Tag Archives: Access to Information

Roundup: The inaugural NSICOP report

Posted on by

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians tabled their redacted report on the prime minister’s India trip yesterday, and, well, there were a number of redactions. But what wasn’t redacted did paint a picture of an RCMP that bungled security arrangements, and that didn’t have good lines of communication with the prime minister’s security detail, and where they left a voicemail for someone who was on vacation, while someone else in Ottawa decided to not bother trying to reach out until the following day because it was the end of their shift. So yeah, there were a “few issues” that the RCMP fell down on. And because of the redactions (done by security agencies and not PMO, for reasons related to national security or because revelations could be injurious to our international relations), we don’t have any idea if the former national security advisor’s warnings about “rogue elements” of the Indian government were involved was true or not.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1069736311785951234

The CBC, meanwhile, got documents under Access to Information to show what kind of gong show was touched off with the communications side of things as the government tried to manage the fallout of the revelations of Atwal’s appearance on the trip (and in many senses, it wasn’t until the prime minister gave a very self-deprecating speech on the trip at the Press Gallery Dinner that the narratives started to die down). Because remember, this is a government that can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag.

In order to get some national security expert reaction, here’s Stephanie Carvin and Craig Forcese:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069747574435995648

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1069718997937995776

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708639479451649

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1069708795134308362

It should also be pointed out that the opposition parties are trying to make some hay over the redactions, and are intimating that they’re the product of PMO for partisan reasons. It’s not supposed to work that way, but hey, why deal in facts when you can proffer conspiracy theories, or in Andrew Scheer’s case, shitposts on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/RobynUrback/status/1069786954756173825

Continue reading →

Roundup: Compromising positions vs oversight

Posted on by

As the fallout from his sexting “scandal” continued, MP Tony Clement was booted from caucus yesterday, which shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. First thing in the morning, Andrew Scheer said that he was assured that it was a one-off so Clement would be allowed to stay, but by Question Period, Clement was out, meaning that more stuff has come to light (possibly the raft of women over social media describing their creepy encounters with Clement online).

While Cabinet ministers including Ralph Goodale don’t believe that this incident with Clement actually breached national security, the bigger worry by experts in the field is the fact that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is still nascent and building trust, and the fact that Clement was a member of that team and obviously ignored the training he was provided about not putting himself in compromising positions could shake the domestic trust of this new committee, especially given that this level of parliamentary oversight of our national security is new and largely untested.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1060246150266138625

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060245758123753472

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060246898810867712

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060248352011431936

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060250149736202240

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060251763486257152

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060254722823618560

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060258407968473089

Susan Delacourt notes the three ways in which Clement has damaged himself, and possibly his party as well. John Ivison ponders the security implications of this whole sordid affair. And on Power Play, Stephanie Carvin explains why this is an issue with national security considerations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Yet more dubious suggestions hosted by the GRO

Posted on by

Over on the Government Representative Office website, Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder has been hosting suggestions from former senators of late on how to “reform” the Senate. Because of course he has. And not all of the suggestions are particularly helpful, or good for the Senate in the long run. The latest example is from Senator Pierre De Bané, who was a senator for thirty years and an MP before that. De Bané seems to think that what the Senate needs more than anything is the independent oversight body that the Auditor General wants instituted before voluntarily neutering its powers by passing a motion to only use a suspensive veto. Because hey, if it’s good enough for the UK…

I’ve written numerous times that the notion of an independent oversight body risks the senate’s status as a self-governing parliamentary body. I would be okay with an audit committee that includes outside members but is still made up with a majority of senators in order to ensure that it remains in Senate control because it’s important that our parliamentary bodies retain self-governing status. Otherwise we might as well turn power back over to the Queen, because we obviously have no business governing ourselves. I’m also forever baffled by the notion that we should neuter the Senate’s ability to exercise hard power and defeat a bad government bill when necessary. It’s part of their necessary duties to hold government to account, and before you say that it’s good enough for the House of Lords, the Canadian Senate is a vastly different body than the Lords, with a very different history, and the Senate was never the primary legislative body as the Lords was for centuries. These are differences that can’t be papered over.

