Tag Archives: Status of Women

Roundup: Hunkering down in the PMO

Posted on by

The Double-Hyphen Affair took a bit of a breather yesterday, but will be back in full gear today as Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick testify at the justice committee. It will be interesting to see how they try to refute (or at least nuance) Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony last week, without trying to cast her as the villain or the problem. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau cancelled an appearance in Regina yesterday and returned to Ottawa to hunker down, and his office is floating the news that he’s going to try for a more conciliatory tone – with some new lines that he tested out at the Toronto audience on Monday night. Elsewhere, Liberal MP Steve MacKinnon had to walk back his comments that SNC-Lavalin was “entitled “ to a deferred prosecution as a poor choice of words (no kidding), but said that they remain a candidate for one. More Cabinet ministers are giving their reassurances to the media, such as Chrystia Freeland did yesterday, including the assurance that yes, Trudeau is still a feminist leader. Also making the rounds was former Liberal deputy prime minister Sheila Copps, who took the aggressive line that Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were unused to the rough and tumble of government because they hadn’t spent any time in opposition, and she urged Trudeau to kick them out of the party (which I think would be an even bigger mistake, but what do I know?) We also learned that David Lametti has asked for outside legal advice on “issues raised” by the current Affair – but not the question of the deferred prosecution agreement itself, in case anyone thinks this is him buckling to the kind of pressure that Wilson-Raybould was alleging.

For context, Tristin Hopper talks to a number of legal and constitutional experts about what has transpired in the Affair, and lo, this is largely a political issue that will have a political solution. Imagine that. Here’s an examination of how the playing field remains tilted against Wilson-Raybould because of her status as an Indigenous woman in what has been a field dominated by white men. Here’s a look at how the Liberals could turf Trudeau (but seriously, if you want a better discussion on this, read my book).

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau keeps finding himself surprised by these recent events, particularly the resignations. Jason Markusoff warns that the Liberals appear to be gearing up to use “the other guys suck” as their campaign platform. While there is no hint of a backbench revolt (no, seriously), Kady O’Malley nevertheless games out how such a revolt could bring down the government. Philippe Lagassé expands on his previous post to talk about how this whole Affair proves that our system of parliamentary accountability is actually working. My column assesses the state of play for Trudeau, and how his way out of this Affair is going to be extremely tough to achieve.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting mad at algorithms

Posted on by

While the Conservatives spent their day in the House of Commons using their Supply Day motion to lay an unsubtle trap for the Liberals – demanding that they table a balanced budget and a written pledge to not raise any taxes, certain that the Liberals would defeat it so that they could turn around and say “See! Look! Trudeau is planning to raise your taxes!” – Andrew Scheer spent his afternoon getting angry at Google’s search algorithms.

The problem (other than the dangerous level of computer illiteracy) is that this was something that originated on a reddit thread that Scheer immediately latched onto.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1090332359650672641

https://twitter.com/cfhorgan/status/1090326614536146944

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1090333969319641089

Despite the afternoon of tweets pillorying Scheer and mock Google searches that put his image up for searches like “People who will never be prime minister,” it does actually score a deeper underlying point about this kind of virtue signalling over social media.

And this is part of the problem – we’ve seen this before with the issue of the UN global compact on migration, that Scheer started adopting tinfoil hat conspiracy theories to try and reclaim those votes that are suddenly gravitating toward Maxime Bernier. (I’m also not unconvinced that part of this Google search panic is some leftover James Damore “Google is full of social justice warriors!” drama that inhabits certain corners of the internet). The creation of this kind of alternate reality of conspiracies and lies that that they then turn into attack campaigns against media who fact-check and debunk their false claims, is them playing with fire. Making people believe disinformation may seem like a good idea to win a few votes in the short run, it has very long-term negative consequences that they seem utterly blind to. And yet, this is their current strategic vision. No good can come of this.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1090370788694192128

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1090361590858371075

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Bland assurances from Morneau (part eleventy)

Posted on by

Things got underway a few minutes early, as finance minister Bill Morneau arrived in the Senate for what promised to be a day full of pointed questions and pabulum answers – Morneau’s particular specialty. Senator Larry Smith led off, asking about the $9.5 billion budgeted in the fiscal update for “non-announced measures,” and Morneau responded with bland assurances about getting the right balance in the budget. Smith noted that he didn’t actually answer the question and that they needed to hold government to account, to which Morneau said quite right, but again didn’t answer, and offered more pabulum talking points about dealing with challenges while still trending the deficit downward.

