The final Monday of the spring sitting, and while there were a lot of empty spaces along the government front bench, the opposition benches were restless. Thomas Mulcair started off by bringing up last week’s Pamela Wallin interview, where she said that she briefed the Prime Minister’s office about her audit, contrary to Harper saying that he wasn’t briefed — never mind the fact that Wright and Harper are not the same person. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, reminded him that there was an independent process underway. Mulcair then brought up the arrest of former Conservative candidate and “regional advisor” Saulie Zajdel, and he wondered what he was doing for Moore when he worked there. Moore said that the charges were of a municipal nature, and if he or the mayor were found guilty, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. When Megan Leslie brought up the very same topic, wondering why Zadjel left Moore’s employ, Moore hit back saying back by the justice system works best when people who know of wrongdoing come forward, as Mulcair should have done when he was offered a bribe seventeen years ago. For her final question, Leslie brought up Senator Wallin’s audit, to which Moore decided to go after Trudeau’s speaking engagements. Trudeau was up next, and brought up the cheque from Nigel Wright. Moore insisted that they didn’t have access to any personal cheques, but Trudeau got a cheque from the Canadian Mental Health Commission for a speaking engagement. Trudeau retorted that his party is raising the bar on transparency, before asking if any member of the government had met with Wright post-resignation. Moore kept swiping about Trudeau’s speaking engagements. When Trudeau pressed, Moore responded that no, he hadn’t met with Wright.
Tag Archives: Cyberbullying
Roundup: The demise of the honour system
The audits on Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Harb came out yesterday and found against all three, and while Duffy had pre-emptively repaid all of his expenses, Harb was ordered to pay some $51,482 and Brazeau some $48,744 (both figures include interest). No word on Brazeau’s reaction but Harb is not going down quietly. While he did resign from the Liberal caucus, he has also retained a very prominent lawyer to represent him as he challenges the findings. Because part of the audit also found that there was ambiguity in the rules, and those ambiguities are were Harb really fell into. There was also news that Senator Duffy had improperly charged per diems while he was in Florida on vacation – but he blamed that on a temporary assistant while his usual one was on maternity leave, and that he repaid those expenses immediately upon finding out the error. Meanwhile, the Liberal Senate leader, James Cowan, has said he does want to see if these results can be turned over to the RCMP, the Senate has also adopted new rules that spells the end of the “honour system” that the Senate previously operated under. The Senators that I’ve spoken to have no problem with this, but this isn’t over yet. Susan Delacourt muses about the public reaction to misspending rather than egregious behaviour like these three senators’ entitlements, lying to the House or contempt of parliament, and what kind of signal that sends.
Roundup: $3.1 billion in sloppy record keeping
The Auditor General released a report yesterday, and it was a bit of a doozy, at least with regards to the revelation that some $3.1 billion in anti-terror funding is not properly accounted for. Not that it’s actually been misspent, but the recordkeeping is a bit sloppy, and some of it was victim to a “whole of government approach,” according to Tony Clement. Among other issues the AG cited – that our search and rescue infrastructure is headed for total systems failure, that they need to crack down on EI overpayments, problems with expense claims by the Old Port of Montreal, and that there are problems with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as it is beset by conflict with other federal departments over documents. John Ivison says the report is like ‘manna’ for the NDP, and I can hardly wait for the number of times that Thomas Mulcair gets to say “failure of good public administration” over the next several days.
