Tag Archives: Satellite Offices

Roundup: The problem with private members’ bills

Posted on by

I’ve written a lot about the problems with private members’ bills, and in my column this week over at Loonie Politics, it came up again given that the lottery for the Order of Precedence was posted. I wrote about it back in the spring when there were a number of problematic ones that the Senate was possibly going to kill (and in some cases did when the clock ran out on them) for good reason – because they were bad bills. While interviewing Liberal Senator George Baker yesterday for a story I was writing, he offered this, which I unfortunately wasn’t able to include in the piece, but every MP should nevertheless read it and take it to heart:

“Here’s a real problem with these private member’s bills: if there’s a fault in the bill, if there’s a word out of place, if there’s an error in the wording or in the intent of a sentence of paragraph – if it’s a private member’s bill, then the Senate is in a quandary because if they amend the bill, then they will in all likelihood be defeating the bill. If you amend a bill in the Senate, if it’s a private member’s bill, it goes back to the Commons and it goes to the bottom of the list for consideration, and then the private member will come to the Senate committee and say you’re going to pass this bill. We had it happen three times in the past two years. They say you’re going to defeat the bill, so the Senate turned around and passed the bill, given the tradition of not defeating something that’s legitimately passed in the House of Commons, and Senate ignored the necessary amendments and they passed bad legislation.”

Baker is absolutely right in that there is a problem – MPs don’t have them drafted very well, and then don’t do their due diligence because these bills are automatically time-allocated by design. That a number of these bills died on the Order Paper in the Senate one hopes might be an object lesson to MPs that they need to do better, but unfortunately, the lesson too many MPs took is that the “unelected and unaccountable Senate” didn’t just rubber-stamp a bill because it passed the Commons. Except, of course, it’s not their job to rubber stamp, and we’ve had an increasing number of bad bills getting through the cracks based on these emotive arguments, and not a few hissy fits along the way *cough*Reform Act*cough*. And now we have bad laws on the books because of it, apparently content to let the courts handle it instead. It’s sad and a little pathetic, to be perfectly honest. We should be demanding out MPs do better, and when they screw up, they need to take their lumps so that they’ll do better next time. Otherwise they won’t learn – or worse, they will take the wrong lesson, and our system will be worse off.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting for details on Tuesday

Posted on by

As things are being finalised, the government has said that they will announce the final details for the Syrian refugee plan on Tuesday – including full costs – leaving some to wonder about the government’s communications strategy throughout the whole thing so far. It’s true that in most cases, the ministers ‘ offices still haven’t been staffed yet and it’s making it difficult for them to effectively handle their media requests. It’s also worth asking if it’s entirely fair to criticize them for waiting until there were actual announcements before they went ahead and announced them, instead of giving a bunch of half-answers that could change because things haven’t been finalized. John McCallum did note yesterday that many of the details that have been leaked to the media are outdated, so as to manage the expectations around them. It does seem a bit odd to be demanding answers that don’t exist yet, or that to keep harping on the self-imposed deadline rather than to acknowledge that there is a process being followed – and one that has been relatively transparent in terms of what we’ve come to expect over the past decade, where you have ministers talking almost daily about aspects of what’s going on, where we can see the heads of CSIS and the RCMP meeting with said cabinet ministers and talking to the media about issues related to the refugees (including giving blanket reassurance that no, the security screening is not an issue despite what concern trolls may say), and where we can see the tenders going out as the military looks to rapidly winterize some of their facilities. All of this is being done in the open. Do we have all of the answers right now? No. But we have constant updates as to process and as of Friday, a date when the answers will be given. That’s not something we would have seen from the previous government, so it’s worth giving credit where credit is due.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Endorsing a unicorn

Posted on by

It was newspaper endorsement time yesterday, and it was a pretty baffling scene all around. Postmedia’s papers had a centrally-dictated series of endorsements for Harper – in spite of all of his myriad of woes and abuses – because economy. Never mind that I’ve written pieces talking to economics professors who’ve said that the Liberals are probably the better party when it comes to the markets because of the lacklustre performance of the Conservatives and their willingness to engage in protectionist behaviours and shut down foreign acquisitions and the like while preferring regulation to carbon pricing – but the management decision of the chain is this reflexive nonsense that the Conservatives are best for the economy. As if that weren’t enough, we got a baffling incompetent endorsement from the Globe and Mail that the Conservatives deserve re-election, but not Harper, so by all means elect them but he should step down immediately after. Because that will totally happen. It’s as incompetent as the time that there was an endorsement for a minority government – because Canadians can totally choose that option on their ballots. What’s also mystifying about the Globe endorsement is that it seems to be endorsing the Progressive Conservative party of yore rather than the modern party, which is neither progressive nor even really conservative, but rather is more of a right-flavoured populist party. It is also wholly the creation of Harper and shaped to his vision. He has so marginalised and pushed out the majority of leadership contenders that it becomes an exercise in futility to promote the party minus him because he is the glue holding the party together. And does the Globe have a successor in mind that they would prefer? Would they prefer an equally divisive figure like Jason Kenney instead? It’s sad that instead of engaging in a reasoned analysis, we got that instead. Way to go. Elsewhere, former Globe and Mail editor William Thorsell pens the editorial he would have written if he were still in the business, and Robert Hiltz offers some thoughts on the endorsement game.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Disappointed or not, the Senate did its job

