Tag Archives: Border

Roundup: Clown show at the bar

Posted on by

The move to call the Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, to the bar of the House of Commons yesterday, was a complete clown show. After the Speaker read his admonishment, the Chamber descended to a back-and-forth of points of order, points of privilege, and a discussion of moving a motion on sending the Sergeant-at-Arms to the PHAC offices to search them and seize the unredacted documents (and good luck with that, given that secret documents are meant to be kept in secure cabinets).

I found it exceedingly curious that none of the opposition leaders were present for this spectacle, given that they would doubtlessly like to use it for their own partisan purposes. I am also deeply unimpressed that the government only presented other possible options for the disclosure of those documents, such as only turning them over after more security measures were in place and the Commons Law Clerk had assistance from national security officials to ensure redactions could be done properly and in context, after the admonishment happened, which they should have done beforehand to prevent this incident from ever having taken place.

I’m not sure that a security-cleared Commons committee could have prevented this whole incident, because the committee that started this whole state of affairs is not the Defence committee (which is the natural place for such as security-cleared body) but the Canada-China committee, which was a make-work project of this current parliament set up in large part because Conservatives are trying to use China as their wedge issue, and the government went along with it. The whole demand for these documents is overblown partisan theatre, considering that the firing of the two scientists was almost certainly a paperwork issue (based on the reporting by those who have been on this story for two years), but the fact that the Lab is a secure facility simply complicated matters. This whole incident is one trumped-up incident after another, until it all combusted, and it’s no way to run a grown-up democracy, and yet here we are. Nobody comes out of this looking good.

Continue reading →

QP: Why are you sending cheques?

Posted on by

It’s the beginning of the last week of the sitting calendar, and none of the leaders were present, in person or virtually. The Liberal benches once again remained virtually empty, save Anita Vandenbeld, who swapped with Mark Gerretsen a short while later. Candice Bergen led off in person, raising the story that Liberal MPs have been sending cheques to Tom Pitfield’s company, given his friendship with the prime minster. Pablo Rodriguez responded that this was for a system to help manage constituency files. Bergen tried again, and this time Rodriguez insisted that the Conservatives were obstructing the agenda. Bergen, after starting off with the wrong script, then demanded that the government demand that the president of PHAC turn over documents related to the National Microbiology Lab firings, for which Patty Hajdu admonished her for playing games with national security, given that the documents were given to NSICOP. Gérard Deltell took over in French to repeat the demand, and Hajdu warned that the Conservatives were playing a dangerous game with national security, and quoted Thomas Juneau about his concerns. Deltell tried again, and Hajdu quoted Stephanie Carvin this time.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1407050831128584198

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that EI reform better cover people in the cultural sector, and Carla Qualtrough assured him they were working to do just that. Therrien couldn’t take yes for an answer and demanded again, and Qualtrough insisted that the best thing they could do was to pass the budget.

Rachel Blaney conflated the bodies at residential schools with the court case challenging the Human Rights Tribunal ruling on First Nations children, for which Mark Miller stated that there were competing concerns in class action lawsuits, which is why they we negotiating compensation for them. Leah Gazan raised a Black Lives Matter protest about police state violence, and Bardish Chagger stated that they take the calls to action seriously, which is why they took measures in the budget to address this work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Priority but not a priority

Posted on by

There are officially three sitting days left for the House of Commons before they rise for the summer, and lo, the bill to reform mandatory minimum penalties is nowhere to be seen, in spite of the government saying it’s a priority. In fact, it’s still at second reading stage, meaning there’s no chance they’ll get it through at this point, in spite of their professed need to do this as a way of combatting systemic racism in the justice system. Nor has there been any debate on the bill to make some of the modernisation plans forced upon the courts by the pandemic to be more permanent (some of it very needed, other aspects a little less so).

The government, meanwhile, is introducing another bill today on a new disability support credit, after they tabled their bill to make changes to the Official Languages Act last week, and you can read this as either promises for an election platform, or a sign that they have plans they want to get to work on in the fall. This being said, it’s been deeply weird to have a sitting of Parliament go by without their being a metric tonne of justice-related legislation in the process, churning its way through both Chambers (and I was remarking in a forthcoming column that the fact that the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee isn’t already overloaded is virtually unheard of).

