Being released today is the new election reform act brought forward by the government which promises to reshape Elections Canada. And yes, the opposition is nervous. Already there are questions as to why Pierre Poilievre was selective in his answers to the House yesterday during QP when he said that he had met with the Chief Electoral Officer about the bill. That meeting, however, was before it was drafted, and not about the actual provision or language of the bill, which is kind of a big deal. One of the big questions about the bill is the provision that the new Commissioner of Elections be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the Chief Electoral Officer, and how that will affect his or her independence. Oh, and the most egregious part? That Poilievre is having his press conference to announce the bill before the technical briefing for reporters takes place. You know, so they won’t have time to read it or understand it before asking questions. Because that’s not a cynical move designed to frustrate the media and keep things as opaque as possible.
Tag Archives: CSIS
Roundup: One Keystone XL hurdle cleared
The US State Department’s report on the Keystone XL pipeline has been released, and they have determined that it won’t have any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and also gave figures for what would happen if all of that oil were to be transported by rail, which would mean not only more emissions, but also more injuries and fatalities. Energy economist Andrew Leach parses what’s in the report here. Luisa Ch. Savage details the reception in Washington DC to the report and among environmentalists, who continue to remain opposed. Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall thinks the report is a cause for optimism that the pipeline will eventually happen.
Roundup: Being seen to do something about cyberbullying
The government is launching a new cyberbullying awareness campaign, which includes TV commercials. You know, for the “cyberbullying” law that a) has little to do with cyberbullying and more to do with lawful access, and b) still hasn’t passed. One has to wonder, however, how effective it’ll be since many teenagers don’t see it as “bullying” but just “drama,” and may not relate to it in the way that the government intends. Let’s also not forget that this is the same government that put out some of the lamest and most ineffective anti-drug ads aimed at families, so we’ll see just how effective these cyberbullying ads will be. Michael Den Tandt says that the Conservatives need to address the bullying culture and lack of decorum in their own ranks first.
Roundup: Strahl, Enbridge, and no broken rules
In regards to the hysteria around Chuck Strahl consulting on behalf of Enbridge in BC, it seems that Enbridge has been a client of his since 2011 – at least, with regards to any activities on the provincial level. He’s also registered in Alberta to lobby for a First Nations energy that is drilling for oil on its territory with a Chinese-financed company. Can’t you just see all of the conspiracy theories churning? But as Kady O’Malley points out, because the chairmanship of SIRC is considered a part-time gig (as they meet less than a dozen times per year), he’s exempt from many of the restrictions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Strahl also has stated that he’s not hearing any CSIS cases that involve Enbridge or any of his other clients, there’s no real conflict there.
Roundup: No plan B
The country needs a new computer programme to deal with Employment Insurance claims, and Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Developmemnt have until 2016 to do it – leaving almost no time to address any inevitable problems once they procure and install said new system, and more ominously, their presentation says, “there is no Plan B.” Missing that deadline means an escalation of costs, and I’m sure a whole host of other problems with the EI programme as a whole. But hey, it’s not like this government has ever had problems with procurements, and there has never been a boondoggle around new software before, right? Oh, wait…
Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.
Roundup: Possible charges against Wright
And with the likelihood that charges will be laid against Nigel Wright, the ClusterDuff exploded all over again yesterday, as an 81-page court affidavit from the RCMP investigator was made public. There are some fairly shocking revelations in there – things like how Wright was in communication with Senator Irving Gerstein as Gerstein made back channel contacts with a partner at Deloitte to inquire about the progress of the Duffy audit and how the repayment would affect it – and that such partner is a top Conservative donor, and that the firm also audit’s the party’s finances. Or that the Prime Minister was told “in broad terms” that Wright was helping Duffy out with the repayment – though it also says clearly that Harper was not told the particulars. That Gerstein considered using party funds to repay Duffy when they thought it was a $32,000 price tag. That there are a number of problems with Duffy’s various speeches in the Senate where he painted himself as some kind of unwitting victim. And that there was a heavy PMO hand in the attempt to change the audits, though there was pushback (including from one of LeBreton’s staffers, Chris Montgomery), and frustration on Wright’s part because the Senate was not responding as they would like when it came to the management of the crisis. Why, it’s terrible that Wright and the PMO were confronted by the notion that the Senate is an independent chamber of parliament that is institutionally independent from their control. The horror! There was even apparently an incident where the Senate clerk had to have words with Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen about her partisan behaviour on the steering subcommittee of the Internal Economy Committee. (Mark Kennedy has some highlights here.)
