Tag Archives: Public Service

QP: Support for Ukraine, but what about “ethical oil”?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was around, and would give a press conference after QP, and make a statement in the Chamber later in the evening, he was not present for QP itself, though his deputy was. Candice Bergen led off, saying that many of the country’s actions were too little too late and demanded the expulsion of the Russian ambassador and to recall ours from Moscow—because they believe diplomacy is a cookie for good behaviour. Chrystia Freeland rose to say that Canadians were united, and that this was about freedom versus tyranny, but didn’t address Bergen’s demand. Bergen said she agreed with the sentiments, and wanted visa-free travel for Ukrainians to Canada, and Freeland rose to address the previous question and noted that there were Russian officials who stood against the regime and she urged those officials in Canada not to be complicit, and said all options were on the table. Bergen demanded that the country end its “dependence” on Russian oil—of which, vanishingly little actually flows into this county—and to send Canadian oil to Europe. Freeland noted that the sanctions on Russia are having an effect, and hurting their oil exports was one way. Luc Berthold took over in French to demand the expulsion of the Russian ambassador, and Freeland took the opportunity to repeat her initial statement about unity in French. Berthold then repeated the demand for visa-free travel, and Freeland recounted news from her own family in Ukraine who decided to stay and fight, and that Canada would support them as well as those fleeing.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGNardi/status/1498407964440514562

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he gave a paean to the bravery of Ukrainian people, and pledged Bloc support to the government’s actions, and wondered what else they could do to help. Freeland recited her talking points about sanctions hurting “Fortress Russia.” Therrien asked if they can waive visas or take other actions, and Freeland noted that they have already started to welcome Ukrainians, including those currently in Canada and unable to return home.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and after a false start, and demanded Canada do more to help Ukrainian refugees, to which Freeland assured him they were already doing so in a united fashion. Jenny Kwan took over in English to make the same demand, and Freeland spoke of her pride in the brave resistance of Ukrainians, and said that of course they were helping Ukrainian refugees with more details coming soon.

Continue reading →

QP: Back to inflation

Posted on by

After a number of statements about Black History Month, things got underway, with almost none of the leaders present—Justin Trudeau is still isolating and not planning to attend virtually, and Erin O’Toole has other problems to worry about. Gérard Deltell led off in his stead, worrying about inflation and cited the PBO’s concerns about stimulus spending as though government spending is what’s driving inflation (which it is not). Chrystia Freeland worried that the Conservatives were talking down the economy, and countered it with the good news about the GDP figures that showed complete recovery in advance of omicron. Deltell dismissed this as being cold comfort for the average person, for which Freeland insisted that this was just Deltell focusing on the Conservatives’ partisan interests, and recited that we are projected to have the second highest growth in the G7. Deltell insisted this was “contempt” for Canadians, and Freeland insisted that she does her own grocery shopping, and that facts and data are important and that inflation in Canada is beneath the G7, G20 and OECD averages. Michelle Rempel Garner took over in English to accuse the minster of being out of touch, and Freeland suggested that it was the Conservatives who should apologise for voting against Bill C-2 that are helping support those affected by mockdowns. Rempel Garner called the government out of touch with average Canadians and were fuelling divisions, and told Freeland to “take the temperature down,” and Freeland repeated her response about the supports in C-2.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he dissembled for a while before demanding action on the grifter convoy outside. Omar Alghabra stated that he has met with those in the supply chain including the trucking industry and that they would continue moving forward. Blanchet noted that wasn’t his question, and repeated it, for which Freeland thanked him for supporting C-2, and that she agreed that it was important for them to be able to do their work, which is why they trust law enforcement. 

