Tag Archives: Library and Archives

Roundup: Not another special committee

Posted on by

And so the filibuster over potential changes to the Standing Orders rolls on, with no end in sight. Opposition House leaders presented an open letter yesterday calling for a new special committee to examine the issue with an eye to ensuring that it only comes out with recommendations achieved by consensus, but I’m not sure how bright of an idea that really is. After all, they’ll demand that it be composed in a similar manner to the Electoral Reform committee (to be faux-“proportional” and to get buy-in from the Bloc and Elizabeth May, naturally), and they’ll spend months and months hearing all kinds of expert testimony about how great parliamentary or legislative rules are in other countries only to doubtlessly come up with some the same kind of non-consensus that the ERRE report did, that every party will walk away from.

Bardish Chagger isn’t backing down, incidentally, and keeps insisting she wants a dialogue but won’t commit to consensus, probably because a) the committee look into making the Commons more “family friendly” wound up being a bust – which is for the best, really; and b) because she wants to try and fulfil the half-baked election promise about doing some kind of parliamentary reform, never mind that no reform is actually necessary of the kind that she’s proposing (with the exception of restoring prorogation ceremonies – that one we do need).

But I will reiterate yet again that our problem is cultural. Looking at rule changes won’t fix the underlying cultural problems, and this will be just another months-long waste of time when what all parties need to be doing is getting back to the core of Westminster parliamentarianism, and doing the sensible things of banning scripts and speaking lists, throwing out the time limits that obligate MPs to fill the time rather than engaging in spontaneous debate, and actually taking the legislative process seriously, which means ending the insane (and inane) focus on endless Second Reading debate. Repeating the ERRE exercise for the Standing Orders is just a black hole to be avoided, and all parties should back away from this fight (especially the Liberals).

Continue reading →

QP: A (mostly) serious, grown-up day

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procedural secret ballots?

Posted on by

Suggestions for improving the way things work in the Commons are relatively common, and mostly a load of nonsense, but then Kady O’Malley comes along and pitches a new idea that I’d never heard of before, so I figured I’d deconstruct it a little. Essentially, she takes a never-before-used-but-on-the-books procedural tactic and looks to expand it – in this case, secret votes in the Commons on procedural matters. The one on the books is an appeal mechanism for MPs to use when their piece of private members’ business is deemed non-votable by both the subcommittee and the full committee that determines these things. Why this hasn’t been used before is because MPs generally know to keep their PMBs within the rules – federal jurisdiction (which they try to get around with the creation of national strategies) or by creatively trying to ensure that they don’t spend money (though some of those suggestions are too-cute-by-half, and yet they try anyway *cough*That NDP climate change bill that they won’t let die*cough*). O’Malley argues that this secret ballot process, extended to other procedural votes on things like time allocation and splitting complex bills into smaller parts, will somehow embolden MPs and ensure that House Leaders have to convince their caucuses rather than crack the whip. And while this sounds great in theory, I’m not buying it. For starters, even if we think that secret ballots for MPs under limited circumstances will somehow miraculously embolden them (and I’m highly doubtful about that one), it also takes them off the hook when it comes to voting for unpopular things like time allocation or keeping omnibus bills intact. Their voters should see them do it so that they can hold them to account for it. The larger problem, however, is that this is a suggestion that largely re-litigates the last parliament. The issue of omnibus bills this government has promised to amend the Standing Orders to prevent (and that’s a promise that we can hold them to account for), while the issue of time allocation is almost certainly to be handled differently, because frankly, we’re not seeing a return to the days of an incompetent House Leader, like Peter Van Loan most certainly was. And frankly, even it that wasn’t the case, I doubt we would see too many outliers on contentious bills being put before a procedural vote because they tend to buy their party’s decision on matters and will find a justification if it ever comes to that. So while it’s a nice idea in theory, I just can’t see this as anything other than yet another well-meaning bit of tinkering that will only serve to eventually make things worse through its unintended consequences. No thanks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberal revisionism

