Tag Archives: Omar Khadr

Roundup: The Speaker’s clock

Posted on by

The CBC has a video segment released today talking to Commons Speaker Geoff Regan about the countdown clock in the Commons when it comes to things like Question Period, and how he enforces the 35-second rule for questions and answers.

While it’s a nice video explanation, and demonstrates that Regan will allow a few seconds’ grace when necessary, it does go to demonstrate part of what isn’t functioning with the way we’re doing things like Question Period – or even regular debate, for that matter. By enforcing strict clocks, we’ve incentivised a culture of filling that space rather than it being an upper limit. Even in QP, where it’s a simple yes-of-no question, the temptation to fill all 35 seconds with canned talking points usually wins out (though the three-word yes-or-no Mr. Speaker replies do occasionally happen and make my day). Also, the 35 second clock encourages ministers to read replies in order to ensure that they stay within the limit rather than going over – and that tends to lead to a greater reliance on talking points than substantive answers.

As I’ve written about several times, I think this video is a demonstration as to why we need to loosen the clock. I’ve also witnessed in Senate QP where there is no defined clock, where you can get far more substantive questions and answers (though the Senate Speaker does need to reign them in a bit – some senators will speechify during a question, and sometimes the visiting minister will ramble). But loosening the clock and empowering the Speaker to better manage that time – along with a ban on scripts – will go a long way to improving the flow of debate in the Commons, rather than the farce that we have today.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caretakers and emergencies

Posted on by

The situation in BC, where there is an emergency situation of wildfires and evacuations in the midst of a change of government, can be pretty instructive as to how our system of government works. Right now, as with during an election period, the machinery of government goes into “caretaker” mode, and because Christy Clark remains the premier until the moment John Horgan is sworn in, she is able to respond to the situation as she is doing now.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/884468259185209344

This is why, after Clark’s visit to the lieutenant governor, the statement from the LG was that she “will accept her resignation,” not that Clark has resigned on the spot.

Why is this important? Because the Crown must always have someone to advise them, especially in circumstances like this. Add to that, we have a professional, non-partisan civil service means that they are already in place, and don’t need to have a massive new appointment spree to fill the upper layers like they do in the US. That means that they can respond to these kinds of situations, and while the caretaker government gives the orders, the incoming government’s transition team is being briefed so that they can handoff the files when they form government. It’s an elegant system that we’re lucky to have.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Principle over circumstance

Posted on by

After a weekend of yet more wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Omar Khadr settlement, and despite detailed explanations from the ministers of justice and public safety, and Justin Trudeau reminding everyone that this is not about the individual circumstances of Khadr himself but rather the price of successive governments who have ignored the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we’re still seeing a number of disingenuous talking points and facile legal analysis from players who know better. Here is some of the better commentary from the weekend.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/883736382602194944

https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/884024742826696704

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/884031425862828032

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/884031824783126528

A number of people over social media have insisted that treatment of Khadr, including the “frequent flier” sleep deprivation technique used to “soften him up” before CSIS agents arrived to question him, or the fact that he was strung up for hours to the point of urinating himself (and then used as a human mop to wipe it up) or being threatened with gang rape didn’t constitute torture.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/884047890003505152

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/884051777850617856

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/884052141417037825

There was some particularly petulant legal analysis from former Conservative cabinet ministers that got pushback.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/884078867006320640

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/884091668940677120

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/884214974809296898

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/883432269976940544

And of course, the broader principle remains.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/884029627546599424

Continue reading →

Roundup: Virtue signalling over Khadr

Posted on by

It’s official – Omar Khadr got his apology and settlement, but the terms of which are confidential (as is par for the course in most settlement offers), and now the Conservatives are really steaming mad. For his part, Khadr says that he hopes the apology and settlement will restore a bit of his reputation and help people take a second look at his case to see that there was more going on, but also notes that he is not really profiting from his past. While the ministers where quite neutral in their tone, when the parliamentary secretary accompanying them translated in French, he took the partisan shots that the government didn’t, which was odd. Later in the evening, the government put out further clarifications, no doubt bombarded with accusations of bad faith.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/883357354187685889

https://twitter.com/cochranecbc/status/883477490399928321

Later in the afternoon, Andrew Scheer took to the microphones to offer a take so utterly disingenuous that it borders on gob-smacking. Essentially, he argued that a) they should have spared no expense in fighting Khadr’s suit, and b) that the remedy for the Supreme Court of Canada decisions around Khadr was his repatriation, which is a complete and utter fabrication. And there’s a part of me that would have like to see them argue that case before the Supreme Court, if only to watch the justices there flay them before laughing them out of the room.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/883381110285225985

