Consider it a victory for the concern trolls, particularly those hosting the political shows, who spent four days hounding Senate Speaker Leo Housakos and Senators Carignan and Cowan over a trumped up appearance of conflict of interest because they had a role – and largely a peripheral one – in the establishment of the arbitration process and appointment of Justice Ian Binnie to oversee the Senate arbitration process. While Carignan repaid his staffer’s questioned expenses right away, citing it as an error, both Housakos and Cowan had legitimate differences of opinion with the Auditor General over the expenses he flagged, and both intended to take it to arbitration. Monday morning, they changed course, citing that they didn’t want to taint the process by any appearance of conflict, which if you ask me is a potential tacit admission of guilt, but also weakens any ability for senators to push back against what is looking increasingly to be a series of subjective value judgements made by auditors when it comes to expenses that were flagged. (And I’m not going to go into the way in which the NDP and others are conflating these legitimate grievances with notions of criminality other than to offer the reminder that Thomas Mulcair should be thankful he made the comments about Senator Housakos that he did during QP yesterday were made under privilege, lest he face a libel suit). The fact that members of the media torqued this angle of a conflict of interest – which did not bear itself out in fact – shows how much they feel no compunction or conscience about using the Senate as a punching bag because they feel they have public sentiment on their side – never mind that they were central in creating that public sentiment out of overblown rhetoric and hyperbole. It’s not that all of the AG’s findings will be questionable – the ones that Senator Eaton repaid certainly did not appear to be above board, but as Senator Plett remarks in his explanation for some of the flagged expenses, the auditors’ assessments can lack common sense. Of course, for all the concern trolling, it remains a basic fact that the figure of potentially misspent funds is actually tiny in context – and when you look at it in comparison to spending breaches in the Commons, it doesn’t even compare. But MPs won’t admit that they have a worse record, nor will they open their own books up, but don’t let the hypocrisy surprise you.
Tag Archives: Pat Martin
Roundup: Income splitting – sort of
As expected, Stephen Harper announced a scaled back version of his income splitting proposal, but structured as a tax credit and not actual income splitting, paired it with a number of other measures like increasing the universal child benefit payments, and childcare tax credits so as to try to blunt the criticisms that income splitting mostly benefits the most wealthy of families and doesn’t benefit those who need it most – single parent families and those of lower incomes. Jennifer Robson takes the proposal apart, and notes the real winners are lawyers and tax professionals. Economist Stephen Gordon adds a few notes, which need to be said.
Not yet, no RT @davidakin: In #elxn41, PMSH promised Income splitting when budget was balanced. Is budget balanced? pic.twitter.com/PZ91hL4zLk
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
Again, the surpluses that govt and PBO are projecting are based on scenario of spending cuts baked into 2014 budgethttp://t.co/j4TuHl16kP
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
So what PMSH is promising today is to cut spending (where? on what?) in order to finance those tax credits.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
For that matter, NDP's daycare plan is also based on cutting spending (where? on what?) to finance subsidised daycare.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
And if the LPC ever gets around to making a spending proposal, it will surely be financed by cuts in spending (where? on what?)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 31, 2014
Roundup: To amend or not to amend the motion
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.
Roundup: Abusing the PBO’s mandate
It’s official – MPs are now abusing the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A report was released from his office yesterday, which announced the costing of the Conservatives’ election promise to create a fitness tax credit for older adults once the budget was balanced. That’s right – MPs were getting him to check on an election promise that is years away from seeing the light – probably not until after the next election. Strange, but this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with independent budget forecasts or help in deciphering the supply cycle. In fact, this is little more than MPs fobbing off their homework to the PBO so that they can wrap themselves in his independent-and-therefore-credible analysis. Because math is hard! Is it any wonder that the government has become suspicious of the way in which the PBO has been operating, when opposition MPs are using it in such a way? It doesn’t matter that this particular report came from a Conservative MP either, because it’s still dealing with election promises rather than forecasts or the estimates and it still plays the independent-and-therefore-credible game. It also shouldn’t be a personal calculation service, as Galipeau was using the PBO in that manner before he “brought a recommendation” to Flaherty in advance of the budget – he has a caucus research bureau for these sorts of things. This is also an argument for not making the PBO an independent officer of parliament, because he would have no accountability to anyone at that point. When this kind of abuse by MPs for partisan gain becomes his modus operandi rather than the actual work he’s supposed to be doing then it’s hard to see how this won’t become a major problem for the way that our system of government functions.
