Possibly the last QP of the year — one can hope — and tempers continued to fray throughout the Precinct. None of the main leaders were present, which wasn’t going to improve the mood either. Peter Julian led things off, where he blustered about Northern Gateway decision, and Kelly Block was the sacrificial lamb sent up to read her talking points about how projects only move forward if they are proven to be safe after a rigorous, scientific review process, and that the proponent has more work to do. When Julian noted that consulting with First Nations was the government’s job, Block read that the government was working with First Nations. Nathan Cullen followed on to carry on the sanctimonious bluster, and Block read yet more of the same talking points. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, denouncing the justice minister’s sexist comments about female judges, to which Peter MacKay accused her of mischaracterizing his comments and that they only made judicial appointments made on merit. Carolyn Bennett and Scott Brison followed along, Brison characterising it as the Conservatives’ war on modernity, and after MacKay gave another embarrassing qualification, Leitch answered Brison by claiming that the number of female Governor-in-Council appointments is on the rise.
Tag Archives: Lawful Access
QP: No current vacancy
The days on the calendar running down, but crankiness among members ramping up, all of the leaders were present in the Commons, which was a little unexpected. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about Quebec Supreme Court justice appointments and the possible attempt to use a backdoor to put Justice Mainville on the bench. Stephen Harper insisted that this was nothing to do with the Supreme Court, but about putting a good judge on the “supreme court” of Quebec. Mulcair pressed about whether the intent was to elevate Justice Mainville to the SCC, to which Harper reminded him that there was no current vacancy, nor a process to select a new one once a vacancy does become available. Mulcair then accused Harper of starting a war with the Supreme Court, but Harper mocked him for trying to launch into another conspiracy theory. Mulcair moved topics, and demanded that the Northern Gateway pipeline be turned town, to which Harper said that the NDP were against all resource development while they underwent environmental assessments and went through a rigorous assessment process. Mulcair listed the opposition to the pipeline, but Harper dismissed their opposition as ideological. Justin Trudeau carried on that line of questioning and pointed out the impacts a spill would have on that coastline, to which Harper accused the Liberals of holding a “deep hostility” toward the energy sector (really? Given their it boosterism for Keystone XL?) and insisted that they had a rigorous process.
Roundup: A blow to cyber-surveillance
As what happens from time to time, the Supreme Court of Canada hands down a ruling and all of the government’s plans get messed up. Granted, that seems to be happening a lot more frequently these days, given that this government has a penchant for pushing the rules as far as they can and not listening to the legal advice they’re given. It happened again yesterday, with a unanimous ruling on a child pornography case that clarified the rules around warrantless access for online data – particularly metadata and ISPs. The Court has judged that these kinds do indeed constitute searches under the law, and that police need warrants (barring exigent circumstances, of course). This puts a huge hole in two government bills, C-13 and S-4, the “cyberbullying” bill and the digital privacy bill respectively, as both deal with data sharing including lawful access provisions. With the Court now having come down against lawful access – a decision being cheered by the new federal privacy commissioner as well as his Ontario counterpart – it’s likely to force the government to put the bills on hold (and indeed, they delayed further debate on S-4 in the Senate to consider the Supreme Court judgement). And hey, this might even mean that they’ll split the actual cyberbullying portions out of C-13 in order to “further consider” the next steps on the rest of the lawful access provisions that they were trying to get in under the rubric of “protecting children.” Then again, they could just as easily forge ahead and force yet another confrontation with the Supreme Court, as they seem intent on doing with everything else, in order to keep playing the victim card and fundraising off of it.
Roundup: Pushing back out of the gate
The new privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, went before the Commons justice committee yesterday to talk about the “cyberbullying” bill, and the moment that Therrien did his job and pushed back against the bill – pointing out the overreach into lawful access provisions, the lowered test for getting warrants, the lack of oversight mechanisms, and that the bill should be split so that the more technical aspects of those lawful access provisions could get more detailed study, the government lashed back, turning against him immediately with the bizarre accusation that he hasn’t been a police officer. Apparently because police demand more powers, the government feels that they need to fall all over themselves to provide them, no questions asked – despite the fact that we have a history of showing that when authorities are given new powers without adequate oversight that they tend to be abused (for entirely well-meaning reasons, no doubt). Also of concern is that information could be requested not only by peace officers, but also by “public officers,” which includes elected officials, certain airline pilots and fisheries officers. No, seriously. Peter MacKay, meanwhile, brings up the child porn defence for these new measures, despite the fact that he hasn’t provided an excuse for why they wouldn’t need a warrant to get this kind of information. As well, NDP MP Randall Garrison tried to put in an amendment to the bill to see that transgendered people are protected from hate – you know, like cyberbullying – and the government shot it down for no real logical reason. Well done, everyone.
QP: Fears of anti-choice lobbyists
Despite it being a Wednesday and caucus day, only Thomas Mulcair anchored the chamber. Harper was off in Toronto to host his summit on Maternal and Child Health, and Justin Trudeau off in Quebec City to meet the new premier. Mulcair began by asking about the refusal to fund safe abortions as part of the Maternal and Child Health initiative. John Baird responded that they have done a lot of work on maternal and child health, and got a number of other countries on board. Mulcair noted that they refused to fund the UN Population Fund as part of the initiative because of pressure from anti-choice lobbyists. Deepak Obhrai touted the 1.3 million children’s lives saved by their Initiative. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the Temporary Foreign Workers programme not helping unemployed Canadians. Jason Kenney insisted that they employers had an obligation to seek Canadian employees first. Mulcair insisted that posting jobs for TFWs at minimum wage distorted the free market, eliciting roars from the Conservative benches. Kenney noted that those minimum wage rates were largely in the seasonal agricultural sector and that the prevailing median wage was posted for other jobs. Mulcair again changed topics, and noted the objections of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner to the lawful access provisions of the cyberbullying bill. Peter MacKay insisted that the bill would protect children and the parents of victims of cyberbullying insisted that they pass the bill — not actually true. John McCallum led off for the Liberals asking about the TFW blacklist, to which Kenney insisted that those employers were no longer eligible to get new workers, and Chris Alexander followed up by claiming they were “cleaning up the Liberal mess.” McCallum found that hilarious and an evasion of responsibility, but Alexander insisted that they were indifferent to abuse and that they brought over exotic dancers “by the hundreds and thousands” with no corner for their welfare.
