Roundup: Oversight and transparency

Oh, look – it’s the first Senate bat-signal of the year, this time with an interview with Senator Beth Marhsall on CBC Radio’s The House. The treatment of the interview does raise some of the usual problems when it comes to reporting what’s going on in the Senate – namely, that journalists who don’t follow the institution, or who haven’t actually given a critical reading of the Auditor General’s report mischaracterise it as showing “widespread abuse” when it certainly was not, and a good number of the report’s findings were in fact suspect because they were value judgements of individual auditors, many of whom were perfectly defensible. Marshall, however, thinks that the AG’s suggestion of an independent oversight body is a-okay, despite the fact that it’s a massive affront to parliamentary supremacy. The Senate is a legislative body and not a government department – it has to be able to run its own affairs, otherwise out whole exercise of Responsible Government is for naught, and we should hand power back to the Queen to exercise on our behalf. I can understand why Marshall might think this way – she is, after all, a former provincial Auditor General and would err on the side of the auditor’s recommendations regardless, but the fact that no reporter has ever pushed back against this notion and said “Whoa, parliamentary supremacy is a thing, no?” troubles me greatly. I still think that if an oversight body is to be created that it should follow the Lords model, as proposed by Senator McCoy, whereby you have a body of five, three of whom are Senators, and the other two being outsiders, for example with an auditor and a former judge. You get oversight and dispute resolution, but it also remains in control of the Senate, which is necessary for the exercise of parliamentary supremacy. Marshall’s other “fix” is the need to televise the Senate for transparency’s sake. While it’s a constant complaint, and yes, cameras will be coming within a year or two, the notion that it’s going to be a fix to any perceived woes is farcical. Why? With few exceptions, people don’t tune into the Commons outside of Question Period, despite our demands that we want to see our MPs on camera to know they’re doing their jobs. Cameras, meanwhile, have largely been blamed for why QP has become such a sideshow – they know they’re performing, and most of the flow of questions these days is atrocious because they’re simply trying to get news clips. I’m not sure how cameras will improve the “transparency” of the Senate any more than making the audio stream publicly available did, never mind that committees have been televised for decades. If people really wanted to find out what Senators do, there are more than enough opportunities – but they don’t care. It’s easier to listen to the received wisdom that they’re just napping on the public dime, and the people who could be changing that perception – journalists – are more than content to feed the established narrative instead.

Good reads:

  • The government has officially decried the mass execution in Saudi Arabia.
  • Scott Brison is promising swift changes to both government advertising rules, and Access to Information reform.
  • Nathan Cullen says the party is still reflecting after their big election loss, but says they’re still behind Mulcair.
  • CBC has a primer on tax changes happening in 2016.
  • Here’s a look at some of the defence challenges coming up this year.
  • The Citizen has interviews with Gord Brown, Greg Fergus and Andrew Leslie.
  • Philippe Lagassé writes about the ways in which the Trudeau government has actually strengthened the role of the monarchy in Canada.
  • Stephen Gordon tries to figure out why tax revenues seem to be coming in above projection.

Odds and ends:

Speaker Regan talks about his desire to change the tone of debate in the Commons.

New Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan has checked into a “wellness programme” to start an “alcohol-free lifestyle.”

One thought on “Roundup: Oversight and transparency

  1. We live in a funny world everyone wants transparency and the right to know it all in details. However from simple conversation I have with friends around me, they want greater access but are to busy to pay any attention to what is going on. So they stick to the usual narrative as you say. I think Canadians in general simply do not understand how our institutions like Parliament operate.

Comments are closed.