Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: Unable to read the signs about Freeland

Posted on by

Just a quick note because a lot of talking heads have been mentioning it over the past few days, which was about that Globe and Mail article from a couple of days ago (which I’m not going to link to) that proclaimed Chrystia Freeland’s leadership ambitions because…she is the subject of an unauthorized biography, and she wrote that letter to the board of Air Canada. No, seriously—that was the sum total of the Globe’s evidence.

And yet, on Power and Politics, The Line and other places, everyone is treating this biography as though it were a) an autobiography, which is what many party leaders will release ahead of an election, not ahead of a leadership vote; or b) a book that she commissioned herself, when in fact someone else is writing it, and Freeland has apparently not even agreed to be interviewed for it, or cooperate with it in any way. Nevertheless, the conflation by all of these outlets continues to paint a picture that is not actually there.

As for the letter to the board of Air Canada, the federal government is one of the largest shareholders with six percent of the company’s stock, which Freeland mentioned in the letter. Add to that, Air Canada is a repeat offender when it comes to violating their obligations under the Official Languages Act, so as finance minister, Freeland has particular obligations to remind the Board of this when their CEO did something as impolitic (and frankly stupid) as the comments he made. This wasn’t something that she did on a whim because she wants to build up her Quebec cred for the (eventual) leadership bid.

I get the desire to stir the pot and create some drama, but come on. Yes, Freeland no doubt has ambitions, and she is likely going to be the next prime minister. But if you’re a serious news outlet, at least get your basic facts and context right before you start making these kinds of proclamations. You don’t look very credible with this kind of nonsense.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh has a list of demands

Posted on by

In the wake of his party’s post-election first caucus meeting, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh held a press conference yesterday to do a bit of chest-thumping and pretend that he holds some kind of balance of power in the forthcoming parliament, or that he can play kingmaker. If anything, he undermined his own position with his list of demands, because he doesn’t have any real leverage. His party is substantially weakened after the election, particularly given that they spent all kinds of money and gained a single seat out of it, and they are likely in debt once again and in no shape to go to another campaign anytime soon – especially if they want to figure out what they did wrong and have time to course-correct.

As for his list of demands, we are back to a lot of the usual nonsense where Singh doesn’t seem to grasp implementation – or jurisdiction. To wit:

  • Paid sick leave – that is being expanded to ten days for federally-regulated workers, but that’s only six percent of the workforce. The rest is provincial.
  • Halting clawbacks from GIS for seniors who accessed CERB – the GIS is means-tested and meant for the poorest of seniors, so it’s not surprising that CERB or other benefits could impact the means test.
  • Clean drinking water in Indigenous communities – this is in progress. Willpower won’t make it go faster.
  • A federal vaccine document for internal travel – this cannot happen unless provinces sign on, and until a couple of weeks ago, there were provinces still hostile to the very notion. The federal government cannot unilaterally create such a document because the provinces control vaccination data.
  • Dropping the appeal of the Human Rights Tribunal decision in the First Nations Child and Family Services case – this may yet happen given how completely the Federal Court decision against them last week was, but there were legitimate issues being litigated regardless that compensation is already being negotiated, irrespective of a further appeal.
  • Demanding higher health transfers – the federal government fully plans to negotiate those, but it won’t be without strings, especially as certain provinces sat on the pandemic-related transfers and put them towards their bottom lines rather than spending them on the pandemic.

As for Singh’s threat to “withhold votes” if he doesn’t get his way, it’s a bit curious what he means. Does he mean he would vote against bills including the budget implementation bill for the fall economic update, which would have plenty of additional pandemic supports or items he supports? Or does he mean he’d simply not vote, which would mean the Liberals wouldn’t need to get Bloc support to pass their measures (which they would likely get as the Bloc also are in no position to go to another election). Because if it’s the latter, then he’s basically made himself irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Programming note: I am taking the full long weekend off from blogging. See you next week!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The July job numbers

Posted on by

The Labour Force Survey results for July were released yesterday, and while there was positive job growth, it wasn’t quite as robust as had been expected. The recovery remains uneven, but some of the narratives and commentary aren’t really helping when it comes to adjusting to the reality of this stage of the pandemic (which isn’t even post- yet).

