Tag Archives: Speaker Rota

Roundup: Rota’s “Justinflation” problem

Posted on by

The Speaker of the House of Commons has a “Justinflation” problem. Having too laxly enforced the rules around using first names and MPs mocking one another for too long, Anthony Rota finds that he is having a hard time getting Conservatives to stop using it. This past week in Question Period, he tried a few times to get Conservatives to stop, or to at least put a pause in between the two portions, but quickly realised that the exaggerated pause wasn’t doing anything either, and he tried to get them to stop that as well, but that mostly didn’t work either. And lo, it’s no wonder, because he doesn’t really enforce the rules. Same with repeated mentions last week about the prime minister being absent, both for the Queen’s funeral and to attend the United Nations General Assembly, which MPs are not supposed to do, and yet did anyway with no word of warning from Rota.

Rota, who tries very hard to show that he’s such a nice guy, relies on gentle chiding when MPs don’t follow the rules, and shockingly, that doesn’t work. It doesn’t work to stop things like “Justinflation, “and it doesn’t stop MPs from abusing Zoom to the detriment of the health and safety of the interpretation staff (for over two gods damned years). Gentle chiding doesn’t work. Do you know what does? Refusing to call on MPs when they break the rules. He doesn’t need to actually follow the speaking list that the House Leaders have given him. He can enforce the rules by not calling on MPs who break them, and when they shape up, then he can call on them again. These are powers that are completely with in his disposal if he cared to actually enforce the rules. But he doesn’t seem to want to, so here we are, and the “Justinflation” references continue apace. Slow clap all around.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 219:

As Russia “formally” declared they were illegally annexing two more Ukrainian provinces, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy formally signed a declaration that Ukraine will be seeking NATO membership, hopefully through an accelerated process, but so long as there are Russians occupying territory in Ukraine, that may not be able to happen—but it could force more NATO members to provide more support in the interim.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Home for the summer

Posted on by

It is day one-hundred-and-twenty-one of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and still no news out of Severodonetsk, but there is additional bombardment of the area including air strikes. The big news, however, was that the EU has granted the request to make Ukraine a candidate for membership—itself a years-long process that will require great reforms, most especially Ukraine cracking down on its problem of government corruption—but more than anything, this is a symbolic victory. It signals that Ukraine is moving more to the west, and away from Russia, and that further undermines Putin’s aims.

Closer to home, both the House of Commons and the Senate have risen for the summer, the latter being a problem because it was supposed to sit next week and they rammed through a bunch of legislation with little or no debate or scrutiny in order to make it happen. Below is a speech by Senator Paula Simons about one of those bills being expedited, and why that’s a problem (and you’d better believe I have an angry column about this coming out over the weekend).

Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry had an interview with the Commons’ Speaker, Anthony Rota, and frankly I wonder if we’re living in the same reality. Rota seems to think that his method of gentle chiding of MPs gets results, and that they change their behaviours when he hints that he knows who’s being disruptive (but won’t actually name and shame them). Except he doesn’t get results, and they continue to openly flout the rules, because they know that he’ll belatedly make some gentle comment that won’t actually do anything to enforce the rules that they broke, so it keeps happening again and again. But he thinks this is a good way, because things aren’t as bad as they were in the pre-2015 days before the Liberals largely stopped applauding and being as vociferous in their heckles. He’s not doing his job, plain and simple.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wondering who the real winner of the confidence agreement is

Posted on by

We are now on day twenty-eight, four weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like Russia’s attempts at occupying Mariupol continue to be thwarted, though the city is being reduced to rubble. As well, Ukrainian forces retook a strategic suburb of Kyiv, so that is as good of news as can be hoped for in the situation. Remember how Russia thought it was a matter of marching?

Back in Canada, the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and NDP was made official, and boy were there a bunch of reactions. Some of them were expected, like the Conservatives abusing the term “coalition” (it’s not a coalition) and claiming it’s a “power grab” rather than a legitimate exercise of cooperation in a hung parliament as happens not infrequently in Westminster systems. Oh, and she said that this ultimately benefits Putin. No, really—she said that. Even more problematic were certain CBC reporters pushing this bizarre notion that Canadians “elected a minority government” and that this agreement somehow violates it, which no, is not how things work. We don’t elect governments, and there is not majority/minority option on the ballot, and it’s been just as much a recurring narrative in the past two parliaments that a hung parliament means that “Canadians want us to work together” (which is just as silly a notion, frankly), but honestly, I expect better from the CBC than to push this kind of nonsense, and it’s embarrassing for them as the national broadcaster to be pushing this nonsense.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1506273770176188427

In the meantime, there is a bunch of pearl-clutching that this agreement somehow means that we won’t be increasing defence-spending, even though the NDP has no veto on budgets, and the fact that we can’t even spend the current allocation so it’s way too soon to worry about this. The early indications of the outlined dental care plan could help millions—but it’s light on details and the actual mechanism that will be used given that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction (but some good perspective threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here). The consensus seems to be that the Liberal are the real winners here and not the NDP, but others argue that the Conservatives could be the real winners because it will give the next leader time to rebuild the party and establish themselves given that the next election will be more than three years away (maybe). And then there is the question about whether this agreement gives Trudeau the runway to accomplish a few more things before turning it over to his successor, though he says otherwise when asked (which of course he will, because saying he won’t run again makes him lame duck instantly). It does make for a different dynamic for the next couple of years in any case, so we’ll see how it shapes up.