De Bané’s other suggestion is that the Senate start creating a series of special committees tailored to senators’ special interests to…do advocacy work, apparently. I’m not opposed to senators undertaking an advocacy role on issues that are of particular interest to them, I am less keen on the proliferation of special committees because I worry that it will draw the focus away from the actual legislative responsibilities of senators – especially in an environment with independent senators who are beholden to nobody and who aren’t able to be corralled into getting work done. We’re already having problems getting bills passed in a timely manner because the leadership within the Senate refuses to do things like negotiate with one another – now imagine that these senators are otherwise engaged with busywork of their own interest rather than with the boring work of scrutinising legislation or holding government to account. I do fear that creating an environment where personalized committees can proliferate will have a detrimental effect on the Senate overall, and I’m a bit surprised that a former senator doesn’t see this possibility.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cluelessly disparaging parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

Sometimes you read an op-ed so clueless that it burns. This piece by lawyer and part-time law professor Daniel Tsai about the Mike Duffy lawsuit is one of those pieces. Tsai argues that the lawsuit is an opportunity for the courts to make changes to the Senate that, according to him, will make it “more accountable.” As his evidence, he cites statements from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder darkly musing that some senators may want to protect their friends, and Senator Marilou McPhedran’s quest to root out harassment in the Senate as “proof” that the problem is the Senate’s parliamentary privilege. But he also cites former Senator Don Meredith as a case of harassment without also acknowledging that it was because the Senate has parliamentary privilege that they’re able to discipline their own, and that they had recommended expulsion for his breaching the Senate’s ethical code, and that forced his hand to resign. This is a feature, not a bug.

The whole piece demonstrates that, lawyer or not, Tsai doesn’t understand what privilege is, the importance of Parliament’s need to be self-governing (if it’s not, we might as well just turn power back over to the Queen), or the fact that the institutional independence of the Senate (which allows it to hold the government to account) requires it to have a robust set of privileges that can police its own members rather than subject the institution to threats of lawsuits from its various members when they’ve feeling sore by the fact that they’ve been disciplined. Weakening privilege won’t make the Senate more accountable – it will make it vulnerable to vexatious litigation, and along the way, weaken the House of Commons’ own parliamentary privileges as well (because the privileges of the Senate and the Commons are inextricably linked).

None of this is to suggest that the Senate is perfect – it’s not, and there have been bad apples that generally have been made to resign when the going gets tough. Tsai completely ignores the constitutional role of the Senate and the way in which it’s constructed with a defined purpose in mind in order to engage in some populist pandering to the myths that surround the institution. His “solution” about a judicially-imposed limitation on the privileges that are embedded in the constitution (seriously?!) would make things worse, not better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Decrying unfairness while ignoring logic

Posted on by

As the countdown to Kinder Morgan’s deadline for some kind of reassurance around the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion draws near, we’re starting to see a lot of angry commentary from Western conservatives, and not all of it is very well thought out. Yesterday, former Wildrose leader Brian Jean took to the Financial Postto say that Alberta needs to demand a “fairer deal” from Canada…but made a litany of errors and misrepresentations, and gaps in the logic of his own conclusions. Andrew Leach laid out many of them here:

I would add that Jean also disingenuously ignored the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Northern Gateway process didn’t adequately consult the First Nations to a constitutional standard, which was entirely the fault of the Harper government and not Trudeau. And for his complaints around Energy East, he also ignored the fact that while the NEB said that they would look at downstream emissions as part of their analysis, Cabinet broadcast that their criteria for approval had not changed, and it did not include those emissions profiles. It also ignores the economics of the situation, that Energy East was the most expensive option now that Trans Mountain and Keystone XL had been approved. It also gives the false notion that it would allow Alberta oil to flow to Eastern refineries for the sake of “energy security” when those refineries are not built to handle the kind of heavy crude that Alberta exports, and thus the majority of it would not wind up in Canadian gas tanks. But hey, why do facts matter when you’re trying to stir up anger?

