The Unelected elected senate

I begin this by saying I'd be just as happy if we scrapped the senate altogether, and if we aren't going to do that, then if we just left it alone.

But Harper's plan to elect the senators smells like the Smoke and Mirrors Supreme Court Snorefest yesterday. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The argument for an elected Senate runs that an unelected senate is undemocratic.

True enough, if democracy is defined simply by the ballot box, ignoring that the appointments are based on the recommendations of an elected MP who is the Prime Minister.

But if the goal is democracy and accountability, where is the sense in electing people to hold a post for a maximum of 45 years?

With no fixed term in the plan (and one requiring a constitutional amendment) there is no control on the senate.

An individual's first election is about seeking a mandate. Who can seek a 45 year mandate and seriously tell voters they have a plan for the entire 45 years?

Elected officials are not held accountable at their first election - how can they be? They haven't done anything yet...

They are accountable when they return to the voters to seek a new mandate and approval for their actions to date... but with no fixed term, no senator will ever have to return to the voters... thus they will be no more accountable than they are now...

Curiously, Harper has not called for a review process of Senate appointments similar to the one held yesterday for the Supreme Court nominee... now that would be interesting...

Care to answer a few questions about your qualifications Mr. Fortier...?

The Court and Accountablility.

Harper's plan for the "new" review of the Supreme Court Nomination was supposed to be about accountability and transparency.

It's not. It's not really new, and it does not move the transparency or accountability markers any farther than Irwin Colter moved them...

In fact, it hasn't changed much from the system Vic Toews railed against 10 months ago... Read the link, the comparison to the Soviet era troikas is very cute...

What has been billed as a television first, promises to be a real zinger for ratings.. so much so that committee member Stephen Owen mused this morning on CBC radio that most Canadians may not be able to stay awake past the first 30 minutes.

But this season premiere on the Accountability & Transparency network is missing an important element of accountability and transparency.

Accountability and transparency is about the people who make the decisions, and in this case the people making the decision are Stephen Harper and Vic Toews.... who will not appear before the committee to explain their decision.

Too bad, that would have made for some good TV. We might have tuned in past the first 30 minutes...

Milliken ... not for speaker

As much as it pains me to say this, Peter, get yer name off the ballot.

The Liberals are in opposition, there is a slim vote count here... time to step away from the chair.

There is absolutely no reason to increase the Tory majority by another vote. Liberals will need every vote possible to ensure that many of the things they believe in are protected and promoted.

Furthermore, Milliken is possibly one of the most brilliant orators the House of Commons has seen in years. Who can forget his speech on the dangerous offender clause and spanking? The Godfrey Milliken Bill?

The Libs not only need the vote, they need his encyclopeadic procedural knowledge, and his speaking talent.

Peter, step away from the Chair, they need you.

Down the apple and pears...

A kind word for William Stairs.

No, I have not started drinking in the morning...

But Bill Stairs, (or BS as some might say) is being replaced by GPC lobbyist Sandra Buckler.

In short, BS is being replaced by SB.

BS has taken a lot of flack for the last two weeks, perhaps some deservedly so, but there is honour among thieves, and the heart in the hack in me goes out to dear old Bill.

I mean hell, how do you spin Harper breaking two key promises within 23 minutes of being sworn in, into positive press?

How do you make Emerson look good?

How do you make putting your leadership chair into the Senate and cabinet look like its ok?

Most importantly, how do deal with a PMO who can't make the departure of a senior staffer look like anything other than burning a straw man?

Bill, if you're reading this, did you really want to work for these guys anyway...?

Of course it may have something to do with Progressive Conservative Pogrom (PCP) underway (the CPC doing a PCP if you will...) Buckler is more closely affiliated with the veterans of the CA, than the PCs.

It could also be just another piece in a pattern that has seen Harper dispatch three veteran political hacks from his Director of Comms position in less than 18 months.

An ignomious end to a skilled political hack.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And if for a second anyone thinks Bill was the one providing poor communications advice, ask yourself this:

Who gave the advice to gas the Director of Communications on the same day that they announced the Supreme Court appointment process...?

Now, that person deserves to be fired...

