A rift between the government and the Supreme Court of Canada appears to be opening as a bunch of anonymous Conservative ministers and backbenchers bravely approached National Post columnist John Ivison under the cloak of anonymity and trash-talked Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, insinuating that she lobbied against Nadon’s appointment. The Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court put out a release that denied any lobbying, and said that the Chief Justice was consulted by the committee of MPs that were creating the short-list of nominees, and that because of the issue of appointing a Federal Court judge in a Quebec seat was already well known, the Chief Justice also advised the justice minister and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that it could be an issue. This happened back in July. The PMO, late in the day, put out a release of their own, insinuating that McLachlin made a cold call to Harper, which he refused because it would be inappropriate to discuss a matter before the courts – only it wasn’t before the courts, because that consultation, which was made to his chief of staff and not Harper directly, was in July – a fact that they only confirmed when the Toronto Star pressed them on it. It’s really worrying that the PMO is trying to assert that the Chief Justice did something untoward as Prime Ministers and Minsters of Justice often consult with her when there are vacancies on the bench, because the Chief Justice can advise them on what particular subject areas the Court is looking for an expert to fill. In the context of advising on a replacement for Justice Fish, there would have been nothing wrong with McLachlin consulting the government, nor with raising the point of caution about Federal Court judges. That this government has made a mess of the appointment process with their opaque committee process under the window dressing of greater accountability and transparency – of which there is actually none – and to try and come after the Court like this, is extremely unbecoming of any government. Especially when they were warned there would be a problem and went ahead with it anyway.
Tag Archives: Environment
QP: A million criminals at work?
Despite it being only Thursday, only one major leader was present in the Chamber — Thomas Mulcair — which continues the worrying trend that QP somehow doesn’t matter. Mulcair led off today by asking why government agencies needed to collect telecom information on over a million Canadians. James Moore assured him that they were being used by law enforcement agencies for necessary actions. Mulcair mockingly wondered if there were a million criminals being tracked, but Moore insisted that Section 7 of the privacy legislation spells out why this information is necessary. Mulcair brought up the reports that there may be as many a thousand missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Stephen Blaney assured him of the measures they had taken. Jean Crowder and Niki Ashton followed up with increasingly outraged calls for a national public inquiry, but Blaney repeated that they were taking measures to keep the street safe. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, noting the record levels of unemployment in Southwestern Ontario while large numbers of Temporary Foreign Workers continued to be brought in. Jason Kenney insisted that anyone who cut corners and tried to bring in workers illegitimately would face consequences. John McCallum noted that the Canada Experience Class was created as a tool of diplomacy, and was since co-opted by the department of immigration for their own ends. Chris Alexander insisted that the programme benefited Canadians, and when McCallum noted that the previous minister went to Ireland to seek potential immigrants when youth unemployment levels were high, Alexander extolled the relatively buoyant job market in Canada.
Roundup: Anders down in defeat
The Conservative members of the new riding of Calgary Signal Hill have spoken, and Rob Anders will not be their candidate in the next federal election. Instead, former provincial finance minister Ron Liepert has managed to win the nomination, apparently by a “comfortable majority,” even though Jason Kenney had taken to not only endorsing but also voicing a robocall on Anders’ behalf late in the game. Liepert, after winning, told Kenney to mind his own business rather angrily, incidentally. Anders has indicated that he would sit the remainder of this parliament, but hasn’t indicated what he’ll do next, though there is some speculation that he’ll still try to contest another Calgary riding’s nomination. Anders had labelled this nomination as a fight for the “soul” of the Conservative party, his “true blue” version versus a more “red Tory” Liepert (but apparently not even really), and in the aftermath, Liepert has said that his victory shows where the mainstream of the Conservative party has moved. It also shows how open nominations give the grassroots members more of a voice for who they want to represent the party on their behalf, rather than being assigned that voice for them. Aaron Wherry tries to search for meaning in this nomination upset here. (And be sure to check out the Herald’s video from the aftermath).
Roundup: Poilievre’s new conspiracy theory
Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
QP: Why do you hate the DPP?
As has become tradition, there were no major leaders in the House for Monday QP, which is a sorry comment in and of itself. When things got started, NDP deputy leader David Christopherson led off, shouting about the Conservatives’ dismissal of Sheila Fraser’s warnings about the elections bill. Pierre Poilievre responded that they simply disagreed with Elections Canada’s opinion and that it was reasonable to expect ID at the polls. Christopherson loudly mused dark conspiracy theories about the PMO cooking up smears against anyone who has had anything to do with Elections Canada. Poilievre, undaunted, gave his prepared talking points. Christopherson brought up the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not consulted about the changes in the bill that affect him, to which Poilievre accused him of casting aspersions on the DPP’s independence. Alexandrine Latendresse repeated the same questions in French, eliciting a similar response. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, worrying about the infrastructure needs of Fort McMurray being hurt by the cuts to the Building Canada Plan. Denis Lebel insisted that they were making record investments. David McGuinty asked the same again in French, but changed the location in need to Ottawa, not that Lebel gave him a different answer.
