June 25, 2012 - No. 95

In the Parliament

House of Commons Adjourns for Summer

 

In the Parliament
• House of Commons Adjourns for Summer - Pauline Easton

Omnibus Budget Implementation Act
• Harper Dictatorship Forces Budget Bill Through Senate
• "Other Measures" Section of Budget Bill

In the Parliament

House of Commons Adjourns for Summer

- Pauline Easton -

On June 21, The House of Commons adjourned for the summer. The House is scheduled to resume its 41st session on September 17.

This sitting of the 41st session began on January 30, 2012 following ominous statements by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Davos, Switzerland that his government would bring forward "major transformations." And this is indeed what took place. The Harper government used its phony majority in the Parliament to pass several draconian pieces of legislation which firmly put private interests in command of the public authority.

To do this, the Harper Government has adopted a new raison d'etat where the destruction of the public authority and Parliamentary Rule of Law are justified in the name of national security.

A main feature of all the new laws passed by the phony Harper majority government is that arbitrary ministerial prerogative powers are no longer to be circumscribed by Parliament or exercised in a manner which is answerable to Parliament. This means that the very notion of a parliamentary democracy representing Rule of Law is discarded.

To have Rule of Law, the Parliament must be seen to represent the legal form of the popular will. In Canada this is no longer the case. There are serious questions surrounding the legitimacy of the election of the Harper majority government. To use a suspect majority government to pass legislation does not confer it with legitimacy. The fact that the Harper majority was garnered in what is increasingly being shown to have been an electoral coup, shows the serious situation Canadians face.

Not only has Harper used this suspect majority to throw overboard Parliament's legislative powers in favour of unlimited use of prerogative powers of the first minister and other ministers appointed by him, but he has also filled the Senate with like-minded appointees and is doing the same at the level of the Federal High Court and the Supreme Court.

This further underscores the gravity of the situation facing the polity as a result of the political and constitutional crises in which the government and so-called democratic institutions are mired. All of it means that right in front of everyone, a form of legal coup d'etat has taken place, all duly adopted by the Parliament to give the appearance of legitimacy. It is the most serious anti-social, anti-worker, anti-immigrant and warmongering nation-wrecking in the history of the country.

In this regard, this session of the 41st Parliament of Canada opened with the passage by the Senate of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the Harper government's omnibus crime bill, and has come to an end with the passage by the House of Commons and soon the Senate of the omnibus budget implementation act, Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act.

On the last day of sitting, Harper flaunted the ability of his dictatorship to ram through all manner of anti-social, anti-national nation-wrecking measures by once again denigrating the Opposition. The Prime Minister responded to a question from NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair concerning what was achieved in the spring sitting of Parliament by stating: "Mr. Speaker, we just had one of the most legislatively productive periods, and the NDP members, by deciding they will oppose everything and filibuster everything, have proven themselves to be the least influential opposition in terms of legislative agenda in the history of this Parliament.

"Canadians elected us to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is what we are doing. That is why the Canadian economy continues to have superior performance," Harper said.

"Jobs, growth and long-term prosperity" is precisely what the Harper government is not addressing. These are simply pretexts to put private interests in command of all public decision-making and institutions at a very rapid rate.

In the opinion of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), it is necessary to pay serious attention to the developments, grasp their significance by discussing their implications amongst one's peers and elaborate what must be done to prepare for the dangers the Harper government has created.

Omnibus Budget Implementation Act

Harper Dictatorship Forces Budget Bill
Through Senate

On June 20 the Senate began its formal consideration of the omnibus budget legislation, Bill C-38 Omnibus Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, following its passage by the House of Commons. Revealing that the Harper dictatorship will block any attempts to delay the legislation's passage, the day debate began in the Senate, Claude Carignan, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate gave notice that at the next sitting his government would table a motion limiting debate to six hours at second reading. The Harper dictatorship in the Senate also passed a motion to permit the Senate Standing Committee on Finance to begin studying the legislation while the Senate is sitting, all in order to ensure that the nation-wrecking legislation passes on schedule. Clearly it is not a schedule based on involving Canadians in deciding what happens to their country, but rather one based on the interests of those the Harper dictatorship serves.

