The question of what to do about Dean Del Mastro has seized the Commons, and the government seems amenable to going along with the NDP motion to suspend him without pay immediately, and further send the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, particularly for what it means for his staff and his constituents. This is a bit of a change from the government’s original position of wanting the committee to rule before they did, but apparently they’re going with the flow of public opinion on the matter. (The NDP’s unwillingness to let debate collapse so that the vote can proceed on its own accord, however, means that the government will likely invoke closure to ensure a vote later today). There is also a battle raging over Del Mastro’s pension benefits, while the NDP used a committee hearing on John Williamson’s private member’s bill to try to lay a trap. The bill would see MPs lose their pension if convicted of an indictable offence, and the NDP moved an amendment to specifically include elections expenses, which the government defeated because it wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t apply to the Del Mastro case anyway – not that it stopped Mulcair and the NDP of using Question Period to say the government was trying to protect Mulcair. Because apparently they’re not yet too clever for their own good.
Tag Archives: Stephen Poloz
Roundup: Oversight versus good enough
Divisions are forming in the Commons about what happened with last week’s attack, with the Liberals now accepting that the shooter was a terrorist as that is what the RCMP have concluded, while the NDP are steadfastly refusing that label, saying that there’s not enough evidence to use it (contrary to what the RCMP Commissioner has said). But before anyone thinks that this is a signal that the Liberals are going to simply follow any anti-terror legislation that the government brings down, it’s important to note that they have also been the sharpest critics on the lack of civilian oversight mechanisms and the need for parliamentary oversight for national security agencies, as have long been recommended by a number of sources. Harper dismissed those calls and said the current oversight is enough (never mind that his government reduced oversight already by eliminating the post of Inspector General at CSIS a couple of years ago), while privacy commissioners around the country sounded the alarm. Of course, in the debate over whether the shooter was a terrorist or mentally ill, there are probably elements of both present, as the Ottawa Citizen editorial points out.
Roundup: Right vs privilege confusion
The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Roundup: Planning for a quick confirmation
The nominee for Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, will appear before the Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, as well as the Senate in Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, in the hopes that they will confirm him shortly thereafter. Why this matters is because the “cyberbullying” bill is under consideration and the privacy commissioner needs to weigh in on it as testimony. The outgoing interim commissioner, Chantal Bernier, had opted for a June 5th appearance as opposed to May 29th in order to have more time to prepare, and to see if a new nominee would be named by then or if her term would be extended. This means that she won’t appear to testify on that bill, though it also remains to be seen if Therrien would appear, days into the position and not fully briefed, or if another official from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner will testify instead. Nevertheless, it does raise problems, and is a reminder to the government why they shouldn’t back-load everything to the last couple of weeks before summer, because these kinds of pile-ups happen frequently and it just becomes a huge mess for everyone.
Roundup: Rathgeber wins the day
It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.
Roundup: Cooperation to fix electoral woes
In the wake of the rather damning internal report at Elections Canada about the problems that have plagued the last election (but which no doubt have been cumulative over successive elections), the agency has agreed with its recommendations but says that it will likely take political cooperation from all sides in order to implement the needed changes – especially as it will cost more to hire more staff and get additional resources. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, doesn’t see that as a problem because everyone knows that the system needs to be fixed. Elsewhere, the Conservatives are gloating while a Liberal campaign worker from the 2008 election was charged with failing to file election returns. Meanwhile, it seems that the party’s treatment of Michael Sona has created a rift in the local Conservatives in Guelph.
Roundup: Meet the new Bank of Canada Governor
In a somewhat surprising move, the Bank of Canada has named Stephen Poloz as its new governor, and not Tiff Macklem, as had long been speculated. Poloz, who was most recently the head of Export Development Canada, has worked at the Bank of Canada in the past, but at the press conference yesterday, Mark Carney stressed that it’s a team effort at the Bank, so Macklem will still play a role, and so on. Maclean’s gives you the ten things you need to know about Poloz, John Geddes writes about what we’ll miss about Carney, and John Ivison writes about Poloz’s challenge of working with the government’s agenda.