Normally the Senate doesn’t sit on Fridays, and on days they do sit, things in the Chamber get underway in the afternoon. Today, however, things were different and not only was the Senate sitting, but early in the morning — though one has to say that the sunlight streaming through the stained glass windows added a particularly lovely glow to the Chamber and the proceedings. Senator Terry Mercer was up first, and wanted to carry on the discussion about John Baird’s stay at Macdonald House in London. Given the conflicting values of the House in media reports, Mercer asked for clarification as to its true value — $500 million, or $800 million. Senator Marjory LeBreton, the government leader and answerer of questions, took the question as notice so that she could get back to him. Mercer asked about the sale of our official residences in the capitals around the world, and if that would be diminishing our presence around the world. LeBreton thought the notion preposterous, and used the sale of the Dublin residence as an example, saying the property was too far removed from the centre of activity there. Mercer wondered what other residences or embassies were up for sale next — Washington DC, Paris? LeBreton laughed off those suggestions.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: Project Amble under way
The RCMP’s investigation into Senators Mike Duffy and Mac Harb has been dubbed Project Amble, apparently, and they’ve seized documents related to twelve election campaigns that Duffy was involved in, and according to court documents, they appear to be pursuing charges related to breach of trust – which is an indictable offence. And if you’re wondering about “Project Amble,” here’s a look into how the Toronto Police Service comes up with their operation names (not that it’s too illuminating).
On top of that, Liberal Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette has asked that the Senate Ethics Officer look into the conduct of Conservative Senator Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu, after he’s been trying to arrange for additional benefits for his former girlfriend/assistant after she got a new job in a Senate administration office. Hervieux-Payette asserts that the former assistant shouldn’t even be working in the Senate because of the relationship, and that he’s trying to get her additional benefits is a breach of ethics, and because nobody would speak up, she wants the investigation launched to protect the integrity of the institution.
Senate QP: Baird’s vacation habits
After Senators’ Statements and Routine Proceedings, Senator Jane Cordy led-off Question Period with the question of John Baird’s stay with six friends in London. Senator Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate and answerer of questions, insisted that Baird saves taxpayer’s money, and that the government would soon be putting said official residence up for sale in order to save even more money. Cordy was not impressed with the response, and noted that the chief of staff of Minister Oliver was among the six friends vacationing. LeBreton responded that Baird stayed at the personal apartment of the High Commissioner, who pays for it himself. Cordy noted that it seems that Baird vacationed in the official residence of the New York consul general in 2011. LeBreton continued to insist that no taxpayer money was used. Cordy was not satisfied, and said that it was a question of whether or not it was appropriate, especially since he is the boss of the High Commissioner. When LeBreton still repeated her answer, Cordy asked if the stay was registered as a gift, considering that it was valued well over $500. LeBreton decided to take this as an excuse to take a swipe at the Liberals, dredging up the Sponsorship scandal.
Senate QP: The long farewell speech
Unlike in the Commons, the Senate does their statements first off, then proceeds to Routine Proceedings, before they move onto QP. The statements were paying tribute to Senator De Bané, Canada’s first Arab-Canadian MP and holder of five cabinet posts under the Trudeau government, who is due to retire from the Senate in August. After all of the tributes, and De Bané’s farewell speech that followed, it was a lengthy reflection of his career, the value of the Senate, and his proposal that the Senate create a non-partisan standing committee on culture.
Roundup: So long for the summer, MPs!
Ladies and gentlemen, the House has risen for the summer. Let us rejoice! The Senate, however, continues to sit, likely for another week or two, as they clear the remaining bills off their plates before the recess and likely summer prorogation. (And yes, I’ll be recapping Senate QP for the duration).
Marking the last day was the escalation of the transparency game, where the NDP finally unveiled their own transparency plan, which basically proposes to dismantle the Board of Internal Economy and replace it with an independent oversight body. The proposal was agreed to go to study by committee before the House rose. While the goal here is to end the practice of MPs policing MPs, there is a danger in that by absolving themselves of their responsibilities, they are on the road to a kind of technocratic system that has little accountability. It should also give one pause – if Parliament is indeed the highest court in the land (and it is), what does it say that those who make up its occupants cannot be counted on to hold themselves to account. It would seem to me that simply demanding a greater standard of transparency would have gone a long way to solving the issues inherent with MPs policing themselves than a wholesale overturning of the system.
