As Parliament debates a pair of bills on expanding the powers of CSIS, a case involving CSIS and foreign wiretaps was granted leave by the Supreme Court, meaning it’ll be heard sometime later this year. Why this is important is because it involves a Federal Court judge chastening CSIS for basically misleading the court into what they were going to do with a warrant they obtained, and if you’ve paid attention to what the Conservatives has been saying about their new anti-terror bill this past week, it’s been a lot of “we don’t need oversight because they’ll need judicial warrants!” Well, as this case shows, sometimes CSIS doesn’t tell these judges the truth when they go to get those warrants, so you see where the problem lies. Meanwhile, Terry Milewski shows us the times when SIRC didn’t really do their job when it comes to overseeing CSIS – just as the government insists that they’re “robust oversight.” Oh, and there were those times when CSIS wasn’t really honest with SIRC either. But by all means, let’s keep insisting that the status quo of a review committee is just fine instead of actual oversight. Nothing to see here, move along. And while the government continues to insist that oversight over intelligence agencies are “needless red tape,” Aaron Wherry reminds us that red tape is pretty much the role of Parliament, meant to constrain the powers of government.
Tag Archives: Parliament Hill
Roundup: The Liberals say okay
It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.
The individual freedoms we enjoy and cherish as Canadians cannot exist without collective security. 1/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Bill C-51 can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will keep Cdns safe. As such, #LPC will support it. 2/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
There are gaps in this bill, specifically on oversight and mandatory reviews. #LPC will offer amendments to address these gaps. 3/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
When a gov’t asks its citizens to give up liberty, it is that gov’ts responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. 4/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are hopeful that #CPC is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights & our values. 5/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
The gov’t can accept that Canadians want greater oversight & accountability, or #LPC will offer that in our election platform. 6/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that by anyone. 7/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Roundup: Two rulings and a report for the Mounties
The RCMP were in the centre of the spotlight yesterday, with two Supreme Court judgements and a fact-finding report on the Moncton shootings all having been released. Regarding the former, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the ban on RCMP from collectively bargaining was unconstitutional, which opens the door for them to form a recognised police association (though they seem to be shying away from a full-blown union). This ruling has further reaching consequences as it also resolved some of the problems in the existing jurisprudence around freedom of association, which has been in a fairly bad state for the past four years or so since a previous decision introduced a great deal of confusion into the law. The second decision related to a challenge of the government’s wage rollbacks imposed on the Force in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis, but the RCMP lost that challenge because of the fairly narrow way in which it was constructed and argued. As for the Moncton report, much of it focuses on the lack of training and slow roll-out of new carbines, confusion among communications and problems related to body armour, many of which are problems that date back to the Mayerthorpe massacre of four Mounties. Where these two stories intersect, beyond the RCMP issue itself, is that police association members are saying that they could have addressed some of these problems and had timelines established as part of a collective bargaining process, which of course they don’t have.
Roundup: AG highlights and denials
It was the Auditor General’s fall report yesterday, and as expected he gave a pretty damning indictment of the veterans mental health programme, citing that some 20 percent of veterans can wait over eight months for disability support. The government, naturally, found the one line in the report that made it sound like they were doing a good job overall and repeated it over and over again, as though that would make it true. Other gems included $15 million spent on a digital records storage system at Library and Archives, which was later scrapped with no documented rationale (the video clip is in response to my questions in the press conference), a lack of follow-up on the Nutrition North programme to ensure that the subsidies were being passed onto consumers, a lack of cooperation meaning RCMP aren’t getting data on Canadians who offend abroad, and there was a lack of adequate data to assess the auto bailouts from 2008. And then there was Julian Fantino (or likely the staffer monitoring his Twitter account, as I suspect his duotronic circuits can’t handle the feed) trying to get one over Mercedes Stephenson, who was having none of it.
@CTVMercedes Inaccurate – this is not consistent with the AG report. 84 percent of rehab decisions in under 2 weeks.
— Julian Fantino (@JulianFantino) November 25, 2014
Minister, I thought you weren't available because you are on a flight @JulianFantino
— Mercedes Stephenson (@MercedesGlobal) November 25, 2014
Furthermore Minister, you are deliberately conflating two totally separate programs. Did you read the report? @JulianFantino
— Mercedes Stephenson (@MercedesGlobal) November 25, 2014
S 3.20 AG report "not intended to be long-term, and treatment and benefits end once a veteran completes the program" @JulianFantino
— Mercedes Stephenson (@MercedesGlobal) November 25, 2014
S. 3.25 clearly states 94% of veterans eligible to access mental health through Disability Benefits program. @JulianFantino
— Mercedes Stephenson (@MercedesGlobal) November 25, 2014
Roundup: Misplaced corruption claims
I find myself troubled by this study that shows that a third of Canadians think that politicians routinely accept bribes, because I can’t think of a claim that could be further from the truth, but it’s also something that I think that We The Media need to have a long, hard think about as well. On the face of it, Canada does pretty well when it comes to running clean governments – what corruption there is, is pretty small change, and spending scandals tend to be isolated and low-key. The Sponsorship Scandal was pennies, really, in the grand scheme of things, but it’s been made out to have been a giant kleptocratic conspiracy by both political opponents of the Liberals, and some media talking heads for dramatic effect. Senators padding their expenses? Again, small change and most of it was caught by Senate administration before it hit the media. So where is this perception coming from? I think the preponderance of American scandals is rubbing off on our own politicians a lot, where they don’t have campaign spending limits or limits on corporate donations. So when people here think that the oil and gas lobby has bought off our politicians, I ask “How, exactly?” $1100 doesn’t really buy you a whole lot. And perhaps We The Media need to do a better job of putting scandal into context so that we don’t create this perception that our government is conducting graft at the kind of Third World levels that they’re made out to be. There is a line between accountability and hyperbole, and it’s disappointing to see how often it gets completely ignored.
