Tag Archives: Ethics Commissioner

Roundup: An upcoming vacancy that will be impossible to fill

Posted on by

The report was expected after the complaint had been made, but yesterday, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released a report that confirmed that Liberal MP Greg Fergus did break the rules by writing a letter of support to the CRTC for a constituent, given that he is a parliamentary secretary and that position could be construed as trying to exert pressure on a quasi-judicial body. Fergus owned up to the mistake and apologised, and the Commissioner suggested that perhaps ministers and parliamentary secretaries would benefit from additional training from his office.

But that wasn’t all—the commissioner, Mario Dion, announced that he would be retiring in a few days because of persistent health issues. While Dion has not been a great Commissioner (some of his rulings have been highly dubious because he over-interpreted his mandate or his enabling statute), the real problem is going to be in finding a replacement, because the legislation about who can apply for the job is, well, nearly impossible to meet. The previous Commissioner, Mary Dawson, needed to keep extending her tenure because they couldn’t find anyone to replace her, and now Dion is leaving without a replacement in the wings. And like I said, the criteria are nigh-impossible, because there are vanishingly few retired judges in this country who want the aggravation of this job with its modest pay, and the other option is the head of an administrative tribunal (which is how Dion got the job), and again, there are only so many of those. So good luck, MPs—you’re really, really going to need it.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 357:

Russian forces were concentrating their artillery on Bakhmut and the surrounding settlements. Meanwhile, NATO defence ministers met in Brussels to discuss getting more firepower to Ukraine as quickly as possible, now that Russia’s new offensive has begun. Germany has signed a deal to produce more ammunition for the anti-aircraft guns provided to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/lyla_lilas/status/1625525076182310912

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bill Morneau has learned no lessons

Posted on by

We’re now around day ninety-nine of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and…there wasn’t a lot of news I could find, other than the fact that Russia continues to pound cities in the Donbas region. Germany says they will send more advanced radar and anti-aircraft systems to Ukraine, but we’ll see how timely their deliveries really are.

Closer to home, Bill Morneau delivered a speech where he says he’s worried about the economic progress of this country because he says he doesn’t see enough focus on growth (never mind that it’s the dominant focus of the last two budgets). But then he went on about how he wants some kind of “permanent commission” to focus on said economic growth, and I just cannot even. It’s called Parliament. David Reevely lays this out in the thread below, but I will add that Morneau really was never any good at being in government. He kept trying to play things like he was still in the corporate world, where it was about who you knew, and it was paired with the mindset of this government where if you mean well, then the ends justify the means, so rules got broken an awful lot. That’s why Morneau was eventually forced to resign over his role in the CatastrophWE. And he demonstrates with this speech that he has learned precisely zero lessons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why Canadian MPs resist security clearances

Posted on by

Talk of reforming NSICOP into a full-fledged parliamentary committee is circulating, and it’s all just as well. While I have a full column on this coming out later today, I wanted to post this thread from professor Saideman to set some of the context for that, and to explain part of why we’re in the state we are in Canada when it comes to these things.

https://twitter.com/smsaideman/status/1483076151417389057

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beware the lure of a pilot project

Posted on by

You can bet that, as an election looms, that certain parties will start talking up Basic Income again (and this includes the Liberals, given recent party policy votes around it). We’re also hearing from a group of senators who want to push this in spite of evidence that it’s not the best way to go (and they have been vocally dismissing any dissent, no matter how expert). And a bill in the US about Basic Income pilots will add fuel to this particular tire fire. So with that, I turn it over to Dr. Lindsay Tedds, who was on the BC panel that examined the feasibility of Basic Income to break it down:

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689592722051072

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689597105049603

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422689601018372096

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1422691518230433793

But there’s a reason why these kinds of pilot proposals are popular, and that is politics. Alas.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1422692966142029826

Continue reading →

Roundup: The “failure of negotiations” is nonsense

Posted on by

It appears that the lack of seriousness around getting Bill C-6, which would ostensibly ban conversion therapy in Canada, through the Senate has reached its peak, as the Government Leader in the Senate, Senator Marc Gold, claims that negotiations have collapsed and he can’t bring the Senate back to deal with it. Which is nonsense. He has the power to petition the Speaker to recall the Chamber, and that request would almost certainly be granted. They can sit as long as necessary to pass the bill, and if they can’t get unanimous consent for hybrid sittings, well, by now most if not all Senators should be double-vaxxed and can attend in person. There are no actual impediments to them actually doing this.

