Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[timun]

Originally Posted by chemgear

And my god, these people are our tax funded representatives?

Spoiler!

First time watching a parliamentary committee meeting?

[Ashasx]

nm

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by timun

Spoiler!

First time watching a parliamentary committee meeting?

NSFW!

[CaptainCrunch]

I guess I get the NDP and Liberal strategy. There's been a lot of attention on increases in violent crime in Canada and calls for a serious look at bail reform. They also want to keep the abortion wedge issue alive heading into a election.


But to do this to the victims who came to testify, my god read the room.

[timun]

Originally Posted by chemgear

<image>

Two most common things said in government committees: "point of order!" and "dilatory tactic". Our government at work.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess I get the NDP and Liberal strategy. There's been a lot of attention on increases in violent crime in Canada and calls for a serious look at bail reform. They also want to keep the abortion wedge issue alive heading into a election.


But to do this to the victims who came to testify, my god read the room.

A bitter irony in all of this is that Anita Vandenbeld wasn't wrong in her initial remarks about how the Conservatives were playing political games with the testimonies of these witnesses. She remarked on how Cait Alexander was added as a witness last-minute by the Conservative members of the committee, that the Liberal and NDP members had no time or recourse to prepare questions or to have called other witnesses: those complaints about how procedurally wrong it was for the CPC members to do that were perfectly valid. She wasn't 'wrong' that calling this meeting in the middle of summer is a fairly brazen Conservative tactic designing specifically to score 'points'.

The problem is that she not only walked right into the Conservative members' trap: she doubled-down on it! Veering off into the stuff about the motion about abortion rights was, as you wrote, an absolutely preposterous failure to "read the room". And then Leah Gazan went off on her own tangent about being "victimized" by the committee not recognizing that her hand was raised and it was her turn to talk and "as an indigenous woman, <blah blah blah blah>"... They could have played this off reasonably if they'd had just a little bit of tact before making it about themselves and procedural jibber-jabber.

I'm sure all the committee members at least superficially care about reducing violence against women, but they're all slimeballs. Well, except maybe the Bloc member, who I'm sure was just shaking her head in disbelief at this crap.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Jesus Christ. So Cait Alexander who is a Canadian but has to live in the US because of the threat of violence against her (guy is free and clear with the failure in Crown prosecution), travels back to testify at this committee only to face this gongshow.

You've got Anita Vandenbeld the Liberal MP (11:47) thanking the witness and then immediately throwing her under the bus, complaining about other theoretical witnesses and diverting over to the abortion rhetoric instead for political points.

You've got Leah Gazan the NDP MP grandstanding on and on about crazy #### like JD Vance, complaining not getting to talk first how it's an act of violence against her, and literally not stopping when being told that the witnesses had turned their backs (12:09) and then walked out (12:15). Keeps right on trucking with her personal complaints. Does not give any ####s about the witnesses or their personal testimony about violence against women.

Anna Roberts the Conservative MP having to apologize to the witnesses for what they are enduring.

No wonder the advocates were so frustrated. And my god, these people are our tax funded representatives?


https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...Invalid%20date

Silence speaks louder than words sometimes.

What's worse, the tolerant left attacking the victims on Twitter and bashing them claiming to be a Conservative shills.

Want to see unhinged? @shelearn and @belle_levesque

https://twitter.com/user/status/1819036442049552660

The victim equally blamed the Trudeau government and the Ford government (both current acting Federal and Provincial governments) in her testimony today and had been extremely critical of the provincial courts and extremely critical of Ford (she reposts tweets like this).

