Well, that was…interesting. After Senator Carignan, the leader of the government in the Senate, spent over an hour laying out the case against Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and after a couple of other Senators from all sides expressed their reservations about this move and the lack of due process – let alone the setting of dubious precedents – the real bombshell dropped. Senator Duffy got up to speak to his defence, and he took the scorched earth approach, crying that he didn’t want to go along with this conspiracy “foisted” upon him, that he should have said no, that his livelihood was threatened, and that it all led back to Harper and the Senate leadership. If anything, it made it harder for Harper’s version of events to stand up to scrutiny, which the NDP spent the evening gleefully putting press release after press release about. It’s also going to make QP later today to be quite the show. Of course, what Duffy neglected to mention was his own wrongdoing. He protested that he hadn’t done anything wrong – which is not the case. Both the Deloitte audit and the subsequent RCMP investigation have shown that his residence is not, in fact, PEI, and that’s a constitutional requirement, no matter what LeBreton or Wright told him. A retired constitutional law professor from PEI says that Duffy never actually met the residency criteria, given that when the constitution says a Senator “shall be a resident of the province for which he is appointed,” and that shall means “must” in legal terms, Duffy’s qualification never was valid to begin with, which is how this whole sordid affair got started in the first place. While Duffy may be trying to play the victim, he is still under investigation, no matter that the cover-up has now become worse than the alleged crimes. The same with Brazeau, though there wasn’t really much cover-up there. We shouldn’t forget that, no matter the speeches they gave.
Tag Archives: Maple Crown
Roundup: Signing CETA
From Brussels, Stephen Harper signed the draft Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, opening up agricultural and automotive markets while eliminating almost all tariffs, though a couple of trade-offs will mean pharmaceuticals will get two added years of patent protection. The agreement will spend the next couple of years being ratified by both the various provinces in Canada and the member countries of the EU. The full text isn’t available yet either, but so far the notes are positive – even from the opposition parties including the NDP (though their language was much more cautious than the Liberals’). CBC has some numbers of what this affects, PostMedia looks at potential winners and losers, while Maclean’s Econowatch has ten things to know about it. Maclean’s also has a look at how Jean Charest got the ball rolling on the agreement. Paul Wells notes that this really is a big win for Harper, and will probably be what he becomes known for once he leaves office. John Geddes is reminded of the portents of doom that the Canadian wine industry faced with the original free trade deal with the US – which turned out to be false – and instead heralded an upturn for the industry as they took the need to compete more seriously and got rid of their crappy vines in favour of top hybrids, which is a lesson to the whinging dairy industry. Andrew Coyne says that consumers will be the ultimate winners of CETA.
Roundup: Affirming our constitutional monarch
It should come as little surprise that in a constitutional monarchy that an oath to the monarch was considered to be constitutional by the courts. No, seriously. This was an actual court challenge. But reading over the judgement, there are some very good things in there – things like the fact that the Queen is the embodiment of the country and its laws so swearing an oath to either instead would really still be an oath to the Queen, just indirectly. It affirmed that the Canadian Crown is a separate institution from its UK counterpart, which is an important concept that many people forget. It gave a thorough trashing of the false notion that the Canadian monarchy is a foreign imposition, but rather that because of our particular evolution as a country leading up to the constitutional patriation in 1982, the monarchy is an expression of a modern and equality-protecting Canadian democracy. It also points to the value of loyal opposition, and that nothing stops them from advocating for republicanism once they’re citizens. It’s a fantastic judgement and an affirmation of the values of a constitutional monarchy, which is what these three non-citizens are seeking to be a part of after all. Pretending that you can take the Queen out of that equation is more than a little ridiculous.
Roundup: About those “robust” audits
Two new reports from the Auditor General show that the honour system is alive and well in both the Commons and the Senate, and it was all just a cursory look without digging into any MP or senator’s expenses. While the Senate has been making reforms to their internal processes before the current spending scandals erupted, the Commons has not, and it seems that only Justin Trudeau has been championing a more robust audit process by the AG. To hear Thomas Mulcair tell the tale, as he was all spring, the AG did a thorough and comprehensive audit and found no problems, which clearly is not the case.
Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne
So there we have it – a future King of Canada has been born, and everyone’s delighted. No, seriously – everyone, though the NDP’s official statement of “warmest congratulations” was pretty lukewarm. And it was even more disappointing that the official Canadian Crown Twitter account was using the #BritishMonarchy hashtag rather than, you know, the Canadian Monarchy, which this baby is also heir to. Also, it seems that royal babies are good for business. Who knew?
Quebec’s attorney general has decided to weigh in on the challenge of the royal succession bill at the Quebec Superior Court, and he too believes that the provinces have a role in making such a change, as the constitution would otherwise indicate. The federal government says it will fight the challenge, since they would rather let political expedience trump the constitution.
Roundup: Glover’s staff helps to make amends
Shelly Glover’s paid campaign staff are returning part of their salaries in order to help ensure that she gets under her election spending cap. Complicating this are the fact that the party’s lawyer previously asserted that they were doing door-knocking for a much lower rate, even though there was never any indication in the filings that either were door-knocking.
The former RCMP national director says that a likely focus of the investigation into the ClusterDuff affair will be the source of Nigel Wright’s $90,000 cheque, and if it did come from party funds, it could add to the Breach of Trust charges. Meanwhile, the RCMP have spoken with Senator Patrick Brazeau’s staff as part of their inquiry into his expenses.
Roundup: A question of speaking fees
The desire to try and tarnish Justin Trudeau’s reputation took a somewhat bizarre twist yesterday as a New Brunswick charity decided to demand that Trudeau repay them for a speech they paid him for a year ago after the event they held flopped and they lost money. Odd that they asked nine months later, and that they are the party that wants to renege on a contract that they signed with the speaker’s bureau that Trudeau operates from, and that they seem to fail to understand that their failure to sell enough tickets to their event isn’t their own fault, but there you have it. (Also, as Scott Brison pointed out, they seemed thrilled by the event at the time). And never mind that this is all above board, that several other MPs and Senators also give speeches through the speaker’s bureau and that this has all been vetted by the Ethics Commissioner, and never mind the fact that Trudeau himself has been entirely above board and given an extremely high level of disclosure and transparency. These facts apparently don’t matter as the Conservatives have decided to characterise this as “millionaire” Trudeau “ripping-off charities.” And to make things all the more bizarre, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided to join the pile-on and both demanded that Trudeau return the same fee he was paid to speak at a literacy conference in Saskatchewan, and then insinuated that he used the funds to bankroll his leadership campaign (to which his office demanded an apology, citing that all of his campaign expenses were above board and cleared by Elections Canada – and Wall offered a non-apology in return). Funnily enough, that same literacy conference didn’t demand the money back and thought that Trudeau was worth every penny.
Roundup: Denying consent for transparency
After QP yesterday, Justin Trudeau rose to seek unanimous consent for his four motions on greater transparency for parliament – MPs posting expenses, opening up Internal Economy, and calling in the Auditor General. None of them passed, and apparently it was the NDP who denied consent (though some reporters heard Conservatives dissent despite the party line being that they were in favour). What did pass was a motion from Nathan Cullen that would ban MPs from using their travel points to go to speaking gigs, as apparently the latest bout of Trudeau bashing is to assert that he apparently used his MP expenses to do speaking gigs, despite there not being any evidence to support this, and the fact that most speaking gigs include airfare as a standard part of the deal.
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.
Roundup: Robocall recommendations under advisement
The Minister of State for Democratic Reform is finally getting around to drafting a bill on reforming electoral laws to prevent things like fraudulent robocalls. While Elections Canada is coming with a report on said calls this week, with recommendations about how they would like to see the laws changed, Tim Uppal says that he won’t limit himself to those recommendations. So what kinds of changes is he considering? Well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Peter Kent has ordered that the soon-to-be-defunct National Round Table on Environment and the Economy to stop posting on their website, and to turn over all of their files in relation to said site over to his department. While he says this is about transferring those contents to Library and Archives, where they will remain accessible to the public, it is a bit odd that he is actively seeking to keep things like a farewell message from the Governor General from being posted on said site in its final days.