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.
Tag Archives: Access to Information
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
Roundup: Camembert and clutched pearls
In the media feeding frenzy yesterday morning, appetites whetted by unconfirmed reports by CTV that some 40 senators got additional letters from the Auditor General looking for further clarifications on expenses audited, one particular senator got swarmed while waiting at an elevator. Senator Nancy Ruth, who is a character who shoots from the hip and a pretty deadpan sense of humour, expressed her concerns about the Auditor General not understanding the role that a senator plays – in her case, as a feminist activist who brings a gender analysis lens to the work she does in the Upper Chamber – and then noted that the auditors were getting really picky to the point of being weird, like asking why her assistant expensed a breakfast when she should have eaten on the plane on her flight from Toronto to Ottawa. Nancy Ruth, deadpan, said that airplane food was awful, with “ice cold camembert and broken crackers.” But immediately We The Media clutched our pearls that she made such a quip. Camembert? That sounds awfully fancy! Why, normal Canadians would only eat blocks of Kraft cheese, thank you very much. And suddenly it became held up as a symbol of the Senate’s problems, and its members’ “entitlements.” There is this terrible strain of petty cheapness in our media – we’re aghast that things cost money (look at the renovations to Parliament Hill, much of which had been allowed to deteriorate because of the optics of spending money), and if someone puts up a dollar figure without context, it’s all the more fodder. If someone makes a legitimate expense, well, “ordinary Canadians” don’t get these expenses (err, except they do), so we try and shame them for claiming things that are within the rules. The moral panic around taxpayer dollars can be terribly provincial because it tends to be so very petty, this enviousness that some people are rewarded for doing long and difficult work – and make no mistake, the life of a senator is far less glamorous than people like to make it seem, particularly if you have a gruelling travel schedule to a lonely city like Ottawa and back. And it is a lot of work, both on Senate files and the kinds of projects that Senators take on because they have a position and a platform by which to champion them. But rather than acknowledge it, we begrudge it and we try to make everyone resent it too. Is it any wonder there is such cynicism about politics in this country? We stoke it at every opportunity. Maybe the problem is us, and our inability to roll with a quip or a joke, too busy clutching at our pearls instead.
https://twitter.com/jordanowens/status/583346556625154048
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/583450918303232000
QP: A laundry lists of non sequiturs
Caucus Day, and the only other day of the week when we can expect all party leaders to show up — because they’re showing how much Parliament matters. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking where the budget was, to which Stephen Harper read off a laundry list of measures they have already brought forward. Mulcair noted job losses, to which Harper decried NDP tax hikes. Mulcair brought up the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s statement about the state of the economy being “atrocious,” but Harper kept up his same line of answers. Mulcair noted that the costs of our military missions being classified in budget documents, but Harper ignored it and touted their family tax cuts. Mulcair then brought up Jason Kenney’s misleading statements about smart bombs, and Harper again claimed the NDP would take away the family tax cuts, before decrying how awful ISIS is. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted unemployment figures and demanded a real plan. Harper responded by claiming that the Liberals would also take away the family tax credits. Trudeau gave a jab about spending taxpayer dollars for benefit gain, to which Harper gave a bog standard “$40 million dollars” response before he again claimed the Liberals would take away programmes from Canadians. For his final question, Trudeau asked about partisan advertising, before making a dig another the absent Liberal party platform.
Roundup: Lunney and his martyrdom
Surprising news on Parliament Hill yesterday was that Conservative MP James Lunney decided he’s going to quit caucus and sit as an independent because his freedom of religion is being suppressed at the senior levels, citing the group of Christian “leaders” who held a press conference on Parliament Hill last week to decry that they are being denied professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine and academia. What that tends to be code for is the fact that they don’t like the that Law Societies around the country don’t want to accredit Trinity Western University’s law school for its homophobic code of conduct, that doctors have to refer people for birth control, and one presumes with academia it’s about things like creationism or “intelligent design.” Lunney went so far in his press release to bemoan the social media firestorm when he defended an Ontario PC MPP who felt that schools should teach creationism. Lunney himself has questioned the science of climate change and given credence to discredited theories like vaccines being linked to autism. And while he has already announced that he won’t run again, what I find most disconcerting is that Lunney is martyring himself for this supposed cause of religious freedom when it’s not that at all. While the Ottawa Citizen editorial put it best, that religious freedom is about not having the state tell you what to believe, it also makes the point that it doesn’t mean your beliefs can’t be questioned or even mocked or satirized. What is most problematic is that this false notion of religious freedom that Lunney and the Charles McVety crowd was moaning about last week is the very same justification for those blatantly anti-gay laws being passed in places like Indiana, where “freedom of religion” is being used as the statutory means to discriminate against gays and lesbians. And in fact, it’s insulting to those who are actually suffering from religious prosecution. I’m not saying they have the numbers here to try and agitate for those kinds of laws, and it would never pass the Charter test regardless, but that mentality remains alarming.
anyone saying that Christians are oppressed in Canada doesn ot know what oppression is/means. @journo_dale @EmmMacfarlane
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) March 31, 2015
QP: Concern over a slight shrinking in GDP
It being Tuesday, the leaders were all present and ready to go, because apparently it only counts two days a week now. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the new numbers from StatsCan that showed that GDP shrank ever so slightly last month. Stephen Harper touted his family tax cut legislation instead. Mulcair demanded a budget, but Harper demurred. Mulcair decried “all of the eggs” in the oil basket — actually not true — and continued his demand for a budget, but Harper kept insisting that they are continuing their Economic Action Plan™ and that it was working. Mulcair then moved onto this morning’s PBO report that said that families with older kids and those without kids in childcare will be getting more benefits than those with kids in childcare. Harper first insisted that the NDP wanted to raise taxes, and then insisted that all families would get an increase in after-tax benefits. Mulcair decried those families with kids in childcare being punished, but Harper repeated his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, and he returned to the reports of negative growth in three months of the past six, and wondered when the government would come up with a plan to get the economy moving. Harper responded with a laundry list of their recent announcements, and insisted that the Liberals only wanted to raise taxes. Trudeau noted that giving a tax break to the rich wouldn’t help, but Harper insisted that forecasts still showed growth, and wanted support for their family tax break bill. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper repeated his answer in French.
Roundup: Awaiting the Iraq debate, redux
As we prepare to debate the extension of the Iraq mission, our Forces say that the ban on entering Syria hasn’t really been a problem, since our allies can do it on their own terms. Given that Canada has no authorisation under international law to enter Syria without permission – something we are justifiably loathe to get give that it would be coming from Bashar al-Assad, the dictator there – it makes it hard for our government to come up with a convincing enough case to take the war there, especially when the Americans have their own particular means by which they can enter that country. Much of that debate will be framed in such a way as to trap the Liberals, the government hoping that they can cast them as being soft on terror by not wanting to pursue ISIS there, lest the Liberals expose their left flank to the NDP supporters who are much more pacifistic. It will be a debate full of rhetoric on the government side which will make ISIS look bigger and more dangerous than it is – and while they have done some awful things, they’re pretty tiny on the scale of history in the region (and given the way this government makes ISIS look like a bigger threat than they probably are in reality, does that count as promoting terrorism?) The flipside of the debate will be the humanitarian side, which Rob Nicholson has been touting after his visit to the region. The problem there is that unless we have clearly stated objectives on that front, we risk becoming tangled up in problems that may leave us worse off in the long run, just as we wound up making a hash of things in Afghanistan despite the best of intentions. But can MPs really handle a nuanced debate like this so close to an election call? I have my doubts.