During debate, Liberal Senator Joseph A. Day, the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance which has been carrying out a pre-study of the legislation, explained how the committee has been carrying out its work under the circumstances and raised a number of concerns about the omnibus legislation.

He began by expressing frustration with the size of the legislation: "Honourable senators, the size of this bill is horrendous, and that is part of the problem. I would like to talk a little bit about the process that we elected to follow so that honourable senators will understand where we have been in relation to this particular matter, within the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and just how we decided on the best way to handle this particular bill, with 425 pages of extensive amendments."

He then went on to explain how the pre-study was carried out and some of the concerns with the way all manner of things were crammed into the "Other Measures" section of the omnibus legislation:

"It would have been nice if the executive had shown the same respect to us as parliamentarians, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate, in giving us a bill that could be dealt with as a budget implementation bill as opposed to a bill. As is stated in the preamble to and description of the bill, this is Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures.

"It is the 'and other measures' that we spent countless hours on, honourable senators, and it is the 'and other measures' that caused us to deviate from the traditional way of dealing with fiscal measures in a budget implementation bill. That is one of the concerns that we had, " he said.

He then explained the areas dealt with by various Standing Senate Committees. The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources looked into Part III of the legislation entitled: Responsible Resource Development. The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce was asked to look into "five or six different divisions that relate primarily to the types of areas in which they have developed an internal expertise." While the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence looked into Division 12 of Part IV, which creates An Act to Implement a Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, also known as the Shiprider agreement. Raising concerns about this particular part of the omnibus bill, Day stated: "The same stand-alone bill was picked up and stuck into Bill C-38. It did not get through the last two times because of prorogation. That was through no fault of Parliament but was an executive decision. Now, they put it in a bill about budget implementation and say, 'We will get it in this way because we will just say that this is budget implementation and has to be passed.' That is the cynical part of putting that kind of subject matter into budget implementation. It dealt with Shiprider legislation, legislation that allowed for policing on nautical borders between Canada and the U.S. and policing across those borders, which are not evident when you are on, for example, the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence River. It is reasonable legislation; it is unreasonable to ask a committee to deal with this as part of a budget implementation bill. The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications dealt with another aspect of the bill, and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology looked into another aspect. Five different committees in addition to the Finance Committee were requested to study Bill C-38."

He ended by pointing out that this was the first time that the Senate had carried out such a pre-study and that each committee will submit a report on its study to the Standing Committee on National Finance when it begins its study of the omnibus legislation.

"Other Measures" Section of Budget Bill

Prior to the House of Commons passing Bill C-38, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence studied An Act to Implement a Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, also known as the Shiprider agreement which is contained in the infamous "other measures" section of omnibus budget Bill C-38. The Act would permit the RCMP to designate officers from the U.S., giving them the authority to enforce Canadian laws in Canada as part of an "integrated cross-border operation," on vessels crewed jointly by designated officers from Canada and the United States "in undisputed areas of the sea or internal waters along the international boundary between Canada and the United States."

In the House of Commons Committee Study it was revealed that by passing the Act the Harper government is implementing a treaty it signed with the U.S. government in 2009.

The following exchange between NDP MP Guy Caron and Michael Zigayer, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section at the Department of Justice, explains how the Harper government has attempted to have the matter passed in previous Parliaments and that certain measures of the treaty will be enacted in other pieces of legislation to be passed in the future.

Caron: [...] To begin, Mr. Zigayer, Mr. Bolton and Mrs. Glover, welcome again. As far as I remember, when we asked you questions the first time, you mentioned that the treaty had been signed some time ago, a few years, and that some attempts had been made to put it into law, whether it was through the Senate or the House of Commons.

Approximately how long ago was that? For how long has there already been at least a rough draft of the bill prepared already?

