The CBC’s sources are telling them that a complete reorganisation of the military procurement system will be a highlight of the upcoming Throne speech. Whether that reorganisation is to put it in a new agency under the direction of a single minister, or as a permanent secretariat comprised of bureaucrats (and presumably outside consultants) remains to be seen, but hopefully there will be a system where there is some accountability, and a single responsible authority rather than the murky mess that is the current system where everyone is involved but nobody is responsible or accountable.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Roundup: Terror in Nairobi
A terror attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya killed two Canadians, including one of our diplomatic staff who was off-duty and shopping at the time. This is the first time in seven years one of our diplomats has been killed abroad. Word is the government will be closing the embassy in Nairobi for the time being because of security concerns, which is going to be a major problem in the region because that embassy is sitting on a lot of visa applications and refugee paperwork (that is already backed up by something like five years), and with few other resources in the area, backlogs could get considerably worse.
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: 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: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.
Roundup: The annual summer Arctic tour
Stephen Harper is now on his annual summer tour of the Arctic, which he kicked off by slamming the opposition, in an almost verbatim replay of the speech he made at the Calgary Stampede – which could mean we’ll get the same speech for the next two years and throughout the next election, if his propensity for repeated messaging is anything to go by. James Cudmore points out how much politicking goes on during these trips – and one wonders just how much the annual photo that has every element of the Canadian Forces in the same frame will cost us this time – while Michael Den Tandt looks at how much is at stake for Harper, considering that none of his grand plans for the Arctic will come to fruition before the next election. And as part of the Prime Minister’s new social media strategy, in order to try and match Justin Trudeau’s presence, Laureen Harper posts on the PM’s new blog about her Arctic memories. Aww, bless.
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: A federal factum of expediency
The federal government has submitted its factum to the Supreme Court on the Senate reference with great fanfare yesterday, with newly minted Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre insisting that they don’t really need to open up the constitution, and that they wouldn’t really need to get unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. Yeah, somehow I doubt the Court will agree. Reading the factum over, it’s an underwhelming document, full of “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” “Squirrel!” and plenty of “don’t worry your pretty heads about the actual longer-term consequences of these changes, just look at right now.” Yeah. Paul Wells’ take on the factum pretty much says everything you need to know, though I would hasten to add that some of the arguments the government makes are spectacularly moronic. But hey, it’s not like we should actually worry about the constitution when we could be focusing on short-term political expediency – right?