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: First Nations
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: Amendments during the meltdown
While the Rob Ford story goes into total meltdown in Toronto, the amendment process for the Fair Elections Act hit close to the halfway mark last night, with just one day left before the clock runs out – and it might go a bit faster if parties didn’t file nonsense amendments (postal codes on ballots? Veiled voting? Letting all candidates be photographed casting ballots instead of just leaders? Seriously?) or go on lengthy tirades about things. But hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have been talking to The Canadian Press about the fact that the caucus has had a great deal of input into the changes being proposed to the bill after they too were unsatisfied with the original form.
QP: The authorities always seek warrants — really!
On a rainy day, after the various caucuses met, MPs gathered in the House for our daily exercise in government accountability. Of note, it was also Stephen Harper’s 55th birthday, not that anyone expected the opposition to go easy on him because of it. Thomas Mulcair led off and sharply asked who authorized the release of that telecom data of a million Canadians. Harper said that he rejected the premise of the question and assured him that agencies follow the rules and get warrants. Mulcair pressed, but Harper reiterated that they get warrants and that there is legislation before the House to modernize investigative tools. Mulcair insisted that the legislation would exculpate the need for warrants, to which Harper once again reiterated that agencies get warrants when needed. (That might be the key, given that they don’t seem to need them if they get the data for the asking). Mulcair wondered what information the government was seeking, and which telecom companies were cooperating. Harper said that it was not the government seeking the data, but law enforcement agencies, and that there was independent oversight. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the Temporary Foreign Workers intakes for areas which don’t seem to need them, to which Harper gave his usual bland assurances that they had created jobs and they were reviewing the programme. Trudeau reminded him that five years ago, Sheila Fraser warned of the low quality of Labour Market Opinions that were open to abuse, but Harper stuck to his talking points, same again when the question was asked in French, adding that Trudeau himself had asked for a permit for his riding.
Roundup: A looming deadline
The clock is ticking, and there are some 300 amendments to go through in committee for the elections bill before Friday – which the NDP thinks is ridiculous. Err, except they agreed to the timeline, and they filibustered for days and used up said clock. Actions have consequences, and yes, it’s an important bill that is under discussion, so they had best get to work rather than complaining about it. The Director of Public Prosecutions did appear at committee and said that the biggest concern he has is of perception of independence rather than the independence in fact. Meanwhile, Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged with the Guelph robocalls though he protests his innocence – wonders that if criminals don’t register guns, why would people who make misleading robocalls register them? It’s kind of a good point, and points to yet another flaw in the bill.
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.
Roundup: The sudden demise of Jim Flaherty
Parliament Hill was in shock yesterday when news came down just minutes before Question Period was due to begin – former finance minister Jim Flaherty had died of a heart attack, three weeks after he left cabinet. A flurry of conferencing on the floor between Thomas Mulcair, Peter Van Loan, Ralph Goodale and eventually Elizabeth May erupted, and a decision was relayed to the Speaker. At the end of Members’ Statements, Scheer declared the House suspended, and opposition MPs streamed across the floor to console the Conservatives on the other side of the chamber. A few minutes later, Scheer announced that the House would stand adjourned for the remainder of the day. Harper was meeting with the President of Peru at the time, and was supposed to be holding a press conference at that time (counter-programmed against QP, for the record). Instead, the caucus filed into the Reading Room, and Harper gave a short statement, Laureen Harper standing next to him, dabbing her eyes with a Kleenex, and that was it. The doors were closed and the party mourned in private.
Roundup: Misplaced Heartbleed blame
The big news yesterday was that the “Heartbleed Bug” had forced the shutdown of much of the Canada Revenue Agency’s website as a precaution, given that personal information that Canadians uploaded as they filed their taxes could be accessed and later decoded through the recently discovered backdoor flaws in the encryption software that some two-thirds of the Internet uses. Of course, the NDP tried to make a partisan issue out of this, and tried to say that it was because the Conservatives didn’t spend enough on cybersecurity – even though the issue has nothing to do with cybersecurity, or hacking, or malware, or anything like that. The minister, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, did later announce that the filing deadline would be extended by the number of days the site is down as they patch the bug, so that might give Canadians a few extra days to get their taxes in order. It also demonstrates how vulnerable we all are to these kinds of flaws in the basic Internet architecture that we rely on. Not affected were Canadian banks, and political party donation portals, for the record.
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: Harper’s saint turns against him
Call it a shot across the bow, or maybe a broadside, but former Auditor General Sheila Fraser has weighted in on the Fair Elections Act, and she is not amused. In a blistering, no-holds-barred interview, the woman whom the Conservatives had previously sainted point-blank called them out for trying to rig up a bill designed to sideline Elections Canada because they had been investigating various voting irregularities and other misdeeds by the Conservatives, and which would advantage their particular donor base. And yet, during QP yesterday, Pierre Poilievre just kind of shrugged it off and denounced the “so-called experts” as not being able to stack up against “common sense and democracy.” Actual quote. And yet, when we see the real need for things like being able to compel testimony, as the investigation into “Pierre Poutine” continues to this very day. Former Guelph Conservative campaign worker Andrew Prescott, who has been granted immunity in exchange for testimony, has given evidence about Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged in that whole affair – as well as Ken Morgan, then campaign manager who is now living in Kuwait. Sona, meanwhile, asserts that he has ironclad alibis that will exonerate him, and that they didn’t learn their lessons after being coached into a story about Sona that was contradicted by the fact that he was in Aruba when an alleged incident took place. If the Commissioner of Elections had the power to compel testimony, it is likely this dance around the Guelph robocalls would have long been over. First Nations groups are also sounding the alarm about the bill, and pointing out the reality on most reserves are that the kinds of acceptable ID just aren’t there for most residents and that the bill is a fix for something that simply isn’t broken.