About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Interim PBO and the search for a replacement

In a rather surprising announcement at the end of the day yesterday, the government has named the Parliamentary Librarian as the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer until Kevin Page’s replacement can be found. That process is internal to the Library, and Page has expressed concerns that the makeup of the committee charged with the search is being kept secret, but I do get concerned when opposition parties want input into those processes, because it ultimately erodes the accountability for those appointments. Look at the questions surrounding Arthur Porter these days, and how Vic Toews skirts accountability by pointing out that the opposition leaders were consulted on his appointment. That’s why the prerogative power of appointment should rest with the Governor in Council – because it keeps the executive as the sole resting place of accountability. Meanwhile, the job criteria for the next PBO have been posted, and they include qualities like “discreet” and “consensus seeking” – perhaps not too surprising after the battles that Page had with the previous Parliamentary Librarian over his role.

Continue reading →

QP: Return of the F-35

With odes paid to Stompin’ Tom Connors, and with Ron Paul visiting in the gallery, QP got underway with Tom Mulcair reading off a question about the new reported problems with the F-35 fighters. Harper assured him that after the Auditor General’s report, they had put a new process in place for finding a new next-generation option. Mulcair then asked a somewhat bizarre question about the number of responses by women on behalf of the government — given that tomorrow is International Women’s Day — to which Harper assured him that they had more women in cabinet, their were more women MPs, and in the senior ranks of the public service. For his final question, Mulcair asked about the Correctional Investigator’s report on Aboriginals in prison. Harper responded that they wouldn’t presume to question the judiciary, but they were trying to take a balanced approach to deal with the issue. Jean Crowder carried on the same line of questions, but this time Rob Nicholson delivered a very similar response. Justin Trudeau led off for the Liberals today, and started off with a question about the suspected changes to EI training funds, and how centralising them in Ottawa would be of detriment. Harper assured him that they had consulted and were working with the provinces in order to address skills shortages in the country.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voting down legislative stunts

Not one, but two opposition stunts were voted down in the Commons yesterday. The first was the NDP’s opposition day motion on Senate abolition, which they, the Bloc and Elizabeth May voted in support of, and was defeated 186-101. The other was the Bloc’s motion to repeal the Clarity Act, which only they voted in support of, the NDP “totally not whipped” into voting down, and it went to its defeat 283-5. Bob Rae called out the NDP for their “total incoherence” on their Clarity Act/Unity Bill position, and deemed the party to be an unstable coalition in the wake of their “orange wave” fortunes. And now, with these votes out of the way, one can hope that the opposition parties get back to their actual jobs of holding the government to account rather than to continue with stunts and grudge-matches, but that’s probably asking too much. Sadly.

Continue reading →

QP: Trolling for support for abolition

It was a lovely Wednesday in the Nation’s Capital, the sun out, the snow melting. It being caucus day, the benches were almost full, and the energy level was high. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading a pair of questions designed to troll for support for his Senate abolition motion, but Harper wasn’t going to take the bait, and said that he favoured electing Senators because everybody knows that the provinces won’t agree to abolition. For his final supplemental, Mulcair turned to the issue of EI training funds, which Harper assured him that they were consulting widely on. Chris Charlton picked up on the same topic, to which Ted Menzies got to deliver the points about consultation and how training was helping with the economy. For the Liberals, Bob Rae asked about unemployment figures comparing between October 2008 and today, and whether the budget would address that. Harper didn’t really respond, but simply said that the Liberals voted against their job creating measures. Rae turned to the unilateral decision to reclaim the EI training fund, to which Harper said such a move would go against Rae’s assertion that they weren’t doing anything about the unemployed. For his final question, Rae asked why there hasn’t been an inquiry into security breaches like the Dr. Arthur Porter and Jeffrey Delisle, to which Harper gave the usual non-answer about Porter’s time at SIRC being unrelated to the allegations against him.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Myth, folklore and intellectual dishonesty

So, yesterday was…enlightening. If you call the “debate” on Senate abolition, using incorrect facts, intellectual dishonesty, and treating the constitution as a suggestion to be informed debate, that is. It boggles the mind that the NDP, who claims to champion decisions based on things like science, to turn around and use myth, folklore and figures pulled entirely out of context to back up an ideological and civically illiterate position. For example, they claim the Senate only sits an average of 56 days per year – never mind that the figure aggregates election years (of which we’ve had quite a few of late) with non-election years, and only counts days in which the Chamber itself sits. Never mind the fact that committees sit on days when the Chamber itself doesn’t, that Senate committees often sit longer than Commons committees, or the additional days of committee travel for studies that they undertake, and that the Senate sat 88 days last year – being a non-election year. But those are mere details that get in the way of a good quip. And then there were Thomas Mulcair’s interviews – while he avoided directly answering whether or not he would theoretically appoint NDP Senators were he to form a government in the future, he neglected to figure that in refusing to do so, he would be in violation of the Constitution. You see, it’s one of the duties spelled out that must be done – the GG shall appoint Senators, and that is always done on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s not a may appoint – it’s a shall, an instruction or command. To refuse to appoint Senators is an abrogation of constitutional responsibilities, but hey, it’s not like wanton constitutional vandalism isn’t the whole backbone of the discussion in the first place. And then Mulcair skated around the question of how he would deal with regional representation if the Senate were to be abolished. He gave some vague response about discussing it with the provinces, neglecting that one of the founding principles of the Senate was to balance out the representation-by-population of the Commons so that smaller provinces wouldn’t be swamped. And if Mulcair thinks that simply tinkering with the Commons seat distribution formula to somehow protect the smaller provinces, well, he’s further overcomplicating the principle of rep-by-pop that the Chamber is founded on. But once again, let’s just let constitutional vandalism slide with some pithy slogans. It’s not like it’s important or anything.

