There was an interesting and perhaps somewhat revealing interview in The Hill Times yesterday where openly gay MP Rob Oliphant let it be known that despite the outward acceptance of LGBT issues in the Liberal Party, it is not a universally held opinion, and that there are still undercurrents of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude that still reside within some of its members. As an example, MP John McKay – a noted evangelical Christian – was quoted as saying that his feelings about same-sex marriage haven’t changed, even though he considers the issue settled. It’s that line between tolerance and acceptance, and Oliphant rather adroitly points out that the line is still there within his own caucus. It also seems to me to be a kind of oblique explanation for why the government wound up taking such a tough line on the assisted dying bill – to the point that they would rather see it go back to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to suffer a defeat and be “forced” to deal with the issue as it was originally laid out in the Carter decision rather than to go along with it on their own. There are other lines within the party where Trudeau has forced the issue with his candidates and caucus, such as abortion (McKay being an opponent, as was Lawrence MacAulay until Trudeau’s edict), and it would seem that the same line is being threaded with the assisted dying issue. The difference is that with this one, Trudeau did not force the issue with his caucus and insist that this is a Charter issue that they will be whipped on (never mind that the Carter decision very clearly stated that yes, this is a Charter issue and this is why the current law is not adequately ensuring access for these Canadians with grievous and irremediable suffering). And it did seem that it was originally going to be the case where this was going to be a whipped vote on Charter lines, but he backed away from that under some public pressure from the media. How much of that was from push-back from the caucus and the broader party membership remains to be seen, but it would seem that the attempt to create the broadest possible tent is forcing some uncomfortable compromises, and in this case, Trudeau made the calculation that this wasn’t a battle he was willing to fight within his own base, never mind that he had the Charter argument right there. Instead, we are left with an inadequate law that will be challenged again (and one hopes not at the expense of another suffering family), and the reminder that while the public face of the Liberal Party is one of progressivity, there remains a social conservative undercurrent of the party that the leader’s declarations haven’t entirely done away with.
Tag Archives: Canada 150
QP: A (mostly) serious, grown-up day
There we no major leaders present for Question Period yet again, and with an increasing number of empty desks, the time of year is getting increasingly obvious. After an emotional tribute by Nathan Cullen to UK MP Jo Cox, who was murdered in her home riding earlier today, there was a moment of silence in the Commons. Jason Kenney started off, demanding that ISIS be considered a genocide. Stéphane Dion assured him that because of the UN report on genocidal activities, they were asking the UN Security Council to make a declaration. Kenney insisted that Dion was late to the party and named off other affected local populations, and Dion reminded him that Canada’s policy was the same as our allies and we were taking the lead in getting the Security Council to Act and it was why we tripled our contribution to the allied forces in the region. A third round from Kenney got the same answer. Michelle Rempel was up next, and demanded action on resettling Yazidis to Canada. John McCallum noted that several families were on the way to Winnipeg in a few weeks under private sponsorship, and noted that the Immigration Committee had just adopted a motion to study it. Rempel quoted the act that lets McCallum take action immediately, and he reminded her that the situation was more complicated than that. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet led off for the NDP, demanding parliamentary oversight for weapons exports. Dion stated that he controls export permits and does so with rigour and transparency. Boutin-Sweet then demanded a public inquiry into Afghan detainees, and John McKay listed off past and ongoing investigations. Murray Rankin was up next, and demanded that parliament pass Bill C-14 as amended. Jody Wilson-Raybould insisted that the bill as tabled was already constitutional and that it was the right approach. Rankin demanded the bill be referred to the Supreme Court, but Wilson-Raybould was not moved.
