Tag Archives: MIke Duffy

Roundup: Trying to politicize the RCMP – again

Posted on by

Trying to cash in on the Duffy trial, the NDP decided to send an open letter to the RCMP Commissioner yesterday, essentially demanding that the case against Nigel Wright be re-opened and expanded to include current chief of staff Ray Novak, for some unknown reason. Oh, and they want a “clear response” as to why there are no charges. There are a few problems with this approach, so let’s list them, shall we?

  1. The RCMP don’t have to answer to the NDP. Sorry, but they don’t. They don’t have to explain why they didn’t press charges for someone else’s partisan gain.
  2. We’ve pretty much determined that in order for a bribery charge to be even feasible, they would have to establish the mens rea – the intent – that the $90,000 cheque was intending to buy influence. It wasn’t, and we have Wright’s testimony under oath to that effect. Are there no lawyers in the party that can explain this?
  3. And this is the big one – the NDP are explicitly trying to politicise the RCMP by making them part of their campaign against the Conservatives in the campaign.

Whoever in the NDP brain trust decided it was a good idea to drag the RCMP into the election should give their heads a shake because it’s kind of gross. The NDP brought them into a previous election – you’ll remember the December 2005 letter from the RCMP that the NDP used against the Liberals in that election, and when Harper won the election, how there were plenty of curious appearances of ties with the then-RCMP commissioner and Harper. (An investigation, it should be noted, that amounted to nothing). One would think that the RCMP would have learnt their lessons, and that they’ll be more circumspect. I guess we’ll see if they are, but suffice to say, the NDP trying to repeat that particular cheap stunt is not particularly endearing, and they should rethink trying to drag nominally non-political actors into the fray. No good can come of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The other ruthless dictator

Posted on by

NDP-turned-Green MP Bruce Hyer is warning that Thomas Mulcair will be as dictatorial of a Prime Minister as Stephen Harper if elected. To which I would reply “quite possibly.” While some of Hyer’s criticisms are that Mulcair will say anything to get elected, that’s fairly standard practice across a host of different parties and even leaders – and don’t think the Greens are much better, if you looked at how Kevin Milligan eviscerated their election platform’s costing over the weekend. But Hyer does have a point in that Mulcair’s NDP has been a very tightly controlled ship. Iron-fisted in many respects, but it does go back to the 2011 election, when Jack Layton was still in charge. The moment the election was over and they had accidentally won that wave of Quebec seats, with all of those paper candidates, the party went into communications lockdown and messaging became even more tightly controlled than that of the Conservatives. The NDP went so far as to centralise their communications media relations – something even the Conservatives hadn’t done, with their famous control from the centre. This carried on through the leadership and was adopted by Mulcair when he became leader, so it’s not just him that’s doing it – it’s the party’s entire apparatus. And it’s not like the NDP was this bastion of free voting even when Layton was in charge – MPs were routinely punished for stepping out of line with their votes, be it with QP slots taken away, or what have you. Solidarity was enforced, much as it continues to be under Mulcair. While I find José Nunez-Melo’s sour grapes at his nomination not being protected to be a bit rich, it does bear reminding that there is a darker side to the NDP that they don’t like to show or talk about, but it is there if you pay attention, even if Hyer is trying to pin it on Mulcair personally.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Economist Party fact-checks

Posted on by

With the Liberals casting the NDP federal minimum wage proposal as a mirage, and the NDP insisting that they haven’t deceived anyone (never mind that the Huffington Post did a piece asking ordinary people about what they thought of the pledge, only to learn it applies to federally-regulated industries, which won’t affect most people, and lo and behold, the people asked felt deceived. Imagine that!) While the NDP claim it will affect over 100,000 people, the Economist Party crunched the numbers, and found them lacking.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627804119547904

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632627978648731648

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629540762685440

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632629836889001984

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632640839819264000

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632641381207404544

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632642099620376576

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632642436439736320

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/632645758894735360

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654353233383424

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632654456883036160

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632942778721284096

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632943035039420417

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/632951157674086401

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tolerating Ray Novak’s deception

