Seven minutes. Not even. Despite his Monday morning sanctimony press conference in which Nathan Cullen announced that his party was going to be the stewards of decorum in the Chamber, they were heckling the Conservative MP who dutifully read out the Member’s Statement of the day denouncing a member of the Shadow Cabinet – in this case, Peggy Nash, because she voted against the budget. OH NOES! Immediately thereafter, Cullen stood up to announce their glorious plans for restoring decorum. And a few minutes later, QP began. While Thomas Mulcair kicked things off asking about the two sets of books on the F-35 that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Auditor General have alluded to – for which Baird, in his capacity as back-up PM du jour stood up and read off talking points about having a credible process and avoiding another “Decade of Darkness” for the military – it was Charlie Angus that immediately broke his party’s pledge. As he is wont to do, Angus stood up to gleefully denounce the government for having received the Canadian Association of Journalists’ secrecy award, and he began throwing around some of his favourite pejoratives, like the “Muskoka Minister,” and so on. Peter Van Loan immediately stood up to announce that the NDP’s commitment to decorum in the House had lasted a full seven minutes, and they can’t even refer to ministers by their proper titles. Bravo. Slow clapping all around. Angus shrugged it off, indicated he’d done nothing wrong, and carried on. To his supplemental, Tony Clement rose to tout the government passing the Accountability Act as their first piece of legislation, which apparently absolves everything. Ralph Goodale was up first for the Liberals, also asking about the two sets of books, and which minister knew this fact when. Baird ranted about the “Decade of Darkness” in reply. Marc Garneau demanded an open and transparent bidding process to replace the CF-18s, but Baird accused the Liberals of starting the F-35 process (which they didn’t, as it was a separate process entirely). Goodale was back up for the final question of the round, and brought up the Liberals’ opposition day motion – that in light of the Walkerton crisis brought about by government cuts, why was this government – with some of the very same ministers – going down the same path. Baird didn’t provide a coherent answer, but rather a thirty-five second rant about how Bob Rae once led the provincial NDP and how two of his former cabinet ministers, currently in the NDP benches, disavowed his leadership. No, seriously, it didn’t make any sense.
Monthly Archives: April 2012
Sanctimony and the decorum question
NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen summoned the press to the Foyer this morning for another episode of what is soon going to be known as “Monday morning sanctimony,” in which he pledged that they were going to work on restoring decorum to the House of Commons – although “restoring” may be the wrong word as there never really was a golden age of decorum and civil debate.
Cullen says that he wants to negotiate with the other parties to approach the Speaker and give him permission to deny questions of those MPs who are being disruptive. The Speaker already has the power to turn off an MP’s microphone, and even eject them from the Chamber if they’re being too disruptive – though Speaker Milliken had largely ruled out such a tactic because said MP would simply call the press over to make an event about getting tossed out.
Roundup: Begin the retrospectives
As we come up on the one year anniversary of the “strong, stable, national Conservative majority government,” the pundits are starting to weigh in – Den Tandt looks at the missing “hidden agenda” one year later, Tim Harper looks at the transformation that has happened, noting that none of it is hard-right stuff and hey, look at all the scandals, and John Ibbitson takes a rather in-depth look at the past year (and the five that preceded it), but I’m not quite sure that one can really consider the Conservative a “values-based” party any longer, considering their abandonment of so much of what they once held dear.
Parents who were promised enhanced EI benefits to deal with gravely ill children are feeling betrayed that the campaign pledge was not in the budget.
Here’s a great look at “Responsible Resource Development” – the somewhat Orwellian name being given to the Conservative rewriting of the country’s environmental laws.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government kept two sets of books on the F-35 procurement process – the real set, and one full of low-balls to sell to the public.
The third wave of public sector layoff notices go out this week.
Seven officials from CRA’s Montreal office have been dismissed in connection with a corruption and fraud investigation, however charges have still not been laid.
Thomas Mulcair vowed to the annual convention of the Canadian Association of Journalists that he’d lift the veil of secrecy if he forms government. I seem to recall a certain other current Prime Minister who once vowed the very same thing.
All of those young NDP MPs who were students prior to the last election are being forced to stay out of the student protests in Quebec, as it could quickly become a provincial election issue and their support could benefit the Parti Québécois.
Oh, look – Peter Penashue is in the news. Who? Exactly.
Here’s a look at how Quebec used to be loyal to the Crown, but one incident of police overreaction turned them against it.
And Scott Feschuk writes possibly the most note-perfect recap of the Bev Oda affair, striking the balance between humour and insight.
