Tag Archives: Supreme Court

QP: Like a greatest hits package 

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who’s a racist?

Posted on by

In the fading lights of the 41st Parliament, the Liberals have been trying to get back to the process of painting the government like a bunch of intolerant rednecks, first with Judy Sgro’s question on Wednesday tying in the rise in hate crime statistics against Muslims to government rhetoric (for which the Conservatives got right offended), and then again yesterday when John McCallum tied in that issue to statements that Chris Alexander had made about people with their faces covered taking the citizenship oath and talk of terrorists. But when McCallum hammered Alexander on his comments – and clearly they were complete non sequiturs – Alexander responded by reaching into history and invoking Mackenzie King’s more racists immigration policies and called the Liberals the Racist Party. No, seriously. And when asked for clarification in a walking scrum after QP, Alexander insisted his party was blameless for policies before then, and accused said journalists of being partisans. (Remember when Chris Alexander was the talented golden child who was supposed to be so smart? Yeah, not so much). Paul Wells, upon hearing this, took to the blog machine and completely schooled Alexander on how wrong he really is, because it was totally off base. That said, this kind of cheap points-scoring just highlights the way things are starting to go off the rails, and I think it’s fair that the fixed election date is certainly responsible for part of this. Normally I’d be all in favour of MPs sticking around to pass a couple of more bills before they head off for the summer, but by this point the Commons has thoroughly proven itself to be incapable of being grown-ups any longer. Time to send them home.

Continue reading →

QP: Rushing off to the G7

Posted on by

While it was Thursday, Elizabeth May was the only leader present, guaranteeing another mediocre day. Megan Leslie wondered rhetorically whether the PM was going to defend the status quo in the Senate. Paul Calandra reminded her the Senate called in the Auditor General themselves. Leslie responded that the PM “rushed off” to another continent when scandal broke — you know, because the G7 meeting was called at haste and wasn’t arranged months in advance, and Calandra called the NDP out of their depth. Leslie tried again, at which point Calandra  reminded the NDP of their satellite office expenses. Romeo Saganash was up next to ask about the PM’s meeting at the Vatican and if residential schools came up. Mark Strahl said that the PM raised the letter that the minister had sent. Saganash noted the invitation to the Pope to be in Canada for the 150th anniversary and if an apology could happen then. Strahl repeated his answer. Judy Foote led for the Liberals, pointing out trade deficits and wanted a resolution to the issue of the Newfoundland processing compensation, but Parm Gill read a talking point about how treat trade was. Ralph Goodale asked about pension shortfalls, to which Kevin Sorenson decried the Ontario plan. Goodale pressed, and got the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The galling abuse of the Information Commissioner

Posted on by

The Information Commissioner is very unhappy about the government’s move to retroactively change the law to protect the RCMP for destroying gun registry records despite promises to her office that they wouldn’t in order to fulfil Access to Information requests. That the RCMP broke the law by destroying the information, and the government is protecting them by retroactively changing the law and putting that change in the middle of the omnibus budget bill, sets a very bad precedent, she warns, and she’s right. While the government wanted the long-gun registry data destroyed for political purposes, there was other information of value in the data that wound up being destroyed that had little to do with any future attempts at recreating a registry – something the Conservatives have long been afraid of, and are pressing for the hasty destruction of data to impede. And the way she characterises this is genuinely frightening – that they are backdating changes to the law to make something legal after a finding of wrongdoing. She uses the example of the Sponsorship Scandal – what if the Liberal government of the day retroactively changed the law so that the Auditor General was ousted from her jurisdiction after the fact. It’s unconscionable. What’s even more galling is the way that the prime minister is shrugging this off as just “fixing a loophole.” No, it’s not. It’s wilfully undermining the Commissioner and her ability to do her job, which this government has already made nearly impossible through starving her office budget and wanton disregard of their obligations under the Access to Information regime. All while they call themselves “open and transparent.” It’s grotesque, abusive, and in violation of their obligations as the government of the day. And if anything is any more upsetting about this situation, it’s that the opposition parties were too busy electioneering in QP instead of raising bloody hell about this issue – the Liberals not asking until nearly the end, and the NDP not raising it at all. Thanks for doing your jobs in holding this kind of unconscionable behaviour to account, MPs. Gold stars all around.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hiding behind the top brass

