ignoring the different Senates on purpose, to keep things simple). The American Speaker, like our PM, maintains her position because more Representatives support her and her party than any other. As soon as a larger grouping was formed, however loose, then their leader would become Speaker. So it is with the PM and the House of Commons.

In conclusion, one cannot declare oneself an enthusiastic democrat, a partisan of strengthened parliaments, more representative of the heterogeneous desires of Canadians, and then turn around and say it is wrong or illegitimate for parliamentarians and parliaments to exercise their rights and responsibilities in the name of the Canadians who participated in those 308 elections, and of all Canadians. One is either a democrat or one is not. And in the Canadian system, that means MPs, and Parliament. They decide who is the government, for how long, under what conditions and following what plans. If you are a democrat, you have to support the largest parliamentary grouping's right to form the government.

Viol et le Mgr : Et Polanski et les nouvelles accusations? Radio-Silence

Souvenons-nous de tous les partisans du viol pédophile commis par Polanski. Boisvert fut le premier, au Canada (dans d'autres nations, d'autres ont employé les mêmes arguments), à les réfuter et à les condamner en employant une logique qui anticipa la suite des histoires, et de l'Église, et de Polanski. Or, d'autres accusations de viol d'une jeune fille font surface, mais on ne le saurait pas en se fiant aux médias Québécois. Ce titre, à lui seul, donne toute la mesure du Pays de merveilles dans lequel vivent Polanski et ses partisans : Polanski à nouveau accusé: son avocat menace de poursuivre l'actrice Charlotte Lewis. Vous vous rendez compte? Brillant, comme réplique - accusez mon client, déjà reconnu comme violeur pédophile, de vous avoir violé, et nous allons vous poursuivre! Quelle saleté! Racaille!

Les Pathétiques Wannabe BHL Québécois Pas Mal Muets Devant les Nouvelles Accusations, Hein? Radio-Silence, quoi? Bizarre. Je me demande bien pourquoi...

The UK is the Quebec of the EU

Excellent analogy, thought I'd mention it as useful for both instinctively anglophile QC-bashers and viscerally anti-anglo QC nationalists & separatists to think on, as it might make them reflect more deeply on their unconscious biases and resulting views. I can't be arsed to go through how they resemble each other in every way, socially, elite formation (small homogeneous elites), politically, culturally, etc., trying to maximise benefits, some free-ridering (Euro, Cdn socio-economic architecture - UK/QC feeling historical context being forgotten), push-pull back and forth with "Brussels", view of UK from Brussels, and view of Brussels from UK, etc.. Silliness and cheating on all sides. Welsh & Scots & Northern Irish = QC anglos and first nations groups, in different ways. Pride and fear about identity, immigration, unique model being subsumed into whole (EU/Cda), joy in their language , etc.. You can think through all these things yourselves.

I will mention, as minor illustration, that the sister-brother combo in L'Auberge espagnole would obviously be French Canadian Quebecers in the Canadian remake, the brother particularly, making bad jokes about roommates' cultures, though instead of unfunny Hitler, Italian and Spanish jokes, they would be about Chinese to Chinese Vancouverites, Jews to Jewish Torontonians, Arabs & Islam to Arab Muslim Calgarian, etc.. Same clumsy clueless unfunny humour, not even properly piquant, but which buddy alone thinks is hilarious. And like English brother, by collective's standards, unrestrained, gauche and loutish even, in personal conduct, too loud, too expressive, too drunk, etc.. But no way around it, whole place is too sedate without them, they make it a party. And would end similarly, demonstrating brother's heart of gold, willing to get naked with another man in sister's bed to pretend to be gay in order to save sister's bacon. The EU/Cda and the UK/QC might all be able to get by without each other, although all would be poorer for it, especially UK/QC, but it wouldn't just be a bad idea from point of view of their own interests (other EU powers excited about LibDems' possible ability to convince partners that greater EU involvement makes UK stronger, not weaker - hmmm), and wealth, but how much less rich, fun and interesting the place would be without them. But also, those instinctively dismissive of UK-QC's positions, as seeming them as awkward bunch, thwarting integration and coordinated action objectives, also need to make more of an effort to see things from UK-QC side.

If you find you often tend to take the side opposite that of
"QC" in Cdn affairs, think of the UK in the EU, and look at things from QC point of view.

If you find you are given to always siding with "QC" against "Ottawa" and "Cda", think of problems EU has with UK, and look at things from "Ottawa-Cda" point of view.