Tag Archives: The Senate

Senate QP: Sole-sourcing shipyard contracts

Posted on by

With all government business taken care of, a showdown was brewing in the Senate over Bill C-377, a “union busting” bill the government wants passed, but Liberals and a few Conservatives are doing their best to filibuster it into the ground. Things got started with the usual statements by senators (Canada Day in Quebec, the situation in Burundi, the good work of the Senate, the Terry Fox Run), and Routine Proceedings.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ham-fisting a simple request

Posted on by

The signs of the current government’s incompetence at handling the big files are numerous, but recent revelations about their anti-terrorism legislation just may take the cake. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show that last year, Canadian intelligence services said that they were looking for “significant improvements” to information sharing between the various agencies – but they wanted them within the existing legislative framework. They didn’t need all kinds of new powers or expanded mandates, and yet, the government turn around and brought in C-51, which did just that. Because this government, after almost a decade in office, apparently doesn’t know what they’re doing, gave the intelligence services a ham-fisted, overly broad new suite of powers that they didn’t need – or even want, if these documents are to be believed – because they had managed to terrify themselves thanks to a couple of lone-wolf attacks on home soil. They drafted a bill that was so sloppy and terrible that every expert on the subject could hardly believe it. And their inept communications strategy around the bill managed to get every civil society group up in arms over it, creating a second sweep of paranoia (despite the fact that no, the bill had nothing to do with trying to expand surveillance to civil society groups or use terrorists as cover for trying to bring the hammer down on First Nations – a simple look at the fact that the government has underfunded CSIS and the RCMP will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about their intentions). It looks to be just one more example of where this government once again rejected expert advice in order to make themselves look like they were getting tough on terrorism – as effectively as they’ve gotten “tough on crime” – and they managed to balls things up for themselves and everyone else in the process. Would that we could have some grown-ups leading this country for a change.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: What about the Rule of Law?

Posted on by

As the final days of the 41st Parliament continue to grind toward its end, the Senate was back in action for what was possibly the last day. After Senators’ statements (Commemoration of the Air India bombing, the Armendian genocide, Ramadan) and Routine Proceedings, and when Question Period started, Senator Moore led off, asking about the Federal Court order to turn the gun registry data hard drive over, and wondered why the government wound itself on the wrong side of the law. Answering for the government, Senator Carignan praised the end of the registry. Moore was not impressed, and wondered why Canadians should follow the law if the government wouldn’t. Carignan repeate his answer. Moore pressed, noting that the government has not followed the will of parliament in the past — noting the contempt charge at the close of the previous parliament — but Carignan stuck to his talking points. Moore raised Magna Carta, and wondered why the government felt itself above the Rule of Law. Carignan reiterated that the destruction was the will of Parliament. Moore raised the contempt motion and wondered if the government gets to pick and choose which laws it gets to follow. Carignan noted the election. Moore did not let up, at which point Carignan raised the spectre of Justin Trudeau and how he would undo everything, saying he was not ready to be Prime Minister. Moore wondered why it as acceptable that Harper could consider himself as the person who makes the rules, but Carignan retreated to his talking points.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Dodging with accusations of partisanship

Posted on by

It’s not often that the full Senate sits on a Monday — usually it’s just committees that meet — but here they were, looking to get through the number of bills that the Commons sent down before they rose for the summer. Once senators’ statements (Magna Carta, praise for Senate Protective Services, World Refugee Day) and Routine Proceedings were though, it began. Senator Munson led off, bringing forward a question from a Canadian from Barrie, who asked about the rising costs of tuition — acknowledging the provincial role but also the role the federal government plays in things like student loans and grants. Senator Carignan, answering for the government, listed off the measures that the government has adopted, including tax measures, loans and grants, and the other supports they have given to students in the current budget. Munson thanked him for the answer, but wanted some more answers on the rising tuition and compulsory fees. Carignan noted the provincial jurisdiction, and the increased health and social transfers to the provinces. Senator Moore rose on a supplemental, asking if it was possible to get a breakdown for the social transfers to know how much was going to education. Carignan directed him to the website, but Moore, disputed that the information was available. Carignan this time implored them to support the budget. Moore rose again, asking about forgiving student loan interest, or free tuition for students like they do in some countries like Ireland. Carignan noted it was a significant sum of money available in the budget after referring the substance of Moore’s question to the provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fobbing off your work to the Senate

