Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: A questionable CIDA grant

Posted on by

CIDA is funding a homophobic Christian group to do work in Uganda – you know, a country that Harper and Baird have called out for their government-sponsored anti-gay legislation, and one of the reasons why Uganda is no longer part of the Commonwealth? I have to wonder what John Baird thinks of this, considering how much he’s touted gay rights as part of Canada’s foreign policy – much to his credit. I can’t imagine he’ll be happy, but I also don’t imagine that anyone will take the blame except for the bureaucrats who “made the decision” when this gets brought up in QP today.

Senator Mike Duffy’s “neighbours” in PEI say that they never see him, and cast doubt on some of his other claims, like how much he’d allegedly spent in converting his cottage there into a year-round residence. Just to keep that particular story of residency requirements going (seeing as it could mean his removal from the job).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The appalling situation

Posted on by

Senator Brazeau made an appearance in a Gatineau court yesterday morning, facing charges of assault and sexual assault. Aaron Wherry sets the scene here. Later in the day, Stephen Harper called the situation appalling and disappointing, and said he was feeling let down. When the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, Brazeau will be put on enforced leave, and while he still draws a salary (remember, nothing has yet been proven in court), he won’t get the usual range of office and travel budgets he normally would have. And if he is found guilty, then in all likelihood, he’s out of the Senate. And no, the lesson here is not that the Senate is inherently bad, but rather, it’s that Stephen Harper should make better appointments. John Geddes reminds us why Harper appointed him in the first place, what’s changed since, and the feasibility of Senate reform (hint: not at all).

As for those three Senators facing questions about their expense claims, they’re being referred to an outside auditor, and additional legal advice is being sought on Senator Duffy’s residency. Could this be enough to trigger him as not being eligible to sit in the Senate as a PEI senator? There are a couple of questions about Pamela Wallin’s residence as well, but seeing as she doesn’t own a home in Ottawa, it doesn’t seem as much of an issue. The NDP seem to think that the RCMP should be called in – but perhaps they should wait for the external auditors to complete their work first.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brazeau and the pundit class

Posted on by

So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.

Continue reading →

QP: Harper’s vigorous defence of trade

Posted on by

It was another bitterly cold day out in Ottawa, and the Hill was buzzing with news of Senator Brazeau’s arrest and removal from caucus. Thomas Mulcair was off at an event elsewhere, which left it up to Megan Leslie to lead off by asking about the Saskatchewan push-poll, but once again fell into that basic trap of asking about party business and not government operations. Harper reminded her that while the party position was well known, the commission had its work to do. Leslie then turned to the question of Senate ethics, and Brazeau’s arrest. Harper assured her that Brazeau was removed from caucus, and that it was of a personal nature and not with regards to Senate business. Peggy Nash was up next, asking why the government wouldn’t extend Kevin Page’s term until his his successor is chosen — unless they had something to hide in the budget. Clement simply repeated that there was a process in place to find his replacement, and they were respecting that process. For the Liberals, Ralph Goodale was up asking about possible gerrymandering of the Saskatchewan boundaries, to which Harper assured him that the process was underway and included Parliamentary input, before insinuating that Goodale didn’t care about rural communities. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the final question of the round, asking about household debt, for which Shelly Glover read off some good news talking points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Push-poll “miscommunications”

Posted on by

Oh dear. It seems that despite initially denying the story, the Conservatives did eventually admit to being behind a push-poll in Saskatchewan designed to turn public opinion against the electoral boundaries changes – changes that will disadvantage the Conservatives as genuine urban ridings are carved out of the old distorting “rurban” ridings. Oh, but it was an “oversight” that they didn’t identify themselves. I’m sure the CRTC will be happy to hear that “guilty plea,” as Pierre Poilievre would term it, were this a Liberal mishap. But it’s not, so I’m sure their euphemisms will be equally creative.

The Environment Commissioner tabled his final report yesterday, which details frustrations with the pace of resource projects outstripping the capacity of regulatory agencies who are dealing with changing legislation, jurisdictional confusion, and not enough resources.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Irresponsible unanimous passage

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Twisting words

Posted on by

It was a frosty Monday in Ottawa, with a bitter wind blowing from the west. None of the three main party leaders were in the House, but the ranks weren’t quite sparse enough to consider it a Friday QP on a Monday. Things started off with David Christopherson angrily reading off a question about protecting pensions, to which Gary Goodyear touted the ways in which the government has improved pensions. He then moved onto the topic of the supposed “quotas” for EI and Diane Finley apparently calling EI recipients “bad guys” (even though she did not such thing, but called people who abuse EI bad guys, and hey, remember when the NDP were all in a knot about the “bald-faced lies” about the carbon tax farce? Funny how that works, no?) John Baird — apparently the back-up PM du jour — insisted that Finley never said that, and yay for stamping out fraud. Nicole Turmel was up next, asking the same questions in French, and got the same responses from Goodyear and Finley. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about youth unemployment and demanding a freeze on “payroll taxes.” Baird was back up, touting their Economic Action Plan™, for what it’s worth. Stéphane Dion closed the round, decrying the “job-killing EI reform” and how it would destroy seasonal industries. Small surprise, Diane Finley got up to deny that was the case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The politics of the Senate reference

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →