Law Times

Page 6 April 30, 2018 • lAw Times www.lawtimesnews.com Canadian committees toil away BY KADY O'MALLEY F irst off, a confession: Whenever a legislative committee lands a spot in the primetime spotlight — usually, although not invariably, a U.S. congressional panel in the throes of investigating a controversy generating headlines around the globe, as was the case with the recent grilling of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — I start steeling myself for the seemingly inevitable moment when someone will turn to me with the seemingly simple question: Why can't our committees be more like that? There are, of course, any number of pat, pro forma answers: The unique structure of the U.S. legislative system gives its committees more independence from the government of the day than House committees, plus far more gen- erous budgets for staffing, research and other support services. But while all that may be true, it doesn't entirely answer the question: Leaving aside the always delicate matter of the bill (which is all the more delicate when taxpayers ultimately pick up the tab), our committees — both House and Senate varieties — have the same overall mandate to launch probes into issues of urgent or peren- nial public concern, the power to compel witnesses to appear and to demand the produc- tion of documents, records and other evidence. So why, then, do we so rarely see our committees embark on wide- ranging, fact-finding mis- sions into current or ongoing controversies? Well, for starters, they do just that on a semi-regular basis, while also remaining at the ready to review proposed legislation — from omnibus bills to backbench bids — as well as go through the fine print of the estimates and other distinctly unglam- orous chores that are nevertheless at the heart of a functioning parliamentary democracy. But unless a meeting holds the promise of jaw-dropping revelations or testimony from a high-profile public figure, it tends to slide below the radar of the daily political news cycle, which is usually focused on the main event in the House of Commons and, specifical- ly, the latest cross-aisle contretemps be- tween the prime minister and the party leaders hoping to supplant him (or her). Committees, in contrast, are viewed by most Hill deni- zens as the place where the nuts-and-bolts-work gets done, which, however neces- sary it may be, isn't exactly must-see TV — not when it's being done right, at least. Where, after all, is the compelling drama in watch- ing MPs drop the partisan f loor show and work col- laboratively with their col- leagues across the table to close an un- intended loophole in a complex piece of legislation? We Hill reporters can, however, be de- pended on to drop pretty much whatever we happen to be doing if a committee meeting has gone — or is threatening to go — spectacularly off the rails. (This, it's worth noting, was an all-too-frequent oc- currence during the heyday of minority parliaments, when the then-Conservative government reportedly assembled a bind- er of procedural tactics aimed at blocking the opposition parties from teaming up to seize control of the agenda.) At the same time, it's not all the fault of the media. Even as I will go to the mat to defend the quiet competence exhib- ited by some committees and commit- tee members, there are also any number of MPs who blithely tune out during the opening presentations and then pro- ceed to ask question after that question has already been fully and completely answered — or spend all but the last 30 seconds of their allotted time on mean- dering preambles that have little to do with the testimony they've heard and ev- erything to do with taking shots at their political adversaries. (In fact, some man- age to do both simultaneously.) On balance, though, Canadians should take some comfort in the fact that, while our committees may be far more modest than their American counterparts — in size, scope and, with few exceptions, in ambition to make his- tory — they are, for the most part, toiling away to maintain peace, order and good government behind the bright lights of the political theatre. LT uKady O'Malley is a member of the parliamentary press gallery in Ottawa and writes about politics, procedure and process for iPolitics. She also appears reg- ularly on CBC television and radio. COMMENT u EDITORIAL OBITER By Gabrielle Giroday ©2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reli- ance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $205.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at .............. 416-649-9585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com SALES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Sales Manager Paul Burton ............................................ 416-649-9928 paul.burton@tr.com Consultant, Strategy and Business Development: Ivan Ivanovitch ...................................... 416-887-4300 ivan.ivanovitch@tr.com Business Development Consultant: Kimberlee Pascoe .................................. 416-996-1739 kimberlee.pascoe@tr.com Account Executive: Steffanie Munroe ................................... 416-315-5879 steffanie.munroe@tr.com Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com LT.editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Brown Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabrielle Giroday Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Alex Robinson Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leah Craven Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phyllis Barone Production Co-ordinator . . . . . Jacqueline D'Souza Electronic Production Specialist . . . Derek Welford Tragedy and the law D eath and suffering is an inescapable element of the human condition. Lately, there have been far too many relentlessly awful events in the headlines. After a tragedy occurs, in some cases, the law can be a powerful tool for holding people accountable for unnecessary loss of life and suffering. In other cases, it can protect bodies that are under attack for their role in a devastating matter. In this particular issue, various stories look at different permutations of the legal process fol- lowing a tragedy. There's coverage of a recent hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In it, lawyers are challenging the findings of a judge who did not certify a proposed $2-billion class action launched after 1,130 work- ers were killed in a 2013 plaza collapse in Bangladesh. Lawyers for the appellants in Das v. George Weston Ltd. argued that Superior Court Justice Paul Perell was wrong to order $2.3 mil- lion in costs to the defendants in the matter, which included Cana- dian companies such as George Weston Limited, Loblaw Companies Limited and Joe Fresh Apparel. Then there's our coverage of a $1.8-billion class action application launched earlier this year. It alleges that the federal government seg- regated thousands of Indigenous people in "Indian hospitals," where they suffered abuse. Lawyers say the hospitals case could reach reso- lution in a shorter timeline than previous cases involving Indigenous Canadians, like a settlement with survivors of the Sixties Scoop. But there are more hopeful notes as well, some on a very individual level. After a recent van attack in Toronto that killed 10 people, a law- yer whose office was near the incident, Young Lee, launched a char- ity initiative to raise funds for the victims and their families. As another piece explores, there's been an increase in the number of Indigenous courts that deal with criminal matters in Ontario, with five starting since 2014 in Brantford, Cayuga, St. Cath- arines, Ottawa and Thunder Bay. "There's a large Indigenous population here and I think to have a court that really understands and values the unique cultural differences within the court, I think that's important," says Stephanie Bean, a lawyer who's the senior manager for the Gladue Caseworker program in Ottawa for Ab- original Legal Services. As the world changes and evolves, the law can adapt and evolve with it. LT The Hill Kady O'Malley Kady O'Malley

• Cover