We are now debating what is going on in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is in the Conservatives’ interest to say that the Senate is still the problem.

I want to ask my colleague if she agrees with me that questions remain with respect to the possible criminal involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that clarification.

In fact, we are not just facing one problem here; we are facing two.

Basically, some senators made claims for inappropriate expenses, which is one of the issues before us. However, there is another issue that is related but not the same, and that issue is the involvement of the Prime Minister’s Office in a Senate reimbursement and expenses scandal.

Therefore, this is not just a debate about senators who made claims for inappropriate expenses. It is also a debate about this Prime Minister’s involvement and his inability to provide transparent and coherent answers to questions about the situation.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I want to put this motion in context. This is about behaviour in the Prime Minister’s Office. It is not about the generalized problem of the Senate. I put this for my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary. In today’s Globe and Mail, one of his former colleagues, Inky Mark, describes the Prime Minister’s modus operandi. He said:

[The Prime Minister’s] biggest weakness is that he doesn’t listen to anyone. He thought he knew more than all of us put together. He didn’t trust anyone. He operated through his bullies.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary this. How do we jive the Prime Minister’s reputation for being in total control of all aspects of his operations at all times with what must have only been wilful blindness to what was going on all around him in the cover-up?

Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the Green Party member, but the Liberal leader supports Keystone when he is in front of oil people, but he does not necessarily support it when he is in B.C. or Ontario.

We have seen this with the Liberals before. We remember the former Liberal leader who supported the auto sector when he was in Oshawa, but when he was in British Columbia, he was not so supportive of the auto sector.

The Liberal leader supports the oil sands, but not taking it out of the ground. Anybody can support it, but if they do not support the pipelines that get it to market, what is the point to that? I am not sure the Liberal leader has figured out that the pipes we are talking about are not the ones used for smoking. They are the ones that actually deliver oil to the market.

With respect to the Prime Minister, he has been very clear. Had he known that this scheme was being hatched, he would have in no way endorsed such a scheme. Nigel Wright has accepted full and sole responsibility.

What we are asking for now is that the senators do the same. They are not, so there is a motion in front of the Senate which would give Canadians the accountability that they cannot extract from a ballot box when it comes to the senators.

We are learning now that the Liberals are going to sit on their hands and abstain from voting. When it comes to accountability, Canadians can always count on the Conservative Party to provide that accountability.

The post Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics appeared first on Elizabeth May.

During Monday’s meeting, members heard testimony from two witnesses, Adam Dodek, law professor at the University of Ottawa, who was followed by Mary Dawson, current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Dodek’s testimony focused on incorporating certain key aspects of the Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State into the Conflict of Interest Act. He also recommended that the Commissioner’s powers of condemnation be expanded to allow her to make public breaches of the Act, including those under its reporting provisions. Ms. Dawson spoke to the Committee for the second time in recent weeks and was able to clarify several points of confusion, including issues surrounding fundraising, gift giving and post-employment obligations. Both witnesses spoke to the importance of creating an ‘ethical infrastructure’ through education and outreach.

The meeting on March 20^th was held in camera. According to the minutes, the committee resumed its study of privacy and social media. Among other things, it was agreed that the committee adopt a draft report to be entitled, “Privacy and Social Media in the Age of Big Data” and that the committee undertake a study in relation the Information Commissioner of Canada’s 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Annual Reports. The committee also agreed to invite the Office of the Information Commissioner, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying to appear before the Committee, no later than May 31, 2013, to discuss the Main Estimates 2013-14.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The ETHI committee met twice this week to resume its Statutory Review of the Conflict of Interest Act. The first meeting involved hearing testimony from three experts on ethics and accountability, including the federal Commissioner of Lobbying, and the latter included the appearance of Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, as well as the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of British Columbia.

