Pensions of 16,000 workers, retirees at stake in court battle

Local Journalism Initiative
Mon, May 6, 2024 

Union lawyers grilled a pension expert in a New Brunswick court on Friday, part of a bigger battle to overturn a law passed by the Higgs Progressive Conservative government to convert the retirement plans of 16,000 public workers and retirees to something cheaper for taxpayers.

Joseph Nunes, the executive chairman and founder of Actuarial Solutions in southern Ontario, was hired by the Tory government to file a report and act as an expert witness in service of the Court of King’s Bench, which is hearing an injunction filed by Canadian Union of Public Employees, better known as CUPE.

The actuary appeared in the rural courtroom of Burton outside the capital of Fredericton on the third day of the hearing after listening to another pension plan adviser from British Columbia who appeared as an expert witness at the request of the union, which represents the workers.

The atmosphere was charged from the get-go. CUPE’s lead lawyer, Peter Engelmann, of the Ottawa law firm Goldblatt Partners, tried to portray Nunes as being fervently against defined-benefit plans, the very kind of retirement scheme the Higgs government was trying to abolish.

Nunes is a prolific writer and blogger who’s posted scores of articles on pension plans over the last two decades. The lawyer said there was plenty of his writing, publicly available, to suggest he didn’t like the traditional plans that have secured the retirement of millions of Canadians.

“I don’t agree,” Nunes fired back. “I’m opposed to the non-transparent pricing of such plans that will transfer costs to future generations.”

Engelmann was persistent in his line of questioning, citing and quoting the expert’s writings, one as recently as last spring on a LinkedIn post.

“You’ve said that taxpayers are exhausted with overly generous pension plans.”

Leaning forward in his chair from the witness stand, Nunes remonstrated with his hands.

“You’re not listening. I’m not objecting to government defined-benefit plans. I’m against the lack of transparency of the cost of these plans.”

The testy exchange between the expert and the lawyer was interrupted close to a dozen times by lawyers representing the provincial government.

Both Josie Marks and Stephen Hutchinson of the law firm Stewart McKelvey in New Brunswick raised a stream of objections that the union team was doing an improper examination of Nunes’ report and trying to add new, previously undisclosed evidence to the proceedings.

The union lawyers shot back that the other side was trying to eat up their cross-examination time by raising so many petty objections.

Keeping a perfect poker face, Justice Ivan Robichaud said he’d rule on the objections when the case resumes Thursday.

CUPE, one of the province’s biggest unions and a sworn enemy of the Higgs government, is seeking an injunction to stop a new law the Tories passed in December to convert the pension plans of the members and former members of three of its groups. Those 16,000 workers and retirees do or did everything from driving kids on school buses, to cleaning washrooms, to changing diapers at nursing homes.

The emergency measure, if granted by the judge, would buy the union time as it seeks another court challenge. CUPE says the new law violates the workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is suing in the same court, a case expected to take months, if not years.

Premier Blaine Higgs has warned that the existing pensions are at risk of failure. He also argues taxpayers can’t continue to bail them out for millions of dollars every year. As the plan sponsor, the government is on the hook for any shortfalls, unless it goes bankrupt.

Set up decades ago, the schemes were designed in an era when pensioners didn’t live as long and didn’t draw as many years of retirement income. Instead, the government wants to convert them to shared-risk plans.

As the name suggests, costs for shoring up the pension would be borne equally between the government and contributors. Such jointly-sponsored plans are also nimbler when changes need to be made to ensure the retirement funds are more sustainable, such as tweaking indexing benefits.

During the courtroom battle on Friday, Nunes said he had a problem with the terminology used in pension circles because there were so many variations of different retirement schemes bandied about. He said people were getting lost in the different titles, such as defined-benefit plan, shared-risk plan, target-benefit plan, jointly sponsored plan, and variations within those categories.

Nunes argued that it was crucial for plan sponsors to properly communicate with members about how the various schemes work.

“We need to focus on the actual details of the plan, rather than get hung up on terminology that can be misleading,” said the actuary with more than 30 years’ experience.

Later Friday afternoon, much of the courtroom time was gobbled up by arguments between the two sides over whether five affidavits filed by CUPE – four from workers and one from a labour leader Sandy Harding, who’d negotiated with the government on the pension – were admissible or should be struck in full or in part from the evidence.

The government lawyers argued the workers’ concerns were mostly hearsay and not based on any real factual evidence, such as school bus driver Lois Daigle, who said she’d retired within a week of getting notice from the province that her retirement scheme was about to change because she was worried she’d be forced to work longer, to the age of 65.

The CUPE lawyers countered that without such written evidence under oath, there was little proof of the immediate, hurtful impact of the new law. Workers and retirees, they said, were changing when they retire, avoiding major purchases or trips, and considering second jobs because of the conversion.

The debate over the pension changes has been bitter. Both the union and the Higgs government blamed the other side for a breakdown in talks over the pension impasse last year that culminated in the introduction of the new law.

When the bill was passed on Dec. 12, wild scenes erupted in the legislature. Hundreds of CUPE members and other labour groups, who had packed the public gallery, denounced the Tories, yelling, chanting, and singing. In the wake of the protest, several labour leaders were banned from the legislature grounds for violating rules of decorum.

Immediately afterward, union leaders vowed legal action. The charter challenge is an extension of a legal battle CUPE began years ago after a previous Tory government converted the pension plans of tens of thousands of other public sector workers and retirees in 2014. Higgs was finance minister at the time and the architect of those changes.

Harding, regional director of the Maritimes for CUPE and one of the leaders banned from the legislature, attended court this past week, along with several other union members and retirees.

She told Brunswick News outside the courthouse she was hopeful the judge would grant the injunction, allowing a pause until the charter challenge is heard.

“This is about pensions for nursing home workers, school bus drivers, educational assistants who don’t make a lot of money and now there’s uncertainty over what will happen,” she said.

“Pensions are deferred wages that you paid into. And there’s no ability for us to offset that with collective bargaining in other ways. You have to realize these pension plans have been bargained over for 40, 50 years. So it’s extremely problematic to us the government wants to decide on its own about changing them.”

– with files from Andrew Waugh

John Chilibeck, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Daily Gleaner

Singh tells Conservatives to back off as House prepares for first pharmacare vote

The Canadian Press
Mon, May 6, 2024 



OTTAWA — The Liberals and the New Democrats full-throatedly pledged to stop the Conservatives from blocking their pharmacare legislation in the House of Commons on Monday — even though the two parties have more than enough votes to bypass the Opposition.

Both NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Health Minister Mark Holland gave impassioned speeches about women's freedom and access to birth control.

They accused the Conservatives of trying to deny that access to Canadian women.


Their parties carefully negotiated the bill as part of a political pact to prevent an early election, and together planned a program that will cover select contraceptive and diabetes medications and supplies.

Conservative health critic Stephen Ellis tabled an amendment to the bill last month that, if approved by Parliament, would effectively quash the proposed law.

The program will do nothing to address the health-care crisis, he argued, and instead offers an inferior drug plan that covers less, costs more and builds up a massive new bureaucracy.

The amendment is expected to be easily defeated by government and New Democrat MPs.

