Tag Archives: Auditor General

Roundup: Making up titles

Posted on by

Senator Peter Harder made it official yesterday – the announcement of a Deputy Leader and Whip – err, sorry, “deputy government representative” and “government liaison” as he wants them styled, and it erupted in a bit of a fight in the Chamber that he can’t just make up names for people because the Parliament of Canada Act doesn’t work that way. I also have concerns with the job descriptions that Harder has given them (and these were provided to me from a Senator).

For his deputy, Senator Bellemare:

Assists the Government’s Representative to process the legislation coming from the House of Commons (government, private members’ bills and government bills in the Senate) in a transparent, impartial, constructive and non-partisan manner;

In the context of an evolving modernized Senate, assists the Government’s Representative so that all bills (including bills coming from Senators) receive a fair and non-partisan treatment;

Assists the Government’s representative to provide Canadians with a clear understanding of the treatment by the Senate of the bills coming from the House of Commons;

Assist the Government’s Representative in the Chamber, to make sure that due process is provided to Government legislation and all other bills and businesses,

Follow the legislative work of Committees,

Assist Committees to provide more substantive reports on their specific study of bills,

Assist informally Senators with rules and procedures.

And for his whip – err, “liaison,” Senator Mitchell:

It is the role of the Government’s Representative group in the Senate to facilitate the passing of government legislation and to contribute to the effective functioning of the Senate in a non-partisan and open way. The Government Liaison position will be responsible for administrative and management roles and for liaison with all Senators. Specific responsibilities will include:

-Working with the caucuses’ Whips and with independent Senators to help organize the business of the Senate, including, for example, the coordination of Senate Committee placements;

-Supporting sponsors of bills by ensuring that they receive the required input, briefings, and material from Ministers and government officials to present bills effectively;

-Assisting sponsors of bills to identify and deal with the issues and concerns raised by Senators in the debate and review of legislation.

The Government Liaison will exercise these responsibilities in a collaborative and non-partisan fashion.

The problem with these descriptions is that they are largely comprised of buzzwords. Throwing around terms like “due process” and “non-partisan” is hard to square with the fact that these are government representatives, and government is inherently partisan. While I can grudgingly agree that having a Deputy makes some sense out of pure logistics, the “liaison” role is largely nonsense. The existence of the Independent Working Group means that there was no need to have a Whip to organise committee assignments for non-aligned senators, and senators are grown-ups and should be able to arrange getting materials from Ministers and government officials. They have phones and emails, and assistants who can make arrangements. And “assisting sponsors of bills to identify and deal with issues and concerns,” which purported will including helping senators draft amendments? Again, they’re grown ups who can do their own jobs and talk to the Law Clerk if they need to. Aside from bigfooting the Independent Working Group – and making this move without consulting them – what is most striking is that Harder made this move for largely the sake of optics – he wanted both a Conservative and a Liberal by his side to make a big show of being bi-partisan, even though the role he gave Mitchell is ludicrous, and heaven forbid that Harder just have Bellemare by his side, because that would give the impression that he is really a Liberal, and he couldn’t have that. So instead Harder is making things worse for everyone with this particular move, angering both the Conservatives and the Senate Liberals, while still acting outside of the Parliament of Canada Act and the Senate Rules. It’s undermines his credibility, the work of the independents at pushing for meaningful reform, and is going to make getting anything accomplished in the Senate difficult for the foreseeable future.

Continue reading →

QP: What AG report? 

Posted on by

Tuesday QP, and with the Auditor General’s report out, there was the possibility of some juicy questions. Then again, given that most of what he examined happened under the Conservatives’ watch, their questions may not be as juicy. Rona Ambrose, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, led off by referencing Morneau’s flippant “stuck on the balanced budget” thing, but in her framing of Trudeau being absent the day before, Trudeau first praised the Invictus Games, before pivoting to praising his government’s plan for the middle class. Ambrose asked a philosophical question about whose money Trudeau thought it was spending, and he retorted with rhetorical questions about whether it was reckless and irresponsible to lower taxes on the middle class. Ambrose lamented that the increased spending has to be paid back, and Trudeau parried by noting how much the previous government increased the federal debt. Denis Lebel took over in French, and Trudeau listed the many infrastructure and transit projects committed to in places like Montreal and Edmonton. Lebel insisted that the Conservatives we respecting provincial jurisdiction while balancing the budget, but Trudeau returned to Harper’s debt figure. Thomas Mulcair led off for the NDP, thundering about diafiltred milk and support for dairy farmers. Trudeau responded that they are engaging with the dairy sector, and that they are protecting the industry and Supply Management. Mulcair demanded an investigation into KPMG’s activities, but Trudeau insisted there was no favouritism by CRA. Mulcair demanded again in English, Trudeau replied again in English, and for his final question, demanded action on climate change. Trudeau reminded him that he was once environment minister in Quebec and didn’t get progress on the Kyoto Accords, and that the current government was committed to meeting more stringent targets.