Senator Batters was up next, and brought up the PM’s comments on social impacts of male construction workers to rural areas, citing that she only sees benefits. Morneau first cited that they look at employment on projects, and then noted gender-based lens for impacts, but didn’t elaborate on the construction worker issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The inaugural NSICOP report

Posted on by

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians tabled their redacted report on the prime minister’s India trip yesterday, and, well, there were a number of redactions. But what wasn’t redacted did paint a picture of an RCMP that bungled security arrangements, and that didn’t have good lines of communication with the prime minister’s security detail, and where they left a voicemail for someone who was on vacation, while someone else in Ottawa decided to not bother trying to reach out until the following day because it was the end of their shift. So yeah, there were a “few issues” that the RCMP fell down on. And because of the redactions (done by security agencies and not PMO, for reasons related to national security or because revelations could be injurious to our international relations), we don’t have any idea if the former national security advisor’s warnings about “rogue elements” of the Indian government were involved was true or not.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1069736311785951234

The CBC, meanwhile, got documents under Access to Information to show what kind of gong show was touched off with the communications side of things as the government tried to manage the fallout of the revelations of Atwal’s appearance on the trip (and in many senses, it wasn’t until the prime minister gave a very self-deprecating speech on the trip at the Press Gallery Dinner that the narratives started to die down). Because remember, this is a government that can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag.

In order to get some national security expert reaction, here’s Stephanie Carvin and Craig Forcese:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069747574435995648

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1069718997937995776

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708639479451649

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708795134308362

It should also be pointed out that the opposition parties are trying to make some hay over the redactions, and are intimating that they’re the product of PMO for partisan reasons. It’s not supposed to work that way, but hey, why deal in facts when you can proffer conspiracy theories, or in Andrew Scheer’s case, shitposts on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/RobynUrback/status/1069786954756173825

Continue reading →

Roundup: Looking for a domestic MS-13

Posted on by

Over the past week, Andrew Scheer has been touting his latest pre-election policy plank, which promises to tackle the problem of gang violence – except it really won’t. His proposals are largely unconstitutional and fall into the same pattern of “tough on crime” measures that are largely performative that do nothing substantive about the underlying issues with violent crime, but that shouldn’t be unexpected. The measures go hand-in-hand with their talking point that the government’s current gun control legislation “doesn’t include the word ‘gangs’ even once,” and how they’re just punishing law-abiding gun owners. And while I will agree with the notion that you can’t really do much more to restrict handgun ownership without outright banning them, it needs to be pointed out that the point about the lack of mention of gangs in the bill is predicated on a lie – the Criminal Code doesn’t talk about “gangs” because it uses the language of “criminal organisations,” to which gangs apply (not to mention that you don’t talk about gangs in gun control legislation – they’re separate legal regimes, which they know but are deliberately trying to confuse the issue over.

I have to wonder if the recent focus on gangs as the current problem in gun crime is that they need a convenient scapegoat that’s easy to point a finger at – especially if you ignore the racial overtones of the discussion. Someone pointed out to me that they’re looking for their own MS-13 that they can demonise in the public eye – not for lack of trying, since they focus-tested some MS-13 talking points in Question Period last year at the height of the irregular border-crossing issue when they were concern-trolling that MS-13 was allegedly sending terrorists across our borders among these asylum seekers. The talking points didn’t last beyond a week or two, but you know that they’re looking to try and score some cheap points with it.

With that in mind, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt explaining why Scheer’s latest proposal is a house of lies:

Or as another criminal defence lawyer, Dean Embry, puts it, if you’re going to make stuff up on this issue, then why not go all the way?

