Tag Archives: Parliament Hill

Roundup: Cases and questions on Iraq

Posted on by

Stephen Harper gave his big speech about extending the Iraq mission into Syria yesterday morning, and not unsurprisingly, the opposition parties were not in favour of the motion, though they have slightly different reasons for it. The NDP, not surprisingly, reject the whole mission outright and went so far as to basically call Harper an ally of Bashar al-Assad, while the Liberals focused on principles they laid out not being met, and their past objections about the mission not being suitable for Canadian non-combat capabilities. There was also the difference of the NDP promising to pull our forces out right away if they form government, whereas the Liberals said that they wouldn’t because we’ve made commitments to our allies and they would ensure that we at least see those through. As for the legal justification, the Conservatives offered a couple of different ones during the day, which doesn’t help with the clarity. Here’s the statement Elizabeth May would have said if she hadn’t been denied permission to speak by the jackasses in the backbenches. Paul Wells parses the speeches a little more, and pays particular attention to Trudeau and his attempt to stay consistent. Michael Petrou gives some perspective sauce as someone who’s been in the region an on the front lines. Stephen Saideman has questions and comments about the motion, and David Pugliese tries to answer a few of the basic questions people may have. Philippe Lagassé examines the motion from the lens of a political convention (still likely designed to launder the decision) as opposed to an attempt to build a constitutional one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Witnesses of dubious expertise

Posted on by

As the hearings on C-51 resume, the government has come out swinging with what they consider to be a star witness – the sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent, who of course thinks that the bill is necessary. The problem, of course, is that she really has no credentials other than being victim of a tragedy, and if you ask me, the government is pretty unseemly in exploiting her grief to push legislation that actual experts are not convinced about. It’s not the first time they’ve used this tactic, and it hasn’t always worked – remember Amanda Todd’s mother, who wasn’t ready to hand over civil liberties to try and halt the spectre of cyber-bulling. Not that it stopped Stephen Blaney from touting Louise Vincent over and over again in QP yesterday, and he’s likely to repeat her praise for the bill today and going forward whenever criticism is levelled at the bill. Other witnesses yesterday included former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who wants more oversight in the bill, and at least one other small-c conservative commentator, who has her own doubts about the bill, in case you were wondering if all of the opposition was coming from the “loony left.” Elsewhere, Conservative MP Michael Chong is now adding his voice to those who want more oversight, while the National Firearms Association, who have expressed a great deal of scepticism over the bill, has pulled out from testifying.

Continue reading →

Roundup: What the video tells us

Posted on by

We finally got our look at the Ottawa shooter video yesterday, minus some 18 seconds that the RCMP deemed too sensitive with relation to their investigation. Through the less than a minute, we learnt a few things – he was lucid, he gave motives about our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he wanted to attack soldiers in Canada so as to show that we weren’t safe, and that we should get out of countries trying to re-establish religious laws. Okay. As a very smart person on my Twitter feed said, “terrorist boilerplate.” The fact that the autopsy showed none of the usual intoxicants in his system also shows that he wasn’t doing this out of some drug-addled episode, and there seemed to be little indication that he was having a mental health episode either. It really does dismantle some of the hedging about his motivations and does cement it as a terrorism incident – or at the very least, a terrorism-inspired incident. That said, when you pull it apart a little, the fact that what he did say was such boilerplate that you pretty much could go down a checklist as he said them speaks to the whole improvised nature of what went down, and even if he was under the influence of someone else, none of this had the hallmarks of being a well orchestrated or financed incident. More to the point, the RCMP commissioner noted in his comments during the scrums that he really didn’t want this released until after they concluded their investigation, but that he was pretty much forced into it by PCO, which leads to questions about the government trying to orchestrate its timing so as to build the narrative about why C-51 is so necessary and needs to be rammed through the process. Remind everyone that terrorism at home is a clear and present threat, and hope that people will go along with whatever the government offer as a solution, even if it’s not the best one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Deciding on a witness list

Posted on by

We have our preliminary witness list for the C-51 hearings, and lo and behold, none of those four former prime ministers who signed that open letter are on it – and it’s just as well, because if there’s one thing the country doesn’t need, it’s former prime ministers to be arm-chair governing and telling people what to do. Yes, they raised concerns, which is fine, but bringing them to a Commons committee would be little more than an exercise in opposition MPs trying to get them to say how awful the current government is, while the governing party MPs would be doing their best to discount those former prime ministers because of previous scandals, etcetera, etcetera. The only real purpose in having them testify would be for the media circus value, which I’m not sure helps anyone in this situation, and would probably detract from the seriousness of the issues at hand. The same goes for former Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that Justices Arbour and Major are possibilities on the list, though you could maybe convince me about Justice O’Connor – a former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario – to talk about his conclusions from the Arar inquiry, which haven’t yet been addressed. Arar himself is also on the list, as are some former members of SIRC and a few different activists who have concerns of their own, which does the balance the list out so that it’s not just security experts but also those who have civil society concerns. It should be interesting nevertheless, but hopefully they won’t all be crammed onto overstuffed panels where nobody really gets a chance to speak – though that does seem to be the way things go these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eight whole meetings