Part of the problem is Gold himself – he doesn’t seem to grasp how the Senate works procedurally, and that he has a lot more power than he claims to. He also, for no good reason, proposed a date for the Senate to rise at the end of June when he could have kept it sitting into July with no actual problem. He also seems to be enamoured with the idea of agreeing on a timeline to pass the bill, which he doesn’t need, but ever since the Senate agreed to timelines around some major pieces of legislation in the previous parliament, there is a romance with doing this all the time in the Senate, which is unnecessary and in some cases counter-productive.

The other part of the problem is Justin Trudeau. And while it has been suggested that he has ordered Gold to let the bill die so that he can use it as a wedge in the election – frankly, the dynamics in the Senate don’t really support this line of reasoning – it’s more that Trudeau has a case of not-so-benign neglect when it comes to the Senate. By cutting it loose, so to speak, he gives it no mind rather than making it part of his strategy. There’s no reason why Gold is not a Cabinet minister who can answer for the government in the Chamber, rather than his current half-pregnant quasi-governmental role while still claiming independence, which doesn’t work in theory or practice. He clearly needs the support of PCO because he’s not able to do a reasonable enough job as it stands with what support he does get, and there frankly needs to be an actual government (meaning Cabinet) voice in the Chamber. But in insisting on “Senate independence,” Trudeau simply expects things to go through the Chamber and he can forget about it, which is a mistake.

Gold needs to fix this situation, and fast. If that means recalling the Senate in person, so be it. But claiming negotiations “collapsed” and he can’t do it is both untrue and against procedure. This is on him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: C-10 keeps stumbling

Posted on by

If there is any bill in recent history that is an object lesson in fucking around and finding out, it’s bill C-10, on amending the Broadcasting Act. Indeed, after the government, with Bloc support, moved time allocation while the bill was in committee, the five hours allotted to finish clause-by-clause consideration was apparently not enough, as it seems yet more MPs on the committee wanted to waste time fighting about things this bill doesn’t actually do. And lo, amendments that were passed after the five hours were up were deemed null and void by the Speaker, so once again, MPs found out.

This doesn’t mean that those amendments are necessarily gone for good – they can certainly be moved at report stage, where the bill is currently, though that may require extending the time allocation that was imposed on the current stage in order to be able to move and vote on said motions – and that leaves yet more opportunity for dilatory actions such as slow-voting and another point-of-order-palooza around remote voting. Barring that, the government can move them in the Senate, though that will be very uncomfortable as it will probably mean having to recall the Commons in a couple of weeks to pass the amended bill, which will be a gong show all around. Or, with any luck, it will be stuck on the Order Paper over the summer, and possibly smothered if the election call that the pundit class is so hell-bent on getting happens. Nevertheless – there is plenty of blame to go around for this state of affairs, not the least of which belongs to the minister for his singular failure to offer coherent communications around this bill at every opportunity, and most especially at committee.

I would add, however, that I have no patience for this notion that the bill saw “no real debate,” as certain individuals are claiming. It got more debate than most budget implementation bills – more than any bill I can remember in recent memory. Granted, we have no guarantee of the quality of debate, and considering that this bill has been the subject of a campaign of conspiracy theories (Internet Czar, anyone?), straw men, red herrings, and outright lies, while substantive and existential problems with the bill have largely gone unremarked upon, I can see a critique that the months of debate were short on substance. That said, I’m not sure how even more debate would have helped, other than to prolong the agony.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer joins the sister-hiring brigade

Posted on by

The saga of MPs hiring siblings exploded yesterday as several revelations came to light – that Andrew Scheer not only hired his sister-in-law, but that he also hired his sister to work in his office when he was both Deputy Speaker and Speaker. Granted, this was within the rules at the time, and those rules were changed at the end of the time Scheer was Speaker (and his sister was let go then – and then moved over to a Conservative senator’s office), but for someone who liked to give lectures to the prime minister on the optics and the appearance of ethical conduct, it does seem like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Erin O’Toole, meanwhile, said that while these hirings were within the rules, he wants to set a higher ethical bar, so he would have a talk with Scheer about it, though he apparently let his sister-in-law go around the same time. No word yet on whether the Conservatives will call for his resignation.

