With Harper off in Europe, and both Mulcair and Trudeau at Parizeau’s funeral in Montreal, it was going to be a mediocre day. Megan Leslie led off listing some expenses flagged in the Senate AG report, and asked if the PMO had contact with any of those senators before it was tabled. Paul Calandra responded that the senators were responsible for their own spending. Leslie tried to draw links to PMO involvement — the evidence around it sketchy at best — but Calandra wouldn’t budge. Leslie pressed again, and Calandra noted that the NDP were looking to re-open the constitution before reminding them of their satellite offices. Alexandre Boulerice gave another try in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, demanded an oversight body for the Senate, to which Calandra said he expected the Senate to follow the AG’s recommendations. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking about inadequate pensions. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals would just raise payroll taxes. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, to which he got the same reply from Poilievre. Goodale quoted the finance minister in refuting that pension payments are income taxes, but Joe Oliver didn’t take the bait, and Poilieve repeated his same talking points.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: Victory for concern trolls
Consider it a victory for the concern trolls, particularly those hosting the political shows, who spent four days hounding Senate Speaker Leo Housakos and Senators Carignan and Cowan over a trumped up appearance of conflict of interest because they had a role – and largely a peripheral one – in the establishment of the arbitration process and appointment of Justice Ian Binnie to oversee the Senate arbitration process. While Carignan repaid his staffer’s questioned expenses right away, citing it as an error, both Housakos and Cowan had legitimate differences of opinion with the Auditor General over the expenses he flagged, and both intended to take it to arbitration. Monday morning, they changed course, citing that they didn’t want to taint the process by any appearance of conflict, which if you ask me is a potential tacit admission of guilt, but also weakens any ability for senators to push back against what is looking increasingly to be a series of subjective value judgements made by auditors when it comes to expenses that were flagged. (And I’m not going to go into the way in which the NDP and others are conflating these legitimate grievances with notions of criminality other than to offer the reminder that Thomas Mulcair should be thankful he made the comments about Senator Housakos that he did during QP yesterday were made under privilege, lest he face a libel suit). The fact that members of the media torqued this angle of a conflict of interest – which did not bear itself out in fact – shows how much they feel no compunction or conscience about using the Senate as a punching bag because they feel they have public sentiment on their side – never mind that they were central in creating that public sentiment out of overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s not that all of the AG’s findings will be questionable – the ones that Senator Eaton repaid certainly did not appear to be above board, but as Senator Plett remarks in his explanation for some of the flagged expenses, the auditors’ assessments can lack common sense. Of course, for all the concern trolling, it remains a basic fact that the figure of potentially misspent funds is actually tiny in context – and when you look at it in comparison to spending breaches in the Commons, it doesn’t even compare. But MPs won’t admit that they have a worse record, nor will they open their own books up, but don’t let the hypocrisy surprise you.
QP: Gross mischaracterizations and repetition
The second-last Monday QP of the 41st parliament, and it looked like it was going to be a bit of a sleeper. Thomas Mulcair showed up on a Monday, which was unusual, and possibly because he’ll be at Jacques Parizeau’s funeral tomorrow. None of the other leaders were here either, however, so it was going to be pretty weak sauce. Mulcair led off by grossly mischaracterizing the AG revelation on Senate Speaker’s spending, saying that Speaker Housakos has a “spending problem.” Paul Calandra said that the Speaker had answer the question for itself. Mulcair demanded to know if the PMO was orchestrating the response to the recent Senate scandal, to which Calandra responded that the Senate invited the AG in and would answer for themselves. Mulcair asked again in French, got the same answer also in French, and then he moved onto the G7 communique on climate change. Colin Carrie got to respond to this one, reading that the G7 came up with a strong and unanimous statement on climate change. Mulcair demanded action on climate change,and got another talking point about our “clear” record. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking in French about contradictory statements the government has made about infrastructure spending at the G7. Denis Lebel insisted that the facts were wrong, and that they were making record investments. Adam Vaughan blasted the government for their false assurances at the Federation of Canadian Munipalities meeting, to which Lebel insisted that the former Liberal government didn’t live up to promises. Vaughan hammered on the government and their messaging, to which Joe Oliver got up to insist that money would be available when projects needed them.