Roundup: Splitting up the omnibus bill
It’s no real surprise, but it is important to note that the opposition wants the government to hive off the environmental portions of the omnibus budget implementation bill into its own separate piece of legislation so that it can be properly studied and debated. Which is more than reasonable, and considering that even young Stephen Harper railed about how undemocratic omnibus bills are, then it only stands to make sense. After all, there are a lot of significant changes being rammed though – which is the point, but that doesn’t make it right. Oh, and when the government crows about keeping greenhouse gasses down in a period of economic growth – it was due to provincial efforts, like shutting down coal-fired electricity plants, and not federal efforts.
The budget implementation bill also includes a section on scrapping the Inspector General’s office at CSIS. Apparently the logic is the duplication with the Security and Intelligence Review Committee – which currently doesn’t have a chair, and which doesn’t really have the capability to produce the same kinds of annual reports that the Inspector General did. Because hey, apparently we don’t really care who’s watching the watchers.
Other cost savings measures the government are considering are the elimination of providing the cost gender reassignment surgery for trans military personnel. Because apparently they want to use the money instead on years of legal challenges instead.
While We The Media obsess about Bev Oda’s orange juice and limousine rides, there are real concerns about the changes being made to CIDA’s funding priorities.
Part three of Huffington Post Canada’s look at reshaping electoral boundaries takes a look at Saanich-Gulf Islands, and what Elizabeth May calls a transparent attempt at Conservative gerrymandering in the riding.
The mayor of Ottawa thinks that if the National Portrait Gallery idea is dead that the government should instead turn the old American Embassy on Wellington into a museum of Canadian accomplishments.
And Tabatha Southey imagines an apology form letter for Conservative cabinet ministers.
Wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations – Dion’s proposed electoral reform
Last weekend, Stéphane Dion took to the pages of the National Post to suggest that Canada needs a new voting system. It’s not the first time such suggestions have been made, and it certainly won’t be the last, but that doesn’t make each new suggestion any better than the last, and Dion’s suggestion is certainly problematic.
Dion proposes that Canada adopt what he calls a “P3” voting system – proportional-preferential-personal. The theory is that there would be the same number of ridings, but super-sized to have three to five MPs per riding, which voters would select party preferences by means of preferential ballot, while at the same time choosing one of the candidates put forward by each party. The proposed method of counting is that first seats are apportioned according to the preferential ballot, and those seats are assigned by highest-ranking candidates for those parties.
Roundup: The budget omnibus bill lands
The government tabled their first budget implementation bill yesterday – a 431-page omnibus bill that amends over 50 Acts, and a huge chunk of that being environmental legislation, like major changes to the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and repealing the Kyoto implementation law. Oh, and they’ve indicated that they want to put the rush on this one too. Because there’s nothing like actual scrutiny for bills that this government wants passed.
Stephen Woodworth’s motion to have a debate saw its first hour of debate, and was smacked down from all sides – even his own, when Conservative whip Gordon O’Connor savaged it and encouraged his own party to vote against it. (Niki Ashton then followed up by accusing the government of “Trojan Horse legislation,” obviously tone-deaf and unable to think on her feet considering the speech that immediately preceded hers). The chance that this non-binding motion will go anywhere are increasingly remote.
Bev Oda has repaid the cost of her limousine rides. Now we can sleep again at night. (Incidentally, Paul Wells looks at the two incidents together and sees the signs of Harper’s loosening discipline, and what it all means).
The Auditor General appeared at the Public Accounts committee yesterday, and lo and behold, there is a reason why he focused on the 36-year lifecycle costs of the F-35s, and that the department and government tried to sell 20-year costs is a problem. Meanwhile back in the House, Bob Rae continued to argue his point of privilege that the government not telling the truth with regards to these costs – in the face of all evidence – is a contempt of parliament. And he’s got a very good point.
And here is part two of the Huffington Post Canada’s excellent series on redrawing the electoral boundaries in this country, with the challenges faced by the “rurban” ridings in Saskatchewan, where in the previous exercise the commissions were told there was no such thing as an “urban interest” in the province (though the distortionary effect is also quite pronounced in Alberta as well), and the battles that went on in New Brunswick during the last redistribution.
Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 4
My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about the underlying issues with a potential vote on a new Afghan deployment, and the Alberta election.
QP: Accepting conclusions but not responsibility
On a day when the government released its first budget implementation bill – an omnibus monster of some 431 pages that amends some 50 Acts, and takes a huge axe to environmental legislation – there was not a question on this bill, or the environment to be found. Instead, Thomas Mulcair led off Question Period with a trio of questions about a possible future Afghan deployment, to which Harper assured him that any deployment would come before the House (see my discussion yesterday about Crown Prerogative and why it’s really a bad thing for Harper to do this), before Mulcair turned to the question of the Woodworth motion – otherwise known as the backdoor abortion debate. Harper assured him that he would be voting against it, but seeing as it’s private members’ business, he can’t do anything else about it, unfortunately. And that’s true. (I wrote a bit more about the issue and the mechanics here). Bob Rae then stood up to ask about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s – if Harper accepts the report, how can the deputy ministers be writing to the AG to disagree with it, given our system of government? Harper assured him that they accepted the conclusion of the report and were acting on it. Rae then asked if Harper accepts the conclusions, does he not then take responsibility for what happened. Harper, however, wasn’t going to fall for this and instead insisted that wasn’t the conclusion of the AG, but they did accept the conclusion he did draw.
Roundup: Taking another crack at the numbers
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been asked to update his cost estimates of the F-35s, and he’s once again asking DND for information, like they wouldn’t give him last time. Meanwhile, here’s a look at what it costs the defence industry in Canada every time a DND procurement goes off the rails. (Hint: They’re not rolling in profit the same way American firms are).
Incidentally, the PBO’s latest report indicates that the government will likely balance the books by 2015-16, but all of their austerity is likely going to lead to slower economic growth. Imagine that. Also, that Parliament needs to do a better job of reporting the financial numbers so that MPs can scrutinise it – you know, like their primary job is supposed to be. But we’ll see if they actually have the will to do it, when they have people like Kevin Page to crunch the numbers for them.
The retired air force fleet manager who was formerly in charge of the CF-18s has come out to say that the F-35s won’t meet our operational needs, and their price tag is likely to keep climbing. So it’s a clean sweep then. And given his credentials, I’m wondering how long it will take the government to ask why he hates our men and women in uniform.
The government has reduced the amount of time that the public can give input into the process for redrawing the electoral boundaries. Because what is public input in the face of speedy timelines?
Elections Canada is now digging into phone records to try and get more information about misleading live phone calls directing people to the wrong polling stations in ridings other than Guelph.
The government’s new $8 million witch-hunt of charities that engage in political activities will really only be looking at less than one percent of all charities out there. That said, if they’re looking into charities engaging in political activities, perhaps they should broaden the scope to include churches, who also get tax breaks? Just saying…
Under the guise of deterring abuse by “bogus” claimants, the government is scaling back health benefits given to refugee claimants – you know, people who had to leave everything they had in order to flee for their lives. Just more rhetoric about how “generous” our refugee system is.
Small surprise, but the government announced yesterday that it would be appealing the Bedford decision on brothels to the Supreme Court.
And here’s a video of Liberal MP Scott Brison’s speech yesterday on his Private Member’s Motion about getting the Commons finance committee to study income inequality in Canada, and says that it’s a discussion that needs more than just reductionism and accusations of “class warfare.”
A few notes on the Woodworth motion
That backdoor motion to re-open the abortion debate happens Thursday afternoon, but before you get too worked up, let’s remember a few things:
1) This is a Private Members’ Motion, not a bill. These motions are possibly the most harmless and indeed meaningless items on the Order Paper. He wants to debate about having a debate, in a vote the House can then ignore if it so chooses. At most, a successful vote will push this off to a committee to debate. That’s all.
2) Even if it passes and they choose to send it for debate, the law he wants to challenge (about legal personhood requiring full birth) is actually legally sound. The jurisprudence and history behind it are nothing what Woodworth describes. It has nothing to do with medical science, no matter what he insists. So he’ll end up looking pretty foolish in the end once the law professors walk you through it.
3) Harper doesn’t want to open this debate, and he’s just been reminded about what happens when parties try. You saw what happened to the Wildrose – the electorate doesn’t really have a stomach for “social” issues like these, especially in unsettled economic times. Yes, he’ll have some stalwarts in his benches who want to make an issue out of it, but he’ll be applying some backroom pressure to ensure that this doesn’t advance any further than this debate (on a debate). He’s voting against it. It sounds like the cabinet will be whipped into voting against it (though he may have a few strategic absences as a result). He’s not stupid, and this isn’t really his “hidden agenda,” because guess what – that really doesn’t exist. Really.
4) No, Harper really can’t get Woodworth to withdraw the motion as the NDP have been insisting, because it’s Private Members’ Business. Yes, the Conservatives have abused it to try and get stuff passed on the sly (witness the long-gun registry bill in the last parliament), and the NDP seem to have a central office controlling their PMBs, but it’s still private members’ business. It’s one of the only independent outlets that MPs have for their private policy hobbyhorses. Do we really want to codify that MPs have zero independence any longer and that their party apparatus now controls all of their thoughts and actions? No, I didn’t think so either. So stop trying to insist that this is what should happen – especially other MPs calling for it.
5) It’s just a debate. It’s not a bill. It’s a debate. No matter how the contentious the issue, we shouldn’t be afraid of debate. This is, after all, a democracy.