Tag Archives: Bob Paulson

Roundup: Trying to measure independence

Posted on by

As Senators have made their way back home for the summer, we’re having another round of them poking each other, like kids in the backseat of the car on a long trip, over just who are the “real independents” in the Senate. It’s getting a bit tiresome, especially with the Conservatives insisting that they’re the only ones because they vote against the government more often. The problem is that it’s a fairly flawed metric because they’re the Official Opposition and are supposed to vote against the government on a consistent basis. That doesn’t make them independent – it makes them the opposition.

The big problem with the metric about voting as a measure of independence ignores the broader procedural issues. If the government could really command the votes of its new independent appointees, then bills would be making it through the Senate a lot faster, and they’re not. The logistics of getting legislation through the chamber when you don’t have a whip who is organizing votes is one of the measures by which you can tell that these senators are more independent than the Conservatives in the Senate give them credit for. While the Conservatives, Senate Liberals and Independent Senators Group are getting better at organizing themselves in trying to come up with plans around who will be debating what bills when, the fact that the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, refuses to negotiate with those groups to prioritize some bills over others, has been part of the reason why some bills went off the rails and took forever to pass. If he did negotiate, or could command votes to ensure that bills could be pushed through when needed, I would buy the argument that these senators aren’t really independent. The fact that there is this lack of coherence in moving legislation is one of the markers in the column of greater independence. This is also where the argument about the need for an Official Opposition kicks in.

While the dichotomy of strict Government/Opposition in the Senate has been upended with the new group of Independents, ending the duopoly of power dynamics that contributed to some of the institutional malaise around the rules, I will maintain that an Official Opposition remains important because it’s important to have some focus and coherence when it comes to holding the government to account. Simply relying on loose fish to offer piecemeal opinion on individual pieces of legislation or issues risks diluting the effectiveness of opposition, and it also means that there is less ideological scrutiny of a government’s agenda, which is also important. Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing, and the Senate has traditionally been a less partisan place because there was no need for electioneering within its ranks. Trying to make it non-partisan will not make it better, but will make it less effective at what it does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Worst instincts for second-choice votes

Posted on by

As the Trumpocalypse serves up another “totally not just Muslims” travel ban south of the border, immigration references in the Conservative leadership race are certainly starting to pick up steam. Maxime Bernier started dropping not-so-coded references to “radical proponents of multiculturalism” who want to “forcibly change” the cultural character of the country (no, seriously), while Kellie Leitch offers up some of the questions her “values test” would include. Because you know, it’s totally not like people aren’t going to lie about the obvious answers or anything. Meanwhile, Deepak Obhrai says that statements like Leitch’s is creating an environment that could get immigrants killed, in case you worried that things aren’t getting dramatic. Oh, and to top it off, Andrew Scheer has a “survey” about terrorism that he wants people to weigh in on, and it’s about as well thought-out as you can expect.

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/838798221501673473

While John Ibbitson writes about how the Conservative leadership candidates’ anti-immigrant rhetoric is a path to oblivion for the party, I would also add this Twitter thread from Emmett Macfarlane, which offers up a reminder about how our immigration system in this country actually works, because facts should matter in these kinds of debates.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/838879309829967874

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/838879524888670208

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/838879901725900800

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/838881353940750339

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unrest without modernization

