The prime minister’s former director of communications writes that it’s perfectly natural that the government wants to create their own communications channels that bypass the media because We The Media are apparently “apathetic” to what the want to tell us. You will forgive me for saying, but I’m not sure there are words enough to express how big of a load of utter horseshit that this justification actually is. His definition of “apathy” is that the media won’t act as transcriptionists for their feel-good stories, which forces them to go around us. Fair enough – it’s not our jobs to retype your press releases and make you look good. But what is utterly galling is for him to turn around and declare that the media has a challenge function that’s important for democracy and that’s why they’re needed, when the very same government that he served is doing their level best to kneecap journalists from fulfilling that role. Whether it’s frustrating Access to Information laws, closing off all avenues of communication with ministers, not returning phone calls and delivering bland statements in lieu of answers to questions being asked, or simply dragging out responding to media requests until it’s well past deadline, it all amounts to choking off necessary information from the media because it fulfils its challenge function, and that challenge function makes the government look bad. When the media does write about the government’s use of their own distribution channels, it’s not because we’re sulking that we’re not the privileged distributors of information – it’s that we’re being denied the ability to do our jobs as we’re shut out of events, not allowed to ask questions at announcements, and that our independent photographers are not allowed to even capture those events and are instead being handed a staged photo to run instead that shows what the government wants us to see instead. That’s not giving us the space to perform our necessary challenge function – it’s trying to turn us into organs of propaganda. That he ignores those legitimate complaints and frames them as “sweating over” trivialities is part of what makes his whole construction utterly farcical.
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: Hedging the messages
Justin Trudeau continued his tour of southwestern Ontario over the past couple of days, meeting with local mayors and touring a Ford plant, and so on. But while he was talking about moving away from traditional manufacturing while in London, his stop in Windsor spoke about the need to support the auto sector as a pillar to diversify around, which seems to me to be a fairly big hedge since much of the problem with the auto sector is that it pretty much requires the government to keep feeding the beast with ever larger cash subsidies lest those manufacturers relocate elsewhere, which they generally end up doing anyway, while not enough is being done to transition those communities away from the expectation that they’ll get a decent paying job at the auto plant with a pension and benefits. Also, he needs to stop saying that the government put all of their eggs in the oil basket, because it’s like four percent of GDP, so it’s just not true. Another curious statement Trudeau made was that carbon pricing should be up to the provinces, which seems like a fairly fraught proposition because one can rather easily imagine the headaches that having a patchwork of pricing schemes around the country will create – carbon tax in one province, a technology levy in another, and cap-and-trade in yet another, while the federal government tries to book the overall reductions with no real commonality between them.
(1/n) Re: @JustinTrudeau and GHGs: I've worked on GHG policies at fed and prov level – we need a new way to deal with fed/prov on GHGs.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(2/n) Federal regs end up pleasing the lowest common denominator – coal, autos, oil and gas, EITE, etc. and stringency drops for all.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(3/n) A new framework, in the spirit of healthcare where fed gov't sets the boundaries, directs traffic, etc, has some promise.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(4/n) but, in order for it to work, fed gov't needs clear def'ns for stringency, and a tasty carrot or a big stick to make provinces move
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(5/n) Without that, we're in the world we're in now – each province does what it wants to do, and the fed gov't does little else.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
(6/n) So, let's see what details @JustinTrudeau puts on the policies, but this is a good/promising direction for Canada. #cdnpoli
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) January 22, 2015
Roundup: Confessions of a style watcher
In a sit-down interview with Canada AM, Lisa Raitt talked about her frustration with being a woman in politics, and so much attention is being paid to her appearance, particularly with things like weight gain and hairstyles. And absolutely, it’s part of the double standards that women face for a host of societal reasons, which is something that should be tackled in a variety of ways, including sauce for the gander – ensuring that much of the same language is applied to male MPs. That being said, I wanted to add a couple of observations as someone who is known for doing style critique of MPs (and occasionally senators). Number one – I don’t comment on weight or hair, because that’s not the point of what I’m doing. What I am doing however is commenting on the image that MPs put forward by their own conscious choice – do they project an image confidence that often comes along with looking your best? Or do they look like a fool because they make $160K per year and apparently still shop at Value Village, where nothing fits or coordinates? Add to that, I also look at how the men dress. It’s not just a suit and tie and there you go – for men it has a lot to do with the cut of the suit, and looking like they spent a moment to consider if those colours go together, or if they look like they got dressed in the dark in a rumpled suit that hangs like a used burlap sack? Image and appearance do matter, but only as a first impression, after which an MP needs to have substance to back it up. It’s sad that we have a number of MPs who have neither.
