The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.
Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Roundup: Del Mastro facing charges
Elections Canada has now charged Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro with four breaches of the Elections Act stemming from the 2008 election, and charged his official agent with three of those offences. Within a couple of hours, Del Mastro was out of the caucus (he says voluntarily, but we all know what that means), which also means that his parliamentary secretary position was also out the door. And of course, Del Mastro insists that he’s innocent and plans to prove it – because Elections Canada just spent the past four years gathering evidence because they’re part of a Conservative-hating conspiracy, apparently. Oh, and if convicted, Del Mastro and his official agent could be sentenced to up to five years in jail plus a $5000 per offence – now multiply that by four, and you’ll see the stakes of Del Mastro’s situation.
Roundup: Abusing the PBO’s mandate
It’s official – MPs are now abusing the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A report was released from his office yesterday, which announced the costing of the Conservatives’ election promise to create a fitness tax credit for older adults once the budget was balanced. That’s right – MPs were getting him to check on an election promise that is years away from seeing the light – probably not until after the next election. Strange, but this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with independent budget forecasts or help in deciphering the supply cycle. In fact, this is little more than MPs fobbing off their homework to the PBO so that they can wrap themselves in his independent-and-therefore-credible analysis. Because math is hard! Is it any wonder that the government has become suspicious of the way in which the PBO has been operating, when opposition MPs are using it in such a way? It doesn’t matter that this particular report came from a Conservative MP either, because it’s still dealing with election promises rather than forecasts or the estimates and it still plays the independent-and-therefore-credible game. It also shouldn’t be a personal calculation service, as Galipeau was using the PBO in that manner before he “brought a recommendation” to Flaherty in advance of the budget – he has a caucus research bureau for these sorts of things. This is also an argument for not making the PBO an independent officer of parliament, because he would have no accountability to anyone at that point. When this kind of abuse by MPs for partisan gain becomes his modus operandi rather than the actual work he’s supposed to be doing then it’s hard to see how this won’t become a major problem for the way that our system of government functions.
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: Flaherty’s national regulator, take two
While the attempt to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers has been on the government’s agenda since 1867 (no, seriously), Jim Flaherty took yet another stab at creating a national securities regulator – despite being shut down by the Supreme Court the last time. This time, however, he’s not imposing a system from Ottawa – he’s working with provinces to create a “cooperative capital markets regulatory system,” that ensures that each level of government give up their own powers to this new body, and he’s got Ontario and BC signed on, meaning it has oversight over some 90 percent of industry in the country already. While most other provinces will likely come aboard in short order, Quebec and Alberta remain opposed for the time being. It will likely be discussed further this weekend at a federal-provincial finance ministers’ meeting. John Geddes looks at Flaherty’s journey to this point, while economist Stephen Gordon points out that our patchwork of regulations may not be our biggest problem – but a national regulator can’t hurt.
Roundup: More humanitarian aid for Syria
At the end of the G20 conference in Russia, Canada is pledging another $45 million in humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees, while Harper had more harsh words about Putin and the fact that it was unacceptable that he has a veto on Security Council taking action. But Harper also put distance to the notion that we’ll be making concessions on the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement, and said that “significant gaps” remain. Okay then. And then the biggest news of all – that Harper has basically asked Barak Obama to dictate what emissions regulations targets he wants us to set in order for the Keystone XL pipeline to be approved. It’s likely an attempt to get a firm set of numbers rather than the nebulous talk that we’re currently mired in, but so much for setting our own sovereign environmental goals and policies.
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: Two big appointments
Two long-awaited appointments were made yesterday – the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, and the new Leader of the Government in the Senate. The PBO is Jean-Denis Fréchette, an economist with years of experience in the Library of Parliament. The first PBO, Kevin Page, is already sniping that Fréchette doesn’t have enough experience, but then again Page also said that the interim PBO, Parliamentary Librarian Sonia L’Heureux would be a lapdog and she turned out not to be, so one might be advised to take his assessment with a grain of salt. Peggy Nash already looks to be ready to start fobbing off her homework onto the new PBO, which is not really a surprise. As for the Senate leader, it’s the current deputy leader, Senator Claude Carignan. And no, Carignan won’t be in cabinet, which is going to be a problem with respect to the principles of Responsible Government where there should be a member of cabinet in the Upper Chamber to answer for the government in order that it can be held to account, and to shepherd through government bills introduced in the Senate. And my own Senate sources are already expressing dismay in the choice as Carignan is not known to be very accommodating of viewpoints other than his own, and his English is quite poor, which will make any media relations in the face of the ongoing Senate spending questions to be difficult (not that Harper has ever cared about being good with media relations).
Roundup: The Cult of the Auditor
In the wake of the audits of Senators Wallin, Duffy, Harb and Brazeau, and with much of the business in Ottawa in general, there has developed a Cult of the Auditor, be it the Auditor General, or the outside Deloitte auditors in the more recent examples. And why not? They’re not partisan, and they call it like it is. But as much as people decry the lack of accountability in politics these days, be it in the Senate or ministerial accountability, or whatever, they are immediately quick to rush to the say-so of auditors, who themselves are completely unaccountable. It’s a curious thing, but it’s one of the biggest problems that is infecting Canadian politics these days, which is reflected in the controversy around the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Rather than MPs doing their own work of scrutiny, they fob it off to the PBO now because they’re non-partisan and “credible,” and parties can hide their attacks behind those reports. It now becomes a game of “See! Even the AG/PBO/etc. says that these guys are terrible! Let us beat them with the sticks that others have provided for us without any means of accountability, because they are credible and non-partisan!” It’s an awful game, and it has utterly degraded our political discourse and capacity in this country. Auditors, or the PBO, are no longer seen to be doing the jobs that they were supposed to, but are becoming proxy ammunition in political games because the partisans can’t be bothered to do the heavy lifting themselves. And that is a problem, most especially if we are demanding accountability.
Roundup: Pamela Wallin’s questionable claims
So, that was the audit report into Senator Pamela Wallin’s expenses – that she had a pattern of claims that were questionable even though she said that she was told they were acceptable (such as for attending functions at Guelph University, where she served as chancellor), that she had retroactively tried to change her calendar – supposedly on the advice of Senator Tkachuk, which he denied – and her belief that they applied rules retroactively is bunk. In fact, it’s addressed directly in the report that they didn’t, and there are even handy charts as to what rules were in place at what point, where they overlap, and so on. (That hasn’t stopped her few defenders, including Senator Hugh Segal, from trying to repeat this fiction in the hopes that it will become a truism). Oh, and Wallin spends most of her time in Toronto, for what it’s worth. It was enough that the Internal Economy committee has decided to forward this to the RCMP to let them sort out the discrepancies to see if there was anything untoward or deliberate, which now makes it all four embattled senators under RCMP scrutiny. Other Senators are taking exception to Wallin describing herself as a “different kind of Senator” who’s more “activist,” which let’s face it, is pretty self-aggrandising, given that most of them are active in their communities and in promoting causes. (I muse more about that here). PostMedia offers a primer on Senate expenses. And while some critics are (finally) pointing to the fact that this should affect the credibility of the Prime Minister given that three of the four are his appointees, it has been sadly pointed out that the focus remains on the Chamber itself and not the PM, which is a problem, as he is person who is supposed to be held to account.