It’s difficult not to question the logic behind the Conservatives using that supposed threat from al-Shebab against West Edmonton Mall as a party fundraiser/data mining tool, particularly as the blowback starts to affect everyone around it. It defies logic that they tell people to still go shopping there while simultaneously whipping up a panic that they’ll be next on a terrorist hit list – never mind that al-Shebab is pretty marginal as an organisation and has neither the resources nor the reach outside of East Africa, and that by the government whipping up the hysteria around a video by a marginal group like this one, they’re playing right into the terrorists’ game – fomenting terror, no matter what the Conservatives’ objectives are. Meanwhile, merchants suffer – oh, but the fragile economy! – and cheerleader teams are pulling out of the competition being held at said mall, ostensibly because their insurance companies are freaking out (never mind that the very act of cheerleading is more likely to result in death or dismemberment than a terrorist event). If you ask Tim Uppal about it – under whose name this went out – he gives you talking points about the threat of these groups, and as Paula Simons discovered, it’s just talking points rearranged in a different order than his fundraising appeal talking points. Well done there. It’s still too early to tell whether this will in fact blow back on them, but with other conservatives lining up to denounce the move, it’s hard to see how they can continue to justify it without causing even more damage.
Tag Archives: Access to Information
Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing
With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.
Roundup: Destroyed text messages
Access to Information emails have uncovered another decision that doesn’t pass the smell test – in this case, the Canada Revenue Agency directing Shared Services Canada to purge their archives of BlackBerry PINs and SMS text messages. The claim is that these are transitory communications that don’t have any business value, but that claim is utterly laughable. Of course business communications are being one PIN-to-PIN, and anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves. Sure, some of them may be “don’t’ forget to pick up milk on your way home,” but that doesn’t mean that the CRA shouldn’t still be collecting these communications and sorting out the ones with business value. Oh, but wait – that’s the point, isn’t it? Having a channel of communication that isn’t being picked up by ATIP requests, just like when managers declare, “We’re not taking any notes this meeting” – never mind that it’s in contravention to the government’s own rules around this kind of thing. The Information Commissioner has agreed to look into this case, and has previously warned that this information isn’t being collected in most departments, when all it takes to capture it is to flick a single switch on the servers. As a result, we’re going to find ourselves in a position where there is no paper trail for decisions taken by departments – in this case, CRA – and future governments and future generations will be left to puzzle what was going on. You know, the exact opposite of the point of records retention and archives. That Shared Services meekly went along with the directive is also suspect when they should have pushed back to defend the value of the corporate memory contained within those archives. In other words, a failure all around.
https://twitter.com/tinapittaway/status/547389195669757952
Roundup: A vow to do away with message control
In his year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Justin Trudeau has promised an end to message control if he were to form government, and the unmuzzling of bureaucrats. It’s a bold promise, and one that we’ll have to see to believe because we have to remember where many of these directives come from, which is largely because Conservative candidates were making boneheaded statements to the media during campaigns, which sunk the party’s chances until message discipline became the order of the day. Once media could no longer jump on their every utterances, people weren’t exposed to what they were saying, and the Conservatives eventually got into power, where the discipline continued in order to keep their place. Likewise, after the 2011 election when a busload of accidental NDP MPs got elected, that party went into message lockdown in order to ensure that they didn’t have any particular bozo eruptions. If more Liberal candidates start saying things that causes the party some embarrassment – especially as We The Media can jump on said quotes and run with them rather mercilessly – then we’ll see how long they go without message control. Trudeau makes a point about the fact that you can’t be a government from a single person, and he has made a concerted effort to showcase the team around him, probably to mask any perceived weaknesses he has on the policy front (though I would say that most people underestimate his intellectual capacity). I also think that Harper’s spokesperson disputing Trudeau’s assertions and claiming that ministers are available to speak to the media is utterly precious. The last time a minister responded to my phone calls was pretty much never, and I’m not the only one who has to make do with a bland talking point from their spokesperson rather than getting an actual quote from said minister, let alone a briefing on a new piece of legislation.