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and asked about the blockade at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta and demanded federal action. Alghabra agreed that the blockade needs to end. Singh switched to French to lament housing affordability, and Ahmed Hussen recited this talking points on the National Housing Strategy and the first-time home ownership programme. (Note that shortly after this question, the RCMP moved in on that Coutts blockade and broke it up, for which I half expect Singh to take credit for).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The many leaks from the Cumming Report

Posted on by

The Cumming report on the Conservatives’ election failure was released to caucus behind closed doors yesterday, and lo, leaks appeared in every news outlet in the country, so let’s go through some of them:

  • From Global: O’Toole’s performance got mixed reviews, with a strong finish but was “over-managed” by the end of the campaign. It was determined he needed to spend more time on the road and not in his studio, and they need to completely rebuild their voter-identification database.
  • From The Toronto Star: Party memberships should be free (which is a terrible gods damned idea), and that the party’s reputation is still suffering from the “barbaric cultural practices tip line” promise in 2015.
  • From the National Post: They were hobbled by party infighting, a lack of ethnic outreach, and the soft response to Quebec’s Law 21. As well, it concluded that O’Toole is still the “right person to lead the party.”
  • From CTV: The party needs more diverse candidates.
  • From CBC: The party failed to craft policy on some important issues, and apparently O’Toole didn’t respond well to criticism in the question-and-answer session following Cumming’s presentation. And they went nuts when Global’s leaks hit the wires while Cumming was still speaking.

I did note that while O’Toole told a press conference afterward that he takes responsibility and promises changes, it was remarked upon that O’Toole seemed to change his tune on the use of the studio, which they crowed about through the campaign and insisted it was better than in-person events because they could reach more people through their teleconferences, but changing his tune about something is nothing new (as we all saw during the election, over and over again).

Meanwhile, O’Toole told said press conference that he was going to meet with truckers, but also denounced extremists among them, which is an extremely hard circle to square considering that it’s the extremists who organised the whole bloody grifter convoy, and any legitimate truckers frustrated by vaccine mandates are going to be hapless nitwits in the bunch. The fact that O’Toole remained silent about the fact that the organisers of said grifter convoy are demanding that democracy be overturned in favour of some delusional Jacobin committee comprised of said convoy organisers and senators is also a problem, as is the fact that he wouldn’t address the fact that these same organizers are doxing MPs, and the Sergeant-at-Arms is warning that their Ottawa residences are being targeted. It does show that O’Toole has basically left objective reality behind, as his latest shitpost video essentially demonstrates.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486849795515953156

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1486850305757167622

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1486755945292124167

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recalling a committee for a dog and pony show

Posted on by

The House of Commons’ access to information, privacy and ethics committee will be recalled for emergency meetings after the Conservatives were “alarmed” to hear that the Public Health Agency used anonymised mobile data to see how Canadians were responding to public health measures. The point of the data collection is to get a sense of travel patterns during these kinds of measures, and to see whether people stay at home, or how far they go, and because its anonymised, nobody can see who is doing what individually—they’re looking at patterns.

But this kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth over anonymised data is nothing new for Conservatives, who have sounded this particular alarm before when Statistics Canada was hoping to use anonymised bank data to track Canadians’ purchasing habits in a more robust and accurate way than shopping diary surveys can, and lo, that project got iced. Of course, because irony is dead, the Conservatives’ election platform had their “carbon points” plan, which would require so much itemised consumer data that it puts this kind of anonymised data to shame, but why worry about consistency or logic?

Because this is a House of Commons committee, we are guaranteed that this is going to be nothing more than a dog and pony show. If they agree to hold a study on this—which it’s not yet guaranteed—it’s going to be hauling public health officials before committee and subjecting them to ridiculous questions that have little to do with this particular issue, in the hopes of catching them out on something, and attempts to build some kind of conspiracy theory that the government was trying to play Big Brother during the pandemic, and it will balloon from there until the point where the government has had enough and starts filibustering the increasingly unreasonable demands by opposition members, and the committee will grind to a halt. Because that’s how this kind of thing happens every time, because our MPs are more concerned with being partisan dicks on committees than actually doing their jobs of accountability. But maybe I’m just getting cynical about the current state of affairs in federal politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Senator Batters blindsides O’Toole

Posted on by

There is much intrigue within the Conservative ranks, and it just got a lot more interesting. First thing yesterday morning was the story that Bert Chen, the member of the party’s national council who was suspended for circulating a petition to call for an early leadership review would be suspended indefinitely, rather than for just sixty days. But a short while later, another petition started circulating to call for a leadership review, and this one was one they couldn’t ignore – from Senator Denise Batters.