Posted on by

With the C-51 now before the Commons public safety committee, various kinds of shenanigans were played there, the NDP essentially launching a filibuster throughout the day in order to get more time to hear from witnesses, and they did get more time – about eight days, instead of three. They had proposed some 25 hearings, which included over a constituency week so that they could still meet the same deadline the government proposed, but they didn’t bite. It was also suggested that this may have been the government’s plan the whole time – give them a few more days and they’ll seem reasonable. Perhaps, but that didn’t seem to be the case if you listened to the Conservatives on the committee, who seemed to think that talk about rights was somehow an unreasonable thing. Online, people claiming to be from Anonymous are hoping an online campaign will force the government to back down on the bill, the way the government responded to backlash over Vic Toews’ lawful access bill, but I’m not sure they’ll have the same success, especially as the government is fairly confident that they can get the public to go along with the bill by holding the threat of terrorism over them – especially as new stories of people heading over to fight with ISIS become almost daily news at this point. The NDP tried to get in on the online campaign game and tried to get #StandWithRosane to trend – meaning their deputy critic Rosane Doré Lefebvre, leading the filibuster effort. Not surprisingly, it didn’t trend, for fairly obvious reasons, which makes one think that the NDP still hasn’t quite cracked the social media campaign that the election will supposedly be about. Perhaps we can call it a “hashtag fail,” as it were.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Review or oversight?

Posted on by

With C-51 now before committee, and the process of hashing out hearing schedules and witness lists begun, the debate continues over its merits. The story about the young Edmonton who went to support ISIS and CSIS didn’t stop her – because they’re not empowered to disrupt – is adding fuel to the fire, while it’s also bringing out a lot of conspiracy theories that are way out there, like ones that state that the terrorism angle is just a smokescreen so that the government can go after environmentalists and First Nations who oppose their resource development projects. (For the record, I have a really hard time seeing that, especially when you start intimating that it’s at the behest of corporations). The question of oversight remains top of mind, particularly as the Liberals are making that the hill they want to die on – or at least fight an election over – to which Philippe Lagassé writes a very interesting piece about the nature of parliamentary oversight committees in comparable Westminster democracies. In particular, these committees and the one that the Liberals have proposed here in Canada is not actually oversight either – it’s a review committee, like SIRC, only broader because it would review all national security agencies as a whole rather than in silos as what little oversight or review mechanisms to do currently (an four years later, talk about better integrating oversight remains just that). More importantly, however, Lagassé notes that opposition parties need to be very careful about how much oversight that they demand parliamentarians have because involving them too much can make them complicit in decisions that they should be holding the government to account for, and by swearing in a group of MPs to secrecy to see the materials, it effectively silences them because they can’t talk about what they know, and it can take such material out of sight and out of mind – as what happened with the Afghan detainee documents. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have more parliamentary review of national security, but we need to be cognisant of its aims and limits.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Closure and privilege

Posted on by

It was wholly depressing the way in which the whole matter was rushed through. After the imposition of closure – not time allocation but actual closure – the government rammed through their motion to put all Hill security under the auspices of the RCMP without any safeguards to protect parliamentary privilege. After all, the RCMP reports to the government, and Parliament is there to hold government to account and therefore has privileges to protect that – the ability to have their own security being a part of that. Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger tried to amend the government’s motion to make it explicit that the Speakers of both chambers were the ultimate authorities, and the government said good idea – and then voted against it. And so it got pushed through, privilege be damned, with minimal debate and no committee study or expert testimony. The Senate, however, is putting up more of a fight, and the Liberals in that chamber have raised the privilege issue, and the Speaker there thinks there is merit to their concerns, and has suspended debate until he can rule on it. And this Speaker, incidentally, is far more aware of the issues of privilege and the role of Parliament and the Senate than his Commons counterpart seems to be, and he could very well rule the proposal out of order. One hopes so, and once again it seems that our hopes rest on the Senate doing its job, because the Commons isn’t doing theirs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chris Alexander’s niqab nonsense

