As promised, Justin Trudeau delivered a long-awaited apology for those LGBT Canadians who had been persecuted and hounded out of jobs in the civil service, military and police forces as a result of government policies, and to go along with this apology will be some compensation. (The speech and video are posted here). As well, a bill was tabled that will expunge the records of anyone caught up in these processes, but as Ralph Goodale explained on Power Play, the bill requires an application as opposed to the government doing a blanket action, and won’t cover some of the other charges such as being a found-in during a bathhouse raid. That could set up for an interesting future legal challenge, for the record.

So who does this apology affect? Some examples heard yesterday include Diane Doiron, who spoke to Chatelaine about her experiences, or former sailor Simon Thwaites, who was on Power Play.

While some may dismiss the rash of apologies from the Trudeau government as “virtue signalling” or being soft, history shows that official apologies tend to come more from conservative sources than liberal ones. Aaron Wherry, meanwhile, notes that while the Conservatives did participate in yesterday’s apology, they have been making a lot of political hay of late trying to show themselves in opposition to those who would “denigrate” the history of Canada, or who constantly find fault with it rather than praising it uncritically. And yes, it is an interesting little dichotomy.

Those who say that the apology doesn’t go far enough, pointing to the ongoing blood donation ban facing gay men who have had sex in the past year (note: this is a change from the previous lifetime ban) still hasn’t been lifted as promised, the government did put in research dollars to ensure that the proper scientific evidence is there to lift it permanently. While critics say that this remains discriminatory, I remind you that previous governments had to pay dearly for the tainted blood scandals of the past, which is doubtlessly why the current government wants to ensure that all of their bases are covered and untouchable legally in the event that any future lawsuits from this change in policy ensue.

Regarding those Conservative absences during the apology:

During the apology speeches in the Commons, I and several others noted that there were a number of conspicuous Conservative absences – some 15-plus vacant desks, all clustered in the centre of their ranks, which looked pretty obvious from above (and this matters when you’ve got the galleries full of people who have come to hear the apology). I remarked on this over Twitter, and it created a firestorm, especially when I highlighted the vacant area on the seating chart. Some of these absences are legitimate – some MPs were away on committee business, and I got flack from some of them for that afterward, feeling that it was a cheap shot, and if that’s the case, then I do apologize. It wasn’t intended to be, but it was pointing out that the giant hole in their ranks was conspicuous, especially as this was not the case during QP, which immediately preceded said apology. I will also note that none of the Conservative staffers who monitor my Twitter feed (and I know that they do, because they constantly chirp at me by claiming I’m too partisan in my QP-tweeting), offered up a correction or explanation until hours later, which I would have gladly retweeted if provided one. They did not. I can only work with what I can see in front of me at the time, and if some of those MPs who were there during QP went to fill the camera shots on the front benches, that’s still a poor excuse for leaving a giant hole in the middle of their ranks that the full galleries can plainly see.

Good reads:

• Trudeau is expected to name the next Supreme Court of Canada justice today.
• Canada plans to co-host a high-level diplomatic meeting with the Americans to find a non-military solution to the issue of a nuclear North Korea.
• Bill Morneau is now warning he will take legal action if the Conservatives continue to allege insider trading (outside of parliamentary privilege).
• The Liberals continue to call out Andrew Scheer for his campus free speech crusading in the face of a Catholic university cancelling an abortion film screening.
• A British design is the first to be submitted for our new surface combatants.
• Fire up the cheap outrage machine, because here’s a look at the use of the government’s gift bank! Which…looks kinda cheap, in a pejorative way, really.
• An audit of Canadian embassies in five “higher-fraud-risk environments” shows dubious procurement practices, and undocumented payments.
• Carla Qualtrough says that the Phoenix pay system may not be “stabilized” until the end of 2018, and it could be years before it’s fully operational as promised.
• Here’s the look at the plight of a single mother battling with the CRA over child benefits, which the minister doesn’t seem to be overly concerned about.
• Philippe Lagassé looks at the state of legal interpretation of royal succession in Canada, if we wanted to make Prince Harry the King of Canada.
• John Ivison details how badly managed National Research Council policy nearly shuttered a Canadian company creating low-cost vaccines for children.
• Susan Delacourt looks at how tax policy and the behaviour of the CRA can wind up being politically damaging to a government.
• Paul Wells takes a fascinating look into the diplomatic machinations between Russia and Ukraine that Canada is playing a role in.
• My column looks at how exhausted the outrage against Bill Morneau is becoming, given that his critics are now resorting to fiction to try and keep it going.

Odds and ends:

The Review of Parliament talks to Kim Campbell about women and power in Canada.

The secret ballots on whether or not to make NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson’s bill voteable are taking place over two days.