Posted on by

It has not gone unnoticed that the government has not been putting themselves out in front of the release of the Deschamps Report into sexual misconduct in the military, and the opposition is rightly pointing out that there is such a thing as ministerial responsibility, which means that the minister needs to be out in front of this – but he’s not. He’s instead left it up to his parliamentary secretary to deliver some talking points that aren’t actually demonstrating responsibility, and worse yet, they’re almost self-congratulatory as the lines being delivered about how the Chief of Defence Staff ordered the report. Err, so what? The CDS is already pushing back on some of the recommendations by agreeing with eight of the ten “in principle” only, and there is still some level of denial at the top, where they describe that the endemic sexualised culture in the report as simply being the perception of those that Justice Deschamps interviewed. In other words, there needs to be more leadership at the top saying that no, you can’t just shrug this off and do a few things for show – you actually need to push and work at this until there is a genuine culture change. CBC Radio interviewed Major-General Christine Whitecross, who is heading up the response to the report, and she echoed some of that same reluctance, but she did relent on the point that the independent centres for reporting incidents was probably the way to go, but they want to study it some more, both in terms of what our allies have put into place in their own countries, and what resources are available here in Canada, and she is not dismissing it outright, which is at least something.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A damning report on military misconduct

Posted on by

The Deschamps Report is now released, and as feared, it’s a black eye for the Canadian military. The report details a highly sexualised culture within the Forces, complete with sexist language, jokes, and unwanted advances leading to date rape and worse, making the Forces a hostile environment for not only women, but also GLBT individuals within the Forces. It was also stated that the more people went up the ranks, the more they became inured to the incidents, making superior officers unlikely to recognise it when it happens. Deschamps made ten recommendations, and the military only said they would accept two immediately, and the others “in principle,” including creating an exterior body that can receive complaints about harassment, which would be needed precisely because it’s outside of the structure of the Forces and won’t be somewhere that complainants would need to fear retaliation, and where they could be taken seriously. It needs to be pointed out that the government distanced themselves from this release – Jason Kenney was nowhere to be seen, even absent from Question Period despite the fact that he was in the Foyer giving a press conference not two hours earlier. (That the official opposition raised the report in a clumsy and scripted way is also concerning but I covered this ground in yesterday’s QP recap). A retired officer who is now a lawyer says that part of the problem is the military justice system, and it needs major reforms if it is to help end this culture. NDP MP Christine Moore, who served in the Forces, noted that she had faced this same kind of harassment the report details. And here’s a Q&A with more information about the report.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate invokes privilege

Posted on by

In his attempt to cast the net far and wide in order to excuse Mike Duffy’s housing claims, it seems that Donald Bayne is trying to show that plenty of other senators were improperly claiming for Ottawa residences, and is trying to compel the release of an internal Senate audit conducted in 2012, where two Senators – retired Senator Zimmer and Senator Patterson – were found to have questionable claims which they later explained away. The Senate, however, is invoking privilege and refusing to turn it over, which is their constitutional right. They are under no obligation to help Duffy’s defence, after all, and as a legislative body they have the right to conduct their own affairs. And before anyone starts getting hysterical, remember that privilege is all about the independence of the institution, and keeping the courts out of parliament so that it can do its job without the constant threat of litigation during the legislative process. Likewise, Parliament doesn’t get involved in individual court cases because that would interfere with the independence of the courts. Otherwise, Bayne tried to bring up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen yesterday who was part of the subcommittee that “sat in judgement” of Duffy when she was claiming her long-time Ottawa residence as secondary for two years while she was trying to sell it in order to fully move back to New Brunswick (this is the point where I mention that she shouldn’t have been appointed as a New Brunswick senator until she was fully moved back). Also, the Senate finance officer continued to be grilled, and continued to push back against Bayne, going so far as to read more than the passages he indicated in order to provide context, which the judge allowed her to do. Nicholas Köhler paints that sketch with his usual aplomb.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nolin’s passing a blow to the Senate

Posted on by

The passing of Senate Speaker Pierre-Claude Nolin leaves the institution in a pretty vulnerable place. In light of the Duffy/Wallin/Brazeau affairs, Nolin was on a mission to bring some internal reform to the Chamber, both in terms of financial controls and the like, but also with ensuring that senators themselves were better educated as to their own roles. When Nolin was first named Speaker, he invited reporters to the Chamber for a Q&A, and before he took questions, he gave us a little talk, brandishing a copy of the Supreme Court reference decision on Senate reform, and made note of some key passages about the roles of a Senator. His message to his fellow senators was pretty frank – here are some things that you’re not doing, and we need to improve on that. Long-time readers of mine will know the root of some of these problems – not just a few poor appointments by the current Prime Minister, but the fact that appointments happened in large numbers. The Chamber works best absorbing one or two new members at a time, and they can find their feet and generally get on with feeling out their sense of institutional independence. When a fifth of the chamber is brought in all at once, they are more pliant and susceptible to control from the top, which is what happened. Nolin, always an independent thinker and someone not afraid to go against the current government, whose caucus he was a member of, wanted more of that from his fellow senators, and he probably would have done a lot to get them to a better place, institutionally speaking, if he’d had more time. Now, I’m not sure who will be able to take his place. The Speaker Pro Tempore (equivalent of the Deputy Speaker in the Commons) is not exactly an independent thinker, and is part of a cabal of players around the Senate Leader’s office, who in turn are supine to the PMO for a variety of reasons. That group is not going to continue Nolin’s work of trying to make the chamber a more independent place. We’ll have to see who the PM will ultimately choose, but Nolin has set a high bar that will be difficult to match. Elsewhere, here are some highlights of Nolin’s career. On Power Play, Mercedes Stephenson spoke to the man who appointed Nolin, Brian Mulroney (and a correction to Stephenson – Nolin was not elected to the Speaker position, as it’s a prime ministerial appointment. The praise for him was unanimous, however).

