Tag Archives: First Nations

QP: Alleging a national security breach

Posted on by

For what was possible the last time in person for the spring sitting, Justin Trudeau was present in the Chamber, with only Mark Gerretsen on the Liberal benches with him. Erin O’Toole led off, and he immediately launched into the National Microbiology Lab firings, accusing the government of hiding the truth. Trudeau refuted this, and said that they we looking to share the information in the right way, which was why they were asking NSICOP to look into it, and that unredacted documents had already been provided to it. O’Toole tried to make the case that the government broke national security laws around the Lab, but Trudeau repeated his response. O’Toole threw out a bunch of possibly non-sequitur facts about the Wuhan lab in China and tried to tie them to the Winnipeg lab, and Trudeau chided the Conservatives for ignoring oversight of national security, which is why they created NSICOP. O’Toole tried to accuse Trudeau of advancing China’s interests, and Trudeau gave the somewhat tired response that the Conservatives were focused on political games while he was working for Canadians against foreign threats. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response about NSICOP.

Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc, and he complained that Trudeau mused about COVID masks and Quebec’s “secularism” law, and Trudeau remarked that he supports Quebeckers’ rights to challenge that law in court. Blanchet was irate that people were linking Bill 21 with the rise in Islamophobia, but Trudeau instead spoke about the importance of the Court Challenges programme, which was why his government restored its funding.

Jagmeet Singh appeared by video for the NDP, and in French, demanded an end to the lawsuits related to Indigenous children. Trudeau said it was false, they were not suing the children, but acknowledged that they deserve compensation and were negotiating it — but didn’t explain the purpose of the litigation. Singh repeated the question in English, and Trudeau repeated his answer, and once again did not explain the litigation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Craven for Quebec votes

Posted on by

The day was marked by reflection on the part of political leaders on the hate crime that took place in London, Ontario, that killed a Muslim family, along with vows to do better. Of course, within each of those was their own particular issues. As much as Justin Trudeau insisted that this was a “terrorist attack” before such a designation could be applied by means of police investigation, he also vowed to keep dismantling far-right groups, patting himself on the back for the designation of the Proud Boys as a terror group, even though that really just drove its membership underground. Erin O’Toole steered clear of his party’s recent history of dog-whistling and the absolute histrionics they engaged in around M-103, which you may recall was to have a parliamentary committee deal with the issue of Islamophobia in Canada. (Conservatives and their defenders will point to a similar motion on systemic racism that the Liberals voted down, ignoring that the motion was essentially the parliamentary equivalent of “all lives matter”). Jagmeet Singh loudly wondered how many more attacks needed to happen before the government did something about it, though there are limits to what the federal government is able to do, and they have been putting resources into their anti-racism strategy.

But the part that really reflects poorly on Trudeau is the fact that at his media availability afterward, he was asked if he thinks that Quebec’s Bill 21 (dubbed their “secularism” law but really disproportionately attacks Muslim women) fosters hated or discrimination, and he said no. We’re not sure if he was simply saying no about the hatred part, given that he has called out the discrimination inherent in said bill before – but he also still hasn’t taken any moves to combat it, apparently waiting for it to reach the Supreme Court of Canada before he’ll intervene. Which is more than the other leaders would do (well, Singh has reluctantly said he also might intervene at the Supreme Court if he were prime minister, but that’s after being pressed). Trudeau also mused that perhaps all of the mask-wearing in the pandemic will change Quebeckers’ opinions on religious symbols and face-coverings, but apparently François Legault is not moved. Either way, it’s a sign that every federal leader is way too craven to stand up to Legault on this because they’re all eager for Quebec votes, and that’s pretty gross all around.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1402432194564526080

To that end, Susan Delacourt calls out Trudeau, O’Toole and Singh for their refusal to discuss Bill 21 (or in O’Toole’s case, acknowledge their past dog-whistles about “veiled voting” and “barbaric cultural practices tip lines”), and praises the courage of that former PC candidate who acknowledged the racism of his community that he shrugged off at the time.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1402313600602157058