It's a good thing that Mulcair is protected by privilege, because that characterization of Speaker Housakos was likely libelous. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 8, 2015
Roundup: Getting ahead of the story
As we inch toward the full release of the Auditor General’s report, more material is leaking out, while some senators are trying to get ahead of the story and highlighting what they see as problems with the audits. Conservative Senator Janis Johnson, for example, was flagged for a couple of flights, and she even provided ample documentation to show that it was parliamentary business, however the auditor made a value judgement – he “felt” the trips were personal, never mind that the personal aspects to said trips (also perfectly allowed and not billed to the Senate) were booked after the work trips had been arranged, and yes, documentation supports it. That the auditor insisted that the problem was that she didn’t use the Outlook calendar is an exceedingly bizarre criteria for finding the expenses questionable, despite other supporting documentation. Given the legitimate dispute over the audit report that he has expressed publicly, and that of Speaker Housakos, it’s no doubt that we’ll start to get a better taste of what could be a very problematic audit from the auditor’s side. Meanwhile, we’re starting to get more boneheaded commentary from the pundit class again, wondering why the government just can’t stop funding the Senate – as though it wasn’t a completely separate house of Parliament with institutional independence and not answer able to the government. Why not cut off funding to the Supreme Court as well? Oh, right – we have a thing called the Constitution. Other hosts are stoking this hysteria over what they are trying to claim is a conflict of interest between the Senate leadership and the establishment of the arbitration process with Justice Ian Binnie, but when you look at the facts, it’s just not supportable, as Senator Cowan amply pointed out on The House over the weekend. When it’s pointed out that Duffy and company didn’t get this kind of a process, Cowan said point blank that he didn’t agree with that process at the time and that two wrongs don’t make a right. Elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair vowed he would consult with the premiers to try to abolish the Senate if he should be elected, to which I say good luck with that. You think the Atlantic provinces will give up that representation, or that Quebec wouldn’t have a laundry list of other demands? Keep dreaming.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/607713842966073344
Roundup: Disputing the AG’s claims
The Senate feeding frenzy continues, complete with torqued headlines and inordinate amounts of time being given to the concern trolls in the NDP (who refuse to answer questions on whether they plan to campaign on opening the constitution if they truly believe in abolition). And why not? The Senate is an easy punching bag. More details continue to leak out, despite the fact that the full audit won’t be made public until Tuesday afternoon, which really makes one question who is doing the leaking and what their endgame is. The AG has hinted that it’s not his office doing the leaking, but if I were him, I’d be steaming mad about these leaks which are casting a pall over the report itself, and fuelling this breathless and hysterical coverage that remains to date largely devoid of a great many facts. The concern trolling over the two leaders and the Speaker has been particularly odious, and it’s hard to take these cries of apparent conflict of interest seriously when you look at the facts regarding their actual involvement and what they knew about their spending claims – just because they got requests for additional information, it didn’t mean that they knew they would be in the final report, and none of the three are being accused of any particular criminality. It was also made known that the Prime Minister wouldn’t have known that there were a couple of questioned expenses for Senator Housakos when he was appointed Speaker, but hey, PMO-conspiracy theorists won’t believe it regardless. While Senator Boisvenu stepped down from the Conservative caucus for the investigation, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny put out a release saying his response in the audit will speak for itself. Former Senator Gerry St. Germain disputes that he’s done anything wrong, as did Former Senator Don Oliver, and well, pretty much every one of the nine that were flagged for being egregious. It also bears mentioning that the audit itself cost over $21 million, and found less than a million in questionable spending, and that number is likely to drop dramatically once the arbitration process gets underway and a number of these cases are found to have been value judgements on the part of auditors (and yes, this is an actual problem with the way this was conducted). Some MPs and Senators think that MPs should have their own books looked over, and wouldn’t you know it, there are a whole lot of MPs who resist that notion – particularly the ones who have been so vocal about the Senate allegations. Meanwhile, the lawyers for suspended senators Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy are whinging that it’s not fair that their clients didn’t have access to this arbitration process, but there was a process at the time that they could have availed themselves to. There have been a lot of problems with procedural fairness with the way their cases were handled, and political expediency was the order of the day coming from the government’s side, but that doesn’t actually excuse any of the potential wrongdoing that they are alleged to have done, most of which far exceeds what most of the senators apparently named in the report did.
Roundup: Leaks and leaping to judgement
Even before the Auditor General had turned over to the Senate his report on their expenses, the leaks were already coming out fast and furious, starting with the knowledge that the two leaders in the Senate as well as the Speaker had expenses that were questioned, and in the cases of the Liberal leader and the Speaker, they planned to challenge those claims before the independent arbiter that has been set up to deal with these issues, while the Conservative leader’s expenses were already paid back as they related to a staffer who had improperly filed claims. The Liberal leader, Senator Cowan, got out in front of it – there are $10,000 in travel expenses from four years ago that had to do with parliamentary business that he no longer had supporting documentation for because the claims had been dealt with at the time and not retained, but the auditors are making a big deal of it – and that seems perfectly fair and reasonable. By this point, however, certain breathless types in the media started hyperventilating about how the fact that these were the people who established the arbitration process, so this was supposedly some kind of “conflict of interest,” which not only sounds ridiculous on its face, but it impugns the integrity of former Justice Ian Binnie, who will hear the cases. I mean, come on. It also smacked of the presumption of guilt, never mind that there is plenty of indication that in many cases, the auditors made value judgements about what should qualify and what should not, and of these 29 total files, one has to assume that a good chunk of them will come out of the arbitration process favourably. As time went on, the nine senators whose audits were found to be egregious were revealed, two of those senators still sitting – Senator Boisvenu for the Conservatives (who immediately removed himself from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation), and Senator Kenny for the Liberals (who was recently out of caucus during a sexual harassment investigation that he was cleared in). All of this before the report has been made public. The fact that we don’t have facts and figures before us, that we have a number of claims going before the arbiter, that some of these claims were simply errors and not done with malicious intent, and that there were demonstrable problems with the auditors during the process means that we should all take a deep breath and not rush to proclaim everyone guilty, or the institution as a whole to be tarnished. Yes, it’s a rough patch, and it’s the price they are paying for increasing their transparency. It’s funny that all of the MPs sanctimoniously lining up to denounce the Senate – or worse, concern troll about its credibility or legitimacy – won’t let the AG look at their own books. Funny that.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/606644654902288384
QP: Senate reform questions from the past
Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.
