On a warm and sunny Monday in the nation’s capital, all of the leaders were present, so it was either going to be a really good day…or an insufferable one. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he noted the unfolding situation of an alleged attack in Toronto with a white van running down pedestrians. Justin Trudeau noted that his thoughts were with those affected, and he would update the House as he learned more. Scheer then asked about the number of irregular border crossers affecting those who “wait in line” — except there’s not a line for asylum seekers, there’s a process, and he’s conflating it with immigration. Trudeau noted that Canada is signatory to international conventions, and that any arrivals are processed and that they go through proper security checks. Scheer tried again, and this time Trudeau wondered if Scheer was suggesting that they violate their international obligations. Scheer then turned to the PBO report on carbon pricing, and he cherry-picked one figure that portended doom (where the report stated differently). Trudeau gave a weary sigh, and reminded him that the economy and the environment go together. Scheer tried to insinuate that there was some kind of cover-up about the “economic damage” that a carbon tax would do, and Trudeau hit back that if Scheer was so concerned about secrecy, he should stop censoring Maxime Bernier. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and after he made a quick statement about the situation in Toronto, he demanded the immediate implementation of a universal pharmacare programme. Trudeau took up a script to say that the system can be improved and they are consulting on a national pharmacare programme — note that he didn’t say universal. Caron asked again in French, detailing previous Liberal promises, and Trudeau said that the NDP wanted to set up something without a clear plan, which is why his government set up an advisory committee to study and evaluate a universal pharmacare programme (not sure if universal was just a translation issue this time). Rachel Blaney took her own turn to demand pharmacare, and Trudeau repeated his answer about needing a plan, emphasising the digs at the NDP in the process. Blaney tried again, and got the same answer.
Tag Archives: National Security
Roundup: Emergency Cabinet stalling
After yesterday’s emergency Cabinet meeting, you might think that ministers would have something to say. They did – they stated that they remained 100 percent behind the construction of the pipeline, and then Jim Carr fled to catch a plane, and all other ministers similarly fled, with Bill Morneau dropping a few more hints before he had a later media availability in Toronto, where he said that they would be meeting with Rachel Notley today in order to further discuss options. Of course, why they couldn’t just say this at the time is part of the frustrating way in which this government chooses to communicate (though I keep reminding myself, and occasionally others, is that if this were the Harper years, we wouldn’t know there was a meeting, reporters would have been barred from the third floor where it happened, and ministers would flee down the back stairs so as to avoid media).
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/983857757131456513
Notley, meanwhile, says that her government is prepared to buy the pipeline outright if Kinder Morgan pulls out (and there is speculation that if Kinder Morgan fails to get the pipeline built, they could launch a NAFTA challenge against the government). John Horgan says that Notley’s threats to legislate the cut of oil to BC, forcing them to raise gasoline prices, would be “provocative” – something he says as though butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. And to add another wrench into things, AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde finally broke his silence on the Trans Mountain issue, asserting that UNDRIP principles mean they need First Nations consent.
But amidst all of this, we get back to some basic problems, in that thus far, BC hasn’t actually done anything yet, so there’s nothing that the federal government can actually do other than make a bunch of symbolic statements. Demands that this be taken to the Supreme Court are left with the basic problems of just what we’re asking them to weigh in on – federal jurisdiction is settled law, and until BC actually comes up with their novel plans to skirt the constitution, we have no actual question for the Court to decide on (when it eventually does – it wouldn’t hear the reference until the fall at the earliest, and then likely take up to six more months to render their decision). I’m hard-pressed to call that a panacea to the problem, or to give Kinder Morgan the comfort they’re seeking.
Senator @DougBlackAB: Stop the stalling — refer Trans Mountain dispute to Supreme Court https://t.co/CaR8xbTXoa #SenCA #cdnpoli #abpoli #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/LUDtsPeKh4
— Senate of Canada (@SenateCA) April 10, 2018
Refer what? What’s the question? BC hasn’t actually *done* anything yet but put out press releases, which aren’t justiciable last I checked. And “expedited” will still mean probably a year before there’s a decision. #cdnpoli https://t.co/9HblXz7LbL
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 10, 2018
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983822254290055169
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983822625636999169
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/983823922847084544
Good reads:
- The Commons Public Safety committee will meet for sixty minutes at noon on Monday to hear from National Security Advisor Daniel Jean.
- The Mexican ambassador says that while wages in Mexico are increasing, they won’t rise to the levels demanded by some NAFTA players immediately.
