The federal government has submitted its factum to the Supreme Court on the Senate reference with great fanfare yesterday, with newly minted Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre insisting that they don’t really need to open up the constitution, and that they wouldn’t really need to get unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. Yeah, somehow I doubt the Court will agree. Reading the factum over, it’s an underwhelming document, full of “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” “Squirrel!” and plenty of “don’t worry your pretty heads about the actual longer-term consequences of these changes, just look at right now.” Yeah. Paul Wells’ take on the factum pretty much says everything you need to know, though I would hasten to add that some of the arguments the government makes are spectacularly moronic. But hey, it’s not like we should actually worry about the constitution when we could be focusing on short-term political expediency – right?
Tag Archives: The Monarchy
Roundup: About those “robust” audits
Two new reports from the Auditor General show that the honour system is alive and well in both the Commons and the Senate, and it was all just a cursory look without digging into any MP or senator’s expenses. While the Senate has been making reforms to their internal processes before the current spending scandals erupted, the Commons has not, and it seems that only Justin Trudeau has been championing a more robust audit process by the AG. To hear Thomas Mulcair tell the tale, as he was all spring, the AG did a thorough and comprehensive audit and found no problems, which clearly is not the case.
Roundup: The premiers say no
As expected, the premiers unanimously rejected the Canada Jobs Grant programme as it is currently structured, not only because it was done without consultation and would demand a rollback of funds they’re currently receiving while demanding that they pony up more money. It also has to do with the fact that as is, it would largely benefit large companies to the detriment of smaller businesses who could use the training dollars, and it has little in the way of incentives for disadvantaged minority communities like First Nations to get training. Jason Kenney said that sure he’d meet with the premiers about the programme – but only to explain how great it is, which somehow I don’t think they’re going to be too keen on. Economist Stephen Gordon thinks the money should go directly to trainees by way of income, never mind the level of governments demanding control – especially as the problem of “skills shortages” are largely a non-existent crisis that would be sorted by offering higher wages. John Geddes reminisces about when “open federalism” was the buzzword of the Harper government, and look how well that’s turned out.
Roundup: Holding off on a committee investigation
The Commons transport committee met yesterday, some ninety minutes after Transport Canada handed down new rules when it comes to rail safety, based on the two letters that the Transportation Safety Board sent them last week in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And while the NDP wanted an immediate study of the rules, the Conservatives and Liberal decided that now was not the time, with as many as nine investigations ongoing or soon to be underway, and that it could either distract or draw too many people away from the front-lines of the investigation. But yes, they would study it, just later.
Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne
So there we have it – a future King of Canada has been born, and everyone’s delighted. No, seriously – everyone, though the NDP’s official statement of “warmest congratulations” was pretty lukewarm. And it was even more disappointing that the official Canadian Crown Twitter account was using the #BritishMonarchy hashtag rather than, you know, the Canadian Monarchy, which this baby is also heir to. Also, it seems that royal babies are good for business. Who knew?
Quebec’s attorney general has decided to weigh in on the challenge of the royal succession bill at the Quebec Superior Court, and he too believes that the provinces have a role in making such a change, as the constitution would otherwise indicate. The federal government says it will fight the challenge, since they would rather let political expedience trump the constitution.
Roundup: A feel-good committee for MPs
The NDP wants the Commons transport committee to meet over the summer to discuss rail safety and possibly hold a forum in Lac-Mégantic – you know, playing politics before the facts are known, drawing causal links but then quickly saying they’re not, and totally not trying to gain advantage from a tragedy. Yeah, it sounds like a brilliant idea, and one designed to simply make themselves look like they’re doing something about the tragedy. Fortunately, the Conservative chair of the committee seems to agree that such a move would be premature.
Roundup: The AG and the power of compliance
While Transport Canada went on record stating that three of the deficient areas found by previous audits were going to be rectified within a specified timeframe that had to do with an “extension” granted by the Auditor General’s office, the AG’s office said that they’re not in any position to grant any extensions because they don’t have enforcement mechanisms – it’s all Transport Canada’s responsibility to ensure compliance. So, yeah. Well done Transport. Elsewhere, Maclean’s has breakfast with the president of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, where he sort of clarifies some of his comments from the previous day.
Roundup: ClusterDuff contradictions
In the wake of Thursday’s ClusterDuff revelations, people have been questioning the Prime Minister’s various statements to date about the affair – things like how no members of his staff were aware of Nigel Wright’s intentions to pay Mike Duffy’s expenses for him – and that in turn leads to questions about whether or not Harper has misled parliament. Not that it would be the first time for that particular practice, mind you. You can see those court documents here and here. Paul Wells recalls similar incidents in the past where the party paid out big money to make problems go away, and how that got them into trouble then too.
Roundup: Gun obsession and political direction
As if there weren’t enough problems to worry about in the wake of the floods in Southern Alberta, a small storm erupted yesterday with the revelation that the RCMP seized some unsecured firearms when they were conducting legitimate search and rescue operations. Not just unsecured firearms, but those left out in the open in evacuated homes. The RCMP explained this, as did the premier, but that didn’t stop the “government is seizing our guns!” conspiracy theorists from having an epic meltdown and theorizing that they were using gun registry data to target houses and enter them illegitimately. And to compound that, the PMO put out a statement that advised the RCMP to spend their time and attention elsewhere (as though unsecured firearms isn’t an actual offence that are well within their duties), which was perilously close to political direction – something that the PMO should not be doing when it comes to the Mounties. Meanwhile, High River’s fire chief had some pretty harsh words for the federal government when it comes to their interference – most of which he deemed to be posing – and cuts to emergency preparedness funding.
Roundup: A question of speaking fees
The desire to try and tarnish Justin Trudeau’s reputation took a somewhat bizarre twist yesterday as a New Brunswick charity decided to demand that Trudeau repay them for a speech they paid him for a year ago after the event they held flopped and they lost money. Odd that they asked nine months later, and that they are the party that wants to renege on a contract that they signed with the speaker’s bureau that Trudeau operates from, and that they seem to fail to understand that their failure to sell enough tickets to their event isn’t their own fault, but there you have it. (Also, as Scott Brison pointed out, they seemed thrilled by the event at the time). And never mind that this is all above board, that several other MPs and Senators also give speeches through the speaker’s bureau and that this has all been vetted by the Ethics Commissioner, and never mind the fact that Trudeau himself has been entirely above board and given an extremely high level of disclosure and transparency. These facts apparently don’t matter as the Conservatives have decided to characterise this as “millionaire” Trudeau “ripping-off charities.” And to make things all the more bizarre, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided to join the pile-on and both demanded that Trudeau return the same fee he was paid to speak at a literacy conference in Saskatchewan, and then insinuated that he used the funds to bankroll his leadership campaign (to which his office demanded an apology, citing that all of his campaign expenses were above board and cleared by Elections Canada – and Wall offered a non-apology in return). Funnily enough, that same literacy conference didn’t demand the money back and thought that Trudeau was worth every penny.