Posted on by

If there was one exchange on the campaign trail yesterday that speaks volumes for the way the current government is operating, particularly the lying about who knew about the cheque as opposed to Duffy himself repaying, it was between Hannah Thibedeau and Stephen Harper while in Hay River, and it goes thus: “You just mentioned in that answer a vast majority of staff believed that, but there were staff and very high profile staff that knew otherwise. For a few days, you have been evading that question about the deception done by many of your senior staff in the Duffy case including Mr. Ray Novak – he’s your current chief of staff, and he was told about Mr. Wright’s cheque in emails directly with Mr. Wright. So why have you tolerated Mr. Novak’s lying and even promoted him to current chief of staff who’s travelling with you right now?” Harper, predictably, rejected the premise of the question and insisted that only Wright and Duffy were responsible and they were being held accountable, which is clearly not the case. This was the party that rode into government on the white horse of accountability. It’s funny how that horse is nowhere to be seen these days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails

Posted on by

Nothing too explosive in the Duffy trial yesterday, but more those emails from Monday are certainly creating a bit of a stir, showing the PMO ignored the scandal for the first while, how Harper’s lawyer ended up disagreeing with Harper on the residency questions, and how Duffy didn’t want to repay anything because it would have made him look guilty, which he certainly didn’t think he was. Most of those players in the emails are still around Harper today. Incidentally, Pamela Wallin’s travel claims also come up in the emails. Andrew Coyne meanwhile has sorted through them and come to a conclusion on his own, so I’ll let him:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987013223325696

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680

https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PMO’s invisible levers in the Senate

Posted on by

One of the big things that emerged from the Duffy trial yesterday was a raft of new emails released from Nigel Wright, along with Wright’s testimony. While none of it was particularly damning to the prime minister, a number of pundits and journalists were baying over the Twitterverse and elsewhere that “this proves that the PMO is controlling the Senate! Where’s the independence?” and so on, I’m going to get everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. Yes, the PMO has been playing the Senate leadership – not the Senate itself – like its own private pawn. I’m not going to dispute that fact. But I am going to offer some context. First of all, Stephen Harper broke the Senate with his petulant refusal to make appointments from 2006 to 2008, and then made mass appointments, which damaged the chamber. (Refresher read here). He had a Senate leader who did his bidding without question, which is a problem. Because said Senate leader had so many newbie senators under her wing who did her bidding without question, it set up a power dynamic that allowed the PMO to exercise power levers that don’t actually exist. Wright complained about this lack of levers at times in his correspondence, and we also know that the Senate staff, including committee clerks, were pushing back against this PMO control, even to the point of threatening legal action. (And to that point, this BuzzFeed headline is wrong – they weren’t “rogue staffers,” they were Senate staffers instead of political ones). This makes it a problem of actors instead of institutions. As it is designed, the Senate is already a bastion of institutional independence – appointed Senators have absolutely nothing preventing them from speaking truth to power, because they are protected right up to a retirement age of 75, which in turn protects them from needing to curry favour with the PM to get a post-Senate appointment to a board or tribunal. The system is designed to ensure that they can be fully independent – the problem is that the current crop of Conservative senators has chosen not to be, whether it’s out of ignorance of their role, sentimentality for the prime minister who appointed them, or the fact that they sincerely believe he knows what’s best, so they’ll do what he asks. I can’t think of any way to tinker with the system to prevent that. As a rule, senators get better with age, and when a party leadership changes, they tend to get really independent in a hurry, but until that point, this remains a problem of political actors instead of institutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A marginal, ineffective drug announcement

Posted on by

A pattern is quickly emerging from the Conservatives as they roll out policy in this election – it’s all marginal, and it’s all populist, with little to no actual sense in the real world. First it was peanuts worth of tax credits for home renos (with zero economic justification), then a promise to ban “terror tourism” (with no real workable way to do it that would meet the Charter test). Yesterday was little different, with a lame announcement about tough-on-drugs, claiming that their anti-drug strategy is “working” (Really? How?), misrepresenting the issue of legalisation (with rhetoric that suggested that if they criminalise smoking that’ll help stop the problem), and throwing a bit or money at a fairly useless measure while ignoring proven steps like safe-injection sites, which not only reduce harm but do help get addicts into treatment. So with that, I’ll leave it to Dan Gardner to eviscerate this proposal:

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631237498203561984

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631238055802736640

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631243919854964745

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631244615224569857

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631245901890199552

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631246164130566145

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631247495054671872

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dubious travel bans

Posted on by

As a new policy announcement yesterday, Stephen Harper said that if the Conservatives were to continue to form government after the election, they would introduce legislation to curb “terrorist tourism,” all of which is an entirely ridiculous plan, whether it’s as an issue of mobility rights, of letting the RCMP or CSIS determine who is a “professional journalist” or humanitarian organisation, or the fact that this betrays any shred of libertarianism that the Conservatives profess to hold. (But then again, we already knew that they’re not an ideological party, but rather right-flavoured populists, right?) Justin Trudeau says this is just a distration from economic issues and that Harper has to answer more questions about limiting rights, while Thomas Mulcair doubted the move’s efficacy (while continually repeating that they’re not going to be against any move that reduces terrorism). Anyway, Paul Wells demolished the whole thing in a series of tweets.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499372606877696

