It was the release of the Auditor General’s spring report, and among the findings are a major lack of long-term planning when it came to expansions in the prison system which will lead to more overcrowding in a few years, risks with the long-term sustainability of the public sector pension plan, the government’s relocation services contract being completely botched from the start, that First Nations policing is failing and falling behind provincial standards in some places like Ontario, that the CRA faces some notable gaps in how it deals with aggressive tax planning, that Statistics Canada isn’t adequately collecting data that reflects smaller geographic areas – a particularly salient issue right now with labour market issues, and that the company that manages federal buildings is getting billions in bonus payments for no apparent reason. The government, of course, thanks the AG for his findings and agrees with his recommendations.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Accusations of intimidation
As you may have noticed during QP, the narrative around Harper’s spat with the Chief Justice is now being characterised by the NDP as an attempt to intimidate her and the courts, which is kind of unsettling. Mind you, Thomas Mulcair isn’t exactly pure when it comes to attacks on the Supreme Court based on conspiracy theories, as recent history shows. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here. Brent Rathgeber blasts the PMOs use of selective and disingenuous facts to try to smear the Chief Justice for the sake of fundraising dollars. Irwin Cotler took questions about the situation over the Twitter Machine. Andrew Coyne wonders when Conservatives of good faith will start to challenge the party’s leadership over the damage they are doing to our institutions.
Roundup: Expats voting restored
An Ontario superior court judge has struck down provisions that prevent Canadian ex-pats from voting in federal elections, despite living abroad. Considering that we vote for local constituency MPs, and not parties or leaders, one does wonder how we will determine who these ex-pats will vote for, seeing as they don’t have a current riding for whom they are choosing an MP to represent them in. While some jurisdictions that allow expats to vote decide this on the basis of their last Canadian address, it does make one wonder about that kind of determination as riding boundaries change and you have more people voting at that address than are currently registered. Or maybe I’m letting reality and the rules of the way things work get in the way of more abstract feelings about democracy once again.
Roundup: The Chief Justice hits back
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada responded to the government’s media releases and included a timeline of events to show that there was no undue influence in the Nadon appointment. One could question if it was appropriate to flag the issue on July 31, but it certainly doesn’t appear to have unfolded the way that the PMO has insinuated. Harper and company continued to make some baffling assertions, like Harper saying that he discounted any advice about potential problems with nominating a Federal Court judge in Quebec because coming from McLachlin, it would have been improper – it simply makes no sense. So is insinuating that McLachlin should have known that the case would come before her, since she’s not clairvoyant and wouldn’t know that Harper would appoint a judge in such a manner, or that a legal challenge would come. Former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who appointed two Supreme Court justices under his watch, confirms that the Chief Justice would have been one of the people consulted in the process because she knows what kinds of expertise the Court needs at the time. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here.
Roundup: Inciting a feud with the Supreme Court
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.
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.