With more Duffy-related documents being filed and their separate proceeding going ahead in trying to get that secret internal report on residencies going ahead, there is a flurry of stories in the news related to the ongoing expenses issue in the Upper Chamber. Those new documents filed show that the steering subcommittee of the internal economy committee – meaning particularly Senators Carolyn Stewart Olsen and David Tkachuk – altered the section of the report on Mike Duffy seven times to tone down the criticism of his residency and travel patterns after he repaid the $90,000 (as it turned out thanks to Nigel Wright). It does seem mystifying that other Conservative senators are not insisting that Stewart Olsen and Tkachuk be removed from that committee to clear the air, but these kinds of decisions tend to rest in the Senate leader’s office, and well, the current Leader of the Government in the Senate is a yes-man for the PMO, and those two senators did the PMO’s bidding. It does stink, and one would think that the rest of their caucus would take issue – but then again, they may be but it would be happening behind closed doors. And the current rumour is that the Auditor General is going to recommend that the RCMP look at 10 senators’ expenses, but said rumour also says that most of those 10 have seen retired. I guess we’ll see what happens when the report is released, but the Senate Speaker has said that they will send files to the RCMP if that is what is recommended. As for that internal report that the Senate refuses to turn over to Duffy’s lawyers, they seem to be making the argument that Duffy has been treated unfairly by having his expenses turned over to the RCMP but others haven’t – which isn’t true, considering that Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb also had theirs turned over and had charges laid, while the RCMP continue to investigate Pamela Wallin’s expenses. And they may have more company on the way, but the Senate is in the process of making its rules more stringent, and hopefully the next time appointments are made, they will be vetted a little better than those of the Class of 2008.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead
It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.
Roundup: Calling in the OPP
It took MPs long enough to respond, but one supposes that it’s about time they did. On Thursday of last week, the Information Commissioner issued her damning special report on the RCMP destroying records that were under Access to Information requests, related to the long-gun registry, and the government is now proposing legislation to make it retroactively legal (more in my column here). No MP other than Wayne Easter bothered to actually say something until yesterday – five days later – at which point the committees decided to get involved. The NDP are moving a motion in Ethics committee, which has jurisdiction over Access to Information policy, while the Liberals are proposing similar hearings in the Public Safety committee where they can haul the RCMP Commissioner before them. Still, it’s another week’s delay, and there’s no guarantee they’ll get the hearings given the limited number of sitting days left, and the fact that government MPs can block their request in camera. That having been said, it looks like Suzanne Legault’s recommendation that charges be laid for the destruction of those records might actually come to fruition, as the Attorney General’s office did forward the request on to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn has asked the OPP to investigate. We’ll see if the government proposes to still go ahead with retroactively changing the law while there is an active police investigation, but if they stick to their guns, that they’re just “closing a loophole” (which is not true), then they just might.
Roundup: On official birthdays
It should not be unexpected that on Victoria Day, you would get some usual trite releases by the Prime Minister and the Governor General about the importance of Canada’s relationship with the monarchy, and so on. We got them. What we also got was a bunch of ignorant backlash.
Today, Laureen & I join Cdns to officially celebrate the birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. http://t.co/kDokPviYF8
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) May 18, 2015
The GG wishes us a happy Victoria Day, and Her Majesty a happy official birthday in Canada. #MapleCrown pic.twitter.com/4rSTzN8PRk
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 18, 2015
Immediately a bunch of geniuses started to tweet back that it was celebrating Queen Victoria’s birthday, not Queen Elizabeth’s, and that Harper was an idiot, and so on. Err, except that those people were the ones in the wrong because since 1957, it was decided that the Official Birthday of the Canadian Sovereign would be Victoria Day, not the April birthday of the current Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, nor the same official birthday as the Queen of the United Kingdom, which is in June. It’s like we have our own monarchy or something! Also, it has to do with the distinction between the legal person of the Queen of the Canada, and her natural person.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600350515633979393
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600350878269313025
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/600354856294047744
Suffice to say, it’s a pretty sad statement as to the current state of civic literacy in Canada that this basic celebration of our Head of State has been completely lost to your average person. Granted, the PM’s tweet could have been better phrased, such as “official birthday” instead of “officially celebrate,” but still, the point stands. It’s time to take this basic education more seriously, Canada. Yesterday was pretty embarrassing.
