Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: Unconstitutional threats

Posted on by

Alberta’s Bill 12, that would give its energy minister the power to declare what can go in the pipelines that leaves the province, is almost certainly unconstitutional (and I think they’re being too cute by half in saying that it’s not because it doesn’t target BC specifically). It’s way overbroad in terms of the powers it gives the minister, and even if it somehow manages to pass constitutional muster, you can imagine that it would certainly be struck down by the courts for the sheer scope of how arbitrary it is. And in case you think that the pressure tactics of raising gas prices in BC are sound, it’ll likely do more damage to their own producers and refineries, whose supplies and production they are curtailing. So bravo for thinking that cutting off your nose to spite your face is good public policy, guys.

The premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, says that he’s going to pass his own version to back up Alberta in their fight. Because that’s helpful. BC, meanwhile, says that because the bill is blatantly unconstitutional, it’s likely just a political bluff – but if it’s not, they’ll sue Alberta for it, as well they should. Alberta’s minister insists that it’s no bluff. So here we are, with few grown-ups in the room apparently, because they’re lighting their hair on fire to do something, anything, now, now, nowrather than coming up with a measured and reasoned response to the situation. And then there’s Michelle Rempel’s take. Oi.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Jean’s version

Posted on by

Yesterday finally saw that long-anticipated Daniel Jean appearance before the Commons public safety committee, and it was…not explosive. Much of it was simply reiterating everything we’ve heard before – that Jean was sensitive to misinformation that was appearing in media outlets that suggested that RCMP and CSIS didn’t take Jaspal Atwal’s appearance seriously, that there was a possibility this was an attempt to embarrass the Canadian government into looking like they didn’t take Khalistani separatists seriously, and that Jean himself suggested the briefing and PMO simply providing him with a list of journalists to reach out to. And when the Conservatives demanded to know about the “rogue elements in the Indian government” or “conspiracy theory” allegations, Jean corrected that he didn’t say those things.

Now, some of the journalists involved in the briefing are disputing a few details, and in particular the notion that Jean had suggested that perhaps Indian intelligence was involved (which he denied yesterday). And there remains this concern trolling that senior bureaucrats don’t normally go to the media like this so he “must have” been put-up to it by PMO, which I’m not really sure is the case, particularly because as we heard in later releases about Jean’s briefing, and in his testimony yesterday, he highlighted the use of “fake news” and propaganda by hostile outlets, which is why we wanted to correct them as a neutral third-party. This is not really a widespread concern just a few years ago, particularly given the way that it was seen as interfering with elections and whatnot, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he wanted to be more proactive about it.

Of course, the real hitch in all of this is that some of the sensationalized reporting around the original briefing, coupled with the torque applied to it by Andrew Scheer and company to the point where the story being proffered in the House of Commons didn’t match reality (which is Scheer’s stock in trade these days) have spun this whole narrative beyond what was a “faux pas,” per Jean. And when Jean’s narrative didn’t match Scheer’s, it was Scheer who tried to insist that Trudeau spoke about the “rogue elements” (he never did – he very studiously avoided any specifics and only said that he supported what Jean said), and that it was up to Trudeau to provide clarity for his apparent contradictions when he didn’t actually make any – it was Scheer himself who put forward a false narrative and has been caught with his pants down over it. But let’s also be clear – a lot of the reporting around this has not been stellar either, between sensationalization and omitting of aspects (like his concern about the misinformation being fed to Canadian media), coupled with a refusal to call Scheer out on his disingenuous framing of the whole thing, has led these false narratives to grow out of control. And they keep getting dragged on longer by things like yet more false claims being piled on, such as with the chickpea tariffs and the allegedly cancelled meeting that never existed, but do we call it out? Not until days later. And some journalists should own up to their role rather than get their backs up (like they did yesterday) so that we can move on from this whole incident because we really do have better things to discuss.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious appointment bottleneck

Posted on by

There was an interesting revelation in the Hill Timesyesterday in that the government is sitting on more than 100 vetted Senate candidates while twelve seats remain vacant, and yet put out a call for yet more applications while the advisory committees are all empty, which would be the people who are supposed to vet all of those incoming applications. But that number amazes me – 100 names that are vetted and ready to go for those twelve vacancies, and the government isn’t moving on them, adding one or two names every couple of months at random intervals. And don’t get me wrong – I’m firmly opposed to mass appointments, but that also means that the Chamber should be in full operation and that vacancies should be filled as they happen, which are one or two at a time. Add to that the fact that because these are all being named as Independents, the kinds of mentoring that should happen isn’t, so at this point it almost doesn’t matter if we get all twelve in one fell swoop because the result would be the same either way.