Posted on by

Oh, look – it’s the Senate bat-signal, shining one last time for me this year. Here we go: Senators Greene and Massicotte, who have been trying to organise some internal reforms to the Chamber, are warning that if modernisations don’t happen within the caucuses that they may see more defections from frustrated Senators, and swelling the ranks of Independents – particularly relevant with more senators on the way chosen by this new process (though nothing says that all of these new senators will sit as Independents, or that they won’t opt to sit in one of the two existing caucuses). Many of the reforms that the two are proposing are pretty modest – electing chairs and vice-chairs of standing committees, replacing Question Period with “Issues Period,” electing caucus officers, televising Senate proceedings; larger communications budgets to promote the Senate and its work (particularly committee reports); and electing the Speaker. Some of these are already in the works, like televising/webcasting procedures, which will happen in a year or two, once they get the technology sorted. Similarly, work to reform Senate Communications has been ongoing, and will continue, and I’m sure no one will argue that more money would help. Some of them – electing caucus officers – already happens in the Senate Liberal caucus, and sounds like is starting to happen in the Conservative ranks. The issue of committee membership is a topic that is currently being debated, and no doubt work will be undertaken on this in the Senate Rules committee, where it will start getting hammered out because the growing number of Independents does make this a priority issue for them. Some of the ideas, however, are more problematic, such as electing the Senate Speaker. Why? Because the Senate Speaker is actually the titular Head of Parliament; it makes sense for this to be a government appointee as a result, and because of this titular position, it comes with diplomatic and protocol responsibilities. Having the Senate elect their own that could be in opposition to the government of the day would be a serious problem, which few people seem to be grasping. As for “Issues Period,” I find it to be the weakest suggestion, particularly as asking questions of committee chairs a) is already possible, and b) doesn’t happen often because there’s not a lot to ask of them. As I explained in my piece in the National Post last week, Senate Question Period is about holding government to account, and with there being no Conservative Atlantic Canadian MPs in the Commons, it gives those Atlantic senators an opportunity to play that role. Or rather, it would if they had someone to hold account. In the absence of that, the Senate loses out on one of its functions, which will become a problem, and it’s something that “Issues Period” won’t solve.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Powers to spite the Supreme Court

Posted on by

The government’s new CSIS bill got tabled yesterday, but because it was due to be tabled before the attacks happened last week, there is really nothing in there that responds to those attacks, and doesn’t include any of the previously reported measures like criminalizing the promotion of terrorism online. Instead, what it does is extend source protection and warrant provisions to help them conduct investigations when suspects go overseas. These provisions are largely in response to Supreme Court rulings that said that CSIS sources don’t have the same kind of blanket protections that police sources do. I’m also not sure about the provision for a warrant to investigate outside of the country, given that, well, it’s not the jurisdiction of our courts, so we would need some kind of agreements to operate in those countries I would think. The bill is also designed to help facilitate information sharing between our Five Eyes partners, but there are no corresponding accountability mechanisms, because the government insists that the current oversight from SIRC is “robust” and good enough. Never mind that SIRC faced significant delays in getting needed information from CSIS during their investigations, and that they misled SIRC in the course of another investigation. But hey, the oversight is “robust” and all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Live from New York…

Posted on by

Stephen Harper is in New York to attend the UN, so of course that means he’ll speak to American media and reveal things he wouldn’t here at home. So we learned that President Obama has asked for more support in Iraq than we have committed at present, but he won’t say anything more than that, other than “we haven’t out” anything as to what we might send. He also started waxing about something that sounded awfully close to the need to find the “root causes” of radicalizing youth. Harper even said that our deficit figures are smaller than expected, though his Wall Street Journal interviewer did challenge the methodology on some of his claims about just how great our economy is performing. He even made some claims about immigrant voters, which can be disputed once you drill down into the numbers. Suffice to say, it’s more than you get here at home, which remains a problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Sona trial commences

Posted on by

Michael Sona’s trial in the case of the misleading robocalls gets underway in Guelph, Ontario, today, Sona has long maintained that there is no real evidence against him other than some questionable testimony that would have occurred at a time when he was out of the country. That said, it is hoped that with other players on the stand that this trial may be the only hope for getting the real story of what happened in Guelph out there. Sona could face five years in jail and a fine of up to $5000 if found guilty.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reform Act reaction

Posted on by

The Reform Act 2013 has now been tabled, and it’s pretty much as has been reported, with the three key areas around the powers around nominations, caucus membership and forcing a leadership review on party leaders. (Text and sixty-second explainer here). Aaron Wherry rounds up some of the declared support today, including from the Conservative caucus, and those now outside like Brent Rathgeber, as well as some of the reaction and analysis to date. Alice Funke aka Pundit’s Guide looks at ways in which the provisions can be subverted by parties or leaders. Tim Harper points out the bill’s silence about a leader having to deal with an unsuitable candidate during an election. Andrew Coyne has a Q&A with Chong about the bill and tries to dispel some of the myths or concerns, but fails to ask some of the more pertinent questions around membership and inputs.