Roundup: Leave it to (yet another) Officer
Thomas Mulcair has written to the two other main party leaders about establishing a process to deal with MP-to-MP harassment, and proposes a clear definition in the Standing Orders, an independent Officer of Parliament to deal with complaints, training for MPs and staff, and to ensure that the process protects the rights of victims including to privacy. While some of this sounds reasonable on the surface, there are a few flags to my eye, some of it centred around the creation of yet another Officer, which gives the impression that this kind of thing is commonplace enough that you would need someone to deal with it full-time, rather than amending the mandate of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, for example, to deal with these kinds of issues as well. The proliferation of these Officers is actually a problem, and much like the NDP’s desire to blow up the Board of Internal Economy to create a new bureaucracy to deal with the administration of the Commons, it’s a problem that seeks to remove the self-governing powers from MPs. This is an issue that needs actual debate – if the message is that we can’t trust MPs to manage their own affairs, then what does that say about their ability to manage the country’s affairs? In a way it’s almost infantilizing them, and that should be concerning. Liberal colleagues say that they want the investigations taken care of quickly, and it was noted that there had been discussion of a harassment policy arising from a 2012 document by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that members of all parties were to take it back to their caucuses to discuss the matter, but it hadn’t moved forward since. Paul Wells looks at these harassment allegations in the broader picture of the sad place that the capital finds itself in at the moment.
Roundup: A funeral felt by the nation
In Hamilton, the three party leaders attended the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Prime Minister speaking and addressing Cirillo’s son. The city and large numbers of first responders turned out for the funeral, and lined the streets of the procession. The Queen also sent her condolences as the regiment’s Colonel-in-Chief.
Sad exchange of letters. pic.twitter.com/s57rI0qTI4
— Stephen Maher (@stphnmaher) October 28, 2014
US Secretary of State John Kerry was in town yesterday, where he paid tribute to Corporal Cirillo, before he and Baird spoke about last week’s shootings as terrorism, and he and Harper met to discuss topics such as Russia, Ukraine, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Michael Petrou breaks down the meaning of the visit here.
Roundup: Powers to spite the Supreme Court
The government’s new CSIS bill got tabled yesterday, but because it was due to be tabled before the attacks happened last week, there is really nothing in there that responds to those attacks, and doesn’t include any of the previously reported measures like criminalizing the promotion of terrorism online. Instead, what it does is extend source protection and warrant provisions to help them conduct investigations when suspects go overseas. These provisions are largely in response to Supreme Court rulings that said that CSIS sources don’t have the same kind of blanket protections that police sources do. I’m also not sure about the provision for a warrant to investigate outside of the country, given that, well, it’s not the jurisdiction of our courts, so we would need some kind of agreements to operate in those countries I would think. The bill is also designed to help facilitate information sharing between our Five Eyes partners, but there are no corresponding accountability mechanisms, because the government insists that the current oversight from SIRC is “robust” and good enough. Never mind that SIRC faced significant delays in getting needed information from CSIS during their investigations, and that they misled SIRC in the course of another investigation. But hey, the oversight is “robust” and all.
QP: Wait for the bill
Despite it being Monday, there were no major leaders in the Commons. It left Libby Davies to lead off, asking for an update on security at federal sites. Stephen Blaney reminded her that Hill security is the domain of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, but they were fully cooperating. Davies asked about the moratorium on armed forces personnel wearing uniforms in public, and Rob Nicholson said that he deferred to the judgement of the Chief of Defence Staff. Davies asked for assurances about full debate on any new security legislation, and Blaney promised that they would not overreact, but it was time to stop underreacting. Nycole Turmel picked up, asking about the National Post report that the legislation would criminalise certain Internet posts condoning terrorism, to which Blaney told her to wait for the bill to be tabled. Turmel wanted assurances that civil liberties would be protected, to which Blaney repeated his answer. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking for cooperation on drafting new security legislation and for detailed technical briefings on the bill. Blaney more or less agreed. LeBlanc wanted a timeline on the bill, but Blaney talked around an answer. LeBlanc pressed in French, but Blaney repeated his answer.
Roundup: Tours resume, security under review
Parliament Hill’s return to normal continues apace, with public tours resuming today. House of Commons and Senate security forces are also now looking at ways to better cooperate and merge some operations, but will remain separate administrations answering to each chamber’s Speaker. (This is because in the event of a physical confrontation between members of either chamber, Senators don’t want their own security answering to the Commons Speaker, leaving them vulnerable). Speaker Scheer on the Commons side has ordered a major security review, and will also be part of the OPP review of Wednesday’s incident, something RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has asked for.