Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: Huawei, Trump, and the rule of law

Posted on by

The issue around the arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Vancouver last week took a number of turns yesterday, and is proving to be an utter gong show, thanks entirely to Donald Trump. So, to recap, the US ambassador to Canada stated that there was absolutely no political motivation behind the request for the arrest and extradition to the US, but meanwhile in China, a former Canadian diplomat who now works with International Crisis Group was arrested in China for no apparent reason, and there is no confirmation as to whether this is in retaliation for the Huawei arrest. Back in Vancouver, said CFO was granted bail for $10 million with five guarantors while she will await extradition hearings – and she has to surrender her passport, be under 24/7 surveillance and wear an ankle monitor, because she is considered a high flight risk. (Here’s a good backgrounder on all of the issues).

And then, it all went pear-shaped. Why? Because Donald Trump suddenly said that he’d intervene in the case if it helps to get a trade deal with China, which undermines the rule of law that Canada has been operating under and trying to assure Beijing that we’re operating under, and that because we have an independent judiciary with processes to be followed (which they can’t get their heads around because their judicial system is politicised), and all of the evidence around the criminal activities, allegations of fraud and of violating sanctions is apparently all for naught, because the US president has put his foot in it. And lo, Canada is relatively screwed by the whole thing. Hooray.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1072642206756990978

Continue reading →

Roundup: A noble bill with problems below the surface

Posted on by

It’s not often that I’ll go out of my way to comment on poor reporting (as opposed to columns), but in this particular case, I’m going to make an exception. The story is the fact that Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges has been stalled in the Senate. Ambrose appeared on Power & Politics to express her shock and dismay, but there was very little research done in terms of the concerns that have been raised with the bill to date, and the fact that its passage through the House of Commons was problematic in and of itself (most especially the fact that it was referred to the Status of Women committee instead of the Justice Committee in order to ensure swift passage, with a committee that was sympathetic and didn’t have the expertise on the matter). The written story on the CBC website was simply a recap of Ambrose’s interview with no comment from anyone else, or recounting any of the concerns or pushback from the debates on the bill.

So I decided to take twenty minutes and skim over the Second Reading debates in the Senate on the bill, and lo, there are some pretty important concerns being raised. Senator Jaffer, who is a lawyer who has done judicial training, pointed to the fact that the bill mandating written rulings in all sexual assault cases not only takes away from the fact that there are procedures for clear oral rulings that can be appealed, but that it will cause other delays. The training also disadvantages rural lawyers, and can tip the hand of a lawyer in a firm that they are applying to be a judge.

Senator Joyal, a formidable constitutional lawyer who had a career fighting for minority rights (and who helped write the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) expressed some serious concerns about the powers given to a federal commissioner to determine what qualifies for training. He raised the very real point that the bill stipulates that training must be done by sexual assault survivors and organisations that support them, which automatically biases the training and the presumption of innocence (and others have raised the point that these trainers are often called as expert witnesses, which creates further biases). Joyal also noted the constitutional implications of the bill given that judicial independence includes the ability to maintain control over their education.

Senator Pratte, while not a lawyer, raised the salient logistical issue that for every 500 judicial applicants, maybe 50 make it through, meaning that if everyone needs training before they can be appointed, it delays assessment of applicants and has the potential to create problems with the quality if the training. He also raised the notion that if sexual assault survivors are needed for this training, how long will it be before other victims’ groups demand to be heard for other judicial training?

Senator Fraser, whose objections were briefly noted in the CBC piece, also made points about the inappropriateness of the bill mandating that reports on the number of judges who have taken the training be tabled in Parliament because judges report to Chief Justices in their regions, not to the minister. As well, because the majority of these cases are actually heard in provincial courts, this could qualify as interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The story also went onto state that Senator Joyal, who chairs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, wouldn’t give a date for when the bill will be studied, but it didn’t mention that government bills always take precedence at committee, and as you can see from the committee’s schedule, they have a pretty full slate for the coming weeks, possibly months.

