Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: Going around the rules

Posted on by

So there were shenanigans in the Senate yesterday, the result of a confluence of a number of factors. Some of them are longer term – the terrible manner in which Harper has made his appointments has left a large cadre of Conservative senators who feel beholden to him and his largely imaginary whip. There are exceptions to the rule, but there are a lot of Senators right now who still feel they need to follow the PM’s rule because he appointed them, and that’s simply not the case. It was just a sensibility encouraged by the Senate leadership on the Conservative side who had far too many newbie senators in place at once. Then there’s the problem of the bill itself. The PMO has ruled they want to see this go through – never mind that it would create a giant bureaucracy at CRA, and that it could have “staggering” compliance costs for mutual funds and other organisations beyond the unions it’s targeting. It’s also a constitutional overreach because labour relations are a provincial jurisdiction, but the government wants this through because they see unions as a big threat to them. It never should have been a private members’ bill, but that was how they introduced it, and got it past the worst of the scrutiny on the Commons side because of automatic time limits. The Senate recognised it as unconstitutional and a threat to labour relations in this country, and even a number of Conservative senators opposed it. Led by Hugh Segal, they voted to amend the bill to near uselessness and sent it back to the Commons – but then prorogation happened, and the amendments were undone when the bill reset (thanks to Senate rules). In the interim, Hugh Segal retired, and Marjory LeBreton stepped down as government leader, almost certainly because of the caucus revolt over the bill. The Conservative senators sat on the bill for months before the PMO decided it wanted them to try and pass the bill. The Liberals, as is their right, filibustered. And they have the provinces on their side – seven provinces representing more than 80 percent of the population are opposed to the bill, and the Senate has a regional representation role. Things came to a head yesterday when the Conservatives tried to break the filibuster by trying to time allocate the bill – something they can’t do under Senate rules, and when the Speaker said no, the Conservatives challenged the ruling – something they can actually do under Senate rules. Kady O’Malley explains some of it here, and I responded with a Twitter essay.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting out the leg irons

Posted on by

It was the image that launched a thousand attack ads – or probably will, at any rate, as Dean Del Mastro was marched out in handcuffs and leg irons, off to spend the night (at least) in an Ontario prison after being found guilty of breaking election finance laws. “Cheating is cheating,” the judge noted, and that it was a serious enough crime to warrant some kind of jail time, so she decided on a month – though he may get out by tomorrow on bail pending the appeal of his case. Del Mastro’s lawyer also tried to get other exceptions for Del Mastro – jail on weekends, numerous exceptions for the eventual house arrest provisions – because he has a farm and needs to feed the animals, and a job in Toronto, and so on. The judge didn’t appear to be buying it, and made a point about needing a jail sentence onto only to show the severity of the crime (hence denunciation and deterrence), but also the issue of time to reflect on his actions, thought may be asking a lot from Del Mastro, as he walked into the courtroom convinced of his own innocence, and has shown no remorse whatsoever, even though the judge noted that Del Mastro was prepared to falsify his own statements to try and get away with his overspending. Many will argue that leg-irons and jail time are overkill, give that he’s not a dangerous criminal, but it relies on the same logic behind putting white collar criminals behind bars as well – because making them pay a fine or just house arrest aren’t considered punishment enough for the severity of their crimes. Disagree with it all you want, but we have made this choice though our legislative regimes, and if we want to change that, well, there’s an election coming up. Meanwhile, Stephen Maher says the Conservatives’ treatment of the man who testified against Del Mastro leaves a lot to be desired.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, they’re not new powers

Posted on by

I’ll admit that there has been some terribly naïve punditry about Michael Chong’s Reform Act, and a lot of touchy-feely optimism about the fuzzy notion of “reform,” but perhaps one of the most gallingly maladroit to date has come from Campbell Clark, who wonders if MPs will actually get the will to confront party leaders with their “new powers.” Yes, that was the sound of me sighing deeply. “New powers.” For those of you keeping score, Chong’s bill did not give MPs any new powers. MPs had all the power in the world thanks to the way our system of government is designed – elected as an individual MP under the first-past-the-post system, they are empowered to give or withdraw confidence, whether it is to their party leaders, or to the government of the day in the Commons. That’s an incredible amount of power because confidence is how our system runs. The problem is that they stopped empowering themselves to exercise their power, deferring first to leaders who were no longer accountable to them after we broke our leadership selection system to make it “more democratic” by taking away that power from MPs and giving it to the party membership (a convention which Chong’s bill now cements into law), and later to leaders who gained the power to sign off on their nomination forms (a measure designed to prevent spoofing on ballots and hijacked nomination races). Sure, MPs still had power and they could exercise it – but it generally meant that enough of them had to defy the leader all at once to ensure that the spectre of group punishment didn’t draw further questions, and few MPs had the intestinal fortitude to risk their necks. They still, however, had that power. For Chong to claim that his bill grants “new” powers is bogus. As I’ve stated before, it actually takes power away because it did not actually do away with the nomination sign-off power in a meaningful way, and it raised the bar by which MPs can openly challenge a leader so it can no longer be a small group who has the gonads to go forward, but will now see the media demanding the 20 percent headcount. So will MPs have the will to use these “new” powers? Probably not, because the bar has been set higher. But in the meantime, we’ll have the pundit class praising Chong for his efforts and his “courage,” rewarding him for the campaign of bullying and attempting to disenfranchise an entire body of parliament along the way.

