It was the release of the Auditor General’s spring report, and among the findings are a major lack of long-term planning when it came to expansions in the prison system which will lead to more overcrowding in a few years, risks with the long-term sustainability of the public sector pension plan, the government’s relocation services contract being completely botched from the start, that First Nations policing is failing and falling behind provincial standards in some places like Ontario, that the CRA faces some notable gaps in how it deals with aggressive tax planning, that Statistics Canada isn’t adequately collecting data that reflects smaller geographic areas – a particularly salient issue right now with labour market issues, and that the company that manages federal buildings is getting billions in bonus payments for no apparent reason. The government, of course, thanks the AG for his findings and agrees with his recommendations.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
QP: Seeking independent legal advice
After the Auditor General released his Spring 2014 report this morning, the question was whether its findings would lead off QP, or if some of the other matters of recent import — the telecom data, the fight with the Chief Justice, the deployment of our forces to Eastern Europe — would take precedence, given that Stephen Harper was present today. Thomas Mulcair led off by wondering which version of the story around the call from the Chief Justice or her office was correct. Harper said that it was suggested that he wasn’t aware there was an issue with appointing Nadon, and insisted that he was aware there was an issue and that he acted according to the legal advice he had been given. Mulcair wondered why nothing was said if the call was so inappropriate. Harper said that he didn’t refuse the call, and repeated that he was aware of a potential legal issue that could wind up before the courts, which is why he got legal advice. Mulcair wondered why there was so much trouble spent having this fight, and wanted Harper to categorically rule out attempting to re-appoint Justice Nadon. Harper said that he was clear he wouldn’t, and repeated his previous answers. Mulcair stuck to his script and repeated it in French, to which Harper complained that the ruling would undermine the ability to appoint Quebec judges and harm the federal institution. Mulcair brought up the objections of the former bar association presidents, and called on Harper to apologise to the Chief Justice. Harper dodged, and repeated his earlier answers. Justin Trudeau was up, and called on Harper to withdraw his remarks about the Chief Justice. Harper fell back on his line about independent legal experts. Trudeau changed tracks, and noted that Canada was on track to bring in more temporary foreign workers than immigrants, but Harper tried to insist that the Liberals wanted to bring in more TFWs and he wanted Canadians to get a first crack at jobs. Trudeau wanted Harper to agree to their opposition day motion on fixing the TFW programme — dubious with regards to being a question on government business — and it was no surprise that Harper didn’t agree.
Roundup: Accusations of intimidation
As you may have noticed during QP, the narrative around Harper’s spat with the Chief Justice is now being characterised by the NDP as an attempt to intimidate her and the courts, which is kind of unsettling. Mind you, Thomas Mulcair isn’t exactly pure when it comes to attacks on the Supreme Court based on conspiracy theories, as recent history shows. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here. Brent Rathgeber blasts the PMOs use of selective and disingenuous facts to try to smear the Chief Justice for the sake of fundraising dollars. Irwin Cotler took questions about the situation over the Twitter Machine. Andrew Coyne wonders when Conservatives of good faith will start to challenge the party’s leadership over the damage they are doing to our institutions.
QP: The Attorney General’s silence on protecting the courts
It was a gorgeous spring day in Ottawa, but it was too bad that neither Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau weren’t around to enjoy it, as they apparently all found better things to do than to attend the grand inquest of the nation. Thomas Mulcair was in attendance, and led off by asking if the Attorney General felt it was his job to ensure that there were never any attempts to intimate the courts of the country. Peter MacKay rejected the premise of the question, and said that after the Chief Justice met with special committee, she called him and he decided that the Prime Minister didn’t need to speak to her, then gave the line about the inappropriateness of discussing cases with judgments. Mulcair carried on, about the separation of powers, to which MacKay carried on with talking points about the legal opinions they received. Mulcair was not impressed and accused MacKay of being a henchman of the PM. MacKay waxed about Justice Rothstein being appointed from the Federal Court, to which Mulcair blasted back about the difference in Quebec law, hence requiring special judicial requirements. MacKay kept on with the justifications of legal opinions and the special committee. Mulcair hammered away at the difference rules, but MacKay tried to play down Mulcair’s own reading of the Supreme Court Act. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, and echoed in English by Sean Casey, brought up the anonymous Conservatives who complained to the media and appeared to be leaking confidential information from the special appointment committee, but MacKay shrugged the questions off as “convoluted.” Casey hammered away at the loss of confidence in the selection process, and wondered if the minister would make any changes to restore confidences. MacKay insisted that the process was the most open and inclusive in history, and that even the opposition justice critic had praised Nadon.
Roundup: Expats voting restored
An Ontario superior court judge has struck down provisions that prevent Canadian ex-pats from voting in federal elections, despite living abroad. Considering that we vote for local constituency MPs, and not parties or leaders, one does wonder how we will determine who these ex-pats will vote for, seeing as they don’t have a current riding for whom they are choosing an MP to represent them in. While some jurisdictions that allow expats to vote decide this on the basis of their last Canadian address, it does make one wonder about that kind of determination as riding boundaries change and you have more people voting at that address than are currently registered. Or maybe I’m letting reality and the rules of the way things work get in the way of more abstract feelings about democracy once again.
Roundup: The Chief Justice hits back
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada responded to the government’s media releases and included a timeline of events to show that there was no undue influence in the Nadon appointment. One could question if it was appropriate to flag the issue on July 31, but it certainly doesn’t appear to have unfolded the way that the PMO has insinuated. Harper and company continued to make some baffling assertions, like Harper saying that he discounted any advice about potential problems with nominating a Federal Court judge in Quebec because coming from McLachlin, it would have been improper – it simply makes no sense. So is insinuating that McLachlin should have known that the case would come before her, since she’s not clairvoyant and wouldn’t know that Harper would appoint a judge in such a manner, or that a legal challenge would come. Former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who appointed two Supreme Court justices under his watch, confirms that the Chief Justice would have been one of the people consulted in the process because she knows what kinds of expertise the Court needs at the time. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here.
Roundup: Inciting a feud with the Supreme Court
A rift between the government and the Supreme Court of Canada appears to be opening as a bunch of anonymous Conservative ministers and backbenchers bravely approached National Post columnist John Ivison under the cloak of anonymity and trash-talked Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, insinuating that she lobbied against Nadon’s appointment. The Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court put out a release that denied any lobbying, and said that the Chief Justice was consulted by the committee of MPs that were creating the short-list of nominees, and that because of the issue of appointing a Federal Court judge in a Quebec seat was already well known, the Chief Justice also advised the justice minister and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that it could be an issue. This happened back in July. The PMO, late in the day, put out a release of their own, insinuating that McLachlin made a cold call to Harper, which he refused because it would be inappropriate to discuss a matter before the courts – only it wasn’t before the courts, because that consultation, which was made to his chief of staff and not Harper directly, was in July – a fact that they only confirmed when the Toronto Star pressed them on it. It’s really worrying that the PMO is trying to assert that the Chief Justice did something untoward as Prime Ministers and Minsters of Justice often consult with her when there are vacancies on the bench, because the Chief Justice can advise them on what particular subject areas the Court is looking for an expert to fill. In the context of advising on a replacement for Justice Fish, there would have been nothing wrong with McLachlin consulting the government, nor with raising the point of caution about Federal Court judges. That this government has made a mess of the appointment process with their opaque committee process under the window dressing of greater accountability and transparency – of which there is actually none – and to try and come after the Court like this, is extremely unbecoming of any government. Especially when they were warned there would be a problem and went ahead with it anyway.
Roundup: Amendments during the meltdown
While the Rob Ford story goes into total meltdown in Toronto, the amendment process for the Fair Elections Act hit close to the halfway mark last night, with just one day left before the clock runs out – and it might go a bit faster if parties didn’t file nonsense amendments (postal codes on ballots? Veiled voting? Letting all candidates be photographed casting ballots instead of just leaders? Seriously?) or go on lengthy tirades about things. But hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have been talking to The Canadian Press about the fact that the caucus has had a great deal of input into the changes being proposed to the bill after they too were unsatisfied with the original form.
Roundup: Amendments underway
Amendments are proceeding to the Fair Elections Act, and yes, the government is agreeing to a number of them. Others, like those proposed by Brent Rathgeber and Elizabeth May, well, not so much. Kady O’Malley uses the bill as a prime example of how the government’s obstinate and obstructionist communications strategy has not only backfired, but blown up in their faces as they were forced to make a public climbdown as the amendment process is underway.
QP: Stronger inspections, a stronger blacklist
After a two-week break, MPs were in good spirits, though the front benches were a little thin. Thomas Mulcair led off and immediately launched into prosecutorial mode around the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme. Jason Kenney responded that they had expanded the powers of inspectors and strengthened the blacklist provisions. Mulcair insisted that Kenney had known of problems for six years, but Kenney said that Mulcair was conflating a number of programmes into one whole, where those few incidents of abuse were being dealt with. Mulcair changed gears, and wondered why the Commissioner of Elections couldn’t get the power to compel testimony or produce papers like the Competition Bureau has. Poilievre insisted that they could get a court order. Mulcair didn’t press, but moved onto the topic of allowing the Chief Electoral Officer, but Poilievre carried on about Information to Obtain orders and demanded an apology for the robocall allegations. Mulcair said that the Federal Court said that calls were made — not actually asking a question. Poilievre pointed this out, and carried on demanding that apology. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and demanded the Auditor General look into the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, to which Kenney assured him that the AG controls his own destiny and touted the changes they had made. Goodale carried on listing problems and repeated the call for the AG, though Kenney repeated his answer, making a dig at the previous Liberal government. Goodale said that the government needs to increase the number of pathways to citizenship, to which Kenney listed off a number of programmes that his government had implemented.