Tag Archives: China

Roundup: Where is the civilian control?

Posted on by

Something rather unusual happened yesterday in that both prime minister Justin Trudeau, and his deputy, Chrystia Freeland, publicly panned the decision by the Chief of Defence Staff to keep the head of the navy on the job after he went on that golf game with the former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active investigation for past sexual misconduct. But it’s pretty crazy that this happened given how things work under our system.

https://twitter.com/mattgurney/status/1410275366292307969

This boils down to Harijit Sajjan and the fact that he’s not doing his job as minister. He is supposed to be the person in Cabinet who does the civilian control, who manages the CDS, and who ensures that the CDS is doing his job properly, but Sajjan hasn’t been doing that job. If he were, then he wouldn’t have been so incurious as to why the investigation into Vance never took off when the former military ombudsman brought forward the allegations, and he would have taken the opportunity to cycle Vance out of the job and put in someone new rather than renew Vance for another term. These are all things were things Sajjan should have done and didn’t do.

Trudeau, however, keeps insisting that Sajjan is the right person for the job, that he’s not part of the old boys’ club, but that’s part of the problem – Sajjan was an active member of the military when he got elected and had to process his resignation papers while he was named to Cabinet, because technically at that point, the CDS outranked him, which is not good when Sajjan is supposed to be exercising civilian control. That’s why we shouldn’t put former military people into the role – they are not civilian control. This can’t be stressed enough. Sajjan shouldn’t have been put in the role, and hasn’t properly done his job since he’s been in it. It’s time for a new minister, and the sooner the better.

Programming note: I am making a long weekend for myself, so no post tomorrow or Saturday. See you next week!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Ombudsman demands independence

Posted on by

The military ombudsman put out a position paper yesterday that called for his office to be made fully independent, and he criticized the minister’s office and the Department of National Defence for trying to interfere in investigations and ignoring recommendations for change. In particular, he cited that turning a blind eye to his office’s recommendations advances political interest or has to do with self-preservation or career advancements within the defence community.

Readers may know that I have issues with the demands for yet more officers of parliament. The proliferation of these officers has become acute in the last decade, and while there is a need for an independent ombudsman for the military, I also have not been blind to some of the previous holders of that office, and some were very much unsuited for an office that has no accountability. I’m not sure what kind of a structure the ombudsman’s office should need to be, but again, making him unaccountable and completely insulated opens the role up to the kinds of abuses of authority we’re seeing with the last officer of parliament that was created (being the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has become completely unmoored from his legislative mandate). Anyone who doesn’t share this concern obviously isn’t paying attention (and I can guarantee you that the media is not paying attention, because they like it when these unaccountable officers try to turn themselves into media darlings, as the PBO is doing right now).

When asked about this, Justin Trudeau said that he would put it to Justice Louise Arbour as part of her comprehensive review, so that the ombudsman’s office can be part of the solution to reforming the military, but I fear that she may recommend the officer of parliament route. Part of the problem right now is that the minister isn’t responsive, but I think the solution needs to be that the minister needs to go rather than the ombudsman needing additional powers. Would that we actually hold ministers accountable for their failures, but this government doesn’t seem to be too keen on that.

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: 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 →

QP: No, that’s not what the inflation data show

Posted on by

While the prime minister moved from hotel to at-home quarantine, his deputy was available instead. While there were fewer Conservatives in the Chamber than yesterday, the sole Liberal in the Chamber started out as Marie-France Lalonde instead of Mark Gerretsen, but they swapped places a short while later. Erin O’Toole led off in French, with a script in front of him, and he blamed federal spending for the decade-high inflation figures released this morning — which is not actually what those data showed. Chrystia Freeland declared that the biggest threat to economic stability was Conservative partisan games. O’Toole switched to English to focus on the rise in housing prices, and again seemed to think that the federal government has magic levers that can lower housing prices, to which Freeland repeated her assertion, given that they are blocking the budget bill. O’Toole retorted that the Conservatives had a Five-Point Plan™ to save the economy, and Freeland repeated that the Conservatives were standing in the way of the economic recovery. O’Toole then pivoted to a torqued reading of Harjit Sajjan’s record as minster, for which Sajjan robotically read that he won’t take lessons from the Conservatives and he was doing better. O’Toole then declared that he would speak directly to the voters in Sajjan’s riding, exhorting them to vote for Conservatives, and Sajjan stated that he was proud of his service, and raised the Conservatives’ record on abortion and Islamophobia.

For the Bloc, Yves-François Blanchet raised the new federal bill on Official Languages and how it counters Quebec’s Bill 96, and Mélanie Joly said that they were asking all parties to support their bill. Blanchet insisted that Quebec’s bill was threatened, and Joly stated that they would strengthen Official Languages and protect French.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and after railing about big banks in French, he complained that the government was cutting pandemic supports. Freeland stated that unless the budget bill passes, all supports will end. Singh switched to English to reiterate the question with some additional meandering around big corporations. Freeland asked in response why he was stopping supports by not helping to pass the budget.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Time allocation in perspective

Posted on by

There seems to be both a sense of amnesia and of performative wailing and garment rending as the government – with the cooperation of opposition parties – has moved time allocation on its budget implementation bill, and extended sitting hours for the final few days of the sitting. The sense of amnesia is that this kind of thing happens every June, every single year (and usually again in December), and that’s how things work. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this state of affairs, and its’ very strange that certain media outlets are making this out to be something unusual. It’s not – if anything, what’s unusual is that there are so few bills that they are trying to get over the finish line in the face of opposition that has spent an extraordinary amount of effort fighting these bills with lies, red herrings, concern trolling, and a complete lack of proportionality.

