The Privacy Commissioner tabled her annual report yesterday, including a separate audit of the Canada Revenue Agency, and it doesn’t have a lot of nice things to say – a record number of complaints, a record number of reported data breaches, and over at the CRA, lax controls allowed employees to access personal tax files for no appropriate reason.
Tag Archives: Immigration
Roundup: Duffy’s lawyer throws some bombs
It was quite the noon hour revelation, as embattled Senator Mike Duffy’s lawyer took the stage of the Charles Lynch Press Theatre, and lobbed grenades at the PMO on Duffy’s behalf – careful grenades that were all hearsay and accusation with no paper documents to back anything up. He alleged that Duffy didn’t want to have anything to do with the $90,000 repayment – not only because he didn’t think he owed anything as he had his residency cleared with the Senate leadership and Nigel Wright, but that when he was made to repay it, he pleaded that he wasn’t a wealthy man, and that Wright paid it to make the problem go away, and that if he didn’t cooperate, then they would use his residency issue to remove him from the Senate. Because you know, Duffy is the victim in all of this. It was also alleged that PMO instructed Duffy not to cooperate with auditors, and that they fed him media lines to deal with everything. Senator David Tkachuk, who then-chaired the Internal Economy Committee, denies ever threatening Duffy, especially with expulsion, which would seem to put the onus on Duffy and his lawyer to put up and reveal the documents.
Roundup: Another Conservative Senator under suspicion
Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen has apparently also been found to have improperly charged per diems for time spent in Ottawa when the Senate wasn’t sitting at one point and promised to repay the amounts – only to come out a few hours later and insist that the amounts were reviewed by Senate Finance and found to be in order. So why say that she was going to repay them and then not? And how can she believe that this isn’t hurting the Senate’s reputation any further if she’s not coming up with a proper justification as to why those per diems should have been charged – especially if she’s on the steering committee of the Internal Economy Committee, which adds another layer of distrust to the issue. I guess we’ll see if her tune changes in the next day or two.
Roundup: Senators in defence of their institution
Liberal Senate leader James Cowan penned an op-ed in yesterday’s Chronicle Herald about the work that the Senate does, and the value that it provides to the legislative process in Canada. And it was an excellent read, which I’d highly recommend – it was about time that a senator was so eloquent in the defence of the institution. I do find it curious that so far it seems to be Liberal senators who are doing a disproportionate share of that defence – even though I know plenty of Conservative senators who feel the institution should be left alone (financial controls tightened, of course). Unfortunately, most of the Conservative Senate caucus, if they do speak up, are only sticking to the absurd and disingenuous party line of “the Senate must change or be abolished,” as though any of the proposed reforms would either do anything about the alleged graft of a small number (it wouldn’t), were constitutional (they aren’t), or that they could measurably be said to actually improve the institution (highly debateable, but when you look at the totality of the Senate and its work, the proposed reforms would only serve to create partisan gridlock with 105 new backbenchers for party leaders to control). I have no doubt that they want to keep their heads down because they don’t want to be accused of trying to protect their entitlements, but they’re liable to find that if they don’t speak up for the institution, that they will be the unwitting agents of their own demise, which would be an absolute shame.
Roundup: Bringing back the tough-on-crime narrative
Because he needs to change the channel of the national conversation, Stephen Harper announced yesterday that one of his government’s priorities coming back in the fall will be a bill to toughen the sentences for child sex offenders. Because nothing says “tough on crime!” like increasing sentences. Harper also blasted Justin Trudeau for putting pot ahead of the economy – as though it were an either/or proposition, or that there were no economic consequences from legalising marijuana, or the resources that it would free up from enforcing the existing laws in a rather futile way. Harper also seems to think that Trudeau is encouraging youth to use marijuana, when in fact Trudeau has said exactly the opposite – that legalising and regulating it will help to keep it out of the hands of children. But hey, since when to sound bites need to be factually accurate? Harper did say that he would take a look at the Chiefs of Police’s report recommending that marijuana possession be made a ticketable offence rather than one meriting a criminal conviction, so baby steps – right?
Roundup: A refresher course in open nominations
Nomination races are the backbone of our democratic system, yet are probably the least understood component – thanks of course to a pretty shite job of civic education in this country that does little to teach people about it. And as Alice Funke of Pundit’s Guide points out, we’ve been out of the habit of proper open nomination races in this country since about 2004 (blame the period of minority governments and the need to be “election ready” that protected incumbents), which means that these particular democratic muscles in the Canadian electorate have become pretty flabby. Fortunately, she’s penned a fantastic guide about getting back into shape, which everyone needs to read. And no, I’m not kidding – everyone needs to read this. Okay? Good.