Continue reading →

QP: A raucous disagreement on the Emergencies Act

Posted on by

All leaders were present for what promised to be a fraught Question Period, where the prime minister would be responding to all questions. Candice Bergen led off, and wondered just what was the threat to Canadians that required the Emergencies Act, citing the test in the legislation. Justin Trudeau trotted out his line that using the Act is a serious issue, and that the test was met so they are giving police new tools. Bergen insisted that the situations were already de-escalating on their own, and that this was just about saving his political skin. Bergen repeated the allegation, insisted that Trudeau was name-calling, stigmatising and “traumatising” Canadians, and Trudeau said that by first insisting the opposition wanted to try and have it both ways. Bergen raised Blackface, Omar Khadr and a few other non sequiturs and then decried a “mental health” crisis before demanding all mandates be ended, and Trudeau accused the Conservatives of playing personal, partisan games.

Speaker Rota had enough of the noise, and turned the speaking list upside down and called on Mike Morrice, who asked about committing to mental health, and Trudeau praised their plans for a dedicated mental health transfer to the provinces and bragged the government’s Wellness Together app.

Rota returned to Bergen, who raised domestic assault stats to decry mandates, before she demanded capitulation to the occupiers’ demands, and Trudeau trotted out his worn lines about having Canadians’ backs.

For the Bloc, Yves-François Blanchet decried the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, and Trudeau reminded him that the Bloc were demanding action, while the application is limited and proportional, and a province who doesn’t need it doesn’t have to access it’s powers. Blanchet railed about the sensitivities of Quebeckers to the War Measures Act in its new form, and Trudeau listed federal tools that helped Quebec in the pandemic.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he decried how Black and Indigenous protesters were treated as compared to this occupation, and Trudeau admitted that they acknowledge systemic racism and they are committing to make changes. Singh switched to a French to demand the Emergencies Act not be applied in jurisdictions it is not wanted—a sop to Quebec—and Trudeau repeated that if the province doesn’t want the tools, they don’t need to use them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A fundamental misunderstanding of the profession

Posted on by

Because this is sometimes a media criticism blog, it’s time once again to look askance at some particularly poor reporting choices by a particular CBC reporter. He has developed quite a pattern and reputation for writing stories about judicial appointments which are skewed toward a certain predilection for creating moral panics, and this really false notion that people are essentially buying judicial nominations with party donations, which is both absurd and not how the system works. And along the way, he mischaracterised comments made by the then-president of the Canadian Bar Association, which I had to go about correcting.

In this particular instance, he is remarking that a new judicial nomination Quebec is a lawyer who argued the case on behalf of opponents of Bill 21 in the province (and didn’t win because the judge noted that the provincial government pre-emptively applied the Notwithstanding Clause). But the entire framing of the story and its implicit narrative is that this is a political appointment for the intention of either tweaking at François Legault, or of signalling federal opposition to the law, which is again absurd, and a completely bizarre understanding of how things work in the legal system.

Let me offer this reminder: lawyers make arguments on behalf of their clients. They don’t need to believe those arguments or subscribe to the beliefs of their clients—they simply need to argue on their behalf. The fact that this lawyer argued on behalf of these clients in opposition to this law should be immaterial to the fact that he applied to be a judge, and it should not be a determining factor in the decision to appoint him. But it does fit the narrative that this particular reporter likes to portray about how judicial appointments work, and the fact that the gods damned CBC is letting him spin this particular narrative and not squashing it for being both wrong and unprofessional is troubling, and makes me wonder what the hell is going on with their editorial standards.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rota says no problem here

Posted on by

CBC checked in with House of Commons Speaker Anthony Rota over the weekend, and well, it was about as trite and saccharine as one might expect from Rota, particularly given the current era of hybrid sittings. Everything’s under control. Situation normal. We’re all fine now here, thank you.