For Cait Alexander's part, she is not new at all to speaking out and has been extremely vocal (ironically here in this video, she is supported by an Ontario NDP MPP, a stark contrast to Leah Gazan and the federal NDP counterparty)

https://www.cp24.com/news/attempted-...ding-1.6826067

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/attempted...ding-1.6826046

https://www.womeninmedia.network/sho...ustice-system/

Megan Walker is a vice-chair of the London Police board and former executive director of London Abused Women’s Centre. She's been pushing to add femicide to the Criminal Code.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8927020/l...ode-of-canada/

The committee brings two very prominent witnesses to speak about domestic violence after all premiers signed a letter on bail reform a few days ago including BC NDP premier Eby (which certainly warrants a meeting and is a current hot topic), and the Liberal and NDP decided the right approach to address this is to collude together and bring a motion on abortion to silence the victims of violence, upset that they were disrupted for a summer committee and even went so far as to gaslight the victims claiming they were fools to come to the committee.

Gaslighting ####ing hypocrites. Completely out of touch with Canadians and have totally lost the plot.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

A bitter irony in all of this is that Anita Vandenbeld wasn't wrong in her initial remarks about how the Conservatives were playing political games with the testimonies of these witnesses. She remarked on how Cait Alexander was added as a witness last-minute by the Conservative members of the committee, that the Liberal and NDP members had no time or recourse to prepare questions or to have called other witnesses: those complaints about how procedurally wrong it was for the CPC members to do that were perfectly valid. She wasn't 'wrong' that calling this meeting in the middle of summer is a fairly brazen Conservative tactic designing specifically to score 'points'.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...dunn-1.7271818
July 22, 2024

It's a hot topic with current recent ongoing. If there's any hot topic that needs a meeting to be discussed in a committee about women status, one that just got all premiers to sign a letter...this is one.

[timun]

Yes it is a "hot topic": that's precisely why calling this meeting was a perfect opportunity for the Conservative Party to keep it in the news cycle. The way the Liberal and NDP members mishandled it threw gasoline on the fire.

Believe it or not, all of this can be simultaneously true:

• bail reform failed miserably and needs to be addressed,
• this can affect women disproportionately, therefore it ought to be discussed by this standing committee,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is justifiable because of the severity of the issue,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is political opportunism,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is procedurally inappropriate,
• Anita Vandenbeld and other Liberal/NDP committee members' annoyance at this procedural rushing is justifiable,
• Anita Vandenbeld is an inconsiderate twit for derailing the meeting to talk about the procedural issues,
• Anita Vandenbeld is a complete and utter fool for bringing forward a motion about abortion,
• Leah Gazan is a doofus for the indignation she showed about "not getting her chance to speak", a lack of LGBTQ witnesses, a lack of indigenous witnesses, etc.,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker were called by the Conservative members of this committee as witnesses to this meeting because they are strong, effective advocates for important improvements to the bail system, and for ending violence against women in general,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker walking out of that meeting is perfectly justifiable given the casual indifference shown to them by the Liberal and NDP members of the committee,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker are being used as pawns by the Conservative members of the committee,

Bloc member Andréanne Larouche's comments about this having been a shameful display of partisan bickering and political hackery on all sides were spot on, and Cait Alexander's remark "no wonder nothing gets ####ing done in this country" is a condemnation almost everybody in that room should be tarred with for the rest of their political careers.

[MBates]

Having watched the trainwreck of a video, this is what I see happening in my opinion:

1. Some time back in the ordinary course, the Status of Women committee adjourned mid-way through debate on the motion related to abortion.

2. The Conservative members convened this emergency meeting of the committee and for no legitimate reason did not follow any of the previous procedures that members of the committee were accustomed to being used as a collegial and productive non-partisan group.

3. The meeting was convened in such a way to only get the witnesses the Conservative members wanted in the room, to the exclusion of all other members of the committee and all other viewpoints. Simultaneously this approach resulted in none of the other members of the committee being in a position to be prepared for asking informed questions.

4. Regardless, the witnesses all got to give their opening testimony. Whether or not it was partisan on their parts, the testimony was clearly uniformly supportive of a narrative that the "injustice system" (a term used by the first witness) and the legislation of the current government was a disaster.

5. Having waited until after the witnesses openings, when a non-Conservative MP sought to register a complaint that the procedure for setting up the meeting resulted in none of the directly affected groups from her riding being able to speak for themselves and their connection to this issue, the Chair (admitting she first saw the non-conservative MP's hand up to speak in turn) gave the floor to her Conservative MP colleague instead.