Seperatists - Tories: Same old stories

Kissing cousins have gone public today as the Seperatists have come out of the closet and stated that they will prop up Stephen Harper.

Why wouldn't they?

What Seperatist wouldn't want:

• an anglophone from Ontario;
• who is percieved to be backed by Calgary, not to be a friend of Quebec;
• who speaks halting french; and
• who put his campaign chair in the Senate to fill a void in the province,

...to be the guy they fight the next referendum against?

Again, silence from Harper about his newly found bedmates.

However, it does give the Libs more time to build a leader.

I suppose there is a bright side to everything.

Register people, not guns...

Having spent 13 years railing against a long-gun registry, concerned about the cost, the invasion of privacy, and questioning the need for law-abiding peole to admit fire-arm ownership to the police, Stockwell Day is now reviving a proposal for a biometric national ID card.

A 'people-registry,' if you will.

After all, guns don't people, people kill people.

Law-abiding people will now have to provide all sorts of information on their law-abiding selves to the government.

And all for the discount price of $7B, according to a study by the immigration committee in 2003.

Thankfully, no one will have to admit if they have a shot-gun.

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.

Accountability: Another day, another broken promise...

As tempting as it is to re-write, go to PoliticsWatch.com for the latest abandonded principle from Harper and the Duff Conacher/Democracy Watch smack-down on the subject.

It appears the Accountability plank is headed for the sawdust pile 'toot sweet,' as Ted Menzies might say.

My hunch is that it is likely because the Tories are having trouble finding smart staffers for their newly minted ministers. As reported earlier this week in the Mope & Wail, hiring is a bit of a schmozzle and being blamed for muck-ups in the last week.

Though it appears that there is 'no shortage of resumes,' the quality appears to be questionable.

Not surprising since the accountability reforms include a Kilignon mind-wipe upon dismissal and barring ex-staffers from talking to anyone including their priest and assorted family pets.

Who would want that job?

And if you did, are you really smart enough to work there?

Next steps: Leadership: Sooner rather than later.

There are few reasons for this.

First, this is a minority government. It could fall at any time.

The NDP are already posturing like that crazy uncle we all have, but hate to talk about. The one who shows up around Christmas, and drinks all the egg-nog, knocks over the crystal family heirlooms and departs until the next family bar-b-que.

I am doubtful that they will support Harper for long. The Dippers benefit the most from disarray in the Liberal Party and will topple this government given the first opportunity to do so in a favourable electoral situation. Watch them carefully on the next budget. And read a BCer in Toronto's analysis of this.

The BQ, however, will do what takes to keep Harper there until they have a stronger base, and can hold a referendum.

However, if Cannon, Fortier and Berniere look like they are making in-roads in Quebec, the BQ will pull the pin faster than you can say Rene Levesque.

Second, we need to solidify behind a leader and let that person define themselves. This is a difficult thing to do during an election. The longer we wait, the less time the new leader will have to introduce themselves and stake out their policy.

Thirdly, leadership campaigns require fundraising.

Longer campaigns require more funds. These funds will be raised as the party raises funds to pay down debt, and build for the next election. Leadership campaigns' fund raising represent competition to party fundraising, so get it done quick.

We need the money.

Next Steps

This morning's Trash & Pail ran the headline: Liberals unwilling to prop up Harper, stating that OL Graham had indicated that given the BQ and the NDP had pushed for an election, it was up to them to ensure Harper stayed in place. Liberals would not compromise on their principles and platform.

Good on him.

The Liberals were elected on a platform and should stick to it. Besides, Harper has already demonstrated a great deal of flexibility on his principles, let him show some more.

But this does lead us to the question of what next.

Over the next little while, I pledge to take full advantage of the vanity press, and provide my own thoughts... I hope you will provide yours...

Get yer gun...

Harper has asked Garry Breitkreuz to work with Vic Toews and Stockwell Day to put the long-gun registry out its misery.

Breitkreuz, a hunter and former school teacher and principal, has recieved awards from his pro-gun work, including the Sport Shooting Ambassador award from the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities in 2005.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are looking for an open dialogue on the issue, having supported the registry in the past.