Roundup: Voting attendance matters
The Ottawa Citizen has been carrying on their look at MP attendance in its many forms, and this time turned to the voting records of ordinary MPs. The best ones tended to be Conservative MPs, while the worst were independent and Bloc MPs for the most part, though a few other exceptions were noted, in particular because those MPs were battling cancer (like Judy Foote and Peter Kent). One of the notables for terrible voter attendance was Sana Hassainia, an NDP-turned-independent whose reasons for leaving the party were apparently over the position on Israel, though there was backbiting at the time about her attendance. Hassainia’s issue is her small children – she’s had two since she became an MP, and since most votes tend to be around 5:30 in the evening three, sometimes four nights per week, she claims she can’t get childcare and has to miss them. That’s always one of those claims that bothers me because it’s not like these votes are surprises – they happen on a scheduled basis, so you would think that she would be able to better schedule childcare. As well, she’s not without means – she makes a lot of money as an MP, and has the wherewithal to hire a minder or a nanny who can accommodate those times when she’s needed to vote. And it doesn’t matter how engaged she says she is with her constituents – her job is to vote, and that means showing up to vote, and to stand up and be seen to be voting, which not only has symbolic import, but it’s also a time when MPs are actually all in the same place so contacts can be made, and she can engage with ministers on files she has concerns with because they’re right there. This is an important thing, and it should be considered nothing less than a dereliction of her duties if she can’t see that.
Roundup: A million imaginary vacant jobs
The government’s new ads about their Apprenticeship Loan Programme claims that there will be a shortage of “one million skilled tradesmen and women” over the next decade. The problem? Well, there’s just no labour data to support that claim, whether you go simply with skilled workers period – not just the trades – or any other sector really. And once again we find ourselves in the position where the government’s advertising is completely out of tune with reality, from promoting programmes that haven’t had parliamentary approval, which offer benefits that most people won’t get because they’re specific or the thresholds are low, or the benefits of which are highly overblown. But hey, we remember the excuse that this was all about trying to instil confidence in the economy and so on, right? Even the government admits that they need better labour market data, and they’ve started two new surveys to help provide it, but this is also what their cuts to Statistics Canada has wrought. But incomplete data is one thing – complete fabrications are another.
Roundup: Just a communications problem
If you listen to the government and their spokespeople, the problems at Veterans Affairs don’t have to do with management or resources, but rather that they’re simply not communicating their programmes effectively to newer veterans. At least, that’s the argument that Conservative parliamentary secretary Erin O’Toole was trying to put forward on the weekend. O’Toole – who isn’t even the parliamentary secretary for veterans, but rather international trade – his status as a veteran, plus the ineptitude of both the minister and parliamentary secretary for veterans is why he’s being put forward on the file – was charged with trying to sell this message on The West Block last weekend, to much incredulity. And Tom Clark asked him point blank if that means that the answer is more money for advertising, no matter that they’ve already been spending more on advertising than they’ve saved on closing those veterans service centres around the country. I have a hard time seeing how this is at all a winning strategy because is smacks so much of victim blaming to those veterans who can’t get the help that they need and are entitled to.
QP: And to all a good night…
The last QP in the Commons of 2014, and only one of the leaders was present, as Stephen Harper was preparing for a photo op in Mississauga, and Justin Trudeau was, well, elsewhere. Thomas Mulcair led off by demanding Julian Fantino’s resignation twice Julian Fantino, slightly more spirited than his usual robotic reply, decried how often the opposition voted against veterans. Mulcair then asked about impaired driving laws, to which Peter MacKay insisted that they were tough on criminals and respecting victims. Mulcair pivoted again, asking about compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador for CETA implementation, to which Rob Moore noted that the fund was created to compensate for losses, not as a blank cheque, so they were waiting for demonstrable losses. Another pivot, and Mulcair demanded specific emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector. Colin Carrie read that a job-killing carbon tax was “crazy.” Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and return to cuts to front-line programmes at Veterans Affairs, demanding that the minister be fired. Fantino insisted that the government supported veterans while the opposition voted against them. Joyce Murray noted the government distancing itself from the New Veterans Charter, to which Fantino simply recited his talking points. Frank Valeriote asked about the connection of General Dynamics to the new mental health research for the military, to which James Bezan praised the initiative.
