Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: Flirting with unconstitutional legislation

Posted on by

The bill to mandate sexual assault training for judges was a bad idea from the start, when Rona Ambrose first tabled it years ago, and the current iteration that this government is putting forward is little better, especially now that MPs have decided they need to start amending it to add other things. While Ambrose’s initial bill was blatantly unconstitutional (that the Commons passed on a whim because of the political syllogism: Something needs to be done, this is something, therefore we must do this), and needed to be gutted in the Senate to make it acceptable, the current version was more or less acceptable (barring one or two possible issues), but it seems that MPs want to make it blatantly unconstitutional again.

Former Supreme Court of Canada executive legal officer Gib van Ert warned back in February that this bill would be an invitation to demand that judges take training in other areas than just sexual assault, and lo and behold, we are there, with demands for the “social context of systemic racism.”

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1321246603781570560

van Ert makes the point that if judges need to be seen as independent, then bills like this, where politicians appear to be giving them marching orders, is a bad look and will undermine the justice system. But since when to populist impulses consider the consequences of their actions? They don’t.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Special committee games

Posted on by

The competing offers for special committees got even more crowded yesterday as the Liberals suggested their own possible special committee to examine pandemic spending, in a bid to jam both the Conservatives and NDP as they make their own offers. The Conservatives, you may recall, are employing a stunt to call for a special “anti-corruption committee,” as though the penny-ante bullshit that happens here were actual corruption that happens in other countries, and called explicitly for the purpose of decrying any lack of support for this committee idea as being in support of corruption. The NDP have their own proposal for a pandemic spending committee, but it was intended as a kind of super-committee to draw in not only the WE Imbroglio, but to revisit other non-scandals such as the Rob Silver affair (which the Ethics Commissioner declined to investigate), or the fact that one of the many pandemic procurement contracts went to a company whose owner is a former Liberal MP (whose departure was a bit huffy and drawn out at the time, one may recall).

The Liberal plan is to offer a “serious committee” to do “serious work,” which is a political gambit in and of itself – citing that if the other parties don’t agree to this particular committee (whose terms of reference one expects will be fairly narrowly circumscribed), then it proves that they are simply motivated by partisan gamesmanship rather than helping Canadians. And they’re not wrong – that’s exactly what both the Conservatives and NDP are looking for, at a point where they can only expect diminishing returns the longer that they drag on the WE Imbroglio (though, caveat, they do have a legitimate point in the Finance committee about producing the unredacted documents because that was the committee order that the government didn’t obey, and risks finding themselves in contempt of parliament over; the Ethics Committee demands are going outside of that committee’s mandate).

To add to the possible drama, the Liberals are also contemplating making the Conservatives’ upcoming Supply Day motion on their committee demand a confidence vote, which will wind up forcing the hands of one of the opposition parties into voting against it because nobody wants an election (and that could mean a number of Conservative MPs suddenly having “connectivity issues” and being unable to vote on the motion to ensure its demise). Of course, there is always the possibility of an accident – that seat counts weren’t done properly and the government could defeat itself, though that’s highly unlikely in the current circumstances. Nevertheless, this game-playing is where we’re at, seven months into the pandemic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole’s “cancel culture” performance

Posted on by

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole is making obligatory right-flavoured populist noises, decrying “cancel culture” because Queen’s University’s board voted to consider changing the name of their John A. Macdonald building, as is much the flavour of the day. It’s this juvenile, performative noise, but this is the kind of thing that O’Toole built his leadership around, without any critical thinking whatsoever, so here’s @moebius_strip to point out the sheer absurdity of it all.

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316454539596234753

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465701100552192

https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1316465838468198401

Meanwhile, there is consternation because the Library and Archives websites haven’t yet updated their biographies of prime ministers like Macdonald and Laurier to adequately convey that they had racist policies, and lo, cookie-cutter journalism gets the same four voices to decry this that appear in every other story. Never mind that Library and Archives says that they are doing consultations in order to do the work of reconciliation, and that there will be updated versions coming – it’s not good enough because this all needed to be done yesterday.

Part of the problem here, however, is that it will take time to get a properly nuanced version of history that both acknowledges their contributions to building the country while also acknowledging the racism of the era – particularly because it’s not simply black-and-white, and anyone who has read Macdonald’s biography will find it hard to simply pigeon-hole him as some kind of cartoon racist, which is certainly what some of the online dialogue would have us do. Yes, he’s a complex and problematic figure, but he was also a moderating influence, and his racist policies were actually the less-bad ones that were being demanded by a lot of voices of the era, which I doubt is going to be acknowledged to the satisfaction of his modern-day critics. It’s not a simple conversation, but that seems to be what is being demanded.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The coded language of “social experiments”

Posted on by

There was an analysis piece published over the weekend that wondered about why Erin O’Toole is talking about “social experiments” as part of his rejection of the Throne Speech, but while the piece went on to look at polling data and so on, it merely said that O’Toole didn’t exactly say which part of it was the “social experiment.” Of course, you’d have to have been living under a rock to not realise that small-c conservatives have been using this language for a while, particularly when it comes to things like gender equality.