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 →

Roundup: Overwrought defences

Posted on by

Plenty of developments in the Senate yesterday, all of them resignation related. Manitoba Senator Maria Chaput resigned due to health concerns, Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein has reached his mandatory retirement age, and Senate Liberal Senator Pierrette Ringuette has resigned from the Senate Liberal caucus to sit as an Independent. As part of the tributes to Gerstein, there were some overwrought statements on the Conservative side about the value of political fundraisers, and I will say that I’m not one of those people who has a kneejerk reaction to fundraisers who get appointed to the Senate. Why? Because these are people who interact with the voters as much as MPs do, and have a pretty good sense of what their issues are (if only to exploit them for political gain). It’s like being aghast that there’s politics in politics. Granted, the tone out of the Conservative Senate caucus these days of “See! There’s nothing wrong with being partisan!” isn’t helping their case any, but on a fundamental level they’re right. They just need to tone it down from an eleven to a two or a three. As for Ringuette, I will note that the fetishised tones being used to describe the “desire for an independent Senate” are as equally overwrought as the Conservatives’ defence of partisanship. I was particularly struck by Ringuette going on Power & Politics and declaring that there’s nothing in the constitution that says that the Senate has to be a partisan body, therefore she and others of that mindset feel that there’s no role for partisanship. Where that argument falls apart is that it’s right in the preamble of the constitution itself – that Canada has a political system like that of the United Kingdom, and last I checked, its upper chamber was also a partisan body (and no, this isn’t an invitation to compare the Senate to the House of Lords, because they are very different institutions, but the principle of the upper chamber remains). People who insist that something isn’t in the constitution (*cough*Elizabeth May*cough*) ignore the unwritten parts of it, which are just as valid as the written parts, and it’s not an adequate defence for how they imagine institutions to function. So while it’s good on Ringuette to want to go her own way, I do think that the conversation around independent senators is still in its early stages, and I have no doubt that there are plenty of surprises on the way.

Continue reading →

QP: A strategic blunder in questioning

Posted on by

Tuesday, and with the Auditor General’s report now on the table, there promised to be more than a few questions about some of his scathing findings. Rona Ambrose was ready, mini-lectern on desk, she read a question about Trudeau telling resource sector workers to “wait it out,” and concern trolled about a national carbon tax plan — you know, one that doesn’t exist. Trudeau reminded her that her government made things worse for Albertans after ten years in power. Ambrose asked again in French, and Trudeau told her that a responsible economy meant being responsible about the environment. Ambrose then called the bill repealing those anti-union bills “payback,” to which Trudeau reminded her that their first piece of legislation was actually lowering taxes. Gérard Deltell took over, asking again in French, to which Trudeau insisted that they rectified the situation when they learned about the illegal donations. Deltell took a swipe at unions, but Trudeau shrugged it off. David Christopherson led off for the NDP, demanding that they fix the items highlighted in the Auditor General’s report. Trudeau said that they were alarmed and were working to repair the damage of the last government. Christopherson demanded proof of commitment, and Trudeau insisted that unlike the previous government, they did more than just make announcements. Brigitte Sansoucy took over to ask again in French, particularly around the Social Security Tribunal, to which Jean-Yves Duclos let her know that he met with the AG and he would do everything in his power to fix the situation. Sansoucy raised the AG report on export controls, to which Ralph Goodale insisted that they intend to follow his advice and that they were implementing an action plan.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oversight and transparency