The fact that the government has imposed time allocation on its budget implementation bill is not unusual, and the fact that it’s ten hours – five at report stage and five more at third reading – is also a fairly generous amount of time, especially when considered in parliamentary terms. It’s essentially two more full days of debate for a regular Tuesday or Thursday sitting day. It’s also not really “debate,” and frankly Elizabeth May’s concerns here are a bit precious – it’s MPs reciting pre-written speeches into the record, with little interaction between them, and when it comes to report stage and third reading, there is specific purpose. The bill already had seven allotted days at second reading, which is bananas – second reading should take a single afternoon because it’s supposed to be where you discuss the overall principles of the bill, and then send it off to committee. It spent thirteen hours at committee of clause-by-clause consideration – which, again, is a fair amount considering that most committee sittings are two hours – where they heard from 65 witnesses in pre-study sessions. Five hours at report stage, to discuss whether or not to adopt the amendments agreed to at committee, is an awful lot of parliamentary time. Same again with third reading, where you are giving final consideration before final passage to the Senate, is more than generous – you are no longer debating the principle, or the details – those have all been agreed to.

This narrative that it’s a “gag” and “cutting debate” is overblown in the context of what is being offered here. This isn’t an abuse of time allocation, like we saw in previous parliaments – it’s a legitimate tool in the face of procedural obstruction, and given that this is a hung parliament, the fact that at least one opposition party is agreeing to the use of this tool makes the narrative a bit silly. But that seems to be the way these things get written up, because there is a general ignorance of procedure and what it all means.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not just a golf game

Posted on by

The top brass of the Canadian Forces shot themselves in the foot – metaphorically – yet again this weekend as both the outgoing vice-chief of defence staff and the head of the Royal Canadian Navy both went golfing with former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active police investigation. To call it tone-deaf is an understatement – rather, it highlights the old boys’ club mentality that still pervades the upper ranks of the Forces, and sends the wrong message to the victims of sexual misconduct, who remain the subordinates of these officers. And to make the optics even more nightmarish, the vice-chief technically has the power to issue orders to the Provost Marshall, who controls the military police.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404114717405286401

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1404192298905264128

You can get that there was an outcry, including from numerous Cabinet ministers, and in short order, there were apologies from those involved, while the minister of defence, Harjit Sajjan, said that he would be evaluating “next steps” in this particular situation.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404262974504812545

To the point that West (who was drummed out of the military because of the double standard around sexual misconduct) is making in her tweet, there is very much a growing trend of professionally-crafted apologies going around given where things have gone over the past year or so, and I have to agree with this take that we need to take this into account as yet more of them are delivered over the coming days.

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 →

Roundup: Liberals being weasels about “open nominations” – again

Posted on by

Remember back before the 2015 election when Justin Trudeau declared that the Liberals would be a party of open nominations? And then how he weaselled out on that after the election in order to protect nominations when they had a majority? And even after that, decided to trigger their “electoral urgency” rules in advance of the 2019 election, even though they knew the timing of it years in advance and could have actually let those nominations happen? Well, they are being weasels again, and just triggered the “electoral urgency” rules once more.

Of course, because there are only three narratives to choose from in most media outlets, this was seen as “more proof” that there’s going to be an election this fall, especially when combined with the fact that MPs agreed to hold a take note debate session on the 15th that will allow MPs who have opted not to run again to give a farewell speech. It’s all proof! Erm, except that this is a hung parliament that will have reached the two-year mark in the fall, making an election far more likely, so it’s a convenient time to hold such a session, given that it certainly wouldn’t happen after a confidence vote to bring down the government. I remain unconvinced that the Liberals are planning to dissolve parliament by the end of summer on a flimsy excuse, but then again, I generally don’t subscribe to the Three Narratives.

This being said, this weaselly behaviour around nominations is unsurprising given the trends in this country, and where the party has been headed. They did it in 2019, and at the end of last year, they did away with open nominations for the two by-elections and simply appointed candidates outright, never mind that there was interest from others in each riding and they could have held competitive races, yes, including in a virtual situation. We’ve seen all parties behave in ways that are undermining the democratic process by gaming nominations – Samara Canada wrote a report on it. (Samara was also credulous about the NDP’s claims about open nominations in 2011, in spite of all of the evidence of paper candidates who never even visited the ridings, never mind having run in an open contest, but that’s neither here nor there). The point is that this kind of behaviour is toxic to the long-term health of our system of government, and it needs to be countered and pushed back against. Unfortunately, because the media is hung up on the “early election” narrative at any opportunity, they never actually hold the parties to account for their undemocratic behaviour, and we’ve allowed it to get to this point. This is a very bad thing, and we should be pushing back and demanding proper, open nominations from all parties, no matter how inconvenient it may be in a hung parliament.

Continue reading →