- The big omnibus crime bill contains a clause that would allow police to submit court testimony in writing instead of in person, meaning defence can’t cross examine.
- VADM Mark Norman had his first court appearance, and it’ll be a high bar for the Crown to prove breach of trust. Here is a guide to the cast of characters in this saga.
- The government still doesn’t have a timeline for eliminating the gay blood donor ban (but they are compiling research for a move to a better risk-based system).
- Tired of waiting for the government to fulfil its promise to repeal mandatory minimum sentences, Senator Kim Pate plans to table a bill to do just that.
- A book by former Dion advisor Jocelyn Coulon insists that there was a frosty relationship between Trudeau and Dion, stemming Dion rebuffing Trudeau in 2006.
- The Ethics Commissioner might open an investigation into Raj Grewal’s invitation on the India trip (but nobody has said how his private interests were furthered).
- Stephen Harper tweeted congratulations to Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, who is anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. John Geddes delves deeper here.
- In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, Maxime Bernier expresses some sour grapes and says that Andrew Scheer won thanks to “fake Conservatives.”
- Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column takes on the issue of those illicit political donations by Conrad Black.
- Susan Delacourt looks at Canadians’ growing distrust in Facebook.
- Martin Patriquin notes the Liberal inability to own their pithy phrases when they backfire, preferring instead to shift to less sentimental talking points.
- My column calls out the insistence that there are “simple questions” or simple answers to the Trans Mountain issue.
Odds and ends:
An academic examination of Justin Trudeau’s Instagram feed shows not a single selfie among the image he’s crafted.
Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.
Roundup: The obtuse Atwal angles
Because the Jaspel Atwal story refuses to go away, due to equal parts of inept messaging by the government and obtuseness on the parts of both the opposition and much of the media, it seems like we should dig into a few more aspects of it. If you haven’t yet, read John Ivison’s column that threads the needle on just what the senior bureaucrats were warning about with regard to the possibility of “rogue elements” in India’s government, and the invitation that MP Randeep Sarai extended to Atwal while Atwal was already in the country. If more people read this, we would have far fewer of the questions we’re hearing about how both “versions” of the incident can be true. And hey, people familiar with both Indian politics and security services are adding that this is more than plausible.
I agree that the Prime Minister needs to be more transparent with Canadians on this issue. But are we really taking the Indian government's version of events verbatim and dismissing that of the National Security Adviser out of hand? https://t.co/XaLc8L3mAG
— John Ivison (@IvisonJ) March 1, 2018
I'm with @IvisonJ. Anyone who knows anything about Indian politics knows conspiracy is always a possibility. RT John Ivison: It is possible the Atwal affair was both a cock up and conspiracy at the same time https://t.co/Hwm378CMAO via @nationalpost
— Kevin Carmichael (@CarmichaelKevin) March 1, 2018
https://twitter.com/mrmubinshaikh/status/969083935580880896
https://twitter.com/mrmubinshaikh/status/969341369583095808
In the meantime, opposition parties are trying to use their parliamentary tools to continue to make hay of this. Ralph Goodale got hauled before the national security committee yesterday, and he was unable to give very many answers – completely understandably – and suggested that MPs use the new National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to discuss classified issues like this. It didn’t stop the opposition from trying to call the National Security Advisor to committee, but that was blocked. But as Stephanie Carvin points out below, MPs are not great at this kind of thing, and risk doing even more damage (and We The Media aren’t helping).
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/969329125579161601
https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/969345972978495489
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/969361059717971980
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/969362336405475328
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/969363708249026585
https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/969405817609969665
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/969406898700279809
In case you were wondering why the Conservatives dropped their planned Supply Day motion to try and wedge the government over support for a united India as a pretext to bash the Atwal issue some more, they faced an outcry of Sikhs in Canada and backed down (but are insisting that the motion is still on the Order Paper and can be debated on a future Supply Day).
In the meantime, India raised their tariffs on imports of pulses, and suddenly every single Canadian pundit joined the Conservatives in blaming it on Trudeau’s India trip and the Atwal accusations. Not one of them noted that India is having a bit of a domestic crisis with its farmers, and there is a global glut of pulse crops, which is depressing prices (for which India is trying to boost domestic production). But why look for facts when you can try to wedge it into a narrative you’ve already decided on? Cripes.