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/591589139079892993

Continue reading →

Roundup: Of gaffes and grandchildren

Posted on by

I think by this point we can pretty much acknowledge that Joe Oliver is not anyone’s best choice to communicate a message – he wasn’t as Natural Resources minister, with his “foreign-funded radicals” warnings about environmentalists, and certainly not as finance minister given his Tuesday night gaffe with CBC’s Amanda Lang. There, he said that any problems with raising the TFSA limit might not happen until 2080, and that he’d leave it for “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve that problem.” Not only did he admit that there was a problem with it, but he decided it’s best to leave it to the next generation – not to mention his prediction that the Harper family will become some kind of dynastic rules of Canada – because we’ve seen so many of those. When opposition parties made hay of it, Harper came out to defend Oliver’s comments, but we have heard this warning before, from the PBO who drafted a report looking at the hole in future budgets that this kind of measure would create, and it’s not inconsiderable, so no, the question being put to Oliver by Lang was more than reasonable, and it would have been irresponsible for her not to ask it. In other post-budget news, here are the opposition positions on many of the pieces therein. There was mention in the budget about “expanding and modernising” the Honours system, but there are almost no details about what that means other than a new website. Pierre Poilievre said the money being given to the Ottawa police is for “fighting jihadis” – except it’s not, but rather for things like demonstrations or visits by foreign dignitaries. Oops. Mike Moffatt looks at the very optimistic budget projections on the price of oil. The budget nearly doubles what it gives to SIRC, but we’ll see if they’ll be expected to do more with it, given that they are already under-resourced. Paul Wells puts absolutely everybody to shame and writes about the budget as political document, and it’s so on point I want to weep.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justin Trudeau and the division of powers

Posted on by

From the sounds of it, Justin Trudeau is apparently setting back the cause of federalism in Canada, as he is getting blamed for an increasing number of provincial woes. It’s been happening for a few weeks with some federal Conservatives like Parm Gill, who are agitating against the provincial Liberals’ new sex ed curriculum, but because Gill and others just refer to the programme as the Liberals’ – not specifying that it’s Kathleen Wynne’s government in Ontario – the implication is that they’re one and the same as Gill shills for federal votes on a provincial issue (that is being torqued by provincial Progressive Conservatives and others, one might add). Moving out east, Trudeau is being blamed for complicity in the provincial Liberals in Nova Scotia proposing to reform film and television tax credits in their provincial budget – apparently Trudeau not saying anything about that change, and a number of other provincial budgetary items, makes him complicit in the whole affair. (During his visit to Halifax yesterday, Trudeau did say he was supportive of arts and culture, but reminded them that he’s a Quebec MP and respects provincial jurisdictions). Yesterday took the cake, as the federal NDP put out a press release blasting Trudeau because the provincial Liberals in PEI remain, well, a little backward on the whole issue of funding abortions in that province. This isn’t the first time that the federal NDP have been trying to ride the provincial parties for their benefit, as they keep hauling out this study that shows that provincial NDP governments have better fiscal records than provincial Liberal or Conservative parties in order to somehow prove they’d be great economic managers – never mind that the various provincial parties are largely divorced from the federal ones (with a couple of minor exceptions in a couple of provinces) and that in many cases the only thing they share is a name, though the NDP like to claim that they’re all one party, federally and provincially. It also means that if you stretch that logic, that Thomas Mulcair is responsible for raising the HST in Manitoba, that province’s appalling state of child welfare cases, and the myriad of problems that the provincial NDP in Nova Scotia left behind when they were defeated (prompting the provincial Liberals to table the budget they just did). It’s actually pretty alarming that people don’t seem to understand the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government – particularly when it’s political parties fuelling this nonsense, and they really need to stop.

Continue reading →