The National Post has an in-depth look at the issue of senators sitting on corporate boards, and it’s an interesting conversation but I’m not sure the tone of moralising really helps things. I think it needs to be more clearly acknowledged that until recently, most of these were “trophy appointments” on boards to give them prestige, and there was little real work involved. With recent changes in corporate governance, there is more of a due diligence model that is evolving with is becoming more onerous for senators to be involved with. And also with all due respect to Senator Hugh Segal, the work of the Senate is more than 80 or 90 days per year, given that most senators have a lot of committee work that extends beyond the sitting days of the chamber itself, as well as work on other projects that they are championing. I’m not sure that it’s as scandalous that the Senate rules are evolving to reflect these new realities, but we also need to be aware that in relative terms, most Senators don’t make a lot of money from being a Senator. It’s far less than an MP earns, and as has been stated many a time, most Senators take a pay cut upon appointment after an established career. I’m not sure that insisting they live lives of high-minded privation helps anyone. There were also arguments to be had that these kinds of directorships and activities were way by which Senators could still keep their feet in the “real world,” rather than to cloister themselves in the ivory tower that is the Red Chamber. As well, comparisons to the American Senate are not really applicable given the enormous differences between the two institutions, but they’re both called Senates, so it’s easy and lazy to try and cross-compare. So like I said – good conversation to have, but there are far more factors and context at play that should be recognized beyond the scope of this article.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.
Roundup: No charges for Wright
News from the ClusterDuff file last night as the RCMP announced that they won’t be seeking criminal charges against Nigel Wright – not that it doesn’t mean that he didn’t do anything wrong. It just means that they didn’t have enough evidence to that they felt that they could secure a conviction, which is a long way off from exoneration. The end of the RCMP investigation means that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s investigation into the activities can now restart, which doesn’t mean that Wright is free and clear (not that those sanctions will be too severe – a slap on the wrist and/or being named and shamed tends to be the extent of it). It also means that he is now free to be a witness in any other ongoing investigations, such as the one into Mike Duffy himself. Wright did put out a brief statement by way of his lawyer that said that he always knew his actions were lawful – but it’s still a stretch based on this turn of events to make that kind of a declaration. It also means that Harper can’t hide behind the excuse of an RCMP investigation when asked questions in the House – unless he tries to use the investigation into Duffy as the smokescreen, which I wouldn’t put past him. CBC put together a special At Issue panel to discuss this turn of events.
Roundup: A damning pre-study report
All day long yesterday, word had it that Conservative senators will be recommending changes to the Fair Elections Act as a result of their pre-study, and that Senate Liberals will be recommending even more changes in a minority report. The nine major ones, however, have unanimous support. Pierre Poilievre said he’d “carefully consider” their ideas, which is pretty non-committal. Of course, if the House passes the bill unamended without having considered the Senate recommendations, it could set up for a confrontation between the two Chambers if the Senate decides to make an issue out of it. That of course, remains the danger – that the Conservatives in the Senate will buckle under the pressure of the PMO, as there are still too many operating under its influence. Incidentally, it seems that even if the bill passes and the sections on the robocall registry are unaltered, they may not be implemented in time for the next election.
Roundup: Anders down in defeat
The Conservative members of the new riding of Calgary Signal Hill have spoken, and Rob Anders will not be their candidate in the next federal election. Instead, former provincial finance minister Ron Liepert has managed to win the nomination, apparently by a “comfortable majority,” even though Jason Kenney had taken to not only endorsing but also voicing a robocall on Anders’ behalf late in the game. Liepert, after winning, told Kenney to mind his own business rather angrily, incidentally. Anders has indicated that he would sit the remainder of this parliament, but hasn’t indicated what he’ll do next, though there is some speculation that he’ll still try to contest another Calgary riding’s nomination. Anders had labelled this nomination as a fight for the “soul” of the Conservative party, his “true blue” version versus a more “red Tory” Liepert (but apparently not even really), and in the aftermath, Liepert has said that his victory shows where the mainstream of the Conservative party has moved. It also shows how open nominations give the grassroots members more of a voice for who they want to represent the party on their behalf, rather than being assigned that voice for them. Aaron Wherry tries to search for meaning in this nomination upset here. (And be sure to check out the Herald’s video from the aftermath).
