The government is launching a new cyberbullying awareness campaign, which includes TV commercials. You know, for the “cyberbullying” law that a) has little to do with cyberbullying and more to do with lawful access, and b) still hasn’t passed. One has to wonder, however, how effective it’ll be since many teenagers don’t see it as “bullying” but just “drama,” and may not relate to it in the way that the government intends. Let’s also not forget that this is the same government that put out some of the lamest and most ineffective anti-drug ads aimed at families, so we’ll see just how effective these cyberbullying ads will be. Michael Den Tandt says that the Conservatives need to address the bullying culture and lack of decorum in their own ranks first.
Tag Archives: Cyberbullying
Roundup: A sizeable delegation
Former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and Jean Chrétien are joining Stephen Harper at Nelson Mandela’s funeral in Johannesburg. Also joining them will be former Governor Generals Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean, premiers Stephen McNeil, Alison Redford, Bob McLeod and Darrell Pasloski. Thomas Mulcair will be joining, as will MPs Deepak Obhrai, Irwin Cotler, Peter Braid, Joe Daniel, Roxanne James, and retired Senator Don Oliver, plus AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo. Joe Clark will be leading a delegation from the National Democratic Institute.
Roundup: Senators start fighting back
It seems that some senators have had enough, and they’re not going to take it any more. First we saw Senate Speaker Kinsella bash back at NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s unfounded smear during Question Period earlier in the week – for which Nathan Cullen went whining to the press about how it “undermined the Senate,” showing that he neither understands the role of the Senate Speaker and how it differs from that of the Commons, nor that Kinsella was simply responding in kind to Mulcair’s attack. That the NDP have built up a huge straw man around the supposed “non-partisan” nature of the Senate – which never has been the case nor was it ever the intention – shows the lengths to which they will construct fictions in order to suit their partisan abolition call. Yesterday we saw Quebec Senator Claude Dagenais unleashing his full fury on NDP MP Charmaine Borg after he received one of her ten-percenters about abolishing the Senate. His public response challenged her assertion that Senators were useless by remarking that constituents whom he has sent to speak to her (their local MP) found her to be useless and powerless, before he suggested that Borg go to the Parliamentary and read up on the institution before she attack it. He then unloaded on the fact that they were only elected by a surge of spontaneous sympathy for Jack Layton in Quebec (and it will be noted that Borg was one of the McGill Four who never even visited her riding during the election). He also has no intention of backing down so long as the NDP continue to attack the Senate. Meanwhile, some Conservative senators are also tired of being given orders by the PMO, and are meeting this weekend to talk about steps to reassert their independence – things like refraining from attending national caucus and possibly establishing bipartisan regional caucuses instead. That’s an incredibly encouraging sign and would go a long way to the chamber reasserting itself after being pushed around by a PMO bent on control.
Roundup: Possible charges against Wright
And with the likelihood that charges will be laid against Nigel Wright, the ClusterDuff exploded all over again yesterday, as an 81-page court affidavit from the RCMP investigator was made public. There are some fairly shocking revelations in there – things like how Wright was in communication with Senator Irving Gerstein as Gerstein made back channel contacts with a partner at Deloitte to inquire about the progress of the Duffy audit and how the repayment would affect it – and that such partner is a top Conservative donor, and that the firm also audit’s the party’s finances. Or that the Prime Minister was told “in broad terms” that Wright was helping Duffy out with the repayment – though it also says clearly that Harper was not told the particulars. That Gerstein considered using party funds to repay Duffy when they thought it was a $32,000 price tag. That there are a number of problems with Duffy’s various speeches in the Senate where he painted himself as some kind of unwitting victim. And that there was a heavy PMO hand in the attempt to change the audits, though there was pushback (including from one of LeBreton’s staffers, Chris Montgomery), and frustration on Wright’s part because the Senate was not responding as they would like when it came to the management of the crisis. Why, it’s terrible that Wright and the PMO were confronted by the notion that the Senate is an independent chamber of parliament that is institutionally independent from their control. The horror! There was even apparently an incident where the Senate clerk had to have words with Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen about her partisan behaviour on the steering subcommittee of the Internal Economy Committee. (Mark Kennedy has some highlights here.)
QP: Back to form
The first Question Period of the new session, and the Prime Minister was absent, jetting off to Brussels to conclude the trade agreement with the EU. After a round of Members’ Statements which were pretty much bog standard for the rhetorical levels we’ve come to expect in the current parliament, Thomas Mulcair returned to true form — reading from a mini-lectern. But rather than beginning with questions on the ClusterDuff, Mulcair started with a calm and controlled question on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Peter MacKay, acting as the designated back-up PM du jour, assured him that they were taking the measures seriously. Mulcair then turned to the issue of “corruption” in the prime minister’s office, and accused him of hiding on the other side of the Atlantic. Pierre Poilivre responded and extolled the virtues of the Canada-EU trade deal. After another round of the same, Mulcair turned to the closure of Veterans Affairs service centres, for which Parm Gill insisted that they drive to meet veterans at a place of their choosing rather than forcing them to drive to designated locations. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of cyberbullying, and demanded that they pass Robert Chisholm’s bill at all states unanimously. (Proof right there as to why we need the Senate to do the scrutiny that MPs seem to want to avoid). MacKay assured him that a bill would come in due course. For his turn, Justin Trudeau asked why there was no mention of transparency or accountability in the Throne Speech. Poilievre assured him that once the Supreme Court provided then with a “legal reference manual,” they would reform the Senate. Trudeau then pointed out the government’s abysmal economic record, which Poilievre laughed off. For his last question, Trudeau asked why the government would not put in place a new system for MPs’ expenses reporting. John Duncan said that until a new system was agreed to, Conservative MPs would do it on their own accord.