Continue reading →

QP: Another worthy Tuesday

Posted on by

It was a Tuesday with all of the leaders back in the House and ready to face off once again. Before the show could get started, things took a brief pause so that the newest Liberal MP, Yvonne Jones, could be brought before the bar and be given the chance to take her seat for the first time (which she got a bit sidetracked with, trying to go to shake hands with the Speaker and much laughter ensued). Thomas Mulcair started QP off with the prosecutorial style questions again, asking about Senator LeBreton saying that Harper had dealt with the Wright matter on the 14th and not the 15th as Harper had previously stated. Harper responded by saying he had been clear that he found out on the 15th, and that Mulcair said in 2010 that he didn’t know anything about Quebec corruption. Mulcair then asked when Harper had first spoken to Duffy about his expenses, to which Harper said that they had spoken after caucus that one Wednesday in February, and that he told him to repay any improper expenses. Mulcair asked when he ordered the rest of the caucus to repay their expenses, and who in his staff was present, but Harper kept going back to the fact that he was clear about insisting that improper expenses be repaid — and you sat on corruption allegations. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked for the reason that Nigel Wright gave him for writing that cheque. Harper repeated the tale that Wright wanted to ensure that taxpayers were reimbursed, and tried to insist that Liberal senators were resisting calling in the Auditor General — a falsehood, as Senate rules dictate that all motions need 24 hours’ notice, and it was only tabled today. Thus, they’ll discuss the motion tomorrow, per the rules. Trudeau tried to ask why Duffy was so special — was it because of his status as a high-profile party fundraiser? Harper’s response didn’t change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Call in the Auditor General!

Posted on by

Today in ClusterDuff reverberations, we hear that the Government Leader in the Senate, Marjorie LeBreton, wants to call in the Auditor General to do a full comprehensive audit of Senators’ expenses, not just the systems and administration audit that he did in 2012. There have been concerns in the past that the AG, being an officer of parliament, would be in a kind of conflict auditing his own bosses, but we’ll see if those remain. LeBreton didn’t consult with the opposition about the motion, but the Liberals have since said sure – but audit the Commons’ expenses in as comprehensive manner as well. And the Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor, doesn’t sound like he’s too keen about that idea, pretending that the last AG audit into systems and administration on the House side was “comprehensive” (which it wasn’t). There are also questions as to whether the AG’s office is set to handle this kind of forensic audit, or if it wouldn’t be better to send it to an outside firm with that kind of expertise. Elsewhere, Senator Tkachuk says that they will be setting up a permanent audit subcommittee for the Senate, but they are still discussing whether or not it will have outside members (such as what Senator McCoy suggested, as they do in the House of Lords).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The moral panic of campaigning Senators

Posted on by

The Toronto Star has a look at Senators who were reimbursed by various campaigns for work they did during the last election, which seems a bit curious because it’s not unusual that Senators campaign – they just can’t bill the Senate for those expenses, as Mike Duffy did. Not that it’s stopped the NDP from making a giant fuss about it, as though it’s a bad thing that party members help out in a campaign. “Oh, but they shouldn’t campaign at all!” they cry. “They’re on the taxpayer’s payroll!” Um, so are MPs, who also fundraise and do campaign activities outside of writ periods of all sorts. And some of them go to fundraisers while they should be in Ottawa as the House is sitting. And leaders? Well, they’re the worst when it comes to missing House duty for fundraisers and campaigning. They’re also on the public dime. It’s a kind of hypocritical and nonsensical argument that seems to ignore the fact that *gasp!* senators are also party members and partisans! You know, the way our system of government works, where you have governing and opposition parties in both chambers! In other words, the NDP is trying to create a moral panic, which should be paid little heed unless it can be proved that any of the Senators who campaigned billed the Senate for their expenses. And I have little doubt that none of them other than Duffy – and possibly Pamela Wallin – did.

Continue reading →