https://twitter.com/DeanEmbry/status/1062102941123907590

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolls and pabulum scripts

Posted on by

Following Monday’s fairly dismal attendance, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for Question Period today. Andrew Scheer led off, concern trolling about the StatsCan plans to access financial transaction data, and Justin Trudeau read a script about evidence-based policy. Scheer listed off a number of data breaches by the government, to which Trudeau read that the Conservatives were pretending to be opposed to StatsCan data including the long form census, while they would protect the privacy of Canadians. Scheer insisted this wasn’t about evidence but it was about violating fundamental rights, and this time Trudeau reiterated his same responses without a script. Scheer switched to French to ask what duties absent MP Nicola Di Iorio was assigned, to which Trudeau took a script to say that the MP indicated that he would resign in January and that he indicated what he was working on. Scheer tried again in English, and Trudeau read the English lines in response. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded the government support their motion on spending the full Veteran’s Affairs budget (which is a deliberate misunderstanding of what those lapsed funds represent), and Trudeau picked up a script to read the list of things they’ve done for Veterans. Caron switched to French to ask about the accidental underpayment of veterans’ benefits, to which Trudeau read some more pabulum about their increased financial support in the face of Conservative cuts, and added that they were supporting the motion. Daniel Johns stood up to repeat both questions, and Trudeau read the English versions of his same two pabulum scripts.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1059895812619038720

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating the future shape of the Commons

Posted on by

In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Targeting the journalists

Posted on by

It has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives plan to wage war against the media as part of their election strategy, which you’d think is funny because We The Media aren’t running in the election. The problem is that this isn’t actually about the media, but rather about undermining the foundations of the institution and the trust that people place in it. Why? Because in the wake of the growing success of populist leaders and movements, they’ve decided to abandon all shame and simply straight-up lie. Most of the media won’t call them lies, because they tend to aim for both-sides-ism “balance” that tends to look like “one side says this, the other side says that, you decide” in its construction, and Scheer and company have decided to exploit that for all it’s worth. And if you do call them on those lies, well, you’re the one who is suspect, whose motives are driven by partisanship, or because you’re looking for some kind of government job, (or my favourite, that I’m allegedly performing sexual favours for the PM).

What I find particularly rich are the Conservatives operatives behind this campaign of harassment is how they insist that they don’t rise to Trumpian levels, but you could have fooled me. They may not say “fake news,” but they intimate it at every opportunity. And if you call them out on a lie (which doesn’t happen often), then they go on the attack. It’s happened to me on numerous occasions (and usually the attacks are themselves wrapped in more lies and distortions), but then again, I’ve also decided to call a lie a lie and not couch it in both-sides-ism. As much as they insist they’re just “pointing out specific inaccuracies” or “countering criticisms,” that’s another lie, and we all have the receipts to prove it.

In the meantime, they’ll content themselves with this sense of martyrdom, that they’re just so hard done byfrom the media, that the coverage of the Liberals is “glowing” while we do nothing but attack the Conservatives (have you actually read any reporting?) and that apparently the pundits are all taking the Liberals’ sides (seriously?) and that justifies their need to “go for the jugular.” But when you’re accustomed to blaming others to assuage your hurt feelings, you think that your attacks righteous, and that’s where we are. So yeah, this is going to get worse, it’s going to get Trumpian, and they’re going to keep insisting that they would never demonise the profession, but don’t believe them. It’s in their interests to undermine journalism, and they lack any shame in doing so.

Continue reading →

QP: More Mark Norman insinuations

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town but not in Question Period, Andrew Scheer was also away for reasons undisclosed. Candice Bergen led off on the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman issue again, demanding that the government turn over recordings of Cabinet meetings where shipbuilding contracts were discussed. Ralph Goodale got up to respond by reminding her that this is before the courts and they can’t discuss it. Bergen raised the spectre that the government was destroying records because of the Ontario Liberals did in relation to the gas plants scandal. Goodale reminded her of the Standing Orders that state that matters before the courts can’t be discussed. Bergen tried again on the same insinuations, and Goodale said that the government follows the law. Gérard Deltell got up to try again in French, and Goodale reminded him about the independence of the courts. Deltell reminded him that Paul Martin released records for the sponsorship scandal, and Goodale cautioned him that commentary like that was not permitted. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding expungements instead of pardons for former simple possession convictions. Goodale reminded him that the old system didn’t work which was why they changed it, and that they were putting in a new expedited process for those pardons. Caron asked again in French, and Caron reminded him that the expungements for when the law itself was discriminatory such as when it criminalised people for being gay. Hélène Laverdière got up next, and asked the government to apply the Magnitsky Act on Saudi officials responsible for the disappearance and possible death of Jamal Khashoggi. Chrystia Freeland assured her that they were working with partners to call for answers, but when Laverdière asked again in English, bringing up our arms sales, and Freeland gave a more pointed response about the G7 foreign minister’s statement that she led.

Continue reading →