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/883385583233531906

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/883385763634831360

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/883410380277645312

And then the rest of the weighing in, including Stephen Harper, who wanted to pin the blame on the current government, while Conservatives continued to virtue signal that no expense should be spared to give the appearance of fighting terrorists, never mind that this decision is about Khadr’s Charter rights being violated. For a law-and-order party to decide they want to cherry pick which Charter rights don’t apply to people they consider icky, well, that’s a pretty big problem right there.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/883467740325052416

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/883468432578097152

Here are some further legal opinions on the settlement, while Craig Forcese offers a reminder of some of the legal points at play, including where successive governments screwed up and made this settlement necessary where they could have repatriated him earlier and put him on trial here, an opportunity now lost. There is also a reminder that the government didn’t disclose the details of earlier settlements with former terror suspects who were cleared of wrongdoing. Terry Glavin has little patience for how this was handled on all sides, while Susan Delcarourt sees signs that people are still open to being convinced about Khadr.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Challenging an unconstitutional law

Posted on by

The saga of Steven Fletcher in Manitoba continues to fascinate and enrage me. The now-former member of the province’s PC caucus, and one-time federal Conservative cabinet minister, has not only run up against a very problematic expulsion from caucus because he dared to have differing opinions (which I wrote about in my column), but now it appears that Fletcher is planning to challenge the province’s law that bans floor-crossing. Not that he wants to cross the floor, but the fact that the law is on the books.

In case it’s not clear, the very notion of a legislated ban on floor-crossing should be unconstitutional. Apparently, Manitoba’s not the only province to have this either – New Brunswick has a law on the books that requires floor-crossers to reimburse their former party for election expenses, which is also legally dubious. The history of these laws is also circumspect at best – in Manitoba, it was allegedly cashing in on the anger around David Emerson crossing the floor to become a federal Conservative cabinet minister in 2006, while in New Brunswick, it was the angry response to a husband-and-wife MLA couple crossed from the provincial Conservatives to the Liberals. The Manitoba case has the added factor that it was an NDP government at the time, and the NDP are particularly hostile to floor-crossers, which one suspects has to do with the fact that they are a party that is big on solidarity and being in constant lock-step, and they aren’t very tolerant of their members stepping out of line. They’re also much more wrapped up in their party identity, which is part of why these laws are such a problem.

The thing with our electoral system is that it gives individual agency to MPs. They are elected as individuals, to fill a single seat in the House of Commons in a separate election. That’s why a general election is 338 separate elections federally, or however many seats are in that province’s legislature during their elections. MPs are not elected a party vote which then gets allocated to that seat, and this is important. Because we elect MPs as individuals, regardless of whatever party colours they may be wearing, it empowers them to make their own decisions in Parliament (or their provincial legislature), and that includes the ability to cross the floor when their conscience is so moved. It’s not a bug in our system – it’s a feature because it means that the individual is more powerful than the party. The NDP doesn’t like this line of thinking at either level of government, and apparently the provincial Liberals in Manitoba are also under the misguided notion that it’s “unconstitutional” (which it most certainly is not). I’m glad that Fletcher is planning to challenge the law, because it is an affront to Westminster democracy. And when it does get struck down, I hope it serves as a warning to other provinces, or the federal NDP in their perpetual quest to enact such laws.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Khadr settlement

Posted on by

News that Omar Khadr’s lawyers have reached a settlement with the government for some $10 million over his mistreatment and violation of his rights set off a firestorm, particularly among Conservatives, who took to the Twitter Machine to perform some outrage and to virtue signal, ignoring all of the relevant facts about the case, like the fact that he was a child soldier, that he was tortured, subjected to an illegal court process, confessed under duress to a made-up offence and pled guilty under similar duress, and the fact that thrice the Supreme Court of Canada found that we violated his Charter rights. (The government, incidentally, will only confirm that there is a judicial process underway, nor have any Liberal MPs joined in the online fray). And before you ask, no, this isn’t just something to be worn by the Harper government, but goes back to the Chrétien and Martin governments.

