Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: A death in the House

Posted on by

The death of Conservative MP Jim Hillyer shocked Parliament Hill, and all plans for the day were cancelled. The Conservatives cancelled their national caucus meeting to mourn instead, and it was agreed that the day in the Commons would be cancelled after a few brief statements of condolence. Hillyer died in his office on Sparks Street at some point either last night or this morning, likely from a complication to a bone infection that he was suffering from, yet nevertheless insisted on coming to Ottawa for budget day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A surprisingly packed budget

Posted on by

And that was the budget. It was full of interesting things, but you wouldn’t know it based on the fact that absolutely everybody was fixated on the deficit figure, and barely even that it was built on a super cautious, pessimistic framework that basically presented a worst-case scenario in terms of assumptions, meaning that the only place it really could go was up, and yes, if the economy grows enough, then the budget will start to balance itself. The child benefit changes are the big news, and as for reaction, the Conservatives call the budget a “nightmare” while the NDP rail about all of the promises that it didn’t keep (because everything should have happened immediately).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expenses arbitration comes back

Posted on by

At long last, former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie’s report on his arbitration of Senate expenses was released yesterday, and it should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that the amounts that many of those senators owed was slashed by a considerable amount. (For others, not so much, but we’ll get to that in a moment). Why? Because in the course of his audit, the Auditor General and his staff made a series of value judgments as part of their report, particularly in instances where senators added personal businesses to Senate-related travel, or when spouses travelled with them. Binnie re-evaluated those claims with more information and a broader mindset and found that indeed, many of those claims were actually reasonable, and he let them go through, cutting the demanded repayments significantly in many cases. In other cases, notably Senator Colin Kenny, he remained unconvinced and ordered them to make their repayments with little or no reductions in the amounts owing. After saying that he wasn’t hired to look into motives of these Senators, he did admit that he felt that for the most part, nobody was actively trying to game the system, but that there were some disagreements in how rules were applied. An interesting turn of events is the fact that Senator Dagenais plans to launch a complaint against the AG for the way in which the audit was conducted, which has most pundits and journalists aghast, because they like to think that the AG can do no wrong (when that is obviously not the case, particularly if one starts digging into some of the value judgments made in the Senate audit). The AG’s response to Binnie’s report was that he thinks that the Senate still needs to follow up on all of his recommendations, including the external oversight body, but I will again raise the point that an external body is a violation of parliamentary privilege, and that the institution needs to be self-governing. This is not a technocracy, and the suggestions by some of an audit committee that is still majority Senate-controlled is a far more acceptable solution. The other bit of interest was the way in which he, intentionally or otherwise, blew holes in the defence offered by Mike Duffy’s lawyers, that the Senate was this lawless and inscrutable place that would have anyone confused. Nonsense, said Binnie – there were rules that mostly required a bit of common sense in their application. One wonders if this is something that Justice Vaillancourt will take note of as he deliberates on Duffy’s fate.

Continue reading →

QP: Not taking the budget bait

Posted on by

The day before budget day, and the Commons was not as full as it could or should be. Rona Ambrose led off, her mini-lectern on Andrew Scheer’s desk as it often is these days, and she read some concern about her supposition about the budget. Justin Trudeau insisted that they had a plan, and that the previous government didn’t get the job done. Ambrose tried to retort that they had the best job creation record in the G7, then turned a lament about raising taxes. Trudeau reminded her of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Ambrose insisted that investment has “fallen off the cliff” since the election, but Trudeau responded that economists said that this was the time to invest. Denis Lebel took over to ask about public confidence in the economy, which Trudeau reiterated their investment promises, and Lebel lamented the state of the forestry industry as an example of a measure needed in the budget, but Trudeau didn’t bite, and told him to wait for the budget. Thomas Mulcair was up for the NDP, and decried Bombardier’s plan to outsource some jobs, and demanded the protection of jobs in Canada. Trudeau agreed that they wanted to protect good jobs, which was why they were taking the time to assess Bombardier’s proposal. Mulcair demanded commitments on EI, for which Trudeau reminded him that they made commitments in their platform and they would keep that promise in the budget. Mulcair switched to English and lamented the conditions on First Nations reserves, for which Trudeau yet again reminded him that they made promises to renew the relationship, and that the budget would contain historic investment. For his final question, Trudeau asked about a family where the children were kidnapped to Kurdistan. Trudeau insisted that the return of those children were a high priority.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Process questions and straw men