And anger over equalization is so easy to stir up when you constantly misrepresent the issue. It’s not a cheque that the province hands over – it comes mostly out of personal income taxes. It’s a federal programme, and the reason Alberta pays more into it and doesn’t get it is because Albertans have the highest incomes in the country, and the fiscal capacity that their government can offer the same level of services as other provinces without crippling taxes. And when Premier Moe starts tweeting about “shipping out” equalization dollars, I think it’s fair to ask if he thinks that his province wants either the lower incomes or the reduced fiscal capacity that it would take for them to be a net receiver of equalization. (Note: He does have a point about the rail backlogs, and the federal government could have taken measures to deal with that months ago if they so chose). But seriously – these equalization/fair deal gripes are not grounded in fact or logic, and we need to remind people of that.

Continue reading →

QP: Border concerns at the fore

Posted on by

All leaders were present, and before QP got underway, Guy Caron, Andrew Scheer, and Marco Mendicino made statements about the van attack in Toronto yesterday. After a moment of silence, Scheer led off, concern trolling that the government of Quebec had to go to the media to get action on irregular border crossers. Justin Trudeau said that they had been rebuilding the relationship with the provinces, and that they were working on the issue with them. Scheer demanded to know why nothing had been done over the past year to stem the flow of migrants, and Trudeau took up a script to list the fact that the previous government made cuts to CBSA and the IRB that they were still investing to clean up. Scheer worried that legitimate refugees or immigrants were not getting processed because of these backlogs, and Trudeau didn’t use a script to call out the Conservatives for having broken the system. Scheer protested that the Conservatives had a “generous” refugee resettlement programme, but Trudeau reiterated the cuts that the previous government instituted. Scheer tried one last time, and Trudeau noted that the backlogs now were as a result of those cuts, while his government was cutting processing times while still respecting the rules around international asylum claimants. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, accusing the government of rigging the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Trudeau deployed a platitude about energy and the environment going together. Caron switched to French to repeat the question, and Trudeau took a script this time to chastise the NDP for their incoherent position before retreating to the platitudes. Hélène Laverdière was up next to demand the suspension of the Safe Third Country agreement, to which Trudeau took up a new script to read about how they were investing in accelerating processing and strengthening the border. Jenny Kwan reiterated the question in English, to which Trudeau worried that the NDP may be trying to stoke fears around asylum seekers as well, before repeating his previous points sans script.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Brison talks out the clock

Posted on by

Senate Question Period resumed this week, after a hiatus of several weeks, and the special guest star this week is Scott Brison, president of the Treasury Board and temporary minister of democratic institutions. Senator Larry Smith led off, and he worried about marijuana regulations not being pre-published in the Canada Gazette. Brison said that Treasury Board’s work from a regulatory perspective was to work with Health Canada to ensure that the framework was in place by the time that the legislation comes into force. He assured them that there would be no corners cut, before launching into the worn talking points about the point of the legislation. Smith tried to puzzle out the timelines around regulations being published, and he wanted the rationale being made public in terms of why the regulations were not pre-published. Brison reiterated that they were trying to ensure that the regulatory framework was in place prior to the law effect. Continue reading →

Roundup: Romanado’s version

Posted on by

A little over 24 hours after the allegations between Liberal MP Sherry Romanado and Conservative MP James Bezan ricocheted around the Hill, CTV got an exclusive interview with Romanado, and it’s eye-opening in how the accounts differ, particularly around the apology itself. In particular, Romanado disputes that Bezan had made attempts to apologize earlier – something she would have welcomed – and noted that she was blindsided by his public apology in the Commons on Monday morning considering that she was in her office when it happened, and only later made her statement to try to correct what she felt was wrong information.

The biggest takeaway from the interview (which I would encourage you to watch, despite the fact that it’s 20 minutes long) is the fact that in her estimation, Bezan broke the confidentiality of the mediation process by putting out his statement on Monday afternoon – something she respected up until that point, which is partially why she had been blindsided. She also notes that while others are accusing her of making a partisan issue out of it, she had plenty of opportunity to do so beforehand while she respected the confidentiality of the grievance process, and her “reward” for this affair is to be inundated with trolls over social media who have been replete with lewd suggestions about threesomes. As well, other MPs have come to her to recount their own experiences that they won’t come forward with.