QP: Strong-arming the Supreme Court
It being a Tuesday, all of the party leaders were in the House today, which is of course a rarity these days. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking which story was true — whether Harper had no idea that appointing a Federal Court justice would be a problem, or whether it was likely to be an issue before the courts. Harper equivocated, didn’t really answer and tried to say that nobody had a problem with Nadon during the process (which isn’t really true if we read between the confidential lines). Mulcair wondered why Harper didn’t get a Supreme Court reference before they appointed Nadon if they knew it would be an issue, but Harper insisted again that the NDP said good things about him. Mulcair asked why they didn’t try to change the appointment rules before appointing him. Harper responded by quoting Françoise Boivin’s praise of Nadon. Mulcair accused Harper of trying to strong-arm the Supreme Court into accepting the appointment, but Harper muttered about independent legal advice. Mulcair said that the appointment process clearly wasn’t working and needed to be changed, but Harper yet again repeated that Boivin praised Nadon, and characterized the SCC decision as “changing the rules,” when they absolutely did not. Justin Trudeau led off for the Liberals, and asked about the wage-suppressing effects of the mismanaged Temporary Foreign Workers programme. Harper batted back that the Liberals kept changing their position, and then changed topic, bringing up the PBO’s report on tax changes and how they benefitted mostly lower-income Canadians. Trudeau changed topics, and asked about the delays in filling that vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, and if it would be filled before the House rises for summer. Harper insisted that the Liberals didn’t object to Nadon’s appointment, but wouldn’t promise when a new name would come forward.
Roundup: I dream of Turks & Caicos
Visions of Turks & Caicos were abounding on the Hill yesterday, as premier Rufus Ewing visited to talk trade, and while no doors were closed on the subject of annexation (except, more or less, by John Baird), everyone had their fun. Even Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall decided to get in on it, offering to make the islands part of Saskatchewan so as not to need to open up the constitution to add an eleventh province, and PEI Premier Robert Ghiz playfully suggested that his island province would be a better fit. Err, except that Nova Scotia beat them to it by a decade, when their assembly passed a unanimous motion back in 2004 to have Turks & Caicos join them. Oops. Regardless, trade and security would be beneficial, where it could be a Canadian trade port to the Caribbean, and possibly even a supply base for our DART teams. It wasn’t all without hiccups either, as a Caribbean news site listed some complaints that the islands have of Canadians, and that they have no idea where Conservative MP Peter Goldring came up with the notion that 100 percent of the islands support a merger with Canada.
Roundup: Standby for evening sittings
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan is calling for evening sittings for the remainder of the spring sitting of the Commons, in order to get stuff done. Here’s a list of five bills that the government is looking to get through before they rise for the summer. And you can bet that the late nights will make MPs all that much crankier as the last stretch before summer grinds along. Get ready for silly season, ladies and gentlemen.
Roundup: RCMP report released
The RCMP report into missing and murdered Aboriginal women is now out, and there are a few interesting things to note, most of them presented in helpful infographics – that the homicide rate for Aboriginal women is four times that of non-Aboriginal women, that they are most likely to be murdered by an acquaintance, spouse or family member, and that their killers have an average age of 35, are less employed, and use intoxicants. In other words, it’s a more systemic societal problem and not one that can be solved by the government’s tough-on-crime policies consisting mostly of the threat of harsher penalties. Also of note are the fact that the solved rate for murdered Aboriginal women is on par with non-Aboriginal women, so it seems less like police inattention to these deaths, but the breakdown also pointed to a very big problem in BC, such as with the “Highway of Tears,” showing that there clearly needs to be more work undertaken in that area. The report renewed calls for a national inquiry to help address those systemic and societal issues and better understand how to tackle them, while the government took the statistics from the report and said that they are taking action by doing things like strengthening programmes to combat domestic violence on reserves. All RCMP divisions have been ordered to re-examine their unsolved files on these missing and murdered women in the hopes of generating new leads, and they have six months to report back on their findings. Funds for family violence prevention programmes will also be re-directed to higher-risk communities to partner with local agencies to help address “vulnerability factors.”
Roundup: Cyberbullying not lawful access
It has to sting when witnesses the government expects to back their bills unflinchingly don’t do what is expected. This happened yesterday as parents of teens who committed suicide because of cyberbullying (or criminal harassment being called cyberbullying even though it’s not really) gave their reservations about the government’s “cyberbullying” bill to the Commons committee studying it. The general consensus – though not universal – was that the bill should be split up, and the aspects dealing with non-consensual distribution of intimate images be dealt with separately from the lawful access provisions that are stuffed in the bill. Amanda Todd’s mother said that she doesn’t want other children victimised by having their privacy rights violated using her daughter’s name. It also should be said that those parents who were fine with the privacy violation provisions are also coming from a place of profound grief and loss, and it colours their perceptions of the issues around civil liberties. Suffice to say, it’s fascinating to see the government losing their own narrative over such a contentious bill.