Zigayer: The treaty was signed in 2009.

Caron: Yes.

Zigayer: It was Bill C-60 that was subsequently tabled. I seem to think that a prorogation occurred just before that.

Caron: That was in 2009.

Zigayer: Then we were at the stage of completing the study of Bill S-13 in the Senate when there was the election last year.

Caron: Thank you very much. You say that Bill C-60 came first?

Zigayer: First came Bill C-60, then came Bill S-13.

Caron: Do you think the provisions in bills S-13 and C-60 are much like what is in division 12 of the bill?

Zigayer: The essentials dealing with enforcing the treaty with the Americans is there, but a few changes were made here and there, and a big change was made in the sense that we removed a large part of Bill C-60 aimed at amending the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

As for how the complaints were handled, that will be included in another bill.

Caron: So what we have here is the spirit of Bills C-60 and S-13, less a part that, it was felt, should be left for another bill.

Zigayer: The spirit is there. Also, the purpose is to implement a treaty that was signed. This needs to reflect this treaty.

***

Conservative MP Shelly Glover outlined the position of the Harper government in the hearings stating that the legislation must be passed in order to meet deadlines established in the Security Perimeter Action Plan signed between the Harper and Obama governments in February of 2011:

"What I do want to say is that there's an agreement in place. Just because new parliamentarians are elected doesn't mean the work of government starts all over again. This is a ridiculous argument we've heard repeatedly. The agreement didn't end. We have an obligation under our perimeter security plan to move forward in a timely fashion. In fact, there is a deadline approaching: summer of 2012. There is a deadline approaching.

"I'd like to ask [...] if you could comment on the deadline that's approaching. What would be the consequence of not delivering on the first deadline?"

Stephen Bolton, Director of Border Law Enforcement Strategies Division for Public Safety Canada confirmed Glover's statements and the threat of a looming deadline with the U.S. government: "I would just say that yes, it is a commitment in the Beyond the Border action plan to ratify the treaty and have legislation there. In terms of the Beyond the Border action plan, there is a desire by both countries to meet the commitments in a timely fashion."

During debate, the NDP's position was that the Shiprider agreement was a reasonable arrangement, however it was not appropriate for it to be included in the omnibus legislation. NDP MP Peggy Nash put it this way: "While we believe that the notion is important that an agreement deal with common border issues such as illicit trade, trafficking, smuggling, terrorism, counterfeit goods, etc., it shouldn't be before the finance committee, and we really need to have more discussion and review and more information. So we won't be supporting it at this time."

The Liberal Party gave a similar position. Liberal MP Scott Brison stated: "It's not enough to say that we considered these in previous parliaments. The people spoke in the last election, much to my chagrin in some ways, but the reality is that a different Parliament was chosen by the Canadian people, and as such this Parliament -- the current members of Parliament of all parties -- has a responsibility to ensure full oversight. I think this is not enough, and that we ought to have engaged and enabled the members of the current Parliament to have more time as they do their jobs at the appropriate committees and to provide oversight on these legislative changes."

Hearings by Senate Standing Committee

On May 14, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence held hearings into the Shiprider agreement. Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews addressed the committee responding to the legitimate concerns of Canadians that the arrangement was a violation of Canadian sovereignty and meant U.S. troops would enforce Canadian laws. He responded by trying to claim that the arrangement was not a violation of sovereignty because it would only allow U.S. troops to enforce Canadian laws in Canadian waters, according to Canadian laws. In other words, because American troops would be subject to Canadian law, there is some measure of accountability for Canadians if their rights are violated. He also tried to disinform Canadians by trying to cover up that plans are already in the works for U.S. security forces to operate on land, and already at many different levels of Canada's security and military apparatus, U.S. officials are operating, and even directing Canadian forces.

Toews stated: "I am shocked and surprised that members of the media would misquote what goes on in these proceedings; but I learn new things every day, I guess."