"Will the government support us in stopping the Conservatives from denying nine million Canadians free birth control?" Singh asked Holland during a question period exchange Monday,

Holland responded by accusing the Conservatives of standing in the way of basic freedom for women in Canada.

"I will say to the Conservative Party of Canada: stop blocking this so that women can get the reproductive aids they need to have control over their reproductive futures," Holland said.

The Liberals and the NDP voted to put a five-hour time limit on debate Monday before the House votes on the bill at a later date.

The Conservatives, in a statement, said the bill shouldn't be passed without proper debate and scrutiny.

"This is yet another empty Trudeau promise, which does not in fact provide the pharmacare they claimed it would and which instead threatens the existing insurance plans that millions of Canadians have through their employers, unions, and other providers," the party statement read.

Much as the Liberals and NDP tried to conjure fears about the Tories' plans, how the official Opposition votes is not expected to alter the bill's trajectory.

The tough talk began over the weekend, when Singh penned a letter to Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the motion, citing the cost-of-living crisis.

"Nearly one in four Canadians have reported splitting pills, skipping doses or deciding to not fill or renew vital prescription medications due to their high costs," he wrote.

In social-media posts, Singh framed the letter as an ultimatum. "He can withdraw or we'll stop him," Singh posted on X earlier Monday.

NDP health critic Peter Julian put forward a motion in the House on Monday to call on the Conservatives to withdraw their amendment, but the Tories declined.

The Conservatives have argued the vast majority of Canadians already have some form of drug coverage and the party's statement on Monday called Singh's claims "false and ridiculous."

"If Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh are looking for someone to blame for Canadians being unable to afford medications and everyday necessities then they should look at the policies of their costly coalition which have made the cost of everything more expensive across this country."

Ellis also criticized the list of drugs that would be covered under the program, and charged the government with failing to consult with anyone except the NDP about what medications should be included.

"It is rife with older medications, with no fees for pharmacists," he said during the early stages of debate in the House last month.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2024.

Laura Osman, The Canadian Press



Pharmacare’s design could further fragment and politicize Canada’s health system

Cheryl A. Camillo, University of Regina
Mon, May 6, 2024 

Over the last several decades, prescription drugs have become critical to preventing, managing and treating health conditions, yet Canada’s health-care system has not been updated to ensure that all Canadians can access outpatient medications.

After letting report after report recommending designs for drug programs gather dust, the Government of Canada is finally moving forward with testing “pharmacare” models.

While details about these models are lacking, both seem to entail piecemeal expansion of drug coverage following separate negotiations with each province. As a comparative health systems researcher focusing on Canada and the United States and former director of American public health insurance programs, I believe this approach risks incorporating several negative aspects of the complex and unequal U.S. health insurance system.

Proposed Pharmacare approach

On Feb. 29, federal Health Minister Mark Holland introduced Bill C-64 (Pharmacare Act) in Parliament stating government’s intent “to work with provinces and territories to provide universal, single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications” as a first step toward national universal pharmacare.

In subsequent comments, he referenced a federally-supported pilot project in Prince Edward Island as being under consideration for transfer to the rest of the country. This project “fills in the gaps” by expanding the list of drugs covered by that province’s 26 pre-existing public drug plans while also reducing plan participant co-payments, as being under consideration for transfer to the rest of the country.

While it might seem that how drug coverage develops is a high-level matter for policymakers, the pathway the policy takes might shape how Canadians receive and finance their Medicare benefits in the future. (Shutterstock)

According to the minister’s statements and the legislative text, whichever model the federal government ultimately pursues will be implemented and funded through bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories.

The proposed pharmacare agreements could mirror the three-year Working Together bilateral agreements that the federal government recently struck with each province and territory to support their initiatives in four shared priority areas: family health, the health workforce, mental health and substance abuse, and health information technology.

If that is the case, each pharmacare agreement would authorize a set amount of funding for a set term in support of specific projects to expand coverage of prescription drugs and related products intended for contraception or the treatment of diabetes. It is unclear whether the projects would be initiated solely by the provinces, or whether the federal government would dictate ideas.

Since current provincial drug plans vary widely in the number of drugs and people they cover, the provinces’ projects could also vary widely in scope and cost if the federal government wants all provinces to cover all diabetes drugs and contraceptives and/or provide diabetes drugs and contraceptives to all residents by a set date.

Pharmacare could resemble ObamaCare

Pharmacare implementation could end up resembling that of the Affordable Care Act, known as “ObamaCare” — the statute enacted by former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2010 to expand public health insurance coverage, which many Canadians are familiar with due to widespread reporting of its rocky implementation.

More than 10 years after the Act’s initial deadline for all states to expand Medicaid coverage to low-income families, 10 states still have not done so, in some cases because they are insisting that the federal government fund 100 per cent of the costs in perpetuity and/or permit them to alter the coverage criteria. Some states are still engaged in legal proceedings against the federal government.

Meanwhile, millions of eligible Americans are not enrolled because they cannot understand or navigate the application process. Those who did receive coverage cannot carry it from state to state.

Just a decade ago it would have been unimaginable for Canadians to believe that their health insurance system could experience the ideological conflict and inaccessibility characteristic of the American system, but several developments have made it possible.

Seven of the 10 provincial premiers are conservatives who increasingly challenge Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal government on ideological and partisan grounds, often fostering popular resentment against policies perceived to favour certain provinces. Several have challenged Health Canada by promoting private pay for medical imaging, surgeries and even clinical care in contravention of the Canada Health Act.

In addition, the federal government has demonstrated a new preference for rolling out new benefits incrementally in order to minimize their fiscal impact. It recently created a new dental care plan for seniors to fill another gap in Medicare services, with eligibility criteria and a provider recruitment strategy similar to that of the U.S. Medicaid program. It is proving to be unpopular with seniors and dentists due in part to the paperwork burdens it imposes upon them.

Preserving Medicare

Medicare has long been the pride of Canada and envy of other countries because its design requiring each province and territory to insure essentially the same services for all persons, including those moving from other provinces, has made it straightforward, efficient and fair to navigate.

It is worthwhile for Canadians to follow the pharmacare debate. While it might seem that how drug coverage develops is a high-level matter for policymakers, the pathway the policy takes might shape how Canadians receive and finance their Medicare benefits in the future.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Cheryl A. Camillo, University of Regina

Read more:

Why access to free prescription contraception is a crucial component of a national pharmacare program for Canada

With a pharmacare bill on the horizon, Big Pharma’s attack on single-payer drug coverage for Canadians needs a fact check

Will the supply-and-confidence deal between the Liberals and NDP survive in 2024?

Pierre Poilievre called lobbyists 'utterly useless,' but they're still attending his fundraisers

CBC
Tue, May 7, 2024 

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a rally in Ottawa, on Sunday, March 24, 2024. A CBC News analysis shows Poilievre has headlined roughly 50 fundraisers at private venues since becoming Conservative leader in 2022. A party spokesperson says Poilievre is available at events across the country and there's no need to attend a fundraiser to get access to him. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press - image credit)More


As Pierre Poilievre presents himself as both a prime minister in waiting and a champion of "the working-class people," he's headlined roughly 50 fundraisers at private venues since becoming Conservative leader in 2022 — some of them in Canada's wealthiest neighbourhoods and most exclusive clubs.

