And with the likelihood that charges will be laid against Nigel Wright, the ClusterDuff exploded all over again yesterday, as an 81-page court affidavit from the RCMP investigator was made public. There are some fairly shocking revelations in there – things like how Wright was in communication with Senator Irving Gerstein as Gerstein made back channel contacts with a partner at Deloitte to inquire about the progress of the Duffy audit and how the repayment would affect it – and that such partner is a top Conservative donor, and that the firm also audit’s the party’s finances. Or that the Prime Minister was told “in broad terms” that Wright was helping Duffy out with the repayment – though it also says clearly that Harper was not told the particulars. That Gerstein considered using party funds to repay Duffy when they thought it was a $32,000 price tag. That there are a number of problems with Duffy’s various speeches in the Senate where he painted himself as some kind of unwitting victim. And that there was a heavy PMO hand in the attempt to change the audits, though there was pushback (including from one of LeBreton’s staffers, Chris Montgomery), and frustration on Wright’s part because the Senate was not responding as they would like when it came to the management of the crisis. Why, it’s terrible that Wright and the PMO were confronted by the notion that the Senate is an independent chamber of parliament that is institutionally independent from their control. The horror! There was even apparently an incident where the Senate clerk had to have words with Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen about her partisan behaviour on the steering subcommittee of the Internal Economy Committee. (Mark Kennedy has some highlights here.)
Tag Archives: CSIS
Roundup: Kenney and Rajotte back Wright
More signs of independent thought emerge within the Conservative caucus, as Jason Kenney has proclaimed that he’s still going to defend Nigel Wright’s character while Harper has taken the route of demonizing him in the wake of the whole ClusterDuff affair. Later in the day, James Rajotte joined that chorus. That Kenney, a minister, has a message deviating from Harper’s, is the third minister now who has had a different message from the boss, which John Geddes points out, is a blow for the notion of cabinet solidarity, which is a pretty fundamental notion in Responsible Government as the executive needs to speak with one voice. I’m not sure what it all means yet, but it’s certainly interesting – especially on the eve of a party convention where unity in the face of adversity will no doubt be the message that they are trying to put forward.
Roundup: Nonsensical offers for backroom deals
Well, that was interesting. As the debate in the Senate over the suspension motions carried on, moving into the realms now of invoking time allocation and turning the motions from an independent one to government motions, something else completely weird and awkward happened. Senator Patrick Brazeau took to the floor and said that he had essentially been offered a backroom deal by the government leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan – that if he apologised to the Chamber and took full responsibility, then his punishment would be reduced. But none of it makes any sense, particularly when Carignan “clarified” that he was being too helpful and offered Brazeau options of how they could made amendments to the motion. But Brazeau doesn’t believe that he was in the wrong with his housing claims, and no amendments could have been moved because the Senate is still debating Senator Cowan’s amendment to send these three senators before a committee to have everything fully aired. Not to mention that Carignan said that suspension without pay still had to happen, so we’re not sure what could be negotiated other than perhaps the length of the suspension. And while the Conservatives in the House were demanding that the Liberal senators “step aside” and pass the suspension motions “for the good of the taxpayer,” the counter-narrative emerged that the Liberals were not going to be complicit in a cover-up – the notion that the only way all the facts will come out is before a committee where witnesses can be compelled to testify (and hopefully in a way that won’t interfere in the ongoing RCMP investigations). These Conservatives didn’t seem to remember that several Conservative senators are also against the suspensions – or are at least in favour of some better element of due process – though Harper took to talk radio in Toronto to urge those dissenters to vote for the suspension motions because it wasn’t about the RCMP investigations but about internal discipline – err, except there are some pretty valid arguments that at least some of these senators have been the victim of unclear rules and processes, and there are no established internal procedures for discipline this harsh, and they are very wary of setting a precedent that could be used against any others that the government of the day doesn’t like in the future. Not to mention that it is increasingly transparent that the Conservative brass wants this settled before their convention. And as for Senator Wallin, well, she continued to speak out, waiving her right to privacy with Internal Economy transcripts from in camera sessions, and tabling her own documents to help prove her case. Nothing is resolved, and the Senate returns Monday afternoon (which is another rarity, as normally only committees will sit on a Monday instead of the full chamber).
Roundup: Flaherty’s national regulator, take two
While the attempt to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers has been on the government’s agenda since 1867 (no, seriously), Jim Flaherty took yet another stab at creating a national securities regulator – despite being shut down by the Supreme Court the last time. This time, however, he’s not imposing a system from Ottawa – he’s working with provinces to create a “cooperative capital markets regulatory system,” that ensures that each level of government give up their own powers to this new body, and he’s got Ontario and BC signed on, meaning it has oversight over some 90 percent of industry in the country already. While most other provinces will likely come aboard in short order, Quebec and Alberta remain opposed for the time being. It will likely be discussed further this weekend at a federal-provincial finance ministers’ meeting. John Geddes looks at Flaherty’s journey to this point, while economist Stephen Gordon points out that our patchwork of regulations may not be our biggest problem – but a national regulator can’t hurt.
