There’s the Senate bat-signal, so here we go again. On Evan Solomon’s radio show, Liberal Senator David Smith suggested that if Trudeau does not appoint a Government Leader in the Senate that it will create frustration in the Chamber if they have no means by which to hold the government to account, and that they could – if it got that far – start to stall or even vote against the government’s legislation as a protest. Mind you, as these things do, the headlines hype it up, but it does point to problems that I outlined in my National Post piece earlier this week. And because I know that some people have suggested it, no, just calling ministers before committee is not enough as it robs the daily exercise of accountability that is Senate Question Period of meaning (as Smith suggested), and those appearances might happen every couple of months. The existing protocol is for the Government Leader to have access to the same briefing books as the Prime Minister. If senators are to do their job of sober second thought and accountability, they need access to information on a timely basis, and the government leader, if he or she can’t provide that answer immediately, takes it under advisement and gets a written response as soon as possible. They have a job to do and they need information to do it. The threats over the past couple of weeks, as overhyped as they have been, have awakened Andrew Coyne’s concern trolling over the Senate’s veto powers, because he apparently doesn’t believe they should have enough power to push back against a majority government when necessary, and would rather the courts do it years down the road. Meanwhile, Senate Speaker Housakos has said that he plans to propose the creation of an arm’s length spending oversight body to give guidance to the Internal Economy Committee, but we have no details on this yet. I would once again caution that we need to ensure that the Senate remains self-governing for the sake of parliamentary supremacy (argued here). I would still like to see Senator McCoy’s proposal for a Senate audit committee comprised of three senators, an auditor and a former judge as the best solution, but I guess we’ll wait to see what Housakos’ proposition is.
Tag Archives: PMO
Roundup: Honesty in deficits?
Balanced budgets and deficits continued to be a topic of discussion on the campaign yesterday, and it will continue to be so today as Justin Trudeau is set to unveil his infrastructure plan to boost the economy, which seems set to include some deficit financing for another year or two as the economy appears stagnant. Stephen Harper warns the other parties are looking at “permanent deficits,” but it bears reminding that according to the previous Parliamentary Budget Officer, the only way that Harper killed off is own structural deficit was in changing the health transfer escalator, leaving him with only a cyclical deficit (which persists, no matter how much they shuffle money around on paper to cover over it). The NDP continue to insist they won’t run a deficit, but they also seem to dispute that they would need to continue austerity and they would even do things like restore the health transfer escalator, which starts to boggle the mind. The Liberals seem to be looking to score points for honesty in that a) they don’t know the true state of the books, and b) the global economic situation, but one might also add that our debt-to-GDP ratio is in a good place now (as opposed to the eighties and nineties), so small deficits won’t affect our economic health that much. To that end, Mike Moffatt says it’s important to ask parties how they would manage deficits, because they are inevitable in the current economic climate, while Andrew Coyne says that we should be paying attention to the signals being sent by the leaders when it comes to deficits.
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636646713005076480
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636647037992337408
https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/636647310450139136
Roundup: Fill in the blanks
None of what happened with the Amherst branch of the Royal Canadian Legion announcement yesterday was out of the ordinary or unexpected, but it was one giant confirmation of what we are seeing daily in the debasement of our politics. Conservative MP Scott Armstrong mistakenly sent out a press release that still had all of the track changes, and it showed very clearly that it was a fill-in-the-blanks job. Because gods forbid an announcement was made that wasn’t pabulum. Pretty much all political speech has become this – checklists of talking points that need to be ticked off in whatever the context. Giving a members’ statement? Here are the talking points you need to say – or better yet, here’s the fill-in-the-blanks statement we’ll hand to you. Going on a panel show at 5 o’clock? Here are the lines you can deliver, and the slogans you need to recite. The funny thing is, I’ve met MPs who’ve gotten media training – which they paid for out of their own pockets – and they can do without all of this box-checking, blanks-filled-in pap that they would recite otherwise. But those MPs made the choice to not do what their fellows were doing, and proved they could speak on their own without sounding like a babbling idiot. But most MPs don’t take the time to learn how to speak in public, or in the media, or how to write a speech on their own. It’s mostly just a handful of veteran MPs who can do it these days, and that doesn’t bode well for the future seeing the number of incumbents who aren’t running again. Unless MPs start to do something about their own situation – or better yet, voters demand that they do – we’ll wind up with a parliament of MPs reading more of these scripts like robotic simpletons.