A CBC News analysis of fundraising reports the Conservatives submitted to Elections Canada show these fundraisers have attracted dozens of registered federal lobbyists who paid up to $1,725 each to attend events featuring Poilievre.

Business executives — including a billionaire oil tycoon, an airline executive and a vice president at AtkinsRéalis, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin — are on the lists of attendees.

These fundraisers are legal and have a long history in Canadian politics. In a statement issued to CBC News, a Conservative Party spokesperson said Poilievre makes himself available at events across the country and there's no need to attend a fundraiser to get access to him.

But such fundraisers have led to media scrutiny and opposition criticism in the past — some of it coming from Poilievre.

Poilievre has criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his fundraising events in the past. He described one event in 2019 as a "$1,500 ticket fundraiser where he was speaking to a bunch of well-connected Liberal lobbyists and wealthy donors."

Last Friday, Poilievre published an opinion piece in the National Post calling on corporate Canada to fire its lobbyists, describing them as "useless and overpaid."

Poilievre criticized lobbyists in the article, saying the only way "any business lobby has born fruit" has been through "undue handouts, privileges and protections" that "Justin Trudeau has been all too willing to grant." He said businesses will "get nothing from me unless they convince the people first."

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre addresses the national Conservative caucus on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. The Conservative Party of Canada raised more than $35 million during Pierre Poilievre's first full year as leader — and the federal Liberals brought in less than half that amount.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre addresses the national Conservative caucus on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Sunday, Jan. 28, 2024. The Conservative Party of Canada raised more than $35 million during Pierre Poilievre's first full year as leader — and the federal Liberals brought in less than half that amount. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

The Liberal Party's fundraising practices came under scrutiny in 2016 when the Globe and Mail revealed Prime Minister Trudeau attended a fundraiser with a Chinese businessman who went on to donate $200,000 to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

To ward off claims the Liberals were giving wealthy donors preferential access to Trudeau and his cabinet, the party changed its policy in 2017 to limit these events to publicly available spaces and to allow journalists access.

The government also changed the law in 2018 to require that parties make these fundraisers more transparent by posting online notices in advance and reporting details, including lists of attendees, to Elections Canada.

The Conservatives said they were "concerned" about the bill earlier that year and later voted against it. Then-finance critic Gérard Deltell said these fundraisers were "unethical" and would legalize what he called "cash-for-access, or paying to get access to decision-makers."

Poilievre calls lobbyists 'utterly useless'

The National Post article is not the first instance of Poilievre accusing business leaders of trying to cozy up to the governing Liberal Party.

In December, Poilievre expressed disdain for Bay Street executives, saying he "almost never" speaks to crowds in downtown Toronto or "anywhere close to Bay Street."

Fundraising records show Poilievre has headlined three fundraisers for the Conservative Party on Bay Street and at least four others in downtown Toronto since 2023.

In March, Poilievre told the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that, rather than speaking to business associations like it, he's appeared at "110 shop floors and five union local facilities." He said his experience with corporate lobbyists in Ottawa has "been that they have been utterly useless in advancing any common sense interests for the people on the ground."

Poilievre said these lobbyists are focused on getting lunches with ministers at the elite Rideau Club atop a downtown Ottawa office tower.

"When I'm prime minister, my obsession — my daily obsession — will be about what is good for the working class people of this country," Polievre said during his speech on March 8.

CBC News examined the lists of attendees on the Conservatives' fundraising reports filed with Elections Canada since Poilievre became leader in September 2022. CBC cross-referenced those lists with names in the federal lobbyist registry, then verified the names of lobbyists directly or through cross-referencing publicly available information.

CBC News found that more than 25 active federal lobbyists have attended these fundraisers since Poilievre became leader in 2022. The names of more than 100 inactive (but still registered) federal lobbyists matched those of listed attendees at these fundraisers during that time frame.

The Breach conducted an analysis in March and reported that out of the 35 Poilievre fundraising events it examined, 29 were attended by at least one lobbyist active in the past several years.

NDP ethics critic Matthew Green said his problem is with the "hypocrisy of Pierre Poilievre." Green accused Poilievre of "cosplaying as a working class guy" while privately attending fundraisers in exclusive clubs "most Canadians would have never heard of."

"This is a guy who is not who he says he is," Green told CBC News. "This is somebody who is the 'elites' that he rails against."

CBC News contacted the Conservative Party and Poilievre's office with questions about the fundraisers.

In an email, the Conservatives accused CBC News of "exposing its bias by investigating Canadians, who are supporting common sense Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and his promise to defund the CBC."

Sarah Fischer, a spokesperson for the Conservative Party, told CBC News in an email that Poilievre makes "himself available across the country at rallies, visiting small businesses, lumber yards and factory floors.

"There's no need to attend a fundraiser to get access to Pierre Poilievre."

Big pharma, an oil 'tycoon' and top Canadian executives

Active lobbyists representing the oil and natural gas company Cenovus, Pharmascience Inc. and the Pembina Pipeline Corporation are among those listed as having attended Poilievre fundraisers.

Other lobbyists from the shipbuilding, energy and pharmaceutical industries confirmed their attendance to CBC News.

Adam Waterous, recently described in a media report as an "investment banker turned oil tycoon," is listed as having attended a Poilievre event with his wife Jan and son Connor, who lobbies, in April 2023 in Banff, Alta., where he owns a ski resort.

Waterous has not yet responded to CBC's request for comment.

Robert Deluce, the founding president and former CEO of Porter Airlines, attended a fundraiser in January 2023, co-organized by Mark Mulroney, the son of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Deluce now serves as the company's executive chairman.

A spokesperson for the airline told CBC News Deluce contributed to the fundraiser "in a personal capacity" and spoke briefly to Poilievre but not about Porter.

Poilievre supports a runway expansion to bring jets to the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto — something Porter has long sought.

Erik Ryan, a vice president at AtkinsRéalis, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin, attended a reception in January with Poilievre and told CBC News he gave a personal contribution. Ryan was involved in a lobbying effort to get a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin from the federal government.

Ian Stedman, an associate professor of public law and governance at York University, said the "public should care about these events and who's there."

"It tells you something about who has privileged access to a politician who might have the ability to affect change or advance policy initiatives," Stedman said.

York University professor Ian Stedman said lobbying is not inherently bad, but exclusive fundraisers create a mechanism for people with more money to get "preferential" access to politicians.

York University professor Ian Stedman said lobbying is not inherently bad, but exclusive fundraisers create a mechanism for people with more money to get "preferential" access to politicians. (Hugo Levesque/CBC)

Stedman said "lobbying is not bad" but "the problem here is that some people get better access and more preferential access than others, and it seems to be because of the money they have."

But Fred DeLorey, the national Conservative campaign manager during the 2021 election, said lobbying at these fundraisers is "unheard of."

DeLorey, who is a lobbyist himself, said it "would be very poor form to try to bend the ear of a leader at a place like that."

Asked whether those attending these fundraisers would get increased access to political leaders, Delorey said no.

There's a strict limit on how much individual Canadians are allowed to give to a federal political party each year. In 2024, the limit is $1,725.

"There's no political influence on cutting a check at that amount to a leader that's trying to govern a G7 country," said DeLorey, who is a partner at NorthStar Public Relations and Government Relations. "It's just not a thing."