https://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/882238708904337408

And it cannot be understated, no matter what Khadr is accused of having done (and there is much disputed evidence that he could have thrown that grenade), the reason he would be getting compensation is because Canada violated his rights. And while Andrew MacDougall may explore the partisan point-scoring on Khadr, we cannot escape the simple fact that, as Stephanie Carvin drives home, that we are now paying the financial price for violating his rights for no tangible benefit. I would add that this financial penalty should also serve as a deterrent to future governments who think that they can get away with violating a Canadian’s rights and there not be any consequences. Amidst this, that a party that purports to be concerned with “law and order” to have trouble grasping with the basics of the rule of law, and coming up with a myriad of disingenuous justifications for ignoring said rule of law, is troubling. Oh, and the widow of the soldier that Khadr is alleged to have killed, and the other he is alleged to have blinded, are applying to the Canadian courts to claim his settlement (but I would be curious to see, if it makes it to trial, if their claims would hold up in court considering that they are based on charges and evidence that would not have stood up to Canadian law).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/882304117607215104

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/882304426932932608

https://twitter.com/aradwanski/status/882311305104850946

Meanwhile, while all of this outrage is being performed, remember that these same conservatives who insist that he was fully capable of having the mens rea to commit war crimes (which there are no legal basis for) who also insist that fifteen-year-olds can’t consent to sex, or that they need parental consent to attend gay-straight alliance clubs at their schools. Because there’s so much logical consistency there.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeing up some spots

Posted on by

The Senate bat-signal is calling me once more, and there’s plenty to discuss, starting with the fact that the Conservatives and Liberals have come to a decision about making space on the committees for “non-aligned” senators to get seats – likely two on each committee. It’s a tacit acknowledgment of the changes happening, and starts living up to a bit more fairness for the growing number of independent senators, but it’s not everything that it’s cracked up to be in part because this was a move made without consulting the Independent Working Group, which is organizing on behalf of seven of those independents (and may grow to include more as the new ones start getting their bearings). There were also 18 vacancies on committees, which this does fill. So it’s a good and welcome change, but there do seem to be a few questions around the process by which this happened.

As for Senator Harder’s budget request, I’m still having a hard time buying it. As he explained, he’s looking to hire a chief of staff (I’m dubious why), a senior policy advisor (okay), a director of communications (sure), three legislative assistants (three sounds like an awful lot), a director of parliamentary affairs (again, a bit dubious), plus an executive assistant and an assistant (I’m not sure why he needs both). It’s not like he has a caucus to manage, even if he is liaising with all parties in the Senate. He went on Power & Politics to insist that this is just like the previous Government Leaders got – but he’s not the Government Leader. They explicitly made this whole distinction so that it was going to be different. He’s not a cabinet minister, so I’m not sure why he needs the same staff as a cabinet minister would. His file management is minimal in comparison, and he has not caucus to manage, legislative agenda of his own to carry out. He’s sheperding the government’s agenda, and possibly answering questions on their behalf in Senate QP, maybe (which we’re not entirely sure about yet, and even then, he still wouldn’t need that much staff for that task). I remain dubious in the face of the task at hand, and the government’s insistence that they’re doing things differently, rather than just putting a new label on the position and being too-cute-by-half about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s not a wealth transfer

