Comartin's to-do list: Work, health and a grandaughter to play with

-posted by Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa bureau, 15/09/2011

I didn't see NDP justice critic Joe Comartin in shots of the caucus on stage at the Quebec City news conference earlier Thursday which struck me as odd.

When I tracked him down, I joked it sounded like he was at a daycare centre. I could hear the sounds of children's laughter. Not quite.

He was just coming out of a clinic at Women's College Hospital in Toronto. He'd been referred there a few months ago for a specialized procedure to treat - as he called it - a couple of patches of "skin cancer" on his nose and neck.

NDP Jack Layton's struggle with prostate cancer was the most high profile health battle fought by a public figure of late. Many MPs have dealt with cancer or other serious illnesses. Joe downplayed his, and said he will be back at work when Parliament resumes next week.

As a deputy house leader for the Official Opposition and an MP on the selection committee reviewing potential Supreme Court of Canada candidates, Joe said it's a bad time to take any more time off.

His cancer, he said, is not melanoma, and not life-threatening. He has 5-6 stitches on his nose and the same on his neck where the doctor excised patches of "pre-basal" cell carcinoma. He's bandaged up, but doesn't need reconstructive surgery, and in "98 per cent of these cases" the doctor doesn't need to do more.

"It's not a big deal," he told me. "The doctor told me today that his Thursdays are the light cases. It's like a production line. There were probably 20 or 30 other patients there this morning."

Comartin had attended the caucus meeting but it was extended only after he'd booked his medical appointment. All that over with, he was "going to go play with my grandaughter right now."

-30-

 

Feathers of leadership

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity--Spadina) presented Interim Leader Nycole Turmel with a special gift as the 102-member caucus gathered for the start of a two-day strategy session in Quebec City on Wednesday: two eagle feathers that were sacred to her late husband, Jack Layton.

Chow said she hoped the feathers would give Turmel wisdom and strength as she leads the party until a new leader is chosen in Toronto next March.

"He used these feathers to guide his decision-making," a tearful Chow told her colleagues, who she thanked for love and support when Layton was battling cancer. "May Jack's spirit guide us, now and in the future."

An aide told The Canadian Press the story behind the feathers:

One of the feathers fell from an eagle that circled Layton and Chow while they were kayaking in the Queen Charlotte Islands shortly after the 2006 election. Haida Gwaii elders told Layton it was a "feather of leadership" and blessed it. The other feather was given to Layton later by an aboriginal leader.

 

When in doubt, leave it out.

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

The New Democrat powers that be did something today that has left me gaping at my computer monitor with some combination of admiration and disbelief.

You may remember there was some controversy during the recent spring election when the CBC's Leslie MacKinnon tried and failed to find the NDP constitution.

Ahead of the NDP biennial policy convention in Vancouver in June, I reported that the party was getting ready to rid said constitution of references to "democratic socialism" in an attempt to update the language. While researching the story, I was able to finally get my hands on the most recent version of the constitution (2009), which you can read here.

The move did not go over smoothly in Vancouver, with a last-minute interjection from newly elected NDP president Brian Topp suggesting the matter be referred to the executive for retooling saving everyone from a divisive debate on the convention floor.

Now that the NDP is heading into a leadership race that will in part be governed by rules set out in that constitution, the party has finally decided to publish its constiution on the NDP website.

Those of you hoping to catch a glimpse of the original preamble (which has yet to be formally changed) will be disappointed, as it has been replaced by a conspicuous blank space.

There is an old saying in journalism used for when a reporter cannot confirm something ahead of the fast-approaching deadline: "When in doubt, leave it out."

It looks like the NDP just gave it a new meaning.

 

All staffed up: round-up of recent changes in the ranks of the NDP's OLO

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

Images of New Democrat staffers carrying boxes are being broadcast on television Monday, so here is a look at who is moving in and who is moving on:

Anne McGrath remains Chief of Staff in the Opposition Leader's Office (OLO) under Interim Leader Nycole Turmel, although there is speculation that she might run to replace Jack Layton as leader.

Brad Lavigne remains in his role as Principal Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition and is now also Acting Chief of Staff until McGrath returns to work Sept. 6.