Batters laid out a fairly devastating line of attack in her video – noting that O’Toole is the one that is growing the “rift” in the party, and that he is responsible for the election loss because of what voters perceive to be his character flaw – that he is not trustworthy. “You can’t come back from that,” Batters stated. And as a senator, Batters has latitude to lead this petition drive on behalf of grassroots members that others don’t, given that she doesn’t have nomination papers that need the leader’s signature, and if O’Toole boots her from caucus, she will only get even more vocal from outside, and she has a parliamentary platform. There have been some talking heads who are insinuating that she is perhaps a catspaw for Peter MacKay, given that she supported him in the leadership, but I sincerely doubt that’s the case – as partisan as she can be, Batters isn’t a fool, and she’s not a puppet for anyone. The party president tried to dismiss her petition, saying it goes against the party’s constitution, but the section he cited was only in relation to the leadership process, whereas she is initiating a party-wide referendum, which is different. (And again, Batters isn’t a fool, and she’s a lawyer who was once chief of staff to Saskatchewan’s minister of justice). Some talking heads have also stated that this goes against the process from the (garbage) Reform Act, but as a senator, Batters is excluded from the Act, and she is leading a grassroots movement, not one from caucus. It’s also being stated that this is just one part of a multi-stage movement within the party to call for this leadership review, so we’ll see where this develops, but O’Toole’s problems are not going away anytime soon.

Meanwhile, a parallel drama is playing out in Alberta, where more than a quarter of UCP constituency associations passed a special motion that will force an early leadership review of Jason Kenney than the April date he had managed to negotiate with his caucus earlier – and they also want an outside auditing firm to ensure the security of the voting system for this review, so that there isn’t a repeat of the alleged shenanigans that coloured the initial leadership vote that got Kenney into power in the first place (which are still part of an ongoing investigation last I checked). Things are not looking up for Kenney either, and he and O’Toole suddenly have a lot in common.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time to change the dress code?

Posted on by

NDP MP Randall Garrison is pushing for the House of Commons to update is dress code, in particular around the gendered rules that men need to wear a jacket and tie in the Chamber in order to speak and vote. Part of Garrison’s stated motivation is to make it easier for future trans and non-binary MPs, even though accommodations are already routinely made, such as allowing Indigenous MPs to wear beaded necklaces or other symbols in place of a tie. I don’t see why it would be any different to accommodate a trans or non-binary MP in a similar manner without any fuss – a mere notice to the Speaker would suffice.

On the one hand, there is a certain amount of archaic assumption in the “contemporary business attire” around jackets and ties for men, and only men – there is no dress code for women in the Chamber (and these rules apply to those of us who sit in the Press Gallery in the Chamber, incidentally). Business attire in the current context is starting to slide down the scale – particularly in this era of work-from-home – so I’m leery of loosening the restrictions too much, particularly as it is not beyond the realm of possibility that you would have a bunch of MPs in track suits, yoga or sweat pants, hoodies, and mom jeans (and I have seen male MPs in mom jeans with jacket and tie in the Chamber, which was not a pleasant sight). Printed t-shirts are also a very real concern, because we will immediately slip into them being used as props, particularly during Members’ Statements, and we do not want that to happen. On the same token, I wouldn’t have minded imposing a few more rules for women in the Chamber, such as mandating jackets as part of “business attire,” because sometimes the definitions of what constitutes “business attire” for some female MPs has been particularly…challenging. (Flashback to the old Megan Leslie Outfit Watch on my former blog).

