All eyes will be on the Supreme Court this week as the Senate reference goes ahead. The fact that there will only be two sitting Quebec justices is a major bone of contention, and highlights the mess that the government made of the whole appointment process. A mess, it needs to be said again, they didn’t need to make. On the subject of the reference question, this piece looking at the abolition of Quebec’s Legislative Council is a neat bit of history, but actually has almost no use in terms of abolishing the Senate because the provinces aren’t federations. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, and yet they keep pointing to places like Nebraska, New Zealand and Sweden as places that don’t have upper chambers – never mind that they’re either unitary states or sub-national governments, and don’t have the same dual federalism concerns that Canada as a whole does, which is why we need a bicameral legislature.
Tag Archives: Access to Information
Roundup: Suspending errant senators
In a blatant bit of damage control, Conservatives in the Senate have moved to suspend Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin without pay for “gross negligence” in the use of their parliamentary resources. This came shortly after Duffy sent a message out to say that he was going on medical leave due to heart problems. There are concerns from Senators on both sides that this move comes without a lot of due process, seeing as none of the three have been charged with a crime, though Liberal Senate leader James Cowan noted that he felt there had been insufficient sanctions applied back in the spring, but the government didn’t seem keen on action then. I will admit to my own reservations about this move to suspension without pay without due process, but that has been mollified somewhat when it was explained that this particular disciplinary measure is not a reflection of the RCMP investigations, but as a result of the findings by the Senate’s internal economy committee that found that those Senators had broken the rules. There will still be debate on these motions and the opportunity for each Senator to defend themselves – though it was also pointed out that it will be hard to continue to garnish Brazeau’s wages if he’s suspended without pay. To top if off, Thomas Mulcair felt it appropriate to crack wise that these suspensions are a good first step and that he would prefer to see all Senators suspended without pay before they move to abolish the Chamber. Which is hilarious until you realise that no legislation could actually be passed by a chamber that was entirely suspended (and would have had to suspend itself, as only the Senate itself has the power to suspend its membership). Apparently “good public administration” in Mulcair’s books means ignoring the constitution.
Roundup: Evidence for Ambrose
On Power & Politics on Friday, Rona Ambrose asserted that there was “no evidence” that heroin-based therapy is effective for those heroin addicts for whom other treatments have proven ineffective. She repeated this several times. She was wrong, and Aaron Wherry points out why.
Thomas Mulcair went out of his way to repeat that he would not raise personal income taxes on the wealthy as part of his next campaign, despite that being one of the things that his star candidate, Linda McQuaig, continues to espouse. Because apparently people don’t pay for corporate tax increases either. Mulcair is also planning to unveil a new pan-Canadian energy policy sometime later in the fall.
Roundup: Canada’s newest Supreme Court justice
Stephen Harper has nominated Federal Court Justice Marc Nadon as the newest member of the Supreme Court of Canada. This appointment solidifies the current gender imbalance on the bench, and there are questions as to whether it is really appropriate that Nadon, as a Federal Court justice, really should be a Quebec appointee considering that he is not currently a member of the Quebec Bar. There have been other concerns raised that while Nadon is an expert in maritime law, there is little call for such expertise on the Supreme Court, while there is a need for more expertise in administrative law. Add to that, the ad hoc committee of MPs set to quiz Nadon on his appointment was given a mere 48 hours to prepare (though most of those MPs would have been involved with the short-list selection process, so they would be familiar with his file, but there are yet more concerns that MPs who weren’t involved in that process should be the ones involved). It was also noted that Nadon was a dissenting opinion with regard to the Omar Khadr case with regards to attempts to order the government to have him repatriated, and the Supreme Court later agreed with him – for what it’s worth.
Roundup: Overhauling military procurement?
The CBC’s sources are telling them that a complete reorganisation of the military procurement system will be a highlight of the upcoming Throne speech. Whether that reorganisation is to put it in a new agency under the direction of a single minister, or as a permanent secretariat comprised of bureaucrats (and presumably outside consultants) remains to be seen, but hopefully there will be a system where there is some accountability, and a single responsible authority rather than the murky mess that is the current system where everyone is involved but nobody is responsible or accountable.