Continue reading →

QP: Not recognising the best finance minister in the world

Interrupting a day of debate on wanton constitutional vandalism, QP started off with Thomas Mulcair reading off a question about EI auditors “shadowing” claimants, to which Harper responded with some bog-standard response about EI being there when they need it. Mulcair then moved onto a question about Flaherty’s back-and-forth policy changes without consultation, and treated the Peter DeVries and Scott Clark article as though they were still currently employed by the department. Harper sang Flaherty’s praises in response. Mulcair carried on, citing Flaherty’s breach of ethics over the CRTC letter, not that Harper’s vigorous praises were diminished any less. Chris Charlton finished off the leader’s round, asking about EI training funds, but Jim Flaherty assured her that they consulted broadly on the budget. Bob Rae was up next, keeping up the issue of the EI training funds, but Harper touted just how transparent his government is as a non-sequitur response. Rae then brought up Dr. Arthur Porter’s party donations while he was SIRC chair, and wondered how he managed to escape a security clearance. Harper insisted that none of the allegations against Porter had to do with his time at SIRC — skirting the issue of donations. For his final question, Rae wondered why there wasn’t an inquiry into Jeffrey Delisle’s security breaches, but Harper told him that they’re not unique to Canada, and brought up the Bradley Manning case in the States.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wanton constitutional vandalism

The NDP have decided to spend their opposition day motion on what is basically the endorsement of wanton constitutional vandalism, but in this particular case, trying to put forward the case for Senate abolition. Never mind that their arguments will ignore federalism, bicameralism, and the actual work that the Senate does or perspective it provides – no, it’ll be all specious catchy slogans and intellectually dishonest false comparisons masquerading as substantive debate. It’s like saying that you don’t know what  your pancreas does, so why not remove it? Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair won’t say whether or not he’d appoint Senators if he were to form government in 2015 – never mind that whether he believes in the Senate or not, there is still a constitutionally mandated legislative process that needs to be followed. But you know, details.

Continue reading →

QP: Specious and unclever comparisons

Monday afternoon, and MPs were still filtering back into Ottawa after the weekend. Thomas Mulcair started things off by reading questions on EI inspectors’ guidelines, and how the government could justify that kind of invasion of privacy. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, accused Mulcair of fear-mongering. Mulcair then moved onto the specious comparison between the Senate and its “honour system” and the EI inspections. Moore pointed out that Mulcair was happy to trash people without offering any particular solutions for reform. Alexandre Boulerice was up next, and continued to decry said “honour system” (not that this has anything to do with the business of the Commons, and never mind that MPs’ books are even more opaque). Poilievre stood up to speak to Boulerice’s separatist credentials instead of answering. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals next, wondering about the government’s curious plans for dealing with slow economic growth by means of more austerity and curtailing competition. Moore instead insisted that the Liberals had no credible economic plans. Rae asked then about the EI inspections, not that Moore’s answer differed much. For his final question, Rae asked about how security clearances have become more lax under the present government. Moore insisted that the allegations against Dr. Arthur Porter had nothing to do with his time as an appointee.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Attack ads and shadow MPs

The NDP are launching anti-Conservative attack ads in Quebec. Because they’re the party that wants to raise the tone of debate and end the politics of division! They’ve also declared that MP Dany Morin will act as a kind of “shadow MP” for Claude Patry’s riding, to ensure that his constituents can still get their voices hear. Um, okay – remember when people were up in arms that the Conservatives had defeated candidates as “shadow MPs” in opposition ridings? How is this any different, really?

The government is going to scale back on their Arctic operations, as well as some training operations in other environments, because of budget cuts. Also being scaled back are plans for a naval base in the North. Remember the whole “use it or lose it” mentality that the government was applying to Arctic sovereignty? Yeah, what ever happened to that?

Continue reading →

The fight for second place: The Halifax debate

The fourth and second last Liberal leadership debate took place at the Pier 21 Museum in Halifax. The big difference this time is that we had one candidate self-eliminate, being of course hot republican mess George Takach, who dropped out last week to support Justin Trudeau. That said, the bottom three were still the bottom three and should all have been eliminated by now if we were conducting this leadership race by the RuPaul’s Drag Race model that I’ve been advocating, and the middle tier would be in the make-or-break points in their bids for leadership. But alas, that is not the case.

Continue reading →