If you listen to the government and their spokespeople, the problems at Veterans Affairs don’t have to do with management or resources, but rather that they’re simply not communicating their programmes effectively to newer veterans. At least, that’s the argument that Conservative parliamentary secretary Erin O’Toole was trying to put forward on the weekend. O’Toole – who isn’t even the parliamentary secretary for veterans, but rather international trade – his status as a veteran, plus the ineptitude of both the minister and parliamentary secretary for veterans is why he’s being put forward on the file – was charged with trying to sell this message on The West Block last weekend, to much incredulity. And Tom Clark asked him point blank if that means that the answer is more money for advertising, no matter that they’ve already been spending more on advertising than they’ve saved on closing those veterans service centres around the country. I have a hard time seeing how this is at all a winning strategy because is smacks so much of victim blaming to those veterans who can’t get the help that they need and are entitled to.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Roundup: An ignored anniversary
A very important anniversary passed yesterday that concerns our history and development as a country, but you didn’t hear a single MP remark on it in the Commons yesterday. It was the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which not only gave Canada full control over its foreign affairs – one of the final pieces of sovereignty from the United Kingdom that had not yet been transferred to our control – but more crucially was one of the defining moments in the independence of the Canadian Crown. The Statute helped solidify the notion that the Crown is divisible, and henceforth the same monarch would wear separate Crowns for each of the realms that he or she ruled. That’s why the Queen of Canada, the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Australia are separate legal entities even though Elizabeth II wears each hat. It’s one of the most fundamental underpinnings of our sovereignty and constitutional architecture, but not a single MP could be bothered to mention it. Well done, everyone. Also of note: Royal historian Carolyn Harris uses the discussion around the DNA of Richard III to remind us that our current Queen reigns by an Act of Parliament, not by divine right, which is a worthwhile lesson when it comes to how the modern monarchy works.
https://twitter.com/onshi/status/542685207938084864
Roundup: Don’t sideline Canada Gazette
It’s not a sexy topic, but the fact that Parliament is giving itself the power to start making regulatory changes without publishing them in Canada Gazette is actually pretty worrying. It’s just regulations, right? Well, the issue is that by spreading out proposals, it makes it more difficult for proposed regulations to get proper consultation before they’re implemented. That’s a pretty big deal because so much of what constitutes our governance regime comes in the form of regulations that are empowered by legislation. That way, Parliament isn’t bogged down with niggling technical details that MPs have no expertise in determining, and allows them to focus on the “bigger picture,” while civil servants deal with the minutiae. The Governor in Council then gets to implement those regulations that the civil service comes up with, and Parliament can hold government to account for those regulations they implement. By not requiring everything to go through the Gazette, it makes the exercise of accountability that much harder, which is not how we should be operating in a system of Responsible Government.
Roundup: A registry that’s not a registry
To the utter delight of the Conservatives, the NDP have pledged to reinstate the long-gun registry, with Mulcair uttering the line that duck hunters would only need assault rifles if they were hunting pterodactyls. But wait – an NDP aide later took issue with the characterisation that the NDP want to reinstate the registry itself – they just want to be able to track every gun. Which…pretty much implies a registry, whether there are criminal sanctions applied to it or not, so well done with that bit of cognitive dissonance. And if memory serves, the Liberals needed to have the criminal sanctions if they wanted to make the registry fit under federal laws, as it would otherwise have been provincial jurisdiction, so that may be an additional hurdle. (In case it bears reminding, the Liberals have eschewed reviving the registry).
Roundup: MacKay’s turn to blunder
Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.
Roundup: The next SCC justice
Stephen Harper surprised pretty much everyone when he suddenly announced that the next Supreme Court justice will be Suzanne Côté, a Quebec litigator and the first woman to be appointed to the top court directly from private practice. Côté is known for her expertise commercial contracts, banks, bankruptcy, shareholder disputes, real estate law and the Competition Act, and yes, the Quebec Civil Code. What is different this time is that there was no parliamentary process when it comes to vetting the appointment in any way, or in drawing up a short list, after the disaster that was the Nadon appointment. While the government insists that they were concerned about leaks, the opposition parties have consistently insisted that any leaks came from the government side. Carissima Mathen gives some of her thoughts on the appointment.