The mainstream media coverage of the global pulse glut is…typical.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) March 2, 2018
Roundup: Muddled takes on Charter rights
The bad takes on the government’s decision to stop giving summer job grants to groups that actively oppose abortions keep rolling in, with yesterday’s winner being one particularly mystifying piece that equates this to Christians being persecuted in ancient Rome. No, seriously. But probably the most overwrought objections are those which keep insisting that “there’s no Charter right to an abortion!” Err, no, there’s not. But when you try to take away that right, you trigger other Charter rights, most notably a woman’s right to life, liberty, and security of person, or the fact that discriminating against her ability to get a medical procedure does breach her Charter rights. University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen walks us through some of those considerations here:
Emmett Macfarlane also took to Twitter to try to clarify some of the arguments in this particular case.
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954045320224178176
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954046117188177920
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954048017727926272
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954067759494778881
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954141345152724992
This having been said, it should be reiterated that yet again, this government has not done a particularly stellar job in communicating this particular policy decision, especially in how they are fuzzily defining what is a “core mandate” that would disqualify them. It shouldn’t be difficult – is this an organization that is devoted to picketing abortion clinics, or counselling women against abortions under the guise of being a support service? No? Then you can get your funding. I also think that some religious groups are being a bit hyperbolic in their concerns, egged on by the likes of Andrew Scheer, who has been torqueing this issue (as he is wont to do with any issue) so that what’s actually at stake bears no relation to what it’s being characterized as. But that’s politics, apparently.
Roundup: Privilege case at the SCC
There is an interesting case being heard at the Supreme Court of Canada today, which goes to the heart of how laws are made in this country. An Alberta First Nation, the Mikisew Cree, applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the 2012 Conservative budget implementation bill after its changes to environmental legislation didn’t consult them, per Section 35 of the Constitution. The problem? You can’t have the courts interfere with the legislative process. That goes to the heart of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers.
The Federal Court allowed a partial application, citing that they should have been given an opportunity to make submissions, but this was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal, which (correctly, in my view) cited that the Federal Court Act had no jurisdiction over the legislative process, and that it offended parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers, and there was an additional issue that this omnibus bill was of general application and did not apply specifically to this First Nation. The Supreme Court of Canada now gets to hear the issue and decide whether or not this should be the case in the face of the constitutional duty to consult.
While I’m sympathetic to the need to consult on these issues, particularly on issues that will affect their lands and ability to have engage with the processes that are created out of the regulator bodies that are engaged by the legislation once it is enacted, I do have a problem with the demands that any outside group be included in the drafting process. And while the current government has made a great deal of effort doing consultations before they draft bills (and there is no shortage of grousing as to how it slows down the process), there are usually plenty of opportunities to intervene once the bill is tabled and reaches committee hearings in both the Commons and the Senate. This is how parliament is supposed to work. Trying to short-circuit this has an effect on things like cabinet secrecy, and more likely, could grind the legislative process to a halt if you were dealing with a group that wanted to be obstinate. But also, it bears reiterating that parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers are not things to be trifled with, because it undermines the ability of parliament to do its work. While I’m confident that the Supreme Court will do the right thing, I do worry that this case has made it this far and could be victim of novel thinking that could do lasting harm to our institutions.
Roundup: No knockout punch from Dawson
As expected, former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s appearance at the Commons ethics committee yesterday was a show for the cameras. Throughout the hearing, opposition MPs kept trying to get Dawson to insist that it was a big deal that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated conflict of interest rules, and she kept rebuffing them, not giving them the clip that they were looking for. Because really, ever since former Auditor General Sheila Fraser remarked that the Liberals “broke every rule in the book” when it came to the Sponsorship Scandal, reporters and partisans have been trying desperately for another officer of parliament to give them a similar line (kind of like how everyone keeps looking for a “knockout punch” in a leadership debate that won’t ever come). Dawson also wouldn’t play ball when it came to the Conservatives trying to insist that the PM repay all of the costs of the vacation, and in fact seemed to defend some of them, so too bad for that attempted clip.
@nathancullen is trying to get Dawson to say this is a BIG deal. But she won’t go there. “They are contraventions of the act, yeah,” she offers.
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) January 10, 2018
The best Dawson has given Cullen is she would have recommended Trudeau not go on the trip. “I probably would have said no…if I knew everything I know here.”
