Roundup: Legalism and homework monitors

Posted on by

Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.

Good reads:

  • The Supreme Court struck down mandatory minimum sentences on certain firearms offences as grossly disproportionate in a 6-3 decision.
  • Canada is sending 200 troops to Ukraine as unarmed trainers. The NDP are insisting that this should have been subjected to a vote in the Commons (because apparently they want to launder accountability).
  • Bruce Cheadle tries to make sense of the federal government’s incoherence and contradictions on their environmental rhetoric.
  • Paul Wells writes about Justin Trudeau’s second anniversary as party leader.
  • Part 3 of Jordan Press’ series on childcare looks at paying for it – both parents and governments, and no, the NDP’s figures still don’t add up.
  • Kevin Page fact checks defence spending numbers, and spending in real terms under the Conservative government is even less than when they took power in 2006.

Odds and ends:

The NDP cheekily suggested that if the Conservatives are serious about the penalties in their balanced budget bill, that they should apply them retroactively.

The government is hiring more Veterans Affairs caseworkers, but concerns remain from those who use medical marijuana.

Justin Trudeau said he’s still opposed to a coalition, but suggested he might be less opposed if Mulcair wasn’t the leader.