https://twitter.com/lopinformation/status/600334009944645633
Roundup: Poilievre’s egregious video problem
It’s egregiously partisan, and Pierre Poilievre won’t apologise for it. He released a pair of YouTube videos featuring himself talking about the government’s new tax measures, never mind that they still haven’t passed into law yet. Most of all, he filmed them on a weekend, using public servants on overtime. He says it was only two hours (but rules are they need to be paid a minimum of three), and not unsurprisingly, the public sector unions consider it an abuse of resources. Because it is. Liberal MP David McGuinty is hoping to leverage it into support of his bill to limit this kind of nonsense, much in the way that Ontario created an advertising commissioner in the Auditor General’s office to vet ads so that things like party colours, or the faces or voices of politicians are outlawed from government advertising. The funny thing is that the current Conservative government rode into power on the white horse of accountability, waving the banner of outrage over partisan advertising and polling by the previous government – never mind that their advertising was never this blatant or nakedly partisan. But apparently that doesn’t matter because this government can justify and rationalize absolutely anything, no matter how much they end up looking like hypocrites.
Roundup: The galling abuse of the Information Commissioner
The Information Commissioner is very unhappy about the government’s move to retroactively change the law to protect the RCMP for destroying gun registry records despite promises to her office that they wouldn’t in order to fulfil Access to Information requests. That the RCMP broke the law by destroying the information, and the government is protecting them by retroactively changing the law and putting that change in the middle of the omnibus budget bill, sets a very bad precedent, she warns, and she’s right. While the government wanted the long-gun registry data destroyed for political purposes, there was other information of value in the data that wound up being destroyed that had little to do with any future attempts at recreating a registry – something the Conservatives have long been afraid of, and are pressing for the hasty destruction of data to impede. And the way she characterises this is genuinely frightening – that they are backdating changes to the law to make something legal after a finding of wrongdoing. She uses the example of the Sponsorship Scandal – what if the Liberal government of the day retroactively changed the law so that the Auditor General was ousted from her jurisdiction after the fact. It’s unconscionable. What’s even more galling is the way that the prime minister is shrugging this off as just “fixing a loophole.” No, it’s not. It’s wilfully undermining the Commissioner and her ability to do her job, which this government has already made nearly impossible through starving her office budget and wanton disregard of their obligations under the Access to Information regime. All while they call themselves “open and transparent.” It’s grotesque, abusive, and in violation of their obligations as the government of the day. And if anything is any more upsetting about this situation, it’s that the opposition parties were too busy electioneering in QP instead of raising bloody hell about this issue – the Liberals not asking until nearly the end, and the NDP not raising it at all. Thanks for doing your jobs in holding this kind of unconscionable behaviour to account, MPs. Gold stars all around.
Roundup: Breaking the debates
The Conservatives have decided that they’re going to opt out of the major broadcasters when it comes to election debates this fall, and will instead entertain the option of independents who don’t have the same kind of widespread broadcast capabilities, by accepting the invitations of Maclean’s/Rogers, and TVA in French. In a way, it’s more of this attempt to portray themselves as poor, put upon underdogs that the “big media elites” are trying to control – as though being in power for the past ten years doesn’t make them elites. There has been this particular undercurrent in pre-election conversation that they want plenty of debates because apparently it’ll be how they can trip up Justin Trudeau (ignoring both the fact that he cleaned up in his party leadership debates, and the fact that the more debates, the more chance that any gaffes will be minimised). It’s also a curious strategy that they would forgo the broadest audience that the major broadcasters’ consortium could provide – and a bit tone deaf as to the reality of the media landscape that they think that it’s just a matter of some university hosting an event and everyone brings their cameras. What it does is twofold – firstly, it’s a power game by the Conservatives to unilaterally pull out of the consortium negotiation process and throw everyone into disarray, and secondly, it’s an attempt to control those debates by creating a proliferation of independent offers that they can then cherry pick when it comes to things like format and hosting choices. It has also been pointed out how hypocritical their position is considering that they very rarely allow their candidates to even attend local debates, so for them to be concern trolling over the state of the leaders’ debates is a bit rich. Suffice to say, it’s throwing a lot of added confusion out there and is setting up a power play that will further break our system more than it already is.