Roundup: The NDP get cute with the Senate
Because it seems that the NDP haven’t had their fill of amateurish stunts yet, they have decided to try to haul the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a Commons committee to discuss the Senate’s budget allocations. Apparently they think that the Senate isn’t actually a separate institution of Parliament, but just an arm of the government. Err, except that it isn’t. Here’s the thing that the NDP doesn’t seem to be grasping – aside from the basic constitutional position that the Senate holds within our system of government – and that’s the fact that two can play that game. While the Senate may not be able to initiate money bills, they can certainly amend them, or hold them up in committee indefinitely. And if the NDP wants to get cute and try to make the Senate put on a little dog and pony show for the committee in order to justify their spending, well, the Senate can do the very same thing, and question the basic budget allocation for the Commons and MPs expenses. While the NDP might bring up the few cases of improper residency expenses and travel claims that took to the media spotlight a couple of months ago, Senators could do the very same thing, and in fact, have a better case than the MPs would. You see, the Senate’s expenses are far more transparent than those of the Commons. Senators submit their travel claims to quarterly reports, have their expense claims posted publicly, and even their attendance is recorded and publicly available. That’s how all of this came to light in the media – because journalists checked it out. (Well, a certain Senator who shall remain nameless also leaked a number of things because of internecine warfare, but that’s another story). But MPs are not subject to the same levels of public scrutiny that Senators are, and if the NDP really want to down this route, then I don’t see why the Senate shouldn’t call Speaker Scheer and the various party leaders before the Senate’s national finance committee to justify their own expenditures. After all, they’re not public, and these are public funds that they’re expecting to spend, so it would be in the interest of sober second thought that these Senators very closely examine this spending and ensure that it’s in the public interest for the Commons to get these allocations. And it was only a couple of years ago that improper housing claims by a number of MPs were brought to light, and well, the Senate may need to ensure that this kind of thing isn’t going on again. You know, for the sake of the public. You see where I’m going with this? There’s a word that the NDP should learn – it’s “bicameralism.” They may not like it, but it exists for a very good reason, and they should educate themselves before they decide they want to get cute.
Roundup: The ruling is enough
It seems that in the wake of the Speaker’s ruling on members’ statements, the restless Conservative backbenches have backed off of their support of the Liberal opposition day motion on making Members’ Statements alphabetical in distribution. The feeling seems to be that the Speaker’s advice that if they want to stand up and be heard, that it was enough for them. Um, okay. We’ll see if that actually happens, especially considering that the delicate balance of party allotments are also in play during both Members’ Statements and Question Period in general, but it seems to me that this becomes a case of everyone being contended with half-measures, rather than any genuine reform. Sure, Warawa might have been surprised to learn that the lists are mere suggestions for the Speaker, but that doesn’t mean that MPs – or Canadians – should be satisfied by this ruling. Rather, it should be the springboard to the restoration of our Parliament to the way it should act – without lists or scripts, where MPs are engaged in the debates, actively participating, capable of delivering actual back-and-forth exchanges with spontaneity and class, rather than the dull recitations into the record that we’re now seeing.
QP: Catching the Speaker’s eye
The press gallery was full at the very start of Members’ Statements, hoping that MPs would take the Speaker’s advice yesterday and start standing up to catch his eye, in order to bypass the dreaded Whip’s list. And no, nobody tried to catch the Speaker’s eye, and the list carried on unabated, with Warawa on said list to talk about a local talent show. Breathless anticipation, all for naught. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read off a gimme question about meeting with Rehteah Parsons’ parents, and the need for cyberbullying legislation. (Funnily enough, the NDP voted against a bill to do just that by Liberal MP Hedy Fry, ostensibly because it was poorly drafted, yet not offering amendments). Harper agreed that there was a problem that needs to be addressed, and that they need to make it clear that the Internet was not a free pass for criminal behaviour. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Federal Court decision regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to which Harper replied with the implication that the previous PBO, Kevin Page, was partisan. Mulcair changed topics again, and moved onto the issue of privacy breaches, to which Harper assured him that they take those issues seriously and have developed action plans when breaches happen. Charmaine Borg asked the very same again, to which Tony Clement gave her the same reassurances, but with an added gratuitous shot at the former Liberal government. For the Liberals, Joyce Murray asked about the topic of the week — youth unemployment. Harper assured her that they had all kinds of programmes in place to help youth find jobs. For the final questions the round, Bob Rae asked whether Canada would try to get the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting moved here, and to take over the chair from Sri Lanka given their human rights abuses. Harper agreed that they were concerned about the Sri Lankan situation, and would be monitoring the situation. Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer stood up for pretty much every question in this round, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, to no avail.