This should get interesting as the perennial rubber hits the road on policy implementation. Brietkreuz is not well-know for his diplomatic skills, and neither is the anti-gun lobby. The Tories vociferous opposition to the registry over cost, may run into problems as everyone likely agrees the cost is high, but wonders if the cost of not doing it higher...

This is not Breitkreuz's first kick at the can either. Way back in 1997, he attempted to shut the registry down by introducing a bill to allow Canadians to direct where - or not - their tax dollars might be spent. His proposal was quite clear on where money shouldn't go, including gun registration, and multiculturalism as targets for spending cuts.

The bill was seconded by Jason Kenney, PS for Multiculturalism.

Stay tuned, another Tory schmoggle is on the way...

Trail of Broken Hearts, The Byfields are disappointed...

Dear old Ted Byfield cranks out on Harper for being unprincipled in his February 11 emmission on the WorldNetDaily News. He writes very much the same article for the Calgary Sun on February 12.

Imagine that! Unprincipled Tories who say one thing to get power, than do another once they have it?

And a Byfield recycling their own news- heaven forbid.

Ted is particularly upset that Michael Fortier was appointed to the Senate after Harper had solemnly declared that he would only appoint elected Senators.

However, I am assured that Byfield Senior's outrage has nothing to do with the fact that his son, Link Byfield, is already Senator-elect awaiting appointment from Alberta.

Junior Byfield , was saddened to find out that Harper "had actually broken his promise on day one."

But Little Byfield is now concering himself with other things, like ensuring that his Senate nomination remains in place until Stephen can appoint him. He makes quite an interesting argument for this here.

Somewhere, KD Lang is singing for these boys, Trail of Broken Hearts...

Two weeks, two tories, two investigations...

Week two of the Harper regime finds a second request for an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, this time requested by Anita Neville, on the activities of Brian Pallister.

The Dan Report has the deets, but readers may also check here for some of the background.

This is on top of the NDP MP Peter Julian's request concerning David Emerson. Julian has asked the Ethics Commissioner to investigate whether David Emerson is in violation of Section 8 of the Conflict of Interest Code which says:

"When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the Member's family, or to improperly further another person's private interests."

Julians letter cites Shapiro's decision on the Grewal-Dosanjh inquiry which says:

"… if Mr. Dosanjh had offered a reward or inducement to Mr. Grewal for crossing the floor at this time, he would have been acting and/or attempting to act in such a way as to improperly further Mr. Grewal's private interests. Either of these would amount to an extremely serious breach of the Members' Code."

Emerson denied that Harper made any offer to induce him to cross the floor. This may get difficul to argue as Emerson stated on CTV:

"The reality is I was elected. Once the election was over, I was faced with a decision on how to best serve the people of the riding, and that's all the people of the riding ...," he said. "I concluded that I could better serve them, I could get more done, I could get more results for British Columbia if I was in the cabinet than if I was not."

But hang on, Harper did not offer any inducements... how could Emerson come to that conclusion before he crossed the floor?

Hmmm. Good luck with that David.

Daycare is bad: Kate Tennier

Today's Grope and Flail features an Op-ed by Kate Tennier, founder of Advocates for Child Care Choice arguing... daycare is bad.

It's odd piece. One would think by the name of her organisation that they favoured providing parents some sort of choice in child care.

However, that does not appear to be the case, she states:

"The truth is that affordable, high-quality, universal daycare is bad for kids, and bad for the economy."

Tennier contends, in a nutshell (and I do mean a NUTSHELL), that the less time parents spend with their children, the more likely children are to develop behavioural problems.

If the state subsidizes daycare, it reduces cost, thereby encouraging parents to work rather than raise their own children.

She's got a point. Ignore your kids and they will likely wind up being naughty.

But Tennier's argument is not an argument for choice, it is an argument to end daycare, to ensure that parents stay at home.

I'd like to agree.

Like most parents, I would rather hang out with my kids, perhaps home-school them, and as a result, I can't work. Given that my wife's absence may also be detrimental to their future, she also will be unable to work. Sign me up.