Continue reading →

QP: Magical solutions to housing shortages

Posted on by

We had initially been promised the prime minister’s attendance today, but given events, he and the other party leaders all decided to jet off together to the vigil in London, Ontario, for the Muslim family that was killed in a hate crime on Sunday night. Candice Bergen led off by video, requesting an update on what the government was doing to support the Muslim community in the wake of the tragedy. Bill Blair listed off some supports, and made the point about Canada trying to “be the country we aspire to be,” which I thought was probably one of the better articulations out there, rather than the usual “this isn’t us” denialism. Bergen then demanded to know why unredacted documents related to the two fired scientists had not been turned over to the House of Commons as had been ordered, for which Patty Hajdu reminded her that she turned those documents over to NSICOP, which was the proper venue for it. Bergen accused the government of being in contempt of Parliament, and tied the lab to the investigation into the origins of COVID in Wuhan, thus fuelling more conspiracy theories, and Hajdu warned her about conflating issues. Gérard Deltell took over in French and tried to insist that NSICOP was the personal committee of the prime minister and that they couldn’t know what was turned over to it – which is a very dangerous move to politicise the committee like that – and Hajdu corrected him that the committee is multi-partisan and has the ability to review these kinds of documents. Deltell tried again, and got the same pushback from Hajdu.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and demanded action to solve the delays to temporary foreign workers in Quebec. Marco Mendicino insisted that he was hard at work with his Quebec counterpart and they were on target. Yves Perron took over and demanded immediate action on the arrival of those workers, and Mendicino reminded him that they have doubled the number of arrivals over the past decade.

Rachel Blaney demanded immediate action on the motion that passed yesterday on ending litigation against First Nations children and residential schools survivors, for which Carolyn Bennett praised the intent of the motion, but stated that they contain complex legal issues that should not be resolved unilaterally on the floor of the House of Commons. Charlie Angus repeated the question with added sanctimony, and Bennett read that the court ordered an independent review of the compensation which could include greater amounts for some survivors, which the government was funding.

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 →

QP: Mona Fortier reminds us she exists

Posted on by

It was a scorcher in the Nation’s Capital, and once again, the only Liberal MP in the Chamber was Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off by video, and she complained that the million jobs promised by the end of June had not materialized, and compared our job numbers to the Americans’, and demanded a plan to re-open the economy – as though that were a federal call. Mona Fortier assured her eight out of every ten jobs lost at the start of the pandemic had already been recovered, and that international credit ratings have pointed out Canada’s plan was sound. Bergen railed about job losses and accused the government of being more concerned about their travel itineraries than Canadians, for which Fortier reminded her of the good new of the Q1 GDP numbers (which really weren’t great, considering how much of those numbers were tied up in real estate). Bergen then blamed the federal government for the third wave of the pandemic (when she knows full well it was premiers who reopened too early and locked down too late), and Fortier listed measures taken to help businesses in lockdowns and as part of the recovery. Gérard Deltell took over in French and railed about jobs, for which Fortier repeated the “good news” in the GDP numbers. Deltell seemed to think the lockdowns were completely over when complaining that jobs had not completely recovered, and Fortier recited good news talking points about the wage subsidy. 

Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, and he demanded that the federal government extend Quebec’s Bill 101 to federally-regulated industries because the Official Languages Act only protects bilingualism and not French, and Mélanie Joly assured him they were protecting French. Therrien complained this wasn’t good enough because the federal bureaucracy had a high failure rate, and Joly stated that they were working to strengthen the Act and the Commissioner’s powers, and to extend the Act to industries in federal jurisdiction in the private sector.

Alexandre Boulerice led for the NDP by video, and he demanded the government support their motion on abandoning litigation involving First Nations children and survivors, for which Mark a Miller noted that they support parts of the notion but there are jurisdiction issues to be litigated, and they were negotiating compensation. Charlie Angus repeated the question in English with added sanctimony, and Miller repeated slowly that every First Nations child that has suffered at the hands of the child welfare system will get just and fair compensation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Misconduct at CBSA? You don’t say!

Posted on by

It was not really a surprise to see the news that misconduct investigations of CBSA officers has increased over the past year – even in spite of travel volumes being down precipitously over the last year – and cases included things like interfering in an immigration process, belittling clients, abusing authority and sharing private information. Partly why this isn’t a surprise for me is because I’ve been tracking some of this for a while – I’ve heard horrific stories from lawyers, and from the Senators who have been pushing for independent oversight for CBSA for years.

That independent oversight still hasn’t happened. There have been numerous bills introduced in Parliament to provide it, and the most successful to date was a Senate initiative to create an Inspector General for CBSA. This was something the Liberals used to be in support of. Ralph Goodale was set to sponsor the bill in the Commons, until he became minister for public safety, then suddenly wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole. When the bill passed the Senate unanimously, no one in the House of Commons dared to sponsor it there, MPs on the Liberal side having been warned away, and Conservatives were certainly not going to sponsor a Senate Liberal bill (and the Bloc and NDP most certainly were not either). The Liberals did introduce a weak sauce version of an oversight bill at the end of the previous parliament, with no time for it to go through, then again early in the current one, which died on prorogation and hasn’t been introduced since. That version would put CBSA under the RCMP’s Civilian Complaints and Review Commission, but for all intents and purposes, CBSA would still be investigating itself, meaning that the oversight is certainly not independent (and the CCRC is having a hard enough time getting the RCMP to sign off on its own complaints, which can’t be formalized until such sign-off).

