Tag Archives: Status of Women

QP: Concern trolls and pabulum scripts

Posted on by

Following Monday’s fairly dismal attendance, the benches were full and all of the leaders were present for Question Period today. Andrew Scheer led off, concern trolling about the StatsCan plans to access financial transaction data, and Justin Trudeau read a script about evidence-based policy. Scheer listed off a number of data breaches by the government, to which Trudeau read that the Conservatives were pretending to be opposed to StatsCan data including the long form census, while they would protect the privacy of Canadians. Scheer insisted this wasn’t about evidence but it was about violating fundamental rights, and this time Trudeau reiterated his same responses without a script. Scheer switched to French to ask what duties absent MP Nicola Di Iorio was assigned, to which Trudeau took a script to say that the MP indicated that he would resign in January and that he indicated what he was working on. Scheer tried again in English, and Trudeau read the English lines in response. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded the government support their motion on spending the full Veteran’s Affairs budget (which is a deliberate misunderstanding of what those lapsed funds represent), and Trudeau picked up a script to read the list of things they’ve done for Veterans. Caron switched to French to ask about the accidental underpayment of veterans’ benefits, to which Trudeau read some more pabulum about their increased financial support in the face of Conservative cuts, and added that they were supporting the motion. Daniel Johns stood up to repeat both questions, and Trudeau read the English versions of his same two pabulum scripts.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1059895812619038720

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating the future shape of the Commons

Posted on by

In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Targeting the journalists

Posted on by

It has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives plan to wage war against the media as part of their election strategy, which you’d think is funny because We The Media aren’t running in the election. The problem is that this isn’t actually about the media, but rather about undermining the foundations of the institution and the trust that people place in it. Why? Because in the wake of the growing success of populist leaders and movements, they’ve decided to abandon all shame and simply straight-up lie. Most of the media won’t call them lies, because they tend to aim for both-sides-ism “balance” that tends to look like “one side says this, the other side says that, you decide” in its construction, and Scheer and company have decided to exploit that for all it’s worth. And if you do call them on those lies, well, you’re the one who is suspect, whose motives are driven by partisanship, or because you’re looking for some kind of government job, (or my favourite, that I’m allegedly performing sexual favours for the PM).

What I find particularly rich are the Conservatives operatives behind this campaign of harassment is how they insist that they don’t rise to Trumpian levels, but you could have fooled me. They may not say “fake news,” but they intimate it at every opportunity. And if you call them out on a lie (which doesn’t happen often), then they go on the attack. It’s happened to me on numerous occasions (and usually the attacks are themselves wrapped in more lies and distortions), but then again, I’ve also decided to call a lie a lie and not couch it in both-sides-ism. As much as they insist they’re just “pointing out specific inaccuracies” or “countering criticisms,” that’s another lie, and we all have the receipts to prove it.

In the meantime, they’ll content themselves with this sense of martyrdom, that they’re just so hard done byfrom the media, that the coverage of the Liberals is “glowing” while we do nothing but attack the Conservatives (have you actually read any reporting?) and that apparently the pundits are all taking the Liberals’ sides (seriously?) and that justifies their need to “go for the jugular.” But when you’re accustomed to blaming others to assuage your hurt feelings, you think that your attacks righteous, and that’s where we are. So yeah, this is going to get worse, it’s going to get Trumpian, and they’re going to keep insisting that they would never demonise the profession, but don’t believe them. It’s in their interests to undermine journalism, and they lack any shame in doing so.

Continue reading →

QP: More Mark Norman insinuations

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town but not in Question Period, Andrew Scheer was also away for reasons undisclosed. Candice Bergen led off on the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman issue again, demanding that the government turn over recordings of Cabinet meetings where shipbuilding contracts were discussed. Ralph Goodale got up to respond by reminding her that this is before the courts and they can’t discuss it. Bergen raised the spectre that the government was destroying records because of the Ontario Liberals did in relation to the gas plants scandal. Goodale reminded her of the Standing Orders that state that matters before the courts can’t be discussed. Bergen tried again on the same insinuations, and Goodale said that the government follows the law. Gérard Deltell got up to try again in French, and Goodale reminded him about the independence of the courts. Deltell reminded him that Paul Martin released records for the sponsorship scandal, and Goodale cautioned him that commentary like that was not permitted. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding expungements instead of pardons for former simple possession convictions. Goodale reminded him that the old system didn’t work which was why they changed it, and that they were putting in a new expedited process for those pardons. Caron asked again in French, and Caron reminded him that the expungements for when the law itself was discriminatory such as when it criminalised people for being gay. Hélène Laverdière got up next, and asked the government to apply the Magnitsky Act on Saudi officials responsible for the disappearance and possible death of Jamal Khashoggi. Chrystia Freeland assured her that they were working with partners to call for answers, but when Laverdière asked again in English, bringing up our arms sales, and Freeland gave a more pointed response about the G7 foreign minister’s statement that she led.

