Senator Mike Duffy’s scorched-earth campaign continues as the CBC has obtained a letter the RCMP wrote last Friday, seeking documents from the PMO that were all mentioned in Duffy’s address to the Senate last week. Because that is something that these kinds of statements under privilege can do – direct the police where to continue their investigation. PMO, incidentally, says they’ve not received any such letter. But it has to be said that it would seem to shift the focus of the investigation from Duffy’s misspending to an attempt by the PMO to bribe, or otherwise influence a sitting legislator – a distraction that Duffy likely welcomes as he seeks to keep attention away from his own actions.
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: The tale of the second cheque
Boom! The ClusterDuff exploded yet again yesterday, with yet more revelations from Senator Mike Duffy, who took advantage of what could be his final days of the protection of parliamentary privilege, and laid out yet more accusations against the PMO. This after a morning where Stephen Harper took to the radio waves and declared that Nigel Wright had been fired, in direct contradiction to all previous assertions that Wright resigned. So while the Commons fixated on this contradiction, Senator Duffy took the floor in the Senate, and detonated his next bomb – that there was not one cheque, but two, and that the talk of an RBC loan was actually a script from the PMO that he had been made to deliver. That second cheque was from the Conservative party lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, which paid for Duffy’s legal fees – and this time, he provided documents to prove it. The party doesn’t deny covering the legal expenses, saying that they will sometimes pay the legal fees of their caucus members. This is likely an indication, according to John Geddes, that the party was still keen to defend him and by extension their decision to appoint him as a PEI senator, with their particular reading of those rules. While Duffy contended that there remains a whole other email chain in the hands of his lawyers that he wants to see turned over to the RCMP, though an envelope was later handed to the CBC which appeared to cast some doubt as to Duffy’s version of events – or at the very least was a good trial run as to his scripting around where the money came from. If there is one bright side to all of this it’s the level of engagement that the public is demonstrating, and the fact that senators are pointing to the number of emails they are receiving from people who want to see due process – and one senator that I spoke with this afternoon brought this up without prompting. And while these senators have zero sympathy for their three embattled peers, they at least want to ensure that there is process followed.
QP: Fired or resigned?
With none of the leaders present in the House, it was up to Megan Leslie to lead off QP for the NDP, where she asked about the contradiction about Harper claiming on the radio earlier in the morning that Nigel Wright had been fired whereas it was previously established that he resigned. Paul Calandra was up to respond, and said that to his credit, Wright had taken full responsibility for the payout to Duffy and no longer worked in the PMO. Leslie tried to press as to how many Conservatives were aware of the payout to Duffy, but Calandra insisted that it was all in the court affidavits. Nycole Turmel was up next to repeat the same in French, to which Calandra repeated his same talking points, and for her supplemental, Turmel brought up the deal that Senator Carignan offered to Braseau, and wondered if the PM was aware of it. Calandra said that they wanted them to take a measure of responsibility and called for the Liberals in the Senate to stand down and pass the suspensions (never mind the senators in the Conservative caucus who are opposed). Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and returned to the same questions about the Prime Minister’s changing talking points, but Calandra didn’t veer from his same talking points, and again called on the Liberals in the Senate to stop their obstruction. LeBlanc closed the round by asking why Harper wouldn’t answer questions about the affair under oath, but Calandra’s talking points didn’t change.
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: Even the base doesn’t like the unfairness
The motions in the Senate around the suspension without pay of the three embattled senators remains unresolved, and the Senate will be sitting today – a rarity – in order to try to reach a resolution. As this happens, more cracks are forming within the Conservative Senate caucus, as Senator Don Plett – a former party president and not of the Red Tory wing – came out against the suspensions as being against due process and basic fairness. Oh, and if anyone says it’s about trying to please the party base, well, he is that base. Down the hall in the Commons, MP Peter Goldring also encouraged Conservative Senators to vote down the suspensions and wants the Governor General to step in if necessary. As the debate wore on, it not only touched on due process, the lack of guidelines for why this suspension was taking place, and even the definitions of what constitutes “Senate business,” which is something the Auditor General gets to grapple with. It is all raising some fundamental questions about the institution that it never really had to deal with before, and one hopes will help create a much clearer path for the Chamber going forward.
QP: Back to form
The first Question Period of the new session, and the Prime Minister was absent, jetting off to Brussels to conclude the trade agreement with the EU. After a round of Members’ Statements which were pretty much bog standard for the rhetorical levels we’ve come to expect in the current parliament, Thomas Mulcair returned to true form — reading from a mini-lectern. But rather than beginning with questions on the ClusterDuff, Mulcair started with a calm and controlled question on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Peter MacKay, acting as the designated back-up PM du jour, assured him that they were taking the measures seriously. Mulcair then turned to the issue of “corruption” in the prime minister’s office, and accused him of hiding on the other side of the Atlantic. Pierre Poilivre responded and extolled the virtues of the Canada-EU trade deal. After another round of the same, Mulcair turned to the closure of Veterans Affairs service centres, for which Parm Gill insisted that they drive to meet veterans at a place of their choosing rather than forcing them to drive to designated locations. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of cyberbullying, and demanded that they pass Robert Chisholm’s bill at all states unanimously. (Proof right there as to why we need the Senate to do the scrutiny that MPs seem to want to avoid). MacKay assured him that a bill would come in due course. For his turn, Justin Trudeau asked why there was no mention of transparency or accountability in the Throne Speech. Poilievre assured him that once the Supreme Court provided then with a “legal reference manual,” they would reform the Senate. Trudeau then pointed out the government’s abysmal economic record, which Poilievre laughed off. For his last question, Trudeau asked why the government would not put in place a new system for MPs’ expenses reporting. John Duncan said that until a new system was agreed to, Conservative MPs would do it on their own accord.
Roundup: More challenges to Justice Nadon’s appointment
The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.
Roundup: Overhauling military procurement?
The CBC’s sources are telling them that a complete reorganisation of the military procurement system will be a highlight of the upcoming Throne speech. Whether that reorganisation is to put it in a new agency under the direction of a single minister, or as a permanent secretariat comprised of bureaucrats (and presumably outside consultants) remains to be seen, but hopefully there will be a system where there is some accountability, and a single responsible authority rather than the murky mess that is the current system where everyone is involved but nobody is responsible or accountable.
Roundup: Abusing the PBO’s mandate
It’s official – MPs are now abusing the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A report was released from his office yesterday, which announced the costing of the Conservatives’ election promise to create a fitness tax credit for older adults once the budget was balanced. That’s right – MPs were getting him to check on an election promise that is years away from seeing the light – probably not until after the next election. Strange, but this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with independent budget forecasts or help in deciphering the supply cycle. In fact, this is little more than MPs fobbing off their homework to the PBO so that they can wrap themselves in his independent-and-therefore-credible analysis. Because math is hard! Is it any wonder that the government has become suspicious of the way in which the PBO has been operating, when opposition MPs are using it in such a way? It doesn’t matter that this particular report came from a Conservative MP either, because it’s still dealing with election promises rather than forecasts or the estimates and it still plays the independent-and-therefore-credible game. It also shouldn’t be a personal calculation service, as Galipeau was using the PBO in that manner before he “brought a recommendation” to Flaherty in advance of the budget – he has a caucus research bureau for these sorts of things. This is also an argument for not making the PBO an independent officer of parliament, because he would have no accountability to anyone at that point. When this kind of abuse by MPs for partisan gain becomes his modus operandi rather than the actual work he’s supposed to be doing then it’s hard to see how this won’t become a major problem for the way that our system of government functions.
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.