Riding high in the polls, the Conservative Party of Canada continues to out-fundraise other parties and broke its own record in the most recent quarter. The party raised more than $10.6 million from more than 51,000 donors between January and March.

About 700 of those donors attended fundraising events with Poilievre — fundraisers which could have collected up to $1 million during that time period. Fischer did not answer when asked how much money the party collected in 2023 and over the first quarter of this year at fundraisers Poilievre headlined.

She said that out of 200,000 contributions, the average donation to the Conservatives was $175.

"Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are choosing to put their hard-earned dollars behind Pierre Poilievre and his mission to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime," she said in an email.

Private clubs

Poilievre has headlined fundraisers at Canada's oldest private club — the Toronto Club — at the members-only Terminal City Club in Vancouver and at the Royal Glenora Club in Edmonton, where the fee for a membership is more than $20,000.

Poilievre has headlined more than 16 fundraisers in private homes since becoming leader, including in one of Montreal's wealthiest neighbourhood — Westmount — and affluent neighbourhoods in the greater Toronto area. Another one is booked for later this week in North York.

One of these "Evenings with Pierre Poilievre in support of the Conservative Party'' took place at a home in Forest Hill South in Toronto, the records show. Two homes are for sale in the same postal code with asking prices of $7.5 million and $16.9 million.

Poilievre also has been touring the country holding public events and fundraisers in local businesses and restaurants.

'Like a town hall meeting'

Yaroslav Baran, co-founder of Pendulum Group and former Conservative director of war room communications under prime minister Stephen Harper, said there's a "mythology" around these fundraisers that doesn't reflect reality.

"People picture cigars, brandy snifters and mahogany furniture," said Baran who ran communications for the Conservative Party during the 2022 leadership race.

"It's really a lot like a town hall meeting … except it's a closed event. You need to buy a ticket to get in. It usually consists of a mini speech, a stump speech by the featured speaker."

Baran said what follows after that is "an endless stream of grip-and-grin" photos, where the headlining politician shakes hands, smiles for the camera and then moves on to the next person with about two or three seconds to exchange a few words.

"The idea of being able to have any kind of a prolonged, deep policy conversation to, you know, sway somebody, it's just laughable," he said.

Yaroslav Baran, a former director of war room communications under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said there's an inaccurate "mythology" to private fundraising events, but that they typically involve shaking hands with the guest of honour and listening to a stump speech.

Yaroslav Baran, a former director of war room communications under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said there's an inaccurate "mythology" to private fundraising events, but that they typically involve shaking hands with the guest of honour and listening to a stump speech. (Pierre-Paul Couture/CBC)

Lobbyists go to these events to build relationships and be seen, Baran said. But he cautions that if they're looking to lobby someone directly, they shouldn't go to their party fundraisers.

Trudeau attended 14 of these events to raise money for the Liberal Party in 2023 and one so far in 2024, held at convention centres, hotels and the Canadian War Museum. Last year, the Investigative Journalism Foundation reported that 166 lobbyists have attended Liberal fundraisers since 2019.

Liberal Party spokesperson Parker Lund said the party is "committed to the strongest standards in federal politics for openness and transparency with political fundraising events." The party also posts its fundraising reports on its website.

In 2021, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger made preliminary recommendations to strengthen the lobbying regime, calling for expanding the amount of contextual information required in communication reports to include things like political donations.

Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein has described the current reporting requirements for these fundraisers as "perfectly good." He said that if the government wants to, it could go further and legislate its existing fundraising and lobbying best practices for ministers and parliamentary secretaries to cover opposition critics.

Just how far is Pierre Poilievre willing to take the notwithstanding clause?

CBC
Tue, May 7, 2024 

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Monday, May 6, 2024. (Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press - image credit)


In January, the Federal Court found that the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act to respond to the protests of the self-styled freedom convoy in 2022 was not properly justified — a decision the federal government is now appealing.

At the time, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre celebrated that ruling.

"Today, in a landmark victory for the freedoms of Canadians, the Federal Court ruled that Trudeau broke the highest law in the land," he said in a prepared statement, apparently referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


"Common-sense Conservatives will protect the Charter rights of Canadians, and as prime minister I will unite our country and our people for hope and freedom."

A few months later, Poilievre's support for the Charter rights of Canadians seems less than absolute.

Last week, the Conservative leader appeared before a meeting of the Canadian Police Association and outlined — or at least hinted at — his plans to use the notwithstanding clause to safeguard his government's laws from being overturned by the courts.

"All of my proposals are constitutional. And we will make sure — we will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional," he said. "I think you know exactly what I mean."

Poilievre went on to explain his own theory of how the use of the notwithstanding clause could be justified.

"I will be the democratically elected prime minister — democratically accountable to the people, and they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be," he said.

Unloved and controversial, the notwithstanding clause is an unavoidable feature of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — part of the negotiated agreement that created the Charter in the first place. There are also reasonable, if theoretical, arguments to be made for its necessity — judges are not infallible and a mechanism to overrule egregious decisions could be better than the alternatives.

The question, then, is what circumstances justify its use.

How would Poilievre use the notwithstanding clause?

Poilievre's office insists a Conservative government would use the notwithstanding clause only to deal with "matters of criminal justice." But that could cover a number of things.

Would a Poilievre government use the clause to save mandatory-minimum sentences that the Supreme Court has found constitute cruel and unusual punishment? What if the court ultimately rules against the bail restrictions that Poilievre has said he would implement?

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous Conservative government's attempts to block a supervised drug consumption site in Vancovuer — Insite — violated the Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person. Would the Poilievre government use the notwithstanding clause to implement elements of its response to the opioid epidemic?

In his remarks to the Canadian Police Association, Poilievre said he would prioritize the right of Canadians to live free of crime.

"Those are the constitutional rights that we have to start to focus on in this country — the rights of the victims and the law-abiding people," he said.

But that necessitates another question — would any of his proposed changes actually reduce crime? Would using the notwithstanding clause actually make Canadians safer, or would it merely satisfy a desire to get "tough" on crime?

Alexandre Bissonnette, a suspect in a shooting at a Quebec City mosque, arrives at the court house in Quebec City on Tuesday, February 21, 2017. The accused in Quebec City's deadly mosque shooting formally changed lawyers on Thursday during a brief court hearing. Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, appeared briefly before Quebec court Judge Jean-Louis Lemay and acknowledged he was bringing in a new attorney.THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mathieu Belanger - POOLMore


At the moment, the Conservatives like to point to the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six men inside a Quebec City mosque in 2017. The Supreme Court later ruled that forcing Bissonnette to serve his sentences consecutively — effectively eliminating his chance of ever being eligible for parole — "shakes the very foundations of Canadian law."

During his campaign for the Conservative leadership in 2022, Poilievre said he would use the notwithstanding clause to revive consecutive sentences (a law originally passed by Stephen Harper's Conservative government).

Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University, noted in an op-ed this week that being eligible for parole does not mean you necessarily receive it.

Using the notwithstanding clause to "stack life sentences to infinity would add nothing to public safety," she wrote.