Tennier worries that her "movement" has been portrayed as "...rich whiners unwilling to extend the benefits of state daycare to the little people..."

Perhaps.

Ms. Tennier does seem to have that curious conservative fixation with "state" daycare, while silent on the private daycare providers, as if the two systems are employing genetically different daycare workers.

And Ms. Tennier's support of the Tory send-your-own-money-back-to-you-scheme, certainly would indicate that, but it appears she is more of a stay-at-home parent advocate.

Which is fine. If you've got that choice.

But if you can't afford daycare, then you don't have that choice.

And for a single parent family making $30K a year, $60.70 after taxes per month of your own money sent back to you by a bureaucrat isn't about childcare.

It's about subsidizing a tax-collector, not a daycare provider.

It's about an ideology, not a practical reality.

And that's the problem.

Donate: Don't let Harper freeze in the dark

Here is my plea.

Fix up the official residences. 24 Sussex and Stornoway.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's expensive.

But these are official residences. This is where the Prime Minister of Canada and the Leader of H.M.'s Loyal Opposition live. It is enshrined in legislation.

These are places that should impress visitors not have them complain about the cold and wonder why there is plastic on the windows...

... yes, plastic on the windows. Like my apartment in university. Or David Emerson's constituency office.

Fortunately, you can help. You can donate.

While cash is always helpful, they are more interested in "Canadian furnishings, paintings and objets d’art."

I am calling on all Canadians, search your hearts and your basements, find furniture for Harper.

Yes, I would argue that Ikea likely qualifies as Canadiana

By sponsoring a Harper, you can reduce costs so we can buy that new-fangled gas furnace Laureen and kids have always wanted but would have driven the National Citizens Coalition apoplectic.

The same furnace Sheila wanted, Aline wanted, Mila wanted, and Kim never really noticed wasn't there...

You will get a tax reciept for your donation.

If it's really pretty and is of outstanding significance or national importance, as certified by the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, you may also get a capital gains tax exemption.

Come on Canada, don't let the eastern bastards make Harper freeze in the dark.

For more information, please contact Ms. Kathy Downs at (613)239-5666 or send an e-mail to: kdowns@ncc-ccn.ca.

Tory PS's: Une certaine... je ne sais quoi...

Ok, let's review.

Ted Menzies, PS for le ministre de La Francophonie et des Langues officielles... who doesn't speak french.

Jim Abbot, PS for Status of Women... who is not... well, it goes without saying.

Deepak Obrai PS to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency... who is from Edmonton - not Edmunstun.

Peter Van LoanYork PS to the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency who - though his riding does contain some beachfront - is not from Atlantic Canada.

(Note: You'd think with two PS's at least one of them...)

Steven Fletcher: PS to Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario... who is not from Northern Ontario.

Jason Kenney, PS to the PM for Multiculturalism who is not...

Nice.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Update: The New Barrelman picked up Saturday's Ottawa Citizen story... apparently they've shuffled the PS's already.

Peace, order and good government indeed.

If Travers is right, Emerson has got a problem...

... not for hopping the fence, but for this...

Politics Watch is reporting that Emerson may not be able to work on the softwood file because he signed a letter of recusal on lumber issues while a Liberal Cabinet minister.

Jim Travers is reporting in the Star this morning that Emerson had held back a softwood deal during the election because he was worried the deal "would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings." Emerson has denied blocking the deal.

How can that be?

Emerson had signed a recusal letter on issues affecting Canfor - so he would not have been allowed to discuss the issue... would he?

Otherwise, would he not be in violation of his recusal letter? I will be interested to see if there is a real problem here or not.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
UPDATE: Ok, while we're on the subject of David Emerson, this is pretty funny.

UPDATE II: Apologies for misreading the Star story, for those who noted my screw-up. I have amended the section appropriately.

Flaherty opposes cutting the GST

Earth shattering news, already Harper's finance minister Jim Flaherty is on the record stating there would be "no long term gain for the economy" in cutting the GST.

"I must say that with respect to tax cuts, I agree with Paul Martin. With respect to reducing the GST federally and the RST provincially, I also agree with the federal minister, and we've talked about this. All you get is a short-term hit, quite frankly. You accelerate spending. You pull it ahead by a month or two. It has no long-term positive gain for the economy."

