Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: Mandating bilingual tweets

Posted on by

The Official Languages Commissioner has decreed that cabinet ministers should tweet in both official languages, which seems like a fairly concerning decree when you look at how some of those ministers are using the Twitter Machine to engage in some actual dialogue with actual Canadians (and some journalists too) about issues, without it all being canned statements and talking points. The caveat to the Commissioner’s statement is that they must use both official languages when communicating “objectives, initiatives, decisions and measures taken or proposed by a ministry or the government.” In other words, those canned links to press releases. The thing is, those are already being tweeted out by the official department accounts, whereas the ministers tweeting – at least for the good ones – are more “personal” and less filtered. Those are where the value in Twitter lies, and if the objective is to simply turn ministerial Twitter accounts to official releases, then what’s the point? I think this may be an instance where the Commissioner needs to perhaps re-evaluate social media and the engagement that happens over it.

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 →

Roundup: Candour, oversight, and the lack thereof

Posted on by

As Parliament debates a pair of bills on expanding the powers of CSIS, a case involving CSIS and foreign wiretaps was granted leave by the Supreme Court, meaning it’ll be heard sometime later this year. Why this is important is because it involves a Federal Court judge chastening CSIS for basically misleading the court into what they were going to do with a warrant they obtained, and if you’ve paid attention to what the Conservatives has been saying about their new anti-terror bill this past week, it’s been a lot of “we don’t need oversight because they’ll need judicial warrants!” Well, as this case shows, sometimes CSIS doesn’t tell these judges the truth when they go to get those warrants, so you see where the problem lies. Meanwhile, Terry Milewski shows us the times when SIRC didn’t really do their job when it comes to overseeing CSIS – just as the government insists that they’re “robust oversight.” Oh, and there were those times when CSIS wasn’t really honest with SIRC either. But by all means, let’s keep insisting that the status quo of a review committee is just fine instead of actual oversight. Nothing to see here, move along. And while the government continues to insist that oversight over intelligence agencies are “needless red tape,” Aaron Wherry reminds us that red tape is pretty much the role of Parliament, meant to constrain the powers of government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Liberals say okay

Posted on by

It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design

Posted on by

An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A look at the weeks ahead

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and to set the stage, Stephen Harper delivered a speech to supporters in Ottawa to announce that he would balance the budget, deliver new anti-terror legislation by Friday, and generally set the pre-election stage that this sitting is going to consist of. Because if there’s anything Canadians are really looking forward to, it’s a nine-month-long campaign. Meanwhile, can someone please point out to me where exactly a Liberal government dramatically hiked taxes, as Harper claimed? Because I’m drawing a blank on that one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two rulings and a report for the Mounties

Posted on by

The RCMP were in the centre of the spotlight yesterday, with two Supreme Court judgements and a fact-finding report on the Moncton shootings all having been released. Regarding the former, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the ban on RCMP from collectively bargaining was unconstitutional, which opens the door for them to form a recognised police association (though they seem to be shying away from a full-blown union). This ruling has further reaching consequences as it also resolved some of the problems in the existing jurisprudence around freedom of association, which has been in a fairly bad state for the past four years or so since a previous decision introduced a great deal of confusion into the law. The second decision related to a challenge of the government’s wage rollbacks imposed on the Force in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis, but the RCMP lost that challenge because of the fairly narrow way in which it was constructed and argued. As for the Moncton report, much of it focuses on the lack of training and slow roll-out of new carbines, confusion among communications and problems related to body armour, many of which are problems that date back to the Mayerthorpe massacre of four Mounties. Where these two stories intersect, beyond the RCMP issue itself, is that police association members are saying that they could have addressed some of these problems and had timelines established as part of a collective bargaining process, which of course they don’t have.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting attendance matters

Posted on by

The Ottawa Citizen has been carrying on their look at MP attendance in its many forms, and this time turned to the voting records of ordinary MPs. The best ones tended to be Conservative MPs, while the worst were independent and Bloc MPs for the most part, though a few other exceptions were noted, in particular because those MPs were battling cancer (like Judy Foote and Peter Kent). One of the notables for terrible voter attendance was Sana Hassainia, an NDP-turned-independent whose reasons for leaving the party were apparently over the position on Israel, though there was backbiting at the time about her attendance. Hassainia’s issue is her small children – she’s had two since she became an MP, and since most votes tend to be around 5:30 in the evening three, sometimes four nights per week, she claims she can’t get childcare and has to miss them. That’s always one of those claims that bothers me because it’s not like these votes are surprises – they happen on a scheduled basis, so you would think that she would be able to better schedule childcare. As well, she’s not without means – she makes a lot of money as an MP, and has the wherewithal to hire a minder or a nanny who can accommodate those times when she’s needed to vote. And it doesn’t matter how engaged she says she is with her constituents – her job is to vote, and that means showing up to vote, and to stand up and be seen to be voting, which not only has symbolic import, but it’s also a time when MPs are actually all in the same place so contacts can be made, and she can engage with ministers on files she has concerns with because they’re right there. This is an important thing, and it should be considered nothing less than a dereliction of her duties if she can’t see that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Support for Charlie Hebdo

Posted on by

In the wake of the deaths at French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday, we saw an outpouring of support from Canadian officials yesterday. Stephen Harper drew parallels to the attacks that happened here and in Sydney, Australia, in his statement, while Thomas Mulcair took the National Press Theatre to make his own statement, which also had the added symbolism of speaking to journalists in our own space after members of our profession were just gunned down. Justin Trudeau tweeted his support, but as he was flying off to the Arctic, wasn’t available for the media, and Marc Garneau was out in his stead. Editorial cartoonists around the world mourned the loss of their compatriots. Some of the better reaction pieces include Ishmael Daro, Colby Cosh, Scott Gilmore, Aisha Sherazi, Andrew Coyne, Matthew Fisher, and Terry Glavin.

Continue reading →