Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: Dodgy contracts and sophomoric pranks
The start of week two in the big trail, and Crown apparently regained some ground –getting the Senate’s HR clerk to note all of the things Duffy either tried to charge for and was rebuffed, or did end up charging for by means of the apparent clearing house that his former camera man started on his behalf, and all kinds of non-Senate related things were paid for that way, be it photo framing or personal training. No doubt Duffy’s lawyer will try to argue that in the absence of enough rules or controls, it should be treated as acceptable, but perhaps I’m getting pessimistic. Here is Nicholas Köhler’s piece of the kinds of nostalgia that the trial is evoking. Meanwhile, the NDP have been trying to have their juvenile fun at the expense of the Senate over the course of the trial to date. Last week it was small boxes with pieces of Camembert and crackers, and this week it was handing out their “Senate hall of shame” hockey cards, with the new addition of Senator Nancy Ruth – because apparently making a deadpan joke is a scandal. But hey, whatever distracts them from having to justify their own expenses scandals with those improper mailings and satellite offices, right? Imagine what they could accomplish if they put their energy to productive use rather than the sophomoric pranks and snarky press releases that they seem to be so heavily invested in as they chase the impossible dream of Senate abolition (which, I remind you, will never, ever happen ever).
Roundup: An incredulous picture by the defence
As we head back to the Duffy courtroom for week two, there are a couple of pieces of note. David Reevely is incredulous at the picture being painted by Duffy’s lawyer – that somehow, a man who has been desperate to be on Parliament Hill and who has haunted it since the early 1970s was somehow naïve about the way that the place worked and was such a “rookie” that he had trouble following its intricacies. In other words, yeah right. James Cudmore, meanwhile, looks at the Duffy Diaries and sees in them Duffy’s personal desire to be a player, and those diaries break down some of his façade for the public. The desire to be a player is not news – it’s long been a fact of life on the Hill that Duffy coveted a seat in the Senate and the romantic (and utterly false) notion of the “taskless thanks,” and a former PEI senator used to say that Duffy would check his pulse every time he shook his hand, and Duffy certainly let several prime ministers know that he wanted the job, and finally Stephen Harper took him up on it in his mass of panic appointments in late 2008 during the coalition crisis, despite all of the warning signs (including Duffy’s prior conviction in Tax Court of trying to fiddle with his expenses on television). Duffy had previously said that the only question Harper had asked him was his commitment to Senate reform – such a long ago notion now that we have the Supreme Court reference that lays out the path for such a notion – but it’s clear from Duffy’s actions that it wasn’t really the case. He wanted to be a player, remember, and so he took up the torch for Harper. There are plenty of other Senators, even Conservative ones, who don’t do any fundraising for the party, but Duffy was fully aboard with it, his partisanship ratcheted up as he attacked opposition MPs, premiers of other political stripes, and put on dog-and-pony shows about the Economic Action Plan™, which led to that now infamously signed photo. Does this sound like someone who was a poor naïve legislator who was trying to fumble his way through the flexible rules of the Senate? I’m not sure that’s the picture that the broader context paints, but one has to wonder how much any of this will be the fodder of the Crown. It’s still early days in the trial, but one should be wary of the portrait the defence is painting of Duffy and the institution itself.
Roundup: The end of acting honourably
At the end of the first week of the Duffy trial, the Crown regained some of the ground that it was appearing to lose – it wasn’t just that the rules were loose, or that there was no definition around residency, but there was an expectation that senators behave honourably, and thanks to the actions of the likes of Duffy, Wallin, and others, that expectation is now being buried under new legalistic guidelines. There was also pushback to the notion that because the Prime Minister appointed Duffy a Senator from PEI, his residency was assumed to be genuine – there are limits, and as I’ve discussed on this blog previously, not only did the PMO not ensure that their ducks were in a row on that front before Duffy was appointed (as previous governments who took appointments seriously and didn’t make them in a panic had done), but they almost practically encouraged the alleged abuses of Duffy and Wallin in particular by that very act of not ensuring residence upon appointment. Duffy himself kept trying to get reassurance as to the residency issue – as his own diaries show – but apparently only enough to ensure that he didn’t need to make the effort of actually ensuring that he was properly moved to the Island as his principle residence. What should be addressed – but isn’t in the trial because it is beyond the ambit – is the fact that when the Queen or GG makes the appointment on the basis of the PM’s advice, it is assume that the advice is sound because of Responsible Government. In the case of Duffy, we can be reasonably assured that the advice was likely not sound – that Duffy was not qualified to be a senator from PEI, or Wallin a Senator from Saskatchewan. What that also means is that under Responsible Government, we get to hold that government to account, and there is an election coming up. Perhaps we need to remind people of that fact. Maclean’s also has commissioned comic strips of the week’s events, while Scott Reid gives us his take on the Duffy Diaries, and the defence to date.