MacKay won't say what kind of process will be used in future. Unhappy w confidentiality breaches last time. pic.twitter.com/1HLwEn9Uep
— Stephen Maher (@stphnmaher) November 27, 2014
QP: On the defensive after the AG report
Mere hours after the government took a beating from the Auditor General on the issue of veterans mental health, it was going to a tough day. That said, Thomas Mulcair was absent, and Megan Leslie led off, asking about the wait times posted in the report and tying it veterans suicides and the lapsed funding. Stephen Harper responded by selectively quoting the report about timely access, which conflated the programmes being reported on. Leslie responded with a different quote, and why the PM has not made it a personal priority. Harper reiterated the good portion of the report. Leslie moved onto the topic of the Nutrition North chapter and the lack of tracking of food prices in the North. Harper insisted that the food basket figure for Northerners had dropped by six percent. Peter Julian asked about the chapter on Library and Archives and the boondoggle of a $15 million system, to which Shelly Glover largely blamed issue on the previous head of the agency. Julian changed topics to the CBC story on the privacy breach at CRA, to which Kerry-Lynne Findlay assured him that measures were being taken, including notifying the Privacy Commissioner. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and returned to the veterans chapter of the report, and that a number of those veterans have waited seven years to see if they can even qualify for benefits. Harper reiterated the selective good portion of the conclusion, and said that the department would implement the recommendations to improve. Trudeau brought up veterans suicides and lapsed funding. Harper insisted that the lapse was because there was not enough uptake from veterans. Trudeau brought up that veteran’s wife who was trying to get more assistance for mental health, to which Harper again reiterated the selective quotes in French.
Roundup: Backfiring Conservative traps
Once again, Conservative operatives – and their friends at Sun News Network – have been too clever for their own good. While trying to get the Liberal candidate from Banff–Airdrie on tape saying something incriminating, a Conservative staffer recorded someone else talking smack about their childcare tax credits, and then tried to claim it was the candidate. This made the Twitter and Facebook rounds, Members’ Statements in the Commons, and even backbench suck-up questions about this “beer-and-popcorn” statement made by said candidate. Only, as it turned out, it was someone else who said it, and admitted to saying it, even after said candidate was mocked for denying that he said it, and how we have cabinet ministers with egg on their faces – though I have yet to see an apology for any of the insinuations or mocking made over social media. Given that Conservative – and Sun News Network – operatives have been trying this record-and-embarrass tactic a few times before (such as the nuanced explanation that retired General Leslie made on the situation in Gaza which they tried to spin completely to distortion), one has to wonder about the detrimental impact this will have on open political discourse in this country. Nobody wants candidates to turn into scripted robots, but these kinds of “gotcha” tactics are encouraging just that.
QP: Questions on last-minute funding
It’s a gorgeous Monday in the Nation’s Capital, but none of the major leaders were present in the House. David Christopherson led off for the NDP, shouting a question about the new funding for mental health funding for members of the Canadian Forces. Parm Gill responded, insisting that the government has continually increased support for veterans and soldiers. Christopherson, ever more indignant, focused on the lapsed funding to Veterans Affairs, to which Gill insisted that statutory funding was untouched. Nycole Turmel took over to ask in French, to which Gill praised the new funding commitment. Turmel switched topics to Thalidomide survivors who are struggling. Colin Carrie read that it was a lesson as to how Canada needs to take drug safety seriously, and that they would seriously consider any proposal coming forward from Health Canada. Turmel asked again in French, and Carrie repeated his answer in English. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, citing government “propaganda” spending over veterans and the last-minute announcement of new mental health funds. Gill returned to his insistence that support funds had increased. Frank Valeriote noted the contradictions in Julian Fantino’s assurances, to which Gill insisted that funding lapses under the Liberal government were even larger. One one last exchange, Gill dredged up the “Decade of Darkness” talking point while Carolyn Bennett shouted “sit down!”
Roundup: Private fighters heading to Iraq
The government’s declaration that they wouldn’t stand in the way of Canadians who want to head to Iraq to fight against ISIS with the Kurdish forces there is raising a lot of questions, and deservedly so. One Ontario MPP’s Afghanistan-veteran son is joining the fight, and while said MPP is making all kinds of noise about being proud about his son defending freedom and democracy, it does raise further complications to the notion that people are privately going off to fight a war. One supposes that there is a history of this, with people heading over to fight the Spanish Civil War, but we also have international treaties and rules of engagement that Canada has signed onto. One has to wonder what liability the country now will be in if one of these private fighters goes over and violates these conventions or codes because they’re not part of a command-and-control structure, and because our government has basically given them the okay to do so. I don’t know that there’s an easy answer to this, but we should be at least having the discussion – particularly as it is on the flipside of the coin about our attempts to keep those who would head over to fight on behalf of extremist groups from leaving the country.