The political will for this seems to be non-existent, which is strange, considering that the Liberals did reimplement plenty of other oversight for national security institutions like CSIS and CSA, and while some of CBSA’s activities call under the ambit of the new national security oversight bodies, it doesn’t capture the oversight of all of their activities. There are known problems with CBSA, and it’s unthinkable that a law enforcement body like it doesn’t have proper civilian oversight. The disconnect is unfathomable, but puts another mark in the column of Liberals being weasels about their promises once again.

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 →

Roundup: Trying to politicize NSICOP

Posted on by

The fight for documents related to the National Microbiology Lab firings from 2019 has been intensifying in the House of Commons, both in the Conservatives working on a privilege fight over access to unredacted documents, but also in the way they have been treating the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP). While not perfect, NSICOP is at least some level of oversight of the national security apparatuses of this country by parliamentarians (though not an actual parliamentary committee), which is more than existed previously. They have tried to dismiss it as somehow partisan, which it’s not – all parties are represented on the committee (though the Bloc seat is currently vacant), and say that the prime minister’s office controls it (as it’s an executive body and not a parliamentary one). But they have the power to have their members resign in protest if they felt that the PMO was bigfooting them, and they haven’t, which means that these objections are about politics – particularly as they are building a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories around the two firings in order to score cheap points.

As a reminder, the Conservatives were dismantling some of the national security oversight, neutering the Inspector General at CSIS and making poor appointments to the only other real civilian oversight of national security agencies in the country. This is at least a point in Trudeau’s favour – he overhauled and strengthened the various oversight mechanisms of all of these bodies, including the creation of NSICOP, which does valuable work.

With that in mind, here is Stephanie Carvin with some thoughts on this fight, and check out this thread from Philippe Lagassé for more thoughts as to how NSICOP is currently structured and how it compares internationally.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446108376174594

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446110653689856

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446112931225601

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446115099680773

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400479339528003594

Continue reading →

QP: The documents have been sent to NSICOP

Posted on by

It was one of those days in the Chamber where the benches seemed particularly thin, and once again, only Mark Gerretsen was present for the Liberals. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and wanted a new commitment to the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report around the graves around former residential schools, and Mark Miller assured him they are working with communities so that they can come up with their own processes and that the federal government was there to support them and with funds when they were ready. O’Toole repeated in French, and Miller gave him the same answer. O’Toole then switched back to English and the issue of the National Microbiology Lab, raising redacted documents that have been released to date, tying it to the lab in Wuhan, for which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were cooperating with any investigation and that the correct place for Parliament to deal with the matter was NSICOP, which has been provided with documents. O’Toole insisted that they weren’t being given enough to hold government to account for a security breach, but Hajdu repeated her assurances with a warning not to play games with national security. O’Toole repeated the calls in French, and Hajdu repeated herself.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that Quebec’s Bill 101 be extended to federally-regulated workplaces, and Mélanie Joly gave her assurances that they would ensure that French would be a language of work and service. Therrien wanted government support for their bill to make the extension formal, but Joly deflected with talking points about the government’s forthcoming Official Languages Act reforms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded support for their Supply Day motion on ending litigation around Indigenous children — litigation that is about a bad precedent by the Tribunal and not the compensation order. Miller assured him they were working toward proper compensation. Singh repeated the question in English, and gave a more clear response on the substance of the action around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that discussions around compensation are ongoing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The choice of patios over schools

Posted on by

Days after Ontario premier Doug Ford put on a dog and pony show of consulting scientists, health experts and educators about whether to re-open schools for in-person learning for the remainder of the school year, demanding consensus, Ford declared yesterday that he was going to cancel those classes – but he wanted all grades to have an outdoor graduation at the end of the year. This genius suggestion apparently came from a letter he got from a child, and he immediately headed to said child’s home to discuss it. That’s right, Ontario – not only is this province run by incompetent and unethical murderclowns, but they’re taking policy suggestions from literal children.

Pouring salt into the wound, Ford is now trying to push up his re-opening dates for the economy, immediately contradicting his handwringing that schools are too unsafe because of the variants of concern in the community, but those very same variants would be as much a threat to other businesses re-opening, so it’s neither credible nor cogent. And even if we’ve got good vaccination numbers, the hospitalisation and ICU numbers are still way too high to consider any kind of re-opening, or we’ll just repeat the same pattern we did with the previous two waves of this gods damned pandemic. But hey, he wants people to have a beer on a patio.

And we need to keep this in mind, especially when it comes time to hold Ford to account at the ballot box – he made these choices throughout the pandemic to delay, to take half-measures, to not make schools safe, to do simply try to blame-shift rather than act on areas that are under his responsibility, to sit on federal funds rather than spending them immediately and effectively to do things like expanding testing and tracing, and the economy wasn’t any better off as a result. It’s on him, as these were his choices.

Continue reading →