6. The Chair continued to try to just force her colleague's stump speech as the next thing to fill the public record even though it was blatantly obvious - and admitted by the Chair herself - that she was just skipping over the non-Conservative member (a key to remember is these meetings get set on strict timelines and not getting to go in order means you might not get to go).

7. So a different non-Conservative who is wily enough to know her procedure called a vote to challenge the Chair's ruling. The Chair ruling was overturned by the majority vote and the Conservative stump speech was stopped.

8. Eventually it gets around to the Liberal MP who decides she is going to put an end to what she clearly believes is a Conservative stunt to just try and have a meeting to make Trudeau look bad for campaign purposes.

We can all decide for ourselves but in my view it is fair to say before she got derailed the Conservative stump speech MP was essentially asking the witnesses to comment on how correct it was that the current government's legal steps were failing all victims (including soliciting superficial comments from a deputy chief of police that, yes, yes, 'the bail' is one of the core problems).

9. So the Liberal MP intervened with a parliamentary nuke and caused a vote on a motion to end what was happening and have the committee resume what it was in the middle of when it last adjourned (the abortion debate). The committee majority agreed and the witnesses were essentially rendered irrelevant at that point for the remainder of the meeting.

10. After this it devolved into a complete gong show. It is apparent most of the members think if you just say 'point of order' then you can go and rant about your hurt feelings or return to the topic you wanted to filibuster about instead of the one actually on the floor. And the Chair basically just let everyone rant no matter what relevance they had to the actual issue that was then in order - ongoing debate about abortion.

The whole thing ended up a disgrace and probably can be summed up with two (or twenty) wrongs don't make a right, but I genuinely would like to hear those who convened the meeting answer this - what was supposed to come out of this 'emergency' meeting that could not have come out of a properly planned and orderly meeting?

It is a committee after all - whose job it is to report to Parliament. If Parliament is not being recalled, then what was the non-partisan result that was intended to come from this meeting?

[PepsiFree]

Always great getting an informed, non-partisan interpretation of these events as opposed to the usual right wing frantic hand waving and foaming at the mouth.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Always great getting an informed, non-partisan interpretation of these events as opposed to the usual right wing frantic hand waving and foaming at the mouth.

I imagine the average representative of the right wing is a fat, hairy man... hands waving in the air with a good amount of mouth froth. I also imagine the average left wing representative as a fat, hairy man... hands held ridgedly in the air with a good coverage of mouth froth.

They come together, arguing, and getting more heated as their orbits collide. Their bellies stop the inevitable collision, but such is the volume of their combined froth, that soon the arguments descend into grunts and sadness, as their sweaty bellies keep them forever inches apart, the froth a reminder of their combined commitment to rage.

And that's politics.

[Harry Lime]

The Pepsi quote was at the top of a fresh page, for me. I went back and read some of the discussion. That is so pathetic, I'm embarrassed for Canada that those are our representatives.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The Pepsi quote was at the top of a fresh page, for me. I went back and read some of the discussion. That is so pathetic, I'm embarrassed for Canada that those are our representatives.

You don’t use the “go to unread post” button, you absolute psycho?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You don’t use the “go to unread post” button, you absolute psycho?

Point of order.

It actually says "go to the first new post".

[timun]

Dilatory tactic! Dilatory tactic!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Jesus Christ. So Cait Alexander who is a Canadian but has to live in the US because of the threat of violence against her (guy is free and clear with the failure in Crown prosecution), travels back to testify at this committee only to face this gongshow.

You've got Anita Vandenbeld the Liberal MP (11:47) thanking the witness and then immediately throwing her under the bus, complaining about other theoretical witnesses and diverting over to the abortion rhetoric instead for political points.

You've got Leah Gazan the NDP MP grandstanding on and on about crazy #### like JD Vance, complaining not getting to talk first how it's an act of violence against her, and literally not stopping when being told that the witnesses had turned their backs (12:09) and then walked out (12:15). Keeps right on trucking with her personal complaints. Does not give any ####s about the witnesses or their personal testimony about violence against women.