Roundup: Misplaced Heartbleed blame
The big news yesterday was that the “Heartbleed Bug” had forced the shutdown of much of the Canada Revenue Agency’s website as a precaution, given that personal information that Canadians uploaded as they filed their taxes could be accessed and later decoded through the recently discovered backdoor flaws in the encryption software that some two-thirds of the Internet uses. Of course, the NDP tried to make a partisan issue out of this, and tried to say that it was because the Conservatives didn’t spend enough on cybersecurity – even though the issue has nothing to do with cybersecurity, or hacking, or malware, or anything like that. The minister, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, did later announce that the filing deadline would be extended by the number of days the site is down as they patch the bug, so that might give Canadians a few extra days to get their taxes in order. It also demonstrates how vulnerable we all are to these kinds of flaws in the basic Internet architecture that we rely on. Not affected were Canadian banks, and political party donation portals, for the record.
Roundup: An amended Reform Act?
Conservative MP Michael Chong is introducing another reform bill today, which would approach his proposed reforms to leadership reviews from another angle, via the Parliament of Canada Act, rather than the Elections Act, especially to address concerns brought forward by his caucus. That said, it still doesn’t address the fundamental issues of leadership selection, and the consequences of maintaining our current system of membership selection rather than caucus selection, or what happens to the legitimacy of a sitting Prime Minister when a caucus orders a leadership review, which is kind of a big deal. I will also be interested to see if this version contains the provision for a provincial nominating officer instead of a riding one, but there remain other problems with the original Reform Act that Chong tabled, so we’ll see how many this new one corrects.
Roundup: Harper’s saint turns against him
Call it a shot across the bow, or maybe a broadside, but former Auditor General Sheila Fraser has weighted in on the Fair Elections Act, and she is not amused. In a blistering, no-holds-barred interview, the woman whom the Conservatives had previously sainted point-blank called them out for trying to rig up a bill designed to sideline Elections Canada because they had been investigating various voting irregularities and other misdeeds by the Conservatives, and which would advantage their particular donor base. And yet, during QP yesterday, Pierre Poilievre just kind of shrugged it off and denounced the “so-called experts” as not being able to stack up against “common sense and democracy.” Actual quote. And yet, when we see the real need for things like being able to compel testimony, as the investigation into “Pierre Poutine” continues to this very day. Former Guelph Conservative campaign worker Andrew Prescott, who has been granted immunity in exchange for testimony, has given evidence about Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged in that whole affair – as well as Ken Morgan, then campaign manager who is now living in Kuwait. Sona, meanwhile, asserts that he has ironclad alibis that will exonerate him, and that they didn’t learn their lessons after being coached into a story about Sona that was contradicted by the fact that he was in Aruba when an alleged incident took place. If the Commissioner of Elections had the power to compel testimony, it is likely this dance around the Guelph robocalls would have long been over. First Nations groups are also sounding the alarm about the bill, and pointing out the reality on most reserves are that the kinds of acceptable ID just aren’t there for most residents and that the bill is a fix for something that simply isn’t broken.
QP: Burying the Sheila Fraser lede
Despite it being only Thursday, there was only one major leader in the House, as Stephen Harper was in Mississauga to announce a bill, and Justin Trudeau in Fort McMurray in advance of the by-election call there. Thomas Mulcair, still present in Ottawa, led off by asking about a refugee deportation case, to which Chris Alexander seemed to imply that the woman in question was not a genuine refugee. Mulcair brought up the plight of someone thrown in jail in China for assisting the labour movement, to which Alexander gave a paean about how great their refugee reforms were. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill, demanding that it be withdrawn. Pierre Poilievre insisted that his stories about widespread voter fraud were true. Mulcair then brought up former Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s objections to the bill — something I figured would have led off QP — but Poilievre was undaunted in his praise of the bill. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the request that the families of fallen soldiers pay their own way to a national memorial service. James Bezan said that expenses would be covered, and laid blame on the Colonel who sent out the letter. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, and brought up the changes in median incomes since the Conservatives came to power. Kevin Sorensen insisted that everyone was better off since they were in power. Freeland brought up other worrying figures, but Sorensen praised the government’s job creation record. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same again in French, and Sorensen accused Trudeau of voting against middle class families time and again.
Roundup: All about Eve
The tale of Eve Adams and her nomination race got even more sordid yesterday as all kinds of other allegations started appearing out of the woodwork, now that attention is being paid to her. First came word that the riding association was appealing directly to Harper to investigate her activities, with regard to things like her access to the party database, her purchasing the colour-coded maps, that she was door-knocking and telling people that she had been asked by Harper to run in that particular riding, and generally trying to bigfoot the nomination race. (Letter here). Harper in turn asked the party to investigate. After this was made public, the owner of an Ottawa gas station called the media to let them know that he had also asked the PMO to investigate Adams’ behaviour after she had a meltdown tantrum over a $6 carwash that she was unsatisfied with. It has been suggested that all of these leaks are being made public in order to have her discredited and lose the nomination race that way, rather than have Harper or the party disqualify her from afar. It’s not such an outlandish theory either.