He claimed that Shiprider was an important arrangement required to protect "our safety and security."

He then addressed concerns about sovereignty stating: "I will be clear on one point: There is no challenge to our national sovereignty because the laws of Canada will apply to all designated law enforcement officials when they are in Canada. This is about sending a strong message that cross-border crime will not be tolerated."

The fact that U.S. security officials operating abroad are typically shielded from any form of prosecution was not addressed by Toews.

He added: "I would like to again underscore that Shiprider will be conducted with full respect to the domestic sovereignty of both Canada and the United States. This is how all Shiprider pilot projects were carried out, and nothing would change moving forward. For example, when operations take place in Canada, they are conducted under the control and direction of Canadian law enforcement and subject to Canadian laws, policies and procedures. If operations occur in the United States the reverse is true, with American officials taking the lead.

"Canadians can rest assured that this legislation in no way compromises our traditional values or our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. The collection and sharing of information in Canada will be governed by Canadian law, including privacy protections."

Thus, Canadians are to give up their concerns about the violation of their national sovereignty because the violation of their privacy and other civil rights will be carried out under the watchful eye of the King Harper government and its Minister of Public Safety, all according to Canadian law.

He went further, addressing the issue of accountability for the violation of Canadians individual rights: "We have also taken concrete measures to ensure proper oversight and accountability. As such, all Shiprider operations within Canadian jurisdiction would be subject to a public complaints process that largely mirrors that which is currently in place for the RCMP."

This is a ridiculous statement given that Canadians cannot even hold their own police and government agencies accountable for violating their rights, as evidenced by the widespread violation of rights at the G20 carried out with impunity by the Canadian state.

Furthermore, Toews' claims that U.S. agents will be held accountable by Canadian law raises more questions than answers. Why can't Canadian security forces enforce Canadian law? Why are U.S. forces required in Canada? What has changed in terms of "cross-border crime" which requires the movement of U.S. agents into Canada? Why don't the established arrangements such as extradition or other measures suffice? None of these questions are addressed. Instead Toews repeats the mantra that everything the Harper government does is for the safety and security of Canadians.

He closed by outlining differences between the current legislation and legislation concerning Shiprider tabled in previous Parliaments:

"First, we have added a new principle underlining that integrated cross-border law enforcement operations must 'be conducted as directed by a designated officer from the host country.' This new provision will further ensure that Canada's sovereignty is respected by stipulating that direction of all operations rest with Canadian law enforcement officials.

"Second, we have enhanced public oversight by expanding our intake points for public complaints to include RCMP officers. This remains consistent with the 'no wrong door' approach to the receipt of complaints and is in line with existing provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act."

Concluding his remarks Toews actually re-affirmed that the Shiprider arrangement would be the basis for future widespread integration with the U.S. security apparatus, the same concerns he sought to address in his opening. He cited the arrangement as the new model for future integration. "In conclusion, let me stress that by cooperating with our American counterparts on important issues of national security, we are telling criminals that exploitation of the shared border will not be tolerated. In order to ensure the flow of legitimate trade and travel across the border, it is crucial that we take the necessary steps to effectively combat illegal activity at and across the shared border. Shiprider is the way of the future and represents a new approach to how we work with our American partners. In fact, it is a proven approach that will increase the safety and security of Canadians."

"I would ask all honourable senators to support the rapid passage of the proposed act to ensure the continued prosperity, safety and security of Canadians."

During the Senate Committee hearings other details of the Shiprider arrangement were revealed. Issues raised included: how the arrangement will work in practice, the difference between the Canadian and U.S. resources being utilized, the role of U.S. aerial surveillance in Canada and the integration of various First Nations police into the arrangement.

Conservative Senator Donald Plett asked how Shiprider would work in practice: "Mr. Minister, I think you have answered part of this, but I would like you to walk me through, if you would, the boat, whether it is a Coast Guard vessel or an RCMP one. Let us say it is the Coast Guard, and they chase somebody from the American side but stop them on the Canadian side of the border. They make their arrest and charge them. Could you walk me through what happens at that time? They have been charged. They take them to the dock on the Canadian side. That is where they have arrested them. What happens at that point? Does the whole operation continue together? Where does it go from there?"

