We heard confirmation yesterday from Duffy’s lawyer that he does indeed plan to return to the Senate despite some serious health concerns, not that he’ll find many friends there, which could make things more awkward than they’ll already be. In talking with one senator yesterday, I heard largely that he had few friends there to begin with, and because he spent his time fundraising for the party instead of doing actual Senate work, he never really got to know or ingratiate himself with his actual Senate colleagues, so it’s not like he’ll have a long list of people looking to welcome him back with open arms. And, because it’s unlikely the party will welcome him back, Duffy may continue to find himself on the outside. His lawyer also suggested that perhaps he should be paid back for the time in which he was suspended without pay, but you will find that argument will quickly go down in flames as senators will remind you that their internal discipline process is separate from the criminal trial, and his suspension without pay was internal discipline. And we’ll get a bunch of pundits lazily declaring that the Senate is still lax in its rules and processes, which it isn’t (and I would argue really wasn’t when Duffy was taking advantage of it), and oh look – Scott Reid did just that. Kady O’Malley admits her surprise in the ruling, while Andrew Coyne takes umbrage with “not criminal” as a standard that seems to be emerging. The Winnipeg Free Press editorial board notes how the new, better appointments could help to restore the Senate’s credibility, while CBC looks at what effect the Duffy verdict could have with future prosecutions of other senators’ questionable conduct.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Roundup: Supreme Court hand-holding
I was all set to write about the Liberals invoking time allocation on the Air Canada bill, when I saw this story and it pissed me right off: Thomas Mulcair thinks that the assisted dying bill needs to be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure that it meets the tests set out in the Carter decision. And it set me off, because this is completely ridiculous. The bill hasn’t even been debated yet, and already they want to demand that the Supreme Court start weighing in? Are you serious? Oh, but of course it’s serious – it’s part of this ongoing pattern of a lack of moral courage that MPs are oh so good at demonstrating, where they don’t want to be seen to have to make any tough decisions, so they fob it off onto the courts to do it for them. And here, before he’s even spoken to the bill in the Commons, he wants the court to do the heavy lifting for him. And it’s an endemic pattern. Usually, it involves the officers of parliament, for whom MPs have so successfully fobbed off all of their work that those officers are de facto the official opposition these days, holding the government to account and doing the heavy lifting because MPs won’t. Oh sure, they’re happy to make snide remarks and to manufacture a bunch of fake outrage in QP, but they won’t scrutinise estimates anymore, and barely scrutinise bills. Hell, their very first bill in this parliament got sent to the Senate in an incomplete form because they couldn’t be bothered to actually check it, but rather passed it at all stages in 20 minutes. And now they want the Supreme Court to do even more of that homework for them. And just like with other homework, where MPs use officers of parliament as their partisan shields (witness the number of questions in QP predicated with “The PBO says…”), Mulcair is looking to use the Supreme Court to do just that for this bill. Before it’s even had a minute of debate. Rather than just stand up and say “In my analysis, this bill doesn’t meet the Carter decision,” no, he needs to hide behind the Supreme Court so that it doesn’t look like the criticism is coming from him. That MPs do this is ridiculous and infantile. You’re elected to do a job – so actually grow up and do it.
Roundup: Checking Hansard
There was an interesting read over on Policy Options yesterday that all MPs should be paying attention to: a reminder that they should watch what they say in when speaking about bills, because the courts (and most especially the Supreme Court of Canada) are checking Hansard. When it comes to challenging laws, particularly Charter challenges, the issue of legislative intent is often raised, and the courts are forced to determine what it was the government intended to do when they passed these laws, and that can matter as to whether those laws will survive a Charter challenge. And if MPs – and most importantly ministers – give speeches full of bafflegab and meaningless talking points, it muddies the record that the courts rely on. The example here was the bill eliminating time-served sentencing credits, by which the court examined Rob Nicholson’s statements and tested them against the results of the law and found that no, eliminating the sentencing credits didn’t enhance public safety or confidence in the justice system. I would also add that it’s yet another reason why Senate committees have particular value, particularly when it comes to contentious bills that perhaps shouldn’t pass but do anyway under protest. Because their findings are on the record, when those laws inevitably wind up in the courts, those same objections can be read and taken into consideration. So yes, your speeches and work in parliament does matter, probably more than you think. Just be sure to use your words wisely, because they will come back to haunt you.