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) January 10, 2018
That’s not to say that there wasn’t some value in the exercise. For example, while the PM and Dawson will dispute the extent of Trudeau’s friendship with the Aga Khan for the purposes of the Act, had she agreed that they were close personal friends, Trudeau would have been found to have contravened the Act in another fashion when he sat in on two meetings related to the Aga Khan Foundation (even though she didn’t find that he unduly influenced those meetings based on his relationship). Nevertheless, the “friends” exception in the legislation was cause for some level of debate and indeed consternation among MPs, but it’s something that Dawson thinks they might as well just get rid of in the statute.
Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson on the “friend” exception in the conflict of interest & ethics act. More #ctvpp here: https://t.co/Rlye0aGlbX #cdnpoli #ctvpp pic.twitter.com/kKFPvx3PiS
— CTV Power Play (@CTV_PowerPlay) January 10, 2018
And amending the Act was part of the discussion as well, both with regard to closing loopholes, and the discussion on penalties. Regarding loopholes, Dawson said that she needed to interpret that Morneau was within his rights to indirectly hold his shares in holding companies because she had previously recommended that said loophole be closed (and, shockingly, MPs ignored the suggestion). If she suddenly interpreted the legislation differently, that would have been a problem, hence her need to apply the law in a consistent manner. Regarding penalties, Dawson said that she feels that naming and shaming political figures is punishment enough, which didn’t sit well with MPs who wanted a sliding scale of penalties to demonstrate the severity of the offence. (Andrew Coyne also advocates “meaningful penalties” but won’t say what qualifies). The problem with this, of course, is that it turns any violation into a political circus as MPs fall all over themselves to demand the stiffest possible penalties for their opponents in order to score points, ignoring that the whole exercise is one designed for political consequences, which Trudeau has and continues to face. The other aspect is that greater penalties also create the conception that these are criminal sanctions, which the opposition has already been exploiting with language about how Trudeau “broke federal laws” to give the impression that he has committed a criminal offence (which he has not). Changing the rules to encourage this kind of demagoguery doesn’t help our ethics system in the slightest, and would probably do far more harm than good in the interest of scoring a couple of cheap points.
Mary Dawson is now defending her interpretation of the Morneau loophole. She says she had already recommended in 2013 that it be closed so “how can I start interpreting it in a different way?”
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) January 10, 2018
Roundup: Unifying the prohibitions across departments
The federal government has issued new guidelines for foreign intelligence likely obtained through torture, so that it now covers the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Establishment, and Global Affairs Canada. This means that they are prohibited from using such information, except if it’s going to save lives either from an imminent terrorist attack or protecting Canadian troops on an overseas mission. This appears to harmonize direction handed down earlier to the RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA, so that all national security agencies (which are now under the same parliamentary oversight regime and will soon be under an independent arm’s length national security oversight regime) will have the same rules and restrictions. For some, it’s reassuring that the government is taking the issue seriously, but for others, the caveat isn’t good enough, and they need to issue a full prohibition, no caveats, no exceptions, full stop. Stephanie Carvin has more reaction to the announcement here:
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941445420475125761
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941445593154576384
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941445901750382592
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941446074538979328
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941446248057397248
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941446383113867266
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941446599791730688
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/941446938007703553
Roundup: A new Chief Justice
The justice minister announced yesterday morning that the prime minister would be naming Justice Richard Wagner as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, thus both respecting the tradition of alternating between a Common Law and a Civil Law judge as the Chief, as well as picking an accomplished jurist who has 15 years left on the bench, ensuring that there is a long enough period of stability on the Court. Wagner is well respected in the Quebec courts, where he hailed from, and it is noted that he doesn’t really fit into the left-right divide – something that is not only indicative of our Canadian system, but is one of those things that people point to when they note how a Liberal PM can elevate a judge chosen by his Conservative predecessor.
A trip to the Maclean’s archives finds this piece by Paul Wells on the day that Wagner was named to the Supreme Court was also the day that Justin Trudeau threw his hat into the ring for Liberal leadership, and that both men had famous fathers in political circles. Tasha Kheiriddin notes the choice of Wagner is a safe one.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/940602693633974275
https://twitter.com/alisoncrawford5/status/940598938322788352
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin congratulates the Honourable Richard Wagner following the announcement of his appointment as Chief Justice of Canada. #SCC #SCCJudge pic.twitter.com/OakiZx49S8
— Supreme Court of Canada (@SCC_eng) December 12, 2017
It’s also worth noting that Wagner also becomes Deputy Governor General with his elevation to Chief Justice, and he can grant royal assent to bills in the event that the GG herself is ill or absent; he opens Parliament before a Speaker is elected; and he will head the committee in charge of nominating people to the Order of Canada. The practice since 1939 also used to be that the Chief Justice would close a session of Parliament instead of the Governor General following some particular manoeuvring by Mackenzie King while the GG was out of town, until the government stopped with prorogation ceremonies. (If you ask me, they should restore the ceremonies, but with the GG doing them).
