With the clock ticking down to the end of the current parliament, the government is going to start lighting a fire to getting C-51 passed over the next two weeks, before the Easter break. That means accelerating the committee hearings to largely stuff them in the next week, with lots of witnesses in single sittings and little time to hear from each of them. It’s not a surprise that the government would use this particular tactic again to ram though contentious legislation, as they’ve done repeatedly, because they apparently have little capacity or desire to actually do the due diligence that they’re supposed to when it comes to these kinds of bills. Not surprisingly, there’s going to be plenty of opposition to large parts of the bill, and some of those who do support parts of the bill are at least concerned that there’s not enough study of the ramifications, or that there is enough needed oversight. But will the government make changes? Unlikely. Adding their voices to the opposition to the bill over the weekend was the Canadian Bar Association.
Tag Archives: Satellite Offices
Roundup: A desperate lawsuit
If you thought that the NDP’s sudden demand that the government refer the satellite offices case to the Supreme Court to rule on its justiciability immediately wasn’t a sign of desperation, the fact that those MPs being ordered to repay are now suing the Board of Internal Economy in Federal Court is even more so. Can one even sue a parliamentary board that one is a part of? In fact, it smacks of the kind of desperate tactic where you throw absolutely everything at the wall, no matter how implausible, and hope that something sticks. The suit demands that the $2.7 million in demanded repayments be set aside, calling the decision “unreasonable, arbitrary and incorrect.” Except it wasn’t the Board that made the findings – it was the Clerk of the Commons, and she has the paperwork to prove that the NDP misled her when they set up the scheme in the first place. It’s also curious that the NDP would go for this kind of process when discovery is going to be very difficult for them as they have to turn over all manner of documents as part of the process. Still, with time running out before their MPs start having their salaries garnisheed, I have to wonder how many more tactics we’ll see employed to try and delay things, at least until the election and then beyond.
Roundup: Foolishly demanding Supreme Court intervention
In an attempt to continue to stall having to repay their satellite office expenses, the NDP have taken the incredulous move of demanding that the government refer the matter to the Supreme Court, so that they can decide whether the matter is even justiciable before the NDP’s challenge at the Federal Court goes ahead. Oh, and they’re not going to pay a cent back until they have final say from the courts, and given the pace at which these things happen, it sounds an awful lot like they’re trying to keep putting this off until we’re into the writ period, if not later. More to the point, this is completely crazy and irresponsible because it’s a self-inflected blow to parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament decides its own rules because it’s the body that decides upon the creation of laws in this country, and it has privileges to ensure that it can do so without interference from either the Crown or its agents. What’s worse is how the NDP worded their press release – that they want the Supreme Court “to intervene,” amidst their whinging that this is because the Conservatives and Liberals re being mean to them for partisan reasons – never mind that it was the Clerk who discovered that they broke the rules. The fact that they are wording this in such a way makes it sound like they want the Supreme Court to be the babysitters of Parliament – which is not their job – and furthermore sounds about one step away from them calling on the Queen to intervene for them because they’re not getting their way. It’s political desperation, and it’s a terrible road to start travelling down, to voluntarily start stripping parliament of its privileges because they refuse to own up to their own poor judgement.
@journo_dale @J_Scott_ either the Fed Court has jurisdiction, or not. If they have a strong case at Fed Court, who needs the SCC? And…
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) February 27, 2015
@journo_dale @J_Scott_ …if they think the Federal Court is going to laugh them out of the room, why won't the SCC do same?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) February 27, 2015
https://twitter.com/j_scott_/status/571449661007003649
Roundup: Hurry or not
It’s a curious thing, this notion of political expediency. When it comes to the issue of national security changes, for which you would think the government would want to take the time to get it right considering not only the Charter implications, but also the potential for major embarrassment to a government should things go wrong *cough*Maher Arar*cough* there should be an impetus for some due diligence. Instead, we’re getting word that they want to limit committee study to three days, because gods forbid that they might have to schedule a few extra committee meetings or sit into July to ensure that things happen. Meanwhile, on an issue such as doctor-assisted dying, where there is a ticking clock looming over them, the government instead prefers to push it off to the next parliament, insisting there’s “plenty of time” and don’t worry, they’re “consulting with Canadians” on the subject, which gives one the sense that they’re going to put pretty much as much effort as they did into the recent prostitution law, which is to say that it was a fairly sham process designed to give them a result that they could use to justify a solution that is unlikely to pass a second Charter challenge. Oh, and because they’ll be in a time crunch when they do get around to presenting a bill, it would allow them to insist that they need to use time allocation to ram though a bill without a lot of actual consultation with experts (assuming that the Conservatives form government again). This method of issues management makes no sense, but they apparently are under the impression that it works for them.
Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan
A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.
Roundup: The problem with SIRC
Of the many hats that Bob Rae has worn over his long and storied careers in Canadian politics, one of them was as a member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee for a period of five years. Remember, this is the body that the government claims is providing oversight to CSIS, and that they’re “robust,” “doing a good job,” and “are the envy of the world.” No, seriously – they have said all of those things. Rae, meanwhile, notes that SIRC has limited resources for the size of the job they have, but more than that, they haven’t been paid attention to by the government itself. In other words, no matter what their reports say, and how scathing they are, the government’s response is pretty much to pat them on the head, say thanks, and ignore them. Issues like the limited mandate and compartmentalisation of what they’re supposed to be reviewing makes their jobs almost impossible to get a proper picture. The Privacy Commissioner has pointed out that the silos make their own job difficult to do because they can’t see what’s going on either. And then there are security agencies like CBSA – which gained a lost of powers post-9/11 – who have no independent oversight at all. But hey, any oversight is just “needless red tape” – also a phrase this government has used – and would somehow detract from trying to fight terrorists. All of this just adds to the fact that giving CSIS new powers without any additional oversight sounds like a more alarming proposition all the time.
Roundup: Candour, oversight, and the lack thereof
As Parliament debates a pair of bills on expanding the powers of CSIS, a case involving CSIS and foreign wiretaps was granted leave by the Supreme Court, meaning it’ll be heard sometime later this year. Why this is important is because it involves a Federal Court judge chastening CSIS for basically misleading the court into what they were going to do with a warrant they obtained, and if you’ve paid attention to what the Conservatives has been saying about their new anti-terror bill this past week, it’s been a lot of “we don’t need oversight because they’ll need judicial warrants!” Well, as this case shows, sometimes CSIS doesn’t tell these judges the truth when they go to get those warrants, so you see where the problem lies. Meanwhile, Terry Milewski shows us the times when SIRC didn’t really do their job when it comes to overseeing CSIS – just as the government insists that they’re “robust oversight.” Oh, and there were those times when CSIS wasn’t really honest with SIRC either. But by all means, let’s keep insisting that the status quo of a review committee is just fine instead of actual oversight. Nothing to see here, move along. And while the government continues to insist that oversight over intelligence agencies are “needless red tape,” Aaron Wherry reminds us that red tape is pretty much the role of Parliament, meant to constrain the powers of government.
Roundup: The Liberals say okay
It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.
The individual freedoms we enjoy and cherish as Canadians cannot exist without collective security. 1/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Bill C-51 can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will keep Cdns safe. As such, #LPC will support it. 2/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
There are gaps in this bill, specifically on oversight and mandatory reviews. #LPC will offer amendments to address these gaps. 3/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
When a gov’t asks its citizens to give up liberty, it is that gov’ts responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. 4/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are hopeful that #CPC is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights & our values. 5/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
The gov’t can accept that Canadians want greater oversight & accountability, or #LPC will offer that in our election platform. 6/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that by anyone. 7/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Roundup: Baird bows out
In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank John @Baird for his years of tireless devotion to Canada. http://t.co/P6Vg5HzKhm pic.twitter.com/FtAZmypv6y
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) February 3, 2015
Roundup: Two rulings and a report for the Mounties
The RCMP were in the centre of the spotlight yesterday, with two Supreme Court judgements and a fact-finding report on the Moncton shootings all having been released. Regarding the former, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the ban on RCMP from collectively bargaining was unconstitutional, which opens the door for them to form a recognised police association (though they seem to be shying away from a full-blown union). This ruling has further reaching consequences as it also resolved some of the problems in the existing jurisprudence around freedom of association, which has been in a fairly bad state for the past four years or so since a previous decision introduced a great deal of confusion into the law. The second decision related to a challenge of the government’s wage rollbacks imposed on the Force in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis, but the RCMP lost that challenge because of the fairly narrow way in which it was constructed and argued. As for the Moncton report, much of it focuses on the lack of training and slow roll-out of new carbines, confusion among communications and problems related to body armour, many of which are problems that date back to the Mayerthorpe massacre of four Mounties. Where these two stories intersect, beyond the RCMP issue itself, is that police association members are saying that they could have addressed some of these problems and had timelines established as part of a collective bargaining process, which of course they don’t have.