It’s a gorgeous Monday in the Nation’s Capital, but none of the major leaders were present in the House. David Christopherson led off for the NDP, shouting a question about the new funding for mental health funding for members of the Canadian Forces. Parm Gill responded, insisting that the government has continually increased support for veterans and soldiers. Christopherson, ever more indignant, focused on the lapsed funding to Veterans Affairs, to which Gill insisted that statutory funding was untouched. Nycole Turmel took over to ask in French, to which Gill praised the new funding commitment. Turmel switched topics to Thalidomide survivors who are struggling. Colin Carrie read that it was a lesson as to how Canada needs to take drug safety seriously, and that they would seriously consider any proposal coming forward from Health Canada. Turmel asked again in French, and Carrie repeated his answer in English. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, citing government “propaganda” spending over veterans and the last-minute announcement of new mental health funds. Gill returned to his insistence that support funds had increased. Frank Valeriote noted the contradictions in Julian Fantino’s assurances, to which Gill insisted that funding lapses under the Liberal government were even larger. One one last exchange, Gill dredged up the “Decade of Darkness” talking point while Carolyn Bennett shouted “sit down!”
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: Private fighters heading to Iraq
The government’s declaration that they wouldn’t stand in the way of Canadians who want to head to Iraq to fight against ISIS with the Kurdish forces there is raising a lot of questions, and deservedly so. One Ontario MPP’s Afghanistan-veteran son is joining the fight, and while said MPP is making all kinds of noise about being proud about his son defending freedom and democracy, it does raise further complications to the notion that people are privately going off to fight a war. One supposes that there is a history of this, with people heading over to fight the Spanish Civil War, but we also have international treaties and rules of engagement that Canada has signed onto. One has to wonder what liability the country now will be in if one of these private fighters goes over and violates these conventions or codes because they’re not part of a command-and-control structure, and because our government has basically given them the okay to do so. I don’t know that there’s an easy answer to this, but we should be at least having the discussion – particularly as it is on the flipside of the coin about our attempts to keep those who would head over to fight on behalf of extremist groups from leaving the country.
QP: Lapsed spending and a lack of analysis
Despite it being Thursday, the Commons had a lot of empty desks and none of the major leaders present. Megan Leslie led off, asking about Joe Oliver’s admission that his office did not do their own analysis of the EI tax credit. Oliver insisted that their reduction would create jobs, but the NDP would raise taxes. Okay then. When Leslie pressed, Oliver touted the government’s job creation figures. Leslie moved onto the $1.1 billion in lapsed spending on veterans, to which Parm Gill insisted that it was false. Nycole Turmel asked the same is in French, to which Gill repeated his answer. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, asking about spending on housing and infrastructure, to which Denis Lebel said that if Goodale was so concerned, he should have done more when he was finance minister. Goodale laughed, and raised the lapsed veterans spending, to which Parm Gill howled that the Liberals put the Forces through a decade of darkness. Marc Garneau asked the same question again in French, and Gill gave a slightly less hysterical answer about how much they’ve spend on veterans.
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.
Roundup: Cheap diplomacy, symbolic loss
The Harper government’s shoestring approach to diplomacy, typified by an attitude of serving ginger ale and Ritz crackers as being “good enough” for hosting diplomatic functions, has not been without controversy, especially when it comes to the illogical sale of a number of diplomatic properties and residences around the globe in the name of fiscal austerity. Many of these sales have been controversial, and the looming sale of our diplomatic residence in Rome is even more so, because of the symbolic links to our troops liberating Italy during the Second World War, and the property was basically given to Canada as thanks. The government, however, denies that there are such links, and has spun a tale of how lavish the place is and how costly it is to maintain – never mind that the former Canadian ambassador to Italy is on the record disputing everything the current government says. But hey, it’s totally cool that we project an image to the world that we’re Mickey Mouse cheapskates who have the taste and class of backwater rubes right? Prestige isn’t our brand, according to this government, nor do we have any appetite for symbolic links to the past. Let’s just do it all on the cheap. Because that always works out well.
Roundup: Shrugging off other harassment allegations
A suit was filed in Ontario Superior Court yesterday alleging harassment by an NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine, according to a former staffer – but it’s not quite the same as the other allegations that have gripped the Hill this week. Instead, it was another staffer in that office that harassed the female staffer who filed the suit, while she alleged that nothing was done because Chicoine acted in a sexist and misogynist manner by doing nothing about it, until he eventually fired her. The party closed ranks around Chicoine by saying that the staffer’s union had investigated and found nothing to be amiss, but were silent about the fact that they offered her a lesser data-entry job in the leader’s office if she agreed to drop her suit. Mulcair tried to claim that it had nothing to do with Chicoine but was simply a dispute between staffers – not true, according to the suit – and even went so far as to opine that as a lawyer, he thought her case was without merit – a rather unusual move for someone who was so concerned about re-victimization of other complainants just a day before. The change in tone between the two incidents is quite something.
Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions
Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.
QP: Distance from tax evasion
As a Thursday before a break week, MPs were already starting to filter away from the Hill, all major leader already absent. While Harper is in China, Mulcair was in Whitby to campaign for the by-election there, Justin Trudeau to do the same in Yellowhead. That meant that Megan Leslie kicked off QP, asking about major layoff announcements, blaming the government for them. Peter Van Loan answered, praising the government’s job creation record. Leslie brought up tax evasion and the Public Service Pension Investment Board’s scheme, to which Tony Clement assured her that the board is arm’s length from the government. Leslie noted the depressed staffing levels at CRA as possible explanations for why they are not going after tax cheats. Clement assured her that some 8000 investigations for overseas tax evasion were undertaken. Nycole Turmel asked the same in French, got the same response in French, before Turmel brought up the harassment allegations and the Status of Women committee’s report on harassment in the workplace, asking the committee chair when they would meet. Hélène LeBlanc noted Turmel’s career in the public service and that they should make harassment a thing of the past — not answering the question. Ralph Goodale asked about the economy shrinking, to which Joe Oliver insisted that things were great, and even Standards & Poors reconfirmed the country’s AAA credit rating. Goodale then blasted the income splitting tax credit, to which Candice Bergen brought up the “beer and popcorn” talking point — again avoiding the issue of income splitting. Dominic LeBlanc noted the problems with income splitting in French, and Bergen again avoided the issue of income splitting.
Roundup: What to do about Dean?
The question of what to do about Dean Del Mastro has seized the Commons, and the government seems amenable to going along with the NDP motion to suspend him without pay immediately, and further send the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, particularly for what it means for his staff and his constituents. This is a bit of a change from the government’s original position of wanting the committee to rule before they did, but apparently they’re going with the flow of public opinion on the matter. (The NDP’s unwillingness to let debate collapse so that the vote can proceed on its own accord, however, means that the government will likely invoke closure to ensure a vote later today). There is also a battle raging over Del Mastro’s pension benefits, while the NDP used a committee hearing on John Williamson’s private member’s bill to try to lay a trap. The bill would see MPs lose their pension if convicted of an indictable offence, and the NDP moved an amendment to specifically include elections expenses, which the government defeated because it wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t apply to the Del Mastro case anyway – not that it stopped Mulcair and the NDP of using Question Period to say the government was trying to protect Mulcair. Because apparently they’re not yet too clever for their own good.