During Monday’s meeting, members heard testimony from three witnesses. Firstly, testimony was delivered by Jim Patrick and W. Scott Thurlow, President and Chair, respectively, of the Government Relations Institute of Canada. The federal Commissioner of Lobbying, Karen Shepherd, was then invited to speak. The testimony focused on the possibility of aligning the Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act, and the challenges that might emerge from harmonization. All three witnesses seemed to suggest that the two pieces of legislation need to be brought closer together to at least some extent. Attention was also drawn to the importance of clarity of definitions and of clarity in terms of the appropriateness of gifts. Like previous witnesses, the speakers recommended the introduction of a sliding scale for post-employment obligations.

The Committee’s Wednesday meeting involved hearing testimony from two provincial Commissioners. Lynn Morrison, Ontario’s Integrity Commission and Paul D.K. Fraser, British Columbia’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner explained current legislation in their jurisdictions. Ms. Morrison’s testimony emphasized the need for open lines of communication between her office and elected officials, and the importance of education and training as they relate to ethics. Mr. Fraser, in contrast, emphasized the need for openness with the public and keeping the process transparent and open to public participation. The issue of gifts was again raised, as well the inclusion of a clause for apparent conflicts of interest.

The Committee will resume its work on Monday, 18 March 2013.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

During Monday’s meeting, members heard testimony from two witnesses, Guy Giorno, Executive Member of the Canadian Bar Association, and Yves Boisvert, Professor at the École nationale d’administration publique. The testimony focused on the possible introduction of monetary penalties for breaches of the Act, which both witnesses recommended, and raised concerns about legislative clarity, specifically in regards to objectives, definitions of ‘personal interest’ and ‘gifts,’ and post-employment obligations. Attention was drawn to the need for transparency and accountability in the use of the Act, and the fact that the rule of law is the basis for the legislation, something public office holders are not above. Like previous witnesses, the speakers pointed to enforceability as a key weakness of the current legislation.

During the last thirty minutes of the February 25^th meeting a motion was introduced by Charmaine Borg, proposing that the committee study ways to enhance the Privacy Commissioner’s ability to deal with data breaches. This led to a vote, supported uniquely by Conservative members, which moved the meeting in-camera. It is possible that the Conservatives voted down the motion.

During the February 27^th in camera meeting, the committee agreed to study undertake a study of the Main Estimates. The Minutes can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The fact that PMO senior staff had pressured the group’s main funder, Tides Canada, to stop supporting the conservation work of ForestEthics, (verified by the memo obtained through Access to Information), would, in itself, have been a shocking scandal even a decade ago. Now, it barely caused a murmur in a nation seemingly losing our sense of outrage in the face of suppression of dissent–like the proverbial warming frog in a toxic political stew.

It becomes increasingly clear that the ‘chill’ effect of the bully-boy tactic of threatening all non-government groups and all charities with as yet unspecified ‘new sanctions’ (promised at p.205 of the 2012 federal budget) will silence critics. Where I would expect a phalanx of executive directors of the country’s major national conservation and environmental groups blasting back with one voice at the unravelling of decades of environmental protections, there has been a fairly small roar from only the bravest. This is not intended as any criticism of my former colleagues. When you don’t know what the new rules will be, when you have an obligation to your organization to stay in the black, and when money is scarce and threats abundant it is hard to know how to respond.

Then there is ForestEthics. On April 17, Valerie Langer, its Director of BC Forest Campaigns stood up bravely.

In the summer of 1993, Valerie had rallied thousands to the clear-cuts of Clayoquot Sound to halt the logging of the ancient coastal temperate rainforest. At the Kennedy Lake blockade she was chained to a log suspended out into space.

Valerie has been working with ForestEthics for 18 years. Far from the civil disobedience of the early 1990s, she and ForestEthics have pioneered market-based campaigns, tackling catalogue giant Victoria’s Secret. ForestEthics has also worked to create economic opportunities, such as the toybuilding project with Heiltsuk First Nation. ForestEthics found ways to find consensus with the forest industry at boardroom tables. The group is clearly too effective for the Harper regime.