Posted on by

Of all of the hopeful and optimistic things that our new cabinet ministers have been talking about, one is already raising alarm bells, which is our new heritage minister, Mélanie Joly. Joly says that her ministry is one about symbols, and she is going to go about changing those symbols to ones of “progressiveness,” saying that those promoted by the previous government weren’t those shared by Canadians. That of course is total nonsense, but it all points to the kinds of revisionism that both parties engage in, even though everyone seemed to think that it was only the Conservatives who did it. While some of this is no doubt in reference to the Conservatives’ fascination – almost to the point of fetishism – with military history and those particularly martial symbols, we shouldn’t pretend that we don’t have these traditions in Canada. Previous Liberal governments indeed liked to do so, with a focus on peacekeeping that may not have reflected reality, or at least the modern reality where the global landscape has changed and those kinds of missions may no longer be feasible the way they once were. The other one that I’m particularly worried about is whether this means that Joly will engage in a purge of monarchical symbols that the Conservatives themselves restored after decades of Liberals trying to push them aside. One of the things that I cannot forgive either the Liberals or NDP for doing in the previous decade was the way in which they allowed the Conservative government to politicise the monarchy by pretending that it only mattered to Conservatives. When they would reintroduce a monarchical symbol, they would complain rather than acknowledge that yes, we are a constitutional monarchy and we should all embrace it and its symbols rather than allowing one party to associate itself with it to the exclusion of all others. Unlike some other Liberals, Trudeau doesn’t appear to be a republican in his sentiments, and has stated that he has no intention of trying to distance Canada from the Crown, but when Joly starts talking about revisionism based on an exclusionary conception of who is and isn’t Canadian (and in this vision, Conservatives apparently aren’t), I worry. Revisionism is going to happen, but it should be called out as much as it was called out under the Conservatives because it’s still distasteful, no matter whose agenda it’s carrying out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MacKay’s turn to blunder

Posted on by

Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.

Continue reading →

QP: Junk food proposals

Posted on by

With Harper jetting off to the Francophonie Summit, and Justin Trudeau elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair was the only major leader in the House, where he led off by asking about junk food advertising targeting children — his latest policy proposal. Rona Ambrose responded that the government is concerned about child obesity, and they are investing in research and programmes on the ground. Mulcair insisted that his idea has proven effective in Quebec, to which Ambrose insisted that the real issue is getting children off the couch, no matter how healthy they eat. Mulcair moved onto thalidomide victims and his party’s motion on support for them. Ambrose noted that the government would support the motion. Mulcair then moved on to the issue of domestic violence and the need to find concrete solutions. Kellie Leitch started off going on about workplace safety and somehow weaving in violence against women, but confusingly. Mulcair asked if she would sit down with unions and employers about the issue of domestic violence, to which Leitch responded about meetings on mental health in the workplace. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, returning to the theme of the week about veterans, to which Parm Gill noted there were some concerns, but the government did offer support. Frank Valeriote picked it up, and Gill assured him that the minister works hard to consult veterans across the country. Joyce Murray recalled her question on a tragic veterans case that she raised yesterday, asking for an answer. Rob Nicholson noted how much they’ve increased the budget for veterans and to help those in need.

Continue reading →

QP: Rerunning the AG questions

Posted on by

On caucus day, we finally had all of the leaders present in the Chamber. Thomas Mulcair led off, returning to yesterday’s Auditor General report about the Nutrition North programme, seeing as he wasn’t there yesterday to ask when the topic was fresh. Stephen Harper insisted that the government spends over $60 million to help those in the North, and there has been an increase in the amount of food shipped and a decrease in the cost to families. Mulcair noted the APTN report about people in the North scrounging in landfills for food, to which Harper insisted that they are trying to help people in the North. Mulcair brought up the report on mental health services for wait times, to which Harper selectively quoted the report’s findings on the complexity of the process and the commitment to improve it. Mulcair asked about those soldiers being released before being eligible for pensions, to which Harper insisted that the report noted important health measures were in place. Mulcair then turned to thalidomide survivors, to which Harper reminded him of the minister’s comments that there was a settlement in the 1990s and the department and minister are meeting with groups. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the École Polytechnique tragedy and tied it to concerns with the current gun control bill being debated. Harper insisted that there were no conceal and carry provisions and that there were restrictions on transportation. Trudeau pressed, stressing that decisions on classification were being taken away from police and given to politicians. Harper called Trudeau’s statements “reckless and false,” and accused him of wanting to bring back the long-gun registry, despite Trudeau explicitly saying otherwise. Trudeau changed topics to spouses of veterans suffering from mental health issues, to which Harper again selectively quoted the AG report.

