With Bono promised to attend, MPs were vibrating with fannish glee during Members’ Statemets. Thomas Mulcair even showed up on a Monday, which is an indication of how big of a deal they were making of it. When he led off, he led immediately with the AG report on the Senate, and asked about PMO interference (not that any has been alleged). Paul Calandra, quite predictably, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair then raised the mischief-making of the possibility that Senators won’t travel extra city blocks to get cheaper temporary office space, to which Diane Finley made a bland statement about expecting senators to take whatever temporary office space if given to them. Mulcair then went on a soliloquy that he is probably glad he was shielded by privilege for, and asked a rhetorical question about why the PM appointed the senators he did, not that Calandra’s reply changed from before. Mulcair changed topics, brought up Bono (who still had not arrived) and the fact that the government has not committed to actually doing anything about the poverty pledge they are signing onto. Christian Paradis praised the government’s programmes abroad. Mulcair noted the poverty among First Nations, to which Bernard Valcourt listed their success stories in the north. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about the Information Commissioner’s decision to take the government to court over those deleted gun registry records, and wondered who counselled the behaviour. Stephen Blaney touted the destruction of said registry and gave a false point another the will of parliament. Goodale pressed, and Blaney doubled down. Stéphane Dion gave it a go in French, and got the same answer — again.
Tag Archives: Access to Information
Roundup: More responsibility from failure
The OPP report on the October 22nd shooting is out, and highlights a number of lapses that happened on that day, but among them all, it should probably be highlighted that a lot of the problem seems to be with the RCMP who are patrolling the exterior of the buildings on the Hill, and that they had a minute-and-a-half to do something about the shooter and didn’t. (Some of what people saw during the shooting is described here). Not that there weren’t problems inside, as some of the bullets that flew were from security personnel and not the shooter, including the one that lodged itself in to the door of the Railway Room, where the NDP were having their caucus meeting. It was also raised in the report that the RCMP were dealing with budget cuts, so it does raise the question as to whether their limited resources played a factor in what happened, be it in resourcing or equipment. It also raises a lot of questions moving forward because the government made a particularly top-down move to have the RCMP take over the oversight of all Hill security from its previous silos (remember that Commons and Senate security forces are separate because of privilege issues). If the RCMP couldn’t manage the situation outside of the buildings, how will they be any better overseeing and coordinating things inside? As well, it needs to be stressed that this new system, under RCMP management, has been imposed hastily and without enough discussion and consultation – the government put the motion under closure, and its implementation is in the omnibudget bill with not enough time for proper scrutiny, particularly as many of the questions about what it all means still haven’t been answered yet, like what the role for the Sergeant-at-Arms will be under this new regime. Speaker Scheer did acknowledge that parliamentarians are complaining, but he seems to think that everything will work out fine. How can we be sure of that if we’re rushing this through and not thinking clearly enough about it, or consulting enough with all of the stakeholders and taking this report into consideration, which hadn’t been completed when the motion was passed and the implementation put into the budget bill. Meanwhile, the fact that RCMP are now carrying submachine guns on the Hill has a lot of its denizens unsettled.
QP: Shoehorning in the Duffy issue
Despite it being a Tuesday, only two leaders were present — Thomas Mulcair, and Elizabeth May. Alas. Mulcair led off, asking about the destruction of records on the long-gun registry despite the Access to Information requests. Stephen Blaney insisted that the RCMP respects all laws and the will of parliament — which, you know, hadn’t been recorded because it was simply a bill at the time. Mulcair demanded to know who ordered the records deleted, and Blaney didn’t deviate. Mulcair tried to stretch it to the audit on Senate residencies, and Blaney insisted the NDP should be given a free vote on an upcoming gun bill. Mulcair insisted that the PM release the statement that Duffy apparently signed about his residency, to which Paul Calandra stood up and reminded the NDP about their satellite offices. Mulcair kept trying to tie the Duffy affair into things, and Calandra repeated his demanded that the NDP pay back the money from those offices. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, decrying the focus on TFSAs instead of focusing on those who need help. Pierre Poilievre listed a couple of scenarios where seniors use the accounts. Scott Brison hammered on the TFSAs and the PBO’s statements on them, and Joe Oliver actually answered, listing some figures about them as a kind of non sequitur. Brison noted the GIS payments affected by TFSAs, but Oliver quoted some people who support their moves.
