Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails

Posted on by

Nothing too explosive in the Duffy trial yesterday, but more those emails from Monday are certainly creating a bit of a stir, showing the PMO ignored the scandal for the first while, how Harper’s lawyer ended up disagreeing with Harper on the residency questions, and how Duffy didn’t want to repay anything because it would have made him look guilty, which he certainly didn’t think he was. Most of those players in the emails are still around Harper today. Incidentally, Pamela Wallin’s travel claims also come up in the emails. Andrew Coyne meanwhile has sorted through them and come to a conclusion on his own, so I’ll let him:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986747455471616

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986757727334400

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986770817732608

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986779369902080

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987013223325696

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987971177058304

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994776401903616

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994906102374408

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997695675211777

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997707570311169

https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631998561178161152

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631999339955666944

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the safe space you’re looking for

Posted on by

Over in the National Post, Ashley Csanady found that the student council at the University of Waterloo has taken to abusing the concept of “safe spaces” to try and move their council meetings behind closed doors. Apparently student leaders have argued – with a straight face – that these closed-door meetings would foster a “safe environment, and less scrutiny results in better decision-making.” All of which is complete and utter nonsense because as political actors, they have obligations to transparency in order that they may be held to account. If they’re uncomfortable being challenged in public, then they shouldn’t run for office (which is an issue I have with people who run for office at any level of government, particularly federally – if you can’t so much as ask or answer a thirty-second question in QP without relying on a script and having your hand held, why are you there?) Now, there is a time and a place for closed-door meetings, and in camera discussions in grown-up politics, but it’s not all the time, and it’s not so that they can feel “safe.” Sometimes it takes a while to come up with suitable language when you’re putting together a report, and there is a case that some of the Board of Internal Economy’s decisions do happen better behind closed doors because some MPs can actually behave like adults when no one else is around, and I’m not sure it helps when they’re not using it as an excuse to play up the partisan drama for the cameras – again. (Also, BOIE deals with a lot of personnel issues that have legitimate privacy considerations). Yes, there has been an alarming trend in federal politics to move all considerations of committee business behind closed doors, likely because the Conservatives on the committee don’t want to be seen being irrationally partisan when they deny opposition motions, but they’re not using – or rather abusing – the notion of a safe space, or saying that they feel threatened by the exposure. Not wanting to look like jerks on TV is not a reason to meet in camera, and yet they do it anyway, and we the public should hold them to account for said behaviour. Hopefully the students at Waterloo will also see thought this charade, and vote this council out next year as well.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious recommendation

Posted on by

The Senate’s national security and defence committee released an interim report yesterday on countering the terrorist threat in Canada. The report made some 23 recommendations, many of them critical of what the government has and has not yet done, such as making it a criminal offence to be part of a terrorist organization, or having a “no-visit” list to keep known ideological radicals out of the country. The one that got the most attention on Power & Politics and subsequently the Twitter Machine was recommendation 9, which suggests the government “work with the provinces and the Muslim communities to investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of Imams in Canada.” And then they were off about how this was criminalizing speech and thought, and how it was likely to be a Charter issue, but actually reading the report itself, the preceding section noted the problems of amateur prison proselytizers, and that members of the Muslim community were concerned about foreign-trained imams spreading extremist ideology, and noted that certification is already the case in Europe. Not much further down in the report is a reputable Calgary imam talking about how extremist ideology is being protected on campuses under the guise of “academic freedom.” In this context, the recommendation doesn’t seem nearly as extreme as it was presented, but hey, it’s not like that context made it into some of the articles (not that surprising, unfortunately). This having been said, there remain problems with the report, which is why the Liberal senators dissented from the report, looking for more counselling, early intervention, study of the roots of radicalization, and more importantly resources for RCMP that the government seems reluctant to do. Is it perfect work? No. Is it better than we’d get from the Commons? Yes. It’s also still an interim report, and more work will be done on it in the next parliament, so perhaps things will improve with it before the final version is issued. In the meantime, it’s not a bad thing that senators are actually talking about this issue without relying solely on slogans.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making the AFN pitch

Posted on by

The Assembly of First Nations has been holding their General Assembly in Montreal, and both of the two main opposition leaders addressed them yesterday. As First Nations leaders try to convince their people to start flexing their political muscles, with some 51 ridings they say that they can influence, both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau made their pitches to the assembled chiefs. For Mulcair, it was largely a recapping of pledges he had made previously, while Trudeau unveiled a much more comprehensive policy plank for the party’s election platform. The fact that the parties are making this kind of a pitch – probably the most high-profile of such pitches in recent electoral memory – is a sign to the seriousness to which Canadians are taking these issues now, where they would have been considered far more niche in elections past.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Half-assing discussions on the Senate