Continue reading →

Roundup: AG highlights and denials

Posted on by

It was the Auditor General’s fall report yesterday, and as expected he gave a pretty damning indictment of the veterans mental health programme, citing that some 20 percent of veterans can wait over eight months for disability support. The government, naturally, found the one line in the report that made it sound like they were doing a good job overall and repeated it over and over again, as though that would make it true. Other gems included $15 million spent on a digital records storage system at Library and Archives, which was later scrapped with no documented rationale (the video clip is in response to my questions in the press conference), a lack of follow-up on the Nutrition North programme to ensure that the subsidies were being passed onto consumers, a lack of cooperation meaning RCMP aren’t getting data on Canadians who offend abroad, and there was a lack of adequate data to assess the auto bailouts from 2008. And then there was Julian Fantino (or likely the staffer monitoring his Twitter account, as I suspect his duotronic circuits can’t handle the feed) trying to get one over Mercedes Stephenson, who was having none of it.

Continue reading →

QP: On the defensive after the AG report

Posted on by

Mere hours after the government took a beating from the Auditor General on the issue of veterans mental health, it was going to a tough day. That said, Thomas Mulcair was absent, and Megan Leslie led off, asking about the wait times posted in the report and tying it veterans suicides and the lapsed funding. Stephen Harper responded by selectively quoting the report about timely access, which conflated the programmes being reported on. Leslie responded with a different quote, and why the PM has not made it a personal priority. Harper reiterated the good portion of the report. Leslie moved onto the topic of the Nutrition North chapter and the lack of tracking of food prices in the North. Harper insisted that the food basket figure for Northerners had dropped by six percent. Peter Julian asked about the chapter on Library and Archives and the boondoggle of a $15 million system, to which Shelly Glover largely blamed issue on the previous head of the agency. Julian changed topics to the CBC story on the privacy breach at CRA, to which Kerry-Lynne Findlay assured him that measures were being taken, including notifying the Privacy Commissioner. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and returned to the veterans chapter of the report, and that a number of those veterans have waited seven years to see if they can even qualify for benefits. Harper reiterated the selective good portion of the conclusion, and said that the department would implement the recommendations to improve. Trudeau brought up veterans suicides and lapsed funding. Harper insisted that the lapse was because there was not enough uptake from veterans. Trudeau brought up that veteran’s wife who was trying to get more assistance for mental health, to which Harper again reiterated the selective quotes in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Private fighters heading to Iraq

Posted on by

The government’s declaration that they wouldn’t stand in the way of Canadians who want to head to Iraq to fight against ISIS with the Kurdish forces there is raising a lot of questions, and deservedly so. One Ontario MPP’s Afghanistan-veteran son is joining the fight, and while said MPP is making all kinds of noise about being proud about his son defending freedom and democracy, it does raise further complications to the notion that people are privately going off to fight a war. One supposes that there is a history of this, with people heading over to fight the Spanish Civil War, but we also have international treaties and rules of engagement that Canada has signed onto. One has to wonder what liability the country now will be in if one of these private fighters goes over and violates these conventions or codes because they’re not part of a command-and-control structure, and because our government has basically given them the okay to do so. I don’t know that there’s an easy answer to this, but we should be at least having the discussion – particularly as it is on the flipside of the coin about our attempts to keep those who would head over to fight on behalf of extremist groups from leaving the country.

Continue reading →