Roundup: Budget dates and fabulist tales
The next election marker has been set, which is the budget date – April 21st, shortly after MPs return from the Easter break. Joe Oliver says it’ll be balanced, but the real trick will be finding out how he did it, either by raiding the contingency reserve, or cutting a programme somewhere, or delaying some kind of capital expenditure, quite possibly from a military procurement project that is bogged down in a lengthy and probably broken procurement process. Their marquee spending plan, their family tax package including income splitting, has already been introduced as a standalone piece of legislation, inexplicably, unless you look at it through the lens that they want to see the spectacle of the opposition parties voting against it because of the income splitting portion of the bill. They’ve already been mindlessly parroting the talking points about these tax measures, which will supposedly not only help parents with childcare (not really) but also provide just the kind of economic stimulus the country needs (err, childcare?) and do whatever else the question asked of the government was. It’s not that it matters, because they want to set up the narrative that the opposition parties will rip the money out of the wallets of parents if they get to power, which is why the government deliberate set up that this programme would give those parents a lump sum cheque in the middle of summer – so that it’s in their wallets closer to the election so that their warnings resonate, never mind that the warnings aren’t true either – both opposition parties have stated that they won’t touch the enhanced benefits, just income splitting, which most households won’t see any real difference from anyway . It’s not that they haven’t abandoned their other talking points either – Greg Rickford was just in Calgary giving fabulist tales of the kind of carbon scheme that Justin Trudeau would introduce, never mind that it has no grounding in reality. It’s not just that they repeat these fictions endlessly, but that they are now non sequitur answers to any question put to them. We’ve apparently reached the stage in our political evolution where Conservative MPs have become these dolls with pull-strings that will play you one of a small number of randomly selected phrases. And if this is what we’re going to be subjected to for the next six months, I may yet go insane before then.
QP: Concern over a slight shrinking in GDP
It being Tuesday, the leaders were all present and ready to go, because apparently it only counts two days a week now. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the new numbers from StatsCan that showed that GDP shrank ever so slightly last month. Stephen Harper touted his family tax cut legislation instead. Mulcair demanded a budget, but Harper demurred. Mulcair decried “all of the eggs” in the oil basket — actually not true — and continued his demand for a budget, but Harper kept insisting that they are continuing their Economic Action Plan™ and that it was working. Mulcair then moved onto this morning’s PBO report that said that families with older kids and those without kids in childcare will be getting more benefits than those with kids in childcare. Harper first insisted that the NDP wanted to raise taxes, and then insisted that all families would get an increase in after-tax benefits. Mulcair decried those families with kids in childcare being punished, but Harper repeated his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, and he returned to the reports of negative growth in three months of the past six, and wondered when the government would come up with a plan to get the economy moving. Harper responded with a laundry list of their recent announcements, and insisted that the Liberals only wanted to raise taxes. Trudeau noted that giving a tax break to the rich wouldn’t help, but Harper insisted that forecasts still showed growth, and wanted support for their family tax break bill. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper repeated his answer in French.
Roundup: Kenney’s fading credibility
It was no surprised that the motion to support the Iraq mission passed, but what was perhaps unexpected was the bit of verbal sparring between Jason Kenney and Justin Trudeau, and the issue of Kenney’s credibility came up. It has come up several times, having been called out repeatedly by journalists for posting misleading photos on his Twitter account, or his statements that were not true about things like Russian planes buzzing our frigate in the Black Sea, but this weekend, things got even more escalated when the Chief of Defence Staff had to come out and make a statement to both back up and correct the record with regards to Kenney’s statements about how Canada and the US were the only countries engaged in Syria and Iraq using precision bombs. That’s blatantly not true, and General Lawson had to use some careful language to not embarrass his minister but at the same time correct the record, and Kenney treated it as though Lawson backed up his statement – which he didn’t. And Trudeau used that during the question-and-answer portion of his speech on the Iraq motion, that the minister doesn’t have the credibility behind his words when it comes to the motion to extend the mission and the Liberals can’t trust him as a result. Will that be enough political cover for Trudeau given the disgruntled members of his own party who would see us join the mission? I guess we’ll wait and see. Meanwhile, the government’s fudging on the reality of our combat operations is a sign that Canadians really don’t have the stomach for another war.
QP: What about Future Shop?
Monday in the Commons, and as is now usual, none of the major leaders were present. It’s not like holding the government to account is important or anything. That left Nycole Turmel to lead off, haltingly reading a question about the closures of Future Shop stores, and government inaction on job creation. Joe Oliver was actually present for the first time in weeks, but simply delivered a talking point on the the fragile global economy and their low-tax plan. Turmel asked again in French, and got much the same answer. Turmel then turned to the issue of Jason Kenney’s false statements about precision-guided munitions. Kenney stood up and insisted that the U.S. and Canada are the only countries with these capabilities. Jack Harris asked again in English, and Kenney insisted that the Chief of Defence Staff confirmed his statement, which…is not necessarily the case. For his final question, Harris asked about Canadian jets possibly coming under fire in Syria, to which Kenney said that he was told that the Syrians didn’t have radar coverage in that region. Marc Garneau was up for the Liberals, and asked about downgraded economic forecasts. Joe Oliver responded with a quip about high Liberal taxes. Ralph Goodale then asked for more investment in municipal infrastructure, to which Joe Oliver insisted that the Liberals wanted to weaken the oil economy. Huh? Another round offered no further clarity.
QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria
After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.
QP: On bombing Syria
About four hours after Harper addressed the Commons about extending the Iraq mission, everyone gatherer again, all leaders present and full benches behind them. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the October statements that bombing in Syria would only happen with the permission of that government, and asked what changed. Harper responded that ISIS was taking refuge in Syria, and that we were following the lead of our allies in bombing across that border. Mulcair asked about the change in statements on painting targets, but Harper insisted that the government would act about the threat of ISIS. Muclair asked about how many new soldiers would be added, to which Harper insisted that those would not change. Mulcair asked for an exit strategy, and Harper responded by being “clear” about the threat that ISIS poses to Canada and the world. Mulcair wondered how Harper could still claim it wasn’t a combat mission, and Harper responded by wondering how the NDP could not support the mission. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the planning horizon for the combat role. Harper responded that the motion was for up to twelve months, and that they would continue to evaluate the situation. Trudeau wondered if our Special Forces would be operating in Syria, to which Harper assured him that the motion was only for them to continue training in Northern Iraq. Trudeau then wondered how Canada would communicate with the Assad regime to ensure that our fighters would not be targeted by Syrian air defences. Harper insisted that our allies were already doing it.