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.
Tag Archives: Auditor General
Roundup: Ham-fisting a simple request
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.
Roundup: Half-assing discussions on the Senate
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.
Not unless you think the constitution is illegitimate. RT @robert_hiltz: The Senate is many things, but it is certainly not "illegitimate".
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 20, 2015
QP: One last scattershot attempt
It was likely the final Commons Question Period of the 41st Parliament (but it looks like not), and not a moment too soon. Not unsurprisingly, most of the leaders have already fled for the pre-writ campaign trail, with the exception of Elizabeth May, who dutifully remains at her desk until the bitter end. Megan Leslie led off, raising the moral issue of climate change per the Pope’s encyclical, but turned it into an NDP pitch instead of a question. Leona Agulkkaq chose a climate change talking point and recited it dutifully. Leslie then moved to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, to which James Bezan rose to denounce the comments made by the Chief of Defence Staff and to note that the wheels were already in motion for a change of command. Leslie asked for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Kellie Leitch insisted that they were taking action. Niki Ashton picked up, denounced the government and raised a report on the wage gap between First Nations and other Canadians. Bernard Valcourt noted the measures the government has taken to improve the lives of First Nations. Ashton then raised a plethora of social issues faced by First Nations children and asked a rhetorical question about the government discriminating against them. Valcourt insisted that they were taking action to improve their lives. Ralph Goodale led for Liberals, decrying the government’s economic performance to which Kevin Sorenson read some talking points about lowering taxes and the Liberals raising them. Goodale dug in, but Sorenson repeated his usual talking points about how great ever high was. Dominc LeBlanc took the final slot to further the condemnation in the other official language, to which Candice Bergen stood up to defend the government’s record of keeping promises.
Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals
There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560
https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544
Roundup: The AG’s unchecked power
As we continue to sort through the aftermath of the Senate audit, one of the more distasteful things that I’ve come across is this sneering narrative that senators are insufficiently grateful to the Auditor General for the work. I’m not sure why they should be, considering that in many of the responses posted by those who are sending their questioned expenses to arbitration is that the auditors in question ignored their evidence or arguments and made value judgements with no real understanding of parliamentary business. Add to that the leaks to the media and their being painted with the brush of criminality, it’s no wonder that they don’t feel like showering the praise. More disconcertingly, however, is the narrative that the Auditor General can do no wrong. We’ve heard this not only from the pundit class, but also the NDP in their sanctimonious mischaracterizations of the results of the audit results, and the general excuses that “who are the public going to believe – the auditors or the senators?” In other words, rather than owing any deference to our parliamentarians, as was once the case, we now give it to an unelected and unaccountable officer of parliament, who wields an increasing amount of political influence whether he seeks it or not. This should be disconcerting to people, because nobody is infallible, and yet we treat the AG as though he were. His report on the Senate audit says point blank that these are not just cold hard facts – they had to exercise their professional judgement, and that is putting them at odds with some of those senators. That it doesn’t seem to enter into the conceptions of people that he could be wrong, that his professional judgement may have been on the wrong track when it comes to what could constitute parliamentary business for a senator – whose role in the community is different from that of an MP – is a problem. This much unchecked and unquestioned power is a fairly dangerous political power, and we should be asking more questions. As it stands, We The Media are the only ones who can hold the AG in check, and we shouldn’t give him a free pass, no matter how much the office has attained folk hero status. (Incidentally, one former AG says the price tag for auditing MPs would be so high as to be a waste of money, so there you go).
Roundup: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense
In the aftermath of the AG’s report on the Senate, we see a little more analysis of what it said – questions of residency issues, or about whether some board and charity work qualifies as Senate business – but mostly we’re seeing a bunch of hyberbolic bluster and nonsense from the pundit class about holding a referendum on Senate abolition (can’t be done during a general election, and won’t actually be binding or really democratic). No one has taken this kind of bluster to the next level quite like Thomas Mulcair, who has taken the talk to the level of being obtuse. Quebec premier Phillipe Couillard said he’s not interested in Senate abolition, end of story, but Mulcair kept insisting that he’ll get a “mandate” for abolition and he’ll work with the premiers on that issue alone, as though nobody would make other demands, or that minority provinces and territories would willingly give up what little representation they have so that they can be completely swamped by all of the Commons seats in Ontario – you know, one of the reasons why the Senate was designed the way it was, which was to act as a counterbalance. But then, Mulcair decided to not only stick with being obtuse, he doubled down on dickishness and declared that no Senator had ever done any work of any value – because apparently the Kirby report on mental health, or Romeo Dallaire’s work around child soldiers, or the study on the Canada-US price gap, or any number of examples of quality work the Senate has done – far better than anything the Commons has produced in recent memory – is nothing. With this having been said, let me add a couple of notes of my own, particularly for journalist colleagues – if you start talking about Senate “reform,” note that you had better have a specific reform proposal in mind, otherwise you’re actually talking about nothing. Senate reform is kind of like a unicorn in that it’s magical and fantastical and everyone wants it but can’t be grasped because reality soon sets in, and what reforms you’re proposing are almost certainly unworkable. Trudeau’s plan for a reformed appointment process is a start, and probably the best that can happen, but we don’t know what the outcome is going to be when those senators appointed by this new process start filtering into the system.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645300207534080
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608645895211503618
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/608647086427361281
Going to meme it. #SenCA pic.twitter.com/epjulE8Uni
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 10, 2015
Roundup: At long last, the audit
And after an agonizing period of leaks that did probably the maximum damage possible, the Auditor General’s report was finally released yesterday, and it was, well, honestly not that much of a bombshell or all that damning once you calm down from the breathless hysteria and cheap outrage over taxpayer’s money and start putting everything into context. Yes, there were some questionable expenses, and you’d pretty much find that in any organization (most especially elected ones). Sure, he made some comments about the fact that they sometimes charged for meals when there should have been one provided (but this is where things start to get nitpicky) or said that some were careless about cell phone roaming charges (which seems to be a pretty common irritant about any consumer judging from the number of news pieces about it). Senator Colin Kenny, one of the files the AG flagged for further investigation, refutes some of the claims (and this is one of the two that the AG noted he wanted further investigation on because of contradictory evidence). The five current and former Manitoba senators named in the audit refuted their claims to the CBC. The AG did make a big deal about the institution being self-policing without seeming to have any awareness about parliamentary supremacy or self-governance being an important consideration for the practice of Responsible Government – you know, something that is kind of a Big Deal. The Citizen has a Q&A with Ferguson, who says an audit of the House of Commons would likely be prohibitively expensive (but I still say that every MP who sanctimoniously denounces the Senate over this should have his or her own books subjected to the same audit). Liberal Senator Hervieux-Payette did manage to get through a motion to have the Senate rules committee investigate the leaks of the report, seeing as it undermined the presumption of innocence and having a fair defence for those senators named. I would be extremely curious to know who was leaking, so that it would give one a clue about what their endgame was.