Frankly, I’m more than a little dismayed at the lazy reporting on this bill. While it may look like a slam-dunk issue on the surface, there’s a lot beneath the surface that’s not being reported on, which is actually fairly irresponsible. Would that political reporters at the CBC take twenty minutes to do some actual research on their stories than simply transcribe an interview.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An odious historical comparison

Posted on by

While crude prices in Western Canada continue to take a beating (in part because there is a global supply glut in the market and there are questions about why oil prices got as high as they did recently given market conditions), there are other concerns about investors fleeing the country. Not all, mind you – there are still a number of big-ticket energy projects being signed in the country which defies this narrative that’s going on, but I have to pause on some of the overheated rhetoric being bandied about here, because we need to inject some perspective into the conversation.

For one, the lack of infrastructure to tidewater is because there simply wasn’t an economic case for it until recently. It’s hard to complain that we don’t have it when there was no proper rationale for its existence. Same with refineries – it’s a low-margin exercise and refineries cost billions of dollars to build, and the economic case for building more of them has largely not been there. It’s not just because we have tough environmental regulations in Canada that these projects don’t exist – there weren’t the market conditions.

The other thing that really sets off my alarm bells is this pervasive talking point among oil industry boosters that Canada once built railways, so we should therefore be able to build pipelines. This kind of talk should be utterly galling to anyone who has a modicum of understanding of history in this country, because the railways were built by virtual slave labour from China, following the relocation of Indigenous tribes across the prairies due to starvation and inadequate government aid (while there is some debate over how deliberately starvation was used to force compliance). This is not the kind of thing you want to be touting when it comes to building pipelines, particularly if those opposing construction are other Indigenous communities. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, it’s not the high bar of environmental regulations that are killing projects – it’s the fact that successive governments and proponents have tried cutting corners to weasel out of their obligations, and that’s what hurts them, not the minimal additional work it would have taken to properly fulfil those obligations. I get that they’re looking for scapegoats during these trying times for the energy sector, and that nobody wants to look in the mirror, but honestly, trying to compare the railways to this current situation is borderline offensive to anyone who has a modicum of historical knowledge.

Continue reading →

QP: “Soviet” StatsCan

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau off to Churchill and Vancouver, Andrew Scheer also decided to be elsewhere. That left Gérard Deltell to lead off, and he immediately launched into an attack on the Statistics Canada plan to use financial transaction data. François-Philippe Champagne responded with a script about how StatsCan already deals with Canadians’ personal data appropriately, that the Privacy Commissioner was working with them, and that the Conservatives were fear-mongering. Deltell tried again, got the same answer, and when Mark Strahl took over in English, Champagne repeated his spiel in English. Strahl railed about how often there have been personal data beaches by the government, and Champagne responded by reading his points with more vigour. Strahl angrily made a point about consent, and Champagne angrily repeated his own points. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded a GHG reduction plan. Dominic LeBlanc responded that hot air about climate change wasn’t coming from his side of the chamber, that they did have a plan that they were implementing. Caron repeated the question in French, and LeBlanc reiterated that they took the issue seriously, unlike the Conservatives. Linda Duncan trolled for support for her motion about tougher GHG targets, but LeBlanc wouldn’t indicate support, but pumped up his own party’s plan instead. Alexandre Boulerice returned Caron’s first question and Quebeckers threatening to take the government to court over climate change, and LeBlanc responded that Quebec has been a leader on climate change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