The other thing that is very interesting is that in the interview with former appointment committee member Indira Samarasekera, she mentioned that they identified key skill areas that the Senate is in need of and that their names have reflected that, but these aren’t necessarily the people that Trudeau is naming in the long run. Which isn’t to say that Trudeau has simply been naming ideological Liberals and calling them Independents (despite what the Conservatives in the Senate are claiming), but it is hard to deny that there isn’t a similarity to most of the candidates in the fact that they tend to be activists from the social sciences as opposed to some of the business, foreign affairs, and trade experts that Samarasekera noted that they recommended. Despite this all, the piece provides an interesting window on just what seems to be the bottleneck in appointments that this government has a problem with making, and which continues to be a slow-moving crisis of their credibility.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pallister’s dubious threats

Posted on by

Manitoba premier Brian Pallister is looking to talk tough with the federal government, essentially daring them to increase the carbon price that he’s instituting in his province with a threat to take the federal government to court if they do. This after Pallister’s government already explored the notion of taking the government to court over the imposition of a federal carbon price backstop in the first place, and deciding that it wasn’t something they could win. For reference, Pallister’s government says they’ll implement a $25/tonne carbon tax, and leave it there rather than raise it every year (the point of which is, of course, to drive businesses and consumers to make choices that mean paying fewer of these carbon prices), and Catherine McKenna is basically saying “That’s great, but if your price doesn’t increase in 2020 like it’s supposed to, we’ll charge the difference.” While Pallister is trying to stand with other small-c conservative leaders – most of whom aren’t yet in office – I’m really not sure where he thinks he has the legal footing on this one.

Why does this matter? Well, recall the Environment Commissioner’s report last week that was done in concert with provincial auditors general, and as Paul Wells points out in this excellent piece, they could demonstrate that it wasn’t just the Harper government not doing their part (as McKenna was so quick to focus on), but rather the provinces weren’t doing their part either – especially those who were talking a good game. Nobody is taking this seriously, and the ability to hit our targets gets further away. And in the midst of Wells’ excoriation of these political leaders and their big talk on the environment, he drives home the message that we can’t believe any of them. And he’s right. Which is why we can’t believe Pallister’s rhetoric in this either, as he claims that his province’s plan is better than the federal one, so they shouldn’t have to add the increased carbon tax as part of that. Sorry, but no. The common carbon price across the country is about more than just reductions as it is about preventing carbon leakage to other jurisdictions in the country (and possibly elsewhere, depending on how well its designed), and he should know that. But just like the federal conservatives playing cute with trying to insist that McKenna should be able to tell them exactly how many megatonnes a $50/tonne carbon price will reduce, it’s not how this works. A carbon price is not a scrubber in a smokestack – it’s a market mechanism that is supposed to drive demand and innovation, and it works in jurisdictions where it is implemented properly. It’s not just about a claim that their system with a lower price will be better, which is a claim we shouldn’t believe anyway. It’s time for everyone to play hardball with politicians and these promises, and that means more than just disingenuous questions or demands, but actual accountability for what mechanisms are supposed to do and how they’re being implemented.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Three senators went to Washington

Posted on by

Three Conservative senators went to Washington DC to talk about marijuana legalization, and you may be shocked to learn that they were not reassured by any of it. They were told that Homeland Security isn’t adding any new resources to the border so Canadian travellers may face more delays, and they were told of all of the new cartels that have emerged as the crime rate has skyrocketed in Colorado. And oh, how the loopholes around home-growing are being exploited by criminal elements. Woe! Most of this should be taken with a particular grain of salt – there has been no proven causal relationship between the increased crime rate in Colorado with marijuana legalization, and if there are Mexican cartels looking to exploit loopholes to export it from the state, I’m not sure that’s as big of an issue in Canada if the whole country is legalizing instead of a single province. And as for the border, well, individual agents already have immense discretionary powers now, so nothing is really going to change there.

What was curious in all of this is how the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, complained that these three Conservatives were “undermining the government” by taking this trip. I’m not sure that it’s a very credible complaint considering that they weren’t claiming to be headed down there on behalf of the government – rather, it was under the rubric that they haven’t been getting straight answers from the government, so they wanted to get answers for themselves. It’s almost as if they were exercising the discretion afforded to them as part of the “independent Senate” where they don’t have to ask the government’s permission to engage in such activities. And let’s not kid ourselves – this was a very partisan exercise, and I’m sure that most Canadians can see that it clearly was. They’re not exactly hiding it, but they’re also doing their duty as the opposition to get the information they think they need to hold government to account. The sky isn’t falling here, and Harder is coming across as a little thin-skinned in making the complaints he is.