Posted on by

Because it was making the rounds yet again on the Sunday morning politics shows, I figured I should reiterate a few points, plus make a couple of new ones, concerning the new Senate appointments, and the role of the new “government representative.” The first point is that yes, the Senate is going to have to change a few of its rules, and that is a process that has already started and probably won’t be concluded for a few more weeks or months. That we have a name and a face to go with this new role may accelerate the process rather than it being nebulous with Dominic LeBlanc and Maryam Monsef just shrugging and declaring that they were confident that the Senate could work it out. With Peter Harder now in the picture, with an idea about how he wants to tackle his role, there is something a little more concrete in terms of how he wants to shape the new rules to suit his purposes. His budget as “government representative” as opposed to Leader of the Government in the Senate is also up for some debate, particularly within the Internal Economy Committee, just as they are going to have to take up what to do with the new “Independent working-group” and how they want to organise and style themselves so as to give a voice to the independent senators who are currently being frozen out of decision-making processes. (This goes as well for the Rules Committee, which has already been undertaking the question of how to better allow independent senators onto committees, as that process is mostly done behind closed doors by the caucus whips). Harder’s decision to remain officially an independent while taking on this role does complicate things, but nothing is so difficult that it cannot be solved with a little more diligence, and hopefully it won’t be too impeded by some of the more partisan senators on either side of the aisle whose feelings have been bruised by the talk of independence being an improvement on the way the Senate operates. The final point is this constant concern trolling that somehow the budget won’t get passed, or that the government won’t be able to get its agenda through if nobody is there to crack the whip. It’s a lot of specious reasoning predicated on a number of straw men, ignorant of history and civic literacy. Apparently every time the governing party in the Senate was in the minority there was some kind of constitutional crisis, which is false, and no, budgets were not held up or defeated. The Senate is very reluctant to stop any bill because they are aware of their democratic legitimacy (and yes, they do have it by virtue of Responsible Government so don’t even go there), and when they have defeated legislation, it is generally for good reason, such as constitutionality, the legislation being out of bounds, or the fact that the country was not on side with it, and it needed to be put to a test (such as with free trade in the 1980s). They have a job to do. I’m particularly galled at those concerned that the Senate is going to suddenly be empowered to use their constitutional veto powers if they are more independent and less beholden to the government of the day, never mind that the Senate has not abused its veto in decades. They were given those powers for a reason, and yes, sometimes elected legislators get things wrong and there needs to be a mechanism to stop their legislation. But this pearl-clutching about the new state of affairs really needs to stop.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The first independent Senate appointments arrive

Posted on by

The big announcement came first thing yesterday morning – seven new senators are to be recommended, one of them to be the government’s “representative” in lieu of a caucus leader in the Senate. Some of the names appear to be good ones – that “representative” is former senior bureaucrat Peter Harder (who did lead Trudeau’s transition team when they formed government), plus Justice Murray Sinclair, editorialist André Pratte and Paralympian Chantal Petitclerc, among others. One of them is a former NDP minister in Ontario. Harder used to be a Progressive Conservative staffer, before transitioning to the civil service. There don’t seem to be any obvious Liberal patronage appointments in the bunch (i.e. party fundraisers or the like), and there does appear to be some semblance of merit-based appointments in here, as well as respect for gender and diversity.

