At the end of the first week of the Duffy trial, the Crown regained some of the ground that it was appearing to lose – it wasn’t just that the rules were loose, or that there was no definition around residency, but there was an expectation that senators behave honourably, and thanks to the actions of the likes of Duffy, Wallin, and others, that expectation is now being buried under new legalistic guidelines. There was also pushback to the notion that because the Prime Minister appointed Duffy a Senator from PEI, his residency was assumed to be genuine – there are limits, and as I’ve discussed on this blog previously, not only did the PMO not ensure that their ducks were in a row on that front before Duffy was appointed (as previous governments who took appointments seriously and didn’t make them in a panic had done), but they almost practically encouraged the alleged abuses of Duffy and Wallin in particular by that very act of not ensuring residence upon appointment. Duffy himself kept trying to get reassurance as to the residency issue – as his own diaries show – but apparently only enough to ensure that he didn’t need to make the effort of actually ensuring that he was properly moved to the Island as his principle residence. What should be addressed – but isn’t in the trial because it is beyond the ambit – is the fact that when the Queen or GG makes the appointment on the basis of the PM’s advice, it is assume that the advice is sound because of Responsible Government. In the case of Duffy, we can be reasonably assured that the advice was likely not sound – that Duffy was not qualified to be a senator from PEI, or Wallin a Senator from Saskatchewan. What that also means is that under Responsible Government, we get to hold that government to account, and there is an election coming up. Perhaps we need to remind people of that fact. Maclean’s also has commissioned comic strips of the week’s events, while Scott Reid gives us his take on the Duffy Diaries, and the defence to date.
Tag Archives: Arctic
Roundup: The problem with Duffy’s defence
Day one of the Duffy trial, and we saw two things – the Crown laying out a case, including a bunch of evidence that was made available to the media, that showed a pattern of abuse by Duffy when it came to the claiming of expenses, such that he was claiming per diems on the day his appointment was announced, never mind that he wasn’t even sworn in yet, and that he was using one contract to a friend as a slush fund for things the Senate wouldn’t pay out. The crux is common sense – no reasonable person would make these kinds of claims. The defence, meanwhile, is arguing that the rules were so loose that it’s not Duffy’s fault, and everyone else in the Senate is doing it. I have a problem with that because no, everyone else is not doing it, and it breaches the good faith that Duffy should have been exercising from his office. Much of it stems to the very fact that Duffy should never have been appointed as a senator for PEI, but when Stephen Harper made that decision, Duffy didn’t live up to his end of the implicit deal. In conversations that I have had with those who used to work in the Liberal Senate Leader’s office back in the day when they formed government, if they were to appoint someone who didn’t currently live in the province that they were to represent, they ensured that they had their ducks in a row beforehand. This meant that the person was told they were being considered for an appointment – and if they told anyone, that wouldn’t happen – but in the interim they had to ensure that they had the driver’s licence, health card, election registration, licence plates, the works – taken care of beforehand. In Duffy’s case, it would likely have meant selling his home in Kanata and ensuring he had one in PEI that he could access year-round rather than a summer cottage, while maintaining either an apartment or a small condo near the Hill as his secondary residence. It’s really a no-brainer, but Duffy apparently wasn’t able to comprehend that and allegedly looked for as many loopholes as he could to maximise what he could claim. Every other senator I have ever spoken to, including some very long-time ones, is aghast at that kind of behaviour, and they do their utmost to minimise what they claim. I am also dubious about this “conspiracy” to “force” Duffy to repay claims that he may have been able to make legitimately – but remember that there were always political considerations at play, and even if some of those claims were legal, they would not have been politically sound and Duffy should have known this from the start. His cries of victimhood ring hollow, but he looks to be set on trying to win the trial on pure technicalities. Nicholas Köhler has his observations here, while the Ottawa Citizen’s Gargoyle shows some of the behind the scenes moments from the day.
QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria
After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.
Roundup: Life means life
Because the Harper government can’t keep the good people of Canada too scared, he made a big show about announcing yet another piece of tough-on-crime legislation. One that is completely unnecessary given existing laws in place – one which will give cabinet the authority to permanently deny parole from certain murderers, as though there was any chance that the Clifford Olsons or Paul Bernardos of the world would ever walk the streets again – but the government certainly wants you to think that they could given all those liberal judges and such. Never mind that the recidivism rate for most inmates given full parole is about three percent. Never mind that it has pretty much no chance of surviving a Charter challenge in the courts. Never mind that it sets up the odd dichotomy where this government believes that parliamentarians can’t be trusted with national security but can instead be trusted with denying someone parole permanently. Never mind the impact on the rule of law. No, this government needs people to think that they’re going to be tough on crime, and damn the actual consequences. So here we are. Andrew Coyne eviscerates the bill with his usual aplomb here.
