In the fallout of last Friday’s vote in the British Commons regarding military action in Syria, there are some very serious questions being asked about what it all means. In part, the concerns come from the nature of Responsible Government – if the House has not expressed support for the government’s foreign policy goals, which as a Crown Prerogative – then how can they continue to claim to have confidence in that government? How is foreign policy any different on a substantive level when it comes to the conduct of a government than a budget? Philippe Lagassé and Mark Jarvis debate the issue here, and I’m going to say that I’m on Lagassé’s side with this one – MPs can’t just deny the government the ability to exercise their prerogatives without also taking responsibility for it, meaning declaring non-confidence in the government. It’s not how Responsible Government works, and if they’re going to start changing the conventions of such a system of governance that works really quite well, then they need to think long and hard about the consequences of their actions. But that’s part of the problem – nobody wants to look at how actions affect the system as a whole, rather than simply patting themselves on the back for a nebulous and not wholly correct interpretation of what democracy means. And once people start tinkering with the parts without looking at the whole, then big problems start to happen, which we really should beware of.
Tag Archives: Access to Information
Roundup: Antiquated rifles and policy retreats
Yesterday on Harper’s Northern Tour, he dropped in on the search for the lost ships of the Franklin Expedition, and fired some of the vintage rifles used by Aboriginal reservists who comprise the Canadian Rangers. Apparently they use such old rifles because they don’t freeze up or jam in the harsh environment, though they keep saying they are looking for replacements.
Ahead of his annual closed-door “policy retreat” in Wakefield, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said not to expect any significant spending initiatives in the forthcoming Throne Speech, given that he wants to balance the books before the election, and so on. Oh, and he also has no plans to intervene in the housing market, for what it’s worth. Here’s a list of the invitees, and those of the past six years for comparison purposes.
Roundup: Charlie Angus’ distraction and vilification
At a press conference in Ottawa Friday morning, NDP MP Charlie Angus declared that he doesn’t think that the Auditor General should look at MPs’ expenses because the Senate is evil and stuff. No, really. If that wasn’t a more clear-cut case of distraction (and vilification), I’m not sure what is. The AG put out a statement outlining a few things about his forthcoming Senate audit – basically, it’s like any other audit, so stop asking him about it. Academics are hoping that this new scrutiny will sweep away the “old boys’ network” in the Senate, never mind that it’s been on its way out slowly for the past number of years as increasingly rigorous new rules have been put into place. Have similar rules been put into place on the Commons side? Well, we don’t know, because they’re not transparent, while the Senate is – not that you’ll hear Charlie Angus or Thomas Mulcair admit that. Meanwhile, it seems that Pamela Wallin was whinging about “media bullying” when they made Freedom of Information requests to Guelph University about her billing them for flights for her duties as chancellor, because you know, she’s the victim in all of this. The CBC looks at what’s next for Wallin, and also provides a fact sheet on Senators’ pay, and the key players in the expenses scandals. Meanwhile a group of psychologists – and Andrew Coyne – say that the Senate itself breeds a sense of entitlement, which doesn’t seem to explain why the problems are confined to a small minority, or why MPs and cabinet ministers fall into the very same kinds of entitled behaviours (if not even worse, because they’re the people’s chosen representatives, and a strategic genius to boot, and are therefore even more entitled).
Roundup: Taking advantage of tragedy
In the wake of the train derailment and the major explosion at Lac Mégantic, there are questions about Thomas Mulcair’s immediate statement that this was a result of rail cost-cutting, for which he blames Stephen Harper. There are concerns that some of those still declared missing might simply have been vaporised in the force of the explosion. It has also been noticed that shipping oil by rail has increased some 28,000 percent over the past five years, as pipeline capacity in this country is increasingly constrained. No doubt this derailment and explosion will add emotional fuel to both sides of the pipeline debate.