Much of the thinking around this language is that the “social experiment” is the disruption of the so-called “natural” state of family life – that women in the workforce and childcare outside of the home is going to be some kind of sociological destabilizing force – and much of that line of reasoning also goes hand-in-hand with some garden-variety homophobic nonsense about same-sex marriage somehow “devaluing” regular marriage (as though straight people weren’t already doing that on their own). And let’s face it – the Throne Speech was heavy on inclusive growth and the need for childcare as part of its main themes. Of course, this isn’t really “experimental” at this point either – we have plenty of data to show the economic benefits of women in the workforce and what subsidised childcare can do to facilitate it. And if O’Toole is really that concerned about the deficit and economic growth, you’d think that he would be enthusiastically supporting plans to expand subsidised childcare and early learning because it’s been proven to have far greater economic returns than what it costs a government.

But we also need to remember that O’Toole is beholden to the social conservatives in his party for his leadership win, and he’s spent his time as leader trying to play both sides on a lot of issues – talking about the importance of free trade while promoting protectionist “Canada First” policies, or saying he’ll go to Pride – but only if they allow uniformed police to march, or that he opposes conversion therapy but won’t support that particular bill because of hand-wavey discredited reasoning. I am not unconvinced that this isn’t more of the same – O’Toole winking to his social conservatives using their own coded language about “social experiments” without actually saying what it is out loud so that he can’t be called out on it by those who know that things like enhancing childcare is sound economic policy, and that this recession, which has disproportionately affected women and minorities, won’t be solved by the same tired bro-recovery that provides stimulus for bro-jobs. To dismiss the kinds of inclusive policies that this economic recovery demands as “social experiments” gives a clue as to who O’Toole is pandering to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Learned helplessness sets into the Senate

Posted on by

News that the Senate has been suspended until the end of the month, and that they have only met fourteen times since March, is deeply irritating to me on numerous levels. My primary irritation is that the Senate has work it can do, but hasn’t been doing it both because they’ve been unable to get their committees up and running, and because there have been virtually no government bills that were not COVID-related or Estimates that have headed their way. On the committee front, it would seem that much of the drama that happened in the early part of the year in the Selection committee has largely resolved itself because the Progressive Senators Group has been revitalized and is now a viable caucus again, meaning that Senator Yuen Pau Woo’s attempt to exclude them from committee seats has been for naught, and they should be able to come to an agreement about equitable distribution of seats now that he’s not able to screw them over. As for government bills, this has largely been a question of timing – bills in process did not advance very far before the pandemic hit – but the government has a very full agenda and should introduce one or two of its bills in the Senate as they are capable of doing, in order to get the ball rolling on them. There is no excuse for them not to.

As for the lack of sitting days, this is largely the prerogative of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and in the current pandemic state, I find that a kind of learned helplessness has been setting in, in both chambers. The Senate, disadvantaged on the part of resources, particularly when it comes to thinks like IT and video capacity, has taken a back-seat while the Commons has been gobbling up those resources to get its own operations going remotely, and yet the Senate could very well have come up with ways to meet in-person safely. The concerns about travel could be mitigated by just having senators stay put, but they have thus far refused to make allowances in their Internal Economy committee to let them do so that won’t cost them out-of-pocket if they don’t already have an apartment or condo in town. The current demands for “hybrid” sittings, in spite of the problems that have developed with them in the Commons, seems to be barrelling ahead in spite of the objections of the Conservatives, and despite the fact that simply creating a parliamentary bubble is the cheaper, easier, and better option.

The bitter irony in all of this is that for all of Justin Trudeau’s talk about a more “independent” Senate, the last eight months have turned the Chamber into one big rubber stamp, as process gets abused time and again in the name of emergency legislation because they refuse to create a parliamentary bubble. People should be angry about this, but most everyone is just shrugging and playing into the learned helplessness that has set it, making me all the more irritated by it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: O’Toole and his conditional support

Posted on by

As part of their need to get bills that died during prorogation back on the Order Paper, the Liberals yesterday reintroduced the bill that would ban “conversion therapy” as a criminal offence. Erin O’Toole insists that he’s against this pseudo-science – really! – but in the same breath claims that this bill is terribly flawed and that the Liberals are just introducing it to set a trap for him. His claim that the bill is problematic is dubious, because he claims that it would criminalise conversations about sexuality or gender identity between a minor and their parents or faith leader, when that’s clearly not the case. This, however, is a pervasive bogeyman that the social conservatives in the Conservative caucus want to put forward, and we’ve seen versions of it for years. Remember how they were so opposed to the government’s legislation allowing for same-sex civil marriages, and how they were rending their garments and howling that this was going to mean that their pastors and preachers were going to be forced to perform these marriages, or that their sermons would be denounced as hate speech? Did any of that happen? Nope. But there is a constant need to beat the drum that their religious freedoms are being trampled by the LGBT community because said community simply wishes to exist unmolested.