Jess Turk-Browne is now the Deputy Chief of Staff. She was until recently the Director of Operations at NDP Caucus Services.

As previously announced, Kathleen Monk, who was director of communications to Layton, was named the first executive director of the newly created Broadbent Institute.

Her former role will now be filled by two people: Gaby Senay, who is back from Morocco where she was program manager at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), is now Media Director at Caucus Services. Drew Anderson, who was director of communications for the party, is now Caucus Communications Director.

Deputy Director of Communications Pierre Naud has left the party for the public service.

Karl Bélanger is remaining as Senior Press Secretary to Turmel.

The OLO is expanding its Research and Policy Department into a Parliamentary Affairs Department, which brings with it more staffing changes.

Peter Puxley becomes Senior Policy Advisor to the Leader in the Parliamentary Affairs Department after having been Director of Research and Policy.

Nathan Rotman is now the Caucus Director of Operations and Outreach. He was Director of Organization for the party.

Nicolas-Dominic Audet was named Deputy Director of Quebec Outreach. He will work under Raymond Guardia, the Quebec Senior Advisor the Leader.

Dispatches from the separatist witch hunt

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

Last week, the Toronto Star (specifically, political editor Colin MacKenzie, Ottawa bureau chief Bruce Campion-Smith and I) decided to solicit the views of the Quebec NDP caucus on the political future of Quebec and whether they had changed over time and, in particular, provide them with the opportunity to put on the record any past memberships in the Bloc Québécois and other federal or provincial parties.

The goal, as we noted in the questionnaire emailed to the 58 MPs (excluding Interim Leader Nycole Turmel, whose history is now well known), was to gain a better understanding of their perspectives in the hope of sparking a greater discussion on the issue. It was also, obviously, to try and avoid any more surprises like this one.

The exercise resulted in this story, which, to be honest and overly idealistic, was disappointing (although understandable given the heated reaction to the Turmel news, as NDP MP Pat Martin rightfully pointed out). Contrary to what Ottawa-based Le Devoir columnist Manon Corneiller wrote about my story two days before I actually wrote it, I was not on a "witch hunt". I wanted to learn directly from the MPs, and not from some future leak from the Bloc Québécois or some other source with an obvious agenda, where they stood in the past, where they stand now, and hear their explanation for any change of mind.

This is partly because my main issue with Turmel is not that she was a member of a sovereigntist party, or that she was a sovereigntist in the past (especially since, as I discovered while reporting on her role shaping NDP policy on Quebec in the late 1990s, it seems she was not). It is that she did not find that information relevant, even when asked during the election campaign about her 2006 endorsement of Bloc candidates as president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and appears not to understand just how big a deal that is outside Quebec.

But in a broader way, it was because I believe it is time for an adult conversation about this issue. As a native Quebecer (and a proud one, at that), I do have a grasp of how things are different in Quebec. I am also keenly aware of how many people in the rest of Canada know or understand very little about it. I remember meeting a new co-worker on the first day of my new job in Toronto, who a scant three minutes after we exchanged names asked me if I was a "separatist". I also remember hiking in British Columbia when a man who had just moved there from China told me, in a thick, halting accent, that I spoke "English very good for a lady from Quebec". Don't even get me started on how many times I have had to explain what a CEGEP is.

I have had many, many heated debates with friends who see things I would call grey as either black or white. Through talking about it, we have gained a greater understanding of where the other person is coming from. I do believe there are more people like me out there, and more people like my friends.

As the NDP has been quick to point out, the only way to grow a party in Quebec is to attract voters who have supported sovereignty and may continue to support it now. I agree and I wouldn't even call that an opinion. It's called arithmetic. I think part of that conversation should involve the people at the very centre of this shift in the federal political landscape of Quebec (the MP themselves, who are elected officials, after all) taking the time -- and maybe also a leap of faith -- to talk about their own shifts in thought.

As Robert Asselin, assistant director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, said when I interviewed him for Saturday's story, if the NDP believes it is the new bridge between Quebec and the rest of Canada, then "prove it". Or, at the very least, talk about it.