Posted on by

In a mind-boggling moment of specious logic and dog-whistle politics as its worst, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander asserted that people who defend women wearing the niqab are inherently defending violence against women. No, seriously. I’m not even sure where to begin, from the patriarchal assertions that deny women agency to make their own choices about what they wear, to the completely false moral equivalence between the two, all while trying to score political points on the xenophobic attitudes of a portion of the population that feels uncomfortable by the Other that confronts them (or as in the case of the vast majority of the country, something that doesn’t actually confront them but they’ve seen on television and are weirded out by). More than anything, it’s exceedingly odd that this is a government that likes to get up on any high horse it finds and trumpets the fact that it champions freedom of religion around the globe. Look, we even created a special ambassador for the post, and pretty much overturned the doctrine that there shouldn’t be a hierarchy of rights, and yet here we are privileging religion above other rights in our foreign policy. And yet, the moment these women choose to demonstrate their religious observance by wearing the niqab, this government freaks out and says no, that’s terribly, you can’t do it at these times and places. And yes, I know that the niqab is really more of a cultural observance than a religious one, but many of these women believe it to be religious, so unless we want to go full colonial on them, perhaps the government – and Alexander in particular – needs to rethink the logic of their position before they make any more boneheaded pronouncements.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All About Eve, Part 2: The Revenge

Posted on by

It was a move that shocked pretty much everyone – Conservative parliamentary secretary Eve Adams crossed the floor to the Liberals, and called out Stephen Harper as “mean-spirited” and a bully. Of course, Adams is not without controversy, with her botched nomination and allegations of shenanigans, and the news from the Conservative Party that she was denied a further attempt to contest a nomination – not that it impacted her parliamentary secretary role or duties, which they apparently still had confidence in her carrying out. This makes her look to be self-serving in her decision to approach the Liberals, though it sounds like she approached Trudeau before the final no from the Conservatives. There are also suggestions that her relations with Harper started to deteriorate after a meeting last month, but it’s all still unclear at this point. For the Liberals, Adams played up her roots in the Progressive Conservatives – a party which is no longer and whose bona fides are fading from the modern Conservative Party (which, to be fair, has also tossed social conservatism in favour of base populism). Trudeau is trying to re-capture those blue Liberal voters who voted Conservative in the past couple of elections, as well as to get the Red Tories who still exist, particularly in Ontario but also in Alberta, to vote Liberal instead. Now she’s going to try and contest one of the still open seats in the GTA, but if any Liberals want to send a message that she’s not welcome in the party for her past Conservative sins, well, this is their chance to let their displeasure be heard. As for Adams, she leaves from a prestigious position with the government to the third party, and she goes from strict message control to a place where she’s going to have to do a lot more heavy lifting as she takes on a critic portfolio. Maybe she can make something of it and prove herself. She’s got about 14 sitting weeks to make something of her change. Then there’s the question of Adams’ spouse, Dmitri Soudas, former right-hand-man of the PM and former director of the Conservative Party. He says he supports her move, and has already made threatening tweets to Conservative MPs who have tried to be too snarky about it, but the Liberals have stated that he will have no formal role in the campaign other than supporting Adams with her nomination. It was, however, pretty rich of the Liberals to cast questions about this dynamic as sexist, because they were a “power couple” and that makes it relevant. I personally am curious about some of the wider-ranging implications, such as how the Soudas-Leo Housakos power structure will carry on, as that is currently part of the cabal at the centre of Senate leadership. The loss of Soudas from the Conservative fold could resonate there as well. Paul Wells offers some snarky – but entirely deserved – comments on the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564867569836765184

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564910542037319680

Continue reading →

Roundup: Supreme Court okays assisted dying

Posted on by

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 9-0 that struck down laws around doctor-assisted dying in this country, so long as the person is a competent adult with a condition that they have no hope of recovering from, be it terminal or an acute disability. As well, it’s worth noting that while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the minority in the 1993 Sue Rodriguez case, she led a unanimous court this time. The ruling is welcomed by those who live with pain and who know that it will only get worse, as well as by Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher, who has been fighting for these changes in parliament. The head of the Canadian Medical Association wants there to be a process to set the rules around this new right. Emmett Macfarlane parses the decision and shows how it paves the way for governments, which have been too politically paralysed to deal with these kinds of issues. Carissima Mathen says the ruling not only shows the ways in which laws evolve, but that it’s a call to action for governments – and explains the ruling on Power Play. Jonathan Kay writes about the perversity of the current law, where the assisted suicide that was legal was to starve oneself in a cruel manner. Andrew Coyne fears this is a first step to some kind of death-on-demand system.

https://twitter.com/heathermallick/status/563782441681584131

https://twitter.com/kylekirkup/status/563720759080910848

Continue reading →