Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: Mandela, Reform Act and Senate privilege

Posted on by

Nelson Mandela passed away yesterday at the age of 95. Here is the text of his address to the Canadian parliament in 1990 and again in 1998. Maclean’s also has collected the tributes by Canadian MPs over the Twitter Machine.

Today in Reform Act news, Aaron Wherry talks to Michael Chong about the aspect of local nominations and the possibility of rogue operations. I agree that a system like that in several UK parties should be adopted, and I think that Chong is being a bit naïve when he feels that the media will let a leader get away with any nominations that “go rogue,” if the Wildrose party’s reaction is anything to go by in the last Alberta election. Andrew Coyne adds his voice to the call that party leadership selection needs to remain in caucus as well as the ability to remove said leader.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions about missing emails

Posted on by

As is becoming the new norm on Mondays, Thomas Mulcair was the only main leader in the House, which meant that another soul-crushing day of Paul Calandra talking points was on the way — though one could always hope for a day free of innuendo and accusation as which happened on Friday (though we could also do without his wounded complaints about how the press didn’t like his answers). Once QP got started, Mulcair immediately asked about the reappearance of those emails from Benjamin Perrin, and asked why the story changed yet again. Pierre Poilievre took this one, somewhat surprisingly, and he quoted from the letter from PCO. Mulcair asked about the “unrelated litigation” that Perrin was involved in. Poilievre indicated that he wasn’t sure, but that they were cooperating with the RCMP. Mulcair pressed, but Poilievre simply reread from the letter. When Mulcair wondered wondered an bout the integrity of the he evidence after the government has been holding onto it for three months, and Poilievre again reiterated a passage from the letter. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and wanted assurances that nobody had access to those emails who was in a position to doctor or selectively delete them in any way. Poilievre assured him that they were cooperating with the RCMP. LeBlanc wondered if Harper was waiting of it all to go to trial everything was made public, but Poilievre answered with a single no.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Michael Chong’s attempt to save Parliament

Posted on by

The story that grabbed everyone’s attention yesterday was the fact that maverick Conservative MP Michael Chong is set to table a bill that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in order to give riding associations the power to control nomination races instead of the party leader, while giving the party’s National Council the ability to have a veto in place in the event of a hijacked nomination race. This would eliminate the party leader’s ability to threaten MPs that he or she would refuse to sign their nomination papers if they step out of line. It’s the kind of reform that many people have been advocating for some time now, and would remove a substantial lever that the leader currently wields. The bill is also rumoured to contain clauses that would require that caucus chairs be elected and have rules for expelling and re-admitting MPs from caucus, and that the party by-laws must allow for the caucus review of a leader. Those are more problematic suggestions, and the caucus review is especially problematic for a couple of reasons. Number one is that unless leadership selection rules are changed so that it is the caucus that elects the leader, the argument will be that they don’t have the democratic legitimacy to remove said leader – one of the biggest problems with moving to the “more democratic” system whereby the party membership elects the leader (or as the Liberals recently demonstrated, anyone who totally swears that they don’t belong to another party), because that system obliterates accountability. As well, the power to challenge a leader already exists within our system of Responsible Government, whereby all anyone needs to do is declare a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, and if they can get enough caucus support in the vote – along with the opposition – that leader will go down to defeat. It just requires enough MPs to have the backbone to follow through on it. Paul Calandra insists that his party already allows MPs to have direct input into legislation, which I’m not sure is the point of the bill. Andrew Coyne thinks this bill can save Parliament, and I agree that the first portion would go a long way, but the other portions are more problematic and we should treat them cautiously.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No breached ethical walls

Posted on by

Auditors from Deloitte appeared before the Senate’s internal economy committee yesterday morning, and revealed a couple of things – that yes, senior Partner Michael Runia did try calling them, but they didn’t tell him anything, thus preserving their “ethical wall.” Also, their audit operated in a closed system and that there wasn’t any way for there to be any leaks of draft copies. But when the Liberals on the committee tried to move a motion for Runia to appear to explain himself, Conservatives on the committee blocked it, saying that they didn’t have the expertise to conduct an investigation parallel to the RCMP’s. Nor has there been any call for Senator Gerstein to appear to explain himself either. The Liberals will be moving a motion in the full Senate next week to give the committee the mandate to pursue these questions, but we’ll see if there is enough support. Kady O’Malley finds three key points from that testimony, and makes the relevant connections to the Wright testimony in the RCMP ITO. Incidentally, PMO has hired three different law firms to deal with the ClusterDuff file.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fallout from the ITO