Posted on by

With Bill C-377 now passed thanks to procedural strong-arming that sets terrible precedent, the Senate has now adjourned for the summer. In the wake of the bill passing, there we are yet again being bombarded by the howls that the Senate didn’t do its job because it didn’t defeat a bill that clearly has some questionable constitutional merits. Never mind that if the Senate had voted to defeat the bill, they would have equally been lambasted for not having the democratic legitimacy to do so. As an institution, they are forever damned if they do and damned if they don’t. But even though the bill has passed, the Senate did its job. Agree with it or not, former Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache did testify at committee that he thought the bill was constitutional, and that’s not meaningless. As well, the fact that the bill got far more debate and scrutiny than it got in the Commons means something. Remember that in the Commons, private members’ bills are limited to a mere two hours of debate at each stage, and rarely get more than that at committee. Because the Senate took far longer with this bill, all of the problems are on the record. That will mean a whole lot when this goes to the courts, and it will – several unions are already promising immediate challenges. The courts will go over the records of debate at the Senate and see all of the problems laid out for them, and it will inform the decision. The courts will be well within their power to strike the statute down if they continue to believe that it’s unconstitutional, or they may strike down certain parts of it if they feel that only part of it is problematic. None of this means that the Senate was asleep on the job. They gave it thorough debate and scrutiny. While many will be disappointed that the bill ultimately passed (because the PMO was using this bill as a government bill in sheep’s clothing), they did their jobs. And hey, a bunch of other terrible PMBs died on the Order Paper, so it’s not all bad news.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Victory for concern trolls

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Establishing a wedge narrative

Posted on by

It really was a little bit embarrassing – or would be, if he had even a millilitre of shame. Pierre Poilievre rushed everyone to a microphone yesterday morning to announce the “next part” of the Trudeau Tax™ that he’s trying to push as a talking point – that Justin Trudeau said that he would impose a new mandatory “payroll tax” for pensions like is happening in Ontario, with a dollar figure attached and everything. Which, of course, is a complete fabrication as Trudeau said no such thing. I know, because I was there sitting in front of him when he talked about CPP enhancement in his Wednesday press conference. And throughout Members’ Statements and Question Period, as many Conservatives as possible tried to make this very same claim – Harper going so far as to call it a “$1000 pay cut” – even repeating it in response to NDP questions. Way to make them feel relevant! Much in the way that Trudeau’s supposed “gaffe” about fairness was a legitimate point of philosophical difference that is being turned into an attack line, this hint at a policy discussion yet-to-come, which would need to be discussed with the provinces in any eventuality, is being morphed into something sinister and being associated with specific dollar figures where no pronouncement has been made – not that facts have ever mattered to the Conservative attack machine. (Witness “budgets balance themselves” which actually followed the phrase “when the economy grows,” which is true and the Conservatives have said so themselves on numerous occasions). So while we again have an area of legitimate philosophical difference – whether Canadians are saving enough, whether a mandatory plan is the best vehicle to fund retirements – it’s being turned into this dumbed-down populist talking point that obliterates nuance or the truth about what was actually said. But apparently veracity doesn’t matter because election. Or something. (But if you want to discuss nuance and policy, Jennifer Robson is glad we’re talking CPP expansion again.)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Re-starting the CPP debate

Posted on by

Talk of expanding the Canada Pension Plan was dominating the discussion yesterday, but much of it seemed to be in a bit of a vacuum. To recap, the Conservatives, having largely eschewed any talk of CPP expansion as “job-killing payroll taxes” to date (despite some positive noises having been made by Jim Flaherty at one point), say they’re going to consult on voluntary expansion, but haven’t approached any of the provinces, which they need to do. The Liberals are moving in the direction of making an expansion mandatory, which the NDP have already largely been in favour of. For some context, Maclean’s spoke to a pension expert about the situation, and they reposted an piece from Kevin Milligan about what different expansion models could look like (and it’s also a reminder that none of this is about poor seniors, who are already taken care of by other programmes). The Ottawa Citizen also has a Q&A about the discussion as well. What should also bear mentioning is that voluntary increased contributions, if not done in a certain way, could dramatically increase the administration costs of CPP since it will require individual management of accounts – something that the current system does not currently need. Dramatically increasing costs will make CPP a less efficient vehicle for retirement savings, and may start to look like a commercial pension instead. If the government is insistent on a voluntary expansion as one of a number of options (like TFSAs and pooled registered plans), then this cost factor could be an important determiner in what that could look like.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An arbiter and a process in place