A lot of the narratives are still being driven by the likes of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which continues to rail about CERB and its successor suite of benefits that they claim are providing a “perverse incentive” for people to stay home, but that doesn’t seem to fit the reality, which is that the market is shifting. A lot of people who were in these service-industry jobs either moved on during the pandemic because it (and the government benefits) afforded them the opportunity to do so – which is why you have people complaining that their favoured servers at their local watering holes didn’t come back, and you have nineteen-year-olds who just got their Smart Serve certification replacing them. But another narrative is also bubbling up, where we also have a cohort who aren’t willing to go back to what existed beforehand, with the low wages and mistreatment, and a lot of those business owners haven’t made the cognitive leap yet that they can’t keep operating the way they did before. Of course, this is one reason why the CFIB is so up in arms about these benefits – they have a vested interest in things returning to the old normal where labour can be exploitative without consequence, but the current reality is changing that. This could be change happening that will be better for us all overall, if it’s able to take hold – and chances are, this government more than others are more willing to let it happen.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, are insistent that the federal government is “killing job creation,” which is a novel argument considering that they’re not the level of government responsible for the maintenance of public health measures (which has been one of the biggest determinants of economic activity over the course of the pandemic). They’re also keeping up the fiction that a pre-third wave job recovery projection was a “promise” about job creation, again, which was derailed by more public health measures because provinces screwed up their own recoveries by re-opening too soon. All of which is to say that we don’t seem to be capable of having a reasonable conversation about what is happening in the labour market, to the detriment of all of us.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, fixed election dates don’t give the GG unconstitutional powers

Posted on by

The “debate,” if you can call it such, over Jagmeet Singh’s decision to undermine Her Excellency Mary Simon by publicly writing her and telling her to refuse the advice of the prime minister who commands the confidence of the Chamber just got more ridiculous, as Andrew Coyne decided to weigh in yesterday (and no, I’m not going to link because hate clicks are still clicks). Coyne contends that the fixed election date law empowers the GG to turn down such a request, and “proves” it by quoting testimony from former justice minister Rob Nicholson at the Senate committee.

No. Just…no.

The logic in Coyne’s argument can’t hold because the Governor General’s role in accepting the advice of the prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the Chamber is the very basis of our constitutional framework under Responsible Government. The only discretion she might have over dissolution is when a request is made shortly after an election – that’s it. Nothing a simple statute, like the fixed election date law, can change a constitutional element, and there is jurisprudence to back this up, particularly the doomed attempts at trying to get the courts to uphold the fixed election date legislation, which they dismissed (including the Supreme Court of Canada). Fixed election date legislation is an empty shell – a bit of theatre and attempt to Americanise our system, and is antithetical to how Westminster systems operate – it shouldn’t be on our books as a result. There is no way that it could empower the GG to do away with constitutional norms to refuse dissolution, and if she did refuse, the prime minister would be obligated to resign, and we’d be in an election regardless. It’s ridiculous and wrong to suggest otherwise.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422914814494584833

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1422925735472271369

What is even more ironic about this whole situation is that Jagmeet Singh and Coyne himself will often rail that the “undemocratic Senate” shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their constitutional powers to veto legislation, and yet they are demanded that an appointed Governor General exercise powers that she doesn’t actually have under the constitution. It’s bizarre, and it’s a lot of bullshit masquerading as principle.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Carney out, no need to panic

Posted on by

To the dismay of the bulk of the pundit class, Mark Carney says he has other climate-related commitments and won’t be running for a seat in the next election. In response, Pierre Poilievre tweeted that Carney is afraid of running because Trudeau will cause a financial meltdown, and Carney will try to blame it on Freeland. It’s just so stupid, and yet this is the state of public discourse in this country.

To be clear, there is no financial meltdown going to happen. Yes, there are challenges that need to be addressed, but let’s be real here.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1417623876880588800

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1417625158450225153

Continue reading →

Roundup: Where is the civilian control?

Posted on by

Something rather unusual happened yesterday in that both prime minister Justin Trudeau, and his deputy, Chrystia Freeland, publicly panned the decision by the Chief of Defence Staff to keep the head of the navy on the job after he went on that golf game with the former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active investigation for past sexual misconduct. But it’s pretty crazy that this happened given how things work under our system.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1410275366292307969

This boils down to Harijit Sajjan and the fact that he’s not doing his job as minister. He is supposed to be the person in Cabinet who does the civilian control, who manages the CDS, and who ensures that the CDS is doing his job properly, but Sajjan hasn’t been doing that job. If he were, then he wouldn’t have been so incurious as to why the investigation into Vance never took off when the former military ombudsman brought forward the allegations, and he would have taken the opportunity to cycle Vance out of the job and put in someone new rather than renew Vance for another term. These are all things were things Sajjan should have done and didn’t do.