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499578689814529

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630500563919204352

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630502075395346433

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630503234944241664

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630505023206752256

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509157045661700

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509646487359488

Continue reading →

Roundup: Half-assing discussions on the Senate

Posted on by

With all of the recent attention on the Senate lately, there has been no shortage of columns and think-pieces about the institution, calls for its abolition, and the conflation of a host of issues under the banner of “scandal” writ large, all senators painted with the brush of criminality, all of the expense issues flagged by the Auditor General treated as outright graft, and now with the accusations against Senator Don Meredith of sexual impropriety with a teenager, the institution itself seems to bear the blame. Never mind that elected officials are often caught misspending or engaging in inappropriate behaviour (there is a reason why the Commons Clerk has a conversation with the female pages at the beginning of every session). Add to the pile is the weekend longread in the Ottawa Citizen about what to do with the problem of the Senate. And for as much as it was a noble effort, it fell apart rather quickly on a number of fronts. For one, for a piece of its length, it relied on astonishingly few sources – one retiring Conservative senator who is engaged in a campaign of self-serving legacy-building, one who has already retired, the same political scientist that every reporter goes to for a quote, and one more lesser-known political scientist to push back against a few of the claims. That’s not a lot for a fairly complex issue. Much of the article is taken up by the fixation on a referendum on Senate abolition, be it from Hugh Segal’s outright bizarre notion that it could somehow give the institution legitimacy if it were rejected, to the usual nonsense that it will somehow spur premiers to action. Completely absent from the self-awareness of any of these arguments is the fundamental concept that one of the Senate’s very primary purposes was to protect the interests of minority provinces – to say that referendum result can somehow wipe away those very real interests is a complete betrayal of the principles of a liberal democracy which is supposed to mediate against the harms of mob rule. The piece also makes boneheaded statements like the composition of the Senate over-representing smaller provinces – which was the whole point, to have a system of regional representation that was not bound to representation-by-population. The Senate’s model of equal regions was designed to counter the rep-by-pop of the Commons, and the inability for people to grasp this simple fact is gob smacking. Nowhere in any discussion of reform are the reasons the Senate was structured the way it was – to provide institutional independence against the reprisals of a government they push back against. Accusations of ineffectiveness are mired in the recent past as opposed to a broader look at times when the Senate has less deferential, nor does it look at reasons why it’s in a deferential state right now (hint: the manner in which the current Prime Minister made his selections). And the issue of the lack of seriousness by which successive prime ministers have taken their appointment powers is not explored at all, when it is probably the most important part of the discussion about what to do about the Senate. If we’re going to have a discussion about the Senate, then let’s be serious about it. Half-assed attempts like this don’t help the conversation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Farewells and self-awareness

Posted on by

With 54 MPs not running again in the next election, we’re hearing a lot of teary farewells, and a number of them talking about their regrets for all kinds of things, particularly about some of the nastiness and the more toxic aspects of their career in politics. It’s more of what we saw in the Samara Canada series of exit interviews with MPs from previous parliaments, which culminated in the book Tragedy in the Commons, where MPs all bemoaned how terrible it was, and how the parties controlled everything, and how everyone else was nasty and partisan (but not them – even when you pointed to examples where they were engaging in that behaviour). What strikes me is that pretty much no MP you’ll speak to will take any responsibility for their own actions, whether it’s boorish partisan behaviour, letting the leader’s office dictate to them, or as is now commonplace, dutifully reading the scripts that are placed in front of them with no critical capacity to say no, I won’t demean myself in this way. (The obvious exception to all of this is Irwin Cotler, who has been a pretty exemplary class act throughout his time as a parliamentarian, but for pretty much everyone else this applies). When we listen to MPs get all teary and expressing their regrets, we should start asking them why they didn’t do something differently. And that’s really it – we elect MPs directly under our electoral system, and that empowers them to be the masters of their own destiny within the Commons (with the obvious exception of whips on things like confidence votes). They don’t need the Reform Act for things to change – they just need to take responsibility for their own behaviour and act like grown-ups. Sadly, the vast majority don’t and then blame everyone else, which is a sad state of affairs.

Continue reading →