Troubling news out of the Information Commissioner’s office, as Suzanne Legault says that the office is nearly broke, thanks to an increasing workload of 30 percent more complaints this year, plus budget cutbacks (and it will be even worse next year as the budget has to absorb staff salary increases). It makes one wonder about the state of court cases that the Commissioner is pursuing in the name of access to certain documents, and what it means to accepting or dealing with new complaints in a timely manner, especially if they are stretched to the breaking point as it is. Tony Clement, not surprisingly, had no comment about any of this, even though as Treasury Board president, he is the one who is supposed to ensure that there is Access to Information compliance in the civil service, which would make her far easier.
Tag Archives: China
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.
Roundup: Two suspensions and a resignation
Two Liberal MPs – Scott Armstrong and Massimo Pacetti – were suspended from caucus yesterday following complaints of harassment by two NDP MPs. Thus kicked off a firestorm of calls for independent investigations, bringing in the Speaker, and yes, political gamesmanship. There was, of course, a time when this kind of thing would be handled by the whips and party leaders behind closed doors, but in light of the Jian Gomeshi allegations and the conversation the nation is having about sexual harassment more broadly, Justin Trudeau felt he had no choice but to suspend the members pending an investigation, so that justice was seen to be done. But the fact that he didn’t inform the unnamed accusers – who had brought the matter to his attention in the first place – that he was doing this is suddenly bringing up accusations that he “re-victimised them,” as opposed to leaving him open to accusation that he did nothing when he was made aware of the allegations. The details of all of what happened remain sketchy, and the NDP are even more opaque on what happened and won’t confirm the details that the Liberal whip has revealed, and even the allegations are mostly couched in terms of “personal misconduct,” which both suspended MPs deny, Pacetti going so far as to say that he still don’t know what it is he’s being accused of. Aaron Wherry has collected the various letters and statements that were put out from the Liberal Whip, the Speaker, Thomas Mulcair, Trudeau, and the two suspended MPs. Chantal Hébert recalls the kinds of harassment that was on open display when she first arrived on the Hill in the late 70s. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board says that this story, now part of that conversation about sexual harassment an assault in this country, will hopefully start to bring about change. Similarly, Canadian Business discusses the need to stop treating sensitivity training with mocking, but rather as a way to shift reporting away from the victims alone and putting more onus on bystanders.
QP: A growing economy will solve it
It was a black morning on the Hill with two MPs suspended for allegations of harassment, and Stephen Harper was absent, headed off to China, making the mood on odd one. While Thomas Mulcair was present, QP was actually led off by Megan Leslie, who raised the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s comments about the job market. Joe Oliver praised the 1.1 million net new jobs since the recession. Leslie asked if the government agreed with Poloz’s (torqued, selective) statement that young people should be willing to live at home and work for free if they can’t get a job. Oliver praised their measures for young people, and that a growing economy would help youth. After another round in the other official language, Libby Davies asked about more childcare spaces, to which Jason Kenney insisted that their tax credit measures and the universal child benefit were better than spaces. When asked again, Candice Bergen praised increased transfers to the provinces, whose jurisdiction childcare belongs to. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and he asked about the income splitting tax credit, to which Jason Kenney called the premise “rubbish” and said that it would benefit half of families and that their other measures would help more low income families. Trudeau called them out for avoiding income splitting in their responses, and raised something from Scott Brison’s 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership platform. Trudeau retorted with Brison’s line about his misguided time as a Conservative before asking the question again in French. Jason Kenney responded by accusing the Liberals of wanting to take away money from families.
Roundup: Hollande pays a visit
French President François Hollande landed in Calgary and met with Harper and the Governor General in Banff as the start of his state visit yesterday. He’ll arrive in Ottawa today to address a joint session of Parliament.
Candice Bergen admits that the “family tax credit” aka sorta-income-splitting, won’t benefit single parents because they’re generally too low-income, which again raises the utility of giving tax credits to those who are less likely to need them – as in wealthier two-parent families, never mind that it’s the kind of pandering to the social conservative base that it represents.