Oh, and for those of you asking, it’s likely that this trip was paid for by the Senate, but bear in mind that Senators are allowed travel to Washington as part of their duties (and in fact, a trip to Washington is included as part of their annual travel points). There’s no actual scandal here for anyone to point to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justice bill under fire

Posted on by

The big news over the long weekend was the Liberals’ major criminal justice reform bill, which was tabled at the end of last week. It’s a big bill because it’s a big topic, but also because the government decided to fold in two previous bills that have been languishing on the Order Paper so that they can all get passed at once. One of those bills has clauses that have been overtaken by a previous bill that again, languishes on the Order Paper. And yet, despite this major reform push, one of the biggest problems facing the justice system, mandatory minimum sentences, which are clogging the courts, remain intact because this bill doesn’t address them, and the minister is shrugging in terms of saying the debate is still ongoing with provinces and courts over those. Among changes in this bill are severely limiting preliminary inquiries, which could mean that a number of cases go to trial where they wouldn’t have otherwise given that the point of a preliminary inquiry was to determine whether there was enough evidence to secure a conviction. Another change is to eliminate peremptory challenges in jury selection, something which has gained a lot of attention in the past couple of months after the Gerald Stanley trial in Saskatchewan had an all-white jury.

None of this is without controversy, and defence lawyers are raising the alarm. Lawyers like Michael Spratt say the changes will not speed up trials, and will actually eliminate some procedural fairness from the system. The elimination of peremptory challenges is far more contentious, with some defence lawyers saying it won’t fix anything while another says it could eliminate the current abuses. One law professor calls it a good first step, but lists other recommendations to increase access to justice in remote communities and improve jury selection.

On a related note, it looks like Saskatchewan hasn’t been selecting juries in a way that complies with their own provincial laws. While this may not be enough to cause an appeal in the Stanley trial, which has put much of the focus on the issue of peremptory challenges, it does raise questions about jury selection laws in this country that are part of these reforms.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That $1 trillion figure

Posted on by

The big scary headline yesterday was that Canada’s market debt had reached $1 trillion. OH NOES! screamed the commentators, and the Conservatives most especially (albeit not in Question Period, but at committee). Part of the problem with this figure, however, is how it’s being reported, and most especially, being compared to things like a household mortgage, which it is absolutely nothing like. For starters, the “market debt” figure being reported there adds a great many things into it – things like the debts of Crown Corporations like CMHC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, or Export Development Canada. These may have federal backstops, but with BDC and EDC, for example, these are important vehicles for entrepreneurs and exporters to expand their businesses, which is generally good for the economy. And you can bet that the “fiscal hawks” out there are disingenuously bundling this into the federal government’s net debt, or sub-national government debt, and giving themselves the vapours to prove a point, which isn’t necessarily helpful.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/978405748253212672

And as much as the Conservatives are snarking at Bill Morneau over this figure, ignoring how much they added to the national debt in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 (much of the spending coming too late as the recovery had already started when they spent the money, which was also not necessarily spent efficiently) or the fact that when the Liberals took office in 2015, there was a $70 billion hole in GDP because of the mini-recession that happened in part due to the drop in oil prices. That $70 billion is largely where their increased deficit figures come from, not that they communicate this very effectively. But despite Kevin Page’s warning that interest on debt is the fastest growing line item in the federal budget, debt-to-GDP is going down, and the deficit is shrinking faster than initially reported because the economy has been growing faster than expected. Current PBO figures show that there is no debt bomb – federal figures are in a downward trajectory sustainably. I’m not sure that tearing our hair out over this $1 trillion figure is helpful, particularly because it bundles in a lot of things, and the reporting on that isn’t making it clear. It’s just a big number that people are supposed to get upset over, which helps nobody understand the true fiscal situation, of the levers that governments have to deal with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoming procedural shenanigans

Posted on by

Hang onto your hats, dear readers, because it looks like we’re up for another week of procedural gamesmanship as the Conservatives continue to try to make the Atwal Affair happen. Our hint is that the Conservative whip, Mark Strahl, has taken the unusual action of cancelling all MP travel, and wants to ensure that it’s all hands on deck for this short week (but one wonders if that includes Andrew Scheer, who has been barely in Ottawa lately, including on sitting weeks, as he continues his various tours across the country). That, and the fact that it seems that this is the time of year that there is some kind of procedural showdown, judging from the past couple of years. (Recall that around this time last year, the Commons ground to a halt over Bardish Chagger’s proposals for reforming the Standing Orders).