Continue reading →

Roundup: McQuaig’s “lessons learned”

Posted on by

Former NDP star candidate Linda McQuaig penned a column in the Toronto Star about her “lessons learned” after two unsuccessful attempts at running for office (and no plans to run again), and as one could expect, it’s a little self-serving. In it, she bemoans her loss of freedom to discuss topics thanks to party discipline and central messaging, and the fact that she knowingly walked into a trap about oil sands staying in the ground despite the fact that it went against the party line. Her takeaway: that the rush to avoid complexity and controversy infantilises voters, and somehow the NDP’s apparently popularity over their position on C-51 (despite the fact that it too was facile and unworkable, according to the very same security experts they cited over the bill’s problems) must somehow be an indication of they’re actually hungry to be treated like citizens. It’s a bit of a leap in logic because part of what the issue was when she went against the party line was that after it happened, she went into lockdown and didn’t really talk her way out of what she said, and the spin machine of “you want to destroy the energy industry” filled that silence. It was a self-inflicted wound that could have been managed, but wasn’t. As for her contention that voters are looking for adult conversations on issues, that may very well be true, but the NDP weren’t offering it while the Liberals certainly were better suited for it with their comprehensive platform. What we got from the NDP were some platitudes about “competent public administration” and promises to balance the budget based on fuzzy numbers (and recall that their first “costed” platform document was little more than buzz-words with dollar figures attached that meant nothing). So really, if you think that voters want an adult conversation then provide them with one, not what the disingenuous platitudes being offered (that C-51 could be repealed wholesale, that the NDP “only needed 35 more seats,” word games over the “federal minimum wage,” the aforementioned fuzzy costing documents). Voters aren’t as stupid as the campaign was treating them. Michelle Rempel responds to McQuaig here, while Rob Silver had a few other comments over the Twitter Machine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Revolving door alarmism

Posted on by

Oh noes! Civil servants take positions in ministers’ offices! How terribly partisan of them! Yes, it’s time for another head-shaking column from some of our more alarmist media friends, bemoaning sweetheart deals and revolving doors, but as usual, it lacks all pretence of nuance or much in the way of a reality check on the way things work. I find it mystifying that someone would rather have a twenty-something fresh out of university, whose only real qualification is loyalty to the PMO, filling those ministerial office positions rather than professionals with years of experience in the department. Because while yes, some civil servants went to work in ministers’ offices in the Conservative years, there were a lot of these twenty-somethings on power trips, trying to play power games with departmental officials, which one presumes that people who have civil service careers would be less likely to do. And yes, they get good salaries in those positions, but they’re also a) quite ephemeral given the nature of party politics, and b) enormously stressful jobs that have some people working eighteen-hour days, and they should be compensated for it. And the “revolving door” back to the civil service afterward? Again one asks why they shouldn’t be able to translate government experience into the civil service, particularly if they’ve gained some policy expertise? So long as they perform their duties in a neutral fashion once back in the civil service, I’m not seeing why this is a problem. We need good people doing public service in this country, and we have already set up so many barriers that make recruitment a real challenge for anyone not being bridged in from school, and the growing list of restrictions makes work in ministerial offices increasingly unattractive because their post-political opportunities have become increasingly limited. If we’re not careful, all of our political staffers will be twenty-somethings trying to get experience rather than established people of substance, and I’m not sure that’s a situation that anyone relishes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mulcair losing steam and support

