The story that grabbed everyone’s attention yesterday was the fact that maverick Conservative MP Michael Chong is set to table a bill that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in order to give riding associations the power to control nomination races instead of the party leader, while giving the party’s National Council the ability to have a veto in place in the event of a hijacked nomination race. This would eliminate the party leader’s ability to threaten MPs that he or she would refuse to sign their nomination papers if they step out of line. It’s the kind of reform that many people have been advocating for some time now, and would remove a substantial lever that the leader currently wields. The bill is also rumoured to contain clauses that would require that caucus chairs be elected and have rules for expelling and re-admitting MPs from caucus, and that the party by-laws must allow for the caucus review of a leader. Those are more problematic suggestions, and the caucus review is especially problematic for a couple of reasons. Number one is that unless leadership selection rules are changed so that it is the caucus that elects the leader, the argument will be that they don’t have the democratic legitimacy to remove said leader – one of the biggest problems with moving to the “more democratic” system whereby the party membership elects the leader (or as the Liberals recently demonstrated, anyone who totally swears that they don’t belong to another party), because that system obliterates accountability. As well, the power to challenge a leader already exists within our system of Responsible Government, whereby all anyone needs to do is declare a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, and if they can get enough caucus support in the vote – along with the opposition – that leader will go down to defeat. It just requires enough MPs to have the backbone to follow through on it. Paul Calandra insists that his party already allows MPs to have direct input into legislation, which I’m not sure is the point of the bill. Andrew Coyne thinks this bill can save Parliament, and I agree that the first portion would go a long way, but the other portions are more problematic and we should treat them cautiously.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: No breached ethical walls
Auditors from Deloitte appeared before the Senate’s internal economy committee yesterday morning, and revealed a couple of things – that yes, senior Partner Michael Runia did try calling them, but they didn’t tell him anything, thus preserving their “ethical wall.” Also, their audit operated in a closed system and that there wasn’t any way for there to be any leaks of draft copies. But when the Liberals on the committee tried to move a motion for Runia to appear to explain himself, Conservatives on the committee blocked it, saying that they didn’t have the expertise to conduct an investigation parallel to the RCMP’s. Nor has there been any call for Senator Gerstein to appear to explain himself either. The Liberals will be moving a motion in the full Senate next week to give the committee the mandate to pursue these questions, but we’ll see if there is enough support. Kady O’Malley finds three key points from that testimony, and makes the relevant connections to the Wright testimony in the RCMP ITO. Incidentally, PMO has hired three different law firms to deal with the ClusterDuff file.
QP: Backhanded allegations about Mulcair
With Harper off at Newmarket doing pre-budget consultations, but with the news cycle being consumed by the Conservatives on the Senate Internal Economy committee’s reluctance to call that senior partner from Deloitte before them to testify, it was likely to be a day full of non sequiturs delivered by Paul Calandra. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking why the government asked their senators to block the appearance of Michael Runia before them. Paul Calandra responded that they learned that the audit was done without interference. When Mulcair pressed, Calandra immediately turned to the “You sat on a bribe allegation for 17 years!” talking point. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the report that CSE was conducting intelligence during the G20 in Toronto. Rob Nicholson reminded him that CSE doesn’t have the authorisation to spy on Canadians. When Mulcair asked if they did it anyway, Nicholson reminded him that they couldn’t even ask allies to spy on Canadians. Mulcair tried to tie this in with the ClusterDuff allegations, but Nicholson reminded him that CSE has judicial oversight. Joyce Murray led off for the Liberals, and asked about the suicide of two soldiers connected CFB Shilo and asked what action the minister was taking to address the issue. Nicholson offered the families his condolences and assured her that the Canadian Forces were investigating. Ralph Goodale was up next, and returned to the issue of Runia and Gerstein being blocked from testifying at committee, but Calandra tried to insist that the Liberals defended those three suspended senators. Goodale demanded to know why Gerstein remained chair of the Senate a banking committee, but Calandra continued to insist that the Liberals fought against holding those senators to account.
Roundup: Politics played with political documents
The partisan frothing at the mouth over Justin Trudeau’s hope and fear comments continues to roll along, with the NDP lashing out for its use – never mind that Jack Layton’s final letter was itself a political document and that the NDP have used it to make political hay. They also point to “Angry Mulcair” flyers that were sent out in Toronto Centre, though I’m not exactly sure that those quite added up to some of the same attacks that the NDP were using in both Toronto Centre and Bourassa – that Chrystia Freeland was not from there and shouldn’t be allowed to run (despite a caucus full of Quebec MPs who had never set foot in their ridings before being elected), or that Dubourg collected a severance allowance that Mulcair himself collected when he resigned as an MNA, not to mention the flyers with Dubourg, who is black, surrounded by bling, which one American expat commenter said would be considered a racist slur in the States. Make of this what you will. Pundit’s Guide considers the remarks a strategic over-reach that damages any prospect of cooperation between the two parties anytime soon.
QP: Gerstein down the memory hole
It was caucus day, and the Liberals and Conservatives met their new MPs elected in Monday’s by-elections, not that any of them will be sworn in for a couple more weeks. Outside the Chamber, the NDP continued to froth about comments that Justin Trudeau made around hope and fear. When QP got started, Thomas Mulcair asked about the written agreement in the Duffy documents about the Prime Minister publicly declaring his fitness to be a PEI senator. Harper assured him that while some MPs and senators have a secondary residence, it was inappropriate to make some expense claims on some of them. Mulcair wondered if that inclusion in the deal was a coincidence, but Harper said that those who are appointed to the Senate are expected to live up to their expectations and Duffy did not. Mulcair wondered if this declaration was part of the “good to go,” and Harper said that residency was not the issue. Mulcair pressed about what the approval was supposed to be about, but Harper insisted that the documents are clear that it was understood that Duffy would pay his own expenses. Justin Trudeau was up next for the Liberals, and asked about Senator Gerstein’s interference in the Deloitte audit, and once again asked why Gerstein enjoyed Harper’s confidence. Harper avoided the question, and insisted that this was only about Wright and Duffy. Trudeau pressed on the issue, but Harper just repeated his non-answer.