Social and environmental justice lawyer, Clayton Ruby, has agreed to head up ForestEthics Advocacy, the new organization that will not seek any charitable dollars for its work.

Ruby declared, ‘what we need now is more advocacy for the environment, not less advocacy for the environment. We need more speech, not less speech.’

This announcement was barely made before the spin doctors of the Prime Minister’s Office issued the following Info Alert by email at 7pm, April 17, with the subject line ‘Legitimate Charities’:

‘Canadian law has long restricted the generous tax advantages associated with charitable status to organizations that focus their energies on charitable activities–not politics. Unfortunately, some organizations have been using taxpayers’ generosity for their own political purposes.

‘In Economic Action Plan 2012, our Government announced that charities would be required to be more transparent and more accountable to Canadians when it comes to their activities.

‘But this was all too much for at least one radical organization who today announced the creation of a stand-alone group devoted entirely to political advocacy.

‘ForestEthics may be the first radical group to admit that their activities, for which they have collected tremendous financial advantages at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, were not charitable at all. After all, legitimate organizations carrying out legitimate charitable activities would have no reason to do anything differently.’

This memo is grossly inappropriate to come from a Prime Minister’s Office. It reads like the kind of smear issued from the Conservative Party War Room during an election campaign. Its arguments fall into the same category as the anti civil liberties argument: ‘If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you should not mind the police searching your home without warrant—or checking into your email.’

When any conservation group, unsure how to speak in the current climate of harassment where the 10% legal advocacy by charities leads to endless harassment with threats of loss of charitable status, decides to voluntarily relinquish its charitable status, it will stand condemned by the PMO.

This is my country. The actions of this PMO belong in some other country—maybe one described by George Orwell where an ‘Info Alert’ could be a tool of propaganda and smear.

This PMO spends more on ‘information officers’ than any previous one. Talk about abuse of taxpayers’ dollars; this bunch spends $10 million a year in shadowy political operatives and ‘Info Alerts.’ This PMO does not belong in Canada.

The post The ongoing attack on charities appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It is increasingly clear that the chilling effect of the bully-boy tactic of threatening all non-government groups and all charities with as yet unspecified “new sanctions” (promised at p, 205 of the 2012 budget) is working to silence critics. Where I would expect a phalanx of Executive Directors of the country’s major national conservation and environmental groups blasting back with one voice at the unravelling of decades of environmental protections, there has been a fairly small roar from only the bravest.  This is not intended as any criticism of my former colleagues. When you don’t know what the new rules will be, when you have an obligation to your organization to stay in the black and when money is scarce and threats abundant, it is hard to know how to respond.

Then there is ForestEthics.  Valerie Langer – she of the Kennedy Lake blockade, putting herself in a precarious position chained to a log suspended out over open space, then rallying thousands to the burnt over clear-cuts of Clayoquot Sound over the summer of 1993 to halt the logging of the ancient coastal temperate rainforest, and she, my dear friend of many years – stood up bravely.  Valerie has been working with ForestEthics for years.  Far from the civil disobedience of the early 1990s, she and Forest Ethics had pioneered in market based campaigns, tackling catalogue giant Victoria’s Secret and developing a local economy through toy building with Heiltsuk First Nation.

ForestEthics had found ways to find consensus with the forest industry at the board room tables.  ForestEthics is too effective for the Harper regime. Clayton Ruby has agreed to head up ForestEthics Advocacy – a new organization that will not seek any charitable dollars for its work.  Ruby declared “what we need now is more advocacy for the environment, not less advocacy for the environment.  We need more speech, not less speech.”

The announcement was barely made before the spin doctors of the Prime Minister’s Office issued the following “Info Alert”:

From: Alerte-Info-Alert [mailto:Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 07:03 PM
To: Alerte-Info-Alert <Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Subject: Legitimate Charities/Organismes caritatifs
 
Legitimate Charities

After all, legitimate organizations carrying out legitimate charitable activities would have no reason to do anything differently. From: Alerte-Info-Alert [mailto:Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca]

Right you are.  Only those with something to fear would be willing to stop being afraid.  Only people with something to hide will object to the warrant-less access to their email address and phone numbers and ISP information.  Right, only someone who is doing wrong will object to mandatory minimum sentences or pre-emptive arrest.