Roundup: Trying to smear Sheila Fraser
The comments by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser are drawing some fire because Fraser is part of the advisory board to Elections Canada that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand put together to help them on a number of issues facing the organisation and our country’s democratic processes in general. Pierre Poilievre and Tom Lukiwski seemed to assert that Fraser was speaking on behalf of Elections Canada, especially as she is being paid for this advisory work, which is really little more than trying to muddy the issue in order to try and defend his increasingly indefensible position. Meanwhile, Senator Hugh Segal, who is also on the same advisory board, thinks that both sides are going overboard and that everybody “needs to take a Valium.” Segal is looking for both sides to put some water in their wine, and for some amendments to come out of the process, which may ultimately wind up happening in the Senate, where Conservative senators are not all that keen on the bill in its current form.
QP: Regarding the Commissioner’s testimony…
With caucus day, not only were the leaders all present and accounted for in the House, but so were most of the MPs, which set up for a boisterous day. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking about the grain rail bottleneck and the lack of compensation in the bill due to correct it. Stephen Harper mumbled some vague assurances that they were working with producers and would increase the volumes shipped. Mulcair moved onto the testimony of the Commissioner of Elections, who said that some investigations might be shut down because of a lack of compelled testimony. Harper insisted that the bill gives greater independence to the Commissioner, and took a dig at the NDP’s “branch offices” around the country. Mulcair took a few more digs about Conservative “election fraud” before reiterating about the ability for the Commissioner to compel testimony. Harper responded with yet another dig about branch offices. Mulcair asked the same again in French, and got the same answer in French. For his final question, Mulcair asked if Harper thought that Eve Adams should step down, to which Harper called Mulcair a hypocrite, and the Speaker duly cautioned him for unparliamentary language. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the status of the electoral mission to Ukraine. Harper thanked him for his support, and said that there would be updates as they became available. Trudeau switched to a CIBC report on Canadians not saving enough and having too much debt. Harper retorted that Trudeau didn’t have an actual definition for middle class, and dismissed the question. For his final question, Trudeau asked a boilerplate question on the plight of the middle class in French, to which Harper gave a dig that Trudeau wouldn’t know if he was meeting with middle class Canadians or not.
QP: Harper makes an appearance
For the first time in weeks, Stephen Harper was in the House for QP, as were all of the other leaders. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the repudiation for the Nadon appointment, and wanted a commitment that they would not attempt to reappoint him. Harper said that they would comply with the letter and the spirit of the ruling, and that the NDP didn’t have any objection to appointing a justice from the Federal Court. Mulcair asked about the fundraiser who travelled on the Challenger jet with Harper. Harper assured him that it was his practice to have those flights reimbursed at the commercial rate. Mulcair pressed, and alleged that the flight was a reward for fundraising, but Harper didn’t take the bait. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the elections bill and its repudiation by experts across the board. Harper retorted that the NDP opposed the bill without reading it, but shrugged off any further criticism. Justin Trudeau returned to the empty seat on the Supreme Court, and wondered when a new justice would be appointed. Harper reminded him that all of the parties supported having a judge appointed from the Federal Court and accused Trudeau of trying to politicise the appointment. Trudeau moved onto the cut to the Building Canada Fund, to which Harper insisted that they were making record investments, before making a crack about Trudeau’s definition of the middle class.
Roundup: Not denying the trail of evidence
The fallout from the departure of Dimitri Soudas continued around the Nation’s Capital yesterday, with Soudas giving this somewhat overdone defence of his “resignation” as doing it for the woman he loves, while other sources from within the party started to paint a picture of Soudas breaking his contract, with a data trail with his fingerprints on it leading to access to the party’s voter database and phone records that shoed hundreds of calls made to the riding where Eve Adams is contesting the nomination. Apparently he didn’t deny the allegations resulting from that investigation, and then he was out. There was also apparently pushback from the rest of the party leading up to the end, so it seems likely that Harper couldn’t ignore any problems with Soudas any longer. This now leaves a hole in Harper’s election organizing planning, as well as more questions about his judgement when it comes to appointments – adding to the long list that includes Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin, and other appointments like Christiane Ouimet, Arthur Porter, and now Justice Nadon./
QP: A premier present, but not the PM
BC premier Christy Clark was in the Speaker’s gallery, here to watch QP in the federal parliament after signing some agreements with the federal government. Alas, despite being back in the country, Stephen Harper was not present to take questions in the House. Neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau were there to ask said questions either, for what it was worth. That meant that it was up to Libby Davies to lead off for the NDP, decrying the expiration of the 2004 health accords. Rona Ambrose reminded her that they were still providing record levels of funding to the provinces, that the provinces were asking for funding predictability, and they were providing that. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked the same again in French, and got the same response in English. Boutin-Sweet moved onto infrastructure funding, which Denis Lebel assured her of how great the new Building Canada Fund really was. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about expanding the CPP, as recommended by the Finance Department’s own reports. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Kevin Sorensen got up to answer to say that the Fragile Economy™ could not afford more payroll taxes. Brison reminded him that they were keeping EI premiums artificially high to balance the books, and that those payroll taxes could be better spent on CPP enrichment, but Sorensen decried all of the things the Liberals voted against. Ralph Goodale got up to ask about the loss of infrastructure funds coming tomorrow (Lebel: We are giving record funding).