QP: Waiting for harmonized regulations
The last Wednesday QP of the year is one without any leaders present. The three main leaders were in Montreal for the Jean Béliveau funeral, while Elizabeth May remains at the climate conference in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, pointing out that Harper calling oil and gas regulations “crazy” flies in the face of his previous promises and wanted an apology for the government not doing their job. Colin Carrie responded by reading that the PM said that we wouldn’t take unilateral action but that we want to work collaboratively with the Americans. Leslie pressed about previous ministerial stats, and got another recitation of talking points about unilateral regulations. Leslie wondered when Harper had last spoken to President Obama about harmonised regulations, but Carrie instead read a talking point about how reckless the NDP are. Peter Julian was up next, and wondered if the government abandon their court case against veterans. Parm Gill said that he wouldn’t comment on a court case, and instead listed all of their recent initiatives. Julian noted Harper calling the New Veterans Charter a “Liberal programme” before reading his indictments against Julian Fantino. Gill insisted that the NDP were simply trying to protect “big government union jobs.” Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and noted the lapsed spending and cuts at Veterans Affairs, but noted the increase in ministerial staff and bonuses to managers. Gill read praise for their new initiatives. Goodale noted Rick Hillier’s call for a public inquiry into the treatment of veterans, but Gill insisted that they were following the recommendations of the Auditor General. Marc Garneau gave one last kick on the “back office” cuts, to which Gill insisted that they would make no apologies for eliminating bureaucracy.
I think that's @RodgerCuzner shouting "You've had eight years!" when Gill calls the New Veterans Charter a Liberal programme. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 10, 2014
Roundup: Backtracking and disowning
Having pretty much run out the parliamentary calendar for the year, Stephen Harper started dropping bombshells yesterday – some obvious, some subtle – as he answered questions in the Commons. The first was the more obvious one, that those long-promised oil and gas emissions regulations weren’t going to come anytime soon because the Americans weren’t onboard with them, and apparently it would be crazy – crazy! – to get a head start on them. It wasn’t a complete surprise, given that the Conservatives have mentioned needing a continental approach before, but the blanket refusal, wrapped up in this kind of “aww, shucks, I’m as disappointed as you guys – really!” approach, was what was new (and Paul Wells digs into that here). The other, more subtle bombshell, was Harper disowning the New Veterans Charter as he defended Julian Fantino’s disastrous handling of the Veterans Affairs file yesterday. As he was questioned about the government lawyers going to court to say that the “sacred obligation” to veterans was just political rhetoric, Harper shrugged it off saying that the New Veterans Charter at the centre of the legal dispute, which was implemented by his own government, was a “Liberal programme.” Nobody picked up on the significance of this disavowal during the remainder of QP enough to come back about it, and Harper won’t be in QP tomorrow either (nor will Trudeau or Mulcair for that fact), so there won’t be the ability to press him about just what he meant by it. And that’s probably how he wants it too as Parliament prepares to rise for the Christmas break.
QP: Trying to protect bureaucrats
After the government unveiled their much ballyhooed price gap legislation, it remained to be seen if that would lead off QP, or if Julian Fantino would remain in the line of fire. Before things got started, however, the two new Conservative MPs from the recent by-elections, Jim Eglinski and Pat Perkins, took their seats. Thomas Mulcair had not yet returned from Paris, leaving Peter Julian to lead off, asking about the US Senate torture report, and how CSIS and the RCMP could use information obtained by torture. Harper insisted it had nothing to do with Canada. Julian moved onto the veterans file and demanded the resignation of Julian Fantino, to which Harper said that the NDP were more interested in protecting bureaucrats and cutting services. Nycole Turmel was up next, and asked about processing times for EI applications, and the decision to hire temporary workers to clear the backlog. Jason Kenney responded that they were dedicated to giving good levels of service, and thanked his parliamentary secretary for the report on processing. Turmel tied in the Social Security Tribunal and the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, calling Kenney incompetent, but Kenney repeated Harper’s line that the NDP is averse to efficiencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the sacred obligation to veterans, wondering why the priority was a tax break for wealthy families instead of veterans. Harper insisted that they provide benefits to both families and veterans, and the current court case was against a previous Liberal programme. Trudeau listed a number of veterans programmes cut or underfunded by the government, to which Harper recited of list of programmes that he claimed the Liberals voted against before trotting out his line that they were trying to protect bureaucrats. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper claimed that 100 of the jobs they eliminated existed solely to delay benefits payments. (Really?!)
Shorter Jason Kenney: OH NOES! Dozens of thousands of unionised government employees! #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 9, 2014