It’s not fine. They haven’t solved the problem where the interpreters are suffering extremely high rates of injuries (and I have spoken to one interpreter who says part of the problem is the House of Commons’ system itself, not just the Zoom platform), but they are extremely concerned about the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries. I haven’t seen Rota or any of the House leaders aware or even speak to the problem. Meanwhile, Peter Julian thinks the solution is just to hire more interpreters—but there aren’t any more. This year’s class at the University of Ottawa will graduate four new interpreters, which isn’t even enough to replace those who are retiring. There is a looming crisis coming that will have a very detrimental effect on our Parliament, particularly if we want to continue operating in a bilingual capacity. Hybrid sittings are only making it worse because the existing interpreters are burning out at a rapid rate, they’re not adequately compensating the limited number of freelancers who are filling in, and if they decide that the possibility of permanent hearing loss from these injuries isn’t enough to bother continuing, well, Parliament is going to be screwed for a decade to come, because they were too self-absorbed to take the adequate precautions to meet in person, while patting themselves on the back for “setting a good example” of meeting remotely. Never mind the human cost of that “good example.”

I have said it before, and I will keep saying it—there is no moral justification for hybrid sittings given the human cost this is taking. And it would be great if the gods damned Speaker could actually speak up on behalf of the interpreters and make that case rather than simply grinning and gently chiding the MPs who keep making their lives difficult.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nothing unexpected in the Speech from the Throne

Posted on by

In amidst all of the pomp and ceremony, there was very little that was unexpected out of yesterday’s Speech from the Throne, where Governor General Mary May Simon read the government’s planned agenda, talking about the fact that the pandemic is not yet over, and making high-level promises around climate action, reconciliation, and a nod to the rising cost of living. In a little over half an hour, it was over, and MPs returned to the House of Commons.

Two media narratives largely dominated the coverage the rest of the day: 1) this is basically the election platform, which erm, hello, is pretty much the point, and putting something shiny and new in there while in a hung parliament would be difficult and asking for trouble; and 2) daring the opposition parties to bring down the government, which they won’t do, but reporters will ask leading – if not goading – questions all the same. And because of the requisite chest-thumping that goes along with a hung parliament, we saw both the Conservatives and NDP talking tough about not supporting it (well, the NDP said that the Liberals shouldn’t take their votes for granted even though they pretty much can because the NDP are in no shape to back up their words), and the Bloc essentially acknowledging that they would support it because of course they will. Nobody is going to bring the government down over this and go to another election (because no, there is no other possible government formation possible with the current composition of the Chamber), so the Liberals will pass this, and their fall fiscal update, and one or two of the bills on their priority wish list before they rise for the holidays, and the Conservatives and the NDP will huff and puff about it, but that’s about as much as will happen.

Once the speech was over, the Conservatives immediately launched into a renewed round of procedural shenanigans once they got back to the House of Commons, and before Erin O’Toole read his response to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. First it was a point of privilege on the unresolved issue from the previous parliament on the Winnipeg Lab documents, in spite of the fact that the committee that wanted them doesn’t exist and the order they made also no longer exists. Then they went after the Clerk and the scurrilous allegations of partisanship (which, according to everyone I’ve spoken to – including Senate Conservatives – is ridiculous and office politics run amok in the House of Commons’ administration). The Speaker tried to cut that off, insisting that it should be dealt with at BoIE, especially as the Clerk cannot defend himself in the Commons, but they kept going after it, which is poor form and a signal that they want blood and they don’t care if they hurt the Clerk in the process. And after that, it was the vaccine mandate and the use of the Board of Internal Economy, demanding a vote on it – erm, which would just expose those who object to said mandate and tar those who object to the procedural use of the BoIE with the same brush, which seems politically foolish to me, but what do I know? (Affirming the vaccine mandate is part of the Liberals’ omnibus motion that would also restore hybrid sittings, for what it’s worth).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parliament is summoned, a Speaker elected

Posted on by

The 44th Parliament has been summoned, and nearly all MPs were back in the House of Commons yesterday – the exceptions being the one Conservative MP who tested positive for COVID and a BC MP or two who stayed in their ridings owing to the flood situation, but otherwise, they are back, and all in the Chamber for the first time in nearly two years. The government is trying their best, mind you, to do away with this – Government House Leader Mark Holland is trying to use the black box of unknown “medical exemptions” by some Conservative MPs to bring back hybrid sittings (the motion for that is on the Order Paper), scrupulously ignoring the injuries suffered by interpretation staff as a result of the Zoom format. The Conservatives and the Bloc are opposing the return to hybrid sittings for good reason – it allows the government to escape accountability, both because they can’t be seen face-to-face in the Chamber, and they can’t be questioned by journalists when they leave, and while I’m sure that the government finds this to be a feature and not a bug, it’s an intolerable situation.

