Tag Archives: Official Languages

Roundup: From ombudsman to officer?

Posted on by

The current military ombudsman is trying to pitch the notion that the government doesn’t need to create a new independent body to investigate complaints about sexual misconduct – rather, he is pitching that his office can do it, if only parliament would loosen his shackles and let him report to them directly rather than to the reporting to the minister of defence. I am dubious, and a little alarmed.

For starters, I am not certain that he is actually the best-placed person to field those complaints, rather than a centre that specializes in it, that is properly trauma-informed and so on. There is a reason why the Deschamps Report called for an independent body to do this kind of work, and I’m not sure that the military ombudsman is independent enough (especially as many of those who fill the role have military backgrounds, and are just as likely to be inured to the highly sexualized culture in the Forces that is part of what needs to be changed). It also detracts from other work that the ombudsman should be doing around other aspects of military life than just this particular aspect of it.

The bigger part I am reticent about, however, is because the very last thing we need is yet another unaccountable Officer of Parliament, as we already have far too many, and some of them are problems. Look no further than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is turning himself into a media darling and who is going far beyond his legislative mandate, but because he is accountable to no one – and because he is being encouraged to keep going beyond his mandate by the media – he is really pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. As for a military ombudsman, you don’t have to go too far in history to see others who held the role who were also becoming problematic – one of whom was also becoming a media darling, and who got increasingly erratic as time went on (especially once he was no longer in the job). It’s not the kind of person who should be in a role that has no accountability, and if it’s happened once, it’s likely to happen again, particularly in the current environment. I’m not unconvinced that the current reporting mechanism of the ombudsman’s office isn’t a problem, but there needs to be another solution than creating another Officer of Parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not taking constitutional amendments seriously

Posted on by

During his press conference yesterday, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that according to his legal advice, Quebec can unilaterally modify part of the federal Constitution that applies specifically to them – which is either untrue, or appeasement to the Legault government, because every party is trying to suck up to Legault and his overwhelming popularity.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692157001412612

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692818644393991

A plain reading of Section 43 of the Constitution states that where language rights are involved, the federal Parliament needs to have a say in the constitutional amendment, and it’s very much invoked in these proposals from Quebec. That Trudeau – or apparently the lawyers in the Justice Department – can’t see this is a problem, and raises some real questions as to the quality of advice the government is receiving from the department. (Hell, even other Liberal MPs are questioning it).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394762687410753539

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394763319932764166

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394800378013790211

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394801217029746688

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394693812568694787

But what were people riled up over instead of an egregious violation of our constitutional norms? A photo of Trudeau at a laptop which was clearly an HP machine, with the logo covered over with an Apple sticker. The scandal!

Continue reading →

Roundup: On not electing first ministers

Posted on by

There was something going around the Twitter Machine yesterday regarding past prime ministers, and Kim Campbell in particular, and it appealed to my sense of pedantry/exactness in our civic discourse – no, Kim Campbell was not “elected” as prime minister, but no prime minister is actually elected in the Westminster System.

She was not the first prime minister not to have been appointed to the position without leading their party to victory in a general election. We had two early prime ministers who were sitting senators and not MPs. John Turner didn’t have a seat in either Chamber when he was sworn in as prime minister. At least Campbell had a seat and had led several high-profile Cabinet portfolios (first female justice minister and defence minister), and she made significant reforms to the structure of Cabinet upon her appointment as PM, many of which have been lasting. She did not have to face Parliament as prime minister, but neither did Sir Charles Tupper, not John Turner. Trying to somehow insist that because her appointment did not follow a general election victory as somehow denigrating or making her lesser-than as a prime minister is ahistorical and ignorant of how Westminster parliaments work.

Part of this, however, is tied up with narratives that our pundit class keeps importing from the US, and which our media stokes out a sense of general ignorance of civics. We recently saw in places like Nova Scotia, where they just appointed a new premier, that the media are jumping up and down for him to get “his own mandate” – meaning going to a general election – which goes against how our system works. In Newfoundland and Labrador, their premier was appointed without a seat, which he promptly won in a by-election, and then called an election “to get a mandate” and lo, it turned into a gong show because they had a sudden outbreak of COVID. But this false notion about “mandates” keep cropping up, because media and pundits keep feeding it. It’s not how our system works, and it places false expectations on new first ministers, and creates unreal expectations for those, like Campbell, who did everything according to our system’s actual tenets. It would be great if we had a better sense of civics in this country to counter this ongoing nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blanchet thinks he knows when an election will be called

Posted on by

The constant assertion that we are just around the corner from another election is tiresome, and yet it keeps rearing its head, sometimes in very novel ways. Yesterday, it was Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet telling a virtual meeting of Quebec municipalities that he believes an election is going to be called on August 16th, in order to avoid a federal election interfering with municipal elections in Quebec this fall – assuming, of course, that the pandemic is largely under control by then.