Posted on by

The wheels are starting to come off Thomas Mulcair’s continued leadership of the NDP, as more and more voices are starting to come out to question the direction of the party under his leadership – not that many of them will say that directly, but the implication is certainly there, considering that the whole point of Mulcair’s leadership was in large part for them to occupy more of the centre of the spectrum in their haste in believing that the Liberals were a spent force whose days were numbered. And it’s more than just the fringe socialist wing of the party that’s calling for his head. Yesterday, some thirty-seven NDP members from Quebec, including three former MPs, published an open letter calling for the party to renew itself, and one of those MPs was one of Mulcair’s biggest boosters during the leadership. Most damning was when he went on Power & Politics yesterday to say, and I quote, “I haven’t really heard a compelling reason for him to stay on.” During a press conference, Niki Ashton was asked repeatedly whether she supported Mulcair’s leadership, and she evaded every time, insisting instead on talking about the “team” rather than the individual. Given how much importance that the NDP place on solidarity and showing a united front, and how they treat any kind of public dissent as being unseemly (and sometimes even subject to punishment), Ashton’s silence was actually quite deafening. These new calls from the grassroots that the open letter was showcasing is showing the cracks in Mulcair’s mea culpa, and in the outreach efforts he’s made so far. The message is that he’s still not listening, and that could cost him. And on top of the questions we already had about his continued leadership – in no small part whether he can still be part of the generational change taking place in this country’s political ranks – it seems like the party also has to ask itself if they can really ask Mulcair to be a leopard who can change its spots. They brought Mulcair into the party for a reason, and gave him the leadership for a reason, and those reasons are no longer reflected on the political landscape, particularly if the Liberals keep outflanking them. People ask who are in the wings, and despite Nathan Cullen’s grand protests that he doesn’t want the job, I’m pretty sure he does, and I’m sure there are a few people who are still interested, even if they didn’t win their seats in the last election. Leadership hopefuls will emerge – that’s not the question. The question is whether the party’s grassroots will decide to give Mulcair one more chance, or if they’ve decided that he’s run out of chances.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bruised feelings helping nobody

Posted on by

In yet another write-up of the creation of the new Independent Working-Group in the Senate, we’re seeing a repetition of certain themes, and an omission of some other, more fundamental issues at play such as privilege and Independent senators running their own affairs, in part because you have a group of journalists who aren’t quite sure what to look for and what questions to ask – and it’s not helped by some of the senators at the centre of the issue feeding into those narratives instead of talking about the other issues at play. The narratives, of course, have to do with partisanship in the institution. Those senators who have left caucuses are quick to talk about the blind partisanship eroding the credibility of the Senate, and media observers who are unfamiliar with the Senate outside of the salaciousness of the ClusterDuff affair glom onto this kind of talk because it confirms all kinds of notions that they’ve held without much in the way of actual challenge. Meanwhile, senators who are still proud party members are proving particularly thin-skinned about the whole thing.

Sen. Dagenais told The Hill Times that after reading the six Senators’ press release, he was “upset” and “disappointed” that they questioned the “credibility” of the parliamentary work of Conservative and Liberal Senators because they’re affiliated with political parties.

“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I don’t accept this,” said Sen. Dagenais.

I won’t deny that there has been a certain tone of moral superiority by some of those senators who have left their caucuses, and it can feel like a bit of a slap in the face to others. At the same time, I think that some of the counter-protestations, that senators who leave their caucuses should resign (per Senator Tkachuk) or that that the notions of a non-partisan Senate are an inherent breach of privilege and would render the Chamber non-functional (per some of the arguments of Senator Housakos, among others) are also way beyond the pale. And yes, some of this has been fed by Justin Trudeau’s talk about how wonderful a non-partisan Senate would be, as though it’s partisanship that’s the problem rather than a question of degrees. No, partisanship is not a bad thing – in fact, it’s fairly healthy in a democracy, and the Senate reflecting that diversity of political opinion is a good thing. What has been a problem are the degrees to which senators, particularly new ones, have taken their partisanship, and it cannot be understated that nearly all of the Conservative senators took it a little too far in demonstrating their loyalty and commitment to putting forward Stephen Harper’s agenda, but they were also very poorly trained upon appointment, and they took the wrong lessons to heart. That is not the fault of partisanship – it’s the fault of a party leadership that was trying to exercise levers of power that didn’t exist in the Senate, and they tried to create some using sentiment and a sense of personal loyalty to the man who appointed them. Now, things are swinging violently in the other direction and babies are being thrown out with bathwater. Partisanship doesn’t make the chamber a bad place, nor does a group of senators looking to try a new way of doing things make their efforts illegitimate. This is a bold new era, and both sides need to stop this constant state of upsetting each other. There is room in our parliament for parties and independents, and the sooner they stop this game of offending one another, the faster we can proceed with a credible modernisation process.

Continue reading →