The procedural shenanigans that have dominated this sitting have been more acute than I’ve seen in all of my years on the Hill, and it’s meant a lot fewer bills making it over the goal line than we’ve seen in a very long time. The fact that you have private members’ bills outpacing government legislation is also virtually unprecedented. This whole session has been nothing but procedural warfare, and it’s only bolstered the narrative of the need for an election. I’m still not convinced anyone actually wants one (other than bored pundits), but the narrative is there if the government wants to grab it, and doesn’t look too nakedly opportunistic in doing so (which is probably easier said than done).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being called to the bar of the Commons

Posted on by

Following the motion in the House of Commons that the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada has been found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to turn over national security documents to a House of Commons committee, and is being summoned to the bar of the Chamber on Monday, said PHAC president is faced with a possibly impossible choice – if he turns over the documents, he is in breach of the Privacy Act and the Security of Information Act. If he doesn’t turn them over, he is in contempt of Parliament and its powers of production – and he has not been guaranteed immunity if he turns those documents over, not that the MPs who demand these documents care.

What is perhaps more worrying is the apparently cavalier way in which this is being dealt with, as there is very little security around this. The Canada-China committee, which wants these documents, has no security clearances, nor are their communications even secure – the “hybrid” sittings are done over Zoom, and while it’s a slightly more secure version than the commercial one, it’s still not actually secure. As well, I am not particularly moved by the fact that they say that any redactions will be done by the House of Commons’ law clerk, because I’m not sure that he has the necessary security clearance to view the documents unredacted, nor does he have the background and context to read those documents in and apply redactions properly. This is a pretty serious issue that these MPs are handwaving over, and frankly, the way that they have abused the Law Clerk and his office over the course of his parliament by demanding that he perform the redactions on millions of documents that could wind up leaking commercially sensitive information has been nothing short of shameful. It certainly hasn’t been filling me with any confidence that any of the information will be treated with proper seriousness considering that they aren’t promising actual safeguards – or immunity. It very much makes this look more like grandstanding over a proper exercise in accountability.

Meanwhile, here is a history of people who have been summoned to the bar in the Commons, the last time which was in 1913, where the person refused to testify, and spent four months in a local jail until the parliamentary session expired. It’s a power that has very much fallen into disuse, but interesting nevertheless.

Continue reading →

Roundup: C-10 keeps stumbling

Posted on by

If there is any bill in recent history that is an object lesson in fucking around and finding out, it’s bill C-10, on amending the Broadcasting Act. Indeed, after the government, with Bloc support, moved time allocation while the bill was in committee, the five hours allotted to finish clause-by-clause consideration was apparently not enough, as it seems yet more MPs on the committee wanted to waste time fighting about things this bill doesn’t actually do. And lo, amendments that were passed after the five hours were up were deemed null and void by the Speaker, so once again, MPs found out.

This doesn’t mean that those amendments are necessarily gone for good – they can certainly be moved at report stage, where the bill is currently, though that may require extending the time allocation that was imposed on the current stage in order to be able to move and vote on said motions – and that leaves yet more opportunity for dilatory actions such as slow-voting and another point-of-order-palooza around remote voting. Barring that, the government can move them in the Senate, though that will be very uncomfortable as it will probably mean having to recall the Commons in a couple of weeks to pass the amended bill, which will be a gong show all around. Or, with any luck, it will be stuck on the Order Paper over the summer, and possibly smothered if the election call that the pundit class is so hell-bent on getting happens. Nevertheless – there is plenty of blame to go around for this state of affairs, not the least of which belongs to the minister for his singular failure to offer coherent communications around this bill at every opportunity, and most especially at committee.

I would add, however, that I have no patience for this notion that the bill saw “no real debate,” as certain individuals are claiming. It got more debate than most budget implementation bills – more than any bill I can remember in recent memory. Granted, we have no guarantee of the quality of debate, and considering that this bill has been the subject of a campaign of conspiracy theories (Internet Czar, anyone?), straw men, red herrings, and outright lies, while substantive and existential problems with the bill have largely gone unremarked upon, I can see a critique that the months of debate were short on substance. That said, I’m not sure how even more debate would have helped, other than to prolong the agony.