Even though you passed my deadline and I wrote a story about how you didn't want to talk to me, all is forgiven. Feel free talk about it at any time.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear New Democrat MP from Quebec:

The Toronto Star is canvassing the Quebec caucus of the Official Opposition on the issue of national unity and the unique political landscape in the province.

We would like learn about and understand more about your views in the hope of sparking a greater discussion on this topic, so please take some time to answer the following questions:

1.       Have you ever been a member of another federal or provincial party? If so, which one?

2.       Are you still a member? If so, when did you join? If not, when did you quit?

3.       Have you ever voted for the Bloc Québécois? If so, why? If not, why not?

4.       Has the Bloc Québécois been good for Quebec?

5.       Would you describe yourself as a sovereigntist, a federalist or something else? Please explain your choice. If you have not always described yourself this way, why not?

6.       Did you vote in the 1980 and/or 1995 referendums on Quebec sovereignty? How did you vote and why?

7.       The Sherbrooke Declaration says the NDP would recognize a majority decision (of 50 per cent plus one) of the Quebec people in the event of a referendum on the political status of Quebec. What do you think this means? Do you agree with it?

Please email your responses to Ottawa Bureau Chief Bruce Campion-Smith and/or reporter Joanna Smith, who covers the NDP in Ottawa.

We would appreciate a response by Wednesday, August 10 at 12 p.m. Eastern Time.

Please feel free to respond in French if you would prefer.

Please do not hesitate to contact either of us with any questions or comments.

AN ASIDE

I want to give credit to those NDP MPs from Quebec who, in less controversial times, have been candid on this issue when I asked them about it.

One of them is Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie), who voted 'yes' in the 1995 referendum but now considers himself an "autonomiste" who is unconcerned with the national question as he focuses on practical issues like Employment Insurance and pensions. He is also a member of Quebec Solidaire, which champions sovereignty, but explained it is because he is a left-wing union guy and he agrees with their other policies.

Then there is Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles), who I followed around for a while, who I thought showed some moxy when she explained why she is a federalist:

“I’m a federalist mostly because of my age,” says Liu when asked about how she personally viewed the future of Quebec. “I was born in 1990. I didn’t live through those crises, really, and I’ve always seen Canada as a unified country.”

 

Justice in Jig Time - update

-posted by Tonda MacCharles

An update to the earlier post:

Further "study" of the "mega-trials" bill. The Senate just announced a list of witnesses it will rush through Wednesday, June 22, from 3:30 - 9:00 p.m.

Justice Dept:

Robert Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Catherine Kane, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section

Anouk Desaulniers, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section 

As an individual:

Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, CM, OOnt, QC

Public Prosecution Service of Canada:

Don Beardall, General Counsel, Nancy Irving, General Counsel

Canadian Bar Association:
Suhail Akhtar, Executive Member, National Criminal Justice Section
Kerri Froc, Staff Lawyer, Law Reform and Equality

Association des procureurs aux poursuites criminelles et pénales:

Thomas Jacques, vice-president

Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers -
Ferhan Javed, defence counsel

 

 

Justice in Jig Time

-posted by Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa bureau

For years in Ottawa, the government has grumbled about how the Opposition holds up or obstructs the progress of bills, particularly crime bills, through Parliament.

Time and again, the Conservatives call on their opponents to fast-track bills through the legislative study stages.

Sometimes it works.

Under previous minorities, the Liberals offered to fast-track some bills– usually in exchange for flexibility on others. The Bloc Québécois supported the Conservatives in swiftly eliminating the right to seek day parole after a non-violent offender had served one-sixth of a sentence.

Now, in the past two weeks, we’ve seen the new Official Opposition, the NDP, with the Liberals’ consent, offer to fast-track the bill on “mega-trials” otherwise known as the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act.

Except Green Party leader Elizabeth May weighed in and pressed for parliamentary scrutiny of the legislative proposals.

That happened today. Sort of.

The standing Commons committee on Justice and Human Rights whipped through the, uh, study of the “mega-trials” bill Monday morning.

It’s being reported back to the Commons for third reading without any substantive amendment.

Elizabeth May was there as an observer.