Congratulations Richard Wagner on your appointment as Chief Justice @SCC_eng! We are proud of your brilliant career. #Canadians will benefit from your commitment to the country.
— Governor General of Canada (@GGCanada) December 12, 2017
QP: Trade, jets and jeers
The final Tuesday QP of the year, and all of the leaders were present — even past leader Thomas Mulcair was present, for a change. After each side offered statements of congratulations for their by-election wins, Andrew Scheer led off, mimi-lectern on desk, and he read some condemnation of the PM going to China and his willingness to allow foreign takeovers without security reviews. Trudeau chose instead to offer congratulations to the by-election winners, as well as everyone who put their names forward. Scheer offered his own breathy congratulations, then accused the PM of erratic behaviour and incompetence on the trade file. Trudeau insisted that they worked hard to get deal that “work good” for Canadians, and that things like environmental and labour rights be respected. Scheer sniped that the PM comes home empty handed, and then raised another instance of someone complaining about Kent Hehr’s comments. Trudeau said that the minister took the allegations seriously and apologized. Scheer then moved onto the fighter jet question, and the decision to purchase used interim jets. Trudeau said that the reality was that the military needed new jets years ago but the previous government didn’t deliver, but his government had launched an open process with interim jets to fill capacity gaps. Scheer noted the problems with those jets identified by the Australian Auditor General, and offered Trudeau an old minivan. Trudeau reiterated that the previous government botched their processes. Guy Caron was up next, and was concern trolling about the problems with getting new officers of parliament. Trudeau noted the open, transparent process, and that he had confidence in the nominees put forward. Caron insisted that the process was not transparent, and demanded the names on the selection committees and short lists. Trudeau said that the appointment processes take time, and have put in place processes that people could trust. Nathan Cullen repeated the same question with added sanctimony in English, and Trudeau reiterated that they would continue to consult with the opposition on appointments, and then after another round of the same, and Trudeau said that if they didn’t have confidence in the nominee they should just say so.
Roundup: A couple of reality checks
As we head into the final week of the Commons’ sitting for 2017, there have been a couple of recurring themes in the past few weeks that could each use some good dose of Stephanie Carvin. The first issue remains that of returning foreign fighters, and the way in which the Conservatives keep repeating in Question Period that the Liberal strategy is apparently “poetry and podcasts,” which a) nobody has seriously suggested, and b) deliberately confuses preventative deradicalization programmes with those geared toward rehabilitating those who have returned from foreign warzones who may not have been active combatants (most of whom are dead by this point).
“There’s people such as @AmarAmarasingam in Toronto who’ve been conducting interviews with these people… and they estimate that maybe ten ISIS fighters have come back,” says @StephanieCarvin#Perspective with @AlisonSmith___ Sunday at 10:30am & 12pmET on CPAC and cpac.ca pic.twitter.com/KqrErmfSfN
— CPAC (@CPAC_TV) December 8, 2017
"The fact is that you can’t just hunt and kill down this problem. It’s far broader than that.” — @StephanieCarvin on tackling the issue of Canada’s returning radicalized individuals#Perspective with @AlisonSmith___ Sun. at 10:30am & 12pmET on CPAC and cpac.ca pic.twitter.com/MXY9v3Cvfy
— CPAC (@CPAC_TV) December 9, 2017
“Most of the individuals who’ve gone over and engaged in fighting are probably dead. It’s not clear that there’s a lot of these guys to hunt down and kill even if you wanted to.” @StephanieCarvin on Canada's foreign fighters#Perspective w @AlisonSmith___ next on CPAC & cpac.ca pic.twitter.com/ajSPlBHEa3
— CPAC (@CPAC_TV) December 11, 2017
And then there is the Prime Minister’s trip to China, where a free trade deal wasn’t secured, which Carvin is an acknowledged China sceptic about from a national security standpoint, particularly because China doesn’t like to play fair, and will use tactics that include imprisonment and de facto hostage-taking in order to try and get their way in trade disputes.
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/939481246840836102
Let’s hope that the opposition has a chance to listen to some of what Carvin has to say before they ask some more…dubious questions this week.