QP: Blair’s blunders

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off at the United Nations General Assembly, and Andrew Scheer busy preparing for a 4 PM press conference, Alain Rayes led off, reading some kind words about the response to the tornado on the weekend, and asked for an update on the situation. Ralph Goodale gave his own statement of thanks and condolence, and said the federal government was assisting where they can. Rayes then turned to Bill Blair’s self-admitted mistaken statement on those asylum claimants that have left the country. Blair admitted to the confusion he created and again apologised. Rayes railed that no plan to resolve the border “crisis” has been issued, and this time Diane Lebouthillier was deployed to accuse the Conservatives of creating fear. Michelle Rempel took over, restated the first question in English, and Blair responded with some chiding about her use of “illegal border crossers.” Rempel reiterated her question, noting that he didn’t answer her which created more confusion, but Blair responded with a lecture on due process. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he hectored the government on the duty to consult Indigenous peoples on projects. Amarjeet Sohi responded with the trite lines about the importance of the relationship and assured him they were properly consulting. Caron insisted that they couldn’t be real consultations if they had already decided to “force” the expansion of Trans Mountain, and Sohi responded that Canadians expected them to get new markets for their resources. Rachel Blaney took over and repeated the questions in English, and she got the same response both times, insisting that they will offer accommodation is possible.

Continue reading →

QP: The “failure” drinking game

Posted on by

Almost immediately after the dramatic floor-crossing by MP Leona Alleslev from the Liberals to the Conservatives, a smug press conference from Andrew Scheer, and the arrival of new Conservative MP Richard Martel, things settled in for the first QP of the fall sitting. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he listed off the various “failures” of Justin Trudeau, getting breathier as he went along. Trudeau first welcomed the new batch of pages to the House before he listed the various successes of the government, including the $2000 more in the pockets of families. Scheer listed the “failures” in the energy sector, and Trudeau noted the ten years of failures by the previous government, and that they would get Trans Mountain built “in the right way.” Scheer tried again, and got slightly more pabulum from Trudeau on the need to get more markets for oil. Scheer then switched to the “crisis” of irregular border crossers, and Trudeau reminded him that while it was a challenge, they invested in necessary measures to ensure that rules are all followed. Scheer asked again in French, and got the same answer. Guy Caron led for the NDP, and he immediately launched into concerns about concessions around Supply Management, to which Trudeau assured him that they would get a good deal on NAFTA. Caron name-dropped Jagmeet Singh and worried about someone’s housing situation, and Trudeau reminded him that they have made investments in housing, and they were moving ahead with a $40 billion national housing strategy. Charlie Angus was up next, and offered some disappointment on behalf of the Kasheshewan First Nation. Trudeau mentioned the billions apportioned to Indigenous communities before picking up a paper to list the interim solution they have come to and that more developments were coming later in the week. Angus responded angrily, demanding immediate solutions, and Trudeau responded with the list of ways they are trying to work with Indigenous communities to solve these problems.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Setting a trap at committee

Posted on by

The use of Commons committees for performative outrage continued in fine tradition yesterday as an emergency meeting of the natural resources committee was convened, during which the Conservatives demanded that the ministers of natural resource and finance appear before them no later than Thursday with “concrete” plans for the next steps of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This, of course, is a bit of a trap, and unrealistic for any government to comply with, and yet here we were. Why it’s a trap, of course, is that when they inevitably refused and the Liberals con the committee voted it down, Andrew Scheer and his caucus could rush to the media about how outrageous it was that Trudeau was avoiding accountability for his “failure” when their demand was utterly unreasonable in the first place. But why should facts or context matter?

Now, don’t get me wrong – I do think that these ministers should absolutely appear before committee, but not for another couple of weeks, until they’ve had time to digest the Federal Court of Appeal decision, at which time they should answer for why they considered the flawed NEB report, and why they did not engage in an adequate consultation process that would meet the requirements of Section 35 of the Constitution. You know – to hold them to account like a committee should.

As for next steps, there have been boneheaded demands for a “legislative solution” that people keep tossing around, and it’s so stupid – the FCA decision specifically stated that this is a Cabinet decision to approve the licence, so you can’t legislate it into existence, nor would trying to retroactively change the legislation that the NEB was operating under when it didn’t properly scope the marine safety aspect of their report be a feasible option, because it opens all manner of cans of worms. And you most especially can’t legislate away the duty to consult under Section 35, so good luck there. The Conservatives won’t say what they’d do, let alone do differently, while the NDP continue to demand that Trudeau cancel the expansion, and have been giving this ridiculous line that they wanted a Supreme Court reference in the first place and nobody listened to them. The problem was their reference was about jurisdiction, which this decision has nothing to do with, which makes their talking point especially specious.