Oh darn, I just realized, that was November 5, 2001. I keep forgetting, they evolved...

Hat tip to Myblahg for the spade work.

Don't mention... the Polygamy: Jim Abbot the New PS for Status of Women

Jim Abbott must fallen over when Stephen Harper asked him to be the PS for the Status of Women

Most guys might have said, 'Uh, Stephen, you know I'm a man...'

Others men might have asked 'Does this mean I have to wear a dress and join the women's caucus?'

Doubtful, however, that the newest federal feminist in charge had any of these thoughts.

No, Jim's mind probably wandered closer to home.

To his riding.

To Bountiful, BC to be precise.

No doubt Jim's first task will be working with Vic Toews at Justice figuring out what to do with this... the federally funded study recommending the legalization of polygamy.

Jim is on the record opposing the practice, noting last year in the Kootenai Valley Press News

"Saying it would give an opportunity to test the constitutionality of Canadian law, Kootenay-Columbia Member of Parliament Jim Abbott, Cranbrook, recently said charges against the alleged polygamist community of Bountiful, situated near Creston, British Columbia, should be filed, though he confessed that he doesn't think Canada's federal law banning polygamy will stand under such a test."

Keep the home fires burning, Jim...

Brian Pallister: Entitled to his entitlements

From Brian Pallister's web page:

"After years of the Liberal government's wasteful spending, it's time that we take the chequebook out of Paul Martin's hands. Under the leadership of Stephen Harper, our Conservative Government will put our country ahead of our party. It will be a principled government rooted in Conservative values, a government worthy of the country we serve."

And now from the Brandon Sun on January 31st:

"Portage-Lisgar MP Brian Pallister will have some extra, taxpayer-funded help with him when he stops in western Manitoba next week to suss out how much support is out there for him to become the next leader of the provincial Progressive Conservative party."

That's right. The federal taxpayer is paying part of the tab for Mr Pallister's consultation to decide if he will run for the Provincial Conservative leadership.

The article continues:

“I’m not going to apologize for having my assistant with me,” Pallister said in an interview yesterday.“People can take issue with it all they want, but it’s not the truth. The truth is (running for the leadership) is an issue that impacts my ability to work as a member of parliament.”

You know, it took the Liberals almost thirteen years to develop these kinds of cajones.

It took the Tories only less than thirteen days.

Wow. Yet another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-Tory.

Top Tory Apologist Award

Paul Wells is running an award

"On a not-unrelated note, this corner is now accepting nominations for the first SDA Award, for the most comically abject refusal to criticize Harper for behaviour that was so recently held up as proof of Martin's moral vacuity. The SDA Award applauds blind partisanship at its most absurd."

Send you entries here.

Let the games begin.

Fortier: Time to release the leadership donation list....

In the past, Stephen Harper has declined to provide a full list of the individuals and corporations who donated to his leadership campaigns.

He has argued that he has met requirements of the letter of the law and should not provide any further information.

At one point he suggested some of his donors did work with the government, and were afraid of reprisals. Besides, it was argued, Stephen Harper was not in government - so what did it matter? How could he provide preferential treatment?

Now Stephen Harper is Prime Minister.

He just appointed the Co-Chair of his leadership campaign to the Senate (where we he will not have to answer questions in a televised House of Commons) and as Minister of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC).

In plain english: The guy who ran his leadership campaign now has the final say on who gets what government contract.

Paul Martin released his donor list. CSL and Earnscliffe contracts were made public.

Stand up for Canada and hand'em over, Stephen.

No more dodging the question.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Interesting bit of fun.

Go to Elections Canada list of campaign contributions for the June 28th 2004 general election.

Under the key word search for "contributor's keyword" enter NOT REQUIRED.

Only one candidate's name will appear. Can you guess who it is...?

UPDATE: The link above doesn't seem to want to translate. You'll have to go to Elections Canada and worm your way through the Election Financing button, and then on to the June 28th 2004 election.....

Unbelievable

Harper said...