Roundup: A question of speaking fees
The desire to try and tarnish Justin Trudeau’s reputation took a somewhat bizarre twist yesterday as a New Brunswick charity decided to demand that Trudeau repay them for a speech they paid him for a year ago after the event they held flopped and they lost money. Odd that they asked nine months later, and that they are the party that wants to renege on a contract that they signed with the speaker’s bureau that Trudeau operates from, and that they seem to fail to understand that their failure to sell enough tickets to their event isn’t their own fault, but there you have it. (Also, as Scott Brison pointed out, they seemed thrilled by the event at the time). And never mind that this is all above board, that several other MPs and Senators also give speeches through the speaker’s bureau and that this has all been vetted by the Ethics Commissioner, and never mind the fact that Trudeau himself has been entirely above board and given an extremely high level of disclosure and transparency. These facts apparently don’t matter as the Conservatives have decided to characterise this as “millionaire” Trudeau “ripping-off charities.” And to make things all the more bizarre, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided to join the pile-on and both demanded that Trudeau return the same fee he was paid to speak at a literacy conference in Saskatchewan, and then insinuated that he used the funds to bankroll his leadership campaign (to which his office demanded an apology, citing that all of his campaign expenses were above board and cleared by Elections Canada – and Wall offered a non-apology in return). Funnily enough, that same literacy conference didn’t demand the money back and thought that Trudeau was worth every penny.
Roundup: Transparency behind closed doors
In the wake of the defeat of Justin Trudeau’s four transparency motions on Tuesday, where the NDP confirmed that they were the ones who denied consent, Nathan Cullen took to the microphones to accuse the Liberals of making it up on the fly, that the NDP weren’t informed about the motions (err, except for that public press conference in front of the Centennial Flame last Wednesday), and that it was all a big stunt so that take credit. Add to that, he went on to laud all the work they were doing behind closed doors to improve transparency. No, seriously. Cullen also says that they’re concerned that female MPs will be put in a position of jeopardy if their places of residence are disclosed under these new rules, which seems like pretty weak sauce because I’m sure it would be a pretty simple amendment that they didn’t need to include their address as part of the line item on housing or hospitality costs. Oh, and after QP yesterday, Elizabeth May moved a motion to investigate MPs using the travel points to participate in by-elections, and it was voted down, Gordon O’Connor in particular making motions to kill it.
Roundup: Denying consent for transparency
After QP yesterday, Justin Trudeau rose to seek unanimous consent for his four motions on greater transparency for parliament – MPs posting expenses, opening up Internal Economy, and calling in the Auditor General. None of them passed, and apparently it was the NDP who denied consent (though some reporters heard Conservatives dissent despite the party line being that they were in favour). What did pass was a motion from Nathan Cullen that would ban MPs from using their travel points to go to speaking gigs, as apparently the latest bout of Trudeau bashing is to assert that he apparently used his MP expenses to do speaking gigs, despite there not being any evidence to support this, and the fact that most speaking gigs include airfare as a standard part of the deal.
Roundup: Ineligible expenses? Abolish the Commons!
Oh dear – Conservative MP Eve Adams was found to have claimed hair and nail salon visits to her election expenses, as well as personal grooming products like toothpaste, mouthwash and brushes. $2777 worth of expenses in fact, when the limit Election Canada will allow a candidate to claim is $200. But seeing as we have MPs being accused of improperly claiming elections expenses, I guess it means that the whole institution is corrupt to the core and it’s time to abolish the Commons. “Roll up the green carpet!” as the slogan goes. And the fact that she’s still in caucus and hasn’t been excommunicated for all time? Tsk, tsk. It’s just MPs trying to cover for the entitlements of their buddies. (You see where this argument goes, right?)
Roundup: Vehemently denying the existence of a secret fund
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.