QP: Questions on back office cuts
The last Monday of the year, and it was a bitterly cold one in Ottawa. Like many a Monday, none of the leaders were there, and even Elizabeth May was gone, off to the climate summit in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, and asked about cuts to services at Veterans Affairs that were more than just “back office” cuts. Julian Fantino insisted that the story was false, and read about reducing bureaucratic expense. Leslie twice asked about the reduction in staff for rail safety, to which Jeff Watson insisted that the number of inspectors was up, as was the number of auditors. David Christopherson shouted the veterans cuts question again, got the same robotic answer from Fantino, before a hollered demand for resignation, earning another robotic recitation. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked about the government’s court arguments that there was no fundamental obligation to wounded veterans. Fantino robotically insisted that they were uploading services for veterans. Frank Valeriote listed off a litany of other cuts to veterans, but Fantino read a talking point about increases to front-line services. Valeriote asked a last question about VA managers getting bonuses in the light of cuts to services, but Fantino assured him that the decisions were always taken for the right reasons.
Roundup: Doubling down on cognitive dissonance
With some of his trademarked clownish theatricality, Charlie Angus described his exasperation with We The Media for apparently getting the headlines wrong about the NDP’s promises around restoring the long-gun registry. Describing his reaction as having “banged his head on the table,” Angus tried to insist that no, they weren’t going to bring back the registry. Really! But they still plan to put in a system to track every gun, which is pretty much a registry, even if they don’t want to call it such. (The cognitive dissonance! It burns!). And while Angus and others try to double down on their senseless attempt at holding contradictory thoughts in their heads, it’s starting to look a lot like a facile attempt to please everyone – to play to their Quebec base (for whom the registry is a very big deal and tied to the École Polytechnique massacre), to keep their urban voters happy with their penchant for gun control, while trying to ensure that what few rural and northern voters that they have, who objected to the registry, aren’t similarly put out (and to ensure that they don’t have any other MPs rebel like Bruce Hyer did before they ousted him for standing up for his constituents wishes and thus going against party orthodoxy). It can’t really be done, certainly not how they’re describing, and yet here we are, pretending that their registry proposal isn’t really a registry, as though we’re idiots. It’s a nice try, but no.
Roundup: Refusing to appoint senators
Stephen Harper says that he’s in no rush to appoint senators because legislation is still getting passed, so no big deal, right? The question arose because the new Senate Speaker, Pierre-Claude Nolin, remarked that there are concerns about regional representation becoming unbalanced, and I’ve heard from other Conservative senators who are not-so-quietly complaining that they are being overloaded with committee work because they’re having to sit on several committees given that we’re soon to be at seventeen vacancies – almost one-fifth of the Chamber. It’s a significant figure, and the added danger is that a Prime Minister – either Harper, or a new one post-2015 – would appoint a big number at once, stressing a system that is designed to absorb two or three new ones at a time. It also demonstrates a kind of contempt that Harper is showing toward the system and the specific role that the Senate plays within it, preferring instead to treat it as a rubber stamp that he is ramming legislation through. Nolin pointed to several passages from the Supreme Court’s reference decision during his presentation, and noted one of the roles of the Senate is to provide reflection to legislation that passed the Commons in haste. In this era of time allocation, that would seem to be more needed than ever – and yet, the government’s senators are doing their own best to rush things through, which Nolin quite blatantly called out today, saying that he aims to remind all Senators of their obligations as laid out in that decision. Nolin also said that he thinks the worst of the Senate’s spending woes are behind it, as we wait for the AG’s report next spring, and offered his own take on what happened on October 22nd.