Marc Taschereau, Chief, Border Strategies, Border Law Enforcement Strategies Division, Public Safety Canada replied: "Senator, to answer your question, if they are charged in Canadian jurisdiction, they would be processed based on Canadian law and prosecuted here in Canada based on the offence that took place in Canada. That is essentially the process that would take place." Toews then added: "If the offence is committed in the United States, they would not be charged. They would be detained on the Canadian side and extradition proceedings would take place as a result of Americans charging the individual in the United States and then filing the appropriate documents for extradition."

The following exchange took place addressing the difference between the Canadian and U.S. resourcing of the arrangement:

Senator Elizabeth Hubley (Liberal): [...] You said that each side will need training in law. In what other areas will there be need? Will extra equipment be needed for this operation? Will there be expenses involved in that?

Mr. Toews: We do not anticipate this costing the police services any more money, but there will obviously be training.

Mr. Taschereau: This is enabling legislation, so in and of itself there are no costs. It is a model. The nice thing about this model is that it allows the RCMP and the United States Coast Guard to better leverage their resources. Even if we do not add new personnel or vessels, we can make better use of our resources. It is a force multiplier.

Senator Hubley: Do Canada's resources match the American resources? Will we be fine with what we have?

Mr. Taschereau: When Mr. Oliver was here the other day he said that the RCMP currently has 400 vessels, four of which are specifically dedicated to Shiprider. That does not compare to the United States Coast Guard. They have many more resources than we do, and that is true in all the border agencies.

Notwithstanding, this will enable us to use our fewer resources more effectively. While there is no set ratio here, there would generally be one RCMP vessel and one USCG vessel working collaboratively in our shared waterways.

***

The following exchange dealt with the role of aerial surveillance:

Senator Fabian Manning (Conservative): I know we had a discussion at earlier meetings concerning the land component to the legislation. Minister, you touched on the term "hot pursuit"; that is, that officers can go on to the land as long as they are in hot pursuit.

In regard to aerial surveillance, which is I am sure an ongoing activity, are there any provisions here that authorize aerial surveillance? Has that been taken into consideration? In regard to flights over our jurisdiction from the U.S. or theirs, is there anything in the legislation that touches on that or is that addressed in any way? Do you anticipate that happening?

Mr. Toews: This does not authorize any over-flights of Canadian soil by American airplanes, or drones, or others. Obviously, if you have a drone on the American side, they have the ability to look into Canada. I think there have been some media reports about that. There is some drone activity along the Canada-U.S. border by the Americans. That is public knowledge.

What I see as important is the coordination of those types of resources in order for individuals to work better together, but I do not see this in any way authorizing the intrusion of American equipment into Canada, other than the marine context.

***

The following exchange addressed the integration of First Nations police forces into the Shiprider arrangement

Senator Roméo Dallaire (Liberal): [...] The Aboriginal police -- and I am not sure if we can use the term "Aboriginal waters," but we are into waters that are along the shores of Aboriginal territory -- are not involved in this exercise.

Minister Toews: I do not see anything excluding Aboriginal and First Nations police forces from being involved in this. In the same way that we would make agreements with the Ontario Provincial Police or the QPP, I do not see any bar to incorporating the resources from some of the First Nations communities. As you know, some of the cross-border smuggling has involved these communities. Some of those officers may be in the best position to know the terrain, know the river, know the lake and therefore cooperate, but they would have to go through the same training that any other Canadian officer would have to go through.

Senator Dallaire: So they meet the standard of that.

Mr. Taschereau: In Akwesasne, the police have been trained. A couple of them have been trained in the Shiprider context; they have taken the courses. We actively contemplate the participation of not just the OPP or other municipal law enforcement partners but Aboriginal police associations as well.

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca