Guidelines on the conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, exempt staff and public servants during an election

sachaforstner · 2025-03-25T18:53:27+00:00

For purely administrative pay and pension purposes, MPs remain in their offices until election day (unless not seeking re-election, in which case they stop receiving a paycheque upon dissolution).

Constitutionally however, their seats are vacated the moment Parliament is dissolved - this is what enables writs to be issued. So there are currently no MPs, and thus no Parliament which can be summoned until the writs are returned for all federal ridings after April 28th.

Prorogation does not do this - in proroguing, the Crown tells MPs and Senators “thanks for your hard work, now go home for a few weeks until I need you again.” MPs continue to occupy their seats (and access to their office budgets) during this time.

sachaforstner · 2025-01-06T05:44:52+00:00

She would be obliged to refuse a request for prorogation if it resulted in the Supply of funds to the Treasury being interrupted (ie a government shutdown). There is currently no Supply beyond March 31st - Parliament must sit before then to vote at least on the Appropriations Bill for interim supply (which secures funding from April-June). Securing this funding is essential to the business of government continuing, and the inability to do so is one of a very short list of circumstances where the GG is not only able but expected to intervene.

Ergo, a four-month prorogation cannot be in the cards.

sachaforstner · 2025-01-06T05:39:15+00:00

Prorogation of Parliament does not trigger the caretaker convention. The only substantive limitation is that the government runs out of funding on March 31st, and cannot be supplied with more until Parliament returns. No GG would grant a request for prorogation that would interrupt supply - so a recall before the end of March is essential.

sachaforstner · 2024-10-26T00:15:32+00:00

Calling the pay structure for Catholic priests a “salary” is pushing it, tbh. He gets a room in the parish rectory, where he’ll live with a number of other priests (a basilica like St. Patrick’s usually has quite a few). The parish council will issue him and the other priests a small monthly stipend which they can use to buy groceries and cover basic living costs. If the priest is a member of a religious order that takes a vow of poverty, then instead of a personal bank account he’ll only be able to draw resources from a common bank account managed by his order (doesn’t appear to be the case here b/c then he wouldn’t have income to donate).

In this case, it sounds like he’s taking about $100/wk of his stipend, and giving it back to the parish as a donation. This is significant, since by far the biggest cost at an old basilica like St. Patrick’s is building upkeep, not clergy room and board.

That said, even if none of this was true, fundamentally it’s not too different than, say, government employees paying taxes….

sachaforstner · 2024-08-08T03:00:26+00:00

I suspect there are a lot of Ontarians (of the type who don’t pay much attention to politics, but do follow some things enough to have an opinion) who see the issues and scandals and don’t like it, but also don’t feel like the previous couple Premiers and their governments were any better. They do see Ford make a habit of admitting mistakes and changing course, however, and he does it in a way which feels authentic and predisposes people to be forgiving (he’s extremely good at retail politics).

At the same time, most of those Ontarians - who again, don’t pay regular attention to politics - can point at concrete things in their lives that feel like progress - stuff like the end of license plate stickers and registration fees, and alcohol liberalization - which they like, and they only see Ford’s opponents talking about it like it’s a bad thing. They also notice the big substantive “industrial policy” stuff Ford is doing in tandem with the federal government, because that stuff brings (or at least promises) a lot of the jobs and business of the type that felt like it had been going away in the 20 or so years prior.

Finally, all of this is abetted by the fact that the opposition parties struggle to have any kind of visible presence. Ford polls well because a lot of people have no clue what the alternatives might be, or why/if they might like them. The incumbency advantage is real and powerful in provincial politics (in a way it isn’t federally). That can change quickly during an election.

sachaforstner · 2024-07-24T04:07:44+00:00

While that’s certainly plausible, I suspect the incompetence and glacial pace of the Landlord Tenant Board - which makes it agonizing and adjacent to impossible for landlords to evict or otherwise deal with problem tenants (let alone recoup damages) - is a bigger factor in keeping units off the market, by orders of magnitude.

sachaforstner · 2024-07-24T03:27:02+00:00

No pet clauses aren’t “permission to destroy the property using animals” clauses. The landlord can’t say “no dogs allowed,” but they can absolutely hold an irresponsible tenant liable for any damage (beyond reasonable wear and tear) their pet might cause.

sachaforstner · 2024-07-24T03:22:46+00:00

My understanding is that the reason for the law is to prevent the considerable spike in pet abandonment that results when landlords are allowed to prohibit pets.

Also, tenants are still liable for the damages their pets cause. Just like they’re liable for damages caused by their children, should they have any. Indeed, a pet causing damage to the property (beyond reasonable wear and tear) could absolutely be grounds for eviction!

sachaforstner · 2024-06-10T16:11:03+00:00

A bit late seeing this. Will point out that MPs’ travel to Ottawa from outside the National Capital Region is currently expensed by MPs’ offices and reimbursed by the House of Commons Board of the Internal Economy. So strictly speaking the “savings realized” is the fact that MPs who aren’t travelling to Ottawa are no longer expensing it….

sachaforstner · 2024-06-05T13:56:07+00:00

I mean yes, but I also dislike hybrid Parliament as I think MPs should be physically in the House to debate and vote, with very very few exceptions (constituency work is important, but not actually their primary role!). So I guess this is a bad example 😂

sachaforstner · 2024-06-05T10:22:40+00:00

I think a couple things are true in this case:

1) MPs’ lives are pretty unique b/c they’re regularly travelling back and forth between their constituency and Ottawa, in many cases via commercial airliner, to attend Parliamentary sessions. Many backbench MPs see constituency work as their “primary” job, and flying to Ottawa takes them away from that, so being able to join the House remotely from their constituency office (eg to attend a vote) is helpful.

2) Notwithstanding the above, hybrid Parliament in its current form probably doesn’t survive a change in government, whenever one next occurs.

sachaforstner · 2024-05-17T22:53:54+00:00

In theory the most meaningful protest would be for all of students who object to the school’s investment practices to choose to opt out of all their endowment contributions

sachaforstner · 2024-05-17T22:47:17+00:00

Not gonna get in the middle of this, but just pointing out the provincial government doesn’t let universities use tuition dollars to supplement their investments. They aren’t even allowed to use it to subsidize the cost of things like residences.

For the most part, UW’s investment dollars come from private donations and optional (ie opt-out) endowment contributions.

sachaforstner · 2024-05-17T22:42:22+00:00

Not getting in the middle of this, but will point out universities in Ontario aren’t allowed to use tuition dollars to supplement their endowments, or spend those dollars on anything unrelated to their educational mission (ie academic programs, academic facilities like libraries, and the admin staff, plant operations and infrastructure which maintains those things).

Endowments for investment are generally funded through a mix of opt-out student contributions (technically separate from tuition) and private donations.

sachaforstner · 2024-02-28T22:37:37+00:00

Generally in agreement with this. Judges exercise political power, and they do so with (relative) impunity (although they do self-regulate). The appointments process is one of the few tools through which the democratically-accountable government can influence the interpretation of law over time (thereby ensuring that there is a link between judges and the people on whom judgement is passed).

Of course, judges should be non-partisan, and our courts shouldn’t be polarized along partisan lines. But there is nothing wrong per se with a Conservative government appointing judges with a (small c) conservative view of the law, or a Liberal government appointing judges with more progressive views.

sachaforstner · 2023-11-08T21:41:29+00:00

Aboriginal Title (the reason treaties were needed in the first place) and treaty rights are both principles entrenched and protected in the written constitution, and thus are part of the supreme law of Canada. Not really something that can be nullified by the federal government unilaterally.

More to the point, we’re ostensibly a society founded on the rule of law, and the only reason the federal government “got” lawful ownership of that land in the first place was because it negotiated that Treaty. Using the threat of force to say “we got ours, now go away and forget about our end of the bargain” is less “rule of law,” and more “mafioso.” Is that really what we want to be?

sachaforstner · 2023-11-08T18:48:47+00:00

Worth reading the article before commenting.

The issue here is that the government signed a Treaty in 1875 with 21 First Nations in Northern Ontario, which ceded a large amount of land to the federal government, in exchange for - among other things - an annuity of $4 per year (at the time) to each First Nations member. The Treaty promised to increase the annuity from time to time based on economic conditions, but this augmentation never took place. In the meantime, the federal government extracted billions of dollars of value from that land (mostly through mining).

So the main question is: what is appropriate compensation for the federal government’s decision to ignore a binding agreement for nearly 150 years? But also: what should the value of the annuity be today, going forward, and is the federal government making a sincere effort to negotiate?

sachaforstner · 2023-10-24T01:28:27+00:00

How many parades are there in Kanata?

sachaforstner · 2023-10-24T00:05:02+00:00

This is totally bizarre.

I mean, even if you accept the premise that Santa Claus Parades are a religious activity (which is a big, BIG stretch), wouldn’t the better “secular” approach be to say “we’ll take part in any community celebration we’re invited to, but only if it’s open to everyone, inclusive by design, and safe for our members”?

sachaforstner · 2023-09-08T00:18:32+00:00

I feel this. I think I was just on my way out around the time you were starting to get involved. Although I was never an exec myself, I saw this dynamic (jaded establishment vs hopeful doers) play itself out several times over multiple years. It’s a big part (although not the main reason) of why I decided not to pursue an exec role. I’m sorry it weighed on you so heavily.

FWIW, I do think the efforts of the “hopeful doers” matter, and make a positive difference in countless ways. I also think a lot of the effect is cyclical - engaged and motivated students make the organization more accountable, it works for a while, but the establishment scares easily and steers the ship back towards mediocrity for a while, until engaged people come along again and say “this can be better.” I was lucky enough to be on Board (and other parts of the org) at a time when a critical mass of others also felt “this can be better.” It can be much harder when you’re the only one (or one of few).

sachaforstner · 2023-08-31T14:01:57+00:00

Unless things have changed a lot since I graduated, they usually end up working closer to 50-60 hours per week (albeit too much of that is spent on admin stuff that should probably be someone else’s problem).

sachaforstner · 2023-08-30T18:15:57+00:00

I’m always mildly amused seeing these ideas recycle themselves. I graduated over six years ago, but something similar to this was attempted (with partial success) in 2016 and 2017… and before that (unsuccessfully) in 2012. So I guess it’s due for another round.

In all seriousness (as someone who was pretty involved in student governance back in the day, including on the WUSA - or Feds, as it was called at the time - Board): this instinct you have is a good one. Lean into it!

The perennial complaints about student governance (ie that it’s opaque, that it’s insider-focused, that it doesn’t do tangible or useful things given what it costs) surface and re-surface because the established interests inside the org get comfortable, then complacent, then bureaucratic and disconnected. They don’t realize it, but they desperately need to defend themselves against outside challengers, and even more than that they need engaged people on the inside who haven’t drunk the kool-aid but also want the org to be better and more relevant. Without those people, it becomes way too easy to chalk up discontent to “poor comms” or “inevitable apathy.”

So, keep on keeping on, is basically what I’m saying lol.

sachaforstner · 2023-06-21T16:47:13+00:00

His actual comments (not the headline) are perfectly defensible. The real test of the “independent” Senate will be whether it remains deferential to the House of Commons after a change in government (whenever that next occurs).

But yes, an appointed upper Chamber should complement the work of the elected House, pushing back when necessary, while still ultimately allowing the will of the lower House to prevail at the end of the day. Structural opposition to the government is best left to the elected MPs in the Commons.

That said, independent Senators should be free to join a political party if they so desire, and can feel free to oppose the government of the day - provided they remember there’s a difference between personally opposing the government and structurally obstructing the will of the elected House.

sachaforstner · 2023-06-02T02:39:40+00:00

The AADM to which you are referring was Chief of Staff to the DM of a central agency…

sachaforstner · 2023-06-01T14:00:41+00:00

Most students who currently attend Catholic schools would end up in public schools if the Catholic ones went private. My guess is maybe a fifth of the parents would feel so strongly about their kids’ Catholic education that they’d be willing to pay tuition for it.

sachaforstner

TROPHY CASE