Roundup: Growing bureaucracy, unfunded multiculturalism
For all of his cost cutting, the public service has seen a rather rapid growth under Stephen Harper’s watch. Some of the biggest increases between 2006 and 2012 came in places like CBSA, the civilian staff at the RCMP and Correctional Services of Canada, but there were also increases in places like the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, if you can believe it. Mind you, I’m sure a lot of this growth has been in comms staff and “information technology,” but it still paints a picture.
Roundup: Those complicated tariff changes
While the issue of tariffs continues to dominate Question Period to the point of the absurd – witness yesterday’s eye-rollingly ridiculous “tax on fishing” questions – it should come as no surprise that these tariff changes are complicated. So complicated – and without any sense of coherence – that the professor who brought some of these changes to light suspects it was a way of raising revenue that’s so complex that most consumers won’t know why prices went up.
Access to Information documents reveal that a First Nations leader was forwarding Idle No More planning emails to the federal government as a means of keeping them in the loop, so that they wouldn’t do something stupid. These also included emails from Manitoba Grand Chief Derek Neepinak, who was planning on trips to Washington to garner support there.
Roundup: Hopes rest on Trudeau
Saturday was the final Liberal leadership event, the big “showcase” faux convention, which was, well, a bit blah. (My take on it here). Aaron Wherry captures Trudeau’s speech. Tim Harper notes that while Trudeau clearly carried the day, the real work lies ahead of him. John Geddes looks forward to Trudeau’s first QP as leader. Michael Den Tandt says that Trudeau’s biggest obstacle is going to be the party elites who want to control policy top-down rather than from the ground up like Trudeau is proposing. Andrew Coyne sees Trudeau as the best of an uninspiring lot, though he does think Martha Hall Findlay would be the candidate to actually shake up the party. The Toronto Star editorial board endorses Trudeau for leader.
Roundup: “Inexperience” and other likely excuses
Peter Penashue’s “inexperienced” former official agents says that the corporate donation was “unintentionally” accepted, that Penashue himself didn’t know about the donation, and that the last four or five days of the campaign, “all hell was breaking loose” trying to get money in before the deadline, so the rush totally explains all of the ineligible donations. So really, it’s nobody’s fault because nobody takes responsibility for the documents they signed off on, right? Well, maybe not. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, notes that as the Elections Canada investigative process continues, charges may yet be laid, though not in time for the by-election. The CBC’s David Cochrane looks at the whole affair from the local angle and wonders if Labradoreans want a cabinet minister or to re-elect someone who ran an incompetent campaign and blames others for mistakes that he was responsible for.
Roundup: Interim PBO and the search for a replacement
In a rather surprising announcement at the end of the day yesterday, the government has named the Parliamentary Librarian as the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer until Kevin Page’s replacement can be found. That process is internal to the Library, and Page has expressed concerns that the makeup of the committee charged with the search is being kept secret, but I do get concerned when opposition parties want input into those processes, because it ultimately erodes the accountability for those appointments. Look at the questions surrounding Arthur Porter these days, and how Vic Toews skirts accountability by pointing out that the opposition leaders were consulted on his appointment. That’s why the prerogative power of appointment should rest with the Governor in Council – because it keeps the executive as the sole resting place of accountability. Meanwhile, the job criteria for the next PBO have been posted, and they include qualities like “discreet” and “consensus seeking” – perhaps not too surprising after the battles that Page had with the previous Parliamentary Librarian over his role.
Roundup: Mulcair’s PMB on the PBO
It seems that Thomas Mulcair will be putting forward a Private Member’s Bill after all – relating to strengthening the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, Peggy Nash already has a similar bill tabled, so Mulcair’s will either have to be significantly different in order to meet the rules, or Nash will have to either withdraw hers or transfer it over to Mulcair (possibly by means of unanimous consent). They say that Mulcair’s will be different enough, but we’ll have to see what the committee in charge of these things says.
Well this is very interesting. It seems that the government approved two different sets of messages around its environmental reforms – one for First Nations, and another for industry, and no, they haven’t explained why there is that difference yet.