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.
Tag Archives: Patrick Brazeau
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: Duffy’s scorched earth policy
Well, that was…interesting. After Senator Carignan, the leader of the government in the Senate, spent over an hour laying out the case against Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau, and after a couple of other Senators from all sides expressed their reservations about this move and the lack of due process – let alone the setting of dubious precedents – the real bombshell dropped. Senator Duffy got up to speak to his defence, and he took the scorched earth approach, crying that he didn’t want to go along with this conspiracy “foisted” upon him, that he should have said no, that his livelihood was threatened, and that it all led back to Harper and the Senate leadership. If anything, it made it harder for Harper’s version of events to stand up to scrutiny, which the NDP spent the evening gleefully putting press release after press release about. It’s also going to make QP later today to be quite the show. Of course, what Duffy neglected to mention was his own wrongdoing. He protested that he hadn’t done anything wrong – which is not the case. Both the Deloitte audit and the subsequent RCMP investigation have shown that his residence is not, in fact, PEI, and that’s a constitutional requirement, no matter what LeBreton or Wright told him. A retired constitutional law professor from PEI says that Duffy never actually met the residency criteria, given that when the constitution says a Senator “shall be a resident of the province for which he is appointed,” and that shall means “must” in legal terms, Duffy’s qualification never was valid to begin with, which is how this whole sordid affair got started in the first place. While Duffy may be trying to play the victim, he is still under investigation, no matter that the cover-up has now become worse than the alleged crimes. The same with Brazeau, though there wasn’t really much cover-up there. We shouldn’t forget that, no matter the speeches they gave.
Roundup: Duffy’s lawyer throws some bombs
It was quite the noon hour revelation, as embattled Senator Mike Duffy’s lawyer took the stage of the Charles Lynch Press Theatre, and lobbed grenades at the PMO on Duffy’s behalf – careful grenades that were all hearsay and accusation with no paper documents to back anything up. He alleged that Duffy didn’t want to have anything to do with the $90,000 repayment – not only because he didn’t think he owed anything as he had his residency cleared with the Senate leadership and Nigel Wright, but that when he was made to repay it, he pleaded that he wasn’t a wealthy man, and that Wright paid it to make the problem go away, and that if he didn’t cooperate, then they would use his residency issue to remove him from the Senate. Because you know, Duffy is the victim in all of this. It was also alleged that PMO instructed Duffy not to cooperate with auditors, and that they fed him media lines to deal with everything. Senator David Tkachuk, who then-chaired the Internal Economy Committee, denies ever threatening Duffy, especially with expulsion, which would seem to put the onus on Duffy and his lawyer to put up and reveal the documents.
Roundup: By-election dates announced
Stephen Harper has finally called those four by-elections in Toronto Centre, Bourassa, Brandon-Souris and Provencher for November 25th. Toronto Centre NDP candidate Linda McQuaig has put out a YouTube video challenging Chrystia Freeland to a debate. Pundit’s Guide updates the lay of the land in the four ridings here.
Alison Crawford looks at five ways in which the impasse over Justice Nadon’s appointment to the Supreme Court can be resolved, including declaratory legislation, which is a novel approach that I hadn’t yet heard mentioned before.
Roundup: Suspending errant senators
In a blatant bit of damage control, Conservatives in the Senate have moved to suspend Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin without pay for “gross negligence” in the use of their parliamentary resources. This came shortly after Duffy sent a message out to say that he was going on medical leave due to heart problems. There are concerns from Senators on both sides that this move comes without a lot of due process, seeing as none of the three have been charged with a crime, though Liberal Senate leader James Cowan noted that he felt there had been insufficient sanctions applied back in the spring, but the government didn’t seem keen on action then. I will admit to my own reservations about this move to suspension without pay without due process, but that has been mollified somewhat when it was explained that this particular disciplinary measure is not a reflection of the RCMP investigations, but as a result of the findings by the Senate’s internal economy committee that found that those Senators had broken the rules. There will still be debate on these motions and the opportunity for each Senator to defend themselves – though it was also pointed out that it will be hard to continue to garnish Brazeau’s wages if he’s suspended without pay. To top if off, Thomas Mulcair felt it appropriate to crack wise that these suspensions are a good first step and that he would prefer to see all Senators suspended without pay before they move to abolish the Chamber. Which is hilarious until you realise that no legislation could actually be passed by a chamber that was entirely suspended (and would have had to suspend itself, as only the Senate itself has the power to suspend its membership). Apparently “good public administration” in Mulcair’s books means ignoring the constitution.