QP: Repeated questions about sick mothers
Monday, and the only leader in the Commons was a sheepish Elizabeth May, fresh from her morning apology tour after her off-the-rails speech at the Press Gallery Dinner on Saturday. The NDP chose their other, other deputy leader, David Christopherson, to start things off by shouting out a pair of questions regarding the PMO trying to whitewash the Duffy audit. Paul Calandra said it was before the court. Christopherson shouted a question about Senate residency rules for appointments, to which Calandra reminded him of their satellite offices that needed repayment. Christopherson changed topics, and shouted about a mother who couldn’t get sick benefits while on parental leave, while Pierre Poilievre, calmly, said he couldn’t comment on a specific case, but noted they had sympathy for people in cases like that which was why they tabled legislation in 2013, solving it for future cases. Sadia Groguhé asked the same question in French, got the same answer in French, and then Groguhé asked it again, getting yet the same answer. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, asking about the trade deficit and job numbers, and wondered why the government would use income splitting to help the wealthy instead of single mothers. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Poilievre responded with talking points about things the Liberals would supposedly do. Goodale gave some talking points about the Liberal plan, Poilievre responded with some fabrications about the fictitious Liberal plan, and when Goodale hit back, Joe Oliver finally stood up, and read some talking points off a cue card.
"I've actually balanced a budget, Mr. Speaker," Goodale retorts and the Conservative benches start howling. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 11, 2015
Roundup: Speaker Housakos’ telling silence
It was with some interest that I listened to the first major interview with new Senate Speaker Leo Housakos over the weekend, and in it, there was the requisite amount of tough talk with regards to the recent spending allegations that some senators face. To wit, Speaker Housakos spoke of recognising their problems internally, bringing in the Auditor General on their own, the willingness to name any names that the AG does in his report, and as far as the three suspended senators are concerned, those suspensions are likely to continue into the next parliament until their legal situations have been resolved one way or another. Where Housakos did not talk tough, but instead shied away from answering, was regarding questions of the complicity of some senators in changing the internal audit to protect Mike Duffy. Housakos mumbled about it being before the courts, but as the Speaker and the new head of the Internal Economy committee, he had an opportunity to make a statement about past practices that will no longer be tolerated, or the staking a claim about Senate independence and severing the ties to the PMO, or anything like that. He didn’t, and it’s not too surprising to me because Housakos is known as someone who is close to the PMO, in with a tight cabal that surrounds the current Government Leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan. In other words, Housakos is no Pierre-Claude Nolin, who had some fairly high-minded ideals about the Senate and its independence, particularly after the Supreme Court’s reference decision. The fact that Housakos did not make any claims for institutional independence is telling, and reminds us that he bears watching so as to ensure that he personally does not become implicated in more of the PMO machinations into the Upper Chamber and its workings. The Senate needs an independent Speaker, and I’m not sure that Housakos is it. Meanwhileback in the Commons, the government refuses to answer questions on residency requirements for appointing senators.
Roundup: Tales of internal audits
The issue that dominated Question Period and the headlines yesterday – that the PMO was trying to direct the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee to protect Duffy from internal audits – is one that needs a bit of a deep breath before we freak out about it. For starters, we need to be aware that Duffy and his lawyer are deliberately stoking this in order to direct the attention toward Harper and the PMO as their way of exculpating Duffy. Number two, that any “conspiracy” within the Senate to protect Duffy has largely been limited to a couple of players and not the chamber as a whole. In this case, it seems to be largely three key players – then-leader Marjory LeBreton, Harper loyalist Carolyn Stewart Olsen, and David Tkachuk. That Stewart Olsen might be doing Harper’s bidding is no surprise, and while Tkachuk should have known better than to take PMO direction, he has been playing his own power games within the Senate (including a few nasty leaks to the media designed to undermine people). The other thing that should be pointed out is that Senate administration – the Clerk and a senior staffer conducting an internal audit – were trying to point to the nebulous rules around residency and were getting pushback from Stewart Olsen and Tkachuk, and in Stewart Olsen’s case, the motives were likely self-interested given her own problematic residency situation at the time. That internal audit was not killed, in part because of legal action threatened by the Clerk, but it does point to the fact that while rules could be nebulous, the staff was trying to ensure that there was some due diligence, and Duffy would have been caught up in that exercise. That the PMO was trying to take the heat off of Duffy with a later external audit is concerning, but should be for the rest of the Senate. They have institutional independence for a reason, and they are betraying their role when they take that kind of direction. Of course, Harper created the situation where a number of senators would take direction by flooding the chamber with so many pliable rookies at once who wouldn’t hesitate to take orders. It’s one of the things that the late Speaker Nolin was trying to change – getting senators, particularly those in his own caucus, to take their roles more seriously. None of this should detract from the fact that Duffy still bears responsibility for his own actions, and that senators themselves should be telling the PMO to shove off. We shouldn’t let Duffy and his lawyer play us to confirm those facts.