Subject line: "Murderers in your neighbourhood." Someone send counsellors to #CPC HQ. #cdnpoli #ffs pic.twitter.com/QOhS95NQXY
— Susan (@susandelacourt) March 5, 2015
Roundup: Loans and borrowing without oversight
Government programmes that allow their Crown Corporations to lend money are growing without any parliamentary oversight, and certainly no statutory review once these programmes have been in place, whether it’s student loans or business development loans. Now, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is sounding the alarm, because it’s one more way in which parliamentarians have lost control over the public purse and have little ability to hold the government to account for any of these loans that they are giving out. Add to the fact that they have already lost the ability to hold the government o account for any borrowing that the government does – they took that bit of oversight away a couple of years ago as part of an omnibus budget bill, despite it being a fundamental part of our Westminster democratic traditions, and now any borrowing simply requires a nod from cabinet – hardly an effective check on government’s financial decisions. Further add to that the fact that the government has been putting out budgets with no numbers in it, and Estimates not attached to any budget so that there is no comparison or examination of what’s in it in a fiscal perspective, and it all adds up to parliamentarians not doing their jobs, and being able to control the purse strings of the government of the day, making Parliament a shadow version of itself. This should alarm everybody in this country because this is the parliament that you’ve elected not doing their jobs.
QP: National security and painting a bridge
Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.
Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan
A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.
Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design
An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.
QP: Avoiding the questions on contradictions
Unlike yesterday, it was all leaders on deck in the Commons, which would hopefully make it a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about ground forces targeting for air strikes in Iraq and how it is a combat role. Harper, in his first appearance of 2015, accused the NDP of not supporting the mission and noted his support for the mission — not actually an answer. Mulcair insisted that Harper misled the public — earning him a caution from the Speaker — and Harper insisted that the troops were executing the mission that they were given and good for them for shooting back. Mulcair gave a retort about the truth, then pivoted to the question of when they would see a budget. Harper stuck to the point about Canadians seeing need to fight ISIS. Mulcair noted his speech about plans to help the manufacturing sector, to which Harper praised his own plan for balanced budgets and low taxes, in contrast to the higher taxes the NDP would impose. Mulcair then accused the government of not responding when the Bank of Canada was in their decision to lower interest rates. Harper explained to him that the Bank of Canada’s policies are announced quarterly, while budgets are annual, not every month. Justin Trudeau was up next, and spelled out the government’s contradictions when it comes to “advise and assist” and “accompany” when it comes to the Iraq mission. Harper didn’t offer clarity, but battered the Liberals on their lack of support for the mission and praising the troops for firing back. Trudeau didn’t press, but switched to the size of the hole in the budget based on lower oil prices. Harper insisted that they would balance the budget, and even the PBO agreed. Trudeau wondered then why, if nothing had changed, why they would delay the budget. Harper insisted their plan was working, but again didn’t answer the question.
QP: Dusting off the cobwebs
The first Question Period of 2015 took place on a cold day in the Nation’s Capital, with more than a few empty desks still dotting the chamber as MPs make their way back. The PM was absent, at that RCMP funeral in St. Albert, Alberta, but the rest of the leaders were present, which has become unusual for a Monday. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the our Special Forces painting targets for the bombing mission in Iraq. Rob Nicholson insisted that they were doing what was stated — advising and assisting. Mulcair noted that this was ruled out by the Chief of Defence Staff back in September, but Nicholson offered some bafflegab about shooting back when fired upon. Mulcair insisted that they never should have been put in harm’s way in the first place, but Immediately changed topics to demand the budget that will reflect falling oil prices. Joe Oliver insisted that other projections were more generous than the ones the government made, and that they would honour their promises to the provinces and families while balancing the budget. For his final question, Mulcair gave the demonstrably false “all of our eggs in the oil basket” meme, threw in the job losses from Target, and demanded a jobs plan. Oliver repeated the substance of his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the government’s wrong projections about the price of oil and wondered what kind of a hole that put in the budget. Oliver said there was an adjustment of $2.5 billion, and they would base budget projections on private sector economists’. Trudeau insisted that Oliver was not sharing the figure that his officials gave him, and asked him whether they would use the contingency fund to balance the budget, based on contradictory statements. Oliver repeated his line about private sector economists, and then accused Trudeau of talking down the manufacturing sector. Trudeau then changed to the issue of Special Forces on front lines, to which Nicholson said that they need to be with Iraqi forces to assist and train them.