It was likely the final Commons Question Period of the 41st Parliament (but it looks like not), and not a moment too soon. Not unsurprisingly, most of the leaders have already fled for the pre-writ campaign trail, with the exception of Elizabeth May, who dutifully remains at her desk until the bitter end. Megan Leslie led off, raising the moral issue of climate change per the Pope’s encyclical, but turned it into an NDP pitch instead of a question. Leona Agulkkaq chose a climate change talking point and recited it dutifully. Leslie then moved to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, to which James Bezan rose to denounce the comments made by the Chief of Defence Staff and to note that the wheels were already in motion for a change of command. Leslie asked for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Kellie Leitch insisted that they were taking action. Niki Ashton picked up, denounced the government and raised a report on the wage gap between First Nations and other Canadians. Bernard Valcourt noted the measures the government has taken to improve the lives of First Nations. Ashton then raised a plethora of social issues faced by First Nations children and asked a rhetorical question about the government discriminating against them. Valcourt insisted that they were taking action to improve their lives. Ralph Goodale led for Liberals, decrying the government’s economic performance to which Kevin Sorenson read some talking points about lowering taxes and the Liberals raising them. Goodale dug in, but Sorenson repeated his usual talking points about how great ever high was. Dominc LeBlanc took the final slot to further the condemnation in the other official language, to which Candice Bergen stood up to defend the government’s record of keeping promises.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals
There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544
QP: Like a greatest hits package
All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305
Roundup: Some laudable goals, and a lead balloon
The writs might as well have been dropped for the kinds of campaigning that was going on yesterday – Trudeau in Ottawa, and Mulcair in Toronto. While Mulcair largely reheated past statements about support for the manufacturing sector (not that he spelled out what that support means) or lowering small business taxes (of the kind that could actually help out whose wealthy Canadians who incorporated themselves for tax reasons), it was Trudeau’s package of announcements that got the big play. The package included 32 measures for “real change” to bring more openness and transparency to government – a familiar song and dance, but there were some pretty laudable concrete proposals in there, around things like Access to Information, improving service standards at CRA, or repealing this government’s “fair” election laws. The part that got everyone talking – and my head exploding repeatedly – was Trudeau signing onto the electoral reform bandwagon. While Trudeau was talking about consultations and then legislation within eighteen months, the fact that he’s buying into the completely and demonstrably false notion that votes don’t count under our current system (in fact, they not only count but all count equally) is disheartening – particularly after he spent his leadership campaign talking about how he didn’t believe in PR systems (as opposed to Joyce Murray, where that was a central plank for her). Without turning this post into a denunciation of electoral reform, let me simply say that it’s false to say that votes don’t count now, and that changing the system will simply replace one set of problems – or perceived problems – for a whole new set of problems. There were so many other laudable proposals in his platform, one or two duds excepting, that it’s too bad that this one particularly bad one sucked the air out of the rest of it all. If he want’s “evidence based policy,” then perhaps he should reconsider this particular promise. Paul Wells writes about the earnestness of it all, with some historical perspective for good measure.
Liberals are now using "Ottawa is broken."
No. Just stop. pic.twitter.com/CQMdpoeIL5— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 16, 2015
Oh FFS – every vote already counts *equally*. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/E2skdjI5fo
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 16, 2015
Roundup: Mischief-making with Senate offices
Because it’s open season on Senators, the story of their apparent lack of willingness to get office space an added block away from the temporary Senate chamber, adding $25 million to the price of temporary space, has turned into a new round of howls of outrage and outright derision. According to the Senate, however, the figure is false and being used to cast them in a poor light – which is everyone’s favourite game these days. The true costs would be less than half that, according to the Senate law clerk, and the original public works plan would have had them spread out a lot more, which would increase costs for things like transportation and IT services. Not only that, but apparently the people who are trying to make hay out of this story don’t seem to grasp some of the basic geography of the situation. While MPs are staying clustered around the West Block (where the temporary House of Commons will be located), with new office space opening up in the soon-to-be-completely-renovated Wellington Building, Senators won’t get that luxury. In fact, the temporary Senate chamber, to be located in the Government Conference Centre, is much further afield which poses additional challenges for both walking times and getting the little white busses into and out of the location (given the way the roads work around there), while they have thirty-minute vote bells. Add to that, winter is going to be a particular challenge, and you have a bunch of aging senators who are going to need to be extra careful about things like the ice and snow, and it will be a problem. For anyone to start mocking senators that they don’t want to walk an extra block doesn’t seem to grasp the actual sense of the problem, and the churlish and childish taunts of the likes of Thomas Mulcair and Charlie Angus are really unbecoming. It would be a thought if other journalists could actually provide context to the situation rather than engaging in mischief-making and piling on to the Senate in the midst of overblown and torqued reporting on the AG report.
