Tag Archives: Prorogation

Roundup: Giving succour to racists to own the libs

Posted on by

That heckler the PM had an encounter with late last week turned into a big Thing today as it was revealed that she was a member of far-right and anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant groups in Quebec, and that her heckles were a set-up that Trudeau walked into. Trudeau himself offered no apologies for his response, but wouldn’t you know it – the Conservatives have decided to go to bat for this woman.

No, seriously. “Asking a question about the budget.” That was not “asking a question about the budget.” The translation of her (shouted) question was “I want to know when you are going to refund the $146 million we paid for your illegal immigrants.” That’s not a polite policy difference about interprovincial politics, as so many other conservatives have tried to intimate, that her question was the same one asked by three different provincial governments. It was followed up by her asking if Trudeau was tolerant of “Québécois de souche,” which some people translate as “old stock Quebeckers,” but that lacks the racially-charged nuance of the phrase, which some have likened to the “Quebec-speak variant of Master Race.” Add her “question about the budget” to this racially-charged phrase shows that she’s not concerned about the budget – she believes that these asylum seekers are stealing from Quebec. But, you know, it was “a question about the budget.” But wait – it gets better.

Andrew Scheer decided to weigh in and, ignoring all of what happened and the context, and the woman’s racially-charged language, Scheer attacked Trudeau for “name-calling” and “demonizing” people who are critical of him. Trudeau calling an avowed racist, with a history of public racism, a racist, is apparently “a vile [personal] insult” because he’s afraid of “legitimate criticism.” So yeah – way to go for offering succor to racists and white nationalists to “own the libs.” And while this woman’s apologists go on about how Trudeau “inflamed the situation” rather than answering her question – as though it was asked in good faith (it wasn’t) and wasn’t going to be immediately followed up with her racist remarks (which it was inevitably, given that this was demonstrably a set-up), you have to wonder just how wilfully blind Scheer and company will be in order to try and make Trudeau out to be the real monster.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1031727549896957952

Meanwhile, John Ivison says that confrontations like these are political gold for Trudeau because he can run against the image of a xenophobic Conservative party, which plays well to a certain segment of the population, while Chris Selley says that Trudeau needs to be careful when calling out intolerance because of his party’s own obnoxious tendencies.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What vice-regal appointment process?

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau made two notable vice-regal appointments yesterday – new lieutenant governors for both Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia, both women (the first for Newfoundland and Labrador). While the new BC LG is the chair of Vancouver’s YWCA, the new Newfoundland  and Labrador LG is former cabinet minister Judy Foote, which seems like a curiously partisan appointment for a position such as this – especially when Trudeau keeps going out of his way to ensure that there are “independent, non-partisan” appointment processes to other key positions, most especially senators.

The point that none of the stories on these appointments made yesterday was that since Trudeau came to power, he dismantled the process that Stephen Harper put into place to find new vice-regal appointments in a depoliticized fashion. The Harper-era Vice Regal Appointments Committee was headed by the Canadian Secretary to the Queen, had two permanent members, and then had additional ad hoc members for whichever province or territory they had to search for candidates from in order to get the local perspective. Short lists were forwarded to the PM, and for the most part, they were appointments without partisan histories (though the last Manitoba LG appointment was the wife of a former provincial politician it does bear noting). When he came in, Trudeau and his people said that the system was working well, and that they were likely to continue it. Except they didn’t. They replicated portions of it for their Senate nomination committee, but dismantled the Vice-Regal Appointments Committee after they let the memberships lapse, including the post of Canadian Secretary to the Queen (which remains vacant to this day). And the only reason anyone can figure out as to why is because it was simple antipathy to the Harper government, regardless of whether the idea worked. Instead, appointments are made in a black box, and Foote’s appointment seems to indicate that he’s willing to let partisans into these posts in contrast with others.

And don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against Judy Foote personally, and I’m sure she’ll do a fine job, but the whole thing is a bit odd in the context of every other appointment process that Trudeau has put into place (which are interminable and can’t fill any position in a timely manner, Supreme Court of Canada excepted). There was a system that worked. What Trudeau has done instead makes no sense at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding ATIP perfection may be the enemy of the good

Posted on by

I find myself torn about the government announcement on new legislation to amend the Access to Information Act because on the whole, they made most of the changes that they promised to, but they failed to uphold one promise, which was to make the Act apply to the PMO and minister’s offices. And yes, We The Media let them know how displeased we were about it.

Part of the problem here is that like so many of their other election promises, it may have been a stupid one – kind of like their promise around electoral reform. Why? Because it was always going to be problematic to promise access to cabinet documents, and there’s a very good reason for that, because much of that information should remain private because it will otherwise damage the ability for there to be unfettered advice to ministers or between cabinet colleagues, and they need to have space to make these kinds of deliberations, otherwise the whole machinery of government starts to fall apart.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/876947458118623234

Like Philippe Lagassé says, the better discussion would have been to have specific proposals as to what falls under cabinet confidence. Currently the Information Commissioner has some determination around that, and with the changes in this bill, the onus will be reversed – the government will need to convince her (and if that fails, the courts) that information should remain secret, as opposed to her having to take the government to court to get that access. That’s significant.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/876900009605820416