Roundup: The AG has concerns
The Auditor General tabled his fall report yesterday morning, but unlike many a report in the past, it was pretty tame. He did kick the crap out of the audit process for the Safety Management System of our railways, and cast a withering eye on food recall systems, and emergency preparedness on First Nations reserves. He wasn’t particularly kind to the CBSA’s lapses in border security, he noted that farmers face a long wait for emergency assistance, and he was really, really unimpressed with the constant delays in implementing financial controls, but he wasn’t too tough on the shipbuilding contracts, and he generally praised CRA in dealing with tax evasion in Lichtenstein – but they need to be better prepared to deal with an increase in tax-haven cases. (Highlights here).
QP: Detouring to mention the Auditor General
Despite the fact that the Auditor General delivered his fall report earlier this morning, as did the Correctional Investigator, it was unlikely either of those would be mentioned anytime before round three. All three leaders were in the Chamber, and there were ClusterDuff questions to be asked. Thomas Mulcair surprised me by bringing up the report chapter on rail safety first thing, to which Harper insisted that the report showed that the system was working overall. Mulcair brought up the chapter on food safety, but Harper again insisted that it wasn’t an accurate reflection, and then read an outside quote about how great things were. Mulcair demanded that the government listen and act on the AG’s recommendations rather than just saying that they agreed. Harper insisted that they always act on the AG’s recommendations. And then it was back to the ClusterDuff — was anyone else being sanctioned for their activities? Harper said he wasn’t going to interfere with the RCMP investigation, and when Mulcair insisted that others be fired, Harper returned to his line about throwing mud and losing ground. Justin Trudeau asked why Senator Gerstein was in caucus and chief fundraiser if was involved in the Wright affairs. Harper insisted that only two people were under investigation. Trudeau brought up Gerstein’s attempt to influence the Deloitte audit, but Harper ignored that and spoke about an improperly reported gift between Wright and Duffy. Trudeau retorted with a dig about Harper losing 40 percent of his vote share last night before wondering why Harper still trusted Gerstein — but Harper shrugged it off and said that the public doesn’t agree with the Liberals when they protect senators.
Roundup: By-election action!
And we have by-election results! The two easy races were Provencher, where the Conservatives held, and Bourassa, where the Liberals held, but things were tighter in Toronto Centre, where Liberal Chrystia Freeland ultimately won out. Brandon-Souris, however, was the biggest surprise, where the Liberals an Conservatives were neck-and-neck for most of the night, but ultimately, it was a victory for Conservative Larry Maguire, squeaking it out at the end by a couple of hundred votes. Pundits, start spinning your victories and losses now, but one thing that does seem pretty clear is that the Liberals do seem to be competitive again nationally, as they very nearly took Brandon-Souris and they even gained considerable ground in true-blue Conservative Provencher. Also, the nomination shenanigans clearly hurt the Conservatives in Brandon-Souris, while the current cloud of scandal around Harper probably didn’t help any. Anne Kingston gave some vignettes from Toronto Centre over the morning as ballots were cast. CBC posted four storylines from the by-elections to watch going in, while Laura Payton explains why the narrative of the Middle Class has dominated the race (hint: 93 percent of Canadians identify as “middle class”).
QP: False accusations abound
With the by-elections on, and Harper out of the House, it looked like it was going to be Thomas Mulcair versus Paul Calandra — a particularly debased bit of political theatre that serves nobody’s interests. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Comartin in the chair today and not Scheer, so it would remain to be seen if anything would be different. Mulcair led off by reading a question around the admission by the PM’s communications director that there was a cover-up in the PMO and likely criminality that took place. Paul Calandra rejected the premise of the question, and insisted that the PM had nothing to do with it. Mulcair demanded that everyone who had a hand in the event be fired, but Calandra insisted that they were cooperating with authorities. Mulcair wondered why Gerstein remained in caucus if he was involved in improperly attempting to influence the audit — but Calandra reminded him that the RCMP were only investigating Duffy and Wright. Mulcair closed the round by wondering about the “good to go” order being after he told Duffy to repay, but Clanadra insisted that Duffy was still trying to justify his inappropriate expenses in the interim. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, wondering how long Harper put up with the cover-up in his office, but Calandra assured him that the Prime Minister immediately ordered cooperation with investigators. McGuinty also tried to ask about the “good to go” discrepancy, not that Calandra’s answer changed. For the final question of the round, McGuinty wondered when the government would share all of the documents in its possession, but Calandra simply repeated that the PM ordered cooperation with investigators.
Roundup: Four by-elections today
At long last, it’s finally by-election day today! Hooray! Toronto Centre has been the centre of a debate on income inequality, while Brandon-Souris, a long-time Conservative stronghold, is being seen as a barometer of the Senate scandals, compounded by alleged shenanigans in the nomination race, which may be driving voters over to the Liberals. Susan Delacourt notices that Bob Rae sent out a letter to Liberal supporters that employed the language of shame-based get-out-the-vote campaigns, talking about names being on voter lists, which NDP MP Craig Scott accused of being coercive, though it has been a proven effective technique where it has been applied. Michael Den Tandt looks at the by-election narratives, and notes the ways in which both the Conservatives and NDP are doing Trudeau’s work, handing him lay-ups, and allowing him to straddle the centre. (He’s wrong that this is Trudeau’s first electoral test – that was in Labrador). Paul Wells is grumpy about the whole thing – and I can’t blame him.