No, seriously.

The logic of this assertion, however, does not hold. First of all, there would be no reason for the prime minister to go to the Governor General (assuming we have a new one installed by that point – otherwise, it would be to the Chief Justice in his role as Administrator, for which the optics are very bad), and request dissolution in the middle of August. Remember that we still have fixed election date legislation, and while it’s largely useless, it does create a situation of poor optics for prime ministers or premiers who pull the trigger early. Yes, we are in a hung parliament, so a confidence vote could be lost at any point, but the Commons won’t be sitting in August. In fact, it is not scheduled to be back until September 20th, and I doubt we’re going to be having the same kinds of summer sittings like we did last year, where there was a sense of urgency, particularly around rapidly passing new pandemic spending measures. That is unlikely to be the case this summer given the place that we’re in with the pandemic. This means the government couldn’t even engineer its own defeat over the summer without a hell of a lot of effort, which seems tremendously unlikely given the circumstances. Given the poor optics of just requesting dissolution, this seems highly unlikely.

To add to this, Bill C-19 – which would allow Elections Canada to hold a safer election in the pandemic setting – only just got sent to committee this week in the Commons. Next week is a constituency week, so even if it did pass both committee and third reading the following week (unlikely), and passed the Senate the week after that (a better possibility given the speed at which they seem to be operating these days – not that it’s necessarily a good thing) then it still has a 90-day implementation period for those changes to take effect, so it wouldn’t reach that threshold until mid-September at the earliest. Again, this makes a call for an August 16th dissolution unlikely, because Elections Canada couldn’t be prepared, and even if most of the country gets their second dose by the end of September, that both cuts it uncomfortably close for when an election would be held following an August 16thdissolution, if at all given the need for more advanced voting days and so on.

Simply put, C-19 should have passed months ago in order to ensure there were proper safeguards in case something happens in this hung parliament, and a confidence vote didn’t go quite the right way. But nobody is suicidal enough to want an election right now, and that will continue to be case for much of the fall, until we can be sure that we’re out of the grip of the pandemic. Blanchet is spouting nonsense and should be called out as such.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau cleared, Morneau not

Posted on by

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released his reports on Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau’s involvement in the WE Imbroglio yesterday, and came to two different results – the prime minister was cleared, but Morneau was found to have breached three sections of the Act, because he was not only personal friends with the Kielburgers (which Trudeau was not), but Morneau gave them a lot of access to his department as a result of that friendship, and offered them very preferential treatment.

On the one hand, this defused a few of the prepared talking points, but it didn’t disarm all of them. The Conservatives insist that even if he wasn’t found to have broken the rules, the system is still “broken” and needs to be made even tougher, which they are going to regret when every interaction becomes a minefield and their own members start getting caught up in impossible situations should they form government, and it misses the mark of what the current problems are. The NDP, predictably, say that this proves the Liberals only care about their “rich friends,” which I’m not sure the Kielburgers really qualify as for obvious reasons.

Of course, as I have written before, the problem is not that the rules are too lax, but rather that the Liberals in their current incarnation have a culture that believes that so long as they mean well, that the ends will justify the means. No amount of tinkering or toughening up the rules can change that because it’s a cultural problem. It also doesn’t help that the definition of “corruption” has become so broad in the Canadian discourse that penny ante bullshit is treated as a capital crime, though very curiously, grift that is out in the open in places like Queen’s Park or the Alberta Legislature are not treated with the same kinds of howling denunciations that the WE Imbroglio has been. I also have to wonder what these same howlers would do if they saw the actual corruption that takes place in other countries, because it’s on a whole other level than anything that has happened here. And on a final note, this report does not mean that WE Charity was “destroyed” for nothing. The charity hasn’t been “destroyed,” and its dubious activities were brought to light by good reporting, not Charlie Angus’ antics at committee, and that’s a good thing. This incident helped to shine that spotlight. Let’s not confuse Trudeau’s exoneration with anything else that has happened to WE in the interim.