Continue reading →

QP: Playing politics with a child murderer

Posted on by

While the PM was fresh off the plane from New York to attend QP, just in time for his photo-PMQ exercise. Andrew Scheer led off, reading some condemnation about a child murderer being transferred from a federal prison to an Aboriginal healing lodge. Trudeau said that they have asked officials to review the decision. Scheer repeated the question in English, demanding action and not a review, and Trudeau read the same response in English. Scheer demanded that the PM reverse the decision, and this time, Trudeau read a response from Steven Blaney when he was minister in 2013 about the government not controlling the security classification. Scheer insisted that the government had tools to use to reverse the decision, to which Trudeau said that she was always classified as medium security, and they were ensuring that people do their jobs. Scheer laid on the fears that parents have about this kind of killer, and Trudeau said he would let Canadians make the determination as to who is politicising the situation, and that the prisoner in question remained in a medium security facility. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, pointing to outstanding gender inequities in the Indian Act. Trudeau responded that they had taken great steps, but still had work to do. Rachel Blaney repeated the question in English, and this time Trudeau read a statement saying that the numbers in the media were inflated and incorrect, but they were still working to reform the Indian Act. Niki Ashton demanded housing for First Nations, and Trudeau said that they were moving forward to correct the situation with $8.6 billion in investments, and that their forthcoming National Housing Strategy has an Indigenous component. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet repeated the question in French, and Trudeau reiterated the same response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oh noes! Girls in STEM!

Posted on by

Yesterday’s online sniping between MPs had to do with a profile of Conservative MP Rachael Harder in the Globe and Mail. In it, Harder (again) bemoaned that she feels the Liberals are trying to push their own version of feminism and added in some garden-variety whinging that the government apparently has it in for Christians (despite the fact that the PM himself has said that he’s a practicing Catholic). But Harder’s “proof” of how the government is pushing their own version of feminism is – wait for it – the fact that they’re spending money to encourage more girls to get interested in STEM careers. Wow. Such ideology!

I will add that part of the Twitter sniping had to do with the fact that the Liberals blocked the attempt to have Harder installed as chair of the Status of Women committee, and once again, nobody has bothered to point out the fact that as critic, it would not only have been inappropriate for her to be Chair, but it would have made zero sense given that committee chairs are supposed to act in a neutral capacity and not vote unless it’s to break a (rare) tie – something that is antithetical to the role of critic that Harder held. And the fact that Andrew Scheer tried to manoeuvre her into the position was a cynical ploy to make the Liberals look like intolerant bigots (and they took the bait), but nobody dares to call that fact out. Instead, we get Harder and her supporters whinging about how mean the Liberals are to her, while Harder herself seems mystified that a party that prides itself on defending the Charter rights of Canadians would have a problem with an adherent to an ideology that would deny LGBT people full equality and which tells women that they shouldn’t have control over their bodies when it comes to reproduction. You can disagree with it, but don’t act like it’s a surprise that they draw a line there.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1014212083012063232

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1014321593047224321

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about Scheer’s assertions

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer went to Calgary yesterday to talk to that city’s Chamber of Commerce and said a few things that I feel should probably stand a bit of questioning. Like the fact that he thinks it’s a “red flag” to use taxpayer funds to backstop the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. And it’s fair that there’s scepticism about governments essentially subsidizing private business, but it’s his assertion that “governments investing tax dollars in energy projects is not the optimal solution.” Sure, it’s not optimal, but it’s complete and total historical revisionism to suggestion that this is somehow new or novel. Given the ways that governments, both federal and provincial, have de facto subsidized the development of the oilsands with generous royalty breaks and other tax incentives has been sinking a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into energy projects. And yes, there was a whole national crisis that had a hand in bringing down a federal government around the government sinking money into a cross-country pipeline.

But the other statement that Scheer makes that I find a bit puzzling is this continued insistence that somehow provinces were forced to “take matters into their own hands” over the Trans Mountain issue because the federal government showed a lack of leadership. And I’m still trying to figure out how this works. For starters, which provinces is he referring to? BC, which took it upon themselves to challenge federal jurisdiction in a naked attempt to appease a coalition partner? Or Alberta, who escalated tactics on the basis of a press release? “They should use all of the tools at their disposal,” Scheer insists of the federal government, and yet I’m not sure what exactly they were supposed to do. They already have jurisdiction – trying to re-assert it would imply that there was a question when there isn’t one, and creating doubt would embolden opponents. There wasn’t anything to challenge in the courts because BC had only put out a press release, and nobody even had a clue about what specific questions BC was raising until they filed their court reference this past week. How would going half-cocked have helped matters? But demanding they “use all the tools” sounds an awful lot like hand-wavey nonsense that serves to only invoke the politician’s syllogism than it does to suggest meaningful action. Kinder Morgan, meanwhile, has used this exercise in threatening to pull out in order to exact political leverage (and the fact that a private company is attempting to blackmail governments is not a good look), but there remain questions outside of all of this as to their own obligations to fulfil the conditions imposed on them by the National Energy Board for continued approval of the project. That can’t be glossed over.