A couple of things came up in the brief session: no definition of “mega-trial” in the bill. No specific rights of appeal set out.

May, given permission to speak, reminded the committee that the Canadian Bar Association had objections to the bill.

She was scolded by a Conservative member.

But this was at least a nod to what the committees are supposed to do. Even if it only took about an hour or so.

What is odd about all this fast-tracking is the willingness of political parties to abdicate the responsibility to publicly scrutinize new laws, to put them to the test by sounding out witnesses in public hearings.

The thing is, the federal government – whether Conservative or Liberal - is always quick to argue in court, when laws are challenged, that judges ought to leave the tough policy decisions and law-making to the experts, ie. to parliamentarians.

Parliament, the government argues, is the best place for open policy discussion and debate; where options can be weighed; where the pros and cons of restrictive measures that may, say, deprive an immigrant of liberty, or impose a mandatory prison sentence on a small-time marijuana dealer can be properly aired and decided.

Courts, and judges, do not have the policy-making apparatus or access to the kinds of social science experts that Parliament has, and should defer to the politicians, the argument goes.

Except, now, increasingly, the politicians tell us we should just trust them.

No need for lengthy committee hearings. Reporters are told federal lawyers have “assured” ministers that proposed legislation is “Charter-compliant” – or will withstand a test in the courts.

And of course, those legal opinions – as advice to ministers – are not available to the public. They are protected as cabinet confidences, and not accessible to journalists under Access to Information laws.

And guess what, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently bolstered the government’s ability to keep its secrets in minister’s offices.

So, what are we left with?

Justice in Jig Time.

 

 

 

More on the pranksters behind the pranks: Q&A with LulzRaft

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

On Wednesday I requested an interview with the person or people behind LulzRaft, the Twitter account where alleged hackers claimed responsibility for infiltrating the Conservative Party of Canada website and posting a fake press release about Prime Minister Stephen Harper being rushed to hospital after choking on a hash brown. They subsequently posted a list of names and email addresses they said belonged to Conservative party contributors online.

Wednesday night they replied via email to say they do not do telephone interviews and invited me to send questions instead.

In case you are interested in learning more about the pranksters behind the pranks, here is my short email Q & A with LulzRaft:

1. Why the Conservative party website?

We stumbled across the vulnerability, and realized the potential for lulz. There is no political motivation, nor are we associated with any other group.

2. What was your intent?

Our only intent with this one was to spread lulz. We made sure the article had some holes in it as not to alarm anyone...we just had no idea the media would jump on it so fast without checking facts.

3. Are you Canadian?

For the sake of anonymity, we aren't able to reveal any information about ourselves.

4. Was there anything in particular about the CPC website that made it an easier target?

The vulnerability on the conservative website was rudimentary to say the least. It should never have existed on a site of this size and caliber, and says a lot about their protection of peoples information.

5. What next?

There will definetly be more to follow, but we aren't yet sure where the lulzraft will go. Maybe we'll retreat back down south for a bit.

 

When listening (really listening), is all it takes.

Posted by Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau

UPDATE: A spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the department is still investigating, but so far it looks like the Canadian Embassy in Paris (which processes medical examination results for the region including Ghana and Nigeria), had technical difficulties uploading the results.

"We’re still investigating what happened, but so far it appears to be an isolated incident, which originated as a technical problem with uploading the medical results in the computer system," spokeswoman Nancy Caron said in an interview Monday (June 6) after once again apologizing for the errors. "So now the mission in Accra is working with the mission in Paris, which handles the medical examinations for the region, to determine the cause of the issue and prevent it from happening again.”

Caron would not comment on why Ekpunobi received the questionnaire about drinking problems.

"It is (a) very personal health question and I would really feel uncomfortable to do that," said Caron, although the couple in question believe the questionnaire was also sent in error.

***

It's always nice for a journalist to hear when a story she was covering ends well for everyone involved.

Two weeks ago I started looking into the case of a Nigerian couple who have been kept apart since they were married in September 2009 because the federal government made a series of costly mistakes while processing their visa application.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada apologized for the errors after my inquiries prompted officials to take a closer look at the case.