Roundup: Monsef’s problematic principles
I was set to delve into the eight principles that Maryam Monsef laid out as part of what she plans to work on the electoral reform proposals around, when it turned out that Peter Loewen went ahead and tracked which of the three most likely voting systems corresponded to each principle. Suffice to say, not one system fit with each, which gives rise to the notion that Monsef will have to treat some principles more than others. Now, the NDP were outraged in QP yesterday that proportionality was not on this list of principles, though one could argue that the first principle, that votes are translated into election results without significant distortions, could be an endorsement of proportionality, except of course that it’s a perception problem based on a logical fallacy, which makes its inclusion as a principle to be a problem. I also have a problem with the inclusion of the third principle of using the system to increase diversity. That’s not a problem of the electoral system so much as it’s a problem of how parties seek out and nominate candidates. Most parties are getting better at this, but we should beware that including this principle would give rise to list systems, which in turn give rise to unaccountable token MPs in a two-tiered system. Monsef’s eighth principle, that the system needs to build consensus, is also problematic. Why? Because our system is built to hold people to account, and consensus makes this problematic. If everyone is accountable, then no one is accountable. Of course, I would remind everyone that there’s nothing actually wrong with our system as it is – what’s wrong is our crisis of civic literacy, which means that people don’t understand how the system works, leading them to assume that it’s broken – particularly if they succumb to sore loser tendencies and complain about things like “wasted votes.” If I may be so bold, Monsef is probably better off tinkering with the existing system to encourage greater participation (as we saw examples of in the last election, such as campus polling stations) and education rather than this attempt to rethink the system which will please no one and ensure that everything is worse off than it is now. We don’t have to break the system even further. We can stop this train before it goes off that cliff.
Roundup: Harder’s budget request
Peter Harder is asking the Senate for a budget of $800,000 to hire nine people to assist in his “government representative duties.” While I’m not opposed to the dollar figure, I’m a bit curious about why nine staff, but let’s back up first to the precedent that is guiding this whole exercise, being Stephen Harper’s fit of pique when Marjory LeBreton resigned as Government Leader in the Senate. By that point, Harper was being badgered and hectored daily about the ClusterDuff incident, as well as Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau, and he decided that his next Government Leader, Claude Carignan, was not going to be put into cabinet so as to give the appearance of distance. Of course, it was only the appearance, as Carignan was a minister in every respect but name, including being sworn into the Privy Council (necessary to get the briefing books to answer on behalf of the government in Senate QP). But because he wasn’t a minister, he couldn’t get funding from PCO for staff and needed activities, so Carignan went to the Senate and asked for a bigger budget, and he got it, hiring a staff of 14. With Trudeau now being fairly cute with the way he is handling the “government representative” file – Harder being sworn into Privy Council and able to attend cabinet meetings – the government decided that with the Carignan precedent, Harder can simply ask the Senate for the budget he needs. Now, he is getting some pushback about getting a budget without attendant responsibilities, such as answering in QP. They referred the decision to a subcommittee (that still hasn’t been filled), but I do wonder why nine. I can understand an admin staff, a policy person or two, a comms person, but without a caucus to manage, what exactly is so labour intensive about “shepherding the government’s agenda”? That’s a bit of time management, introducing the odd debate on government legislation, but what else would he be required to do? So perhaps we’ll get some answers, but it does seem a bit odd to me.