#SenCA Speaker Nolin meets with Press Gallery journalists in Senate Chamber #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/eb8zhdN6dW
— Senate of Canada (@SenateCA) December 4, 2014
Conservative Sen. Leo Housakos confirmed as deputy Senate speaker. #cdnpoli #SenCA pic.twitter.com/aqhjwjRqvT
— Jordan Press (@jpress) December 4, 2014
I wrote about the problem of Harper not appointing Senators nearly a year ago. The situation is now worse. http://t.co/KjxBZQ19er #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 5, 2014
QP: Even Ontario wants NDP childcare
Caucus day in the Commons, and all of the major leaders were again in the chamber, with the Conservatives proud of the new MPs elected in Monday’s by-elections who were visiting in advance of being sworn in, while the NDP were crowing over social media about Maria Mourani joining their party (but not caucus until after the next election). Thomas Mulcair led off by noting that the Ontario legislature voted in favour of supporting the NDP’s childcare plan, and asked about the government’s previous pledges. Harper reminded him that the other night, some Ontarians voted overwhelmingly against the NDP, and that his government has made life more affordable for all families. Mulcair wondered when Harper would meet with the Ontario premier about issues like childcare, and Harper claimed that he meets with premiers regularly — except he’s been avoiding Kathleen Wynne. Mulcair claimed that 65 percent of Canadians live in jurisdictions that want more affordable childcare, and repeated his demand for childcare spaces. Harper insisted that his government has put money in the pockets of Canadians that the NDP were planning on taking back. Mulcair pressed on Harper’s previous specific commitments about the healthcare escalator, to which Harper insisted that they have increased transfers to promises to record levels. Mulcair insisted that the transfer rate change was a cut (which it really wasn’t), but Harper repeated his answers. Justin Trudeau noted that the government would vote against his bill on Access to Information citing bureaucratic increases, and wondered why they opposed the modernization of Access to Information. Harper said that they did modernize the system by bringing 70 new agencies under its aegis and that the Liberals opposed other transparency measures. Trudeau moved to the cuts to infrastructure funds, to which Harper said that the Liberals voted against funding and that they only wanted to “raise taxes to fund bureaucracy.” Trudeau moved onto a conference in Montreal that Harper skipped, and Harper insisted that the government was represented.
Roundup: An interim process
The Commons Board of Internal Economy met yesterday and adopted the House of Commons administration policy on harassment as an interim measure going forward, but noted that they didn’t have any mandate to deal with the harassment incidents in question, and that they should be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee instead (as only MPs can discipline themselves. Parliament is self-governing after all). That leaves the two suspended MPs in limbo for the time being. The NDP meanwhile are saying that one of the incidents may have actually been sexual assault and not harassment, according to Craig Scott who was in one of the meetings with one of the complainants. But the NDP’s justice critic, Françoise Boivin, said that Trudeau should have delivered a verbal warning to the two MPs and left it at that, because they didn’t want to lay charges or file a formal complaint. So they could then turn around and claim that Trudeau didn’t do anything about the incidents once he was made aware of them? Especially if they waited until the election to make that particular reveal? Trudeau maintains that he had a duty to act, which he followed up on.
QP: Listing off “real action”
The first day of the final four-week stretch of sitting days for the calendar year, and everyone was a little more fresh-faced and cheerful — something that won’t last too long. None of the leaders were present today, Harper still on his way back from the G20 in Brisbane, Justin Trudeau off to Whitby—Oshawa for the by-election there, and Mulcair similarly absent, even Elizabeth May absent owing to the death of her father. That left David Christopherson to lead off, denouncing the government’s lack of commitment to GHG emissions reductions coming out of the G20 in Brisbane. Leona Aglukkaq stood up to remind him that major emitters like China and the U.S. were finally coming to the table. Christopherson pressed, and Aglukkaq read off a list of “real action” that they have undertaken. Nycole Turmel asked the same question in French and got pretty much the same answers from Aglukkaq, before turning to the topic of the family tax cuts. Joe Oliver praised them and how the measures will help all kinds of families. For the final question, Turmel threw a bunch of budget cut figures hoping to make something stick, and Oliver reiterated how great his family tax cut plan was. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, noting the ways that the government actually raised taxes, be it payroll taxes or tariffs, and brought it all around to income splitting. Oliver read a talking point about how great income splitting was for families. Goodale demanded that the money spent on income splitting be spent instead on incremental infrastructure investments, to which Oliver decried the Liberal plan to raise taxes. Dominic LeBlanc closed off the round with another question of income splitting versus infrastructure investment in French, to which Jason Kenney rose to say that it was sad to watch the Liberals attacking families with children.