Roundup: Process matters during reform

Posted on by

The Senate is the centre of so much talk these days – government bills on their way that are likely to face amendments, blame for the trans bill dying there last parliament (despite the fact that the committees were overloaded with the government’s “tough on crime” bills and there was no way to prioritise private members’ legislation), the ongoing fascination with Mike Duffy’s return to work, and of course the ongoing internal reform project. Another snag in said reforms was unveiled yesterday in that it turns out that the Senate’s committee on Ethics and Conflicts of Interests for Senators can’t actually be legally constituted because under the Rules of the Senate, there need to be government senators on the committee. Well, there are technically no longer any government senators, and thus, they can’t be recommended to said committee. It’s a reminder of why process matters when it comes to doing reforms, because boldly forging ahead without a plan, and without the necessary rule changes in place means this happens. And yes, rule changes need to happen on a variety of issues, not the least of which are the ways in which it spells out who can constitute a caucus – necessary for independents to be able to organise themselves around logistical issues. As for Peter Harder, the Internal Economy committee has decided not to grant his additional budget requests for staff. He got half of his initial ask, but that was enough as far as they are concerned, and I can’t say that I’m unsympathetic to the committee because I still can’t fathom why Harder needed all of that staff considering that he has no caucus to manage. His excuse that it’s what his predecessor had in terms of budget and staffing seems to me to be a clearly bureaucratic reflex from his previous career in the civil service – ensuring that you have budgets that get spent and lest they be cut, and he wants to ensure that he gets that same budget as before, even though, as I said, there’s no reason why he needs so many people.

Good reads:

  • The Senate’s pre-study of the assisted dying bill is complete, and they are adamant about advance directives, particularly for dementia. They also say they are unlikely to meet the Supreme Court’s deadline.
  • The trans rights bill was tabled yesterday, and some Conservatives are changing their tune on it this time around.
  • The justice minister also said some judicial appointments are coming from the existing pool of candidates while the system overhaul is ongoing.
  • Justin Trudeau will be making a formal apology for the Komagata Maru incident in the House of Commons today.
  • The replacement for the Office of Religious Freedoms will be the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, and it will have triple the budget.
  • Parliament has missed the deadline the Supreme Court imposed on them for the RCMP unionization bill.
  • There seems to be a disconnect between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his bureaucracy over a lawsuit related to lifelong pensions for injured vets.
  • Senator Housakos and Althia Raj got into a Twitter fight over the allegations that it was Housakos who leaked the AG’s report, after the AG denied it was his office.
  • Stephen Gordon writes about the link between poverty reduction and equitable funding as opposed to centrally planed social programmes.

Odds and ends:

Half of cabinet was absent for that surprise C-10 vote on Monday. If only they didn’t have to be at international events…

Mike Duffy is back to earning his pension, dated to his acquittal. For the record.