Tag Archives: Civic Literacy

Why the Senate Leader needs to be in cabinet

Posted on by

The announced departure of Senator Marjory LeBreton from cabinet this morning has led not to furious speculation about her replacement, but rather about the PMO’s plans for the position itself. According to the government sources, Stephen Harper plans to eliminate the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate from cabinet going forward – apparently oblivious that this is a Very Big Problem.

You see, there is an actual reason why the position of Leader of the Government (LGS) in the Senate is a full Minister of the Crown. It’s not just because they felt they needed to give someone a limo and a driver, but rather, because of a little something called Ministerial Responsibility. And yes, this is an important foundational principle to our system of government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day of the Senate doing its job

Posted on by

The Senate did its job, and sent the union transparency bill back to the Commons. Sixteen senators voted in favour of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s amendment, which raised the disclosure level in the bill (to the same level as the government changed Brent Rathgeber’s bill to, as it happens). Oh, and another six Conservative Senators abstained, which pushed the vote over. This has shown the rifts opening up in the Conservative caucus – MPs griping about Senators doing their jobs (because MPs of course never draft and then pass bad bills), and Senators in the caucus who are tired of being bullied into supporting bad bills. And in this case – a bill that was entirely dubious constitutionally – well, it was intolerable for most of them to support it, and yes, numerous Harper appointees voted for the amendment, including one of the “elected” Senators from Alberta. And while some Conservatives are grousing that this is just the Senate trying to justify their existence, it’s really just them doing their jobs. This shouldn’t be dramatic because the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and it never has been. Just because people expect them to be – out of civic ignorance – and are suddenly shocked that the system works the way it’s supposed to, it should be a reminder and a teachable moment. Instead we’re seeing complete butchery of civic literacy among the political talking heads, which is distressing to say the least.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Shadow MPs, and the speaking fees plot

Posted on by

There was quite the commotion yesterday morning as the mayor of Montreal was arrested on corruption charges, but possibly more interesting was Saulie Zajdel, a former “regional advisor to the Minister of Heritage,” otherwise known as the Shadow MP that the Conservatives installed in Irwin Cotler’s riding. It was on Zajdel’s behalf that the Conservatives robocalled Cotler’s riding with the misleading message that Cotler planned to retire and would they support Zajdel in a by-election that followed – an action that the Speaker termed “reprehensible.” In QP, James Moore tried to put some distance between himself and Zajdel, saying that the charges stemmed to Zajdel’s time as a city counsellor and his role in the regional office was coordinating events, and more telling, giving the blunt statement that if Zajdel was found to have broken the law that they should throw the book at him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rathgeber wins the day

Posted on by

It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.

Continue reading →

The fanciful nonsense of defunding the Senate

Posted on by

Once more, the NDP have decided that the constitution be damned, it’s time to pull another too-cute-by-half stunt when it comes to the Senate. Indeed, their Wednesday opposition day motion will be to de-fund the Senate by Canada Day – as though that would actually be something feasible, or without any consequences.

Let’s start with the constitutional reality. The Constitution, which I will remind you is not just a suggestion, stipulates that legislation be passed by both the Commons and the Senate. It’s not exactly something is an option when it comes to the way legislation works. You need a functional Senate to pass said legislation, otherwise the system grinds to a halt. And to have a functional Senate, it requires money.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to answer questions – or not

Posted on by

The House is back today, and so is QP, but it remains to be seen if Stephen Harper will deign to make an appearance or not. He rarely shows up on a Monday unless he has travel or other duties later in the week. But when he does show up, whether it’s today or Tuesday, there will finally be an opportunity for him to start answering questions in the House about the whole Clusterduff affair. Meanwhile, Senator Marjorie Lebreton continues to insist that there wasn’t any document trail between Nigel Wright and Senator Mike Duffy, and that she doesn’t really run things in the Senate. That said, she is considering allowing the Internal Economy committee hearings into the Duffy audit to be held in public – were it to actually be her call as opposed to the committee’s – but it should be noted that any testimony made in public then falls under privilege. In other words, it can’t be used by police. Sure, it can guide them as to where to look and come up with their own evidence, but it is a consideration that should be made. Oh, and a former RCMP superintendent says that it certainly looks like there are grounds for criminal charges with the whole expenses issue, and that breach of trust – which is an indictable offence (and would be grounds for automatic dismissal from the Senate) is likely the route that the RMCP would take.