Continue reading →

QP: One last scattershot attempt

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Like a greatest hits package 

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hyperbolic abolition nonsense

Posted on by

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Victory for concern trolls

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Gross mischaracterizations and repetition

Posted on by

The second-last Monday QP of the 41st parliament, and it looked like it was going to be a bit of a sleeper. Thomas Mulcair showed up on a Monday, which was unusual, and possibly because he’ll be at Jacques Parizeau’s funeral tomorrow. None of the other leaders were here either, however, so it was going to be pretty weak sauce. Mulcair led off by grossly mischaracterizing the AG revelation on Senate Speaker’s spending, saying that Speaker Housakos has a “spending problem.” Paul Calandra said that the Speaker had answer the question for itself. Mulcair demanded to know if the PMO was orchestrating the response to the recent Senate scandal, to which Calandra responded that the Senate invited the AG in and would answer for themselves. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer also in French, and then he moved onto the G7 communique on climate change. Colin Carrie got to respond to this one, reading that the G7 came up with a strong and unanimous statement on climate change. Mulcair demanded action on climate change,and got another talking point about our “clear” record. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking in French about contradictory statements the government has made about infrastructure spending at the G7. Denis Lebel insisted that the facts were wrong, and that they were making record investments. Adam Vaughan blasted the government for their false assurances at the Federation of Canadian Munipalities meeting, to which Lebel insisted that the former Liberal government didn’t live up to promises. Vaughan hammered on the government and their messaging, to which Joe Oliver got up to insist that money would be available when projects needed them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting ahead of the story

Posted on by

As we inch toward the full release of the Auditor General’s report, more material is leaking out, while some senators are trying to get ahead of the story and highlighting what they see as problems with the audits. Conservative Senator Janis Johnson, for example, was flagged for a couple of flights, and she even provided ample documentation to show that it was parliamentary business, however the auditor made a value judgement – he “felt” the trips were personal, never mind that the personal aspects to said trips (also perfectly allowed and not billed to the Senate) were booked after the work trips had been arranged, and yes, documentation supports it. That the auditor insisted that the problem was that she didn’t use the Outlook calendar is an exceedingly bizarre criteria for finding the expenses questionable, despite other supporting documentation. Given the legitimate dispute over the audit report that he has expressed publicly, and that of Speaker Housakos, it’s no doubt that we’ll start to get a better taste of what could be a very problematic audit from the auditor’s side. Meanwhile, we’re starting to get more boneheaded commentary from the pundit class again, wondering why the government just can’t stop funding the Senate – as though it wasn’t a completely separate house of Parliament with institutional independence and not answer able to the government. Why not cut off funding to the Supreme Court as well? Oh, right – we have a thing called the Constitution. Other hosts are stoking this hysteria over what they are trying to claim is a conflict of interest between the Senate leadership and the establishment of the arbitration process with Justice Ian Binnie, but when you look at the facts, it’s just not supportable, as Senator Cowan amply pointed out on The House over the weekend. When it’s pointed out that Duffy and company didn’t get this kind of a process, Cowan said point blank that he didn’t agree with that process at the time and that two wrongs don’t make a right. Elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair vowed he would consult with the premiers to try to abolish the Senate if he should be elected, to which I say good luck with that. You think the Atlantic provinces will give up that representation, or that Quebec wouldn’t have a laundry list of other demands? Keep dreaming.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/607713842966073344

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leaks and leaping to judgement

Posted on by

Even before the Auditor General had turned over to the Senate his report on their expenses, the leaks were already coming out fast and furious, starting with the knowledge that the two leaders in the Senate as well as the Speaker had expenses that were questioned, and in the cases of the Liberal leader and the Speaker, they planned to challenge those claims before the independent arbiter that has been set up to deal with these issues, while the Conservative leader’s expenses were already paid back as they related to a staffer who had improperly filed claims. The Liberal leader, Senator Cowan, got out in front of it – there are $10,000 in travel expenses from four years ago that had to do with parliamentary business that he no longer had supporting documentation for because the claims had been dealt with at the time and not retained, but the auditors are making a big deal of it – and that seems perfectly fair and reasonable. By this point, however, certain breathless types in the media started hyperventilating about how the fact that these were the people who established the arbitration process, so this was supposedly some kind of “conflict of interest,” which not only sounds ridiculous on its face, but it impugns the integrity of former Justice Ian Binnie, who will hear the cases. I mean, come on. It also smacked of the presumption of guilt, never mind that there is plenty of indication that in many cases, the auditors made value judgements about what should qualify and what should not, and of these 29 total files, one has to assume that a good chunk of them will come out of the arbitration process favourably. As time went on, the nine senators whose audits were found to be egregious were revealed, two of those senators still sitting – Senator Boisvenu for the Conservatives (who immediately removed himself from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation), and Senator Kenny for the Liberals (who was recently out of caucus during a sexual harassment investigation that he was cleared in). All of this before the report has been made public. The fact that we don’t have facts and figures before us, that we have a number of claims going before the arbiter, that some of these claims were simply errors and not done with malicious intent, and that there were demonstrable problems with the auditors during the process means that we should all take a deep breath and not rush to proclaim everyone guilty, or the institution as a whole to be tarnished. Yes, it’s a rough patch, and it’s the price they are paying for increasing their transparency. It’s funny that all of the MPs sanctimoniously lining up to denounce the Senate – or worse, concern troll about its credibility or legitimacy – won’t let the AG look at their own books. Funny that.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/606644654902288384

Continue reading →