Posted on by

The Auditor General was making the media rounds yesterday, largely combating the cheap outrage journalism about the supposed spending issues of his office (which wasn’t a story but hey), and confirmed that about 30 senators would be facing some kind of repayment, fewer than 10 serious enough to merit being forwarded to the RCMP – but of course, ten became the headline number when he said it would be fewer, and the number of five to eight has been suggested by other media outlets, which seems more in line with what he claims. The total number of senators examined was 117 current and former, and it certainly sounds like the majority of cases will be fairly minor in terms of repayments. The Senate announced that they are retaining former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie as the independent arbiter on expenses, so that they have a process by which to dispute the AG’s findings if they so choose, and that may be necessary considering the complaints emerging about the lack of knowledge on the part of auditors as to parliamentary functions. This raises the question of fairness – is it fair that these senators will have a process in place, whereas Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin did not, and were suspended without any kind of due process? The answer of course is that no, it’s probably not fair, but this was a fairly consuming crisis at the time, and they were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Politics is messy business, particularly when you were high-profile appointments and had become a political liability. I’m not sure that it should be reason to forgo having a process going forward, but if all three are found guilty on the charges laid by the RCMP, then will it really matter in the end?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Camembert and clutched pearls

Posted on by

In the media feeding frenzy yesterday morning, appetites whetted by unconfirmed reports by CTV that some 40 senators got additional letters from the Auditor General looking for further clarifications on expenses audited, one particular senator got swarmed while waiting at an elevator. Senator Nancy Ruth, who is a character who shoots from the hip and a pretty deadpan sense of humour, expressed her concerns about the Auditor General not understanding the role that a senator plays – in her case, as a feminist activist who brings a gender analysis lens to the work she does in the Upper Chamber – and then noted that the auditors were getting really picky to the point of being weird, like asking why her assistant expensed a breakfast when she should have eaten on the plane on her flight from Toronto to Ottawa. Nancy Ruth, deadpan, said that airplane food was awful, with “ice cold camembert and broken crackers.” But immediately We The Media clutched our pearls that she made such a quip. Camembert? That sounds awfully fancy! Why, normal Canadians would only eat blocks of Kraft cheese, thank you very much. And suddenly it became held up as a symbol of the Senate’s problems, and its members’ “entitlements.” There is this terrible strain of petty cheapness in our media – we’re aghast that things cost money (look at the renovations to Parliament Hill, much of which had been allowed to deteriorate because of the optics of spending money), and if someone puts up a dollar figure without context, it’s all the more fodder. If someone makes a legitimate expense, well, “ordinary Canadians” don’t get these expenses (err, except they do), so we try and shame them for claiming things that are within the rules. The moral panic around taxpayer dollars can be terribly provincial because it tends to be so very petty, this enviousness that some people are rewarded for doing long and difficult work – and make no mistake, the life of a senator is far less glamorous than people like to make it seem, particularly if you have a gruelling travel schedule to a lonely city like Ottawa and back. And it is a lot of work, both on Senate files and the kinds of projects that Senators take on because they have a position and a platform by which to champion them. But rather than acknowledge it, we begrudge it and we try to make everyone resent it too. Is it any wonder there is such cynicism about politics in this country? We stoke it at every opportunity. Maybe the problem is us, and our inability to roll with a quip or a joke, too busy clutching at our pearls instead.

https://twitter.com/jordanowens/status/583346556625154048

https://twitter.com/jandrewpotter/status/583450918303232000

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney’s fading credibility

Posted on by

It was no surprised that the motion to support the Iraq mission passed, but what was perhaps unexpected was the bit of verbal sparring between Jason Kenney and Justin Trudeau, and the issue of Kenney’s credibility came up. It has come up several times, having been called out repeatedly by journalists for posting misleading photos on his Twitter account, or his statements that were not true about things like Russian planes buzzing our frigate in the Black Sea, but this weekend, things got even more escalated when the Chief of Defence Staff had to come out and make a statement to both back up and correct the record with regards to Kenney’s statements about how Canada and the US were the only countries engaged in Syria and Iraq using precision bombs. That’s blatantly not true, and General Lawson had to use some careful language to not embarrass his minister but at the same time correct the record, and Kenney treated it as though Lawson backed up his statement – which he didn’t. And Trudeau used that during the question-and-answer portion of his speech on the Iraq motion, that the minister doesn’t have the credibility behind his words when it comes to the motion to extend the mission and the Liberals can’t trust him as a result. Will that be enough political cover for Trudeau given the disgruntled members of his own party who would see us join the mission? I guess we’ll wait and see. Meanwhile, the government’s fudging on the reality of our combat operations is a sign that Canadians really don’t have the stomach for another war.

Continue reading →