To an extent, though, this is the Liberals throwing the cat among the pigeons, because it’s going to be O’Toole’s first big test as leader when it comes to whether or not he’ll appease the social conservatives to whom he owes a debt for their support of his leadership, or whether he’ll keep trying to project the image that his is a big, welcoming party that wants to draw in members of this community. From previous conversations with insiders when previous private members’ bills on banning conversion therapy were introduced, that this sends the Conservative caucus into a panic because they know it’s going to sow divisions in their ranks, and these usual fears about religious freedoms rear their heads. And it’s not like the Liberals came up with this specifically to cause O’Toole headaches – it was introduced in the previous session, and got derailed by the pandemic.

I also feel the need to point out that during the leadership, there were a lot of profiles in the mainstream media that kept repeating that O’Toole had pledged to march in Pride parades without mentioning that he made that pledge conditional on uniformed police also marching, which eliminates all of the major Pride parades in this country owing to the current climate and conversation about policing. It also shows that his support is transactional, much like his insistence that he’s pro-choice but voted for a bill that would open a backdoor to criminalising abortion was shrugged off in the mainstream media rather than called out for the bullshit weaselling that it was. O’Toole is going to try to play both sides on this bill, and I suspect that he’s going to concern troll his way out of it – that his “concerns” about this “criminalization” will carry the day and he’ll insist that he’s being principled and weasel out of standing up to the social conservatives that he is beholden to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding the right feet to the fire

Posted on by

As the pandemic rolls along, I find myself increasingly irritated with news stories that fail to mention jurisdictional issues. Case in point yesterday was a look at how the federal commercial rent subsidy is ending, but nowhere in the story did it mention that rent is actually a provincial jurisdiction. Part of why the federal programme was so problematic and underutilized is because the premiers signed off on the rules while the federal government put up funds by way of the CMHC, because that was pretty much the only lever they had at their disposal. The only time the provinces are mentioned in the story was in relation to that the moratorium on evictions in certain provinces were expiring – which is important, but the fact that this whole mess is really the provinces’ responsibility is not mentioned. The very same thing happened about a week ago around the problems related to the federal government’s disability payments, that again, because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, the only lever the federal government had at their disposal was the federal disability tax credit, which is why everything was not great and complicated.

I’m all for holding the federal government to account, as anyone who reads this blog will know, but we also need to be holding the right feet to the fire, and the provinces have been consistently getting a pass on the rent issue in the media (and the disability issue for that matter as well). Most of the premiers have ballsed up the response to this pandemic, on an epic scale in some provinces, but there seems to be very little appetite to deal with that. Instead, we get pieces (that I won’t link to) about how Doug Ford surpassed everyone’s expectations and how he’s no acting like a partisan bully any longer, and I’m sorry, but he hasn’t done his gods damned job in this pandemic, and just sounding avuncular at press conferences is not cutting it. And the federal government isn’t helping keep accountability where it belongs either because they keep retreating to this refrain that “we don’t want a fight over jurisdiction,” when no, you don’t have jurisdiction, you don’t have policy levers, so why are you being assigned the task of dealing with the issue at all? (And the first person who raises the spectre of emergency legislation as a means of the federal government asserting jurisdiction can leave right now).

So while I get that news organisations are trying to shine a light on these problematic federal programmes, omitting key pieces information like matters of proper jurisdiction, are not actually helping anyone. (And no, it’s not a conspiracy with the Conservatives, so you can stop that right now). Accountability is important, but holding the right people to account is just as important, and unless your article identifies who those right people are, and places it in that context, then you’re just confusing issues and muddying the water, which does the opposite of accountability. I also refuse to bow to this notion that “nobody cares about jurisdiction in a pandemic.” Sorry, but no, we have a federal constitution that clearly defines roles and responsibilities, and the federal government can’t invent levers of power out of thin air. Jurisdiction absolutely matters, and pretending otherwise is actively helping those who’ve ballsed up their responses evade accountability. That seems to me to be the opposite of what is trying to be achieved here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unnecessary closure, and problematic reports

Posted on by

The new session of parliament is not yet a week old, and it is already mired in shenanigans, and this government is the author of so many of its current misfortunes. Right out of the gate, the Liberals declared Bill C-4 to be a matter of confidence and invoked closure – not time allocation, but actual closure – which of course ate up hours in debate on the motion followed by an hour-long vote. They got their closure motion because the NDP sided with them, but wait – the Conservatives moved a motion to concur in a (problematic) report from the Ethics Commissioner about former MP Joe Peschisolido, citing that he broke the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs, and said motion would also call on Peschisolido to write a formal apology to the Commons. This motion passed with NDP support, which further delayed the debate on C-4, thanks to more hour-long votes, and C-4 wasn’t expected to pass until at least 3 AM (by which time this blog has been put to bed). And to think that this could have been avoided by a) not proroguing for five weeks, and b) not ham-fistedly ramming more legislation through the Parliament. But this government seems intent on not learning any lessons.