I get that ties suck. I really do. I used to really hate them, but I’ve somewhat reluctantly grown to accept them and now I have no issue with it. And once we’re into late May and early June and the humidity starts to climb, wearing suits is not fun (and whereas I have threatened to show up to the Gallery in shorts and sandals – but with jacket and tie – one reporter has actually done so and was my hero for the day). But at the same time, I think there should be some kinds of standards, for both men and women, because frankly there can be a demonstrated lack of both maturity and good taste among MPs and there need to be some guidelines. Can they be loosened a little? Sure, that should be okay, and maybe we won’t require a tie at all times – within reason. It does merit a discussion in any case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mark Holland is optimistic

Posted on by

New Government House Leader Mark Holland is brimming with optimism that the things that paralyzed the previous session of Parliament will be behind them post-election. It’s a nice idea, but I wonder just how it will actually play out. Yes, the Liberals have broken some of the deadlocks that plagued them (a fact that they didn’t articulate during the election, even when pressed on the subject), and they have a bit of leverage now in that none of the other parties can even contemplate another election anytime soon – the Conservatives are consumed with internal disputes over vaccine mandates and just when they plan to put Erin O’Toole to a leadership review, and the NDP are very broke having spent record amounts of money to gain themselves a single new seat, and the Bloc have no desire to go back to the polls, particularly since their play to be François Legault’s voice in Ottawa didn’t play well for them in the election. This will allow the Liberals to play some hardball and use confidence to their advantage for the time being.

But in spite of this, I would not put it past any of the opposition parties to engage in some of the other shenanigans that got us the election, whether that is tying up the committees in interminable attempts at witch hunts, or drowning in document production requests – and that may yet still happen. The election did end some of that, but much of it could very easily be revived once the committees are back up and running (likely in the New Year).

“There was a very clear message sent to all parties that there’s an expectation that we work together, and I’m operating on the presumption that we will have all heard that message and that we all come ready to work and to collaborate in a constructive and positive way,” Holland told The Canadian Press.

I’m not sure that such a presumption is a good one to make. There was an expectation that all parties should work together during the pandemic, and while they did a bunch of backroom negotiations around emergency legislation – and kept any of the debates off-the-record – they stalled all other bills until the very end, when the NDP and Bloc realized they needed to start playing ball again. I’m not sure what the appetite for playing ball will be on most bills, or whether the political calculus will be to try and stymie the Liberals once again (which could lead to showdowns over confidence). I wish Holland all the luck in the world on this, but I suspect he may start losing the hair he has left because the current state of our parliamentary discourse is pretty toxic, and things like the Liberals’ desire to keep hybrid sittings going will only exacerbate that problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rejections without significance

Posted on by

Because it’s a story that refuses to die, we now know that both the Bloc and the NDP have rejected the four main votes in the (garbage) Reform Act, and now we await the Liberals, who will in turn doubtlessly reject it as well whenever they finally have their first official caucus meeting, and of course, we have political scientists trying to derive meaning from these refusals, as they have tried with the Conservatives agreeing to the four votes.

The simple truth, however, are that these votes really don’t matter because the legislation is garbage. The power to elect caucus chairs doesn’t require its adoption, as we’ve seen, and the power over the expulsion of caucus members is largely illusory anyway because it tends to depend on what the leader says either way. I would be hugely surprised if the caucus and the leader ever parted ways on whether or not to boot someone out of the club, as that would create a schism and be a sign that the leader was on the way out. As well, the power of the caucus to pressure a leader to resign is actually better off without the Reform Act because what the Act winds up doing is protecting the leader by setting a high threshold and requiring a public declaration to trigger a vote, which can invite retribution. It has been far more effective to push a leader out with one or two public declarations by brave members that signal the writing on the wall rather than demanding a twenty percent threshold.

In the Hill Times piece, the Act’s author, Michael Chong, pats himself on the back for codifying these sorts of caucus decisions, but codifying them is part of the problem. Our Westminster system tends to work best under conventions that aren’t codified because it affords them flexibility and the ability to adapt, whereas codification is inflexible, leads to testing of the system and the pursuit of loopholes and getting around what has been codified. It’s the same with setting that threshold to push out a leader – it winds up insulating the leader more than empowering the caucus, and we’ve seen leaders resign with far less pressure than what this codified system affords, not to mention that by Chong codifying that party leaders must be selected by membership vote in the actual Parliament of Canada Act as a result of this garbage legislation, he has made it even harder for parties to return to the proper system of caucus selection and removal of leaders as we need to return to. Chong has screwed Parliament for a generation, and it would be great if the talking heads would stop encouraging him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative consultations by the PM