Meanwhile, in the other sibling hiring drama, it turns out that now-former Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi’s hiring her sister was actually flagged to the Ethics Commissioner two years ago, and his office decided to take a pass on it, figuring that it was better dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy. Now he’s saying that maybe he should have taken a look then. Of course, this sounds to be about par for the course for Mario Dion, whose approach to interpreting his enabling legislation is…creative to say the least, from inventing new definitions under the Act, stretching the credulity of what it covers in some reports, and even confusing his Act with the MP Code – which are completely different – in another case. So, that’s going well. Incidentally, the Board of Internal Economy will be meeting later this week and will address the Ratansi complaints at that time about whether or not this hiring violated the rules, and they will determine the next course of action at that point. (And yes, this is an example of parliamentary privilege, where parliament makes and enforces its own rules, because it’s a self-governing institution, which is the way it should be).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A promise to fight back against federal action

Posted on by

Another day, more record-breaking COVID cases in this country. In Ontario, new modelling suggests that if we don’t get this under control that we’ll be seeing 6,500 new cases a day by mid-December, which should terrify everyone. And Doug Ford? Well, he called the reports that he ignored public health advice “inaccurate,” and “one doctor’s opinion,” and insisted that he’s trying to find a “balance.” Because the needs of businesses outweigh human lives.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1326965295941099521

In Alberta, where the pandemic is starting to overwhelm a couple of hospitals, Jason Kenney was back in isolation for the second time after another close-call with a positive COVID case (which he tested negative for) – because he’s totally taking it seriously. Kenney decided to “toughen” measures, which means that he…reduced hours in restaurants and bars, stopped indoor sports, and limited weddings and funerals. Because he still refuses to do a proper lockdown to get infections under control, and he refuses to do anything to inconvenience businesses. Hell, he’s still telling people to go out to restaurants and bars – just not as late, which also has the added effect of ensuring more people will be in these establishments during the compressed hours, which would seem to increase the chances of infection rather than decrease it. After all, Alberta’s public health insisted that people should socialize in a “structured setting” (i.e. restaurant or bar) instead of at home, so they’re really taking it seriously.

As for those who still insist on calling on the federal government to enact emergency legislation, Ford stated yesterday in no uncertain terms that he would not stand for it, and warned that other premiers would also fight back because they want to guard their own jurisdiction. So yeah, unilateral federal action would not fly (not that it really could under the terms of the Emergencies Act anyway), and we’d simply wind up in court over it. In other words, stop waiting for Trudeau to act (because he can’t) and pressure the premiers instead to quit worrying about businesses – especially since they have the power to help them out – and worry instead about the hundreds of deaths that are happening every week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A gesture toward pettiness

Posted on by

There are a lot of symbolic gestures that politicians do that I cannot abide, but one of the most obnoxious and corrosive ones is the insistence on cutting their own pay when times get tough – and lo and behold, we have an Ontario senator who is moving a motion to do just that, asking both MPs and Senators to forgo statutory pay increases (to meet inflation) as a gesture. This is not really a symbolic or empty gesture – it is a signal to populist impulses that serve to devalue public life, and treats what they do as somehow being less valuable than people in the private sector – which is ironic considering how much less MPs and senators make than professionals and executives in the private sector.

Without entirely relitigating what I wrote on this before, I wanted to point out some of the fairly offensive characterizations of such gestures that were in the National Post piece, which describes the gesture as “important” for private sector and low-income workers, and the usual suspects at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation trying to insist that politicians aren’t making sacrifices when people are losing their businesses.