Roundup: The Senate Advisory Board reports
In keeping with the commitment to openness and transparency, the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments released their report yesterday (PDF) on the interim process by which the first seven of the new independent Senate appointments were chosen. It’s an interesting read – they had a list of nearly 300 names to consider after consultations and nominations, from which they whittled it down to 25 names – five per vacancy that they were expected to fill, from which Justin Trudeau ended up selecting seven names rather than just five. The cost of the whole process was about $170,000, which seems to be pretty bare bones if you ask me. There were observations on the process included in the report, primarily that the process was pretty rushed, which meant that most of the information they had on candidates were all based on self-declaration, and that they didn’t conduct interviews with their short-list candidates in this process – they merely identified them, and one presumes that PMO was then responsible for the final vetting – something that might change as the process goes forward and the panel has more time and resources going forward as they look to fill the remaining vacancies over the next year or so, and any future vacancies as they come up. Also, the report listed the nearly 400 groups that the Board reached out to in order to get suggestions, and had demographic data on gender, linguistic profile, and Aboriginal and visible minority status. It also noted that failed candidates got a letter thanking them for participation, and the report noted that they are free to apply again under the future process. The chair of the Board has dismissed any concerns over the issue of André Pratte and his property hiccough, given that it will be resolved before he is appointed, and it’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. I will also note that this report answers most of the questions that Scott Reid has been howling about in QP over the past couple of months with regard to process and the secrecy of the system. Yes, there is an expectation of confidentiality for those who did not get appointed, as with any Governor-in-Council appointment, and from the language of the report, the PM did indeed choose the names from those on the short lists. Thus far, it looks like this new system is working as expected, and it provides the necessary suggestions for how to improve the process even further. Of course, we need to see how these new senators will perform, particularly in the capacity as independents in a system where the rules are still weighted to party caucuses (though that is slowly changing), but so far Trudeau’s reform plans are bearing fruit. We just need time to evaluate them going forward before we can declare it a success or not.
Roundup: The casework distraction
Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel has sounded the alarm that the Liberals sound like they are about to cut off the special access for MPs’ offices to inquire about immigration files in favour of the directing their inquiries to the Ministerial Inquiry Division. Rempel’s concern is that this makes it harder for MPs to deal with immigration files on behalf of constituents – casework, as it is known. The department has thus far said there is no change, but in the event that there is, I’m actually not sure that this is such a bad idea. Why? Because, quite simply, this isn’t work that MPs should be doing. They shouldn’t be service providers on behalf of the public service, and I’ve heard from some staffers that the department won’t even start looking at files until the MP’s office forwards it to them, which is both appalling and a red flag that the system isn’t working the way it should be. An MP’s job is to hold the government to account, and to do so by controlling the public purse. Their staff should be focused on this work, and helping them with legislation as it happens. The expansion of the civil service, however, has prompted the development of MPs into ombudspersons for civil service interactions, which starts getting uncomfortable because it takes away from their actual roles. The fact that you have MPs who wind up dedicating staff to dealing entirely with immigration casework is quite simply wrong, and indicative of a system not working. Making immigration casework reliant upon MPs offices – no matter how non-partisan the work is – is a half-step away from a corrupt system where who you know is the determining factor for whether your files get looked at or not. It’s a civil service job to process files – not an MP’s job. If the Liberals are trying to clamp down on this abuse of process and focus on getting the department to do their jobs, while MPs to do theirs, I don’t actually see the problem with that. It’s how things should work, and if they’re trying to right that particular ship, then all the power to them. MPs should be focusing on their actual work, which let’s face it – most of them don’t, because they don’t actually know what their job is (see: crisis of civic literacy in this country). If the government of the day takes away from their distractions (work that they actually shouldn’t be doing), then maybe we can hope that it’ll help steer their attention back toward the work they should be. But maybe I’m being a wildly optimistic dreamer again.
