Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher is introducing two Private Member’s Bills on assisted suicide in order to get the debate on the agenda. The problem with this, of course, is that a) he would only have one slot for Private Member’s Business, so introducing two bills means one of them won’t see the light of day, and b) as Fletcher was a minister, his debate slot is at nearly the bottom of the list, as he only got it after he was dropped from cabinet, so it remains unlikely to see the light of day. Nevertheless, with the court challenges going on, it is a good reminder that Parliament should be debating these kinds of issues, but we all know that they are reluctant to, and try to fob off the hard work to the courts so that they can be seen to be dragged into doing something about it.
Tag Archives: Euthanasia
Roundup: Aftermath of a weekend convention
Justin Trudeau delivered his big speech on Saturday, and it was fairly well received, if still light on policy specifics. (Video here, with keynotes from Harper and Mulcair for comparison). He promised no new taxes, which immediately raises doubts about the affordability of his plans, and he landed a few blows against Harper in there, about the person who appointed Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin campaigning on the strength of his judgement, and how his wasn’t the party of Sir John A Macdonald, which was a calculated means of trying to undermine Harper’s base. Part of the speech included a fictional “Nathalie” as Trudeau’s example of an everywoman to showcase his commitment to the middle class, which is a technique apparently used successfully by the Obama camp. The Maclean’s team dissected the speech and what the key points meant, while Paul Wells offers a stand-alone analysis on how Trudeau is the first leader since Chrétien to be automatically accepted by the party without labouring to, and how he’s now knocking at Harper’s door, changing the political dynamics in this country.
Roundup: Commence the convention
The Liberals’ policy convention is now underway in Montreal, and while things started off with a bit of an oops – the feed from the main stage was live to the reporters’ room while Trudeau was practicing his speech, giving it away before he could make it, and it included his camera directions. He delivered his rah-rah partisan speech to kick things off, which included a couple of digs at Pauline Marois, and to Harper and Mulcair in which he said he wasn’t going to play their game of trying to make Canadians angry, and ended it with a Skype call to his family (as they stayed in Ottawa, his wife due to give birth any day now). A few Senate Liberals, but not many, are in attendance, for which the NDP are trying to get a social media shaming going. Mike Moffatt offers three questions for the Liberals to look at as they try to formulate economic policy during this weekend’s convention. Kate Heartfield notes the implicit populist tones in Trudeau’s economics video, and how it still creates an Us and Them in order to play that populist card, while still trying to look like he’s above tribalism. Michael Den Tandt writes that the broad strokes economic policy will be looking at ways to bring the Red Tories and Blue Liberals back into the fold and away from the Conservative coalition. Paul Wells writes about the Conservatives hoping that the convention will prove to be a gaffe-fest for Trudeau (and along the way, coins the best descriptor for the Fair Elections Act as being “Conservative-fair”).
Roundup: Trudeau’s mistakes and the sanctimonious reaction
Justin Trudeau admitted that a couple of errors were made in relation to travel claims that should have been charged to the Speaker’s Bureau he belongs to rather than his MP expenses, dating back to 2009 and 2010. He said that it was human error, repaid them by personal cheque, and said that had there been better disclosure rules – like his party has put into place – this would have been caught sooner. And then the partisan spin happened. The NDP tried to somehow wedge this into a kind of Nigel Wright scenario, which makes no sense whatsoever. There were also sanctimonious cries about how he swore he never used his MP expenses for his outside work – and it seems pretty clear that it was a mistake, where the claims were bundled incorrectly, but now we apparently can’t take his word for anything – gods help us if any of his denouncers have ever made a mistake before. Liberal partisans, meanwhile, note that the NDP are the most opaque about their own expenses, for what it’s worth. And for everyone who cries that it should be an MP’s job to speak publicly, I would ask where exactly in an MP’s job description is being a motivational speaker? It’s not. An MP’s job is to hold the government to account and to scrutinise the public accounts, though you’d be hard pressed to find an MP who actually does that these days – I can think of a mere handful. Trying to claim that their job is something else is one more reason why the state of parliament has become so abysmal.
Roundup: The tale of the second cheque
Boom! The ClusterDuff exploded yet again yesterday, with yet more revelations from Senator Mike Duffy, who took advantage of what could be his final days of the protection of parliamentary privilege, and laid out yet more accusations against the PMO. This after a morning where Stephen Harper took to the radio waves and declared that Nigel Wright had been fired, in direct contradiction to all previous assertions that Wright resigned. So while the Commons fixated on this contradiction, Senator Duffy took the floor in the Senate, and detonated his next bomb – that there was not one cheque, but two, and that the talk of an RBC loan was actually a script from the PMO that he had been made to deliver. That second cheque was from the Conservative party lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, which paid for Duffy’s legal fees – and this time, he provided documents to prove it. The party doesn’t deny covering the legal expenses, saying that they will sometimes pay the legal fees of their caucus members. This is likely an indication, according to John Geddes, that the party was still keen to defend him and by extension their decision to appoint him as a PEI senator, with their particular reading of those rules. While Duffy contended that there remains a whole other email chain in the hands of his lawyers that he wants to see turned over to the RCMP, though an envelope was later handed to the CBC which appeared to cast some doubt as to Duffy’s version of events – or at the very least was a good trial run as to his scripting around where the money came from. If there is one bright side to all of this it’s the level of engagement that the public is demonstrating, and the fact that senators are pointing to the number of emails they are receiving from people who want to see due process – and one senator that I spoke with this afternoon brought this up without prompting. And while these senators have zero sympathy for their three embattled peers, they at least want to ensure that there is process followed.