I’m also curious what else he thinks the federal government should have done to silence BC’s objections, considering that he’s also supporting the Saskatchewan government’s attempt to push back against the imposition of the federal carbon backstop price. Is his position that federal governments should bigfoot provinces to get pipelines, but that they don’t dare interfere in areas of shared jurisdiction like the environment? That’s an interesting needle to thread, and somehow, I doubt we’ll see him attempting to do so anytime soon.

Continue reading →

QP: Poilievre makes a scene

Posted on by

A grey day in Ottawa, but today, most of the leaders were away. This left Candice Bergen to lead off, wondering how many organisations got job grants to protest energy projects. Jim Carr replied that they will get Trans Mountain built, preemptively called out the false equivalence between protesting energy projects and hiring students to distribute flyers with graphic images of aborted foetuses. Bergen insisted that the Liberals want to shut down the energy sector, and Carr dismissed the concerns. Bergen demanded Carr tell the prime minister that giving funding to these protesters is wrong, and Carr reminded her that the Harper government gave twice as much money to the same group. Alain Rayes took over in French to rail about the same issue, and Carr noted his recent trip to Fort McMurray to highlight the jobs in the energy sector. Rayes tried again, and in response, Carr regaled him with a tale about how they engaged in a better process of Indigenous consultation where the previous government failed. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, demanding the government come clean that they rigged the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Carr reiterated that they engaged with Indigenous communities in unheard of consultations. Caron tried again in French, and Carr noted that all of the Access to Information documents are all online and he can look for himself as to the process. Anne Quach was up next, demanding pay equity legislation in advance of the G7, to which Patty Hajdu noted the items in the budget. Niki Ashton was first concern trolled about InCel followers, and demanded a gender-based violence strategy. Ralph Goodale said that they have put resources to tackling these issues, and that they met with G7 leaders to get that material off of the Internet.

Continue reading →

QP: Digging up a dead horse

Posted on by

As spring snow fell over Ottawa, Justin Trudeau was in Paris on an official visit, while Andrew Scheer was in Calgary rather than be in Question Period. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, dredging up the long dead and buried horse of Justin Trudeau once saying that the oilsands needed to be phased out (never mind that he clarified it was a long-term goal in moving toward a decarbonized future). Jim Carr responded that they approved Trans Mountain and have reiterated their support for it continually. Raitt worried about industry uncertainty and the “flight” of capital from the country, to which Carr reiterate that the uncertainty wasn’t coming from them but one province, and that they are having discussions with Kinder Morgan to ensure there was investor certainty. Raitt worried that this lack of confidence was coming from the federal government’s inaction, but Carr reminded her that her government didn’t get a single kilometre of pipeline built to tidewater. Gérard Deltell took over to re-ask the “phased out” question in French, and Marc Garneau reiterated Carr’s points in French, and then they went for a second round of the same. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, railing that the federal government was imposing its will on BC, and Garneau reminded him that the pipeline was federal jurisdiction per the Supreme Court and the constitution, and they were talking with the two provinces involved. Caron switched to English to rail that BC’s government was elected on a promise to stop it and governments are supposed to keep their promises. Carr reminded him that Alberta’s government was elected on a promise to build it, but it was federal jurisdiction. Romeo Saganash got up next to decry that the government wasn’t respecting their obligations to Indigenous communities around the pipeline, and Carr reminded him that they did more consultations than the previous government did, who got smacked down by the Supreme Court of Canada over their lack of proper consultations. Saganash insisted that there were no actual agreements with Indigenous communities, but Carr said that there was no agreement between Indigenous communities, and indeed between NDP premiers, but a decision needed to be taken.

Continue reading →

QP: Twin moral panics in play

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off to Toronto, Andrew Scheer was present for Question Period, and he led off with the role that Christopher Wylie, the infamous “Facebook whistleblower” had worked for the Liberals, and demanded answers. Scott a Brison pointed out that the Liberal Research Bureau had already issued a statement saying that they decided not to go ahead with his services and that he had no access to voter data. Scheer lamented that Trudeau didn’t answer — being cute because Trudeau was not present — and when he continued to rail about Wylie, Brison reiterate his response, and hit back with contracts the Conservatives tendered for their own data services. Alain Rayes took over in French to ask the same thing two more times, and Brison repeated his responses (albeit in English). Scheer got back up to rail about the “peoplekind” joke and the apparently scandalous news that Service Canada is not supposed to use the honourifics of “Mr.” of “Mrs.” The horror! Jean-Yves Duclos assured him that they can still use the honourifics, but that they were working to be more inclusive of all gender identities. Guy Caron led off for the NDP, condemning the lack of action on tax evasion despite the $1 billion investment to do so. Diane Lebouthillier got up to assure him that they were looking into tax evasion and had new agreements to get necessary data, and when Caron got up to rail that CRA was slapped with a $1 million fine for abusive behaviour, Lebouthillier reiterated that the case dated back to the Conservatives. Peter Julian got up to repeat the condemnation around tax evasion in English, and Lebouthillier reminded him that they now have the data they need. Julian tried one more time, throwing every thing else in the question, and Lebouthillier retorted that the OECD has recognised Canada’s leadership in data-driven combatting against tax evasion.

Continue reading →