Posted on by

With MPs having gone home for the summer to start the campaign in earnest (well, not including the one in six who aren’t running again), the Senate is still hard at work to get through the last of the government’s agenda before they rise. Included in this are three bills that were passed at all stages in the dying days. Now, none of these are controversial so far as we can see, but the fact that they were all rammed through on a voice vote with zero debate is not exactly an encouraging trend. More to the point, it forces the actual due diligence onto the Senate, which is their job, but once again, it seems that they’re doing the work that MPs can’t be bothered to do because they’re too busy doing things like holding concurrence debates on nine-month old Health committee reports on the dangers of marijuana (never mind that said report was a sham rammed through the committee thanks to the government’s majority, and that it ignored the bulk of witness testimony) in order to try and hammer the Liberals on their pot policy. Because that’s an effective use of time. It’s also extremely ironic that the NDP insists the Senate does no valuable work ad should be abolished – and yet they once again fobbed off their work to the Senate to deal with because they couldn’t be bothered. There is no such thing as unflawed legislation, and it’s the job of MPs to scrutinise it in order to hold the government to account. But for a party who believes so strongly in the infallibility of the House of Commons that they don’t want an upper chamber, they gave bills a free pass with zero debate. Wow. Way to go there, guys. Really showing that you’re taking your jobs seriously, and that you’re doing the job of accountability like the official opposition is supposed to. Kind of like how they’ve taken to fobbing off their homework to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It’s behaviour like that that undermines the NDP’s whole argument for Senate abolition – not that I mind. But MPs should be embarrassed when they pass any legislation with zero scrutiny. You’re just making the case for your own growing irrelevance, which serves nobody’s interests.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Half-assing discussions on the Senate

Posted on by

With all of the recent attention on the Senate lately, there has been no shortage of columns and think-pieces about the institution, calls for its abolition, and the conflation of a host of issues under the banner of “scandal” writ large, all senators painted with the brush of criminality, all of the expense issues flagged by the Auditor General treated as outright graft, and now with the accusations against Senator Don Meredith of sexual impropriety with a teenager, the institution itself seems to bear the blame. Never mind that elected officials are often caught misspending or engaging in inappropriate behaviour (there is a reason why the Commons Clerk has a conversation with the female pages at the beginning of every session). Add to the pile is the weekend longread in the Ottawa Citizen about what to do with the problem of the Senate. And for as much as it was a noble effort, it fell apart rather quickly on a number of fronts. For one, for a piece of its length, it relied on astonishingly few sources – one retiring Conservative senator who is engaged in a campaign of self-serving legacy-building, one who has already retired, the same political scientist that every reporter goes to for a quote, and one more lesser-known political scientist to push back against a few of the claims. That’s not a lot for a fairly complex issue. Much of the article is taken up by the fixation on a referendum on Senate abolition, be it from Hugh Segal’s outright bizarre notion that it could somehow give the institution legitimacy if it were rejected, to the usual nonsense that it will somehow spur premiers to action. Completely absent from the self-awareness of any of these arguments is the fundamental concept that one of the Senate’s very primary purposes was to protect the interests of minority provinces – to say that referendum result can somehow wipe away those very real interests is a complete betrayal of the principles of a liberal democracy which is supposed to mediate against the harms of mob rule. The piece also makes boneheaded statements like the composition of the Senate over-representing smaller provinces – which was the whole point, to have a system of regional representation that was not bound to representation-by-population. The Senate’s model of equal regions was designed to counter the rep-by-pop of the Commons, and the inability for people to grasp this simple fact is gob smacking. Nowhere in any discussion of reform are the reasons the Senate was structured the way it was – to provide institutional independence against the reprisals of a government they push back against. Accusations of ineffectiveness are mired in the recent past as opposed to a broader look at times when the Senate has less deferential, nor does it look at reasons why it’s in a deferential state right now (hint: the manner in which the current Prime Minister made his selections). And the issue of the lack of seriousness by which successive prime ministers have taken their appointment powers is not explored at all, when it is probably the most important part of the discussion about what to do about the Senate. If we’re going to have a discussion about the Senate, then let’s be serious about it. Half-assed attempts like this don’t help the conversation.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Climate change as national security

Posted on by

The Senate was sitting early on a Friday, something they tend to do toward the end of any sitting in order to start passing the glut of legislation the Commons rushed through toward the end. Before things got off, there were a couple of brief tributes to the pending retirement of Senator Marjory LeBreton, as she turns 75 on July 4th.