"We know they're having a bad question period," Mulcair says, and then reads his question. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 26, 2015
"Let's put a stop to the chanting in the Chamber. It's unbecoming," Speaker Scheer admonished. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 26, 2015
Roundup: Cheap outrage against the AG
The Auditor General is in the news for a couple of reasons, both of which start bordering on the ridiculous. The first is the news about the price tag of the Senate audit, which is said to be approaching $21 million. The AG himself didn’t want to start talking numbers out of context, and to wait for the final report, but this likely has to do with the fact that a number of outside contract staff were brought in to do the audit – which is also what a lot of the process complaints are, particularly since these outside auditors have no idea about what constitutes parliamentary functions, or the bounds of propriety in some cases. (Incidentally, the numbers of senators affected being leaked in this story is far less than those in other reports). The other story is more egregious, but not for the reason you might think. CTV reported that the AG’s office has spent $23,000 over four years on team-building exercises. Mind you, that’s over 600 staff, which basically amounts to an annual pizza lunch, and it’s in the context of a $90 million annual budget, but look – a big number with little context! Scandal! And thus we get to the egregiousness of the cheap outrage that apparently fuels out political media in this country. Who doesn’t love a story where a big number gets presented with inadequate context, and calling it a scandal? Why can’t we be a country that is so cheap and flinty that we are the Ritz-crackers-and-ginger ale crowd? Why should we spend money on anything at all? But no, it’s all OH NOES PIZZA LUNCH and lighting our hair on fire. And then of course, the perennial bugaboo of the Challenger jets, where every time the GG flies somewhere we need to get the CTF on the line to decry how terrible it is that we go and do diplomacy. Sometimes I wonder if we’re really a grown-up country after all.
@robert_hiltz I worked it out to $38 per employee over four years on team building.
— Paul Vieira (@paulvieira) May 26, 2015
Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead
It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.
Roundup: Calling in the OPP
It took MPs long enough to respond, but one supposes that it’s about time they did. On Thursday of last week, the Information Commissioner issued her damning special report on the RCMP destroying records that were under Access to Information requests, related to the long-gun registry, and the government is now proposing legislation to make it retroactively legal (more in my column here). No MP other than Wayne Easter bothered to actually say something until yesterday – five days later – at which point the committees decided to get involved. The NDP are moving a motion in Ethics committee, which has jurisdiction over Access to Information policy, while the Liberals are proposing similar hearings in the Public Safety committee where they can haul the RCMP Commissioner before them. Still, it’s another week’s delay, and there’s no guarantee they’ll get the hearings given the limited number of sitting days left, and the fact that government MPs can block their request in camera. That having been said, it looks like Suzanne Legault’s recommendation that charges be laid for the destruction of those records might actually come to fruition, as the Attorney General’s office did forward the request on to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn has asked the OPP to investigate. We’ll see if the government proposes to still go ahead with retroactively changing the law while there is an active police investigation, but if they stick to their guns, that they’re just “closing a loophole” (which is not true), then they just might.
Roundup: The galling abuse of the Information Commissioner
The Information Commissioner is very unhappy about the government’s move to retroactively change the law to protect the RCMP for destroying gun registry records despite promises to her office that they wouldn’t in order to fulfil Access to Information requests. That the RCMP broke the law by destroying the information, and the government is protecting them by retroactively changing the law and putting that change in the middle of the omnibus budget bill, sets a very bad precedent, she warns, and she’s right. While the government wanted the long-gun registry data destroyed for political purposes, there was other information of value in the data that wound up being destroyed that had little to do with any future attempts at recreating a registry – something the Conservatives have long been afraid of, and are pressing for the hasty destruction of data to impede. And the way she characterises this is genuinely frightening – that they are backdating changes to the law to make something legal after a finding of wrongdoing. She uses the example of the Sponsorship Scandal – what if the Liberal government of the day retroactively changed the law so that the Auditor General was ousted from her jurisdiction after the fact. It’s unconscionable. What’s even more galling is the way that the prime minister is shrugging this off as just “fixing a loophole.” No, it’s not. It’s wilfully undermining the Commissioner and her ability to do her job, which this government has already made nearly impossible through starving her office budget and wanton disregard of their obligations under the Access to Information regime. All while they call themselves “open and transparent.” It’s grotesque, abusive, and in violation of their obligations as the government of the day. And if anything is any more upsetting about this situation, it’s that the opposition parties were too busy electioneering in QP instead of raising bloody hell about this issue – the Liberals not asking until nearly the end, and the NDP not raising it at all. Thanks for doing your jobs in holding this kind of unconscionable behaviour to account, MPs. Gold stars all around.
Roundup: Committing to change – for real!
A rare bit of public damage control was on display yesterday as CBC obtained a copy of the orders that the Chief of Defence Staff put out two months ago, which told the nascent task force being assembled to deal with the forthcoming report by former Justice Marie Deschamps on sexual assault and harassment in the Forces, to basically set aside some of the coming recommendations. At this point in the timeline, General Lawson would have seen a draft copy of Deschamps’ report, and he would have had a good idea what was in it for recommendations. Within hours of the CBC report going public, Lawson put out a lengthy press release stating that the Forces would act on all ten recommendations, including the creation of an independent centre for reporting assault or harassment. A few minutes later in Question Period, Jason Kenney also said that all ten recommendations would be acted upon as well. It does make one wonder when any change in these orders occurred, and why Lawson changed his mind – though one can imagine that either the final wording of Deschamps’ report, and how it was received by both the government and the general public, may have forced a realisation that there was a real appetite for cultural change out in the wider public, and that the old way of dealing with issues internally, particularly with its culture of misogyny, weren’t going to cut it any longer. Meanwhile, it should also be pointed out that the Canadian Forces appointed a female commander, Brigadier General Lise Bourgon, to head our forces in Iraq, and more women in high-profile commanding roles can only help in driving home the message that it’s not a macho boys’ club any longer.
Change of Command JTF-Iraq: BGen Lise Bourgon assumed command from BGen Dan Constable: http://t.co/4WnHzj09cB #RCAF pic.twitter.com/dKFYWjnNJY
— Royal Canadian Air Force (@RCAF_ARC) May 13, 2015
Roundup: Cabinet confidences for slogans
In case you wanted to know why the government has chosen the slogan “Strong Proud Free” on their new ad campaigns that blur the partisan line, well, good luck, You see, they’ve been declared a cabinet confidence, which means that they’ll be sealed for twenty years. Ladies and gentlemen, the most open and transparent government in the history of ever! It’s one of those cases where one hopes that The Canadian Press will file a complaint with the Information Commissioner, because then there’s a chance that she’ll be able to actually examine the file (eventually – she’s a bit overloaded and has little operating budget left) to test whether it really should be a cabinet confidence, and if not, she can work what powers she does possess to get it released (though that is likely to mean going to court given the current sad state of Access to Information legislation). Elsewhere, a court case involving misconduct of the RCMP protection detail of the Prime Minister is looking to get the records in question sealed, apparently using clauses from terrorism trials, to keep information about the PM’s family private. While there is likely some reason to keep certain details private, and We The Media are generally reluctant to drag a politician’s family though the mud, RCMP misconduct is serious business and probably shouldn’t be kept behind closed doors for the very reasons why there have been problems in the Force for so long. Sunlight, generally, is the best disinfectant. But it’s not all bad news for Access to Information – a Federal Court judge ruled that government departments can’t charge fees for requested electronic documents, as they have been trying to do, as that undermines the very point of the Access laws in the first place, which are supposed to cost no more than $5, and it’s not like you’re photocopying or printing these documents – they’re already electronic. In all, however, it points to the genuine need to modernise the system, and this government just voted down a chance to do just that when they killed Justin Trudeau’s private member’s bill on doing just that.
Roundup: The trial begins
The day has finally arrived, and the Mike Duffy trial can begin – and let me say, if you were sick of hearing about it before it began, well, the wall-to-wall coverage is going to be insufferable, especially over the next two weeks until the Commons resumes its sitting, and we’ll get a budget. And you’ll forgive me if I’m not one of the people who is expecting this to be a litany of fireworks and bombshells that will damage the PMO. If anything, I would presume that the judge would take a dim view of any attempt to make this a trial of Stephen Harper’s government rather than of Duffy’s culpability in his own affairs. After all, he signed off on all of those expenses, and he bears responsibility for everything, up to and including accepting that cheque from Nigel Wright. The rest – trying to pry open the inner workings of the PMO, as much as Duffy’s lawyer may try to bring this up to portray Duffy as the victim or a pawn in these machinations, I doubt will hold much water. In fact, even the most recent “shocking” revelation has nothing to do with the PMO, but rather with Duffy’s own hand in things. So no, I really don’t think this is going to be cause for Harper to sweat or lay awake at night – one doubts that Duffy has too much dirt left that can damage him at this point. (Incidentally, the Maclean’s Duffy trial page is pretty sweet, particularly the Scott Feschuk humour pieces.)
ICYMI, back in September I profiled Duffy's lawyer, Donald Bayne, for @CanLawMag. http://t.co/5vbbFs4cTn
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 7, 2015