Tag Archives: Mélanie Joly

Senate QP: Joly is all about consulting

Posted on by

This week’s ministerial Senate Question Period was hosting special guest star Mélanie Joly, minister of Canadian heritage and official languages. Senator Plett led off, raising the issue of the the request by CBC for an additional $400 million to go ad-free, demanding to know her response. Joly didn’t answer directly, talking about the consultations that she was undertaking around the disruption happening in the media sector thanks in large part to technological change, and the CBC submitted their request, which would be considered as part of a new digital policy toolkit. Plett then asked about restoring cuts that the Conservatives made to CBC, citing a Senate report saying that they didn’t need more funding but rather better management. Joly outlined her three priorities with that funding — more local programming, better digital content, and more new talent, which the CBC was developing an accountability plan based on those criteria.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Counter-radicalism and reality checks

Posted on by

In the wake of the Aaron Driver near-miss last week, public safety minister Ralph Goodale is set to announce that the government is moving ahead with a counter-radicalization programme, but it looks like the details are still a little ways out. That said, Goodale has been pretty frank that our current counter-radicalisation programmes have little coherence and that’s what he aims to fix over the course of this year. And while we get the musings about what kind of leader Trudeau will be in the face of terrorism, we get his former foreign policy advisor Roland Paris reminding us of what he has done to date (which is not nothing, as his critics have stated). More importantly, however, we need to remind ourselves of the reality of the situation, and for that, I would turn your attention to Stephanie Carvin’s piece in this weekend’s Globe and Mail, which explains why counter-terrorism and counter-radicalism is not as easy as you might think, and provides a good reality check for the kinds of rhetoric out there, and why saying things like “connecting the dots” isn’t actually helpful to any kind of conversation around the subject.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two bills heading back

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Everyone’s an expert

Posted on by

More amendments to C-14 in the Senate, and the very real threat from senators that they would rather veto a bad law (such as the bill as originally drafted) than let it pass and have to head back to the courts, is prompting everyone to consider themselves an expert on the Senate and how to reform it. After days of clutched pearls by pundits and the odd bit of praise (such as Martin Patriquin’s grudging admission that the Senate is a necessary evil), we’re also starting to get some pretty bizarre pieces out there, like one from iPolitics, where they got a mining company CEO to weigh in on reforming the chamber.

No, seriously.

Apparently, according to this “expert,” Trudeau has gotten it all wrong by creating a situation with “no enforceable rule,” and apparently we’ve never had a situation in the past 149 years where bills bounced back-and-forth between the chambers. Err, except that there have never been real levers by which a Prime Minister could control the chamber, only sentiment on the part of senators in his or her caucus, and we’ve had plenty of situations where bills went back-and-forth, including to having conferences between chambers (a situation which is unwieldy in the current configuration of the Senate). And while Trudeau has made mistakes, he is not to blame for the Senate’s actual constitutional powers, which are currently being demonstrated.

But wait – there’s more!™

Our CEO “expert” says that the solution is not Triple E (thankfully), but rather to reduce senators’ term limits to 12 years, to give provinces a veto on their nominees to represent them, and to ensure that a nomination panel ensures that “a new Senate is younger, more representative and better qualified for the work by credentials and life experience.”

Term limits are a solution in search of a problem because they reduce institutional independence. The problem, identified in the Ontario factum to the Supreme Court reference, is that a senator nearing their term limit can start to curry favour with the government in hopes of a post-Senatorial appointment to a tribunal or diplomatic posting. By ensuring that their end date is age 75, it scuppers those plans and keeps Senators from sucking up. Provincial vetoes? Well, senators are not there to represent provincial governments. They are not even technically representing provinces, but rather regions, and their representation tends to be for minority communities, be they linguistic, ethnic or even religious, which was the express purpose for why the Senate was built in the way that it was. And demands for a younger Senate clash with the desire to get accomplished Canadians to serve in its ranks toward the end of their careers so that they can draw on their decades of experience, and if you look at some of the qualifications of our current senators, they are on the whole a very accomplished group indeed (some exceptions apply).

So rather than get some CEO to bloviate without any actual institutional knowledge or awareness, perhaps we should all brush up on our civic literacy and learn about the chamber as it currently exists before start weighing in on how to fix something that is not actually fundamentally broken.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Official residence refuseniks

Posted on by

In a piece in the Huffington Post that gives yet another farewell from Andrew Scheer to the office of the Speaker, we find that at least two of the people running for the job – Mauril Bélanger and Yasmin Ratansi – are vowing that if elected Speaker, they wouldn’t use the official residence in Kingsmere. While Bélanger could certainly make the case as an Ottawa resident that there’s no real need, anyone else eschewing the use of the residence is, frankly, being obtuse. Scheer makes some good points – that the National Capital Commission needs to spend money to keep the place functional anyway, so it’s not a huge savings if that’s the motivation, and the fact that the “luxurious” apartment the Speaker gets in the Centre Block is anything but (the piece has photos of it, and well, I would hesitate to call it a two star), and it’s not really healthy to live at the office. Beyond that, the whole point of having an official residence is that it’s to be used for entertaining – MPs, diplomats, and even journalists during the annual barbecue at Kingsmere every June. That entertaining can be pretty important, particularly among MPs. Speaker Milliken used to hold dinners that always included MPs of different parties so that they could get to know each other better outside of the Commons – something that is increasingly important with the demise of evening sittings and the fact that MPs simply don’t socialise together the way they used to. Vowing to do away with the official residence – and the space to hold this kind of necessary entertaining – is not being frugal, it’s playing into cheap politics that ultimately serves nobody, and in fact feeds into the toxicity that surrounds the perception of politics as it is. None of this is actually some kind of luxury five-star extravagance that is soaking the taxpayer. It’s relatively modest, but reflects the office – one of the reasons why we have official residences to begin with. Rejecting it, even for symbolism, does nobody any favours.

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: A really new cabinet

Posted on by

So, that’s the new cabinet. For all of the concern trolling over “merit” when it comes to women being appointed in such numbers, Trudeau and the Liberals found an impressively credentialed group of Canadians that will do the country well. There is no one on that list that one could reasonably say got there for the sake of tokenism, which is not something you could argue with the previous government, where there was a lot of dead weight that was simply there to tick some boxes (and quite obviously so). The full list is here, and the Maclean’s annotated group photo is here. While they all did some quick media scrums after their first cabinet meeting, there weren’t a lot of answers yet because they haven’t had a chance to get their departmental briefings. Within a week or two, hopefully we’ll start getting some scrums with some answers (another huge change from the previous government). There may be some entrails to be sorted through in terms of those who didn’t make cabinet, but given that cabinet making is a delicate art, and there are many factors to consider, I would hope that nobody reads too much into the so-called “snubs,” particularly given that the commitment to parliament mattering more should prove that there are plenty of great roles for each of those “stars” that didn’t get a seat at the cabinet table. Maclean’s even went so far as to build a whole second cabinet out of those who didn’t make it this time. As for reaction, Susan Delacourt looks at what messages the picks send, while Andrew Coyne notes that despite the pledge for gender parity, that was not demonstrated in the make-up of cabinet committees.

Continue reading →