Roundup: The AG’s unchecked power
As we continue to sort through the aftermath of the Senate audit, one of the more distasteful things that I’ve come across is this sneering narrative that senators are insufficiently grateful to the Auditor General for the work. I’m not sure why they should be, considering that in many of the responses posted by those who are sending their questioned expenses to arbitration is that the auditors in question ignored their evidence or arguments and made value judgements with no real understanding of parliamentary business. Add to that the leaks to the media and their being painted with the brush of criminality, it’s no wonder that they don’t feel like showering the praise. More disconcertingly, however, is the narrative that the Auditor General can do no wrong. We’ve heard this not only from the pundit class, but also the NDP in their sanctimonious mischaracterizations of the results of the audit results, and the general excuses that “who are the public going to believe – the auditors or the senators?” In other words, rather than owing any deference to our parliamentarians, as was once the case, we now give it to an unelected and unaccountable officer of parliament, who wields an increasing amount of political influence whether he seeks it or not. This should be disconcerting to people, because nobody is infallible, and yet we treat the AG as though he were. His report on the Senate audit says point blank that these are not just cold hard facts – they had to exercise their professional judgement, and that is putting them at odds with some of those senators. That it doesn’t seem to enter into the conceptions of people that he could be wrong, that his professional judgement may have been on the wrong track when it comes to what could constitute parliamentary business for a senator – whose role in the community is different from that of an MP – is a problem. This much unchecked and unquestioned power is a fairly dangerous political power, and we should be asking more questions. As it stands, We The Media are the only ones who can hold the AG in check, and we shouldn’t give him a free pass, no matter how much the office has attained folk hero status. (Incidentally, one former AG says the price tag for auditing MPs would be so high as to be a waste of money, so there you go).
Roundup: Who’s a racist?
In the fading lights of the 41st Parliament, the Liberals have been trying to get back to the process of painting the government like a bunch of intolerant rednecks, first with Judy Sgro’s question on Wednesday tying in the rise in hate crime statistics against Muslims to government rhetoric (for which the Conservatives got right offended), and then again yesterday when John McCallum tied in that issue to statements that Chris Alexander had made about people with their faces covered taking the citizenship oath and talk of terrorists. But when McCallum hammered Alexander on his comments – and clearly they were complete non sequiturs – Alexander responded by reaching into history and invoking Mackenzie King’s more racists immigration policies and called the Liberals the Racist Party. No, seriously. And when asked for clarification in a walking scrum after QP, Alexander insisted his party was blameless for policies before then, and accused said journalists of being partisans. (Remember when Chris Alexander was the talented golden child who was supposed to be so smart? Yeah, not so much). Paul Wells, upon hearing this, took to the blog machine and completely schooled Alexander on how wrong he really is, because it was totally off base. That said, this kind of cheap points-scoring just highlights the way things are starting to go off the rails, and I think it’s fair that the fixed election date is certainly responsible for part of this. Normally I’d be all in favour of MPs sticking around to pass a couple of more bills before they head off for the summer, but by this point the Commons has thoroughly proven itself to be incapable of being grown-ups any longer. Time to send them home.
