Tag Archives: Ethics Commissioner

QP: Ignoring the Mass Casualty report

Posted on by

The prime minister was away in Truro, Nova Scotia, for the release of the Mass Casualty Commission report, while his deputy was on the west coast getting a head start on selling her budget to the public. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he accused the government censoring debate on a bill that would censor what people can watch online—which is a complete fabrication, because closure is not censorship, and Bill C-11 is about making web giants pay into CanCon funds and has nothing to do with censorship—saying that the bill would give “woke” Ottawa control over Quebeckers’ media, called out the Bloc for supporting the bill, and instead that only the Conservatives stand against censorship. Greg Fergus got up and insisted there is a consensus in Quebec that artists deserve to be paid, and only the Conservatives are offside. Poilievre insisted there was no culture without freedom of expansion, accused the government disinformation, said that Margaret Atwood opposes the bill (note: she did not understand what was in it, but was taken in by misinformation), he called the CRTC a “woke agency” (which is risible), said they could use algorithms to censor debate (false), and insisted that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was not an instruction manual. Fergus insisted that these were just the same talking points of Big Tech, and that the Conservatives won’t stand against them. Poilievre insisted that the bill would shut down any voices they don’t like, and demanded to know why the prime minister was shutting down debate. Fergus insisted that web giants are not paying their fair share, and wondered why the opposition was against that. Poilievre tried to insist this was about free speech, and tried to use a prop before he got warned about it by the Speaker. Mark Holland got up this time, and used his sanctimonious tone to admonish the Conservatives for pretending that anyone in the Chamber doesn’t believe in free speech, and that they have the free speech enough to go around the country spreading misinformation. Poilievre insisted that he would keep beating the government in debate, before switching to the topic of carbon prices, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on carbon prices and insisting it “proved” the Liberals were wrong (never mind they cherry pick figures and butcher the statistics and distributional effects). Terry Duguid recited the good news talking points about rebate in return. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he raised the money for countering foreign interference in the budget, and demanded a public inquiry. Maninder Sidhu read talking points about those line items. Therrien insisted that this was proof that they already had concluded what David Johnston would find and demanded a public inquiry, and this time, Mark Holland got up to sing Johnston’s praise.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and he raised the conclusion of Mass Casualty Commission report and demanded immediate funds for victims of domestic violence. Pam Damoff recited that they will examine the report and come back with actions in due course. Alexandre Boulerice took over in French, and demanded the government copy Joe Biden’s green industrial policy. Seamus O’Regan insisted that the projects will be built either by union jobs or paid prevailing union wages, which was proof they were on the right track.

Continue reading →

QP: Facile questions about the deficit

Posted on by

While the prime minister was in town and in his office, he was not available for QP on Wednesday as is his usual practice, as he was instead speaking virtually at the Summit for Democracy, before he and his deputy whisked off to a photo op. That’s right—the day after Budget Day, and the finance minister was also absent from the Chamber. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and both gave several falsehoods about deficits and inflation before complaining there was no path to balance in the budget. Randy Boissonnault pointed out the measures to help, and that this was a budget about hope. Poilievre listed four things that Chrystia Freeland said last year that he deemed false (to varying degrees of veracity), and wondered how anyone could trust anything this government says. Boissonnault listed the declining deficit and low debt-servicing charges. Poilievre returned to French to complain the government has “lost control” of finances, and this time François-Philippe Champagne said that it was the Conservatives who were disconnected because the government did the three things that Canadians were asking of them. Poilievre switched back to English to worry about people living in their parents’ basement while the country “goes broke.” (It’s not going broke). This time Karina Gould got up to decry that the Conservatives had already declared they were going to vote against things like the grocery rebate and supports for families. Poilievre denounced the budget as “tax and squander,” and once again, Gould reiterated the things the Conservatives were voting against.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he listed measures that were not green, and wanted an admission that money was going to oil companies. Steven Guilbeault said that this was not the case, and quoted the David Suzuki Foundation’s praise. Blanchet complained the budget was anti-Quebec because it meddles in provincial jurisdiction on things like dental care, but Guilbeault just kept reading praise for the budget.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, patted himself on the back for the things in the budget he liked, and said that if the government needs more ideas, they can tackle the housing crisis. Ahmed Hussen recited the elements of the National Housing Strategy that he trots out. Singh repeated his backpatting in French, and this time, Irek Kusmierczyk read their plans about reforming EI, and that it is on the way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The frustrated Commissioner was part of the problem

Posted on by

The outgoing Ethics Commissioner is starting to do exit interviews, and he’s expressing frustration that these kinds of ethics violations keep happening, despite the law being in place for 17 years now. To that I say two things:

1) No matter how many rules you put in place, it won’t matter because the Liberals under Trudeau fundamentally believe that so long as they mean well, the ends will justify the means, and that it’s better to simply apologise after having broken rules than it is to scrupulously and slavishly adhere to them in the first place. You can’t just put new rules to stop them from that particular belief, and no amount of training from the Commissioner’s office is likely to shake them from such beliefs.

2) Our ethics regime sucks, in large part because so much of it is predicated on the whims of the Commissioner, and this Commissioner had a lot of whims. His predecessor had a habit of reading her mandate so narrowly that nothing ever applied, except for a small handful of cases, one of which was Trudeau’s vacation with the Aga Khan, in which she made up rules around what a family friendship entails. The current Commissioner has been the opposite, reading his mandate very, very expansively so that things it should not encompass, it does (like the SNC-Lavalin issue). He has made up statutory interpretation from whole cloth, such as the definition of what constitutes “family” under the Act, and capturing relatives through marriage that no other statute in the country captures in its definitions (the issue with Dominic LeBlanc). There is no consistency, and even when they believe they are within the law, he will make up a rule that says they’re not.

I’m not suggesting the Liberals are blameless, because they’re not (see the part about them not caring about rules), but the statue itself is a problem, as are the perceptions around it, and the apocalyptic language being used to describe minor transgressions. They keep talking about the transgressions making it hard to have trust in politicians, but when the system itself fails them because it’s poorly designed and poorly administered, it’s just one vicious circle that nobody wants to show a way out of.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 359:

Russia launched 36 missiles early in the day and struck the country’s oil refinery, while also shelling two dozen settlements in the east and south of the country.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1626479351045804032

https://twitter.com/denys_shmyhal/status/1626151901686337538

Continue reading →

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 →