The politics of Poilievre's position are obvious — probably no politician is eager to be seen defending the rights of an individual such as Bissonnette. But if or when Parliament crosses the Rubicon (the federal Parliament has never before used the notwithstanding clause), it will be impossible to guarantee the ramifications will be felt only by society's least sympathetic members.

What message would it send?

"Whatever the use he wants to make of it," Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet said last week, "the fact a federal leader would want to use the notwithstanding clause makes it clear that it's absolutely legit for Quebec or any province to do the same."

That is not an abstract argument.

The original theory of the notwithstanding clause was that "political accountability" would restrain governments from using it. That restraint hasn't been much in evidence in recent years.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks during a funding announcement, Friday, April 5, 2024 in Ottawa. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is one of several premiers to use the notwithstanding clause to protect laws from being overturned for violating a Charter right. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

The Ontario government has invoked the clause to protect a law that limits political advertising by third-party groups. The Saskatchewan government is applying the notwithstanding clause to protect legislation that could affect the rights of transgender children. Quebec's Bill 21 raises major questions about religious freedom.

As Blanchet's response suggests, federal use of the notwithstanding clause would only give these provinces an example to justify their own actions. Poilievre's position on the clause also likely would disqualify him from weighing in as prime minister against any current or future provincial action.

Poilievre's reply to all this seems to be that it's ultimately up to voters — if Canadians don't like how the notwithstanding clause is being used, they can put another government in power.

But elections are rarely fought as single-issue referendums. (Advocates of electoral reform would also note that, under first-past-the-post voting, governments regularly hold power without having won 50 per cent of the popular vote.) And deferring to the will of voters contradicts one of the primary reasons for codifying rights in the first place — to protect individuals and minorities from the whims of the majority.

Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed gestures during a news conference in Calgary in 2002. Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed came to believe in the need for guardrails around the notwithstanding clause. (The Canadian Press)

Poilievre's calculus might also offend more than just critics of the notwithstanding clause. Peter Lougheed, the former Alberta premier who played a significant part in getting the notwithstanding clause into the Charter, eventually came to believe that a supermajority vote of 60 per cent of members of a legislature should be required to invoke the clause. (In a 343-member House of Commons, that would mean the support of 206 MPs.)

Between Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe deciding to defy (or unilaterally reinterpret?) federal carbon-pricing legislation and Poilievre's position on the notwithstanding clause, Conservatives seem to be moving toward the view that premiers and prime ministers have wide latitude to decide which laws they must follow.

Ontario legislature keffiyeh ban loosened, but not overturned

The Canadian Press
Mon, May 6, 2024 


TORONTO — The Speaker of Ontario's legislature is allowing politicians, staff and visitors to enter the building while wearing a keffiyeh, loosening what had amounted to a ban on the scarf, while maintaining a prohibition inside the legislative chamber.

Sarah Jama, who sits as an independent after being booted from the NDP caucus last year, put on a keffiyeh in defiance of the ban as question period started Monday and was asked to leave.

Jama called it ironic that the moment before she was told to leave for wearing a keffiyeh in solidarity with Palestinians, the house held a moment of silence for Holocaust Remembrance Day.

"While we can spend time to recognize genocides of the past, we struggle as members of this house to recognize genocides of the present," she said outside the chamber.

"So wearing the keffiyeh is a testament to the fact that Palestinians have the right to return, they have the right to exist, and they do not deserve to be genocided."

The International Court of Justice is investigating whether Israel has committed acts of genocide in the ongoing war in Gaza, with a ruling expected to take years. Israel has rejected allegations of wrongdoing and accused the court of bias.

Jama also donned a keffiyeh last month in defiance of the ban, but at that time refused to leave the chamber when ordered to do so. She said she decided to leave Monday because others were leaving with her.

Members of the NDP caucus, Joel Harden and Kristyn Wong-Tam, also put on scarves and left in solidarity with Jama.

"This keffiyeh ban is rather selective," Wong-Tam said. "It's also perpetuating what I see as racism and erasure of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim culture and that is not what this house stands for."

A keffiyeh is a checkered scarf typically worn in Arab cultures that has come to symbolize solidarity with Palestinians, and Speaker Ted Arnott concluded earlier this year that it is being worn to make an overt political statement, which is against the rules of the legislature.

"I stand by that conclusion, and I believe that events which have transpired since have confirmed it to be true," he said at the start of question period Monday.

Four people were ordered to leave the legislature last month after unfurling keffiyehs in the public galleries and chanting "free free Palestine."

NDP motions for unanimous consent to have the ban overturned have failed because a few members of the Progressive Conservative caucus voted no.

Wong-Tam said the issue is now resting at the feet of Premier Doug Ford, because he controls his caucus and he can end the division.

Ford, who has previously called on the Speaker to reverse his decision, said Monday that he will follow the Speaker's rulings.

"I'm going to abide by his rules," Ford said. "I think I've made myself very clear."

Government House Leader Paul Calandra said he is glad the Speaker is allowing people to wear keffiyehs within the building, but that he supports Arnott keeping a ban in place within the legislative chamber.

"He's made a decision to uphold what have basically been over a century of rules with respect to how we govern ourselves in the chamber," Calandra said after question period.

"The rules that govern the chamber are to have respectful debate back and forth between members to ensure that we're focused on the policies and the issues of the day without political statements being made in the house. That has always been the tradition and I think the Speaker has upheld that."

Ford has given his caucus members a free vote on the issue, Calandra said.

Arnott said since his initial ruling the issue has become politicized and fostered division, so he said Monday the ban will not apply to people entering the legislative precinct, only within the chamber.

"As Speaker, my intent has always been to uphold the conventions and principles that were designed to bring us together to debate important issues," he said.

"Diversity has been and remains one of Ontario's greatest strengths."

Arnott noted that if a member asks for and receives unanimous consent to wear a keffiyeh in the legislature from all members of provincial parliament, it will be allowed.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2024.

Allison Jones and Liam Casey, The Canadian Press

Separate controversial Criminal Code changes from Online Harms Act, advocates urge

The Canadian Press
Tue, May 7, 2024 



OTTAWA — More than 15 civil society groups are urging the justice minister to hive off proposed changes to the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act from a bill aimed at tackling online harms.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council were among the signatories to an open letter released Tuesday.

"If this separation is not made, the clear and present risks posed by these problematic portions will continue to overshadow (the bill's) main goal," it reads.

That's the establishment of "a regulatory body to mitigate categories identified by the bill as illegal harmful content that negatively affects Canadians, especially Canadian youth," the letter states.

The long-awaited legislation proposes to create a new digital safety regulator and includes changes to the Criminal Code to usher in stiffer penalties for hate-related crimes.

That has been met with heavy scrutiny, along with the government's plan to reintroduce a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow people to file complaints about hate speech online.

Critics warn that doing so could chill free speech, while Justice Department officials say only the most extreme examples of hate speech would be targeted.

The letter asks Justice Minister Arif Virani to remove the justice and human rights section from the bill and create a separate piece of legislation.

Not doing so would also have the effect of reducing scrutiny on the online regulation component, it argues.

"It will curtail time needed to address necessary transparency and accountability on the powers of the new Digital Safety Commission, which if approved, will be the most powerful regulator of Canada's internet."

On Tuesday, the minister's office defended the bill as a "package" meant to address harmful content online, but also real-world violence such as hate crimes.

