It has not gone unnoticed that the government has not been putting themselves out in front of the release of the Deschamps Report into sexual misconduct in the military, and the opposition is rightly pointing out that there is such a thing as ministerial responsibility, which means that the minister needs to be out in front of this – but he’s not. He’s instead left it up to his parliamentary secretary to deliver some talking points that aren’t actually demonstrating responsibility, and worse yet, they’re almost self-congratulatory as the lines being delivered about how the Chief of Defence Staff ordered the report. Err, so what? The CDS is already pushing back on some of the recommendations by agreeing with eight of the ten “in principle” only, and there is still some level of denial at the top, where they describe that the endemic sexualised culture in the report as simply being the perception of those that Justice Deschamps interviewed. In other words, there needs to be more leadership at the top saying that no, you can’t just shrug this off and do a few things for show – you actually need to push and work at this until there is a genuine culture change. CBC Radio interviewed Major-General Christine Whitecross, who is heading up the response to the report, and she echoed some of that same reluctance, but she did relent on the point that the independent centres for reporting incidents was probably the way to go, but they want to study it some more, both in terms of what our allies have put into place in their own countries, and what resources are available here in Canada, and she is not dismissing it outright, which is at least something.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: A damning report on military misconduct
The Deschamps Report is now released, and as feared, it’s a black eye for the Canadian military. The report details a highly sexualised culture within the Forces, complete with sexist language, jokes, and unwanted advances leading to date rape and worse, making the Forces a hostile environment for not only women, but also GLBT individuals within the Forces. It was also stated that the more people went up the ranks, the more they became inured to the incidents, making superior officers unlikely to recognise it when it happens. Deschamps made ten recommendations, and the military only said they would accept two immediately, and the others “in principle,” including creating an exterior body that can receive complaints about harassment, which would be needed precisely because it’s outside of the structure of the Forces and won’t be somewhere that complainants would need to fear retaliation, and where they could be taken seriously. It needs to be pointed out that the government distanced themselves from this release – Jason Kenney was nowhere to be seen, even absent from Question Period despite the fact that he was in the Foyer giving a press conference not two hours earlier. (That the official opposition raised the report in a clumsy and scripted way is also concerning but I covered this ground in yesterday’s QP recap). A retired officer who is now a lawyer says that part of the problem is the military justice system, and it needs major reforms if it is to help end this culture. NDP MP Christine Moore, who served in the Forces, noted that she had faced this same kind of harassment the report details. And here’s a Q&A with more information about the report.
'Culture of misogyny' report presser update: CDS Lawson just did it again: called on "Christine" instead of Maj.Gen. Whitecross. #cdnpoli
— Janyce McGregor (@janycemcgregor) April 30, 2015
QP: Taking Action on the Deschamps Report
With the funeral for Senate Speaker Nolin taking place at the same time in Montreal, there were no leaders present in the Commons save Elizabeth May, and ensuring that it was going to be a pretty miserable day. Peter Julian led off, returning to the issue of Mike Duffy’s residency upon appointment (never mind that the story he was quoted about Duffy’s own concerns was repudiated). Paul Calandra responded by bringing up the satellite offices, and added in the new allegations of union representatives using parliamentary resources. They went again for another round of the same, before Julian raised job losses in the auto sector. Joe Oliver, present for a change, praised their investments in the sector and the tens of thousands of jobs that they saved. Sadia Groguhé was up next, asking a pair of questions about manufacturing slowdowns in French, and Oliver repeated his answer about all of the help they’ve given. Joyce Murray led off for the Liberals, raising the Deshcamps Report on sexual misconduct in the military. James Bezan responded that the culture was unacceptable, and they accepted the recommendations and were putting in place an Action Plan™. Murray listed off more of the horrors in the report, and wondered why no money was in the budget to address the issue. Bezan insisted that they were taking action. David McGuinty read more of the allegations in French, and accused the government of abandoning those victims. Bezan said that they were addressing the problems and would change the culture.