On Monday I got a call from the husband, Gideon Christian, who was giddy with the good news that his wife, Isabella Chinelo Ekpunobi, had finally received her visa to join him in Canada when she arrived at the High Commission in Accra, Ghana.

"I am so happy," he said over and over again as he laughed into the telephone.

Ekpunobi is going to hand in her resignation from her job as an in-house lawyer at the Nigerian Television Authority and then join her husband in Ottawa, where he is doing his doctoral studies in law -- something he had seriously thought about abandoning this summer so he could return to Nigeria to get on with his marriage.

The couple hopes to be reunited on Canada Day.

Gideon thanked me personally for helping them out, which something that is always strange for a journalist to hear. I didn't really do anything to help them. I just asked a bunch of questions and wrote down the answers in a way that made for an interesting story.

But really, sometimes that is all the help someone needs when they are up against a faceless bureaucracy that notes their concerns but doesn't really listen or take a step back to notice that something is terribly wrong.

The backlog of unresolved immigration cases is huge. There are an unknown number of stories like the one I told about Gideon and Isabella and yes, it does seem unfair that their case gets resolved so quickly (if nearly 21 months instead of the eight they were told it would take can be considered "quick") just because a reporter starts nosing around.

It would be impossible for every would-be immigrant to Canada to plead their case to the media in this way (and many who do see no quick results anyway). The staff in the office of Liberal MP Mauril Belanger (Ottawa-Vanier) had been making calls on this particular case for months with little progress, even though emails went through the office of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

But maybe if government officials (both in Ottawa and embassies around the world) tried a little harder to treat case numbers as individual people who deserve to be listened to and given a serious answer when they ask a serious question (such as: "Why are we being asked for medical tests three different times when your own file notes the first request was sent in error?") there would be more stories that end well.

 

Well, well, look what the mail brought in.

-posted by Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa bureau

Just one week after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against broader access to documents held in federal ministers' offices, but warned (somewhat futilely I imagine) the government against burying documents in the "black hole" of ministerial offices, I got a letter in the mail.

It's from Jaye Jarvis, the Canadian Heritage department's access to information coordinator in response to a request I made in 2008.

Yes, you read that right. 2008.

That would be nearly three years ago.

I requested "all records related to the 'independent analysis' referred to by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a Sept. 29, 2008 news conference that he said supported the decision to cut arts program funding."

Perhaps you remember that policy move prior to the campaign? Harper had cut funding for about seven different programs that critics said made it more difficult for Canadian musicians, composers, artists and filmmakers to compete in the international marketplace.

It dogged Harper during the 2008 campaign, especially in Quebec, and eventually prompted the infamous dismissal of artists as whingers. Let's jog our memories with the actual 2008 quote.

"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people," Harper said in Saskatoon.

My request for the analysis that supported the decision, that the PM publicly relied upon in a news conference to justify the cuts, has been flatly turned down.

Not even a redacted version of any document has been released.

Just a one-page letter with a one-line explanation from the ATI coordinator which says the information has been denied on the basis it is considered a cabinet confidence under two different exclusions (I guess I get to take my pick?)

The first one Jarvis cites is that the purpose of the information sought was to "brief ministers" in relation to matters that "are before, or are proposed to be brought before" cabinet or are "the subject of communications or discussions" between ministers relating to the formulation of government policy.

The second one is a sweeping exclusion that would appear to bar everything under the sun.

Ok, well, perhaps I exaggerate. Judge for yourself.

It's a section of the act that withholds records that have information about information contained in other records under a class of records that might refer to memoranda, discussion papers, background explanations, analyses of problems or policy options, agenda of cabinet or minutes or records that reflect the communications or discussions between ministers, or which are used to brief ministers, or draft legislation.

Officially, my request may have fallen under the section (e) in that list which is "records the purpose of which is to brief minister of the Crown in relation to matters that are before or are proposed to be brought before (cabinet) or that are the subject of communications or discussions" previously referred to.

Eye-glazing, isn't it.

I think it's meant to be.

In any event, here we are two election campaigns later, under a majority Harper government, and we are no closer to knowing the policy basis for decisions long ago taken.

Well, at least now, the government has the Supreme Court ruling on its side.