Trudeau, however, keeps insisting that Sajjan is the right person for the job, that he’s not part of the old boys’ club, but that’s part of the problem – Sajjan was an active member of the military when he got elected and had to process his resignation papers while he was named to Cabinet, because technically at that point, the CDS outranked him, which is not good when Sajjan is supposed to be exercising civilian control. That’s why we shouldn’t put former military people into the role – they are not civilian control. This can’t be stressed enough. Sajjan shouldn’t have been put in the role, and hasn’t properly done his job since he’s been in it. It’s time for a new minister, and the sooner the better.

Programming note: I am making a long weekend for myself, so no post tomorrow or Saturday. See you next week!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up another moral victory

Posted on by

The NDP did what they are very good at yesterday, which is to get a non-binding motion passed in the House of Commons, and declare a moral victory in spite of the fact that it does little more than make a statement. In this case, it was their Supply Day motion on calling on the government to drop their litigation on both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around First Nations children taken into foster care, while the second is round survivors of the St. Anne’s residential school. The Cabinet abstained from the vote, while most Liberal backbenchers voted for it – agreeing in principle to parts of the motion, and making a statement, but not binding the government to do anything. And while the NDP pats themselves on the back and says that they are “forcing” the government to drop the litigation, it does no such thing. It was merely the House of Commons voicing an opinion.

Part of the problem is that there is very little ability for people to discuss what the litigation is actually about in a meaningful way. According to Singh and company, this is about “taking First Nations kids to court,” which isn’t it. As a lawyer, Singh very well knows that there are complex issues that governments are obligated to sort out, especially if there is a bad precedent that it can set. In the case of the Tribunal decision, the government says they will pay compensation – and they are negotiating with two other class action lawsuits on similar matters to do just that – but the Tribunal ordered individual remedies for a systemic claim, which it should not be able to do, if the logic holds from previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that said that they could not offer systemic remedies for individual claims. The government, however, mumbles about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than explaining this, and it means they look like the bad guys. With the St. Anne’s case, I’m less familiar but the government’s line has been that they are seeking clarity on some five percent of survivors who have not yet been compensated, and in some of those cases could be getting more compensation for some of those five percent – because complex issues can require complex litigation to solve.

Unfortunately, that’s not what most journalists will sort out. Instead, we get the usual both-sidesing of this, where you get the advocates insisting the government is being “incomprehensible,” and the government gives some pat talking points, and they leave it at that. It’s why, for the Tribunal litigation, I went and talked to law professors and got some outside perspective on what the issues actually are, and why they matter for a government to bother litigating them. We’re being failed because most journalists are too incurious to sort the issues out, and that’s a problem. Legal stories are complex, but they deserve some attention paid to them so that we’re not left with the misleading narratives that are now being allowed to circulate unchallenged. Media needs to do better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Misconduct at CBSA? You don’t say!

Posted on by

It was not really a surprise to see the news that misconduct investigations of CBSA officers has increased over the past year – even in spite of travel volumes being down precipitously over the last year – and cases included things like interfering in an immigration process, belittling clients, abusing authority and sharing private information. Partly why this isn’t a surprise for me is because I’ve been tracking some of this for a while – I’ve heard horrific stories from lawyers, and from the Senators who have been pushing for independent oversight for CBSA for years.

That independent oversight still hasn’t happened. There have been numerous bills introduced in Parliament to provide it, and the most successful to date was a Senate initiative to create an Inspector General for CBSA. This was something the Liberals used to be in support of. Ralph Goodale was set to sponsor the bill in the Commons, until he became minister for public safety, then suddenly wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. When the bill passed the Senate unanimously, no one in the House of Commons dared to sponsor it there, MPs on the Liberal side having been warned away, and Conservatives were certainly not going to sponsor a Senate Liberal bill (and the Bloc and NDP most certainly were not either). The Liberals did introduce a weak sauce version of an oversight bill at the end of the previous parliament, with no time for it to go through, then again early in the current one, which died on prorogation and hasn’t been introduced since. That version would put CBSA under the RCMP’s Civilian Complaints and Review Commission, but for all intents and purposes, CBSA would still be investigating itself, meaning that the oversight is certainly not independent (and the CCRC is having a hard enough time getting the RCMP to sign off on its own complaints, which can’t be formalized until such sign-off).