Roundup: Playing Duffy’s game
It didn’t take long, but the repudiations rolled in today of the story that Duffy wanted to be named an Ontario senator instead of a PEI senator. Senior anonymous Conservatives disputed that fact, though it is fairly well known that Duffy did have concerns about his residency, which is why Marjory LeBreton’s office had that political memo drafted to justify the appointment as constitutional – note that it was a political memo and not a legal one. When it was first reported on Tuesday that Duffy wanted to be appointed as an Ontario senator, it raised red flags with me as it was contrary to years of anecdotes about Duffy’s quest to be a PEI senator, right to the fact that he would check the pulse of an aging PEI senator every time he shook his hand, or the fact that he would play up his Islander heritage for his whole career. In other words, it sounded self-serving and likely out of the Duffy camp in order to try and deflect blame onto the Prime Minister – and that’s exactly the trap that the NDP fell into, when they again made an issue out of it in scrums and in QP. Yes, Harper bears responsibility for the appointment, and yes, if he was going to appoint Duffy as a PEI senator, he should have ensured that Duffy moved back there first (and likewise with Carolyn Stewart Olsen in New Brunswick), but we all know that the December 2008 appointments were made in a panic and the usual checks were left undone. It’s not a conspiracy, the way that the NDP keep trying to portray it. It was one cascading series of bad decisions and the associated damage control. Trying to paint it as nefarious rather than utterly incompetent isn’t really helpful, and it doesn’t make it any easier to make Harper’s judgement a ballot issue. Taking the nefarious angle plays into the narrative that Duffy has been trying to build for himself when he got caught out and tried painting himself as the poor victim in all of this, and I’m not sure that the NDP are doing themselves any favours by playing Duffy’s game for him.
QP: Vintage Calandra
With the King of Jordan in town, the PM was absent for QP, which is a rarity for a Wednesday. That Justin Trudeau was also absent was unusual and disappointing. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the constitutional requirements for Senate appointments, and why he thought Mike Duffy could be counted as a resident of PEI. Paul Calandra insisted that the NDP were trying to make a victim of Duffy, and it was his actions that were on trial. Mulcair pressed, bringing in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, but Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair accused the government of a cover-up of fraudulent expenses in the Senate — not sure that it was in bounds — but Calandra repeated his response. Mulcair invited Calandra to repeat the utterances outside — which he has, repeated — before asking about the “typical family” example in the budget. Kevin Sorenson decried that the NDP seems to think that anyone making under $60,000 per year is wealthy and needs to pay more taxes. For his last question, Mulcair brought up the Auditor General’s report on First Nation’s healthcare, and Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that action was being taken. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, returning to Duffy’s constitutional eligibility, to which Calandra repeated the “making a victim” line and then attacked the NDP. In another round in English, Paul Calandra brought in Mac Harb, and Scott Brison closed the round by asking about ad spending versus the Canada Summer Jobs programme. Pierre Poilievre insisted they were creating jobs with “tax cuts, training and trade.”
Um, Calandra has repeated those very utterances *on TV.* Haven't seen any libel suits launched yet. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 29, 2015
Roundup: An implicit repudiation
It was Auditor General day yesterday, and as usual, there were some stories that didn’t get a lot of attention, like CBSA’s computer systems, and some which are somewhat alarming, like the fact that twenty years later, Health Canada still doesn’t have a real plan to deal with superbugs, that there are some serious deficiencies when it comes to nursing stations with remote First Nations, or that the Royal Canadian Mint and the Office of the Canadian Forces Ombudsman had some spending issues. But the most interesting bits were in two chapters – one on tax expenditures, the other on the release of male offenders from corrections. In essence, both are repudiations of the way that this government has been managing things. Tax expenditures has a lot to do with the mass proliferation of those boutique tax credits that this government likes to throw around in order to target voters, but as the AG points out, it’s done with little scrutiny, and not enough information on them gets back to Parliamentarians to hold that spending to account. (Couple this with the report on Monday about the growth in tax complexity, and it should be a big red flag). As for offenders, too many low-risk offenders are not getting parole when they are eligible, and that makes reintegration harder, and recidivism more likely because they don’t get the monitoring that comes with parole. Add to that, the squeeze on programming resources within prisons and the removal of incentives to do the programming means that too many offenders are being released without having completed their rehabilitation programmes, which is also alarming. It’s also the direct fault of this government and their tough-on-crime policies what have made a virtue of trying to keep people in prisons longer, and then justifying it by saying that they won’t be on the streets to re-offend (never mind that in the vast majority of cases, keeping them in prison longer does more harm than good). And as the AG pointed out, it’s more costly to keep them in prison longer and without gradual release and programming, they get released with a higher chance to re-offend. In other words, we’re paying more to get poorer results because it’s easier to try and get votes by appealing to the sense of retribution rather than rehabilitation. Well done, guys. Slow clap.