Posted on by

Oh, look – it’s the first Senate bat-signal of the year, this time with an interview with Senator Beth Marhsall on CBC Radio’s The House. The treatment of the interview does raise some of the usual problems when it comes to reporting what’s going on in the Senate – namely, that journalists who don’t follow the institution, or who haven’t actually given a critical reading of the Auditor General’s report mischaracterise it as showing “widespread abuse” when it certainly was not, and a good number of the report’s findings were in fact suspect because they were value judgements of individual auditors, many of whom were perfectly defensible. Marshall, however, thinks that the AG’s suggestion of an independent oversight body is a-okay, despite the fact that it’s a massive affront to parliamentary supremacy. The Senate is a legislative body and not a government department – it has to be able to run its own affairs, otherwise out whole exercise of Responsible Government is for naught, and we should hand power back to the Queen to exercise on our behalf. I can understand why Marshall might think this way – she is, after all, a former provincial Auditor General and would err on the side of the auditor’s recommendations regardless, but the fact that no reporter has ever pushed back against this notion and said “Whoa, parliamentary supremacy is a thing, no?” troubles me greatly. I still think that if an oversight body is to be created that it should follow the Lords model, as proposed by Senator McCoy, whereby you have a body of five, three of whom are Senators, and the other two being outsiders, for example with an auditor and a former judge. You get oversight and dispute resolution, but it also remains in control of the Senate, which is necessary for the exercise of parliamentary supremacy. Marshall’s other “fix” is the need to televise the Senate for transparency’s sake. While it’s a constant complaint, and yes, cameras will be coming within a year or two, the notion that it’s going to be a fix to any perceived woes is farcical. Why? With few exceptions, people don’t tune into the Commons outside of Question Period, despite our demands that we want to see our MPs on camera to know they’re doing their jobs. Cameras, meanwhile, have largely been blamed for why QP has become such a sideshow – they know they’re performing, and most of the flow of questions these days is atrocious because they’re simply trying to get news clips. I’m not sure how cameras will improve the “transparency” of the Senate any more than making the audio stream publicly available did, never mind that committees have been televised for decades. If people really wanted to find out what Senators do, there are more than enough opportunities – but they don’t care. It’s easier to listen to the received wisdom that they’re just napping on the public dime, and the people who could be changing that perception – journalists – are more than content to feed the established narrative instead.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The big infrastructure spend

Posted on by

It all being official that the Liberals are willing to run a small deficit in order to finance infrastructure spending in the hopes of boosting a stalled economy have turned the election into one with some real differences between parties, which incidentally seems to have also energised Harper’s performance at his own stops. The issue for the Liberals would seem to be now not only having to sell the idea of deficits – which they are attempting to do with the line of being the only party that’s being honest about the current state of the nation’s finances – but ensuring that the infrastructure spending they’re doing is going to be actually useful in the longer term. Sure, there is a big infrastructure deficit in this country for which this new funding is but a drop in the bucket, but if he wants to ensure that this is the kind of kick that will grow the economy, it should be in things that will have bigger impact – port infrastructure to get goods to market, ensuring that there is the kind of broadband access in places that need it to grow their business and attract investment, and so on. It shouldn’t be about short-term stimulus, lest the Liberals repeat the mistakes of the Conservatives in 2009-10. Not unsurprisingly, Toronto mayor John Tory and the president of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities both liked the announcement as it means more money for cities. Former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch talks about the need for fiscal policy rather than just relying on monetary policy to try to grow the economy – and includes infrastructure spending as an example. Kevin Milligan examines the case for infrastructure spending at this time, and finds there is a plausible case for it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving terrorists what they want

Posted on by

Because they’re totally not trying to use public service resources for electioneering purposes, it has been revealed that the Foreign Affairs minister Rob Nicholson wanted his department to produce a minimum of three media statements per week regarding the security threats posed by terrorism. While they would draw from events around the world, the statements would have been a steady stream delivered to media inboxes in the hopes of getting some kind of traction. Fortunately, the civil servants in the department realised this was ridiculous and pushed back, saying it wasn’t a priority for them to fulfil these requests, and good on them for doing so – it’s not their job to try and help the party build a narrative for their election campaign. And no doubt, we’ll likely hear a lot more about the security question from the Conservatives going forward, because it’s not like their economic record is doing them any favours right now. Of course, the irony in all of this is that it would appear to feed directly into the aims of terrorists, which is of course, to create fear. If the government is going to deliver nothing but a stream of statements saying “Ooh, terrorists! Be very afraid!” then doesn’t it mean that they’re letting the terrorists win? Even if they follow it up with the chest thumping about how awesome the government is by taking such a strong stand against them, etcetera, etcetera? I’m at a bit of a loss as to how this is a brilliant strategy in the bigger picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ham-fisting a simple request