"While it may have four parts, it is deliberately designed to address the full range of challenges we face in addressing online harms. That includes the hate that we see both online and in the real world, because in many respects they are inseparable," spokesperson Chantalle Aubertin said.

"Doing nothing to address hate speech and hate-motivated crimes means we have failed in our duty to protect Canadians wherever they are."

Tabled in February, the bill has not yet been debated in the House of Commons.

That initial debate must be followed by a first vote before a parliamentary committee can study the bill and hear from witnesses about its potential effects.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised to tackle online harms during the 2019 federal election.

His government proposed to reintroduce hate speech in the Human Rights Act in 2021, but that legislation died on the order paper when Trudeau triggered an early election.

That year, officials were sent back to the drawing board after presenting a proposal to tackle harmful content online that was roundly criticized for suggesting measures that included giving social media companies just 24 hours to remove flagged material.

Critics warned that could lead platforms to be overly cautious and remove legal content, curtailing free speech.

The current bill proposes to only require companies to remove the most heinous material: images of child sexual abuse and the intimate images shared without consent.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 7, 2024.

Stephanie Taylor, The Canadian Press

Another barge adrift in Vancouver prompts speedy coast guard response

The Canadian Press
Tue, May 7, 2024 



VANCOUVER — Another barge went adrift in Vancouver's English Bay, prompting a quick response from the Canadian Coast Guard.

A spokeswoman for the agency says it received the report around 2:30 p.m. and two crews from its Kitsilano base responded within minutes.

Michelle Imbeau says those crews, with the help of a vessel from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, were able secure the 200-foot commercial barge in place and prevent it from going onto the beach while they waited for commercial tugs.

She says two Seaspan tugs arrived around 3:15 p.m. and were able to re-secure the barge.

Imbeau says the incident did not cause any injuries or pollution, but the coast guard is not sure why the barge came loose from its mooring.


This comes more than two years after another runaway barge got stuck at the city's Sunset Beach in November 2021.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 7, 2024.

The Canadian Press

CMHC beats targets for new homes in 2023, despite economic challenges


Shantaé Campbell
Mon, May 6, 2024 

CP13304415.jpg

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. said it exceeded its targets under the National Housing Strategy in 2023 despite what it called “significant economic challenges.”

The Crown corporation, charged with administering the country’s national housing programs, released its annual report on Monday, revealing its progress in meeting the mandates of the NHS — a 10-year plan launched in 2017. According to the report, CMHC delivered 153,708 new, repaired, or assisted affordable housing units last year, surpassing the NHS’s target of 120,000 units. The overall number of new, repaired, or assisted units delivered through CMHC programs in 2023 was 494,319, well above the agency’s target of 350,000 units.

“Rising interest rates to tame inflation and labour shortages hindered the country’s ability to create much needed housing supply,” said Michel Tremblay, the agency’s acting president and chief executive officer. “Yet, even in these challenging times, we met our ambitious goals for 2023.”

CMHC attributes its success to several factors, including its Affordable Housing Fund, which provides low-interest loans to partner organizations, and the popularity of its multi-unit mortgage loan insurance product, MLI Select.

“Canada’s housing challenges are serious, complex and urgent, but they are solvable,” Tremblay said.

He reiterated the agency’s finding that Canada needs an additional 3.5 million homes beyond current projections to restore housing affordability.

The corporation’s financial report showed a nine per cent drop in total income before income taxes compared to 2022, mainly due to a $210 million decrease in assisted housing activity caused by higher net losses on financial instruments.

Despite this challenge, MLI Select supported the construction, refinancing or purchase of more than 220,000 units, 40 per cent of which were new construction. This helped CMHC declare dividends of $1.08 billion, funded from retained earnings and net income of $1.31 billion. Total insurance-in-force reached $414 billion by the end of 2023, up $15 billion from the previous year.

Still, with higher interest rates and persistent labour shortages, developers were unable to reach the 270,000-unit new-home construction levels seen in 2021 to 2022, achieving 241,735 units instead.

Looking ahead, CMHC said it will be implementing new initiatives, such as consulting with the housing industry to create a catalogue of homes, aimed at speeding up construction.

Killer variable rate mortgage could be sign of better deals to come

Toronto housing market sees spring sales slowdown

In December, federal housing minister Sean Fraser announced plans for such a catalogue, part of an update of a post-war housing strategy that aimed to simplify the approval and construction processes. Fraser said the initiative would at first focus on low-rise buildings such as small multiplexes, student housing and seniors’ residences.

• Email: shcampbell@postmedia.com

Human Rights Groups Demand Biden Publish Report On Israel’s Use Of U.S. Weapons

Sanjana Karanth
Tue, May 7, 2024 

A coalition of press freedom, civil liberties and human rights organizations sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday to call on the Biden administration to make public an upcoming report on whether foreign countries — including Israel — are using U.S. military aid in ways that break international humanitarian laws.

For months, members of Congress have been demanding assurances that Israel, which receives U.S. military aid, has complied with international and U.S. law — which prohibits violence against civilians and efforts to block aid — in its war in Gaza. In response, President Joe Biden in February issued a memo known as NSM-20, which requires federal U.S. agencies to submit a report to Congress on whether countries that get U.S. military aid are in fact obeying the law.

The report’s initial deadline was May 8, though it is currently unclear if it will be ready to submit by Wednesday.

The Biden administration has not said explicitly if it will make the report publicly available.

But the letter’s signatories — including Amnesty International USA, Defending Rights & Dissent, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the National Press Photographers Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association and Reporters Without Borders — said that the “process established in NSM-20 suggests” that the report to Congress should be unclassified.

“The public and the press have an especially strong interest in understanding how the U.S. has assessed the assurances provided under NSM-20 by all countries that receive U.S. defense articles, and particularly those in areas of armed conflict,” read the letter.

“Your administration has pledged to ‘bring transparency and truth back to the government,’” the letter continued. “We urge you to adhere to this commitment by releasing the … report to Congress under NSM-20 to the press and the public.”

The White House did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment, while the National Security Council referred the question to the State Department. The State Department did not immediately respond to HuffPost.

The Biden administration is facing growing pressure both domestically and from the international community over its continued diplomatic and military support for Israel’s offensive in Gaza, which has so far killed nearly 35,000 Palestinians since Oct. 7. While Hamas agreed this week to a proposal that would include a cease-fire and the return of hostages, Israel rejected the plan.

As Israel is poised to invade the southernmost Gazan city of Rafah — despite allies like the U.S. warning against it, due to the city’s large civilian population — lawmakers and humanitarians have are increasingly concerned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has committed war crimes.

An independent expert analysis endorsed by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) – a lawmaker who pushed for the NSM-20 report — said that Israel’s actions displayed “a clear pattern of violations of international law, failures to apply civilian harm mitigation best practices, and restrictions of humanitarian assistance.”

The Biden administration’s response to the upcoming report could see it step back from its full-throated support for Israel. Or it could further paint the administration as incapable of restraining its Middle Eastern ally, after more than seven months of carnage.

Access to the report “will allow the public to assess the thoroughness and accuracy of the U.S.’s assessment of [a] foreign country’s assurances, particularly in cases where there have been allegations that recipients have used U.S. assistance in a manner that violates international and U.S. law,” the Tuesday letter stated.