Anna Roberts the Conservative MP having to apologize to the witnesses for what they are enduring.

No wonder the advocates were so frustrated. And my god, these people are our tax funded representatives?


https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...Invalid%20date

Point of order.

I don't think she actually said the bolded.


The dumbest thing I heard was several committee members talking paternalistically about how the witnesses were re-traumatizing themselves or whatever.

The whole thing was pretty gross. If the witness had to fly up from California, this was obviously a coordinated stunt. Handled poorly by everyone involved.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

Yes it is a "hot topic": that's precisely why calling this meeting was a perfect opportunity for the Conservative Party to keep it in the news cycle. The way the Liberal and NDP members mishandled it threw gasoline on the fire.

Believe it or not, all of this can be simultaneously true:

• bail reform failed miserably and needs to be addressed,
• this can affect women disproportionately, therefore it ought to be discussed by this standing committee,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is justifiable because of the severity of the issue,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is political opportunism,
• calling an impromptu mid-summer meeting about it is procedurally inappropriate,
• Anita Vandenbeld and other Liberal/NDP committee members' annoyance at this procedural rushing is justifiable,
• Anita Vandenbeld is an inconsiderate twit for derailing the meeting to talk about the procedural issues,
• Anita Vandenbeld is a complete and utter fool for bringing forward a motion about abortion,
• Leah Gazan is a doofus for the indignation she showed about "not getting her chance to speak", a lack of LGBTQ witnesses, a lack of indigenous witnesses, etc.,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker were called by the Conservative members of this committee as witnesses to this meeting because they are strong, effective advocates for important improvements to the bail system, and for ending violence against women in general,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker walking out of that meeting is perfectly justifiable given the casual indifference shown to them by the Liberal and NDP members of the committee,
• Cait Alexander and Megan Walker are being used as pawns by the Conservative members of the committee,

Bloc member Andréanne Larouche's comments about this having been a shameful display of partisan bickering and political hackery on all sides were spot on, and Cait Alexander's remark "no wonder nothing gets ####ing done in this country" is a condemnation almost everybody in that room should be tarred with for the rest of their political careers.

All can be true...including the Conservatives having a motive for bringing this to the committee.

It absolutely doesn't excuse the Liberal and NDP soapbox behavior towards the victims and to rant nonsensically (Leah Gazan) about JD Vance and about having an act of violence on her by the chair (in front of two witness victims of violence no less). The idea that it was a great idea to squash the voice of victims of a very hot topic present because it is beneficial to the Conservatives with...checks notes... a 2022 politically beneficial motion from a Liberal standpoint and saying they will do it again and again?

So what is the wrong that the Conservatives did? Bring a hot topic of discussion to a committee that talks about topics involving women because it's a topic that is politically beneficial to them? Not follow normal committee protocol? Giving a forum for victims of violence to speak in front of a committee (one of whom was recently directly impacted by said legislation and asking for reform)? Liberals and the federal NDP don't want to talk about it sure, they could have made their point across about Conservatives being opportunistic, while simultaneously not throwing the victims under their partisan bus, and they would have looked a lot better without this ever making the news like it did.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I don't think she actually said the bolded.

She claimed the act of having her voice being silenced after not having the chance to bring a witness of is "deeply violent, deeply violent and deeply troubling". 12:00:00 in the meeting

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...Invalid%20date

12:09:00 the victims facing away from the committee in tears says it all while Leah Gazan rants about abortion

[GGG]

The conservatives set up the victims knowing that there not following the procedure would lead to this outcome. If you are concerned for the victims what the conservatives did, especially if they were not informed of exactly what was going to happen is pretty disgusting.

The liberals and NDP should have also been much more understanding of the victims in their response to this obvious stunt.

Everyone should be annoyed at all the parties for the handling of this. What’s wrong with the conservatives doing? Not following committee procedures and putting victims of crime in a situation to revitalize them.

This went exactly how the conservatives wanted. They got the desired outcome.