And when a conservation group, unsure how to speak in this Brave New World where the 10% legal advocacy by charities leads to endless harassment with threats of loss of charitable status, decides to voluntarily relinquish its charitable status, it will stand condemned by the PMO. 

This is my country. The actions of this PMO belong in some other county.  Maybe one described by George Orwell where an “Info Alert” could be a tool of propaganda and smear. This PMO spends more on “information officers” than any previous PMO.  Talk about abuse of taxpayers’ dollars; this bunch spends $10 million/year in shadowy political operatives and “Info Alerts.”   This PMO does not belong in Canada.

The post How Orwellian traps are laid appeared first on Elizabeth May.

A recent Access to Information Act request by the Canadian Press has obtained a directive from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), instructing that in “exceptional circumstances” CSIS should “share the most complete information available at the time with relevant authorities, including information based on intelligence provided by foreign agencies that may have been derived from the use of torture or mistreatment.”

“Yet again Stephen Harper re-defines morality.  He used to insist that information obtained by torture was tainted and should be discarded.  When did this become tolerable?” asked Eric Walton, Green International Affairs Critic.   “We have seen over and over again that the information obtained by torture is notoriously unreliable and can lead to a disastrous course of action”  added Mr Walton.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for the US to stop using information obtained by torture, “In the face of this perilous climate, our nation must not embrace a morality based on an attitude that ‘desperate times call for desperate measures.’ There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any individual incarcerated for any reason.”

“A nation that values justice, respect for the rule of law, and civil liberty does not engage in torture. It is that simple,” said May.

The post No Exceptions for Torture appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Hon. John Baird: Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), missions submit advocacy project proposals to the Planning, Advocacy and Innovation Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are then reviewed and assessed against Government of Canada priorities. It is common practice for the officials involved and our missions to have back and forth discussions regarding these proposals, before making final eligibility decisions. The recommendation from the Climate Change and Energy Division was based on current priority areas for climate change funding, including the provision of support to assist vulnerable countries in tangible ways to adapt to climate change, and to support their substantive participation in international climate change negotiations.

In response to (b)(i), on May 2, 2011, a request was forwarded by a public affairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer at the Canadian embassy in Zagreb. The exchange provided further background and discussion on the proposal.

In response to (b)(ii), the above-mentioned email communication was from a public sffairs counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Rome to the Climate Change and Energy Division, enclosing exchanges with a cultural affairs officer in the Canadian embassy in Zagreb.

In response to (b)(iii), May 2 and April 21, 2011.

In response to (c), in order to redact information requested under the Access to Information Act, DFAIT relies on recommendations from subject matter experts within the program areas who provided the records, recommendations from other involved program areas, as well as the review and discretion exercised by experienced officials within the Access to Information division. Information was redacted in certain instances where its release was determined to cause a specific, current and probably injury. Paragraph 20(1)(c) was invoked to exempt sensitive financial information belonging to a third party. Paragraph 21(1)(b) was invoked to protect the frank exchange of ideas between government officers. Subsection 15(1)–International was invoked in some instances to protect Canada’s position for the purpose of international negotiations, and in others to protect Canada’s relations with foreign governments.

In response to (d), Foreign Affairs and International Trade provides operational funds to Canadian missions to promote and defend Canada’s interests abroad in line with government priorities. While funding for the mission project proposal was identified and provisionally approved by DFAIT, upon further consultations, we did not provide funds to our mission in Zagreb. Thus funding to the artist was never given, nor was it withdrawn. Any implication of political interference involving DFAIT’s decision is false.

The post Question No. 380 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) appeared first on Elizabeth May.