Another demand for the #SCC to review a bill. Because legislating is now a game of "Mother May I?" #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 16, 2016
QP: Applauding and chiding Sweden
Despite it being caucus day, none of the major leaders were present in the Commons today, and I find myself at a loss as to why that would be the case. That left Denis Lebel to lead off, wondering if an announcement on softwood lumber was waiting for President Obama’s visit. David Lametti responded with the usual assurances that they are working hard on the file. After another round of the same, Jason Kenney stood up to attempt to shame the government over their decision to vote against their motion on declaring ISIS a genocide. Stéphane Dion noted that Sweden’s parliament defeated a similar irresponsible motion. Kenney tried again, and third time, but Dion wouldn’t bite, instead reading what a responsible motion would look like. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, decrying the delay in the court case between KPMG and the CRA — not that it’s actually the administrative responsibility of the government. Diane Lebouthillier noted that sometimes there are delays in getting evidence, and stated that the CRA is closing in on tax cheats. Julian asked again in English, got the same answer, and then Hélène Laverdière asked about a report on Afghan detainees, demanding a public inquiry. Harjit Sajjan responded that they take human rights seriously, and they would take any new allegations seriously. Laverdière demanded a public inquiry, but Sajjan wouldn’t bite.
The Speaker worries about children in the galleries. I don't see any schoolchildren — mostly seniors. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 15, 2016
Roundup: Two bills heading back
It looks like the Senate has nearly finished with two of the contentious bills on its plate, and both are headed back to the Commons with amendments. The first is the obvious one, Bill C-14, where the biggest change has been to drop the requirement that a condition must essentially be terminal for the law to grant a medically-assisted death, but other amendments such as allowing for advanced directives failed in part because Senator Murray Sinclair made a compelling case that the language in the amendment was sufficiently unclear. The challenge there is that while the government promises further study in the language of the bill, there is little guarantee that will actually happen, or if it does, that legislation will follow, because MPs are terribly spineless about these sorts of things and they require being “forced” by the courts.
The other bill is C-7, the RCMP unionization bill, where the list of exclusions that the government had put into the bill has been removed, and somewhat inexplicably, a provision that a union certification vote has to be done by secret ballot was inserted (though I suspect the latter was a compromise with the Conservatives to get them to pass the more important amendment of striking down the exclusions). In that case, the government has a hard time justifying those exclusions, particularly as they both make little sense, and perpetuate the problems of the Commissioner’s office already having too much power, while it would continue to give him even more.
So what’s next? Once those bills head back to the Commons, we’ll see how much the government plans to dig in its heels, and how tough senators can talk about insisting that those changes be in the bills, particularly as they have the weight of the Supreme Court of Canada behind them in both cases. The biggest problem the Senate will face is splintering resolve – enough senators are not willing to stand up to the elected Commons even in the face of a bill that is likely not to pass constitutional muster because the Commons is the elected chamber. Never mind that the Senate was created as an appointed body so that it could do just that – stand up to the elected chamber when need be, because their lack of a need for re-election allowed their reflection on bills to be more “sober,” and this is a case where that particular “sobriety” is needed in the face of pressure from religious and disability groups. But, as I maintain, it remains likely that the Commons is looking for an excuse to be “forced” to accept these changes, and the Senate threatening to use their veto would be excuse enough for MPs to make the needed changes in a way that allows them to hide behind the Senate and skirt responsibility, as they did the courts before them. We’ll have to see.
Roundup: Refugee hysteria
The question of Syrian refugees in the aftermath of the Paris attacks has reached ridiculous proportions, as a number of American state governors declared that they were going to let ISIS win and terrorize them, by insisting that they didn’t want any Syrian refugees in their states. Because it’s the refugees that have been responsible for mass shootings in the States, right? Closer to home, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided he was going to be the one to try and crank up the concern trolling over refugees to eleven, saying that he wants the whole thing suspended because he thinks that security screening is being compromised in order to reach the “quota” and “deadline,” despite there being zero evidence to that effect, and the fact that in order for people to be registered refugees under the UNHCR, most of these kinds of background checks will already have been completed. Unfortunately, Wall is also cynically pandering to populist sentiment that has been stoked by the hysteria of what happened in Paris, in defiance of logic and fact. What is fortunate, however, is that pretty much every other province has disavowed this kind of nonsense and is ready to push ahead, with Quebec and Ontario ready to accept some 16,000 refugees, Rachel Notley being okay with the accelerated timeline, Greg Selinger saying that Manitobans are excited to welcome newcomers, and Christy Clark recognizing the urgency to bring refugees over. So it looks like Wall is the outlier on this one, but that’s not exactly a surprise, considering that critical thinking hasn’t been his strongest suit on a number of other files *cough*Senate reform*cough*.