“Journalists and the public must have access to the May 8 report if they are to understand how the U.S. government responds to these allegations and determine whether it is adhering to the process and standards set forth in NSM-20.”

Amnesty International, one of the letter’s signatories, published a brief on April 29 in response to NSM-20, accusing Israel of breaking the law. If the Biden administration chooses to make its report public, people can compare it to the claims in Amnesty’s brief, Van Hollen told HuffPost in an interview published Friday.

“The Biden administration and the United States loses credibility when we point to reports by Amnesty or Human Rights Watch where [they] serv[e] our political interests, and sometimes ignores them when they don’t,” the senator told HuffPost. “In order to be credible, you need to be consistent.”

Biden faces key test over Israel’s military actions in Gaza

Laura Kelly
Tue, May 7, 2024

Biden faces key test over Israel’s military actions in Gaza

President Biden is facing a key test this week in delivering a report to Congress on Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which has the potential to cut off U.S. assistance to Israel.

The report is mandated by National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM 20), which Biden issued in February, and is due by May 8. It requires the administration to assess Israeli assurances that it is using U.S. weapons in line with international laws on war and human rights.

If Israel is found to be in violation of these laws, the Biden administration will then have 45 days to recommend next steps.

While there’s little expectation that Biden will impose severe consequences against Israel amid its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the president has shown increasing openness to imposing consequences on Israel in response to mounting evidence of human rights abuses against Palestinians.

These include sanctioning Israeli settlers and their supporters in the West Bank for violence against Palestinians, as well as singling out five Israeli military units operating in the West Bank as having carried out instances of gross human rights violations — although these incidents predate Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.

The administration has, so far, held off imposing consequences on the units, citing Israeli engagement on remediation efforts, investigations and accountability.

“We have seen remediation of those violations. And that is, of course, what we expect of partners,” State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said last week.

This week’s deadline comes as campus protests against U.S. support for Israel have shaped the debate over Gaza in recent weeks. Concerns over how Biden will carry out NSM 20 has prompted its own debate within foreign policy circles.

Some Republicans want the memo revoked, arguing that existing guardrails are sufficient and support for Israel should be the priority. Leading Democrats are calling for more detail on how it will actually be carried out, and questioning Israel’s assurances that it is following the law.

Last week, 88 House Democrats wrote to Biden urging enforcement of NSM 20, including imposing costs on Israel for what they view as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza.

Determining that Israel was hindering delivery of humanitarian assistance would constitute a violation of Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act and trigger the U.S. to block security assistance or arms sales.

“It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense to begin the assessment and remediation process outlined in the memorandum and consider the variety of tools available to the administration to address these continued violations, from refreshing the assurances to withholding specific arms transfers,” they wrote.

Biden’s decision to issue the memo came in direct response to pressure from some Senate Democrats to scrutinize more closely Israel’s war conduct in Gaza, but also preserve the president’s flexibility in holding Israel to account.

The language in the memo does not single out Israel; it applies to all foreign recipients of the recently-passed U.S. national security supplemental package, to include Ukraine and Taiwan.

And the president, or any successive president, has the power to revoke the memo and make its directives obsolete. But Republicans have already lashed out at Biden as trying to “placate critics of security assistance to our vital ally Israel.”

“We urge you to revoke NSM-20, abide by the robust and vital human rights safeguards already codified in U.S. security assistance law, and continue to support our critical partners around the world,” Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the top Republicans on the foreign affairs panels of their respective chambers, wrote to Biden in April.

Reception of the memo is also controversial among Democrats, concerned that the administration could hide behind vague language and underdeveloped reporting requirements to shield Israel from consequences.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), joined by 12 colleagues, requested a briefing in March from Biden’s national security team, writing “the NSM does not outline how the administration will determine if a country has violated an assurance and if there is a process in place to track its adherence to them.”

Similar concerns prompted the creation of an independent task force that issued a report last month detailing reports of Israeli violations of international law and humanitarian law.

The authors include two former State Department officials who are critical of U.S. policy toward Israel, and experts on international humanitarian law, civilian harm mitigation, U.S. domestic law and security assistance.

The 76-page report provides scores of incidents that the authors say represent a “a systematic disregard for international humanitarian law and military best practice regarding civilian harm mitigation by the Israel Defense Forces, including with U.S.-provided arms.”

Josh Paul is the co-chair of the task force and the former director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. He resigned from the State Department in protest in October over what he criticized as the U.S. government’s unchecked weapons deliveries to Israel.

He said the importance of NSM 20 is to put the administration on record of what it knows of Israel’s potential violations of international law and its actions related to the hindering of delivery of humanitarian assistance.

“If they do lay out any credible reports of violations of [international humanitarian law], it would not be surprising to see them provide excuses. But I think they will have to tread very carefully there, as that would have to be something that the administration’s lawyers would need to take a look at,” he said.

The task force report does not prescribe actions for the administration. Biden officials have previously cited Israeli government remediation efforts and investigations into incidents of human rights violations as satisfying efforts at accountability.

Paul said he was not optimistic that the U.S. would hold Israel to account, given its previous statements on the war.

“I’m going to withhold judgment and wait and see what they actually say, in the hope that they do make a good faith effort to follow the directives President Biden laid out in the NSM.”

What is almost certain to remain unchanged is Biden’s resolute support for Israel in standing by its seven-month war against Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, when Hamas members killed approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 250 people hostage, with 133 Israelis still held against their will in Gaza.

For Israel’s supporters, any suggestion that Israel violated international law must be taken with the caveat that it is facing a terrorist enemy that uses civilians as shields.

“There have been civilians murdered, but that is not the fault of Israel,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in an interview with CNN last month.

“It’s the fault of the terrorists — the Hamas operators and soldiers, the terrorists who have used these people and put them into harm’s way. Israel, I’m convinced, is doing its very best to prevent civilian casualties. But this is a war, and they’re fighting for their very existence. And they are not the aggressors. It is the other side.”

But the catastrophic humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza has prompted candid criticism from Biden, who has called Israeli bombing “indiscriminate” and “over the top.”

Gaza’s health agency says more than 30,000 people have been killed in the war, the majority women and children; but Israeli officials say that also includes more than 10,000 Hamas fighters. Another 50,000 people have been injured; more than 1 million displaced; and the head of the United Nations food program said Gaza has now entered a “full-blown famine.”

Luis Moreno, who served as deputy chief of mission to Israel from 2007-10, said Biden’s recent actions imposing some consequences on Israel are welcome. But he said there’s a double standard for Israel on application of so-called “Leahy laws,” which require the U.S. to cut off military assistance and cooperation with foreign security forces found to have committed human rights abuses.

“Leahy vetting was not applied to [Israel],” said Moreno, a career foreign service officer who served as U.S. ambassador to Jamaica.

“There’s always been a double standard with the IDF, and it was always understood and no one really questioned it,” he said.

Tom Malinowski, a former Democratic congressman who served as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor during the Obama administration, said that double standard will be tested as more evidence emerges from Gaza.

“It’s true that till now the State Department has in practice not applied Leahy to Israel,” he posted on the social platform X. “The real test will come when investigations of the current conflict start. It will be painful, but [in my opinion] it’s always better to confront these issues honestly and consistently.”


