Tag Archives: Pamela Wallin

Roundup: An immunity deal

Posted on by

One of the key figures in the case of the misleading Guelph robocalls has made an immunity deal with Elections Canada in order to give his testimony. Andrew Prescott, whose account was used in connection with the calls, has previously denied wrongdoing, and Michael Sona remains the only person charged to date, and he too maintains his innocence.

Jason Kenney is sounding like there may be some flexibility in the Canada Job Grant programme after all – but it would still mean no new funding, just that the provincial matching component would come from the federal government instead. That would mean fewer grants available overall, and the provinces would still lose that $300 million in funding annually. Kenney also announced that they are harmonizing apprenticeship programmes across the Atlantic provinces.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A mess of Harper’s own creation

Posted on by

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court this week as the Senate reference goes ahead. The fact that there will only be two sitting Quebec justices is a major bone of contention, and highlights the mess that the government made of the whole appointment process. A mess, it needs to be said again, they didn’t need to make. On the subject of the reference question, this piece looking at the abolition of Quebec’s Legislative Council is a neat bit of history, but actually has almost no use in terms of abolishing the Senate because the provinces aren’t federations. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, and yet they keep pointing to places like Nebraska, New Zealand and Sweden as places that don’t have upper chambers – never mind that they’re either unitary states or sub-national governments, and don’t have the same dual federalism concerns that Canada as a whole does, which is why we need a bicameral legislature.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Harper’s need for ambiguity

Posted on by

At a business school event, the Prime Minister said that they don’t want foreign takeover rules that are too clear because the government wants room to manoeuvre in the event that some takeover bids aren’t good for the country and need to be blocked. He also said that the free trade deals that they are negotiating with China, India and South Korea aren’t going to be the same as the EU trade deal just agreed to, as they won’t be of the same depth or comprehensiveness.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Assaulting the dignity of Parliament

Posted on by

It’s not the least bit surprising, but it should remain shocking every time it happens. Jim Flaherty announced yesterday that the fall economic update will be released next week, when the House is not sitting, and will be read in Edmonton and not the House of Commons. In other words, one more slap in the face to Parliament by a government that does its level best to devalue it at every opportunity. Because why not go for the cheap optics of a controlled message and release, instead of ensuring the dignity and sanctity of parliament are upheld.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brad Wall’s sound and fury signifying nothing

Posted on by

The news had the NDP crowing, but it’s a lot of sound and fury signifying almost nothing. Over in Saskatchewan, Brad Wall’s government decided to repeal their senate “nominee election” legislation, and pass a motion to declare that they are calling for Senate abolition. Which is all well and good, but that legislation was of dubious constitutionality since the Senate is federal jurisdiction, the selection of Senators explicitly spelled out in the constitution as a Governor-in-Council appointment, not to mention that Wall refused to actually hold these “elections” because Ottawa wouldn’t pay for them. And then there’s the fact that abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces to achieve. So Brad Wall set out a marker, for what it’s worth – but it’s hardly going to get any ball rolling, especially before the Supreme Court hears the reference case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspensions and scripts

Posted on by

It is done – Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have been suspended without pay after two weeks of anguished debate in the Senate about the role of fairness and due process, with the official motion here for your perusal. And once it was all over, Senator Carignan, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, went out to the Foyer to dutifully read a PMO script about how the “Trudeau Liberals” were trying to defend those Senators – not only an odd characterisation considering that Justin Trudeau hasn’t appointed any of those senators (though a couple of his father’s appointments do remain), nor does he control them. And now begins the wailing and beating of breasts at the need to update the financial rules of the Senate, a process that has been ongoing for a couple of years now. John Geddes paints the scene of the evening’s events here. Michael Den Tandt writes that these expulsions will reinforce the “Angry Harper” narrative. I muse about the loss of due process in the face of political expediency here.

Continue reading →

Due process versus the culture of expediency

Posted on by

Stephen Harper’s culture of expediency has marked every single aspect of the ClusterDuff affair, from its genesis with the appointment of those senators in 2009, to the abrogation of due process that took place in the Senate tonight to their suspension without pay. Those appointments, made in haste and without proper due diligence, created the crisis of the independence of the Senate that we find ourselves in currently – but it was politically expedient for Harper to declare that he wasn’t going to appoint “unelected” senators until it became expedient for him to appoint a glut of them at once and strain the ability of the chamber to absorb them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gerstein’s contradictions

Posted on by

The big incident from the end of the Conservative convention was in the closing, when Senator Irving Gerstein took to the stage to boast about the party’s fiscal position, but in the process, revealed that he told Nigel Wright that he refused to allow the party fund – which he controls – to pay for Duffy’s expenses. This contradicts the Wright affidavit that said that they initially offered to pay the bill when they thought it was a mere $30,000 but balked when the bill was $92,000. Wright’s lawyer responded that they had nothing to say about “the latest characterisation of events” at this time – which has us all wondering which version of events is the truth. And more to the point, that if Gerstein was involved in the repayment scheme, even by refusing it, it begs the question as to why he’s not being hung out to dry like the others are. On Global’s The West Block on Sunday morning, Jason Kenney hinted that at some point, Wright will reveal what he knows, which could be very interesting if and when that happens – and if that timetable moves up should the PM continue to demonise him for the whole affair. As well, a PMO staffer says that the legal fees the party covered for Duffy were related to his audit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wallin in the RCMP’s gaze

Posted on by

Oh, Pamela Wallin. Hours before Stephen Harper went on stage in Calgary to make his big address to the party faithful came news that the RCMP have indeed been investigating Wallin for fraud and breach of trust, and that Senate administration have had concerns about her spending since 2009 – the very year she was appointed. They allege that her Toronto condo is her primary residence, which she uses for functions outside of her Senate duties, and that she has been filing fraudulent expenses. We also found out that the audits for those four senators cost just a little more than they all repaid, of which Wallin’s audit was the lion’s share. But remember, we’re supposed to look at this price tag in the broader context of public accountability and trust. And if anyone thinks that the Auditor General could have done it essentially for free, they need to be reminded that the AG doesn’t do forensic auditing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: To amend or not to amend the motion

Posted on by

As we get ready for another sitting week of Parliament, we are no closer to finding any kind of clarity or resolution to the issue of the suspension motions in the Senate. In fact, there are different stories being floated in the media – some that the Conservatives there are open to compromises in the motions, based on comments that Senator Claude Carignan, the leader of the government in the Senate, made. The PMO, meanwhile, is standing firm that they want the suspensions without pay – not that they actually have a say in the matter, given that the Senate is the master of its own destiny and not at the beck and call of the PMO (despite what many – including a handful of senators who haven’t learned better yet – may think). So that leaves the state of play still very much in motion as things get underway. Justin Trudeau, for his part, wants everyone involved to testify under oath, feeling that’s the only way everything will be cleared up. While Senator Cowan’s motion to send it to a committee would give an opportunity to summon the current and former PMO staffers involved, Parliamentary committees can’t summons Parliamentarians and force them to testify (because of privilege), so the really key players may yet be spared from testimony if that is the case. Law professor Carissima Mathen talks to CTV about the legal arguments in the Senate suspension motions. Tom Clark writes about how this is playing with the Conservative base, and how the push for swift action in the backrooms and behind closed doors is starting to look more like the Chrétien/Martin way of doing things, which is what the Conservatives rode into Ottawa promising to clean up.

Continue reading →