The political will for this seems to be non-existent, which is strange, considering that the Liberals did reimplement plenty of other oversight for national security institutions like CSIS and CSA, and while some of CBSA’s activities call under the ambit of the new national security oversight bodies, it doesn’t capture the oversight of all of their activities. There are known problems with CBSA, and it’s unthinkable that a law enforcement body like it doesn’t have proper civilian oversight. The disconnect is unfathomable, but puts another mark in the column of Liberals being weasels about their promises once again.

Continue reading →

QP: Weaselling over the Port of Montreal strike

Posted on by

For Monday, there was but a single Liberal on the government benches, and if you guessed that it was Mark Gerretsen, you’d be right. Candice Bergen led off in person, and she raised the testimony last week that the prime minister’s chief of staff knew about the allegations against General Vance. Harjit Sajjan told her that he followed the same process that Erin O’Toole did when he was in Cabinet and heard rumours about Vance that he wanted investigated — which may not be the slam dunk Sajjan may think it is. Bergen then raised the problem of people flying into the US and then driving over the border, which was allowing variants to spread. Omar Alghabra listed the measures, particularly around air travel, that had been implemented, and quarantine measures. Bergen said that Alghabra wasn’t understanding that people were landing in the US and driving up to the border to avoid hotel quarantines, and Alghabra stated that people still need tests before they fly into the US and upon landing. Gérard Deltell took over in French, lamented that the prime minster said he had no regrets over the handling of the pandemic, and demanded more rapid tests, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him that they delivered over 25 million rapid tests to provinces. Deltell railed at the fact that the government seemed to be blaming the provinces and demanded more rapid tests at the border, and Hajdu reminded him of their measures to date, and that they are working with provinces and territories. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and blamed the federal government for the strike at the Port of Montreal and stated that the government hadn’t sat both parties down (erm, pretty sure federal mediators have been involved), and Pablo Rodriguez reminded him of the importance of the port to all of Quebec. Therrien accused the federal government of dragging their feet on every labour dispute, and Rodriguez hit back accusing the Bloc of not being there for Quebec.

Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, he raised the death of a thirteen year-old over the weekend and demanded more federal action on the pandemic, to which Carla Qualtrough reminded him of federal supports available. Singh amped up his indignation in English, demanding paid sick leave and more vaccinations to hardest hit areas — both of which are provincial jurisdiction — and Qualtrough reiterated that they are doing what they can to get things like paid leave to people who need it.

Continue reading →

QP: Gathering clips of vaccine drama

Posted on by

In the day following the budget, both Justin Trudeau and his deputy, Chrystia Freeland were both present for a rare change of pace in these pandemic times, and it was nice to see both. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he immediately blamed the government for the third wave by not having enough vaccines — because they can be procured from thin air. Trudeau reminded him that they have been securing vaccines for Canadians. O’Toole complained about delays for AstraZeneca doses and about the Johnson & Johnson plant being shut down, and demanded the government to go back in time to do something about it, and Trudeau calmly reminded him that they have exceeded their vaccine targets. O’Toole got anger in the demand for more vaccines, and Trudeau reminded him that vaccinations need to be accompanied by strong public health measures, and then noted that the budget must have been so good because O’Toole had no questions on it. O’Toole switched to French to lament that higher, unconditional transfers to provinces aren’t in the budget, for which Trudeau chided him that in English, O’Toole says that the government is spending too much, and in French, says they’re not spending enough. O’Toole accused the government of not helping Canadians with the budget, and Trudeau hit back, citing the programmes that are helping Canadians instead of just choosing to reduce the deficit.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he denounced the “age-based discrimination” in the budget because the additional assistance to seniors over the age of 75 was not extended to all seniors. Trudeau reminded him that older seniors have higher costs and many worry about exhausting their savings, so older seniors were getting additional help. Blanchet claimed that explanation didn’t make sense, and Trudeau listed the assistance they have given to all seniors.

Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, and in French, he groused that the budget didn’t choose to tax the ultra-rich and cut assistance to people, and Trudeau stated that was false, and that their first act as a government was to raise taxes on the one percent, which the NDP opposed, and listed tax measures in the budget. Singh switched to English to decry the situation in Ontario, and demanded the government use the Emergencies Act to implement paid sick leave in the provinces. Trudeau reminded him that they have been working with provinces throughout the pandemic.

Continue reading →