Thomas Mulcair has written to the two other main party leaders about establishing a process to deal with MP-to-MP harassment, and proposes a clear definition in the Standing Orders, an independent Officer of Parliament to deal with complaints, training for MPs and staff, and to ensure that the process protects the rights of victims including to privacy. While some of this sounds reasonable on the surface, there are a few flags to my eye, some of it centred around the creation of yet another Officer, which gives the impression that this kind of thing is commonplace enough that you would need someone to deal with it full-time, rather than amending the mandate of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for example, to deal with these kinds of issues as well. The proliferation of these Officers is actually a problem, and much like the NDP’s desire to blow up the Board of Internal Economy to create a new bureaucracy to deal with the administration of the Commons, it’s a problem that seeks to remove the self-governing powers from MPs. This is an issue that needs actual debate – if the message is that we can’t trust MPs to manage their own affairs, then what does that say about their ability to manage the country’s affairs? In a way it’s almost infantilizing them, and that should be concerning. Liberal colleagues say that they want the investigations taken care of quickly, and it was noted that there had been discussion of a harassment policy arising from a 2012 document by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that members of all parties were to take it back to their caucuses to discuss the matter, but it hadn’t moved forward since. Paul Wells looks at these harassment allegations in the broader picture of the sad place that the capital finds itself in at the moment.
Tag Archives: Nominations
Roundup: Big turnout for Remembrance Day
It was a gorgeous Remembrance Day in Ottawa, and Laureen Harper could be heard on camera remarking that this was probably the nicest Remembrance Day she’s ever seen here. Some 50,000 people turned out for the ceremony in the Nation’s Capital, which also saw the re-dedication of the War Memorial to feature the dates of the Boer War and the Afghanistan mission, along with the phrase “In the Service of Canada,” which captures the other peace-keeping operations and missions that our soldiers have been deployed on. The Governor General delivered his speech, and Princess Anne delivered a message from the Queen for the re-dedication. John Geddes writes about why this year felt different than others past. Stephen Saideman writes about how Canada does Remembrance Day better than the Americans do Veterans Day (and Memorial Day). Maclean’s has some photos of ceremonies around Canada and the world.
The National War Memorial Ottawa. @CdnPress photo by @SKPhotography pic.twitter.com/HxqgWMrhqA
— The Canadian Press Politics (@CdnPressPoli) November 11, 2014
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.
Roundup: Raising the spectre of domestic terror
It was an odd event yesterday – a Conservative MP asking the PM during Question Period to respond to “unconfirmed reports” to a domestic terrorism link to a hit-and-run case in Quebec involving two members of the Canadian Forces, where the suspect was shot and later died. It was only hours later that the RCMP released a brief statement that the suspect was known to them, and that he may have been radicalised. It’s still early days in the investigation, but one wonders if it’s perhaps too soon to suddenly believe we have ISIS cells operating in Canada, and that this wasn’t an isolated incident where one individual who, by all accounts, was a recent convert for whatever reason, and decided to act on the vague ISIS threats that were made public in media reports. I guess time will tell, but expect the government to start using this incident as justification for greater counter-terror legislation. At the same time as this story was breaking, the Director of Operations of CSIS was at a Senate committee, saying that they do the best they can with prioritizing their investigations, but can’t cover every base because of budget limitations. Duly noted.
Roundup: Warnings about changes to the CSIS Act
Stephen Blaney has confirmed that the government will table a bill next week to enhance CSIS’ powers to better combat terrorism, in order to enhance cooperation with our Five Eyes allies, and to enhance the anonymity for CSIS informants. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that those sources already have adequate protections, and the fact that the lawyer for Mohamed Harkat warns that the inability to cross-examine this kind of testimony is dangerous. Former Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier also warns that rushing into these kinds of changes could have longer-term human rights consequences. But terrorists!
Roundup: Seized with the Iraq debate
The Commons will be seized today with debating the Iraq combat deployment, which will culminate in a confidence vote (which has been phrased in such a way that it’s confidence in the government after they have made the decision, as opposed to a vote to authorize deployment, which would make for fuzzy lines of accountability going forward – and yes, there is a big difference). The issue of civilian casualties being a likelihood given the air strikes is likely to come up, as it is in the States. Rob Nicholson is also refusing to say whether or not there will be an extension, which is all well and good from the point of nobody being able to tell the future, but given that ISIS is already adapting to the threat of air strikes means that our ability to contribute will likely soon be a fairly moot point. Also, the piece led to this interesting exchange.
@rolandparis you make more sense than Nicholson even if we disagree about creepiness. Being vague about renewal is typical Harper crap
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Why do you assume the gov't knows the answer to that question? Surely it depends on how the operation goes.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell the war is unlikely to be over in six months, so they can be clearer about assessing than suggest over in six months
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Yes, but the nature of the mission that will be optimal for Canada after 6 mos is not clear.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell I am. It surprised by an initial six month mandate but the spin seems wrong to me, as if a renewal would not be likely
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
Roundup: Excuses for exit controls
Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.
Roundup: Contempt, tempers, and losing the plot
Thomas Mulcair’s snide exchange with the Speaker during yesterday’s QP continues to resonate around Ottawa, with reminders that Scheer doesn’t currently have the powers to police the content of answers (MPs would have to agree to give him those powers), and musings about this kind of contempt of parliament and remonstrations about how this is what makes people cynical. And the worst part? That even over the Twitter Machine, Paul Calandra continues to play the part. It has also been noted, and I fully agree, that by losing his temper and going after the Speaker, Mulcair made the story about himself rather than Calandra and his utter nonsense.
Media upset with me, gee what am I to do? Tell you what, I will stand up for Israel who are on the front lines fighting terror every day.
— Paul Calandra (@PaulCalandra) September 24, 2014
It's not up to Speaker Scheer to discipline poor answers, and you lose focus on govt stonewalling when you attack the Speaker. #QP
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 23, 2014
Roundup: A tax credit, not a cut
Joe Oliver announced cuts to EI premiums for small businesses yesterday – but it’s not quite as easy as it sounds. It’s actually more of a tax credit only on the employer side, and only for two years, which Oliver insists is not a sign of worry, but “confidence” that they’re on the right path. Um, okay. Economist Stephen Gordon, meanwhile, shows that this kind of tax credit is actually more counterproductive because it encourages these businesses to stay small for tax reasons, and that by not actually cutting payroll taxes, they are not actually creating the right conditions for all small businesses to hire.
Roundup: Dubious slogan at the ready!
Unveiled during their caucus retreat – err, “strategy session” – in Edmonton, the NDP’s election-ready slogan is “Change that’s ready.” While grammatically it sounds like the change itself is ready, the message is that they’re ready to form government – never mind that they have never formed government federally, and that few members of their caucus has any government experience provincially. They are largely trying to position themselves as the party with substance as opposed to style (à la Justin Trudeau) – but they nevertheless continue to speak in generalities about things like how they want to build more refineries. The captain of the Edmonton Oilers also spoke to caucus, so cue everyone swooning about hockey and politics.