Posted on by

With all of the recent attention on the Senate lately, there has been no shortage of columns and think-pieces about the institution, calls for its abolition, and the conflation of a host of issues under the banner of “scandal” writ large, all senators painted with the brush of criminality, all of the expense issues flagged by the Auditor General treated as outright graft, and now with the accusations against Senator Don Meredith of sexual impropriety with a teenager, the institution itself seems to bear the blame. Never mind that elected officials are often caught misspending or engaging in inappropriate behaviour (there is a reason why the Commons Clerk has a conversation with the female pages at the beginning of every session). Add to the pile is the weekend longread in the Ottawa Citizen about what to do with the problem of the Senate. And for as much as it was a noble effort, it fell apart rather quickly on a number of fronts. For one, for a piece of its length, it relied on astonishingly few sources – one retiring Conservative senator who is engaged in a campaign of self-serving legacy-building, one who has already retired, the same political scientist that every reporter goes to for a quote, and one more lesser-known political scientist to push back against a few of the claims. That’s not a lot for a fairly complex issue. Much of the article is taken up by the fixation on a referendum on Senate abolition, be it from Hugh Segal’s outright bizarre notion that it could somehow give the institution legitimacy if it were rejected, to the usual nonsense that it will somehow spur premiers to action. Completely absent from the self-awareness of any of these arguments is the fundamental concept that one of the Senate’s very primary purposes was to protect the interests of minority provinces – to say that referendum result can somehow wipe away those very real interests is a complete betrayal of the principles of a liberal democracy which is supposed to mediate against the harms of mob rule. The piece also makes boneheaded statements like the composition of the Senate over-representing smaller provinces – which was the whole point, to have a system of regional representation that was not bound to representation-by-population. The Senate’s model of equal regions was designed to counter the rep-by-pop of the Commons, and the inability for people to grasp this simple fact is gob smacking. Nowhere in any discussion of reform are the reasons the Senate was structured the way it was – to provide institutional independence against the reprisals of a government they push back against. Accusations of ineffectiveness are mired in the recent past as opposed to a broader look at times when the Senate has less deferential, nor does it look at reasons why it’s in a deferential state right now (hint: the manner in which the current Prime Minister made his selections). And the issue of the lack of seriousness by which successive prime ministers have taken their appointment powers is not explored at all, when it is probably the most important part of the discussion about what to do about the Senate. If we’re going to have a discussion about the Senate, then let’s be serious about it. Half-assed attempts like this don’t help the conversation.

Continue reading →

QP: One last scattershot attempt

Posted on by

It was likely the final Commons Question Period of the 41st Parliament (but it looks like not), and not a moment too soon. Not unsurprisingly, most of the leaders have already fled for the pre-writ campaign trail, with the exception of Elizabeth May, who dutifully remains at her desk until the bitter end. Megan Leslie led off, raising the moral issue of climate change per the Pope’s encyclical, but turned it into an NDP pitch instead of a question. Leona Agulkkaq chose a climate change talking point and recited it dutifully. Leslie then moved to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, to which James Bezan rose to denounce the comments made by the Chief of Defence Staff and to note that the wheels were already in motion for a change of command. Leslie asked for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Kellie Leitch insisted that they were taking action. Niki Ashton picked up, denounced the government and raised a report on the wage gap between First Nations and other Canadians. Bernard Valcourt noted the measures the government has taken to improve the lives of First Nations. Ashton then raised a plethora of social issues faced by First Nations children and asked a rhetorical question about the government discriminating against them. Valcourt insisted that they were taking action to improve their lives. Ralph Goodale led for Liberals, decrying the government’s economic performance to which Kevin Sorenson read some talking points about lowering taxes and the Liberals raising them. Goodale dug in, but Sorenson repeated his usual talking points about how great ever high was. Dominc LeBlanc took the final slot to further the condemnation in the other official language, to which Candice Bergen stood up to defend the government’s record of keeping promises.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals

Posted on by

There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544

Continue reading →

QP: Like a greatest hits package 

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305

Continue reading →

QP: Counselling illegal behaviour

Posted on by

It being a Tuesday, Stephen Harper was present for QP, a rarity these days — it’s too bad that neither Jusin Trudeau was (despite being in town but apparently had a thing with his children), nor Thomas Mulcair (who was giving a speech in Toronto). Megan Leslie led off, bemoaning the economic situation the country finds itself in. Stephen Harper disputed her, praising the post-recession job creation record. Leslie noted the drop in manufacturing numbers, using it to plug Mulcair’s speech, but Harper repeated his previous points. Leslie tried again, but Harper insisted that the NDP were only at the mercy of big union bosses, and that brought economic ruin in Europe. Peter Julian then picked up, and wondered why the government was allergic to democracy and the facts. Stephen Blaney responded, saying that the “group in question” supports a terrorist organization, and a second round in English went exactly the same. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, condemning the government for “counselling illegal behaviour” when it came to the destruction of those gun registry records. Harper insisted that the RCMP acted on the will of parliament, and that the Liberals simply wanted to revive it. Goodale ripped into him for the response, but Harper more forcefully repeated that it was the will of parliament, and that the Liberals hated farmers and duck hunters. Stéphane Dion took another kick at it in French, going after the retroactive legislation burried in the omnibudget bill to protect the RCMP, but Harper would not change in his talking points.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/610876361096495104

Continue reading →

QP: Bono’s big visit

Posted on by

With Bono promised to attend, MPs were vibrating with fannish glee during Members’ Statemets. Thomas Mulcair even showed up on a Monday, which is an indication of how big of a deal they were making of it. When he led off, he led immediately with the AG report on the Senate, and asked about PMO interference (not that any has been alleged). Paul Calandra, quite predictably, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair then raised the mischief-making of the possibility that Senators won’t travel extra city blocks to get cheaper temporary office space, to which Diane Finley made a bland statement about expecting senators to take whatever temporary office space if given to them. Mulcair then went on a soliloquy that he is probably glad he was shielded by privilege for, and asked a rhetorical question about why the PM appointed the senators he did, not that Calandra’s reply changed from before. Mulcair changed topics, brought up Bono (who still had not arrived) and the fact that the government has not committed to actually doing anything about the poverty pledge they are signing onto. Christian Paradis praised the government’s programmes abroad. Mulcair noted the poverty among First Nations, to which Bernard Valcourt listed their success stories in the north. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about the Information Commissioner’s decision to take the government to court over those deleted gun registry records, and wondered who counselled the behaviour. Stephen Blaney touted the destruction of said registry and gave a false point another the will of parliament. Goodale pressed, and Blaney doubled down. Stéphane Dion gave it a go in French, and got the same answer — again.

Continue reading →