The problem with this line of logic is that these gestures don’t do anything. If anything, they come with a dose of schadenfreude, that if I’m suffering then watching politicians or civil servants being forced to suffer as well is satisfying, even if it ultimately makes things worse overall. What good does it serve to make everyone miserable or worse off? How does that make the situation better for everyone? It doesn’t. There are enough trade-offs that go with public life or public service that often make it a fairly unappealing to many people, so why pile on? Pettiness won’t solve the economic crisis or make people’s businesses reopen, and it certainly won’t make COVID go away, so why indulge it?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The creeping presidentialization of national addresses

Posted on by

As far as Throne Speeches go, it was on the long-side – fifty-four minutes in total – while the scene was sparse owing to the pandemic. A common refrain from the commentariat was asking what exactly was new in the speech – much of it was a recitation of the Liberal Party’s greatest hits, with a newfound sense of urgency to some of those long-standing promises (most of which require negotiations with provinces who are reluctant to take on costly new social programmes), and the assurance to Canadians that this is not the time for fiscal austerity as we need to “build back better.” There were some relevant things about ensuring a green and inclusive recovery,

https://twitter.com/AdamScotti/status/1308932151925145602

The post-Speech responses in the press conferences that followed were pretty typical – the Conservatives hated everything about it, and complained about things that their leader has been shitposting the opposite of for the past couple of weeks. The Bloc have decided that it somehow violated the rights of the provinces, when it talks about negotiating national programmes with them. The NDP weren’t going to pan it outright, but Jagmeet Singh instead demanded that the government implement paid sick leave for every worker in Canada – something that the federal government can’t do because the vast majority of workplaces are provincial jurisdiction. So that’s fun.

And then, a short while later, were the big national addresses. Trudeau started off good, talking about the fight of our generation, and that Thanksgiving is now out of the question but we still have a shot at Christmas if we can get the second wave under control, which means get a flu shot, wear masks, wash your hands, and download the COVID Alert app. But then he started selling the Throne Speech, and it turned into an infomercial, in spite of the promise that this was going to be an urgent message about the pandemic and not about politics. That assurance was completely lost on Erin O’Toole, whose only nod to the pandemic was to say that his family’s situation shows that we all need to be extremely vigilant – before he pivoted to Western alienation, and complaining that Trudeau didn’t listen to any of his (performative) demands around the Throne Speech, and concluded by warning about Communist China. So that was something. Yves-François Blanchet, also in COVID isolation, addressed his reply to Quebeckers and Francophones, and then accused the prime minister of interfering in Quebec’s jurisdiction (he didn’t), and demanded unequivocal transfers to Quebec in a week or he’ll vote against the Throne Speech. Erm… And then there was Jagmeet Singh, who started off with the empathetic approach of “I know you’re worried and we’re going to fight for you,” but quickly pivoted to demanding a wealth tax. So…that was the “urgent” and “not political” use of prime-time airtime. The worst part of the whole exercise, however, was the creeping presidentialization of it – addresses that should have happened in the House of Commons were forced to dinnertime television in the hopes of getting a bigger audience, for messages that came off sounding like pre-election posturing. If Trudeau had stuck to his first couple of minutes – that we need to get our shit together and flatten this infection curve – then that would have been fine. But the sales job on the Throne Speech with him giving the clips and not Julie Payette was a complete misstep.

Meanwhile, Heather Scoffield finds good things for the economic recovery in the Speech, but hopes the government can gets its act together when it comes to implementing them. Economist Lindsay Tedds sees a lot to like in the Throne Speech, particularly the pledge around automatic filing of income taxes so that marginalized people who often don’t file will finally be able to get benefits they are entitled to. Susan Delacourt contrasts the two speeches on Wednesday, and what each’s tone is trying to convey. Paul Wells pans the whole thing, and notes that nothing has changed since before the prorogation. Jen Gerson puts the whole display in a wider context of a world in which real trouble is brewing, and Canadian politics is utterly unprepared for it.

Continue reading →