Tag Archives: RCMP

QP: Senate reform questions from the past

Posted on by

Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More responsibility from failure

Posted on by

The OPP report on the October 22nd shooting is out, and highlights a number of lapses that happened on that day, but among them all, it should probably be highlighted that a lot of the problem seems to be with the RCMP who are patrolling the exterior of the buildings on the Hill, and that they had a minute-and-a-half to do something about the shooter and didn’t. (Some of what people saw during the shooting is described here). Not that there weren’t problems inside, as some of the bullets that flew were from security personnel and not the shooter, including the one that lodged itself in to the door of the Railway Room, where the NDP were having their caucus meeting. It was also raised in the report that the RCMP were dealing with budget cuts, so it does raise the question as to whether their limited resources played a factor in what happened, be it in resourcing or equipment. It also raises a lot of questions moving forward because the government made a particularly top-down move to have the RCMP take over the oversight of all Hill security from its previous silos (remember that Commons and Senate security forces are separate because of privilege issues). If the RCMP couldn’t manage the situation outside of the buildings, how will they be any better overseeing and coordinating things inside? As well, it needs to be stressed that this new system, under RCMP management, has been imposed hastily and without enough discussion and consultation – the government put the motion under closure, and its implementation is in the omnibudget bill with not enough time for proper scrutiny, particularly as many of the questions about what it all means still haven’t been answered yet, like what the role for the Sergeant-at-Arms will be under this new regime. Speaker Scheer did acknowledge that parliamentarians are complaining, but he seems to think that everything will work out fine. How can we be sure of that if we’re rushing this through and not thinking clearly enough about it, or consulting enough with all of the stakeholders and taking this report into consideration, which hadn’t been completed when the motion was passed and the implementation put into the budget bill. Meanwhile, the fact that RCMP are now carrying submachine guns on the Hill has a lot of its denizens unsettled.

Continue reading →

QP: More reconciliation scripts

Posted on by

Even though it was a Wednesday, all of the party leaders were off in Rideau Hall for the closing ceremony of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That left Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about the refusal of the government to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mark Strahl responded by reading a talking point about those rights already being entrenched in the constitution. Leslie listed off the various ways in which the government was failing Aboriginals, to which Strahl listed their successes, like the apology and striking the TRC in the first place. Leslie demanded the education funding gap for First Nations be closed, and Strahl read a condemnation of the attitudes that gave rise to the residential schools. Peter Julian then picked up, repeating Leslie’s first question in English. Strahl gave a list of accomplishments, and when Julian closed with a blanket condemnation, Strahl repeated his admonishment that the NDP voted against the good things they did. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals in French, saying that his party immediately accepted all 94 recommendations in the report and wondered if the government would do the same. Strahl said that they would consider the recommendations in light of the full report, to be delivered at the end of the year. Ralph Goodale then picked up in English on the same topic, and got much the same answer from Strahl. For the final question, Marc Garneau called out Conservative contradictions on supply management as part of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and Maxime Bernier  gave a single-word response that they would protect it.

Continue reading →

QP: Committing to reconciliation

Posted on by

Monday, and none of the leaders were present for QP, as is usual now. In fact, the Prime Minister had planned a photo op at the very same time, because this is apparently how he shows respect for the institution. Megan Leslie led off, noting the a forthcoming Truth and Reconciliation report, and asked if the PM would heed the call of the First Nations. Bernard Valcourt responded by reminding the House of the government’s apology to Residential Schools survivors, and that it was important to support the work of the commission. Leslie asked again for engagement on the file, and Valcourt said they were encouraging reconciliation. Leslie noted the legacy of the Residential Schools, such as poverty and crime, and wanted a commitment to honour the findings of the report. Valcourt thanked the commission and looked forward to receiving the report. Romeo Saganash expressed his dismay at the government’s actions following the apology, to which Valcourt reiterated the commitment to reconciliation on the part of the government. Saganash brought up the underfunding of on-reserve First Nations, to which Valcourt noted they had taken significant steps to improve the situation of Aboriginals across Canada. Carolyn Bennett also brought up the forthcoming report, and wanted a commitment to concrete actions to promote healing and reconciliation. Valcourt repeated their thanks to the commissioners and survivors, and their commitment to work with a First Nations to address the challenges they inherited. John McCallum was up next, and asked about pension insecurity in the private sector, and wanted an admission that voluntary programmes were not enough. Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the half-truth talking points about Trudeau’s comments on Ontario’s plan. McCallum gave it another go in English, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Establishing a wedge narrative

Posted on by

It really was a little bit embarrassing – or would be, if he had even a millilitre of shame. Pierre Poilievre rushed everyone to a microphone yesterday morning to announce the “next part” of the Trudeau Tax™ that he’s trying to push as a talking point – that Justin Trudeau said that he would impose a new mandatory “payroll tax” for pensions like is happening in Ontario, with a dollar figure attached and everything. Which, of course, is a complete fabrication as Trudeau said no such thing. I know, because I was there sitting in front of him when he talked about CPP enhancement in his Wednesday press conference. And throughout Members’ Statements and Question Period, as many Conservatives as possible tried to make this very same claim – Harper going so far as to call it a “$1000 pay cut” – even repeating it in response to NDP questions. Way to make them feel relevant! Much in the way that Trudeau’s supposed “gaffe” about fairness was a legitimate point of philosophical difference that is being turned into an attack line, this hint at a policy discussion yet-to-come, which would need to be discussed with the provinces in any eventuality, is being morphed into something sinister and being associated with specific dollar figures where no pronouncement has been made – not that facts have ever mattered to the Conservative attack machine. (Witness “budgets balance themselves” which actually followed the phrase “when the economy grows,” which is true and the Conservatives have said so themselves on numerous occasions). So while we again have an area of legitimate philosophical difference – whether Canadians are saving enough, whether a mandatory plan is the best vehicle to fund retirements – it’s being turned into this dumbed-down populist talking point that obliterates nuance or the truth about what was actually said. But apparently veracity doesn’t matter because election. Or something. (But if you want to discuss nuance and policy, Jennifer Robson is glad we’re talking CPP expansion again.)

