The Reform Act 2013 has now been tabled, and it’s pretty much as has been reported, with the three key areas around the powers around nominations, caucus membership and forcing a leadership review on party leaders. (Text and sixty-second explainer here). Aaron Wherry rounds up some of the declared support today, including from the Conservative caucus, and those now outside like Brent Rathgeber, as well as some of the reaction and analysis to date. Alice Funke aka Pundit’s Guide looks at ways in which the provisions can be subverted by parties or leaders. Tim Harper points out the bill’s silence about a leader having to deal with an unsuitable candidate during an election. Andrew Coyne has a Q&A with Chong about the bill and tries to dispel some of the myths or concerns, but fails to ask some of the more pertinent questions around membership and inputs.
Tag Archives: Marijuana
Roundup: Fallout from the ITO
In the aftershocks of yesterday’s revelations in the ClusterDuff affair, everyone is still sorting through the pieces, trying to make sense of it all. Kady O’Malley digs into that ITO and finds three particular dangling threads in the documents that are begging for answers (and you really should read this). Aaron Wherry looks into those documents and finds the voice of sanity, Chris Montgomery – one of Marjory LeBreton’s staffers (apparently paid for out of the PCO budget, which seems to be the source of confusion for people who have said that he’s from PCO) who objected to the process and the interference of the PMO in the Senate’s operations. CBC has their own look at Montgomery in this video piece (with text from The Canadian Press). Senators on both sides of the aisle are reeling from the revelations that PMO was trying to pull the strings of the Duffy audit, because they feel strongly about the chamber’s independence – as well they should. That PMO thought that they could get away with it speaks to the level of control that this government is trying to impose on parliament as a whole, and which parliamentarians themselves should be resisting – as clearly a few in the Senate were, much to the PMO’s frustration. The RCMP are questioning the credibility of Senators LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen based on their interviews with them, and the quality of that testimony. The auditors from Deloitte are going to be hauled before the Internal Economy committee in order to answer pointed questions about the independence of that audit given the revelations that Senator Gerstein was trying to influence it, though Deloitte has come out to say that there was an ethical wall around those auditors to protect their information from any leaks. As part of that revelation, Charlie Angus is casting aspersions that some of Deloitte’s other work may be politically influenced, like the audit of Attawapiskat’s books (though I’ve heard from my own contacts at Aboriginal Affairs that there are definite governance problems in that reserve). The Law Society of BC is also considering an investigation into the conduct of Benjamin Perrin, the former PMO lawyer who is also implicated in this affair.
Roundup: Unnecessary supplemental estimates?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer wonders why the government is looking for $5.4 billion in the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, considering that they underspent $10 billion for each of the past three year. It’s another example of the lack of transparency that his government engages in when reporting to the House its fiscal responsibilities. And hey, maybe MPs should be scrutinising these estimates and asking questions, rather than the PBO doing their homework for them – once again. But math is hard, and so on.
Roundup: Premiers still saying no to Kenney
The premiers met in Toronto yesterday, and the Canada Jobs Grant programme was again up for discussion, and it should be no great surprise that the premiers are still united in their opposition. In fact, they said that they are looking for some clear alternatives from Jason Kenney, if he is serious about there being flexibility in the programme. The premiers also wanted some clarity around foreign investment rules, never mind that Harper has previously said that he doesn’t want too much clarity in order to have wiggle room in the event that they want to block any acquisitions they find to be undesirable.
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: Condemning Trudeau for the government’s own programme
The Conservatives are trying to push the narrative that the Liberals don’t have an economic agenda but just want to push pot. As “proof,” they point to the fact that Trudeau’s chief financial officer and senior advisor, Chuck Rifici, plans to open a medical marijuana operation in rural Ontario. You know, under a programme that the Conservatives designed and implemented. When this was pointed out to Blaney’s office, they simply responded with “The statement speaks for itself.” Um, okay. Never mind that the community getting this new operation – which is RCMP approved – will see jobs being created. You know, jobs that this government keeps talking about. And it’s a $1.3 billion industry that’s good for the economy! But – but, Justin Trudeau! (The cognitive dissonance – it burns!)
Roundup: Outrage over the “Charter of Values”
The PQ government in Quebec unveiled the details of its proposed “Charter of Quebec Values,” to universal condemnation from the federal parties. It proposes to limit the religious accommodations made for public servants – in other words, you can wear a small cross or Star of David ring, but nothing larger or more obvious, and no, your boss doesn’t have to give you time off for religious holidays or a prayer space. Jason Kenney immediately promised that they would go to the courts to find the new law unconstitutional if Quebec presses ahead (though Quebec does have the option of using the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter if they felt it necessary to do so). Oh, and because it shows you just how well they thought this through, they didn’t have an answer about whether people would still be swearing on Bibles in a court room. Oops. For a bit of history on how the party got to this point, it bears reminding that electing an urbane, metropolitan gay leader got them nowhere, so now they’re resorting to the more xenophobic end of the spectrum to try and make headway. John Geddes compares the way each of the federal parties reacted. Martin Patriquin looks at the history of backtracked proposals that Marois’ government has put forward to date, and predicts that this Charter won’t see the light of day in its current form.
Roundup: A contract flawed from the outset
A leaked government report gives a rather stinging indictment of the Sea King helicopter replacement procurement, calling it flawed from the outset. At the time, the government treated it like they were buying “off-the-shelf” helicopters, but with so many procurements, the military loaded it up with new specifications until it was no longer “off-the-shelf,” but was rather something that should have been treated like an in-development contract. And so we get delays, and penalties, and intransigence. The report recommends re-scoping the contract in order to treat it as an in-development project so that they can start accepting delivery of helicopters and phasing in new features, but there’s no word on if the government will accept this proposal or not, or if they’ll just continue to blame the Liberals for it rather than taking responsibility or action.
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: Votes on Syria and the question of Responsible Government
In the fallout of last Friday’s vote in the British Commons regarding military action in Syria, there are some very serious questions being asked about what it all means. In part, the concerns come from the nature of Responsible Government – if the House has not expressed support for the government’s foreign policy goals, which as a Crown Prerogative – then how can they continue to claim to have confidence in that government? How is foreign policy any different on a substantive level when it comes to the conduct of a government than a budget? Philippe Lagassé and Mark Jarvis debate the issue here, and I’m going to say that I’m on Lagassé’s side with this one – MPs can’t just deny the government the ability to exercise their prerogatives without also taking responsibility for it, meaning declaring non-confidence in the government. It’s not how Responsible Government works, and if they’re going to start changing the conventions of such a system of governance that works really quite well, then they need to think long and hard about the consequences of their actions. But that’s part of the problem – nobody wants to look at how actions affect the system as a whole, rather than simply patting themselves on the back for a nebulous and not wholly correct interpretation of what democracy means. And once people start tinkering with the parts without looking at the whole, then big problems start to happen, which we really should beware of.