Continue reading →

Responsible Government and Senate appointments

Posted on by

This past week, the calls for Senate reform and/or abolition have suddenly taken on a renewed fever pitch – despite the fact that the issue has precisely zero to do with the problems that certain members of said institution face. But it hasn’t stopped the floodgates of shallow, insipid, and frankly boneheaded plans and schemes from being forwarded, each person more confident than the last that they know the true meaning of democracy and how to deliver the panacea to the supposed ills of our Parliamentary democracy.

Continue reading →

A reminder about the bounds of QP

Posted on by

In advance of the gasket that I’m inevitably going to blow during QP today, I offer you a few reminders of what is and is not fair game about the current Clusterduff Scandal. While Harper won’t be there to answer any of these questions all week due to previously scheduled foreign travel, the designated back-up PM du jour will be handling this file, but that doesn’t mean that the opposition (and hopefully government backbenchers – oh, dare to dream) can’t ask the right kinds of questions. Continue reading →

Elizabeth May’s valiant, yet flawed, effort

Posted on by

Elizabeth May has tabled yet another Private Members’ Bill which she is flogging before the media tomorrow, and this time it’s about one of the necessary steps to restore some of the necessary balance to our Westminster system of democracy. In this case, it is specifically to do with limiting the power of the party leader to sign off on nomination papers, which has become a kind of blackmail tool that leaders have increasingly employed to keep their caucus in line. It’s a valiant effort on May’s part, and props to her for giving it a go, but let’s step back for a moment and remember a few things.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The NDP get cute with the Senate

Posted on by

Because it seems that the NDP haven’t had their fill of amateurish stunts yet, they have decided to try to haul the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a Commons committee to discuss the Senate’s budget allocations. Apparently they think that the Senate isn’t actually a separate institution of Parliament, but just an arm of the government. Err, except that it isn’t. Here’s the thing that the NDP doesn’t seem to be grasping – aside from the basic constitutional position that the Senate holds within our system of government – and that’s the fact that two can play that game. While the Senate may not be able to initiate money bills, they can certainly amend them, or hold them up in committee indefinitely. And if the NDP wants to get cute and try to make the Senate put on a little dog and pony show for the committee in order to justify their spending, well, the Senate can do the very same thing, and question the basic budget allocation for the Commons and MPs expenses. While the NDP might bring up the few cases of improper residency expenses and travel claims that took to the media spotlight a couple of months ago, Senators could do the very same thing, and in fact, have a better case than the MPs would. You see, the Senate’s expenses are far more transparent than those of the Commons. Senators submit their travel claims to quarterly reports, have their expense claims posted publicly, and even their attendance is recorded and publicly available. That’s how all of this came to light in the media – because journalists checked it out. (Well, a certain Senator who shall remain nameless also leaked a number of things because of internecine warfare, but that’s another story). But MPs are not subject to the same levels of public scrutiny that Senators are, and if the NDP really want to down this route, then I don’t see why the Senate shouldn’t call Speaker Scheer and the various party leaders before the Senate’s national finance committee to justify their own expenditures. After all, they’re not public, and these are public funds that they’re expecting to spend, so it would be in the interest of sober second thought that these Senators very closely examine this spending and ensure that it’s in the public interest for the Commons to get these allocations. And it was only a couple of years ago that improper housing claims by a number of MPs were brought to light, and well, the Senate may need to ensure that this kind of thing isn’t going on again. You know, for the sake of the public. You see where I’m going with this? There’s a word that the NDP should learn – it’s “bicameralism.” They may not like it, but it exists for a very good reason, and they should educate themselves before they decide they want to get cute.

Continue reading →