Roundup: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense
In the aftermath of the AG’s report on the Senate, we see a little more analysis of what it said – questions of residency issues, or about whether some board and charity work qualifies as Senate business – but mostly we’re seeing a bunch of hyberbolic bluster and nonsense from the pundit class about holding a referendum on Senate abolition (can’t be done during a general election, and won’t actually be binding or really democratic). No one has taken this kind of bluster to the next level quite like Thomas Mulcair, who has taken the talk to the level of being obtuse. Quebec premier Phillipe Couillard said he’s not interested in Senate abolition, end of story, but Mulcair kept insisting that he’ll get a “mandate” for abolition and he’ll work with the premiers on that issue alone, as though nobody would make other demands, or that minority provinces and territories would willingly give up what little representation they have so that they can be completely swamped by all of the Commons seats in Ontario – you know, one of the reasons why the Senate was designed the way it was, which was to act as a counterbalance. But then, Mulcair decided to not only stick with being obtuse, he doubled down on dickishness and declared that no Senator had ever done any work of any value – because apparently the Kirby report on mental health, or Romeo Dallaire’s work around child soldiers, or the study on the Canada-US price gap, or any number of examples of quality work the Senate has done – far better than anything the Commons has produced in recent memory – is nothing. With this having been said, let me add a couple of notes of my own, particularly for journalist colleagues – if you start talking about Senate “reform,” note that you had better have a specific reform proposal in mind, otherwise you’re actually talking about nothing. Senate reform is kind of like a unicorn in that it’s magical and fantastical and everyone wants it but can’t be grasped because reality soon sets in, and what reforms you’re proposing are almost certainly unworkable. Trudeau’s plan for a reformed appointment process is a start, and probably the best that can happen, but we don’t know what the outcome is going to be when those senators appointed by this new process start filtering into the system.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645300207534080
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645895211503618
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608647086427361281
Going to meme it. #SenCA pic.twitter.com/epjulE8Uni
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 10, 2015
Roundup: At long last, the audit
And after an agonizing period of leaks that did probably the maximum damage possible, the Auditor General’s report was finally released yesterday, and it was, well, honestly not that much of a bombshell or all that damning once you calm down from the breathless hysteria and cheap outrage over taxpayer’s money and start putting everything into context. Yes, there were some questionable expenses, and you’d pretty much find that in any organization (most especially elected ones). Sure, he made some comments about the fact that they sometimes charged for meals when there should have been one provided (but this is where things start to get nitpicky) or said that some were careless about cell phone roaming charges (which seems to be a pretty common irritant about any consumer judging from the number of news pieces about it). Senator Colin Kenny, one of the files the AG flagged for further investigation, refutes some of the claims (and this is one of the two that the AG noted he wanted further investigation on because of contradictory evidence). The five current and former Manitoba senators named in the audit refuted their claims to the CBC. The AG did make a big deal about the institution being self-policing without seeming to have any awareness about parliamentary supremacy or self-governance being an important consideration for the practice of Responsible Government – you know, something that is kind of a Big Deal. The Citizen has a Q&A with Ferguson, who says an audit of the House of Commons would likely be prohibitively expensive (but I still say that every MP who sanctimoniously denounces the Senate over this should have his or her own books subjected to the same audit). Liberal Senator Hervieux-Payette did manage to get through a motion to have the Senate rules committee investigate the leaks of the report, seeing as it undermined the presumption of innocence and having a fair defence for those senators named. I would be extremely curious to know who was leaking, so that it would give one a clue about what their endgame was.
Angry resting face. pic.twitter.com/57TxFD1GwB
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 9, 2015
Roundup: Victory for concern trolls
Consider it a victory for the concern trolls, particularly those hosting the political shows, who spent four days hounding Senate Speaker Leo Housakos and Senators Carignan and Cowan over a trumped up appearance of conflict of interest because they had a role – and largely a peripheral one – in the establishment of the arbitration process and appointment of Justice Ian Binnie to oversee the Senate arbitration process. While Carignan repaid his staffer’s questioned expenses right away, citing it as an error, both Housakos and Cowan had legitimate differences of opinion with the Auditor General over the expenses he flagged, and both intended to take it to arbitration. Monday morning, they changed course, citing that they didn’t want to taint the process by any appearance of conflict, which if you ask me is a potential tacit admission of guilt, but also weakens any ability for senators to push back against what is looking increasingly to be a series of subjective value judgements made by auditors when it comes to expenses that were flagged. (And I’m not going to go into the way in which the NDP and others are conflating these legitimate grievances with notions of criminality other than to offer the reminder that Thomas Mulcair should be thankful he made the comments about Senator Housakos that he did during QP yesterday were made under privilege, lest he face a libel suit). The fact that members of the media torqued this angle of a conflict of interest – which did not bear itself out in fact – shows how much they feel no compunction or conscience about using the Senate as a punching bag because they feel they have public sentiment on their side – never mind that they were central in creating that public sentiment out of overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s not that all of the AG’s findings will be questionable – the ones that Senator Eaton repaid certainly did not appear to be above board, but as Senator Plett remarks in his explanation for some of the flagged expenses, the auditors’ assessments can lack common sense. Of course, for all the concern trolling, it remains a basic fact that the figure of potentially misspent funds is actually tiny in context – and when you look at it in comparison to spending breaches in the Commons, it doesn’t even compare. But MPs won’t admit that they have a worse record, nor will they open their own books up, but don’t let the hypocrisy surprise you.