Roundup: Bemoaning members’ statements
Over in the National Post, Tristin Hopper despairs at how much of Hansard is taken up by ridiculous and ultimately meaningless members’ statements, not to mention the plethora of petitions. And while the notion of members’ statements used to be kind of sweet and noble, it’s largely degenerated into a daily dumpster fire in the Commons, with a handful of feel-good statements followed by a number of increasingly nasty partisan attacks. Petitions, however ridiculous many may be, is a measure of political engagement so we shouldn’t discount them just yet – and we’re about to see a whole bunch more of them now that they’re going to all electronic petitions. Hopper suggests we follow the European example and put Members’ Statements at the end of the day. I tweeted some thoughts on that.
I can see why they put Members' Statements before QP – so that people would actually see them. And they're supposed to be feel-good. 2/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
MPs have decided not to let the Speaker weigh in on the content of messages (other than if it's a personal attack, which the do cleverly) 4/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Anything to mention the riding. They love that sort of thing. But then parties decided this was great for warm-up attacks for QP. 6/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
And if the rules changed, if it were shunted to a different time of day, would it change? Maybe, but maybe only temporarily. 8/
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Unless MPs can start learning to say no to the leader's office, they'll just find a new time of day to do similar nonsense. 10/10
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
@kady Maybe, but I foresee nothing but whinging that it's not fair they're not prepared for surprise bells, or in drawing up a schedule.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
@kady Also, makes it easier for the leaders' offices to have a stack of SO31s ready to go for just such situations.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 21, 2015
Bottom line: Pretty much all of Parliament is terrible right now with speeches because we’re electing a cohort who has largely lost the ability to think for themselves on their feet, whose greatest skill now is reciting the lines that are given to them. (Not all are like this, but most are, and I will note that the Liberals seem to be the least scripted from the leaders’ office these days). While I can sympathise with Hopper, it’s not the rules that are the problem – it’s the fact that we have apparently stopped valuing MPs who can speak or think for themselves in favour of ciphers for the leader.
Roundup: The problem with Duffy’s defence
Day one of the Duffy trial, and we saw two things – the Crown laying out a case, including a bunch of evidence that was made available to the media, that showed a pattern of abuse by Duffy when it came to the claiming of expenses, such that he was claiming per diems on the day his appointment was announced, never mind that he wasn’t even sworn in yet, and that he was using one contract to a friend as a slush fund for things the Senate wouldn’t pay out. The crux is common sense – no reasonable person would make these kinds of claims. The defence, meanwhile, is arguing that the rules were so loose that it’s not Duffy’s fault, and everyone else in the Senate is doing it. I have a problem with that because no, everyone else is not doing it, and it breaches the good faith that Duffy should have been exercising from his office. Much of it stems to the very fact that Duffy should never have been appointed as a senator for PEI, but when Stephen Harper made that decision, Duffy didn’t live up to his end of the implicit deal. In conversations that I have had with those who used to work in the Liberal Senate Leader’s office back in the day when they formed government, if they were to appoint someone who didn’t currently live in the province that they were to represent, they ensured that they had their ducks in a row beforehand. This meant that the person was told they were being considered for an appointment – and if they told anyone, that wouldn’t happen – but in the interim they had to ensure that they had the driver’s licence, health card, election registration, licence plates, the works – taken care of beforehand. In Duffy’s case, it would likely have meant selling his home in Kanata and ensuring he had one in PEI that he could access year-round rather than a summer cottage, while maintaining either an apartment or a small condo near the Hill as his secondary residence. It’s really a no-brainer, but Duffy apparently wasn’t able to comprehend that and allegedly looked for as many loopholes as he could to maximise what he could claim. Every other senator I have ever spoken to, including some very long-time ones, is aghast at that kind of behaviour, and they do their utmost to minimise what they claim. I am also dubious about this “conspiracy” to “force” Duffy to repay claims that he may have been able to make legitimately – but remember that there were always political considerations at play, and even if some of those claims were legal, they would not have been politically sound and Duffy should have known this from the start. His cries of victimhood ring hollow, but he looks to be set on trying to win the trial on pure technicalities. Nicholas Köhler has his observations here, while the Ottawa Citizen’s Gargoyle shows some of the behind the scenes moments from the day.