Continue reading →

QP: Green Lanterning the price of houses

Posted on by

With the prime minister still in Belgium, there were a lot more Conservatives than usual in the Chamber, which made for a louder day. As for the Liberal ranks, Mark Gerretsen was joined by Kate Young for possibly the first time since the Hybrid sittings began, but the imbalance between both sides of the Chamber was very noticeable. Erin O’Toole in led off in French, and from his script, he read about how Trudeau was apparently so preoccupied with becoming the “Dean of G7” and apparent celebrity meetings (of which there haven’t been any) while he ignored the job losses back in Canada. Chrystia Freeland replied by pointing out that the Conservatives have been using procedural tactics to delay debate on the budget implementation bill. O’Toole switched to English, to decry that a Toronto developer snapped up housing, thus driving up prices, for which Ahmed Hussen reminded him that the current government was doing more for affordable housing than the Conservatives ever did. O’Toole demanded that the government somehow lower housing prices before the summer — maybe using a Green Lantern ring? — and Hussen repeated that he had no lessons to take from the Conservatives. From there, O’Toole started slamming Harjit Sajjan, accusing him of stolen valour, and of being “buddies” with General Jonathan Vance, and Sajjan brushed off the allegations. O’Toole put on a performance of theatrical anger to demand Sajjan’s resignation, and Sajjan hit back by reminding O’Toole that his government still appointed Vance while he was under active investigation. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded support for a motion to validate Quebec’s plan to unilaterally amend the constitution, for which David Lametti noted there are amending formulas and their proposal needed to ensure other rights were protected, which he got assurances about. Therrien railed about Section 45 — which is what the Quebec government has largely proposed — and Lametti spoke about clarifying the motion about Quebec being a nation in a United Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded that the government not cut pandemic supports, to which Carla Qualtrough reminded him that the budget implementation bill will extend benefits. Singh switched to English to rail that there was still a cut to supports, and Qualtrough noted there are other supports available.

Continue reading →

QP: Security breach and securities regulators

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off to the G7 meeting in the UK, the only Liberal in the Chamber was Francis Drouin, though Mark Gerretsen would replace him later in the hour. Erin O’Toole led off, accusing the government of hiding a security breach at the National Microbiology Lab. Jennifer O’Connell warned that O’Toole was playing a dangerous game, and that redacted documents were provided to the Canada-China committee and the unredacted documents went to NSICOP. O’Toole accused her of participating in a cover-up, and O’Connell accused O’Toole of not caring about national security. O’Toole scoffed, noting his military service, and worried there was a Chinese “infiltration” at the Lab, which O’Connell countered with a prof at the Royal Military College praising NSICOP. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, got the same answer as before, adding that she used to be a member of NSICOP so she could vouch for its security. O’Toole repeated his allegation of a cover-up in French, and O’Connell, exasperated, noted that she wasn’t sure how many more times she could say that they turned over the documents in the appropriate way.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, accusing the government of trying to create a new pan-Canadian securities regulator which Quebec opposed. Sean Fraser noted that the office cooperated voluntarily with provinces. Therrien tried again, and Fraser repeated that Quebec was not bound to work with that office.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he condescended to the government about the WE Imbroglio, and demanded that the government respect the Ethics committee’s report. Bardish Chagger thanked the committee for the work, but accused them of being more interested in partisan games. Charlie Angus then repeated the demand in English with added sanctimony and stretched the credulity of the allegations, and Pablo Rodriguez batted away the insinuations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up another moral victory

Posted on by

The NDP did what they are very good at yesterday, which is to get a non-binding motion passed in the House of Commons, and declare a moral victory in spite of the fact that it does little more than make a statement. In this case, it was their Supply Day motion on calling on the government to drop their litigation on both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around First Nations children taken into foster care, while the second is round survivors of the St. Anne’s residential school. The Cabinet abstained from the vote, while most Liberal backbenchers voted for it – agreeing in principle to parts of the motion, and making a statement, but not binding the government to do anything. And while the NDP pats themselves on the back and says that they are “forcing” the government to drop the litigation, it does no such thing. It was merely the House of Commons voicing an opinion.

Part of the problem is that there is very little ability for people to discuss what the litigation is actually about in a meaningful way. According to Singh and company, this is about “taking First Nations kids to court,” which isn’t it. As a lawyer, Singh very well knows that there are complex issues that governments are obligated to sort out, especially if there is a bad precedent that it can set. In the case of the Tribunal decision, the government says they will pay compensation – and they are negotiating with two other class action lawsuits on similar matters to do just that – but the Tribunal ordered individual remedies for a systemic claim, which it should not be able to do, if the logic holds from previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that said that they could not offer systemic remedies for individual claims. The government, however, mumbles about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than explaining this, and it means they look like the bad guys. With the St. Anne’s case, I’m less familiar but the government’s line has been that they are seeking clarity on some five percent of survivors who have not yet been compensated, and in some of those cases could be getting more compensation for some of those five percent – because complex issues can require complex litigation to solve.

Unfortunately, that’s not what most journalists will sort out. Instead, we get the usual both-sidesing of this, where you get the advocates insisting the government is being “incomprehensible,” and the government gives some pat talking points, and they leave it at that. It’s why, for the Tribunal litigation, I went and talked to law professors and got some outside perspective on what the issues actually are, and why they matter for a government to bother litigating them. We’re being failed because most journalists are too incurious to sort the issues out, and that’s a problem. Legal stories are complex, but they deserve some attention paid to them so that we’re not left with the misleading narratives that are now being allowed to circulate unchallenged. Media needs to do better.

Continue reading →

QP: The documents have been sent to NSICOP

Posted on by

It was one of those days in the Chamber where the benches seemed particularly thin, and once again, only Mark Gerretsen was present for the Liberals. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and wanted a new commitment to the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report around the graves around former residential schools, and Mark Miller assured him they are working with communities so that they can come up with their own processes and that the federal government was there to support them and with funds when they were ready. O’Toole repeated in French, and Miller gave him the same answer. O’Toole then switched back to English and the issue of the National Microbiology Lab, raising redacted documents that have been released to date, tying it to the lab in Wuhan, for which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were cooperating with any investigation and that the correct place for Parliament to deal with the matter was NSICOP, which has been provided with documents. O’Toole insisted that they weren’t being given enough to hold government to account for a security breach, but Hajdu repeated her assurances with a warning not to play games with national security. O’Toole repeated the calls in French, and Hajdu repeated herself.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that Quebec’s Bill 101 be extended to federally-regulated workplaces, and Mélanie Joly gave her assurances that they would ensure that French would be a language of work and service. Therrien wanted government support for their bill to make the extension formal, but Joly deflected with talking points about the government’s forthcoming Official Languages Act reforms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded support for their Supply Day motion on ending litigation around Indigenous children — litigation that is about a bad precedent by the Tribunal and not the compensation order. Miller assured him they were working toward proper compensation. Singh repeated the question in English, and gave a more clear response on the substance of the action around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that discussions around compensation are ongoing.

Continue reading →

QP: Saving our forestry sector from the Americans

Posted on by

For a Monday in the shadow of the discovery of that mass grace of Indigenous children in Kamloops, and there was once again but a single Liberal in the Chamber, and yes, it was once again Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person for the Conservatives, and she raised the discovery of the mass graves, and wanted an update on plans to find the identities of those children. Gary Anandasangaree responded after a delay, citing the funding commitments already made and made mention of work done with Indigenous leaders. Gérard Deltell repeated the question in French, and this time Marc Miller responded, saying that they are standing with the communities and will deliver the support they need. Bergen was back up, and she accused the government of being silent on American predations in the forestry sector, for which Seamus O’Regan expressed his disappointment in American actions, and his desire for a negotiated solution. Bergen derided the government’s actions on this as well as pipelines, for which O’Regan assured her they were looking out for all workers, including energy workers. Deltell then repeated the lament about softwood lumber in French, and O’Regan repeated his earlier response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded that federal workplaces in Quebec make French the language of work — and being very particular about it — and Pablo Rodriguez gave the flattering falsehood about French supposedly declining in Quebec (it hasn’t), and stated their commitment to protecting the French language. Therrien railed that the federal government simply wanted to extend bilingualism, which Rodriguez reassured him that they have worked to strengthen French across the country.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in a somber tone, raised the mass grave in Kamloops and demanded the government drop their lawsuits against Indigenous children and survivors, and Marc Miller assured him they have committed to compensation, and that they are committed to continuing the search for truth and devoting resources for doing so. Singh repeated the question in French, and Miller repeated his response in French.

Continue reading →