QP: Colin Carrie reads some statements
With Stephen Harper entertaining the president of South Korea just down the hall, and Justin Trudeau, well, elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair was once again the only major leader in the Commons, not that this is uncommon for a Monday any longer. Mulcair began QP with a short question about why the PM is boycotting the UN climate conference this week. Colin Carrie responded by praising the government’s action on GHGs in a ridiculous prepared statement. Mulcair decried the embarrassment of the government withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, and wondered if the government believed in a healthy environment, to which Carrie read another lengthy statement. Mulcair referenced his time as Quebec environment minister, and wondered if the government would include a right to clean air and water in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Carrie noted that Mulcair once had a smog day named after himself — and read another statement. Megan Leslie was up next, and spoke about the climate March in New York, and asked about regulations on oil and gas emissions. Carrie, undaunted, read yet another prepared statement. Leslie tried one last time to persuade the PM to head to the climate summit, but Carrie reminded her that the environment minister was attending. Rising for the Liberals, John McKay tried to keep up the pressure on the climate summit file, to which Carrie — once again — read a statement prefaced by the fact that the former Liberal leader named his dog Kyoto. Marc Garneau asked again in French, to which Carrie read a statement in French. Scott Brison closed the round asking about the problems with the EI tax credit, and Kevin Sorensen gave Carrie a break by reciting that the Liberals didn’t understand small business.
Roundup: Military assistance for Ukraine?
As you probably saw earlier, the President of Ukraine was in Ottawa, and beyond just giving a speech to Parliament, he’s also looking to expand on the $200 million loan arrangement, and wants more military assistance – not combat troops, but reconnaissance, as well as signals intelligence and satellites, and moving toward a free-trade agreement between our two countries.
QP: Four new members
The first day back in the Commons kicked off with the four MPs who won by-elections at the start of the summer — two new Liberals and two new Conservatives. When things got underway at last, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking, in both languages in the same slot, how many members of the Canadian Forces were being sent to Iraq. Harper gave a general figure of Air Force members flying in supplies, and “several dozen” members of the Special Forces for an advisory role. Mulcair asked — again in both languages — why there wasn’t a vote on the deployment. Harper reminded him that a government that has the confidence of the Chamber can deploy Forces, and this wasn’t a combat mission. Mulcair switched topic to working parents with poverty, to which Harper reminded him that labour markets were largely provincial responsibility and there was no need to reinstate a federal minimum wage to create two classes of workers. When Mulcair tried to press, Harper reminded him of all the great things they were doing for families. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and without visibly reading, asked about why the EI tax credit offers more incentives to fire workers than to hire them. Harper insisted he didn’t know what Trudeau was talking about, and when Trudeau spelled it out, Harper fell back to the “45 day work year” canard.
Obligatory note: Newly elected MPS aren't supposed to pretend to resist being dragged into the Chamber. That's just new speakers. #QP
— kady o'malley (@kady) September 15, 2014
Someone shouts "Where's yours, Tom?" #QP #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 15, 2014
Roundup: Ratifying the FIPA – everybody panic!
The big news is that Canada ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA) yesterday, after months of delays. Immediately the NDP freaked out, while Elizabeth May called it the worse day for Canadian Sovereignty since 1867 (never mind that Canada never actually got treaty-making powers devolved from the UK until the 1920s and control over foreign policy in the Statute of Westminster in 1931). Apparently ensuring fair treatment for Chinese companies in Canada, and perhaps more importantly Canadian companies in China – where the rule of law is not really the same as it is here – is a terrible, terrible blow to our sovereignty. Economist Stephen Gordon, however, is trying to remain the voice of reason:
There is a *huge* chasm b/w what foreign-investor protection agreements do and what excitable nationalists say they do.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
All that FIPAs do is ensure national treatment. Govts don`t get to jerk foreign investors around because they`re foreign.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
You want to regulate in the national interest, fine. Apply the same rules to foreign and domestic firms.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014