The Auditor General is here, and he doesn't look impressed. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/xNLz029D1z
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 28, 2015
QP: Taking Paul Martin’s name in vain
In the wake of the Auditor General’s report, and with all of the leaders present, it looked like we might have a decent Question Period for a change. One could hope, anyway. Thomas Mulcair led off, saying that the AG considered the government bad managers, particularly around tax expenditures. Stephen Harper disputed the interpretation of the report, said they would report more, and then slammed the NDP regarding their own high tax plans. Mulcair tied those into the budget and the “giveaways to the wealthy few,” and wondered if Harper thought he was Paul Martin. Harper hit back, saying that if he was Paul Martin, the NDP would be supporting him, before giving praise to his budget measures. Mulcair mumbled something else about Paul Martin before changing the topping to a declaration Mike Duffy may or may not have signed before he was appointed. Harper ignored the question, and praised the TFSA changes. Mulcair quipped “Mike who?” before asking about the appointment of Caroyln Stewart Olsen to the Senate, to which Harper insisted that the Duffy issues were before the court. Mulcair then brought up the Senate invoking privilege to block the release of an internal audit — something the PM has nothing to do with. Harper repeated the response about the matter being before the courts. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the money spent on advertising rather than on young entrepreneurs. Harper insisted that an entrepreneurial group was pleased with measures in the budget, and said that the Liberals would take them away. Trudeau repeated it in French, with the twist of job creation for youth, and Harper asserted that the Liberals hate benefits and tax cuts. For his final question, Trudeau accused Harper had changed with his decision to pour so much money into advertising. Harper listed things he claimed the Liberals opposed (but not really).
The Senate invoking privilege has ZERO to do with the PM. The chambers are independent. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 28, 2015
Roundup: The Senate invokes privilege
In his attempt to cast the net far and wide in order to excuse Mike Duffy’s housing claims, it seems that Donald Bayne is trying to show that plenty of other senators were improperly claiming for Ottawa residences, and is trying to compel the release of an internal Senate audit conducted in 2012, where two Senators – retired Senator Zimmer and Senator Patterson – were found to have questionable claims which they later explained away. The Senate, however, is invoking privilege and refusing to turn it over, which is their constitutional right. They are under no obligation to help Duffy’s defence, after all, and as a legislative body they have the right to conduct their own affairs. And before anyone starts getting hysterical, remember that privilege is all about the independence of the institution, and keeping the courts out of parliament so that it can do its job without the constant threat of litigation during the legislative process. Likewise, Parliament doesn’t get involved in individual court cases because that would interfere with the independence of the courts. Otherwise, Bayne tried to bring up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen yesterday who was part of the subcommittee that “sat in judgement” of Duffy when she was claiming her long-time Ottawa residence as secondary for two years while she was trying to sell it in order to fully move back to New Brunswick (this is the point where I mention that she shouldn’t have been appointed as a New Brunswick senator until she was fully moved back). Also, the Senate finance officer continued to be grilled, and continued to push back against Bayne, going so far as to read more than the passages he indicated in order to provide context, which the judge allowed her to do. Nicholas Köhler paints that sketch with his usual aplomb.
Not everything involving the assertion of parliamentary privilege is sinister, and rarely if ever is it the government of the day's call.
— kady o'malley (@kady) April 27, 2015
QP: Assistance for Nepal
As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.
Roundup: Enbridge and the Duffy pathology
Over in the Ottawa Citizen, David Reevely has a wonderful little piece about the ways in which Mike Duffy conducted himself as a Senator – and that was to basically farm out work to friends, including a $7000 speech about “Why I am a Conservative.” Apparently a former journalist writing about his own political convictions was too much work, and so he fobbed it off on someone else, on the taxpayer’s dime. Reevely is right to point out an emptiness to the way that Duffy treated the job, but it misses another aspect to the pathology – that Duffy wanted to be a player. Certainly by spreading the largess around to those who he thought would be impressed by it is indicative of that. We’re seeing more of this desire to be a player as more things come out of his diaries, and one of the most eyebrow-raising examples were his meetings with Enbridge. As it happens, those meetings were unsolicited. Duffy was trying to ingratiate himself and so he made busywork about trying to get some action on the Keystone XL pipeline, having conversations that weren’t reported to the Lobbying Registry, and then reporting them to the PMO. Apparently it got to the point where Enbridge officials themselves complained to the PMO about it, in the hopes that they could call Duffy off. And really, there was no point to Duffy’s efforts – the PMO was onside with the pipeline, and Enbridge has had no issues with reporting their meetings. Oh, but Duffy wanted to be a player, to show that he mattered in the corridors of power – the reason why he’d been begging for an appointment to the Senate for decades, from successive prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, who had no time for him. The NDP, incidentally, want those Enbridge meetings investigated, but I’m not sure it’s really necessary because it certainly appears that there is nothing to investigate other than Duffy’s inflated sense of self, and while the NDP may think that it’s some kind of smoking gun on Harper, it’s far more about Duffy’s ego than it was about corruption from the centre.