Posted on by

Woe be Saskatchewan, apparently, with the collapse in global commodity prices, affecting both its oil and potash industries. Its premier, Brad Wall, is in full-on populist mode in advance of a provincial election, and when not goading Montreal mayor Denis Coderre over Energy East, he’s also demanding some kind of federal dollars should the Trudeau government decide to bail out Bombardier, as well as funds for his idea of a well-capping programme. To be fair, the well-capping idea is a good one, but Wall’s bombast is probably not helping, particularly when he makes comments about equalisation funding. The Conservatives have been all about equalisation in Question Period, with questions yesterday demanding “fairness” for Alberta and Saskatchewan after the territories were having their formulas adjusted, despite the explanation that the adjustments were because of changing Statistics Canada measurements. More egregious was when former Speaker Andrew Scheer decried that wealth was still being transferred to other provinces based on calculations from when Saskatchewan was benefitting from $100/barrel oil. And my head very nearly exploded when he asked that because it’s about as wrong – and frankly boneheaded – as one can get when discussing equalisation. Despite the common mythology, the federal equalisation is not a wealth transfer between provinces. “Have” provinces don’t write cheques to the federal government in order to pass them along to the “have not” provinces. It’s nothing like that at all. Every Canadian pays into equalisation by way of taxes, and the federal government will transfer some of its general revenue funds to provinces who need help in providing an equal level of service to its citizens. Now, provinces like to make all kinds of claims based on what their per-capita contributions to the programme are, but it’s not a bloody wealth transfer. I get why they like to claim that it is for political purposes, but it’s wrong and it just fuels these ridiculous regional conflicts (like the ones we’re seeing now between the west and Quebec based on nonsense rhetoric over Energy East) to no good end. So seriously, MPs and premiers – knock it off. You’re not helping anyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Religious Freedom office on the line

Posted on by

In a month, Canada’s Religious Freedom ambassador’s first three-year term will expire, as will his office’s budget. He’s been making the rounds, once again, to talk about how much value there is in his office in helping our diplomats understand the religious points of view that dominate certain other countries, and uses that as the justification for his office. In a piece by the Citizen, there are a few other voices who say that he’s been doing a good job, and that he’s been available and accessible to talk about certain foreign policy issues, which is all well and good, but there does remain a certain discomfort around the very existence of the office and its raison d’etre. Part of that has to do with the suspicion that this was an office designed like its American counterpart to essentially be an office of Christian proselytising around the world – and to a certain extent, the press releases we did see out of that office seemed to weigh in particular to countries where there was a Christian minority in some level of persecution. But what the Citizen article misses is a more existential problem that the office faces, which is that its very existence creates a problem of perception in terms of a hierarchy of rights. The previous government in many statements it made in the Commons and elsewhere seemed to point to freedom of religion being a more fundamental building block to other rights and freedoms, which is fairly anathema to human rights academia. Back when the office was created, I spoke to a number of scholars who were sceptical because it introduced the notion that there was a hierarchy of rights, when all rights should be treated equally, lest they get their own departments within Global Affairs, and the jockeying for status, position and funding would take over. It remains to be seen what Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government thinks of the Office and whether they will be inclined to keep it around, or possibly absorb it into some other department within Global Affairs, of if they are persuaded by the argument of the perceptions of hierarchy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Niqab politics taking over

Posted on by

The politics of the niqab have slowly starting taking up a lot of oxygen on the election campaign, on a number of fronts. While people over the Twitter Machine tried to skew Harper’s “old stock Canadians” remark as some kind of racist or dog whistle politics (I’m not sure that interpretation makes sense given the context of what he was saying), the government has decided to crank their petulance around the attempted niqab ban up to eleven by declaring that they will ask the courts for a stay of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies case, essentially to deny the woman in question the right to vote. It’s going to be tough for them to convince the courts that there is some imminent danger if they allow her to take the oath before October 19th, much less convince the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case (and they almost certainly won’t, seeing as this is a fairly open-and-shut case of administrative law, where the minister overreached is authority to implement the ban). But while this pettiness digs in, the panic over the niqab has already begun to spread, with the Bloc launching an attack ad to warn that the NDP will mean pipelines and niqabs in Quebec, while an NDP candidate has stated that while Thomas Mulcair reopens the constitution to try and abolish the Senate (never going to happen), that he deal with the menace of niqabs at the same time. No, seriously. He added that he’s sure the party supports him on that, and as of posting time, the party has not repudiated the statement (much as they did not really repudiate it when Alexandre Boulerice made similar statements about banning niqabs earlier). Justin Trudeau, for his part, said he wouldn’t try to appeal the ban to the Supreme Court. So there’s that. Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey takes on the government’s attempted niqab ban, with her usual acid wit.

Continue reading →