Roundup: Outrage over the “Charter of Values”
The PQ government in Quebec unveiled the details of its proposed “Charter of Quebec Values,” to universal condemnation from the federal parties. It proposes to limit the religious accommodations made for public servants – in other words, you can wear a small cross or Star of David ring, but nothing larger or more obvious, and no, your boss doesn’t have to give you time off for religious holidays or a prayer space. Jason Kenney immediately promised that they would go to the courts to find the new law unconstitutional if Quebec presses ahead (though Quebec does have the option of using the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter if they felt it necessary to do so). Oh, and because it shows you just how well they thought this through, they didn’t have an answer about whether people would still be swearing on Bibles in a court room. Oops. For a bit of history on how the party got to this point, it bears reminding that electing an urbane, metropolitan gay leader got them nowhere, so now they’re resorting to the more xenophobic end of the spectrum to try and make headway. John Geddes compares the way each of the federal parties reacted. Martin Patriquin looks at the history of backtracked proposals that Marois’ government has put forward to date, and predicts that this Charter won’t see the light of day in its current form.
Roundup: Ever so slightly younger and more female
“New faces, experienced hands.” That’s the slogan that Stephen Harper slapped on his reshuffled cabinet, whereby there is now one more woman in the ranks – though none in any major economic portfolio – and the average age has moved from 55 to 52. And by keeping the likes of Peter Van Loan as the Government House Leader, it’s not signalling any change in tone or strategy (let alone trying to find someone competent when it comes to House management, because we know that Van Loan has proven not to be). The cabinet shuffle announcements also formed part of a new social media strategy by the PMO, where they were sent out over Twitter and other social media (and yes, Twitter Canada did track this). Here is the full list of the reshuffled cabinet, as well as the cabinet committees where the real work of this government happens. Laura Stone profiles some of the new faces, as well as some of the departing ones. Global notices five things about the ceremony itself. John Geddes comments on the sweeping changes, the spine of continuity, and the rabidly partisan undertone that make up this cabinet. Tim Harper notes how little actually changed in the shuffle. Paul Wells gives his own take on the shuffle on video here. Andrew Coyne notes that the bloating of cabinet has been in inverse proportion to the effectiveness of the ministers within it.
QP: The way QP should happen
With Harper finally — finally! — back in the House for the first time since the whole ClusterDuff affair really exploded, it was shaping up to be an incredibly tense day. Thomas Mulcair stood without script or mini-lectern before him, and asked short, pointed questions about the Nigel Wright/Mike Duffy exchange. Harper stood and delivered his usual points about how he learned the about the issue at the same time as everyone else, and that he accepted Wright’s resignation — his tone getting all the more exasperated. When it was his turn, Trudeau asked a longer question with more of a preamble, asking for information and documentation related to the exchange. Harper insisted that they were cooperating with the investigations from the Ethics officers of both chambers. For his final question, Trudeau asked if everyone involved, including Harper himself, would testify under oath in public about what he knew. Harper repeated his answer, and threw in a gratuitous slam about Trudeau trying to pit regions against one another.
QP: James Moore goes on the attack
Despite being back in the country, Stephen Harper remained out of the House for QP — not that his absence was enough for Thomas Mulcair to change his script, as he read questions designed to be asked of the Prime Minister. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, insisted that the Prime Minister was demonstrating accountability (despite not being at QP, which is the prime moment of accountability every day), that the NDP should get on board with Senate “reform,” and by the way, your MPs aren’t paying their taxes. Mulcair moved onto questions on CSIS not passing along information on Jeffrey Delisle to the RCMP while he passed along classified intelligence, but Vic Toews rebutted by saying that the media story made the wrong conclusions, and by the way, your MPs aren’t paying their taxes. Justin Trudeau was up next for the Liberals, and brought up the fact that they would be moving a motion in the Ethics Committee to study the Wright/Duffy affair, and would the government have their MPs in that committee vote to support the motion so that the air can be cleared. Moore rebutted with the non-sequitur of Trudeau’s comments on the Senate — taking it all out of context, of course. Trudeau then brought up the Federal Court ruling around misleading robocalls, not that Moore changed his answer of attacking Trudeau.
Roundup: Back to answer questions – or not
The House is back today, and so is QP, but it remains to be seen if Stephen Harper will deign to make an appearance or not. He rarely shows up on a Monday unless he has travel or other duties later in the week. But when he does show up, whether it’s today or Tuesday, there will finally be an opportunity for him to start answering questions in the House about the whole Clusterduff affair. Meanwhile, Senator Marjorie Lebreton continues to insist that there wasn’t any document trail between Nigel Wright and Senator Mike Duffy, and that she doesn’t really run things in the Senate. That said, she is considering allowing the Internal Economy committee hearings into the Duffy audit to be held in public – were it to actually be her call as opposed to the committee’s – but it should be noted that any testimony made in public then falls under privilege. In other words, it can’t be used by police. Sure, it can guide them as to where to look and come up with their own evidence, but it is a consideration that should be made. Oh, and a former RCMP superintendent says that it certainly looks like there are grounds for criminal charges with the whole expenses issue, and that breach of trust – which is an indictable offence (and would be grounds for automatic dismissal from the Senate) is likely the route that the RMCP would take.
Roundup: Security and intelligence day
Apparently it was security and intelligence day yesterday. An anti-terrorism bill being debated, shuffling the Director of CSIS, appointing a new member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee (which the NDP are opposing), and oh yeah – a foiled terror plot on Canadian soil. So yeah – busy day. And in case you’re wondering, no, there was no prior knowledge of the terror charges before today, so it was nothing more than a coincidence that they were made on the day that the government set aside to deal with the anti-terrorism bill.