Report into whether Israel broke international law in Gaza ‘indefinitely delayed’ by Biden administration

Katie Hawkinson
Tue, May 7, 2024 

President Joe Biden’s administration has indefinitely delayed a report investigating potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza, according to a Politico report that cites four sources with insider knowledge.

The development comes after the US State Department was expected to release the report on Wednesday.

If the State Department were to find that Israel violated international humanitarian law, the US may have to stop sending foreign aid. Under the Leahy Law, the US government cannot aid foreign security forces found committing “gross violations of human rights.”

President Joe Biden, pictured speaking on 7 May 2024. A new report reveals his administration has indefinitely halted an investigation into potential Israeli war crimes (AP)

Democratic Senator Peter Welch, an outspoken critic of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) conduct in Gaza, called on the Biden administration to halt Israeli aid on Tuesday. He argued the US is already in violation of the Leahy Law.

“We write with concern regarding the US government’s failure to apply the Leahy Law consistently to all recipients of US security assistance,” Mr Welch wrote in a letter co-signed by eight other lawmakers.

“Recent articles documented that successive administrations have neglected to implement the Leahy Law in Israel,” he continued.

Last week, dozens of lawmakers also called on the Biden administration to reconsider aid to Israel.

A coalition of 88 Democratic members wrote to the White House on Friday, arguing that Israel’s “restrictions on US-backed humanitarian aid efforts have contributed to an unprecedented humanitarian disaster for Palestinian civilians and to credible reports of famine in parts of Gaza.”

Last month, the White House said future US aid was contingent on Israel announcing “a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers.”

Meanwhile, Israeli forces have taken control of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing, which borders Egypt in southern Gaza, the Israeli military confirmed.

The Palestinian health ministry says Israel’s continued assault on Gaza has killed almost 35,000 people, most of whom were women and children. The United Nations also says that restrictions on humanitarian aid have created a “man-made famine,” with half the 2.3 million strong population of the strip at catastrophic levels of hunger.

The attacks on Gaza come after 7 October, when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing some 1,200 people and taking another 250 people hostage.

Also this week, Hamas accepted a proposed ceasefire deal over the war in Gaza. Israel, however, has rejected it and talks over a truce are said to be continuing.

The Independent has contacted the National Security Council and the State Department for comment.


UPDATE 2-Biden administration to miss deadline for report on Israeli weapons use, sources say

Patricia Zengerle and Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay
Updated Tue, May 7, 2024 

(Adds Biden's title in paragraph 2, changes wording to Israel in paragraph 7)

By Patricia Zengerle, Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - The Biden administration will miss a Wednesday deadline to report to Congress on whether Israel is violating international humanitarian law in Gaza, four sources said on Tuesday, findings that could fuel concerns over its use of U.S.-supplied weapons against the Palestinian enclave.

A National Security Memorandum, known as NSM-20, that U.S. President Joe Biden issued in February requires the State Department to report to Congress by May 8 on whether it finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of U.S. weapons does not violate U.S. or international law.

Four sources said on Tuesday the administration had informed congressional committees that it would not make the deadline but hoped to present its findings within days. Two congressional aides said they had no indication the delay was tied to political concerns.

Reuters reported last month that some senior U.S. officials do not find Israel's assurances credible. The Reuters report, along with investigations by outside organizations like Amnesty International, has prompted some lawmakers to call on the Biden administration not to tilt the report toward Israel.

"I've had a lot of conversations... with folks in the administration, really urging them to make sure that this report is credible, that it's seen to be based on facts and law and not based on what they would wish it would be," Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told reporters.

Washington's provision of military assistance to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has prompted protests across the U.S. demanding that universities and Biden withdraw support for Israel, including sending weaponry.

'NOT CREDIBLE'

In Washington, many of Biden's fellow Democrats have called for a shift in long-standing U.S. policy of providing unconditional military support to Israel.

Israel’s assurances of compliance with U.S. law are "not credible," said Representative Jason Crow, who last week organized a letter to Biden from more than 80 Democratic lawmakers saying there is sufficient evidence that Israel has violated international law and obstructed U.S. aid deliveries to Gaza.

On Tuesday, sources told Reuters that Biden's administration has been holding up certain arms shipments to Israel, in what two of the sources said was an apparent political message to the U.S. ally.

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a news briefing on Tuesday the NSM-20 report was not yet finished but the department was working "very hard" to complete it. "It's possible it slips just a little bit but we're still, at this point, trying to get it done by tomorrow," he said.

The memorandum bars any recipient of U.S. military assistance from restricting the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The report deadline comes amid concern about famine in Gaza and calls from the United States, other governments and international bodies for Israel to refrain from launching a big offensive against Rafah, a city that Israel calls Hamas fighters' last stronghold but is also the refuge of more than 1 million displaced Palestinian civilians. (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Humeyra Pamuk, Jonathan Landay and Simon Lewis; Editing by Alistair Bell, Deepa Babington and Lisa Shumaker)

US lawmakers await Biden administration report on Israeli weapons use

Tue, May 7, 2024 
By Patricia Zengerle, Humeyra Pamuk and Simon Lewis

WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden's administration is to report to U.S. lawmakers as soon as Wednesday on whether Israel is violating international humanitarian law or obstructing aid deliveries in Gaza, findings that could fuel concerns over its use of U.S.-supplied weapons against the Palestinian enclave.

A National Security Memorandum, known as NSM-20, Biden issued in February requires the State Department to report to Congress by May 8 on whether it finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of U.S. weapons does not violate U.S. or international law.

Three sources said on Tuesday the administration had informed congressional committees that it would not make the deadline, but hoped to present its findings within days. Two congressional aides said they had no indication the delay was tied to political concerns.

Reuters reported last month that some senior U.S. officials do not find Israel's assurances credible. The Reuters report, along with investigations by outside organizations like Amnesty International, has prompted some lawmakers to call on the Biden administration not to tilt the report toward Israel.

"I've had a lot of conversations... with folks in the administration, really urging them to make sure that this report is credible, that it's seen to be based on facts and law and not based on what they would wish it would be," Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen told reporters.

Washington's provision of military assistance to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has prompted protests across the U.S. demanding that universities and Biden withdraw support for Israel, including sending weaponry.

In Washington, many of Biden's fellow Democrats have called for a shift in long-standing U.S. policy of providing unconditional military support to the Jewish state.

On Tuesday, sources told Reuters that Biden's administration has been holding up certain arms shipments to Israel, in what two of the sources said was an apparent political message to the U.S. ally.

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a news briefing on Tuesday the NSM-20 report was not yet finished but the department was working "very hard" to complete it. "It's possible it slips just a little bit but we're still, at this point, trying to get it done by tomorrow," he said.

The memorandum bars any recipient of U.S. military assistance from restricting the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The report deadline comes amid concern about famine in Gaza and calls from the United States, other governments and international bodies for Israel to hold off from a big offensive against Rafah, a city in Gaza Israel calls Hamas fighters' last stronghold but is also the refuge of more than one million displaced Palestinian civilians. (Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Humeyra Pamuk and Simon Lewis Editing by Alistair Bell)