Continue reading →

QP: Freeland vows to protect free expression

Posted on by

The Commons was a little emptier than the new normal of late, but as our rock of stability, Mark Gerretsen was again the only Liberal on the Chamber. Again. Candice Bergen led off in person, with a script in front of her, and she complained that Americans were getting together and attending packed sports stadiums while most Canadians were still “locked down,” and blamed the federal government’s inability to procure vaccines out of thin air. Chrystia Freeland reminded her that over twenty million doses have already arrived, and more were on the way. Bergen then read a bunch of blatant falsehoods about Bill C-10, for which Freeland assured her that as a former journalist, she understands the importance of freedom of expression and they would never endanger it, which this bill does not do. Bergen then raised Guilbeault’s blunder about “Net Neutrality,” and accused the government of trying to control speech, and Freeland repeated her response. Gérard Deltell carried on raising Guilbeault’s many blunders, and Freeland reassured him that everyone was against censorship, but they were concerned with the cultural sector. Deltell raised that Guilbeault keeps needing to correct himself, and Freeland repeated that as a former journalist, she would never limit freedom of expression, which the bill does not do.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and he crowed about the Quebec government tabling a bill on protecting French, and Freeland read that the federal government recognises that the situation of French in Quebec is unique, and that they would study the bill in depth. Blanchet was disappointed that Freeland was insufficiently thrilled with the bill, and demanded a promise that the federal government would not challenge that bill in court. Freeland would not give him such an assurance.

Jagmeet Singh raised the blood deferral for men who have sex with men, and demanded to know why the prime minister would promise to overturn the ban and then not do it. Freeland assured him they support overturning the deferral, but they respect the authority of independent decision-makers and science. Singh complained in French that this didn’t make sense, but Freeland repeated her answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Duelling quotes on the Broadcast Act

Posted on by

For a Thursday in the Chamber, we had two Liberals present among the otherwise empty benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, scripts on mini-lectern, and he lamented the third wave and compared our vaccination rate to the US, asking why the government failed on vaccines. Anita Anand replied with a list of vaccine deliveries. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his preamble, but at the last minute, switched the question to the border, but Anand simply repeated her response. Still in French, O’Toole raised the question of what date Canada would achieve 75 percent first doses and 20 percent second doses. Patty Hajdu replied that Canada’s vaccination story was a good one as we are number two in the G20 for vaccines administered. O’Toole returned to English to raise some hyperbolic concerns over the Broadcast Act amendments, for which Stephen Guilbeault read back quotes from Conservatives who claimed the bill initially was not strong enough. O’Toole quoted Michael Geist’s criticisms of the the bill, for which Guilbeault quoted several other organisations who said these concerns were dangerously misleading.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he complained that people in hotel quarantine were getting EI, to which Carla Qualtrough insisted that this wasn’t possible under the rules. Therrien said that TVA reporting disputed this, and Pablo Rodriguez stated that this was a question written before they got the answer, and people who took a vacation could not get government assistance.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded that the most vulnerable get vaccinated first — which is provincial jurisdiction. Patty Hajdu listed assistance that were given to provinces, but did not point out that basic jurisdictional issue. Singh then dismissed jurisdictional concerns around paid sick leave and demanded a magical fix to the federal sickness benefit. Qualtrough responded that they have made programmes available to those who need it— but gave no correction around jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

QP: Making CNN a national issue

Posted on by

It being a lovely Tuesday in the nation’s capital, the prime minister was indeed present and in the Chamber for Question Period, with only one other Liberal – Mark Gerretsen, of course – with him. Erin O’Toole led off in person, with his scripts in front of him, and he raised that sensationalised CNN report saying Canada was desperate for vaccines. Trudeau reminded him that Canada was third in the OECD for vaccinations and people needed to keep up public health measures. O’Toole insisted that no, the government’s rollout was too slow and confused, to which Trudeau pointed to the UK where higher vaccinations did not mean they had to let up lockdowns, and that while Conservatives don’t like masks and social distancing, people needed to keep it up). O’Toole then raised the American travel advisory — that was months old and applied to every other country in the world — for which Trudeau called out the bullshit for what it was, that the advisory was from last March, and that the Conservatives were only interested in making things up. O’Toole then repeated his first question about the CNN report in French, got the same answer, then he pivoted to vaccine rollouts in Quebec, and claimed that Trudeau said everything was on track yesterday and then we just learned there would be a Moderna delay. Trudeau castigated him for making things up after their conversation yesterday, stated what he told O’Toole about shipments and yes, Moderna may have a day or two delayed here and there.

Yves-François Blanchet raised Quebec’s Bill 99 having been found to be justifiable by the Auebec Court of Appeal, to which Trudeau dissembled about working well with the Quebec government. Blanchet noted that the Quebec bill would clash with the Clarity Act, and one of them had to go, and Trudeau dismissed this as posturing, that the Bloc would rather talk about sovereignty than fighting the third wave.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and in French, lamented that Canada was losing the race against the variants, to which Trudeau praised the number of doses that have arrived in Canada. Singh switched to English to demand “real action” by improving paid sick leave, for which Trudeau reminded him that they put in the programme months and they were working with provinces to boost their measures. 

Continue reading →

QP: The 2015 or the 2021 Justin Trudeau?

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, the prime minister was finally present for the first time in the week, and he was accompanied by three other Liberal MPs, all of them men. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he quoted Justin Trudeau in 2015 calling for then-chief of defence staff General Tom Lawson’s resignation after comments he made about sexual misconduct, and wondered why the same Trudeau did not demand the resignation of General Vance when allegations were raised in 2018? Trudeau merely read a prepared statement about them taking it seriously and ensuring that they are followed up on, and that the changes they are making in the Canadian Forces need to go further, which they are committed to. O’Toole was not mollified and tried again, and this time, Trudeau said that they allegations were directed to independent authorities and they didn’t get enough information to go on. A third time got the same answer, that his office was aware of the direction of the ombudsman to authorities, but no more. A fourth time, this time wondering why Vance’s term as chief of defence staff was extended, and Trudeau repeated his answer. For his final question, O’Toole switched to French to ask why the government was allowing second doses to go up to 40 days in spite of pushback from Pfizer, for which Trudeau reminded him that they listen to science and that the vaccine task force is independent from government. 

Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, wondering why the government wasn’t increasing supports for all seniors, to which Trudeau reminded him that they did increase the GIS across the board and they have supported seniors. Blanchet complained that seniors’ purchasing power has been diminishing, to which Trudeau listed supports they have given seniors during the pandemic.

For the NDP, Jagmeet Singh appeared by video, and in French, complained that certain documents were only tabled in English, which was treating French as a second-class language.  Trudeau rejected the characterisation, and reminded him that they have been producing millions of documents and are moving as fast as they can. Singh switched to English to demand that long-term care be made non-profit across the country, and Trudeau recited the actions they have taken to help seniors.

Continue reading →

QP: Working in the real world, within the constitution

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was in the Chamber, thankfully, with a mere two other Liberals along with him. Erin O’Toole led off, also in person with a script on his mini-lectern, and complained that only eight percent of Canadians would be vaccinated by April, for which Justin Trudeau gave the “good news” of vaccine deliveries that are arriving. O’Toole was not impressed, and quoted Dr. Theresa Tam saying that it was a fact that a lot of people won’t be vaccinated for months, for which Trudeau stated that they are getting doses as quickly as they can. O’Toole said demanded the plan to get 300,000 people vaccinated per day, and Trudeau said that they are supporting provinces to get ready for the “big lift” as deliveries ramp up. O’Toole switched to French to repeat the question, got the same answer, and then O’Toole whinged that we were so far behind other countries, and Trudeau said that he believes in the provinces and territories to administer the vaccines (which may be optimistic on his part, given that certain provinces are run by incompetent murderclowns).

For the Bloc, Yves-François Blanchet raised the government’s discussion paper on official languages and demanded that the government apply Quebec’s Bill 101 to federally-regulated sectors, and Trudeau gave a paean about French being under threat outside of Quebec and the government was working to protect it. Blanchet felt the government plan was too slow and demanded Bill 101 be applied immediately, but Trudeau said that while the Bloc was focused on Quebec, he needed to be focused on French all over the country.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded support for this party’s (unconstitutional) pharmaceutical bill, for which Trudeau stated that they support pharmacare, but they would not support the NDP’s plan to impose a top-down solution in favour of negotiating with provinces. Singh switched to English to claim that his bill was according to the Hoskins Report (it’s not), and Trudeau listed the actions his government took to lower drug prices, and stated that because they respect the constitution, they are negotiating with provinces.

Continue reading →