Posted on by

It is performative consultation season, and lo, prime minister Justin Trudeau held meetings with Erin O’Toole, Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May yesterday, and the versions of the conversation released by readouts from both the PMO, O’Toole and Singh’s officers were…quite something. (Thread here). O’Toole demanded an end to CRB and an end to the “wedge politics” around vaccines, while Singh demanded CRB continue, and for the government to drop future appeals of litigation around First Nations children. Both were play-acting tough in their readouts, even though Singh is but a paper tiger. Trudeau’s readouts, meanwhile, were similar and bland, listing the already circulated “priority” items he wants to address right away (and yet is delaying recalling parliament), with no indication of what the other parties said, or if any kinds of agreements were reached.

Something that did come out of the readout with Singh was that Trudeau is in favour of continuing hybrid sittings, and Pablo Rodriguez’s office confirmed that, which is really, really disappointing and frankly mind-boggling. We are not in the same phase of the pandemic, and we are in a place where, with mandatory vaccination and masking, MPs can all safely attend parliamentary duties in-person, end of story. Carrying on hybrid sittings – which only the Liberals and NDP favour – are frankly unjustifiable, given the human toll that the injuries take on the interpreters, and the incredible amount of human and technical resources that they consume (and which have starved the Senate of necessary resources because the Commons gets priority). And just imagine telling the interpreters that they have to keep being subjected to injury because MPs are too gods damned selfish or lazy to do the jobs they’ve bene elected to do. Parliament is an in-person job – it depends on building relationships, which happens face-to-face. Hybrid sittings were 100 percent responsible for the last session devolving into complete toxicity, and if you don’t think that congeniality matters, remember that things don’t get accomplished without it. Those five months of procedural warfare didn’t happen in a vacuum. Saying they want hybrid sittings to carry on is both irresponsible and corrosive to parliament as a whole. There can be no justification for carrying them on.

Meanwhile, in case you thought it was just opposition parties making demands of the government before parliament is summoned, we have plenty of civil society groups calling for the paid sick leave for federally-regulated employees to happen immediately (erm, not how the legislative process works, guys), decriminalisation of illicit drugs, and for refugees and undocumented healthcare workers to be allowed access to a programme that would grant them permanent residency status.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-awareness and civilian control

Posted on by

When it comes to the issue of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, there seems to be an epidemic of a lack of self-awareness. This is demonstrated time and again within the ranks as officers are given inappropriate promotions (remember the head of personnel who had known sexual misconduct allegations), are protected by the top brass (General Jonathan Vance, the infamous golf game earlier in the year), and the issue with Major-General Peter Dawe being given the role of sorting through the various reports on reforming military culture after he was suspended for writing the glowing letter for someone under his command who had been convicted of sexual assault. Every time, this has to be pointed out to them and how inappropriate their actions continue to be.

But it’s not just the ranks that lack self-awareness – it’s also their political masters. During a media availability yesterday, both prime minister Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland also had harsh words for the military’s inability to exercise self-awareness on the sexual misconduct file – but they have a role to play there as well, because in a democracy like ours, the military answers to civilian control. In our particular system, that should be going through the Chief of Defence Staff to the Minister of National Defence – but the current minister, Harjit Sajjan, has made it clear that he is not exercising his responsibility for civilian control, and is not properly overseeing the CDS, or his top decisions. Part of this may be because he is former military (he was actually active when he was elected and needed to go through the discharge process so that the CDS could no longer outrank him), and is steeped in the culture and cannot adequately see the reality of what is going on, or why he needs to exercise civilian control. And no, I’m not sure it was any better under the previous government either, who also appointed a former general to Minister of Defence (Gordon O’Connor), and generally let the military run their own show – especially with procurement, which is why there were so many botched files, from the F-35 to joint supply ships.

We need to re-assert civilian control by means of a competent minister who doesn’t have a military background, and someone who can actually perform some managerial competence and keep the CDS on a tight leash. But that may depend on Trudeau having enough self-awareness of his own recognise that this is what needs to happen as he decides on how to shuffle his Cabinet, and I’m losing confidence that this could actually happen.

Continue reading →