Roundup: The unfair treatment of Pamela Wallin
Oh dear – Senator Pamela Wallin may have to end up paying back between $120K and $140K in questionable expenses, but she’s not happy about it, and calls the process unfair. And she’s right to a point – that the auditors applied the post-2012 rules to the pre-2012 period, but Wallin seems to forget that the Internal Economy Committee can also decide what seems to be “reasonable” in terms of the expenses claimed, or what should have been her better judgement. There were also concerns that Wallin and her staff retroactively changed her calendar in order to remove riding association events, though Wallin claims that she was just removing personal details, and that the auditors already had calendar copies as well as access to her hand-written diary, and that Senator Tkachuk told her to, because the process was already bogged down and taking too long. Nevertheless, she plans to pay back the expenses with interest while she challenges the rules. Here’s a look at how Wallin’s audit results may affect other Senators who travel to do studies or promote causes that aren’t immediately the subject of committee duties. This of course brings me to the point of the pundit class and various talking heads – including Marjory LeBreton – going on about how this is some signal that the Senate has to “change or die.” Um, change how? This isn’t an issue about the Senate as it operates, it’s about financial management issues, which is largely with in the financial controls of the Senate’s administration. Do those rules need to be tightened? Sure – and they realised that and have been doing that over the past couple of years. Could they be more transparent? Absolutely – and they’re already far more transparent than MPs are, for that matter. But none of this has to do with the structure of the Senate itself, so somehow trying to make the inappropriate expenses of a small handful of Senators into an indictment of the Chamber as a whole is, quite frankly, intellectually dishonest. More to the point, whenever someone says “reform,” the immediate response is “reform how? To what end?” Chances are, they won’t have an intelligible answer for you, which is telling about the problem with the level of debate, where “reform” is treated like some kind of magical incantation, as though it will somehow make everything better without any kind of plan.
Roundup: Mulcair’s summer tour
While in St. John’s, NL, Thomas Mulcair claimed that he won’t raise personal taxes (because apparently people don’t pay for corporate taxes) and that nobody had ever asked him that before (not true). He also pointed to a graveyard on a map and said that the Liberals are headed there – because that’s classy and raises the tone of debate! He then moved onto PEI to kick off his summer tour of constitutional vandalism (aka advocating Senate abolition) and offered nothing but bluster and misleading characterisations.
The Senate’s internal economy committee promises that they won’t “monkey around” with Pamela Wallin’s audit, but it may be damaging enough that they might consider recalling the full Senate shortly to deal with it.
Roundup: Holding off on a committee investigation
The Commons transport committee met yesterday, some ninety minutes after Transport Canada handed down new rules when it comes to rail safety, based on the two letters that the Transportation Safety Board sent them last week in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And while the NDP wanted an immediate study of the rules, the Conservatives and Liberal decided that now was not the time, with as many as nine investigations ongoing or soon to be underway, and that it could either distract or draw too many people away from the front-lines of the investigation. But yes, they would study it, just later.
Roundup: Recall the committee
Olivia Chow has garnered enough support to recall the Commons transport committee on Tuesday to hold emergency meetings on rail safety, although I’m still not sure what they’ll accomplish other than the feeling that they’re seen to be doing something, even though there are still very few facts on the table as to what actually happened in Lac-Mégantic. Meanwhile, the Transportation Safety Board tabled their annual report to Parliament, and lamented the lack of expediency by which Transport Canada implements their regulations, something Lisa Raitt is now calling on the department to do.
Roundup: So long for the summer, MPs!
Ladies and gentlemen, the House has risen for the summer. Let us rejoice! The Senate, however, continues to sit, likely for another week or two, as they clear the remaining bills off their plates before the recess and likely summer prorogation. (And yes, I’ll be recapping Senate QP for the duration).
Marking the last day was the escalation of the transparency game, where the NDP finally unveiled their own transparency plan, which basically proposes to dismantle the Board of Internal Economy and replace it with an independent oversight body. The proposal was agreed to go to study by committee before the House rose. While the goal here is to end the practice of MPs policing MPs, there is a danger in that by absolving themselves of their responsibilities, they are on the road to a kind of technocratic system that has little accountability. It should also give one pause – if Parliament is indeed the highest court in the land (and it is), what does it say that those who make up its occupants cannot be counted on to hold themselves to account. It would seem to me that simply demanding a greater standard of transparency would have gone a long way to solving the issues inherent with MPs policing themselves than a wholesale overturning of the system.