QP: Fired or resigned?
With none of the leaders present in the House, it was up to Megan Leslie to lead off QP for the NDP, where she asked about the contradiction about Harper claiming on the radio earlier in the morning that Nigel Wright had been fired whereas it was previously established that he resigned. Paul Calandra was up to respond, and said that to his credit, Wright had taken full responsibility for the payout to Duffy and no longer worked in the PMO. Leslie tried to press as to how many Conservatives were aware of the payout to Duffy, but Calandra insisted that it was all in the court affidavits. Nycole Turmel was up next to repeat the same in French, to which Calandra repeated his same talking points, and for her supplemental, Turmel brought up the deal that Senator Carignan offered to Braseau, and wondered if the PM was aware of it. Calandra said that they wanted them to take a measure of responsibility and called for the Liberals in the Senate to stand down and pass the suspensions (never mind the senators in the Conservative caucus who are opposed). Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and returned to the same questions about the Prime Minister’s changing talking points, but Calandra didn’t veer from his same talking points, and again called on the Liberals in the Senate to stop their obstruction. LeBlanc closed the round by asking why Harper wouldn’t answer questions about the affair under oath, but Calandra’s talking points didn’t change.
Roundup: Special rules to punish Justin Trudeau
Because they are never short of such ideas, the NDP held yet another press conference yesterday to announced new proposals to make Parliament “more accountable.” What that really was code for was “let’s try to punish some Liberals, and in particular, Justin Trudeau.” You see, of their three proposals, the main one was to ban MPs and Senators from “double-dipping by banning payment for work that is part of their job as an MP or Senator.” Which is news to me because nowhere in any legal or constitutional text does it say that it’s part of a Parliamentarian’s job to be a motivational speaker. In fact, that’s the reason why certain MPs and Senators sign up to speaker’s bureaux – in order to do these kinds of gigs without having to expend their parliamentary resources on it, and because they’re not talking about matters that are related to their parliamentary duties, but usually their careers before they were in public life (Marc Garneau’s astronaut career, or Larry Smith’s football commissioner career for example), it makes sense not to treat it as part of their duties. Oh, but Justin Trudeau was able to make a successful living at this and still accepted speaking gigs after he got elected, therefore it must be awful and should be banned. Never mind that he almost always made money for the organisations that he was invited to speak at (with that one notable exception, where it was a case of organisational failure), or that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner cleared these gigs – this is strictly a case of cheap punitive politics. There can be cases made for the other two suggestions – banning parliamentarians from being on corporate boards (but family businesses are okay), and strengthening the powers of the aforementioned Commissioner – but they are less about scandals than perception. Parliamentarians have any corporate board work cleared by an ethics regime, and sure it could be strengthened, but there has yet to be a demonstrated case of any kind of influence peddling, and one suspects it’s simply a case of “corporations bad!” at work. And as for strengthening the role of the Commissioner, well, it seems to me that it’s the NDP who are in charge of the Commons Ethics committee and this has yet to make it onto the agenda when the review of her legislation is a year overdue. Perhaps if they made an effort to actually focus on that rather than play partisan silly buggers and constantly demanding investigations into the wrongdoing of individual MPs, then perhaps they might make progress on such a change.
Roundup: Forget the science of treating addiction, drugs are bad!
Rona Ambrose held a press conference yesterday to say that the government would be closing the “loopholes” in the Special Access Programme so that illicit drugs can no longer be prescribed for clinical purposes – never mind that the whole point of the programme that the injectable heroin was being prescribed in was because none of the other replacements worked, and that it was the safest and most effective way to preserve the health of the patient while getting them off the drug in a controlled manner. But hey, when did science matter over the ideological concerns that “drugs are bad”? Aaron Wherry talks to BC’s provincial health officer about the scientifically proven heroin-assisted treatment.
Roundup: Bringing back the euthanasia debate
Before his death by a brain tumour, famous Canadian microbiologist Dr. Donald Low recorded a video making a plea for assisted suicide laws in this country, but feared that we still don’t have the political maturity to handle such a conversation. The video was released yesterday to great play in the media, for what it was worth. Sadly, I fear Low was right after the last attempt at such a debate in Parliament, and it’s one of those issues that MPs are too afraid to touch and will inevitably fob off on the Supreme Court to give them a push before they do anything with it. Only one Conservative MP, Steven Fletcher – a quadriplegic – seems to want to have that discussion, and supports the notion, given his particular perspective.
Roundup: The annual summer Arctic tour
Stephen Harper is now on his annual summer tour of the Arctic, which he kicked off by slamming the opposition, in an almost verbatim replay of the speech he made at the Calgary Stampede – which could mean we’ll get the same speech for the next two years and throughout the next election, if his propensity for repeated messaging is anything to go by. James Cudmore points out how much politicking goes on during these trips – and one wonders just how much the annual photo that has every element of the Canadian Forces in the same frame will cost us this time – while Michael Den Tandt looks at how much is at stake for Harper, considering that none of his grand plans for the Arctic will come to fruition before the next election. And as part of the Prime Minister’s new social media strategy, in order to try and match Justin Trudeau’s presence, Laureen Harper posts on the PM’s new blog about her Arctic memories. Aww, bless.