The Conservatives are vehemently denying that there is a “secret” party fund in the PMO as CBC has reported – that there is only one party fund, and that the party uses it to reimburse the Prime Minister’s expenses when he engages in party business. Thomas Mulcair himself decided to show up for the first question in Friday QP – something he has never done – as a kind of stunt to impress upon the public as to just how big of an issue this “secret fund” is, even though party funds are not government operations and therefore not the domain of QP. (CBC is standing by their story, for the record). In fact, all parties pay for their leaders’ partisan activities, yet questions remain as to whether or not Nigel Wright had access to it as Chief of Staff. Senator Hugh Segal, who was Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s Chief of Staff between 1992 and 1993, said that in his day, they would simply bill the Fund or the Party for the expenses, not draw the funds directly.
Tag Archives: The Monarchy
Roundup: Buh-bye Nigel Wright
It was a move that should have happened last week, but instead it was announced at eight-thirty Sunday morning – Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, resigned over the whole writing-a-$90,000-cheque-to-Mike-Duffy thing. And then comes the waves of lament and apologists, crying that Wright was a good man who was doing his bit for public service (even though a job in the PMO is not public service – it is the opposite, in fact), though nobody seems to be asking themselves any of the critical questions about the actual wrongdoing. Taking Wright’s place will be Ray Novak, Harper’s principle secretary and a loyalist from his days in the Alliance Party, so one can expect a much more partisan tone returning to the PMO, which had softened under Wright. Not that Wright’s departure actually answers any of the questions about what actually happened between Wright and Duffy, which is kind of a big deal – as John Geddes, Paul Wells and Michael Den Tandt all write. Not that Harper will be answering questions – he’s off to Peru this week, and because each embattled Senator has resigned from their respective caucus, and Wright is also gone, the government line can be “everyone involved has now resigned, let’s just move on.” And thus becomes the government’s damage control strategy as the last few weeks of the sitting roll along before the summer recess. Oh, and the caucus is becoming restive too as this level of mismanagement starts to damage the brand of the “party of the Accountability Act.” Apparently there’s to be an emergency caucus meeting Tuesday morning before Harper flies out, and one can scarcely imagine the words that will be exchanged behind closed doors as these angry MPs line up at the mic.
Roundup: Duffy and Brazeau are totally helping their cause
Not that it’s a big surprise, but Senator Patrick Brazeau has vowed to fight the order that he repay those living expense in the wake of that Senate audit. While he does have a point that he was cooperative and that he met all four residency requirements, unlike the other two Senators, but that doesn’t change the fact that he spent a mere ten percent of the time. Government leader in the Senate has threatened that if Senator Brazeau and Harb don’t repay their expenses – with interest – immediately, the Senate will garnish their wages, which they can do. It’s also not clear with which court they can try to challenge these audit results and the orders that the Senate itself will be voting to enforce, seeing as Parliament is actually the highest court in the land. Meanwhile, Charlie Angus wants the legal opinion that LeBreton solicited regarding Senator Mike Duffy’s eligibility to sit in the Senate based on his residency – which told LeBreton that everything was fine – made public. (As an aside, one does wonder just how many legal opinions on the Commons side are made public.) LeBreton replied that Duffy owns property and maintains a residence in the province he represents, so case closed. Ah, but perhaps not, as it was revealed last night that that there appears to have been a deal struck between Harper’s chief of staff to help Duffy with his repayment two days before he announced it, and while the PM’s spokesperson has said on the record that no taxpayer funds were used, that likely means party funds. I suppose the party may consider it fair compensation after Duffy did all of that fundraising for them, but yeah, this is totally not helping his case any more than Brazeau and Harb’s fight is helping their own. But seriously, the rest of you – the behaviour of three individual Senators is not actually indicative of the institution as a whole, and shouldn’t undo the good work that the other hundred Senators are actually doing, within the rules. The Senate’s strength as an institution is stronger than the damage caused by a couple of bad apples, and people need to be reminded of that.
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.
Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter
In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.
Roundup: Irresponsible unanimous passage
MPs, in their infinite wisdom, decided to pass the royal succession bill at all stages unanimously with no debate. That’s right – an unconstitutional bill that de-patriates our constitution and relegates us to the status of Crown colony passed with zero debate. Way to go, MPs. Provide that oversight! So yeah. Here’s hoping the Senate will do it job and actually put a stop to this nonsense. Meanwhile, here’s more condemnation of the bill, this time from James WJ Bowden.
The government has unveiled its 2013 Tough on Crime™ agenda. Because apparently there’s no rest for the wicked.