...his first act as Prime Minister would be the introduction of the federal accountability act

He said he would elect the Senate.

He said he would end cronyism.

What did Harper do?

He appointed his leadership race co-chair, and 2006 campaign co-chair, Micheal Fortier, to the senate and as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Wow.

One of the biggest Tory Bagmen is now in charge of all $13 billion in government purchases.

Harper's first act was to appoint his campaign co-chair to the Senate.

As a taxpayer I'm aghast - that takes a special level of cynicism.

As a blogger, I'm laughing.

I have a stack of blank ATIP forms and a crisp new roll of five dollar bills. Bring it on baby, bring it on....

UPDATE: "...don't want to overstate things, but this business of Emerson and Fortier has all the makings of a public relations fiasco for the Tories -- on their first day, and on their issue: ethics and accountability."

- Andrew Coyne on the appointments of Emerson and Fortier.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

BTW: The fact that Harper is already rewarding his friends with Senate appointments doesn't say much about how long he thinks they will be around. I mean don't you normally wait until you on your way out to pull this kind of stunt....?

Hey... that looks like David Emerson...

...are the words that ran from the open mouths of BC liberals about an hour ago...

Wow.

What can you say?

Well, a few things can be said.

To start, hat's off to the Tories for keeping a lid on this one. Some rumours had danced about the lower mainland, but all thoroughly squelched until today.

Second: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Libs got Stronach, and they got Brison, why can't the Tories take Emerson?

Brison and Stronach crossed the floor because they were fundamtentally concerned about Harper's socially conservative views, and the impact that might have on the country.

Emerson has crossed the floor because he's fundamentally concerned about... sitting in opposition?

Stronach was described as some one who "whored herself out for power" by RonAbbott, an Alberta Conservative.

Furthermore, current conservative caucus luminary, Maurice Vellacott (who was not promoted to cabinet) said "...people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices..." in reference to Stronach's choice to join the Liberals.

I wonder what Maurice will have to say about this?

For all their moral outrage over defections from their own ranks, the Tories seem to be rubbing their hands together on this one.

I really hope that no one taped the telephone conversation between Harper and Emerson.

I mean, you wouldn't want a new Prime Minister making an offer an opposition member to cross the floor. But it was good to see Stephen Harper was able to find the time to talk to David, because Harper is a busy man.

Too busy to talk to the Ethics Commissioner in an investigation about offers being made to Members of Parliament to entice them to cross the floor....

After this, and this, and this and this, am I the only one who sees a pattern of saying one thing, then doing another?

Gomery: Final thoughts, final fantasy.

The second Gomery report reads like a Grisham sequel. Not as much fun as the first one, and unsatisfying in way that you wonder how much the used bookstore will give you for it before you get to the last chapter.

It ranges far and wide, but there doesn't seem to be a focus. There is no moment where the reader says, "Ah, there's the problem."

I never really get the sense that Gomery understands how the government, the political cadre and the civil service actually work.

The fact is that the rules were there.

And they were broken.

Making more rules won't change that. Bad people do bad things. They need to be rooted out, and removed.

End of story.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If any of this really interests you, Donald Savoie has written a book called Governing from the Centre. It is possibly the most somniferous tome I have ever read from cover-to-cover, but also possibly the best book on how government really works.

It describes in painful detail exactly how Prime Ministers, Ministers and Deputy Ministers go about their business. its getting a bit dated now, but it a must read for anyone who gets into this sort of stuff.

And it didn't cost the taxpayer $80M....

Gomery Rec. # 10: A soft landing

Recommendation 10: The Government should remove the provision in the law and in its policies that enables exempt staff members to be appointed to a position in the public service without competition after having served in a inister’s office for three years.

Gomery spends an inordinate amount of time on Pierre Tremblay, Gagliano's now deceased Top-Dawg/Executive Assistant. Oddly, he does not make too much of Tremblay's time as Gag's EA, but worries about his appointment to the Civil Service at the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Did I miss something here? I thought the naughtiness occured at PWGSC. What happened at CFIA? Did Tremblay stamp the Canada wordmark on beef, and take a 12% commission? I missed that part.