So what can we expect? No idea yet, but one imagines that the stops will be pulled out, whether it’s interminable points of privilege, filibusters at committees, or attempts to force concurrence motions on committee reports. Whatever it is, we’ll see how long they either have the stamina for it (unlike last week’s vote-a-thon tantrum), given the upcoming long weekend/two-week constituency break, or whether the government will back down (as they have tended to in the face of such obstruction techniques). Maybe the government will be able to issues manage/communicate their way out of a wet paper bag this time and effectively say that the opposition is wasting time that could be better spent debating gun control/the budget implementation bill/etc, etc. Or maybe the Conservatives will have better traction with their disingenuous narratives about the Atwal Affair and the absurd notion that the government is “muzzling” the National Security Advisor from appearing at committee (never mind that he shouldn’t appear based on Westminster norms, and that the government has pointed to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to investigate the issue if the Conservatives are so motivated, if they actually cared about accountability and were not simply looking to public humiliate a senior public servant and the government). Suffice to say, nobody is going to cover themselves in glory over this, everyone’s patience will be tested, and nothing will be accomplished in the long run. But what else is new?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Artificial cannabis vote drama

Posted on by

It started with a bunch of headlines about how it was do-or-die day for the marijuana bill in the Senate. Apparently, nobody can canvas vote numbers any longer, so there was the suggestion that it was going to be close, and that that it could be defeated. The Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” even went before the cameras to play up the drama of not knowing the votes. As context, a number of senators were travelling on committee business, and there was a scramble to get them back to town in order to ensure they could vote on the bill (and while CBC gave the headline that it was the “government” scrambling, that would imply that it was actually government staffers doing the calling, not the ISG’s coordinators, as it actually was). The bill eventually passed Second Reading, and it wasn’t even a close vote.

With a new captive audience, reporters who don’t normally tune into the Senate got the Conservative senators’ greatest hits of over the top, ridiculous denunciations of the bill, and the usual canards as though this was just inventing marijuana rather than controlling something that some twenty percent of youths (and the 45-to-65 crowd as well) have used in the past year. Senator Boivenu got so emotional that he called the bill a “piece of shit” that won’t “protect people.” And on it went. From a press event in New Brunswick, Trudeau said that Senators are supposed to improve bills, not defeat them, though to be clear, they do have an absolute veto for a reason, and they refrain from using it unless it’s a dire circumstance because they know that they don’t have a democratic mandate. This bill, however, doesn’t really come close to qualifying as a reason to defeat a government bill (though I’m not sure all of the senators have the memo about using their mandate sparingly).

Since 1980, the Senate has only defeated three government bills, and in each time it was at third reading, which means that they let them go through committee before deciding to defeat them. In two of those cases, it was Charter rights at play, and the budget implementation bill in 1993 included some cuts to programmes and “streamlining” or boards and tribunals that were a straw too far even for some Progressive Conservative senators that they voted against their own government. This particular bill doesn’t rise to either of those particular tests. As for what would happen if it were to be defeated, well, the government can’t introduce the same bill twice in a single session. The way around that? Prorogue and reintroduce it. It would only delay, which may in fact hurt the Conservatives in the end.

Continue reading →

QP: Scrapping over data mining

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was off to New Brunswick, and Andrew Scheer elsewhere, it was up to Erin O’Toole to lead off, reading a quote about the job of the opposition to ask questions, attributing it to the PM, and wondered why the government wouldn’t let Daniel Jean appear before committee. Ralph Goodale calmly responded that the crux of the motion was around the Atwal invitation, that it was rescinded. O’Toole insisted two more times that MPs had a right to hear the briefing, but Goodale defended Jean’s career and insisted there were no contradictions in the positions put forward. Pierre Paul-Hus tried again twice in French, and Goodale poked holes in the Conservative Supply Day motion in return. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and decried that only $15 million out of the $1 billion given to CRA to combat tax evasion. Lebouthillier reminded him that the investment was over five years, and it would be ramped up in order to take a strategic approach. Caron then railed that the CRA’s anti-avoidance committee met in secret, while Lebouthillier said that it was a committee of experts that meets as necessary. Peter Julian took over in French, and demanded taxation on web giants, to which Bill Morneau said that they were conducting studies to ensure that the system would work well. Julian changed to English to insist that studying the issue would mean doing nothing, but Morneau reiterated that they wanted to have a plan before acting.

Continue reading →