Roundup: Abusing the PBO’s mandate
It’s official – MPs are now abusing the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A report was released from his office yesterday, which announced the costing of the Conservatives’ election promise to create a fitness tax credit for older adults once the budget was balanced. That’s right – MPs were getting him to check on an election promise that is years away from seeing the light – probably not until after the next election. Strange, but this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with independent budget forecasts or help in deciphering the supply cycle. In fact, this is little more than MPs fobbing off their homework to the PBO so that they can wrap themselves in his independent-and-therefore-credible analysis. Because math is hard! Is it any wonder that the government has become suspicious of the way in which the PBO has been operating, when opposition MPs are using it in such a way? It doesn’t matter that this particular report came from a Conservative MP either, because it’s still dealing with election promises rather than forecasts or the estimates and it still plays the independent-and-therefore-credible game. It also shouldn’t be a personal calculation service, as Galipeau was using the PBO in that manner before he “brought a recommendation” to Flaherty in advance of the budget – he has a caucus research bureau for these sorts of things. This is also an argument for not making the PBO an independent officer of parliament, because he would have no accountability to anyone at that point. When this kind of abuse by MPs for partisan gain becomes his modus operandi rather than the actual work he’s supposed to be doing then it’s hard to see how this won’t become a major problem for the way that our system of government functions.
Roundup: We have a date
Word has been given – Parliament shall resume on October 16th. That means that about three-and-a-half weeks of sitting days will have been missed, as the week of the 14th was supposed to have been a constituency week owing to Thanksgiving. Also factor in that there is an APEC Summit in Indonesia the week before, so that also affected the timing of an October return. Mind you Harper could have simply prorogued and still returned on September 16th as planned, but what can you do? (Well, withdraw confidence in the government, if you really want to be technical about it).
Roundup: Votes on Syria and the question of Responsible Government
In the fallout of last Friday’s vote in the British Commons regarding military action in Syria, there are some very serious questions being asked about what it all means. In part, the concerns come from the nature of Responsible Government – if the House has not expressed support for the government’s foreign policy goals, which as a Crown Prerogative – then how can they continue to claim to have confidence in that government? How is foreign policy any different on a substantive level when it comes to the conduct of a government than a budget? Philippe Lagassé and Mark Jarvis debate the issue here, and I’m going to say that I’m on Lagassé’s side with this one – MPs can’t just deny the government the ability to exercise their prerogatives without also taking responsibility for it, meaning declaring non-confidence in the government. It’s not how Responsible Government works, and if they’re going to start changing the conventions of such a system of governance that works really quite well, then they need to think long and hard about the consequences of their actions. But that’s part of the problem – nobody wants to look at how actions affect the system as a whole, rather than simply patting themselves on the back for a nebulous and not wholly correct interpretation of what democracy means. And once people start tinkering with the parts without looking at the whole, then big problems start to happen, which we really should beware of.
Roundup: Antiquated rifles and policy retreats
Yesterday on Harper’s Northern Tour, he dropped in on the search for the lost ships of the Franklin Expedition, and fired some of the vintage rifles used by Aboriginal reservists who comprise the Canadian Rangers. Apparently they use such old rifles because they don’t freeze up or jam in the harsh environment, though they keep saying they are looking for replacements.
Ahead of his annual closed-door “policy retreat” in Wakefield, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said not to expect any significant spending initiatives in the forthcoming Throne Speech, given that he wants to balance the books before the election, and so on. Oh, and he also has no plans to intervene in the housing market, for what it’s worth. Here’s a list of the invitees, and those of the past six years for comparison purposes.
Roundup: Charlie Angus’ distraction and vilification
At a press conference in Ottawa Friday morning, NDP MP Charlie Angus declared that he doesn’t think that the Auditor General should look at MPs’ expenses because the Senate is evil and stuff. No, really. If that wasn’t a more clear-cut case of distraction (and vilification), I’m not sure what is. The AG put out a statement outlining a few things about his forthcoming Senate audit – basically, it’s like any other audit, so stop asking him about it. Academics are hoping that this new scrutiny will sweep away the “old boys’ network” in the Senate, never mind that it’s been on its way out slowly for the past number of years as increasingly rigorous new rules have been put into place. Have similar rules been put into place on the Commons side? Well, we don’t know, because they’re not transparent, while the Senate is – not that you’ll hear Charlie Angus or Thomas Mulcair admit that. Meanwhile, it seems that Pamela Wallin was whinging about “media bullying” when they made Freedom of Information requests to Guelph University about her billing them for flights for her duties as chancellor, because you know, she’s the victim in all of this. The CBC looks at what’s next for Wallin, and also provides a fact sheet on Senators’ pay, and the key players in the expenses scandals. Meanwhile a group of psychologists – and Andrew Coyne – say that the Senate itself breeds a sense of entitlement, which doesn’t seem to explain why the problems are confined to a small minority, or why MPs and cabinet ministers fall into the very same kinds of entitled behaviours (if not even worse, because they’re the people’s chosen representatives, and a strategic genius to boot, and are therefore even more entitled).