"Last I checked, I am female myself," Kellie Leitch says. Um, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 4, 2015
Roundup: Last-minute legislation
With less than three sitting weeks left, the government has announced that they will introduce yet another bill, this time to give the Minister of Transport enhanced powers when it comes to ordering vehicle recalls. The bill won’t be tabled until later in the week, and there’s no timeline for its passage, but Lisa Raitt is confident she’ll get all-party support for the bill to expedite it. Of course, it’s not guaranteed, and in the light of the recent Takata airbag recall, it does start to smack a little bit of desperation, that the government is doing one last push to show that they’re on top of things, even though they knew this deadline was coming, and this recall issue has been going on for weeks now. As well, they have nearly twenty more bills that they want to pass before the Commons rises, and as it stands, it looks like some of their showcase bills, like the “life means life” parole bill, aren’t going to make it, and Peter MacKay is admitting as much. This speaks to a couple of different issues – one is that there are doubtlessly bills that they’re going to allow to die so that they can campaign on them, both as unfinished business and under the falsehood that the opposition held them up (which really, they can’t do given that this government has the time allocation hammer and aren’t afraid to use it) so they need another majority in order to get these kinds of measures through. Of course, it also showcases that this government – and Peter Van Loan as House Leader – has been spectacularly terrible when it comes to the basic management of getting bills through (not that it’s all Van Loan’s fault – the NDP haven’t exactly played ball when it comes to any routine House management either, and it has been said several times that Peter Julian has managed to make Van Loan look downright reasonable). Suffice to say, good luck to Raitt, because she’s probably going to need it if she wants to get this bill through.
Roundup: An arbiter and a process in place
The Auditor General was making the media rounds yesterday, largely combating the cheap outrage journalism about the supposed spending issues of his office (which wasn’t a story but hey), and confirmed that about 30 senators would be facing some kind of repayment, fewer than 10 serious enough to merit being forwarded to the RCMP – but of course, ten became the headline number when he said it would be fewer, and the number of five to eight has been suggested by other media outlets, which seems more in line with what he claims. The total number of senators examined was 117 current and former, and it certainly sounds like the majority of cases will be fairly minor in terms of repayments. The Senate announced that they are retaining former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie as the independent arbiter on expenses, so that they have a process by which to dispute the AG’s findings if they so choose, and that may be necessary considering the complaints emerging about the lack of knowledge on the part of auditors as to parliamentary functions. This raises the question of fairness – is it fair that these senators will have a process in place, whereas Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin did not, and were suspended without any kind of due process? The answer of course is that no, it’s probably not fair, but this was a fairly consuming crisis at the time, and they were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Politics is messy business, particularly when you were high-profile appointments and had become a political liability. I’m not sure that it should be reason to forgo having a process going forward, but if all three are found guilty on the charges laid by the RCMP, then will it really matter in the end?
QP: Talking points on a list
Monday in the Commons, and true to form, none of the leaders were present — never mind that there are a mere four weeks left. Megan Leslie led off, asking about the GHG emissions targets announced by the government. Leona Aglukkaq got up and read a statement about their sector-by-sector approach, and that they wouldn’t implement a carbon tax. Leslie raised the use of offset credits, which the government used to decry, and Aglukkaq simply read the next non sequitur talking point on her list. Leslie then moved onto the PMO interference in the audit of Mike Duffy, to which Paul Calandra reminded her that it was before the courts. Peter Julian asked the same again in French, and got the same response from Calandra in English, and brought up the NDP satellite offices. Julian tried to bring the rest of the Senate into the mix, but Calandra gave a pro forma response about cooperation, and reminded them about the satellite offices. Emmanuel Dubourg led for the Liberals, and asked another youth unemployment as a way of touting the Liberal plan. Pierre Poilievre touted the government’s plan in response. Ralph Goodale was up next, and slammed the government’s growth record, to which Poilievre repeated his Tax Cuts, Training and Trade™ talking point. For his final question, Goodale decried the government’s child tax plans, to which Poilievre insisted that he was wrong, and that even the PBO said the government plan was okay.