Meanwhile, Chris Turner has a spectacular piece in Maclean’sabout the history of the pipeline and how it got to be the dumpster fire of an issue that it is today, and I’d encourage you to take the time to read it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Effacing labour

Posted on by

Yesterday having been Labour Day, there were a couple of topical stories out there – that the government’s look at updating the Canada Labour Codemay look at more measures to help with work-life balance, and that there are ideas on the table to look at taxing robots who replace workers with automation (though this seems fraught with all manner of complications). There is even talk about how this government has given the labour movement a seat at the table with trade negotiations (though there is some talk about how it’s all for show, and that they have little actual impact). But all of this having been said, I found the statements by the leaders to be interesting.

https://twitter.com/MinWorkDev/status/1036629441517182984

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1036677765250965504

Trudeau’s tweet was fairly standard, spoke about the labour movement, and the attached statement went into more detail about the achievements of the aforementioned labour movement. His minister of labour, Patty Hajdu, had a video message that talked about ways they are working on improving the current conditions, with a focus on harassment and coming pay equity legislation. Jagmeet Singh, true to NDP form, spoke about the focus on workers. But Andrew Scheer?

Nothing about the actual meaning of Labour Day. Nothing about the gains made by the labour movement, or the safety of workers, or the eight-hour work day, or weekends. Nope. It’s a holiday before getting “back to the grind.” Now, the previous government was no friend to labour, with vexatious legislation designed to make certification harder, impose onerous financial reporting requirements, the fight with public sector unions over sick days, and numerous back-to-work bills. But to not even mention the history of the movement and the gains made, whether it’s with occupational health and safety, weekends, pensions, anything? It smacks of pettiness, and of effacing history – you know, something he gets riled up when it’s a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, but apparently not the Winnipeg General Strike.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trifecta of constitutional buffoonery

Posted on by

Yesterday was not a good day for the constitutional order in this country, as the Ontario government launched a constitutional challenge of the federal carbon price backstop legislation, arguing that it’s “unfair” and “unconstitutional” – which it absolutely isn’t, but this is about throwing a public temper tantrum in the name of populist outrage – but as David Reevely also points out, it’s about dragging this out in the courts, both Ontario courts and the Supreme Court of Canada well past the next election. Ontario’s two ministers insisted that they had legal opinions that said they had a solid case, but that’s almost certainly false, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see what kind of novel argument they came up with that the courts will laugh out.

As if this big of constitutional buffoonery weren’t enough, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also came out with a demand that the federal government immediately give cities the ability to ban handguns – which is constitutionally a non-starter, since cities are the creatures of provincial legislation, and criminal powers are federal. Delegating federal criminal powers to the municipalities is similarly a non-starter. (Singh is also a lawyer and should know this).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025031516290613248

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1025034441410797568

But to cap off the trifecta of constitutional idiocy comes courtesy of the Toronto Star, who asked Ontario Attorney General Caroline Mulroney if she was prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to opt out of the federal carbon tax – which is not something that the notwithstanding clause could actually deal with. Compounding this was that Mulroney’s answer was that they were going to examine all legal options, which made it sound like she was considering it, rather than simply saying “that wouldn’t apply here” and possibly adding “you moron” because it was not only a bad question, it was an irresponsible question and one that was either designed to make Mulroney look stupid (which she kind of did with the answer she gave) or to demonstrate that the reporter in question had no idea what they were talking about. So well done, Star. Slow clap for making all of us look bad in the process.

https://twitter.com/coreyshefman/status/1025022811579006976

Continue reading →