Continue reading →

QP: Shoehorning in the Duffy issue

Posted on by

Despite it being a Tuesday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair, and Elizabeth May. Alas. Mulcair led off, asking about the destruction of records on the long-gun registry despite the Access to Information requests. Stephen Blaney insisted that the RCMP respects all laws and the will of parliament — which, you know, hadn’t been recorded because it was simply a bill at the time. Mulcair demanded to know who ordered the records deleted, and Blaney didn’t deviate. Mulcair tried to stretch it to the audit on Senate residencies, and Blaney insisted the NDP should be given a free vote on an upcoming gun bill. Mulcair insisted that the PM release the statement that Duffy apparently signed about his residency, to which Paul Calandra stood up and reminded the NDP about their satellite offices. Mulcair kept trying to tie the Duffy affair into things, and Calandra repeated his demanded that the NDP pay back the money from those offices. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, decrying the focus on TFSAs instead of focusing on those who need help. Pierre Poilievre listed a couple of scenarios where seniors use the accounts. Scott Brison hammered on the TFSAs and the PBO’s statements on them, and Joe Oliver actually answered, listing some figures about them as a kind of non sequitur. Brison noted the GIS payments affected by TFSAs, but Oliver quoted some people who support their moves.

Continue reading →

QP: Talking points on a list

Posted on by

Monday in the Commons, and true to form, none of the leaders were present — never mind that there are a mere four weeks left. Megan Leslie led off, asking about the GHG emissions targets announced by the government. Leona Aglukkaq got up and read a statement about their sector-by-sector approach, and that they wouldn’t implement a carbon tax. Leslie raised the use of offset credits, which the government used to decry, and Aglukkaq simply read the next non sequitur talking point on her list. Leslie then moved onto the PMO interference in the audit of Mike Duffy, to which Paul Calandra reminded her that it was before the courts. Peter Julian asked the same again in French, and got the same response from Calandra in English, and brought up the NDP satellite offices. Julian tried to bring the rest of the Senate into the mix, but Calandra gave a pro forma response about cooperation, and reminded them about the satellite offices. Emmanuel Dubourg led for the Liberals, and asked another youth unemployment as a way of touting the Liberal plan. Pierre Poilievre touted the government’s  plan in response. Ralph Goodale was up next, and slammed the government’s growth record, to which Poilievre repeated his Tax Cuts, Training and Trade™ talking point. For his final question, Goodale decried the government’s child tax plans, to which Poilievre insisted that he was wrong, and that even the PBO said the government plan was okay.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eroding financial controls

Posted on by

Talk about the “permanent campaign” has been around for much longer than most people credit it for. In fact, the earliest mention I’ve seen was in a letter that then-PC youth leader Joe Clark sent to then-party leader John Diefenbaker warning about the implications of the permanent campaign, and well, things have only gone downhill from there. The advent of the “fixed election date” did nothing to temper the permanent campaign – instead of fearing an election that could come at any time, we are instead treated to a fixed date that everyone builds their campaigning around, and year-long campaigns are certainly now the norm, following in more of an American example than we have traditionally had in this country. Amidst it all, the former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, is warning that the fixed election date is eroding the campaign rules that we’ve developed over years, and in particular, campaign finance rules. Those rules, built for the era of when a campaign could come at any point, have no sway over the election spending limits that happen outside of the writ period, which means that they can spend as much as they want, particularly on advertising, and don’t have to report it. When the writ does eventually drop, people will have been bombarded by this messaging over the summer, and it’ll get pretty tired. But Kingsley is right – we have developed the best system in the world for election spending controls, and the permanent campaign of the fixed-election date is undermining that. There is a bill in the Senate that has stalled at committee for years that would see the same caps from an election apply to the writ period also apply to the pre-writ period, so that if you do a blitz of pre-writ advertising, well, it’ll deduct from your total spending cap in the writ period. It’s a novel idea, but it’s no surprise that nobody has picked up on it. It goes to reinforce that while fixed election dates sound swell on the face of it, if you look a little bit deeper, you’ll find that all of their supposed good aspects are in fact swamped by the unintended bad ones, which is what we seem to have completely taken over. Time to pull the plug on them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead

Posted on by

It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calling in the OPP

Posted on by

It took MPs long enough to respond, but one supposes that it’s about time they did. On Thursday of last week, the Information Commissioner issued her damning special report on the RCMP destroying records that were under Access to Information requests, related to the long-gun registry, and the government is now proposing legislation to make it retroactively legal (more in my column here). No MP other than Wayne Easter bothered to actually say something until yesterday – five days later – at which point the committees decided to get involved. The NDP are moving a motion in Ethics committee, which has jurisdiction over Access to Information policy, while the Liberals are proposing similar hearings in the Public Safety committee where they can haul the RCMP Commissioner before them. Still, it’s another week’s delay, and there’s no guarantee they’ll get the hearings given the limited number of sitting days left, and the fact that government MPs can block their request in camera. That having been said, it looks like Suzanne Legault’s recommendation that charges be laid for the destruction of those records might actually come to fruition, as the Attorney General’s office did forward the request on to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn has asked the OPP to investigate. We’ll see if the government proposes to still go ahead with retroactively changing the law while there is an active police investigation, but if they stick to their guns, that they’re just “closing a loophole” (which is not true), then they just might.

Continue reading →