There is a lot of good in these changes, but I fear that it will be lost amidst the grumbling that it didn’t go far enough. And let’s face it – sometimes We The Media are our own worst enemies when we use Access requests for cheap outrage stories rather than meaningful accountability, and then wonder why the government suddenly clamps down and turns to message control, and worst of all, nobody wants to talk about that problem. That may wind up making things worse for everyone in the end.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chagger doubles down – again

Posted on by

Oh, Bardish Chagger. So very earnest in her desire to try and change the Standing Orders to try and prevent the excesses and abuses of the Conservative era that she’s ready to be her most ham-fisted in order to get it done. In an interview with The West Block this weekend, she said that she wasn’t going to hand over a veto to the Conservatives about these reforms, which means she’s doubling down about ensuring that any rule changes happen by consensus, and so I guess we’ll see the filibuster carry on in committee, and yet more egregious privilege debates and various other procedural shenanigans by the other opposition parties in the hopes that she backs down. So far, that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

If I had my druthers, I would tell Chagger to stick to two simple points – omnibus bills, and prorogation. And specifically, the proposal to restore prorogation ceremonies, and take those two suggestions to the opposition parties, and just get them to agree to those. Those are the only two suggestions that are workable and doable (and prorogation ceremonies are in fact something that I recommend restoring in The Unbroken Machine), because that’s rolling back a change that happened in order to “streamline” things a couple of decades ago, and it’s a necessary tool for transparency and accountability. And omnibus bill restrictions are an obvious change that anyone can see as being necessary after the abuses of the 41st parliament.

But as I’ve stated before, on numerous occasions, any other suggestion that Chagger makes in her discussion paper is unnecessary and will cause more harm than good, because the underlying changes that need to happen are cultural, not structural. The problem is that it’s hard to sell MPs on this, especially when they keep using the phrases “modernize” and “21st century workplace” as though the terms meant something. And she keeps using them. Over. And over. And over. And it’s driven me to the point of complete distraction. But because Chagger is doubling down, I have the sinking feeling that it’s going to be yet another week of apocalyptic language and procedural gamesmanship and nothing will get done. Because that’s the state of things right now, and no amount of rule changes will actually fix that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Del Mastro facing charges

Posted on by

Elections Canada has now charged Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro with four breaches of the Elections Act stemming from the 2008 election, and charged his official agent with three of those offences. Within a couple of hours, Del Mastro was out of the caucus (he says voluntarily, but we all know what that means), which also means that his parliamentary secretary position was also out the door. And of course, Del Mastro insists that he’s innocent and plans to prove it – because Elections Canada just spent the past four years gathering evidence because they’re part of a Conservative-hating conspiracy, apparently. Oh, and if convicted, Del Mastro and his official agent could be sentenced to up to five years in jail plus a $5000 per offence – now multiply that by four, and you’ll see the stakes of Del Mastro’s situation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The GG makes it official

Posted on by

Parliament has officially been prorogued until October 16th after the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to do so. Aaron Wherry gives a bit of an explainer on the whole thing, but fails to explain the reasons for the pageantry of having the PM sit there while the GG reads his speech. (Hint: It is a reminder that the Crown holds the power while the political executive wields it for the day-to-day governing of the country, and that the Crown is the formal source of authority). Sonya Bell looks at some of the party plans during the prorogation period. Independent MP Brent Rathgeber says that he will spend the time on a “Broken Democracy” tour speaking at various universities, while also updating his website to be more transparent with his expenses.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We have a date

Posted on by

Word has been given – Parliament shall resume on October 16th. That means that about three-and-a-half weeks of sitting days will have been missed, as the week of the 14th was supposed to have been a constituency week owing to Thanksgiving. Also factor in that there is an APEC Summit in Indonesia the week before, so that also affected the timing of an October return. Mind you Harper could have simply prorogued and still returned on September 16th as planned, but what can you do? (Well, withdraw confidence in the government, if you really want to be technical about it).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A contract flawed from the outset

Posted on by

A leaked government report gives a rather stinging indictment of the Sea King helicopter replacement procurement, calling it flawed from the outset. At the time, the government treated it like they were buying “off-the-shelf” helicopters, but with so many procurements, the military loaded it up with new specifications until it was no longer “off-the-shelf,” but was rather something that should have been treated like an in-development contract. And so we get delays, and penalties, and intransigence. The report recommends re-scoping the contract in order to treat it as an in-development project so that they can start accepting delivery of helicopters and phasing in new features, but there’s no word on if the government will accept this proposal or not, or if they’ll just continue to blame the Liberals for it rather than taking responsibility or action.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Concern for Syria without a plan

Posted on by

John Baird says that there’s mounting evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria – not that anyone is actually talking about what kind of response is being warranted. Meanwhile, we should be expecting the first 200 “urgent” Syrian refugee cases to start arriving in the coming months, with 1300 expected by the end of next year.

The NDP have filed a formal request to recall the Industry Committee to hold hearings into the upcoming wireless spectrum auction. Of course, they’ll have to hurry before the official prorogation order happens, at which time the committees pretty much cease to exist and will need to be reconstituted in the next session.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taunts and regurgitated priorities

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair has decided to step into the fray over prorogation, and his contribution is that prorogation is fine and good, but suspending Parliament is not, and that since Harper is avoiding Parliament, he’s a coward. Because that’s raising the tone of debate, ladies and gentlemen.

Oh, look – Harper wants the throne speech to focus on the economy and middle-class families. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before? Oh, and safe streets? Tell me more! I’ve totally never heard any of this before. Why, it’s positively game changing!

Continue reading →