Posted on by

In the aftershocks of yesterday’s revelations in the ClusterDuff affair, everyone is still sorting through the pieces, trying to make sense of it all. Kady O’Malley digs into that ITO and finds three particular dangling threads in the documents that are begging for answers (and you really should read this). Aaron Wherry looks into those documents and finds the voice of sanity, Chris Montgomery – one of Marjory LeBreton’s staffers (apparently paid for out of the PCO budget, which seems to be the source of confusion for people who have said that he’s from PCO) who objected to the process and the interference of the PMO in the Senate’s operations. CBC has their own look at Montgomery in this video piece (with text from The Canadian Press). Senators on both sides of the aisle are reeling from the revelations that PMO was trying to pull the strings of the Duffy audit, because they feel strongly about the chamber’s independence – as well they should. That PMO thought that they could get away with it speaks to the level of control that this government is trying to impose on parliament as a whole, and which parliamentarians themselves should be resisting – as clearly a few in the Senate were, much to the PMO’s frustration. The RCMP are questioning the credibility of Senators LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen based on their interviews with them, and the quality of that testimony. The auditors from Deloitte are going to be hauled before the Internal Economy committee in order to answer pointed questions about the independence of that audit given the revelations that Senator Gerstein was trying to influence it, though Deloitte has come out to say that there was an ethical wall around those auditors to protect their information from any leaks. As part of that revelation, Charlie Angus is casting aspersions that some of Deloitte’s other work may be politically influenced, like the audit of Attawapiskat’s books (though I’ve heard from my own contacts at Aboriginal Affairs that there are definite governance problems in that reserve). The Law Society of BC is also considering an investigation into the conduct of Benjamin Perrin, the former PMO lawyer who is also implicated in this affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Premiers still saying no to Kenney

Posted on by

The premiers met in Toronto yesterday, and the Canada Jobs Grant programme was again up for discussion, and it should be no great surprise that the premiers are still united in their opposition. In fact, they said that they are looking for some clear alternatives from Jason Kenney, if he is serious about there being flexibility in the programme. The premiers also wanted some clarity around foreign investment rules, never mind that Harper has previously said that he doesn’t want too much clarity in order to have wiggle room in the event that they want to block any acquisitions they find to be undesirable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A record year for privacy breaches

Posted on by

The Privacy Commissioner tabled her annual report yesterday, including a separate audit of the Canada Revenue Agency, and it doesn’t have a lot of nice things to say – a record number of complaints, a record number of reported data breaches, and over at the CRA, lax controls allowed employees to access personal tax files for no appropriate reason.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Even the base doesn’t like the unfairness

Posted on by

The motions in the Senate around the suspension without pay of the three embattled senators remains unresolved, and the Senate will be sitting today – a rarity – in order to try to reach a resolution. As this happens, more cracks are forming within the Conservative Senate caucus, as Senator Don Plett – a former party president and not of the Red Tory wing – came out against the suspensions as being against due process and basic fairness. Oh, and if anyone says it’s about trying to please the party base, well, he is that base. Down the hall in the Commons, MP Peter Goldring also encouraged Conservative Senators to vote down the suspensions and wants the Governor General to step in if necessary. As the debate wore on, it not only touched on due process, the lack of guidelines for why this suspension was taking place, and even the definitions of what constitutes “Senate business,” which is something the Auditor General gets to grapple with. It is all raising some fundamental questions about the institution that it never really had to deal with before, and one hopes will help create a much clearer path for the Chamber going forward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s scorched earth policy

Posted on by

Well, that was…interesting. After Senator Carignan, the leader of the government in the Senate, spent over an hour laying out the case against Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and after a couple of other Senators from all sides expressed their reservations about this move and the lack of due process – let alone the setting of dubious precedents – the real bombshell dropped. Senator Duffy got up to speak to his defence, and he took the scorched earth approach, crying that he didn’t want to go along with this conspiracy “foisted” upon him, that he should have said no, that his livelihood was threatened, and that it all led back to Harper and the Senate leadership. If anything, it made it harder for Harper’s version of events to stand up to scrutiny, which the NDP spent the evening gleefully putting press release after press release about. It’s also going to make QP later today to be quite the show. Of course, what Duffy neglected to mention was his own wrongdoing. He protested that he hadn’t done anything wrong – which is not the case. Both the Deloitte audit and the subsequent RCMP investigation have shown that his residence is not, in fact, PEI, and that’s a constitutional requirement, no matter what LeBreton or Wright told him. A retired constitutional law professor from PEI says that Duffy never actually met the residency criteria, given that when the constitution says a Senator “shall be a resident of the province for which he is appointed,” and that shall means “must” in legal terms, Duffy’s qualification never was valid to begin with, which is how this whole sordid affair got started in the first place. While Duffy may be trying to play the victim, he is still under investigation, no matter that the cover-up has now become worse than the alleged crimes. The same with Brazeau, though there wasn’t really much cover-up there. We shouldn’t forget that, no matter the speeches they gave.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Yet another Duffy revelation

Posted on by

Oh, Mike Duffy. As soon as RCMP investigators started digging through his financial records, something else caught their eye – some $65,000 paid out to one of Duffy’s friends as a consultant for which the friend admits to doing little or no work. (Insert all of the wise-asses of the world joking about how that’s all a Senator does – and those wise-asses would be wrong, but I digress). But more curious is that the money that was paid out seems to also have vanished, because that friend is also on disability and couldn’t take the money without losing his benefits, and his wife and son, listed as president and director of his company, aren’t talking. Add to all of this is the look into Patrick Brazeau’s housing claims, for which his Gatineau neighbours thought he worked from home because he was there so often. They’re also investigating his tax filings, as he listed his address on his former father-in-law’s reserve even though he didn’t live there. Kady O’Malley’s search through the court affidavits and comparing them to the timeline turns up what she thinks may be references to those emails being turned over to the RCMP along with some redacted diaries.

Continue reading →