Angry resting face. pic.twitter.com/57TxFD1GwB
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 9, 2015
Roundup: Victory for concern trolls
Consider it a victory for the concern trolls, particularly those hosting the political shows, who spent four days hounding Senate Speaker Leo Housakos and Senators Carignan and Cowan over a trumped up appearance of conflict of interest because they had a role – and largely a peripheral one – in the establishment of the arbitration process and appointment of Justice Ian Binnie to oversee the Senate arbitration process. While Carignan repaid his staffer’s questioned expenses right away, citing it as an error, both Housakos and Cowan had legitimate differences of opinion with the Auditor General over the expenses he flagged, and both intended to take it to arbitration. Monday morning, they changed course, citing that they didn’t want to taint the process by any appearance of conflict, which if you ask me is a potential tacit admission of guilt, but also weakens any ability for senators to push back against what is looking increasingly to be a series of subjective value judgements made by auditors when it comes to expenses that were flagged. (And I’m not going to go into the way in which the NDP and others are conflating these legitimate grievances with notions of criminality other than to offer the reminder that Thomas Mulcair should be thankful he made the comments about Senator Housakos that he did during QP yesterday were made under privilege, lest he face a libel suit). The fact that members of the media torqued this angle of a conflict of interest – which did not bear itself out in fact – shows how much they feel no compunction or conscience about using the Senate as a punching bag because they feel they have public sentiment on their side – never mind that they were central in creating that public sentiment out of overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s not that all of the AG’s findings will be questionable – the ones that Senator Eaton repaid certainly did not appear to be above board, but as Senator Plett remarks in his explanation for some of the flagged expenses, the auditors’ assessments can lack common sense. Of course, for all the concern trolling, it remains a basic fact that the figure of potentially misspent funds is actually tiny in context – and when you look at it in comparison to spending breaches in the Commons, it doesn’t even compare. But MPs won’t admit that they have a worse record, nor will they open their own books up, but don’t let the hypocrisy surprise you.
Roundup: Disputing the AG’s claims
The Senate feeding frenzy continues, complete with torqued headlines and inordinate amounts of time being given to the concern trolls in the NDP (who refuse to answer questions on whether they plan to campaign on opening the constitution if they truly believe in abolition). And why not? The Senate is an easy punching bag. More details continue to leak out, despite the fact that the full audit won’t be made public until Tuesday afternoon, which really makes one question who is doing the leaking and what their endgame is. The AG has hinted that it’s not his office doing the leaking, but if I were him, I’d be steaming mad about these leaks which are casting a pall over the report itself, and fuelling this breathless and hysterical coverage that remains to date largely devoid of a great many facts. The concern trolling over the two leaders and the Speaker has been particularly odious, and it’s hard to take these cries of apparent conflict of interest seriously when you look at the facts regarding their actual involvement and what they knew about their spending claims – just because they got requests for additional information, it didn’t mean that they knew they would be in the final report, and none of the three are being accused of any particular criminality. It was also made known that the Prime Minister wouldn’t have known that there were a couple of questioned expenses for Senator Housakos when he was appointed Speaker, but hey, PMO-conspiracy theorists won’t believe it regardless. While Senator Boisvenu stepped down from the Conservative caucus for the investigation, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny put out a release saying his response in the audit will speak for itself. Former Senator Gerry St. Germain disputes that he’s done anything wrong, as did Former Senator Don Oliver, and well, pretty much every one of the nine that were flagged for being egregious. It also bears mentioning that the audit itself cost over $21 million, and found less than a million in questionable spending, and that number is likely to drop dramatically once the arbitration process gets underway and a number of these cases are found to have been value judgements on the part of auditors (and yes, this is an actual problem with the way this was conducted). Some MPs and Senators think that MPs should have their own books looked over, and wouldn’t you know it, there are a whole lot of MPs who resist that notion – particularly the ones who have been so vocal about the Senate allegations. Meanwhile, the lawyers for suspended senators Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy are whinging that it’s not fair that their clients didn’t have access to this arbitration process, but there was a process at the time that they could have availed themselves to. There have been a lot of problems with procedural fairness with the way their cases were handled, and political expediency was the order of the day coming from the government’s side, but that doesn’t actually excuse any of the potential wrongdoing that they are alleged to have done, most of which far exceeds what most of the senators apparently named in the report did.