It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.

Of course, Rathegeber’s departure from caucus triggered some absolute nonsense from both the Conservatives and the NDP, after the PM’s comms director – and even some cabinet ministers – started saying that he was elected under a party banner and should run in a by-election. The NDP then started crowing that the Conservatives voted against their bill to force MPs to run in by-elections in the event of a floor crossing – err, except that this wasn’t a bloody floor crossing! And to paraphrase Rathgeber, the party doesn’t own the seat because he won it under their banner. While yes, parties are an important part of our system because that is the means by which we organise our MPs to determine the confidence of the government, MPs are elected as individuals to fill individual seats. We don’t elect robots who simply put on partisan colours, and that means trusting their judgement.

Michael Den Tandt describes Rathgeber’s departure as a dagger straight into Harper’s heart because of how it reflects the way in which he has lived up to his political ideals, and because there is now way that Harper can attack Rathgeber in good conscience. John Ivison writes that other Conservatives are saying that they would rather run as independents than be beholden to a leader that threatens not to sign their nomination papers.

CBC also revealed the existence of a secret party fund that Nigel Wright was in control of, though the party insists that they did not use these funds to cut that cheque for Mike Duffy. Incidentally, Liberals in the Senate are now asking the Auditor General to turn his gaze on the PMO.

Not to feel left out, Senator Pamela Wallin and Deloitte have been asked to appear before the Senate Internal Economy committee next week in order to get an explanation as to why it’s taking so long to complete the forensic audit of her travel expenses. It has also been revealed that Wallin earned over $1 million in fees from corporate boards since she became a Senator – which is completely legal, for the record. Where this fits in, however, is if she has been claiming her travel for any of the meetings of these boards. It was also revealed that she could have to pay another $20,000 in improperly claimed expenses back – on top of the $38,000 she has already paid back. Here’s a Q&A about her issues in case you need a refresher.

Incidentally, it has already cost $240,000 to audit the four problematic senators, and that number is still climbing. Can we imagine how much it’ll cost to do a comprehensive audit of all 105 senators? And then the 308 MPs on top of that?

In advance of the ruling on his refusal to provide a breath sample, Conservative-turned-independent MP Peter Goldring said he’d be willing to rejoin the Conservative caucus, but if they don’t want him, he’d totally be willing to sit as a Liberal because he admired Pierre Trudeau’s stance on national unity. Um, okay. Goldring was later found not guilty, and invited back into the Conservative ranks.

John Ivison writes that Peter MacKay says that if the party decides to change the rules around leadership selection to give more weight to larger ridings (thus disadvantaging the old guard Progressive Conservative-heavy ridings in places like Atlantic Canada), he would consider leaving. Some people, however, think that MacKay is just being a big drama queen.

Questions mount as to why the Speaker didn’t inform the House when the Chief Electoral Officer wrote to him to ask that Shelly Glover and James Bezan be suspended for not filing their elections expenses, as the Act decrees. And it’s even more disturbing that Peter Van Loan’s argument has been that the courts can somehow override Parliament – um, except that Parliament is actually the highest Court in the land, so sorry but no, you’re absolutely wrong. John Geddes writes about the various questions this whole situation raises.

The new rules for safe injection sites were tabled in the House yesterday, complete with the NIMBY-pandering short title of the “Respect for communities” act, and an accompanying Conservative data harvesting campaign around the slogan of “No heroin in my backyard!” Yeah, they’re really open to tackling a public health problem in a proven effective manner. Way to go, guys.

AFN National Chief Shawn Alteo is concerned about coming funding cuts to several Aboriginal political organisations, which he also terms a surprise move.

Senator Pana Merchant’s husband, lawyer Tony Merchant, is suing the CBC for libel after their story on his alleged offshore bank account.

The interim PBO still can’t get the information she needs to assess the impact of the budget cuts from 2012. Yeah, this is turning out well.

Here’s a recap of what new Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz told the Commons finance committee in his first appearance before them. Scott Brison, however, was not impressed with the depth of questions the Conservatives were asking Poloz.

And in part four of his series on productivity, economist Stephen Gordon explains that our stagnant productivity can’t only be blamed on our booming resource sector, and looks at the reasons why.