Roundup: Kenney and Rajotte back Wright
More signs of independent thought emerge within the Conservative caucus, as Jason Kenney has proclaimed that he’s still going to defend Nigel Wright’s character while Harper has taken the route of demonizing him in the wake of the whole ClusterDuff affair. Later in the day, James Rajotte joined that chorus. That Kenney, a minister, has a message deviating from Harper’s, is the third minister now who has had a different message from the boss, which John Geddes points out, is a blow for the notion of cabinet solidarity, which is a pretty fundamental notion in Responsible Government as the executive needs to speak with one voice. I’m not sure what it all means yet, but it’s certainly interesting – especially on the eve of a party convention where unity in the face of adversity will no doubt be the message that they are trying to put forward.
Roundup: Nonsensical offers for backroom deals
Well, that was interesting. As the debate in the Senate over the suspension motions carried on, moving into the realms now of invoking time allocation and turning the motions from an independent one to government motions, something else completely weird and awkward happened. Senator Patrick Brazeau took to the floor and said that he had essentially been offered a backroom deal by the government leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan – that if he apologised to the Chamber and took full responsibility, then his punishment would be reduced. But none of it makes any sense, particularly when Carignan “clarified” that he was being too helpful and offered Brazeau options of how they could made amendments to the motion. But Brazeau doesn’t believe that he was in the wrong with his housing claims, and no amendments could have been moved because the Senate is still debating Senator Cowan’s amendment to send these three senators before a committee to have everything fully aired. Not to mention that Carignan said that suspension without pay still had to happen, so we’re not sure what could be negotiated other than perhaps the length of the suspension. And while the Conservatives in the House were demanding that the Liberal senators “step aside” and pass the suspension motions “for the good of the taxpayer,” the counter-narrative emerged that the Liberals were not going to be complicit in a cover-up – the notion that the only way all the facts will come out is before a committee where witnesses can be compelled to testify (and hopefully in a way that won’t interfere in the ongoing RCMP investigations). These Conservatives didn’t seem to remember that several Conservative senators are also against the suspensions – or are at least in favour of some better element of due process – though Harper took to talk radio in Toronto to urge those dissenters to vote for the suspension motions because it wasn’t about the RCMP investigations but about internal discipline – err, except there are some pretty valid arguments that at least some of these senators have been the victim of unclear rules and processes, and there are no established internal procedures for discipline this harsh, and they are very wary of setting a precedent that could be used against any others that the government of the day doesn’t like in the future. Not to mention that it is increasingly transparent that the Conservative brass wants this settled before their convention. And as for Senator Wallin, well, she continued to speak out, waiving her right to privacy with Internal Economy transcripts from in camera sessions, and tabling her own documents to help prove her case. Nothing is resolved, and the Senate returns Monday afternoon (which is another rarity, as normally only committees will sit on a Monday instead of the full chamber).
Roundup: Flaherty’s national regulator, take two
While the attempt to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers has been on the government’s agenda since 1867 (no, seriously), Jim Flaherty took yet another stab at creating a national securities regulator – despite being shut down by the Supreme Court the last time. This time, however, he’s not imposing a system from Ottawa – he’s working with provinces to create a “cooperative capital markets regulatory system,” that ensures that each level of government give up their own powers to this new body, and he’s got Ontario and BC signed on, meaning it has oversight over some 90 percent of industry in the country already. While most other provinces will likely come aboard in short order, Quebec and Alberta remain opposed for the time being. It will likely be discussed further this weekend at a federal-provincial finance ministers’ meeting. John Geddes looks at Flaherty’s journey to this point, while economist Stephen Gordon points out that our patchwork of regulations may not be our biggest problem – but a national regulator can’t hurt.