There were a few other points of note in the interview – that what people will say was a bad joke felt to her like she was being undermined in front of stakeholders and treated like a sexual object, which made her job as parliamentary secretary harder to do. As well, she has been asked directly by young women who want to get involved in politics if they will be sexually harassed on the Hill, and she has told them unfortunately yes. There need to be conversations about what goes on and how to prevent it, but as this experience shows, it certainly appears that Bezan may have been engaging in some damage control that further sought to undermine Romanado, which is sadly the kind of cynical manoeuvres that happen here far too often.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt calls out those who would use sexual harassment allegations for political purposes, going back to the initial incident of those two Liberal MPs booted from caucus, while Robyn Urback argues that a bad joke is not really the same as the same kinds of allegations of sexual harassment that other women are coming forward about.

Continue reading →

QP: Turning attention to Lebouthillier

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau off in Beijing, along with several of his ministers, it appeared that Andrew Scheer decided he had better things to do, and left it up to Lisa Raitt to lead off QP instead. Raitt raised the ethical bar in Bill Morneau’s mandate letter, and with that having been failed by the fine for forgetting to declare the holding company that owned his villa, it was enough for him to resign. Dominic LeBlanc rose to respond, and dismissed the line of questioning as a weeks-long fishing expedition, and that Morneau had worked with the Ethics Commissioner. Raitt tried again, bringing in the fictional compliance requirements around Bill C-27, and LeBlanc dismissed the concerns, and pointed out that Raitt wished that the Conservatives had Morneau’s economic growth record. Raitt tried a third time, raising the share sales as though there was anything to question with them, and LeBlanc shrugged it off a third time. Alain Rayes took over in French, demanding to know about the share sales. LeBlanc reiterated his previous responses in French, and they went one more round of the same. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, concern trolling over Morneau having to meet with the Ethics Commissioner yet again over share sales, but LeBlanc reiterated that Morneau works with the Commissioner and takes her advice. After Caron tried again in English and got the same response, Alexandre Boulerice got up to decry the competence of the revenue minister regarding either the money hoped for from going after tax avoidance and disability tax credits for diabetics, but Diane Lebouthillier assured him that the restored disability advisory committee was getting to work. Boulerice tried again in French, and Lebouthillier responded that they were getting tough on tax avoidance.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/937764803363340289

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another run refused

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the NDP made a big deal out of the fact that new leader Jagmeet Singh was “going home” to Windsor, a city where he grew up. But immediately upon arriving, he told reporters that no, he had no plans to run for a seat in the area. Never mind that he a) doesn’t have a seat currently, b) has a connection to Windsor, and he says he wants to run in a riding that he has a connection to, and c) he has three seats in the region which are relatively safe for the party, all of which are conducive to his actually doing the time-honoured thing in our system of getting one of those three MPs to temporarily step aside and let him run for a seat there in their stead for the next couple of years. And it’s not like the party won’t be able to come up with some kind of job for the displaced MP for those two years – they have found work for other displaced MPs, and hell, they could even put him or her to work in the local riding office to keep that connection going, and top up their salary from party coffers rather than pay Singh from them outright for the next two years. But no.

Meanwhile, Guy Caron is in the House of Commons four days a week, and apparently is taking a bigger hand in running the staff in the leader’s office in Ottawa (given that Singh can barely be arsed to be in Ottawa even once a week), which leads me to wonder what exactly Singh’s role as party leader actually is. Furthermore, how is he able to actually wield any authority, either with the caucus or with the staff in the leader’s office, if he’s never there? And if I’m Charlie Angus or Niki Ashton, who did better than Caron in the leadership and who are now back to their old critic roles with nothing more to show for it, I’m probably getting pretty sore that Caron, who came in last, is now the de facto leader. If I’m an NDP supporter, I’m also probably pretty concerned that Singh has immediately sidelined himself into the role of a figurehead who has no institutional role, wields almost no authority, and is merely there to tour the country, give a couple of speeches and have a few photo ops.

Nothing about this situation is acceptable in a parliamentary democracy, and absolutely no part of this is acceptable when it comes to defending Parliament itself. By insisting that parliament is irrelevant, Singh is doing fundamental damage to the institution in the eyes of Canadians, and that should raise the red flags of everyone. How can you lead a party that wants to win more seats in an institution when you personally can’t even be bothered to do so? It’s perverse, and people in his party need to start demanding that either he respects our system of government and gets a seat immediately, or maybe it’s time to find a leader who can.

Continue reading →