Roundup: The Sona trial commences
Michael Sona’s trial in the case of the misleading robocalls gets underway in Guelph, Ontario, today, Sona has long maintained that there is no real evidence against him other than some questionable testimony that would have occurred at a time when he was out of the country. That said, it is hoped that with other players on the stand that this trial may be the only hope for getting the real story of what happened in Guelph out there. Sona could face five years in jail and a fine of up to $5000 if found guilty.
Roundup: Commence the final stretch
It’s the final stretch, as there are four scheduled weeks left for MPs to sit before we send them back to their riding for the summer. And they want to put on a good show of being productive, so they’ll be doing evening sittings the whole way through. Here’s a look at what’s on the agenda for those four weeks. It’s likely the Senate will sit for another week or so after the Commons rises, but it will all depend on how many bills the Commons passes at the last minute, and how much certain Senators want to push back at the government over things like the Fair Elections bill (for which I know there are Conservative senators who are still not happy with it).
Roundup: Accusations of intimidation
As you may have noticed during QP, the narrative around Harper’s spat with the Chief Justice is now being characterised by the NDP as an attempt to intimidate her and the courts, which is kind of unsettling. Mind you, Thomas Mulcair isn’t exactly pure when it comes to attacks on the Supreme Court based on conspiracy theories, as recent history shows. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here. Brent Rathgeber blasts the PMOs use of selective and disingenuous facts to try to smear the Chief Justice for the sake of fundraising dollars. Irwin Cotler took questions about the situation over the Twitter Machine. Andrew Coyne wonders when Conservatives of good faith will start to challenge the party’s leadership over the damage they are doing to our institutions.
Roundup: Not denying the trail of evidence
The fallout from the departure of Dimitri Soudas continued around the Nation’s Capital yesterday, with Soudas giving this somewhat overdone defence of his “resignation” as doing it for the woman he loves, while other sources from within the party started to paint a picture of Soudas breaking his contract, with a data trail with his fingerprints on it leading to access to the party’s voter database and phone records that shoed hundreds of calls made to the riding where Eve Adams is contesting the nomination. Apparently he didn’t deny the allegations resulting from that investigation, and then he was out. There was also apparently pushback from the rest of the party leading up to the end, so it seems likely that Harper couldn’t ignore any problems with Soudas any longer. This now leaves a hole in Harper’s election organizing planning, as well as more questions about his judgement when it comes to appointments – adding to the long list that includes Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin, and other appointments like Christiane Ouimet, Arthur Porter, and now Justice Nadon./
Roundup: A dramatic exit for Dimitri
In a bit of drama, late Sunday evening saw the departure of Dimitri Soudas from the post of executive director of the Conservative Party, following the nomination drama in the Oakville–North Burlington with Soudas’ fiancée, MP Eve Adams. Soudas had pledged to stay out of the nomination fight, but word has it that a doorknocking campaign for Adams was being run out of Soudas’ office, and that simply couldn’t do, especially with the allegations that he was being seen to interfere in the race already. Soudas had only been in the post four months, and already people are making the Helena Guergis comparisons with Adams. Apparently there was already some discontent in the party with Soudas when he was appointed to the position, as other members of the national council had other preferred candidates. Paul Wells looks back on those four short months, and how Soudas was supposed to be the adult supervision in the post-Nigel Wright era, only to become one more person through the revolving door of the PMO.