This recommendation is just plain odd. The civil service is littered with former hacks, I would argue mostly from the last conservative government. Indeed, a few are Deputy Ministers. My God, conservative Deputy Ministers... under a Liberal government? But, but, but...

I am not sure what problem Mr. Gomery is solving. None of the people involved in the Sponsorship scandal were former political assistant who had parachuted into the service.

And just so we are all clear here, priority status does not guarrantee a job. There is still a job search and interview process.

Publius recommendation: This is smoke and mirrors which does not deal with the real problem.

Gomery Rec #7: Membership and its privileges

Recommendation 7: The members of the Public Accounts Committee should be appointed with the expectation that they will serve on the Committee for the duration of a Parliament.

This is an odd one. Committee lists don't change much in the duration of a Parliament. But if it makes you happy, whatever.

However, Gomery really missed an opportunity here.

Any committee has full members, and substitutes. The subsitute list is quite long. It allows that if a regular member is unavailable, then a subsitute can replace them.

What happened during the sponsorship hearings was an abismal abuse of this. Certain members would show up as 'substitutes' to ask a few questions designed to get headlines more than answers, and leave. Normally they would leave at around, oh, 11.50 am, so they could scrum, get on the news and leave.

It was clear to most observers that it was a choreographed media strategy. Not a strategy to get provide information, but a strategy to provide media time. This was party politics, not accountability.

Publius Recommendation 3a: No subs until half-time.

Allow only two substitutes per party, and no one else. Then change the rules of order to allow subs only a specific junctures. Consistency, corporate memory and expertise are as important during the whole session of Parliament as they are between breakfast and lunch. Sure, they can have the expectation of an appointment through a whole Parliament, but they should also expect to stay more than 20 minutes.

If you really want this to work, elect the PAC membership. Let MP's vote, just as they do for the speaker, on who's on, and who's off.

Publius Recommendation 3b: Change the channel.

It's time to get the TV cameras out of these hearings. Technology now exists for almost instant transcription, and it is possible to make texts available to ensure access, and freedom of the press.

But the PAC became a circus.

That's not helpful if the goal is accountability and transparency.

Again, these are the same dudes who "...often admitted—sometimes with regret—that they did not pay much attention to the Estimates, that they had only a weak idea of what level of resources was expended to achieve program results, and [that] they did not know what financial instruments departments use to achieve their assigned results."

I'm sorry if I keep harping on about that, but... wow... I tried this out on my wife last night when a cheque bounced, "You know sweetie, it's hard to keep on those numbers straight, and I wasn't paying attention..."

I have to go now, I have a toilet to scrub before my wife gets home.

Gomery Rec. #4: Bring back the gong show

Recommendation 4: In order to clear up the confusion over the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of Ministers and public servants, the Government should modify its policies and publications to explicitly acknowledge and declare that Deputy Ministers and senior public servants who have statutory responsibility are accountable in their own right for their statutory and delegated responsibilities before the Public Accounts Committee."

This is not an original idea. The Public Accounts Committee of Great Britain (PAC-GB) already does this. I think the intent is the right one. However, there is one small issue here that needs to be thought through very carefully.

PAC is a political animal. Anyone who sat through 10 minutes of the sponsorship hearing saw this. It has largely lost its deliberative role, and become largely subsumed to a partisan exchange.

A civil servant being held to account by a politcal body is a tricky thing. Gomery is unclear as to what he means by accountable in this area. Does he mean that PAC can fire them? Censure them? Tickle them until they talk?

PAC already has sub poena powers, so civil servants can already be dragged before them in chains if required - as can any Canadian citizen.

Unfortunately PAC resembles more the Gong Show on most days more than anything deliberative or informative. If we're looking for answers, it's the wrong place to go.

Incidently, PAC is made up of the same people who "often admitted—sometimes with regret—that they did not pay much attention to the Estimates,"

Not convinced? Check out the PAC report on Sponsorship. Then check Gomery's report. One of those two things is not like the other....

Publius Recommendation #2: Grow up.
By all means clarify the statutory gobble-dee-schmook around the Deputies whatcha-ma-call-ums. Fill your boots. But let the AG and the RCMP deal with them if they are naughty. And leave PAC out of it. PAC is part of the problem, not the solution.

