Tag Archives: The Senate

On Marjory LeBreton’s departure

Posted on by

Over the course of the afternoon, I’ve heard people express surprise that Government Leader in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, decided to step down from the post in advance of the cabinet shuffle. I’m not sure why exactly, given everything that has gone on.

The first and most obvious reason why she would step down now is that it was her 73rd birthday, and she would have reached the age of mandatory retirement before the 2015 election. By opting to see the post filled now would allow that continuity in cabinet leading up to the election. That the PMO has stated that the new Leader of the Government in the Senate (LGS) won’t be in cabinet is a problem that I tackled in a previous post.

Continue reading →

Why the Senate Leader needs to be in cabinet

Posted on by

The announced departure of Senator Marjory LeBreton from cabinet this morning has led not to furious speculation about her replacement, but rather about the PMO’s plans for the position itself. According to the government sources, Stephen Harper plans to eliminate the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate from cabinet going forward – apparently oblivious that this is a Very Big Problem.

You see, there is an actual reason why the position of Leader of the Government (LGS) in the Senate is a full Minister of the Crown. It’s not just because they felt they needed to give someone a limo and a driver, but rather, because of a little something called Ministerial Responsibility. And yes, this is an important foundational principle to our system of government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Growing bureaucracy, unfunded multiculturalism

Posted on by

For all of his cost cutting, the public service has seen a rather rapid growth under Stephen Harper’s watch. Some of the biggest increases between 2006 and 2012 came in places like CBSA, the civilian staff at the RCMP and Correctional Services of Canada, but there were also increases in places like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, if you can believe it. Mind you, I’m sure a lot of this growth has been in comms staff and “information technology,” but it still paints a picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gun obsession and political direction

Posted on by

As if there weren’t enough problems to worry about in the wake of the floods in Southern Alberta, a small storm erupted yesterday with the revelation that the RCMP seized some unsecured firearms when they were conducting legitimate search and rescue operations. Not just unsecured firearms, but those left out in the open in evacuated homes. The RCMP explained this, as did the premier, but that didn’t stop the “government is seizing our guns!” conspiracy theorists from having an epic meltdown and theorizing that they were using gun registry data to target houses and enter them illegitimately. And to compound that, the PMO put out a statement that advised the RCMP to spend their time and attention elsewhere (as though unsecured firearms isn’t an actual offence that are well within their duties), which was perilously close to political direction – something that the PMO should not be doing when it comes to the Mounties. Meanwhile, High River’s fire chief had some pretty harsh words for the federal government when it comes to their interference – most of which he deemed to be posing – and cuts to emergency preparedness funding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Applying the Rathgeber principle

Posted on by

Former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber is pleased that the Senate blocked the union transparency bill, and is similarly happy that they called it the “Rathgeber amendment.” In his blog post, he rather gleefully calls it a stick in the eye of the PMO, and praise the Senators for not only doing their constitutional duty, but for pointing out the absurdity of the PMO looking for transparency from others when it wouldn’t apply it to their own mandarins. Tim Harper and John Ivison both look at the Senate demonstrating their mettle, and proving that they’re not simply there to rubber stamp bills.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another day of the Senate doing its job

Posted on by

The Senate did its job, and sent the union transparency bill back to the Commons. Sixteen senators voted in favour of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s amendment, which raised the disclosure level in the bill (to the same level as the government changed Brent Rathgeber’s bill to, as it happens). Oh, and another six Conservative Senators abstained, which pushed the vote over. This has shown the rifts opening up in the Conservative caucus – MPs griping about Senators doing their jobs (because MPs of course never draft and then pass bad bills), and Senators in the caucus who are tired of being bullied into supporting bad bills. And in this case – a bill that was entirely dubious constitutionally – well, it was intolerable for most of them to support it, and yes, numerous Harper appointees voted for the amendment, including one of the “elected” Senators from Alberta. And while some Conservatives are grousing that this is just the Senate trying to justify their existence, it’s really just them doing their jobs. This shouldn’t be dramatic because the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and it never has been. Just because people expect them to be – out of civic ignorance – and are suddenly shocked that the system works the way it’s supposed to, it should be a reminder and a teachable moment. Instead we’re seeing complete butchery of civic literacy among the political talking heads, which is distressing to say the least.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Seawalls and missing reports

Posted on by

With no national caucus to hold up proceedings, the Senate sat early on a humid-but-not-hot morning in Ottawa. With the Order Paper emptying out, the workload has been narrowing to just a few key bills still at various stages of debate.

Senator Mercer was up first, and with all of the flooding that had taken place in Calgary, Mercer was concerned about a seawall on Cape Breton that was in need of repairs, and would the federal government be involved in cost sharing? Senator LeBreton, the government leader and answerer of questions, said that the seawall was privately owned and not federal jurisdiction. Mercer said that there were several quibbles over jurisdiction and it meant further delays, and it had been built with federal funds. LeBreton returned to the issue of jurisdiction, but agreed to verify this fact. When Mercer pointed out that an ounce of prevention was better than a pound of cure — flood mitigation if the wall is breached, LeBreton repeated her answer and agreement to check.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Floods and veterans affairs

Posted on by

It was a rare evening sitting of the Chamber, after a day of committee hearings and a muggy day in Ottawa. The evening began with Senator Jaffer giving props to Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi over his response to the city’s flooding, before moving onto other statements and Routine Proceedings.

Question Period got underway with Senator Tardif bringing up the floods in Southern Alberta, and the lack of insurance coverage for overland flooding, and then asked for the status of the government’s level of assistance. Senator LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate and answerer of questions, first brought up thoughts and prayers, the response by the Prime Minister, and then got the the disaster assistance arrangements that the federal government makes with the provinces and territories. Senator Tardif then brought up how Minister of State Ted Menzies said on the radio that the floods were unprecedented, and that there could be no doubt that climate change was a real issue, then how could the government be cutting climate research. LeBreton recounted how a scientist on TV explained how this was an unprecedented series of events that caused these floods, and that there may be a debate within the future, but not today. Senator Mitchell took a supplemental, and followed up on the disaster relief policies and whether there could be people left behind by the programmes. LeBreton said that it was still premature to start talking dollar figures until the final tally is assessed. When Mitchell noted that Premier Redford said that the money would flow within ten days, and wondered if the federal government money would similarly flow at that time. LeBreton returned to the cost-sharing policy and how the expenditures are audited before payment, but assured him that there was no cap on those payments. Mitchell then returned to the issue of climate science, and how budget demands might be better discussed now rather than in the future. LeBreton reiterated that now was not the time for a debate on climate science.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Glover’s staff helps to make amends

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Divisions among Conservative senators

Posted on by

The union transparency bill has put real divisions in the Conservative senate caucus, and several of them are planning on voting against it, even more abstaining. These aren’t just the Red Tories either – one of Harper’s own appointees even spoke out against it yesterday, which is indicative that it’s a bigger problem for caucus unity, which is why Senator Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, has been cracking the whip so harshly. Of course, the independence of its members is the whole reason why the Senate exists as it does – to provide a better check on the elected MPs when they’re up to no good for populist reasons, and this very problematic bill fits those parameters. John Ivison recounts a somewhat heated meeting between one of the MPs in favour of the bill and Senator Segal, one of the opponents.

Continue reading →