Roundup: Bringing back the euthanasia debate
Before his death by a brain tumour, famous Canadian microbiologist Dr. Donald Low recorded a video making a plea for assisted suicide laws in this country, but feared that we still don’t have the political maturity to handle such a conversation. The video was released yesterday to great play in the media, for what it was worth. Sadly, I fear Low was right after the last attempt at such a debate in Parliament, and it’s one of those issues that MPs are too afraid to touch and will inevitably fob off on the Supreme Court to give them a push before they do anything with it. Only one Conservative MP, Steven Fletcher – a quadriplegic – seems to want to have that discussion, and supports the notion, given his particular perspective.
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Roundup: Gross partisanship over a tragic incident
It was another day of gross partisanship yesterday as Stephen Harper decided to begin the day by, apropos of nothing while attending the funeral of Baroness Thatcher, calling out Justin Trudeau for not being equivocal enough in his condemnation of terrorism and saying that trying to understand the root causes – so as to prevent it – was somehow “rationalizing” or “excusing” it. And then, just before Question Period, one of his faithful backbenchers repeated the same point for the benefit of the House. Well, that went over well, and after Trudeau called him out over the politicisation, the NDP decided to pile on during the evening political shows and moaned that Trudeau didn’t focus enough on the victims and the first responders. No, seriously. Because apparently a tragic incident can’t escape the narrow partisanship on either side of the aisle. The various statements that were made are collected here. Susan Delacourt, meanwhile, has a fantastic blog post about where narrow partisanship and sarcasm meet over Twitter, and all reason is lost.
Roundup: A damning audit
Things on the Attawapiskat file got even more interesting yesterday with leaks of the independent audit of the band’s finances – the full report going online later in the day on the Aboriginal Affairs website. The gist – there was almost no due diligence with spending on the reserve, little to no documentation, and no way to tell if any of the money has been spent effectively. And remember that Spence’s partner is the band’s co-manager, whose job it is to handle the money. Spence has also known the audit’s results since August 28th, and has refused to comment to the audit firm about it. While it was due to be released no later than the middle of next week, the PM’s spokesperson denied that it had been withheld deliberately. And Spence? Shut out the media from her Victoria Island campsite while her spokesperson said that the audit was wrong and wondered about the timing of the release. Paul Wells notes that of all the leaders, past prime ministers and would-be leaders who’ve visited Spence, Thomas Mulcair was conspicuously absent, which may have turned out to be a prudent thing. Jonathan Kay parses the lessons inherent in that year-old CBC report on Attawapiskat, and applies them to the current situation. John Ivison looks at the audit, and the context of Theresa Spence’s ever-changing goal posts, while Andrew Coyne looks at the tensions in the Aboriginal community between those looking to modernise with incremental advancements the way the current government is proceeding with, and those who consider those advancements “genocide.”
Roundup: Sovereignty via subcontract
Buried in last week’s KPMG audit of the F-35 programme was the revelation that the government planned to contract out air-to-air refuelling of the jets, seeing as the systems we have in place are currently incompatible. When this was pointed out two years ago, the government said, “Oh don’t worry, we’ll adapt our systems.” By adapt, apparently they meant subcontract. And nothing says asserting sovereignty over our airspace than getting the Americans or some other private companies to do our air-to-air refuelling for us. Great job, guys!
The Supreme Court handed down a split 4-2-1 decision on witnesses wearing niquabs – basically saying sure, but only some of the time, and here’s some guidelines to think about. Emmett Macfarlane examines the split and comes down on Team Abella – the single dissent that said while we’d like to see more of a person’s face than less, on the whole it’s not as big of a deal as it would be to have people to choose to not testify at all.
Roundup: Fictional carbon taxes
The first day back in the Commons, and all anyone can talk about is whether or not the NDP was proposing a carbon tax. Which they weren’t. But hey, why not use this hysteria as a distraction from actual debate? Van Loan laid out what the plans were for the fall – new budget implementation bill, which will likely include changes to MP pensions, RCMP bill, more tough on crime measures – but the Lawful Access bill was notably absent. Amidst the whole Conservative/NDP carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade punch and counter-punch, economist Stephen Gordon lays out the economic differences between the two.
Oh noes! Government backbenchers are showing a bit of backbone and having independent thought. We The Media must immediately crush this by writing “IS STEPHEN HAPRER LOSING CONTROL OF HIS CAUCUS?” stories.