Gomery Rec #1: The dog ate my homework

"Recommendation 1: To redress the imbalance between the resources available to the Government and those available to parliamentary committees and their members, the Government should substantially increase funding for parliamentary committees."

As you peruse Gomery Chapter 4, you find his analysis of the Estimates process. Essentially, he argues it's complicated, MP's have too much to do, and really don't understand it.

Gomery Solution: More money for committees for research staff.

He has a point. The Estimates are difficult to understand.

Of course, that may be why every department is also required to table a Plans and Priorities document in Parliament every fiscal year, which explains - among other things - what they are going to do. You know, things like... what they're going to spend money on...

I think there is another problem. Gomery also notes:

"Members often admitted—sometimes with regret—that they did not pay much attention to the Estimates, that they had only a weak idea of what level of resources was expended to achieve program results, and [that] they did not know what financial instruments departments use to achieve their assigned results. In the series of incidents over the last few years (Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) contributions program, gun control, Sponsorship), a number of MPs apportioned at least some “contextual” blame to inadequate parliamentary oversight of program expenditures. "

Well gosh. I guess we taxpayers all regret that "...they did not pay much attention to the Estimates..."

But read on, it gets better:

"Each year, some 87 departments and other government organizations provide parliamentary committees with separate spending estimates and related reports, and many of these receive no formal attention in committee meetings.And when meetings occur, they are typically dominated by partisan exchanges with ministers that shed minimal light on the estimates. Consideration of the supplementary estimates, which allow departments to obtain additional funding at specified intervals during the year, has been even less satisfactory.With only a few exceptions, committees regularly fail to examine them at all."

No formal attention? Partisan exchanges? Committees regularly fail to examine them at all?

Well, gosh golly, let's throw some more money at them.

Publius recommendation 1a: Hey - MPs! Do your freaking job.
Boosting resources is likely a good idea, but it will not solve the problem of MPs not paying attention.

In the private sector (this part is for you Mr. Harper and Mr. Kenny, I know you've never worked in the private sector) Directors who suggest at annual board meetings to shareholders that the money stuff got all screwy because no one read the budget projections is usually a long walk off a short short plank..

Publius Recommendation 2b: You're fired.
The next time an MP shows up at election time, ask them about the estimates. What did they do, what concerns did they raise. It's boring stuff for sure, but we voters hold some culpability here as well.

Anyone who sat in the last three parliaments and who was not a minister, should have been asking questions.

They weren't.

Spank them.

It's our money.

Gomery - a few thoughts

Justice John Gomery has produced his second report. Perusing through the recommendations, I think this deserves some serious discussion.

No doubt, many will have much to say. Indeed, he has already gotten the seal of approval from the Front Street Brain Trust, and he already has a fan club. (My apologies, Mr. Kinsella, couldn't resist.)

Nonetheless, I will try to provide some of my own thoughts for your approval/disapproval in the coming days, some recommendations from Publius, if you will....

A new Tory strategy: Slagging the media

Dear Tories,

I know you won. No one is more sorry than me.

One of the ways you won was by building a good relationship with the media.

Slagging Jane Taber and referring to her as the Canadian fog machine is not a good way to maintain that relationship.

Suggesting that the national wire service, Canadian Press, is biased because they don't recycle selected quotations condemning the gun registry from Greg McGreg McCullagh, head of the Saskatchewan Chiefs of Police Association in 1995 for a story this week is also, uhm, unproductive.

Neither Jim Bronskill nor Jane Taber were born yesterday.

Take it from people who know what it is to take a beating from the media during a campaign.

Take it easy.

You're in government on Monday. Start acting like it.

We are not making this up.

Ed Hollett: Tell us how you really feel...

Ed Hollett has provided one of the most amusing (and likely accurate), ehm, discussion papers on why he won't miss Brian Tobin.

Certainly worth reading if you:

a) never cared for Brian Tobin;

b) keep wandering into my site and wondered what quality blogging really looks like;

c) are tired of Warren Kinsella;

c) agree with all of the above.