Roundup: Industrial espionage…or not
The Guardian writes that the Communications Security Establishment was involved in secret briefings to energy corporations, ostensibly to discuss threats to energy infrastructure, and they are tying this into the allegations that CSE was conducting industrial espionage on mining and energy in Brazil – even though the documents don’t show that. CSE did confirm that they meet with industry, but said that it has to do with protecting them against things like cyber-threats. There are even public records of such kinds of meetings here. It should also be noted that Canadian energy companies do have operations in countries like Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria, which have had problems with stability and there would be threats to our operations and workers there. These facts weren’t enough to dissuade Thomas Mulcair, who said that there was “clear evidence” of industrial espionage, though that would be news to anyone else. The CBC’s Julie Van Dusen tried to get answers from the head of CSE in a walking scrum yesterday, but he wasn’t deviating from his talking points. (And kudos to the camera operator who filmed said walking scrum while walking backwards at high speed). James Fitz-Morris has a possible explanation for why Canada might be spying on Brazil’s energy officials.
Roundup: Yet another Duffy revelation
Oh, Mike Duffy. As soon as RCMP investigators started digging through his financial records, something else caught their eye – some $65,000 paid out to one of Duffy’s friends as a consultant for which the friend admits to doing little or no work. (Insert all of the wise-asses of the world joking about how that’s all a Senator does – and those wise-asses would be wrong, but I digress). But more curious is that the money that was paid out seems to also have vanished, because that friend is also on disability and couldn’t take the money without losing his benefits, and his wife and son, listed as president and director of his company, aren’t talking. Add to all of this is the look into Patrick Brazeau’s housing claims, for which his Gatineau neighbours thought he worked from home because he was there so often. They’re also investigating his tax filings, as he listed his address on his former father-in-law’s reserve even though he didn’t live there. Kady O’Malley’s search through the court affidavits and comparing them to the timeline turns up what she thinks may be references to those emails being turned over to the RCMP along with some redacted diaries.
Roundup: Forget the science of treating addiction, drugs are bad!
Rona Ambrose held a press conference yesterday to say that the government would be closing the “loopholes” in the Special Access Programme so that illicit drugs can no longer be prescribed for clinical purposes – never mind that the whole point of the programme that the injectable heroin was being prescribed in was because none of the other replacements worked, and that it was the safest and most effective way to preserve the health of the patient while getting them off the drug in a controlled manner. But hey, when did science matter over the ideological concerns that “drugs are bad”? Aaron Wherry talks to BC’s provincial health officer about the scientifically proven heroin-assisted treatment.
Roundup: The judge and his hockey pedigree
Justice Marc Nadon appeared before MPs yesterday afternoon as part of the meet-and-greet exercise that serves as a not-really-confirmation-hearing as part of the consultation process for judicial nominees that the government put into place. In a series of softball questions – which are all that are allowed – we learned a bit about Nadon, which seemed to be a lot about hockey. Apparently we now need to establish someone’s hockey pedigree before we can appoint them to a major office, if His Excellency David Johnston, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz and Justice Nadon are anything to go by. Also, Nadon claims to have been “drafted” by the Detroit Red Wings when he was 14, though there is no record of this, and makes one wonder if he chose the wrong word, or if he remembers things a little more glorified than they really were. Regardless, any attempt to get an insight into his judicial thinking was rebuffed, so we were left with another round of questions that would have only been improved if one MP had bothered to ask Nadon which Spice Girl he would be if he could be a Spice Girl. (Incidentally, those demanding that MPs have a more active role in the final decision should also remember that in our system of Responsible Government, the accountability for appointments rests with the PM so that he can be held to account – either at the ballot box or by maintaining the confidence of the House – as giving MPs that power would muddy the accountability). Over at CTV, there is a clip of law professor Carissima Mathen explaining her reservations about the way the government has been making their Supreme Court appointments. Irwin Cotler, who began the process of opening up the Supreme Court nomination process to outside scrutiny, writes about the problems with this particular appointment process – especially the timelines laid out by the government.