Holland also laid out the government’s four legislative priorities that they want passed before the House rises in three or four weeks, which is going to mean cutting corners as there’s no way that standing committees will be up and running by then. The four were new pandemic benefits for businesses and workers affected by lockdowns, ensuring ten paid sick days for workers in federally-regulated sectors, criminalising anti-vax protesters who harass healthcare workers or hospitals, and the conversion therapy ban. While the new benefits could be rolled into a budget implementation bill for the fall economic update (which they would have to bully through without any committees in place), as could the legislation on paid sick days, but I fail to see the need for new criminal measures for anti-vax protesters. Simply enforcing existing laws against criminal harassment and trespassing should be enough, and a specific bill would be mere theatrics. The conversion therapy bill, while important, has been promised to be “tougher,” which will slow down progress because it means it won’t be the same bill that they can claim already passed once – a new bill would demand new scrutiny, and with no committees in place, it’s a much more fraught notion to ram it through.

The Speaker election also took place, and Anthony Rota remained in the position, which is a little disappointing because he wasn’t the best Speaker, particularly as he allowed a lot of the problems with the hybrid format to carry on by gently chiding MPs when they did things that cause injuries to interpreters rather than laying down the law with them. I suspect that part of the calculation on the part of the Conservatives was some mistaken notions around what happened with the demands for those Winnipeg Lab documents – Rota’s name was on the court challenge because he was the Speaker, as a function of his office rather than any personal conviction, but he was lionized for it nevertheless (much like the Attorney General’s name was on the court challenge as a largely automatic function that was triggered under provisions in the Canada Evidence Act rather than a partisan effort – remember that the government did provide documents to NSICOP). Rota also made mention of “fine-tuning” decorum, which he has shown precious little interest in actually enforcing, again relying on gentle chiding, so I’m not sure why he was to be believed, but here we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Just the Speaker doing his job

Posted on by

We got our first glimpse at the court documents related to the challenge of the House of Commons’ order demanding the production of secret documents related to the firing of the two scientists from the National Microbiology Lab. The Speaker, Anthony Rota, put in his submission that the case should be tossed because of Parliamentary privilege, and there was no explicit waiving of parliamentary privilege under the Canada Evidence Act, which is what the Public Health Agency is following in refusing to turn over unsecured documents. As a reminder, they have turned over the documents, both in redacted form to the committee that requested them, and in unredacted form to NSICOP, which has appropriate security clearances and safeguards, so it’s not like this is a blanket refusal to defy Parliament – it’s that they have their own obligations to follow. It’s also somewhat problematic that the committee wants the Commons’ Law Clerk to then redact the documents on his own, without appropriate training or context, so they ultimately claim they’re not looking for unredacted documents – only for someone else to do the redacting, at which point this is just becoming absurd.

The way this is being spun is also somewhat irritating – because this was a Canadian Press wire story, outlets who ran the piece sometimes did so with altered headlines that stated that it was the Liberals interfering with the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commons rather than the government, which is not really true. This isn’t a partisan issue – it’s different parts of the government acting according to the laws that Parliament passed. When the demands were made, PHAC was bound in legislation to inform the Attorney General, and while it is the same physical person as the minister of justice, under his Attorney General hat, he had obligations to follow the law and test these demands in Court.

The other commentary that is somewhat maddening is people pointing out that the Speaker is somehow going against his party in doing his job as Speaker in defending the Commons’ privileges. Again, this isn’t actually a partisan issue on either side (well, the Conservatives making these demands for the documents, with the support of the other opposition parties, are behaving in an extremely partisan manner and trying to embarrass the government, but that’s neither here nor there for the purpose of what we’re discussing). Trying to make it a partisan issue when everyone is doing their jobs is just degrading the discourse and muddying the understanding of what is going on (which is what certain parties would like to happen because it makes it easier for them to lie about the state of play). We shouldn’t be doing their dirty work for them.

Programming Note: I’m taking the next week off (as much as I am able), because it’s probably my only opportunity in advance of the possible election, and I really don’t want to have to deal with election coverage while battling burnout. Take care, and I’ll see you on the far side of the long weekend.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ontario requests military assistance

Posted on by

We have reached the point in Ontario where things are so bad with the pandemic that the province has requested military assistance, and arrangements have been made for three medical assistance teams to be dispatched by today, along with other Red Cross personnel. As well, nine healthcare professionals from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the premier’s wife, are also being flown to Ontario by means of military transport.

But what is Doug Ford and his murderclown regime doing to help the situation? Absolutely nothing! They voted against another attempt at getting paid sick leave implemented, and they are keeping their focus solely on the border, rather than their need to enforce quarantine measures locally. (Oh, and it’s not just Ford balking at paid sick leave – every premier is doing it, even those in the Maritimes who have had relative success in containing the virus so far).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1386359274415214598

Meanwhile, there is a bit of good news in that a Federal Court judge refused to grant an injunction to end the hotel quarantine programme, saying it will go to a full hearing in June, and saying that the infringements on freedoms are reasonable in the public health context. Granted, we have enough people who can’t seem to pick a lane between demanding stricter border measures while also demanding an end to hotel quarantines, but since when has consistency been the strong point of political parties or MPs?

Continue reading →