The Senate, it turns out, passed a tough-on-crime private members’ bill that contained a gaping error in it, and they knew it had an error in it and passed it anyway – with observations attached about the errors. Why? Because said private member had become a parliamentary secretary, and sending it back to the House to fix the error would have basically killed it because its sponsor could no longer sponsor it. It seems to me that there should have been a fix for that – generally a unanimous vote in the Commons that someone else take it on, as has happened when an MP retires while their bill is in process – but more to the point, if the government was so enamoured with it, then they should have drawn up a government bill that fixed the errors and put it through the process, which likely would have been expedited since it had already had committee hearings in its previous form. But hey, let’s keep up this nonsense of backbenchers sucking up to the government with these nonsense bills, and let’s keep up this bawling that the Senate shouldn’t overturn flawed bills that passed the Commons because they’re not elected. It’s really helping our legislative process, clearly.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: A surprise trip to Iraq
John Baird quietly took a trip to Iraq along with is opposition critics, Paul Dewar and Marc Garneau, to meet with officials there and to pledge aid. James Cudmore looks at what Canada could contribute if we take the fight to ISIS, which could include special forces or aerial reconnaissance and support, but unlikely boots on the ground, as it’s politically unpalatable in an election year. Whatever we do, Harper has stated that it’ll be done on a tight budget because we really want to be cheap about fighting the kinds of grave threats that Harper is making them out to be.
Roundup: Return of the fiscal imbalance
Well, the premiers have met and have spoken and they think the federal government should pony up some more money – try to act surprised, everyone! Not only that, but they’re trying to revive the term “fiscal imbalance,” because it seemed to work the last time. In particular, they want more money for health to deal with an aging population (despite being guaranteed increases for the next decade) and reliable infrastructure funding (which is a bit more of a legitimate gripe considering the way the government back-loaded the Building Canada Fund). There was some talk about trade and labour mobility agreements, but nothing earth shattering on the interprovincial trade barrier file. Christy Clark noted that the topic of the constitution was not up for discussion – not even to bring Quebec into the fold at long last. Getting in his two cents, New Brunswick premier David Alward (who may not be premier for much longer, as his province is in an election) took the opportunity to lash out at Justin Trudeau for his saying that they should put a hold on more fracking until more studies of its impacts can be done. Alward says that New Brunswick can’t wait because it needs the jobs now.
Roundup: First stop, Whitehorse
At his first stop on his Northern tour in Whitehorse, Stephen Harper announced a major Arctic research agenda to be spearheaded by the National Research Council. He wants to turn unique Canadian challenges into opportunities! Okay then. Michael Den Tandt notes that Harper is also in election mode, and is starting to flesh out his vision of the agenda for when that happens. (Den Tandt’s video file of the trip is here).
Roundup: Totally not a partisan ad campaign
Remember those anti-pot ads that the government plans to run, which totally aren’t partisan and totally not about Justin Trudeau? Well, as it happens, they don’t show up in planning documents, and there’s no budget for new television advertising, especially for ones geared toward marijuana specifically. But remember – it’s totally not partisan. Really! And it looks like those doctors’ groups are starting to reconsider their participation, because they can see what’s going on.
Roundup: Simultaneous praise and condemnation
In an interview with the Vancouver Sun, Justin Trudeau gave a somewhat confusing response to what he would do around the First Nations accountability legislation that has made the salaries of chiefs and band councils public. While on the one hand he said it was a good thing that the questionably high payments to certain chiefs were aired, he nevertheless said the law should be scrapped, but that same information be made available to band members so that they could make their own decisions. I’m not sure that it’s just enough to say that the government is trying to force their opponents to be more open and transparent – being First Nations and unions – while their own top political staff salaries remain secret (which isn’t really true because salary ranges are public). If he really were concerned with open and transparent government, he could have others – like top political staff – disclose their salaries to the same levels as the “opponents” of the government. It just seems like trying to hard to paint the current government as bad guys (I know, I know – politics) when in the same breath he praised the results of the same legislation.
Roundup: Hacker concerns and delays
The National Research Council had concerns about their IT security before the hack attack happened, and some of those concerns delayed their move to join Shared Services Canada. What the article doesn’t mention is that NRC also has a lot of legacy computer systems that wouldn’t integrate easily, and that was part of the concern with amalgamation. That said, amalgamation creates its own security risks because everything is in one place, so a well-placed hack there would have far broader implications than the current “federated” model, where individual systems can be isolated. Meanwhile, the Privacy Commissioner’s officer has confirmed that the attack breached a system that contained personal information, and they’re still assessing the damage.
Roundup: Getting what we ask for
From across the pond comes a very interesting op-ed for your consideration, about the kind of insult and scorn that we heap on the political class. In taking a look at the example of the deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader David Clegg, currently one of the most hated men in UK politics, it looks at how everyday cynicism about politics has obscured the reasons why people get into it in the first place, and the kinds of impacts that they can have by doing the work that they do, no matter that they’re currently not popular with the people. The title of the piece also speaks volumes – “If you believe that politicians are useless, you’ll wind up with useless politicians.” It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that we are reaping in spades here in Canada as we get MPs who are increasingly disengaged from their own jobs, and who are becoming little more than ciphers for their party leaders because we, the electorate, aren’t demanding of them to do their jobs. Instead, we have bizarre expectations of them to not be politicians, and what we’re getting in return is, well, an abrogation of parliamentary oversight and boosterism for central leaders’ offices that are increasingly run by junior functionaries whose chief virtue is loyalty and not experience. We, the electorate, should start rethinking our priorities before things get too far down the dark path we’ve started down.
Roundup: An apology owed
The International Commission of Jurists has looked over the dispute between Stephen Harper and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin around accusations that she was “lobbying” against the appointment of Justice Nadon. The ICJ declared that McLachlin did nothing wrong – and that Harper owes her an apology. In response, the PMO responded that they saw the response and “noted it.” At least it wasn’t yet another angry denunciation of “activist” judges protecting their own, or some other nonsense. Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association has responded to all of those Conservative MPs whinging that the courts are doing an “end run around democracy” by reminding them that the courts are an essential part of our democratic system, ensuring that rights are respected and that laws are applied properly. Not that it will soothe the sting being felt by sore losers, which is really what those complaints are all about.
Roundup: CRA takes exception
Things with the CRA seem to be taking a turn for the bizarre as they are getting into a fight with well-known charity Oxfam over the charity’s stated goal of trying to prevent poverty around the world. According to the CRA, that’s not an acceptable goal – they should only try to alleviate poverty, as preventing it might benefit people who are not already poor. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure that one out too. According to CRA, the courts haven’t found that that the risk of poverty is the same as actually being in need, so this splitting of hairs means that they can’t put “prevention” in their purpose statement. And it’s not like this is part of the supposed “crackdown” on charities either – this had to do with a regular process of renewing Oxfam’s non-profit status, but it has been noted that Jason Kenney singled them out earlier in the year over their opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Why the CRA would play petty politics for any minister – especially one that they don’t report to – sounds a little too odd, but this whole situation is just so strange that it will invite conspiracy theory.