Posted on by

The signs of the current government’s incompetence at handling the big files are numerous, but recent revelations about their anti-terrorism legislation just may take the cake. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show that last year, Canadian intelligence services said that they were looking for “significant improvements” to information sharing between the various agencies – but they wanted them within the existing legislative framework. They didn’t need all kinds of new powers or expanded mandates, and yet, the government turn around and brought in C-51, which did just that. Because this government, after almost a decade in office, apparently doesn’t know what they’re doing, gave the intelligence services a ham-fisted, overly broad new suite of powers that they didn’t need – or even want, if these documents are to be believed – because they had managed to terrify themselves thanks to a couple of lone-wolf attacks on home soil. They drafted a bill that was so sloppy and terrible that every expert on the subject could hardly believe it. And their inept communications strategy around the bill managed to get every civil society group up in arms over it, creating a second sweep of paranoia (despite the fact that no, the bill had nothing to do with trying to expand surveillance to civil society groups or use terrorists as cover for trying to bring the hammer down on First Nations – a simple look at the fact that the government has underfunded CSIS and the RCMP will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about their intentions). It looks to be just one more example of where this government once again rejected expert advice in order to make themselves look like they were getting tough on terrorism – as effectively as they’ve gotten “tough on crime” – and they managed to balls things up for themselves and everyone else in the process. Would that we could have some grown-ups leading this country for a change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Half-assing discussions on the Senate

Posted on by

With all of the recent attention on the Senate lately, there has been no shortage of columns and think-pieces about the institution, calls for its abolition, and the conflation of a host of issues under the banner of “scandal” writ large, all senators painted with the brush of criminality, all of the expense issues flagged by the Auditor General treated as outright graft, and now with the accusations against Senator Don Meredith of sexual impropriety with a teenager, the institution itself seems to bear the blame. Never mind that elected officials are often caught misspending or engaging in inappropriate behaviour (there is a reason why the Commons Clerk has a conversation with the female pages at the beginning of every session). Add to the pile is the weekend longread in the Ottawa Citizen about what to do with the problem of the Senate. And for as much as it was a noble effort, it fell apart rather quickly on a number of fronts. For one, for a piece of its length, it relied on astonishingly few sources – one retiring Conservative senator who is engaged in a campaign of self-serving legacy-building, one who has already retired, the same political scientist that every reporter goes to for a quote, and one more lesser-known political scientist to push back against a few of the claims. That’s not a lot for a fairly complex issue. Much of the article is taken up by the fixation on a referendum on Senate abolition, be it from Hugh Segal’s outright bizarre notion that it could somehow give the institution legitimacy if it were rejected, to the usual nonsense that it will somehow spur premiers to action. Completely absent from the self-awareness of any of these arguments is the fundamental concept that one of the Senate’s very primary purposes was to protect the interests of minority provinces – to say that referendum result can somehow wipe away those very real interests is a complete betrayal of the principles of a liberal democracy which is supposed to mediate against the harms of mob rule. The piece also makes boneheaded statements like the composition of the Senate over-representing smaller provinces – which was the whole point, to have a system of regional representation that was not bound to representation-by-population. The Senate’s model of equal regions was designed to counter the rep-by-pop of the Commons, and the inability for people to grasp this simple fact is gob smacking. Nowhere in any discussion of reform are the reasons the Senate was structured the way it was – to provide institutional independence against the reprisals of a government they push back against. Accusations of ineffectiveness are mired in the recent past as opposed to a broader look at times when the Senate has less deferential, nor does it look at reasons why it’s in a deferential state right now (hint: the manner in which the current Prime Minister made his selections). And the issue of the lack of seriousness by which successive prime ministers have taken their appointment powers is not explored at all, when it is probably the most important part of the discussion about what to do about the Senate. If we’re going to have a discussion about the Senate, then let’s be serious about it. Half-assed attempts like this don’t help the conversation.

Continue reading →