Government backbenchers say that the high-profile nature of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made them gun shy about asking him for reports. Because you know, it might be unseemly for backbenchers to be seen to be doing their job of holding the government to account.
Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences
University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.
Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.
Roundup: The politics of the Senate reference
The big move by the government yesterday was to send a list of reference questions to the Supreme Court with regards to Senate reform – and yes, abolition. The six questions – more like fifteen with the sub-clauses – come at a time when the notion is being mulled over by the Quebec courts at the behest of the provincial government, and the Supreme Court may opt to hold off on their deliberations until that decision is rendered, so that they can take it into consideration. And then comes the politics behind it all – the government claims this will “speed up” the reform process after years of opposition delay – never mind that this reference process could take up to two years, and the only ones stalling were the government themselves because they never brought their bills forward for debate (not that said bills were actually constitutionally sound). It also buys them time to keep the issue alive for the next election and as a fundraising issue for their base, but also provides them options when it comes to considering next steps, because they may need them if they want to continue this rather foolhardy pursuit. The Liberals are playing the smug game of “We wanted this reference six years ago – thanks for catching up.” And the NDP are accusing the government of “more delay” – even though they simply argue for abolition and give nonsense talking points about how much money they would save if that happened (forgetting of course that all of said “savings” and more would entirely be consumed in the interminable court challenges that would come from flawed legislation that would otherwise be caught in the Senate). And there are the legal arguments – is it really unconstitutional, or is the fact that the Prime Minister is still recommending appointments to the Governor General enough to avoid having to go the route of a constitutional amendment, no matter that they’re ensuring that these appointments are “elected,” and that the “democratic mandate” of these newly empowered Senators will have a tangible – and detrimental – effect on the way our system operates. I argue that the Supreme Court justices aren’t morons and will see a backdoor attempt for what it is and call bullshit. Other constitutional scholars aren’t so sure, and say that according to the letter of the law, it looks just fine. But politics – especially the way our Parliament operates – is more than just the letter of the law. It’s an organic whole, and surely that needs to be taken into consideration when a blatant backdoor proposal designed to get around doing the hard work of constitutional negotiation will have a serious and measurable effect on our democratic process. That has to count for something.
Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status
The government did something well-meaning yesterday, but in the process, ended up doing something very, very bad. In what was no doubt a somewhat thoughtless attempt to circumvent the rules around constitutional amendments, they tabled their act to change the laws of succession for the Canadian Monarchy yesterday that evoked a moot section of the Statute of Westminster that basically said “whatever the Mother Country decides, we’re cool with.” And with that one fell swoop, the government of Canada has undone eighty-two years of Canada having an independent Crown, and has once again relegated us to the status of a Crown colony of Britain – and no, I’m really not being dramatic. (See the bill and the government’s nonsensical backgrounder here). You see, that section of the Statute of Westminster that they’re evoking – was repealed with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Oops. And by simply assenting to the UK change, it means that the Crown of Canada is not a separate corporate sole from the Crown of the United Kingdom – which means that Canada is not a sovereign country. And because the Office of the Queen – which the rules of succession are a Very Big Deal regarding – falls under s.41(a) of the Constitution – that means a constitutional amendment requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces. Yes, it’s a little messier and will take a little more time, but we’ve got at least two generations of heirs in order to get it right, and there is little reason that any of the provinces would object to such common sense changes. But hey, for the sake of expediency, let’s treat the constitution like it doesn’t matter! Which seems to be the modus operandi of the entire political discourse of this country of late – between this, the NDP’s “Unity bill,” and Bob Rae thinking that the Governor General should be involved in political meetings with the First Nations and denying royal assent on the Wheat Board bill, we have pretty much proven that civic literacy in this country is in complete and utter shambles. How many other mature democracies treat their constitutions like they’re relative documents that you can project your own interpretations onto as they suit your agenda? Unbelievable.
Roundup: The use and abuse of Private Members’ Bills
Yesterday was an interesting day, in that three Private Members’ Bills dominated the political discourse. This, unfortunately, is becoming a more common occurrence, despite the fact that PMBs are intended to be small measures designed to correct oversights in existing legislation – part of the role of holding government to account. They are not supposed to cost money (lest they require a Royal Recommendation), and we should bear in mind that the role of backbenchers and opposition are to hold the government to account. It is further to be reminded that it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, and not to govern. Hence, it is the government’s job to govern, and in an adversarial system like ours, the opposition holds them to account. And with these facts in mind, let’s look at what happened.