As for that Ethics Commissioner’s report, well, it shouldn’t actually exist, because Peschisolido hasn’t been an MP for over a year, and he’s not covered by the Conflict of Interest Act because he wasn’t a public office-holder. As an MP, he was subject to the MPs’ Conflict of Interest Code, which is part of the Standing Orders, and thus not applicable to him since he’s no longer an MP, and Mario Dion doesn’t seem to grasp this basic and fundamental fact that is at the heart of his duties. This is a problem (and the former Commons Law Clerk agrees). Also, calling Peschisolido to apologise to the House is also a problem, given the report is out of order and the Commons doesn’t actually have the power to compel him. So, yeah. This is not a good look for anyone.

Meanwhile, down the street, the Canadian Senators Group is completely fed up with having bills rammed down their throats with no time for them to actually do their jobs and study them or offering amendments, because everything is an “emergency.” To that end, they will be moving a motion in the Senate that until the end of the pandemic, all legislation will require a minimum of one week’s worth of debate in the Senate before it will be passed. It’s bold – but they are absolutely right to insist on it. I can easily see both the Conservatives and the Progressive caucuses in the Senate signing on, but the real question will be the Independent Senators Group, and how many of them will feel beholden to the prime minister. Trudeau gets to reap what he’s sown with his “independent” Senate, and I’m quite hoping that this makes him as uncomfortable as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An address to the nation following the Throne Speech

Posted on by

It’s Speech from the Throne day, which is always exciting, though it’ll be a much sparser affair given the pandemic. What is stranger is the fact that prime minister Justin Trudeau plans to take to the airwaves in the evening, around 6:30 PM, apparently in a bid to talk about the urgency pandemic and the emerging second wave, because we’re back to exponential growth in new cases in four provinces. After all, last night in the UK, Boris Johnson gave a public address to announce a second lockdown was going to start, so 2020 is going really well.

Meanwhile, there still is no agreement among MPs on how voting will work once the new session begins, and it sounds like the test for the proposed remote system did not go very well. Currently the parties seem to have some kind of an accord on a rotation system, but Trudeau and the Liberals keep pushing for hybrid sittings and remote voting while the Conservatives (rightfully) remain skeptical. But nobody is talking about the most practical solution, which is sequestering MPs and creating a bubble around Parliament Hill for them. I mean, if the NHL can do it, why can’t MPs, given how much more important Parliament is than the hockey playoffs.

Speaking of the importance of Parliament, MPs from the Liberals and NDP are balking at the availability of priority testing for them and their families at that Gatineau clinic, insisting that they’ll take spots away from other people who need it in the long queues for tests. And then the Conservatives went ahead and used unapproved serological tests yesterday provided by a lobbyist who is trying to get Health Canada to approve them – never mind that these tests don’t determine current infections, but only the presence of antibodies from past infections. This while they howl for the government to approve more rapid tests, even though the truncated approval process in the US has meant that faulty tests got approved there, which Health Canada is trying to avoid.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Combing the document dump

Posted on by

The mass of WE-related documents were the subject of yesterday’s news fodder, and the fact that they largely corroborated the government’s assertion that the civil servants were the ones who suggested WE Charity be the vehicle to deliver the Canada Student Service Grant programme. They did, however, make a couple of notes that raised eyebrows – one was another communication between Bardish Chagger and the Kielbergers (though she has responded to dispel those concerns, saying it was a general comment she had made as the CSSG was not on her radar at the time), and the other were communications between Bill Morneau’s office and the finance department officials where Morneau’s office were described as “besties” with WE – which doesn’t necessarily prove that this was some orchestrated campaign to benefit WE. There were also documents wherein Jean-Yves Duclos was clearly not comfortable with WE being the only delivery vehicle for the programme because they don’t have sufficient depth in Quebec, though he was being assured otherwise.

To these revelations, and the fact that some of the pages had redactions on them (which is standard for both Cabinet confidences and instances where privacy is involved), the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular put on a melodramatic press conference full of air quotes and flung pages, and the howling accusation that there was a cover-up in the works. Because we all know that when you don’t find the answers you want, there must be a conspiracy at play. It’s not unexpected, and I’m not sure he won over any converts among the Canadian public, but hey, this is all theatre for him, like so many things in Canadian politics.

Continue reading →