https://twitter.com/saladinahmed/status/666337468132761600
Roundup: A moratorium courting constitutional crisis
Without going too deeply into this (something I’ll save for later), Stephen Harper decided that his best way to “differentiate” himself on the Senate was to flout the constitution, and declare a moratorium on any future appointments. There are already 22 vacancies in the Chamber – a full fifth of its complement, and more than any in history. It’s unconscionable, because there are supposed to be 105 senators, and not a maximum of. It’s a complete abrogation of the compromises made by the Fathers of Confederation, and furthermore, it’s also flouting the decision of the Supreme Court who said explicitly that the Senate has a role with sober second thought. That role is already being compromised because they’re having trouble filling committee seats, and this is a very serious problem. On the one hand, this official declaration of a moratorium is a gift to Vancouver lawyer Aniz Alani, who has launched a challenge in Federal Court to get a declaration that the Prime Minister is obligated to make appointments as they happen. It’s also courting problems with federal-provincial relations for a couple of reasons – one is that Harper is now attempting to do through the back door what he won’t do from the front door (again), and he’s using a childish tactic of throwing this problem into the laps of the premiers to come up with some kind of solution without him. It also highlights that there is again a choice for voters in the election – you can vote to keep in a party whose leader flouts the constitution and the Supreme Court; one who promises to do the very same while chasing the pipe dream of Senate abolition; and one who has promised concrete and constitutional measures to reform the appointment process in the same way that Harper did with vice-regal appointments. Oh, and in case you were wondering, if the courts declare that a Prime Minister has a constitutional obligation to make appointments as they happen – and that’s pretty much guaranteed – and the PM still refuses to, we’re into constitutional crisis territory where the Governor General will have the very real need to dismiss said PM. This is what we’re courting here. It’s not a trivial matter.
https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/624675200358055936
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/624675923984576512
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676159687671809
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676449245638656
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624676790179655680
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/624677092953858048
Roundup: Stacking the panel
The government has unveiled how they’re going to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on doctor-assisted dying, and it could not be any more spineless if they tried. Having first ignored the issue in Parliament for decades, they waited for the courts to tell them to do something, and by something, they decided to appoint a three-person panel to hold more consultations and come up with recommendations. In other words, outsourcing their response. But wait – it gets better. Two of the three members of this panel are opponents to doctor-assisted dying, and testified on the government’s behalf during the court cases. The third member, a former Quebec cabinet minister, is vested in the issue of provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the government has decided on the outcome they want, and stacked the panel in such a way as to deliver it. We shouldn’t be surprised by this response, considering how closely it mirrors what happened with the Bedford decision on prostitution. Rather than actually heed the decision and what it said about safety and security for sex workers, the government stacked their consultations in favour of opponents and religious institutions, dismissed as much expert testimony as they could in committee hearings, and drafted a bill that substantively does not change the situation for those sex workers when it comes to their safety, and will in fact just drive the industry further underground by criminalising buyers, and all the while touting that they were listening to the responses from their consultations. Watching them do the same with the assisted dying issue is proof positive that this is a government that refuses to make any hard decisions. (On a related note, here’s an interesting analysis of the Court’s decision in the case from Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen).