Roundup: Antiquated rifles and policy retreats
Yesterday on Harper’s Northern Tour, he dropped in on the search for the lost ships of the Franklin Expedition, and fired some of the vintage rifles used by Aboriginal reservists who comprise the Canadian Rangers. Apparently they use such old rifles because they don’t freeze up or jam in the harsh environment, though they keep saying they are looking for replacements.
Ahead of his annual closed-door “policy retreat” in Wakefield, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said not to expect any significant spending initiatives in the forthcoming Throne Speech, given that he wants to balance the books before the election, and so on. Oh, and he also has no plans to intervene in the housing market, for what it’s worth. Here’s a list of the invitees, and those of the past six years for comparison purposes.
Roundup: Charlie Angus’ distraction and vilification
At a press conference in Ottawa Friday morning, NDP MP Charlie Angus declared that he doesn’t think that the Auditor General should look at MPs’ expenses because the Senate is evil and stuff. No, really. If that wasn’t a more clear-cut case of distraction (and vilification), I’m not sure what is. The AG put out a statement outlining a few things about his forthcoming Senate audit – basically, it’s like any other audit, so stop asking him about it. Academics are hoping that this new scrutiny will sweep away the “old boys’ network” in the Senate, never mind that it’s been on its way out slowly for the past number of years as increasingly rigorous new rules have been put into place. Have similar rules been put into place on the Commons side? Well, we don’t know, because they’re not transparent, while the Senate is – not that you’ll hear Charlie Angus or Thomas Mulcair admit that. Meanwhile, it seems that Pamela Wallin was whinging about “media bullying” when they made Freedom of Information requests to Guelph University about her billing them for flights for her duties as chancellor, because you know, she’s the victim in all of this. The CBC looks at what’s next for Wallin, and also provides a fact sheet on Senators’ pay, and the key players in the expenses scandals. Meanwhile a group of psychologists – and Andrew Coyne – say that the Senate itself breeds a sense of entitlement, which doesn’t seem to explain why the problems are confined to a small minority, or why MPs and cabinet ministers fall into the very same kinds of entitled behaviours (if not even worse, because they’re the people’s chosen representatives, and a strategic genius to boot, and are therefore even more entitled).
Roundup: The RCMP case against Brazeau
Oh dear – it seems that things are not looking so good for Senator Patrick Brazeau. The RCMP have filed a Production Order in court, and among other things, it contains interview with staff and neighbours that paint a pretty convincing picture that Brazeau’s primary residence is not Maniwake, as his father owns the house there, not him, and it details his living arrangements before and after his divorce, and when he moved in with his then-girlfriend (whom he now faces the assault charges with), and that whenever he went to Maniwake, it was as a day trip, with the occasional overnight stay – at times in a local hotel, so as not to disturb his father. They are now pursuing Breach of Trust charges, which I will remind you is an indictable offence, and would be grounds for an immediate expulsion from the Senate upon conviction.
Roundup: The moral panic of campaigning Senators
The Toronto Star has a look at Senators who were reimbursed by various campaigns for work they did during the last election, which seems a bit curious because it’s not unusual that Senators campaign – they just can’t bill the Senate for those expenses, as Mike Duffy did. Not that it’s stopped the NDP from making a giant fuss about it, as though it’s a bad thing that party members help out in a campaign. “Oh, but they shouldn’t campaign at all!” they cry. “They’re on the taxpayer’s payroll!” Um, so are MPs, who also fundraise and do campaign activities outside of writ periods of all sorts. And some of them go to fundraisers while they should be in Ottawa as the House is sitting. And leaders? Well, they’re the worst when it comes to missing House duty for fundraisers and campaigning. They’re also on the public dime. It’s a kind of hypocritical and nonsensical argument that seems to ignore the fact that *gasp!* senators are also party members and partisans! You know, the way our system of government works, where you have governing and opposition parties in both chambers! In other words, the NDP is trying to create a moral panic, which should be paid little heed unless it can be proved that any of the Senators who campaigned billed the Senate for their expenses. And I have little doubt that none of them other than Duffy – and possibly Pamela Wallin – did.