https://twitter.com/markdjarvis/status/717130956398682113
https://twitter.com/ldobsonhughes/status/717139036670992388
.@MichelleRempel Minister's office tells me this is not true. MPs won't have to call the general number. pic.twitter.com/cxeLT0JSDu
— Althia Raj (@althiaraj) April 5, 2016
Roundup: Minimizing blame
The NDP’s election debrief has been released just days before their big policy convention, in which Thomas Mulcair will need to convince delegates there to let him stay on the job. Little of what was in the report was new, other than name-checking all of the various internal bodies, committees and commissions who were consulted and who have work ahead of them. There were a couple of things that did stand out for me, however. The big one was about communication:
There were many frustrations shared about our internal communications during the campaign. Members, particularly local campaign managers, felt that the reporting from the ground had no effect on the strategic decision-making happening in the central campaign. What was being felt door-to-door was not being communicated, being miscommunicated, or went unheard. Members feel this impeded the ability of the central campaign to shift strategy when necessary.
The party has centralised a whole lot since 2011, and that was certainly reflected. That said, with everyone in the report saying that their local campaigns went great, it does smack a little bit of buck-passing to the central campaign. There were a few other points raised, such as the lack of a Quebec-specific offer, that they were not nimble enough in reacting to attacks from other parties, and that they didn’t adequately prepare for the niqab debate (but everyone was proud of their principled position, which confuses me a bit since the position wound up being that this was a court decision rather than the fact that we don’t tell women what to war in Canada). Glaringly absent in the report was the share of blame placed on Mulcair. In fact, he was barely mentioned at all. This was the closest it got:
We heard disappointment from members who felt that decisions about the strategy employed in the debates led to a situation in which our leader’s full capabilities — as demonstrated in the House of Commons over the previous years — were not on display. Across the country, we heard that our party activists did not understand why we refused to participate in some national debates.
While he wrote the big mea culpa letter taking responsibility, that’s not reflected in their actual debrief, which makes me a bit suspicious. And let’s face it – he had a big part in that, from his demeanour, to his inept slogan of “good, competent public administration,” to his poor debate performance, to the fact that his lack of the same kind of charisma that Trudeau exhibited did weigh in on people’s decisions. I’m left to wonder if the fact that they didn’t include criticisms of his performance in the report because it goes against the party’s solidarity mindset, or if it’s a kind of whitewashing of the record in advance of the leadership review vote. Suffice to say, it doesn’t make the report feel as forthcoming as it could or should be.
Roundup: A surprisingly packed budget
And that was the budget. It was full of interesting things, but you wouldn’t know it based on the fact that absolutely everybody was fixated on the deficit figure, and barely even that it was built on a super cautious, pessimistic framework that basically presented a worst-case scenario in terms of assumptions, meaning that the only place it really could go was up, and yes, if the economy grows enough, then the budget will start to balance itself. The child benefit changes are the big news, and as for reaction, the Conservatives call the budget a “nightmare” while the NDP rail about all of the promises that it didn’t keep (because everything should have happened immediately).
Roundup: De-Canadianizing the Crown
A decision from the Quebec Superior Court came down yesterday which will have grave constitutional implications for Canada, yet few people actually know or understand it. The case challenged the royal succession law that the previous government passed as part of the series of reforms passed in all of the realms that share Queen Elizabeth II as their respective monarch, and by most reckonings, the Canadian law was a complete sham, simply assenting to UK legislation, in essence subordinating the Canadian Crown to a subset of the UK crown, despite the fact that they became separate entities after the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Quebec Superior Court, however, sided with the Department of Justice, that the monarch was the same per the preamble of the constitution as opposed to a separate legal entity, and essentially reducing Canada back to a subordinate British colony, all because the Harper government didn’t want to go through the necessary steps of doing a proper constitutional amendment to change the Office of the Queen to match the aims of reform. So long, Queen of Canada. We hardly knew you.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699675727185256448
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699676140714258434
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699677275999113218
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678028784410624
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678843540545536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699678990441848832
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686628005179392
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686740714463234
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699686958084288512
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699687878658494465
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689056171597824
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699689344253173761
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691519066947588
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699691722750742529
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/699811121620889600