The government has announced their panel to deal with the Carter decision. #SCC #AssistedDying #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/n3KyOaKc3L
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 17, 2015
Roundup: The Senate invokes privilege
In his attempt to cast the net far and wide in order to excuse Mike Duffy’s housing claims, it seems that Donald Bayne is trying to show that plenty of other senators were improperly claiming for Ottawa residences, and is trying to compel the release of an internal Senate audit conducted in 2012, where two Senators – retired Senator Zimmer and Senator Patterson – were found to have questionable claims which they later explained away. The Senate, however, is invoking privilege and refusing to turn it over, which is their constitutional right. They are under no obligation to help Duffy’s defence, after all, and as a legislative body they have the right to conduct their own affairs. And before anyone starts getting hysterical, remember that privilege is all about the independence of the institution, and keeping the courts out of parliament so that it can do its job without the constant threat of litigation during the legislative process. Likewise, Parliament doesn’t get involved in individual court cases because that would interfere with the independence of the courts. Otherwise, Bayne tried to bring up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen yesterday who was part of the subcommittee that “sat in judgement” of Duffy when she was claiming her long-time Ottawa residence as secondary for two years while she was trying to sell it in order to fully move back to New Brunswick (this is the point where I mention that she shouldn’t have been appointed as a New Brunswick senator until she was fully moved back). Also, the Senate finance officer continued to be grilled, and continued to push back against Bayne, going so far as to read more than the passages he indicated in order to provide context, which the judge allowed her to do. Nicholas Köhler paints that sketch with his usual aplomb.
Not everything involving the assertion of parliamentary privilege is sinister, and rarely if ever is it the government of the day's call.
— kady o'malley (@kady) April 27, 2015
Roundup: The Privacy Commissioner finally has his say
Bill C-51 is now getting its review in the Senate, hearing from someone that the Commons didn’t – the Privacy Commissioner. What they got was an earful – there are some big problems with the information sharing provisions in the bill that would allow large amounts of personal information to be collected and shared between departments with little justification, and that his office would be swamped with work because of it. He’s also calling for oversight – like everyone else – and for the ability for different watchdogs to communicate with one another and coordinate their investigations in order to get a better picture of what these organisations are doing as they work together but their oversight remains siloed. Those other oversight bodies – SIRC and the CSE Commissioner – had much the same concerns when it comes to the ability to work together, and just keeping pace with the increasing scope and scale of operations. But will any of this have an effect? Maybe, as there are some Conservative senators who are concerned about these kinds of things and who may push back. But the government may bully through, and said senators may decide that this isn’t the hill they want to die on (which does happen), and they’ll let it go through. Suffice to say, the issue has not gone away.
Roundup: Find a new narrative for Mulcair
Michael Den Tandt writes that Thomas Mulcair is the most effective parliamentarian that we have today – which makes me weep a lot, mostly because it simply isn’t true. Den Tandt focuses on the three main party leaders, and tries to rate them on performance versus the attention that they get, and his thesis is that Mulcair may be the most effective but gets least attention for all manner of reasons. But in his construction of said premise, he gets a few things wrong. For one, he claims that Mulcair ditched his speaking notes, which is absolutely not true. What Mulcair did was ditch the mini-lectern on his desk, but not until the heyday of Duffy questions, which really was Mulcair’s moment. It was his “prosecutor-in-chief” moment, which lasted for about two days, and then petered out, and he has yet to re-create the moment or the energy since. He still has his notes – they’re just on his desk, and he still reads from them, and it’s evident in both the tone and substance of his questions – particularly as he rarely asks direct follow-ups, and may not ask a follow-up until 20 minutes later in QP, or not at all until the next day. The problem remains that much of the commentariat remains fixated on this vision of Mulcair as “prosecutor-in-chief” and “best performer in the House” even though it was a two-day experience that has not been repeated since. Of course, they don’t attend QP and one isn’t sure how often they watch the forced perspectives on CPAC, so they can stick with this image and not have it shaken by daily exposure to what Mulcair is really like as a performer. And there are far better parliamentarians as a whole – those who show up for debates, fully researched and able to speak off-the-cuff, to ask or take questions, and to do more than simply read speeches into the record. They’re few and far between, but they do exist. Mulcair is not one of those MPs – not by a long shot. But somewhere along the way, those couple of days during the Duffy heyday has given pundits a narrative that they refuse to be shaken from. And it makes me sad that after watching Bob Rae wipe the floor with his opponents during QP for nearly two years, for whom Mulcair was a non-entity in comparison day in and day out, that his far superior performance is so easily forgotten.