When Question Period started, Senator Grant Mitchell rose to raise the Prime Minister’s lack of alacrity with it considering that it has real security and defence implications, which Harper likes to tout his respect for. Answering for the government, Government Leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan, gave a bland talking point about the action being taken. Mitchell rose for a supplemental, noting that if the right wing in the U.S. is getting the urgency of the issue, why couldn’t the PM get the urgency either? Carignan said that it was not their intention to get involved in the domestic policy south of the border, and touted the “fair and ambitious” target for 2100. Mitchell rose again, BC’s strong economy with its carbon tax. Carignan noted that the government has reduced greenhouse gasses.

And that was it. Short and sweet.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Senator Dennis Dawson for a navy jacket with a light blue shirt and a red bow tie, and to Senator Lillian Eva Dyck for a white jacket with a white top and off-white trousers. Style citations go out to Senator Rose-May Poirier for a fluorescent pink and grey leopard print overshirt with a black top and trousers, and to Senator Tobias Enverga for a dark brown suit with a dull light blue shirt and a black and blue striped tie.

Roundup: Farewells and self-awareness

Posted on by

With 54 MPs not running again in the next election, we’re hearing a lot of teary farewells, and a number of them talking about their regrets for all kinds of things, particularly about some of the nastiness and the more toxic aspects of their career in politics. It’s more of what we saw in the Samara Canada series of exit interviews with MPs from previous parliaments, which culminated in the book Tragedy in the Commons, where MPs all bemoaned how terrible it was, and how the parties controlled everything, and how everyone else was nasty and partisan (but not them – even when you pointed to examples where they were engaging in that behaviour). What strikes me is that pretty much no MP you’ll speak to will take any responsibility for their own actions, whether it’s boorish partisan behaviour, letting the leader’s office dictate to them, or as is now commonplace, dutifully reading the scripts that are placed in front of them with no critical capacity to say no, I won’t demean myself in this way. (The obvious exception to all of this is Irwin Cotler, who has been a pretty exemplary class act throughout his time as a parliamentarian, but for pretty much everyone else this applies). When we listen to MPs get all teary and expressing their regrets, we should start asking them why they didn’t do something differently. And that’s really it – we elect MPs directly under our electoral system, and that empowers them to be the masters of their own destiny within the Commons (with the obvious exception of whips on things like confidence votes). They don’t need the Reform Act for things to change – they just need to take responsibility for their own behaviour and act like grown-ups. Sadly, the vast majority don’t and then blame everyone else, which is a sad state of affairs.

Continue reading →

QP: One last scattershot attempt

Posted on by

It was likely the final Commons Question Period of the 41st Parliament (but it looks like not), and not a moment too soon. Not unsurprisingly, most of the leaders have already fled for the pre-writ campaign trail, with the exception of Elizabeth May, who dutifully remains at her desk until the bitter end. Megan Leslie led off, raising the moral issue of climate change per the Pope’s encyclical, but turned it into an NDP pitch instead of a question. Leona Agulkkaq chose a climate change talking point and recited it dutifully. Leslie then moved to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, to which James Bezan rose to denounce the comments made by the Chief of Defence Staff and to note that the wheels were already in motion for a change of command. Leslie asked for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Kellie Leitch insisted that they were taking action. Niki Ashton picked up, denounced the government and raised a report on the wage gap between First Nations and other Canadians. Bernard Valcourt noted the measures the government has taken to improve the lives of First Nations. Ashton then raised a plethora of social issues faced by First Nations children and asked a rhetorical question about the government discriminating against them. Valcourt insisted that they were taking action to improve their lives. Ralph Goodale led for Liberals, decrying the government’s economic performance to which Kevin Sorenson read some talking points about lowering taxes and the Liberals raising them. Goodale dug in, but Sorenson repeated his usual talking points about how great ever high was. Dominc LeBlanc took the final slot to further the condemnation in the other official language, to which Candice Bergen stood up to defend the government’s record of keeping promises.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Good questions about Trudeau’s proposals

Posted on by

There have been a few good responses to Trudeau’s big announcement on Tuesday, including by Emmett Macfarlane and to an extent Andrew Coyne (though I have some respectful disagreements on points he’s made). But two of the best came in the form of Twitter essays, so I’m just going to post them here for your benefit, because they were that good.

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170331756138497

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611170765392642048

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171120985706496

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611171784683991041

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172117275521025

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172270812205056

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172430577471489

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172648702193664

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611172838297329665

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173239570608128

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173399008706560

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/611173665888010240

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611187983883083776

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188306441842689

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611188371168305152

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/611193729186156544

Continue reading →