In regards to the hysteria around Chuck Strahl consulting on behalf of Enbridge in BC, it seems that Enbridge has been a client of his since 2011 – at least, with regards to any activities on the provincial level. He’s also registered in Alberta to lobby for a First Nations energy that is drilling for oil on its territory with a Chinese-financed company. Can’t you just see all of the conspiracy theories churning? But as Kady O’Malley points out, because the chairmanship of SIRC is considered a part-time gig (as they meet less than a dozen times per year), he’s exempt from many of the restrictions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Strahl also has stated that he’s not hearing any CSIS cases that involve Enbridge or any of his other clients, there’s no real conflict there.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Roundup: Trying to bury a helicopter announcement
Four-thirty on a Friday afternoon – the perfect time for a government press release that they want to bury. And lo and behold, on schedule comes the news that the government will be carrying on with the Sikorsky helicopter contract and begin decommissioning the Sea Kings next year. Err, except that those Sikorsky Cyclones won’t be fully operational until, oh, 2018 or so, and the current models that they expect our Forces to train on don’t have shielded electronics, meaning that a ship’s radar can knock them out. Oops. There was no explanation in the release as to how Sikorsky plans to get over this hurdle (as the shielding will add a lot more weight to the choppers), only that it would come at no extra cost – in fact, they already owe millions in late penalties for the ridiculous botched job that this whole procurement has already turned out to be. The best part of this drama, however? Diane Finley’s press secretary left the office immediately after sending the release, and nobody would give out his cell phone number, meaning that reporters couldn’t get a statement from the minister about this pretty big deal of a release. Because that’s the kind of professionalism we’ve come to expect from this government.
Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.
Roundup: Northern Gateway not quite good to go
The National Energy Board has given a conditional approval to the Northern Gateway Pipeline application – and by conditional, they attached 209 conditions to it. There will be additional hurdles with First Nations, as well as the BC government’s own five conditions. In response to the decision, Joe Oliver seems to have toned down his rhetoric around the pipeline proposal, while Harper praises the “rigorous” work of the NEB in this effort. CBC gives you six things to know about the decision. Energy economist Andrew Leach points out that the review is far from a real green light and that it’s not clear that all 209 conditions will be met. Michael Den Tandt counts the many ways in which the pipeline is likely doomed in spite of the NEB decision.
Roundup: Mourani renounces separatism
Pauline Marois has managed to do something particularly spectacular – she turned Maria Mourani from a dyed-in-the-wool separatist who ran for the leadership of the Bloc Québécois, into an avowed federalist. Indeed, Mourani announced yesterday that she is renouncing separatism and embracing Canada, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the best way to protect minorities and Quebeckers as a whole, as opposed to the proposed Charter of Quebec Values. There remains no word if Mourani will seek to join another party – Thomas Mulcair said that she’d need to run as an NDP candidate before she could sit in their caucus – but it is a pretty big blow for the separatist movement.
Roundup: MPs taking off for home
The House has risen for the break. MPs are going home after their caucus meetings this morning (well, except for the Liberals, who have their Xmas party later tonight). And it’s just as well, given how ridiculous things degenerated in QP yesterday.
The Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, was before the Commons Procedures and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the issue of Conservative MP James Bezan’s election filings being before the court, and whether he should be allowed to sit and vote in the Chamber until the matter has been dealt with. Things, however, apparently got a bit heated as Conservative MP Scott Reid criticised Mayrand for being “overly aggressive” and that it was inappropriate for him to notify the Speaker about Bezan’s dispute. Um, but if Bezan is in breach and sitting inappropriately, then the Speaker should know because the Act says that so long as the MP’s filings are not correct, he or she shouldn’t sit or vote as a member. Mayrand is doing his job, even if Reid doesn’t like it.
Roundup: Fallout from the ITO
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.
Roundup: Taking aim before the by-elections
One almost suspects that the Conservatives are worried about the Trudeau phenomenon in the upcoming by-elections as they continue to mount increasing attacks against him, whose relevance to reality slips further and further away. Today it was Peter MacKay suggesting that Justin Trudeau told schoolchildren that recreational drug use was okay and hay for legalising pot. Um, except that’s not what happened, but rather that at a school event he was asked about it, and Trudeau said that not only should children not use pot because their brains are still developing, but that right now the government’s approach was ineffective. Well done Conservative attack machine operating under MacKay’s name. Meanwhile in Toronto Centre, the NDP put out releases that decried how awful it was that Chrystia Freeland laid off all those journalists when she was at Reuters, but conveniently omitted the line from the story where the Reuters spokesperson specifically said the layoffs were not Freeland’s decision. Added to that, the NDP somehow intimated that they would protect media jobs by rewarding job creation with tax breaks. Erm, corporate taxes are not the woe that is facing the haemorrhaging media industry, and unless they plan to shut down the Internet and start subsidizing newspaper subscriptions, I’m not sure how exactly they’ll protect media jobs.
Roundup: Appalling arguments about federalism
Day two of the Senate reference hearings at the Supreme Court saw submissions from the rest of the provinces and territories (minus the Yukon) – some of whom had appallingly bad arguments, which the Justices picked apart to their logical ends – as well as Francophone groups and a couple of senators. The Francophone groups, in particular those outside of Quebec, pointed out the Senate’s role in protecting linguistic minorities that wouldn’t stand up the same way during elections. Senator Serge Joyal, however, had the most eloquent of all submissions so far, and as someone who was in the room when they drafted the constitution in 1982 and who helped draft the amending formula to it, he provided some much needed perspective, as well as on the entrenchment of the system of constitutional monarchy and Responsible Government that included two chambers in 1982 (hence why there is no mechanism to abolish the Senate – because it was unthinkable). Paul Wells points out that regardless of the arguments made to date, there is pretty much no chance that the Senate could be abolished, and that the reforms couldn’t happen without a constitutional amendment. Senator Elaine McCoy weighs in after the first day’s submissions, and calls out the government’s reform plans as red herrings.
Roundup: Flaherty’s frozen economic update
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his fall economic update in Edmonton yesterday, and faced a grilling inquiry by none other than the Conservative chair of the Finance Committee, James Rajotte. Ooh. Flaherty said that there will be a healthy surplus by 2015, paid for by frozen spending (aka de facto cuts when you factor in inflation), and asset sales that haven’t yet happened (which is one-time income, and not sustainable). Any future pay increases for public servants have to come out of those same frozen department budgets as well, which further limits any increases. As you can imagine, it went over like a lead balloon with the opposition. Flaherty also confirmed that he does plan to run again in 2015, despite his health challenges – for what it’s worth. Economist Stephen Gordon has a hard time seeing how the cuts will replace sluggish revenue growth, and remains sceptical about the projections. Former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page gives his read of the update, and sees a whole lot of missing information.