With both Mulcair and Rae out of the House, the question hovered as to whether Stephen Harper would even bother answering a question today, as he often won’t bother unless asked by another party leader. But when Megan Leslie, in her capacity as part of the deputy leader trilogy, stood up to ask about that troubling instance of DND retroactively changing a parliamentary report once it had been tabled, Harper did stand up to answer. Well, to say “answer” is a bit charitable, considering he avoided the question all together and shrugged about contracts not having been signed and no money spent on any acquisitions, but didn’t really talk about the issue at hand. And Leslie, incidentally, performed much better than Mulcair on any given day, with minimal checking of notes and clear delivery rather than reading from a lectern. Snaps for that. Jack Harris was up next, asking about cuts to mental health services for the Canadian Forces, but Peter MacKay told him that he was mistaken and that they were moving a clinic to Petawawa for that very issue. Marc Garneau was up for the Liberals, retuning to the question of the contradiction of the Deputy Minister of Defence not accepting the Auditor General’s report when the government does, to which Harper assured him that it wasn’t what the Deputy Minister said, but that he was disputing a specific item. John McKay finished off the round by wondering why the government authorised the release of low-balled F-35 costs in 2010, but Harper answered (actually quite surprisingly) and assured him that they were taking a careful look at those costs going forward.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Retroactively changing the facts
The Department of National Defence quietly amended a tabled parliamentary report on the F-35s under the guise of a correcting a “typographical error” when in fact they were changing a significant line about the status of the procurement. With nothing more than a quiet amendment notice on the Treasury Board website, they changed the status from “definitions” phase to “options analysis,” which is really significant. And they did it quietly, hoping nobody would notice – because nobody has anything to hide on how badly this whole file has been handled. Meanwhile, the name of the new procurement secretariat has officially been changed so that it isn’t specifically to procure F-35s, but rather is now the “national fighter procurement secretariat.” And University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagassé wants the opposition to ask better questions about the fighter since they keep getting distracted by shiny things and missing the real point – which of course is why a rigged process was allowed to happen and why due diligence was not followed.
Today in voter suppression news, an American Republican operative who was convicted and spent time in jail over improper calls says that the various misleading calls here were likely imported American tactics, and that it looks like a systemic and sophisticated operation. Over in the bid to overturn the results of the Etobicoke Centre election, it appears there are missing voter registration certificates, which could point to some improper votes being cast – enough to have changed the outcome. Meanwhile, over in Eglinton-Lawrence, it looks like a flyer was going around trying to get some improper votes cast on behalf of Jewish voters (not that the margin is enough to challenge in court).
DND looks to be set to chop mental health monitors and PTSD monitors. Because that sounds like a genius idea, not to mention totally “supporting our troops.”
What’s that? Major pipeline projects could face lengthy court challenges in the absence of robust environmental assessments? You don’t say!
Liberal Party president Mike Crawley indicates there are likely to be six or seven interested candidates in the upcoming leadership race – whenever it actually kicks off.
Here’s a look at Elizabeth May’s first year in Parliament.
Alison Crawford looks at the use of private members’ business to push through government business – not that it’s what they’re doing with the Woodworth motion.
The Conservatives’ latest proposed elder abuse television spots were panned by focus groups as being “too creepy” and the “worse commercials ever.” Yikes!
And the Procedure and House Affairs committee has tabled its report on the whole Anonymous vs. Vic Toews issue, and basically finds that they can’t do anything about it. Case closed.
QP: The most pressing business of the nation
After a morning of speeches and a whole lot of self-congratulation all around, the NDP decided that the most pressing business of the nation, the one topic to lead off Question Period, for which they are holding the government to account, was that of Conrad Black’s return to Canada. Or rather, as the framing device that they employ says, “notorious British criminal” Conrad Black, or “British citizen Lord Black of Crossharbour” in their subsequent press releases. While this is factually true, it’s still a framing device that they’re employing. And while Mulcair didn’t play the race card today, Harper still called him on yesterday’s usage, and chastised Mulcair for denigrating the work of public servants. Mulcair then moved onto the report about the big bill for the overtime paid to cabinet ministers’ limo drivers, but Harper dodged and touted the country’s economic performance instead. Charlie Angus picked up from here, and yes, Team Decorum still employs the epithets of “Muskoka Minister” when he goes after Tony Clement. Clement, by the way, cited that they were living within the rules and paying out the overtime owed to their drivers per their collective agreement, and hey, these cabinet ministers work long hours. So there. Bob Rae closed off the leaders’ round with a trio of questions about the contradiction in how the Deputy Minister of Defence can dispute the Auditor General’s findings but the government agreeing with the report, but Harper parsed and equivocated, and insisted that Rae was mistaken as to who said what.
The Harper-versary speeches
On the advent of the Harper-versary – one year of a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government – the three main parties all held events for the media. After all, who doesn’t love a good anniversary speech? (Note: “good” being a particularly subjective measure).
Stephen Harper was up first, as is his wont, and after the media filed into the caucus room, we were treated to some happy clapping before the speech itself. Apparently, Harper’s mandate is for one thing above all – to secure the prosperity of Canadians. And here I thought it was about killing the long-gun registry, the Canadian Wheat Board, passing the omnibus crime bill and any number of other measures that they have invoked the words “strong mandate” to justify.
Roundup: Happy Harper-versary!
Happy one-year anniversary of the Strong, Stable, Conservative Majority Government! This morning we are looking forward to self-congratulatory speeches from Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, and an announcement from the Liberals about how they plan to not only open the doors to their party, but knock down the walls as well. No, seriously. (I write more about that here).
Eight deputy ministers and senior officials turned up at the Public Accounts committee yesterday to talk about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s. And by “talk about,” we mean basically say “Not my fault – don’t look at me.” And hey, because there were eight of them around the table, it meant there was very little questioning of any of them once they all got through their opening statements. (You know, the kind of thing that Liberal committee member Gerry Byrne was trying to avoid when he tried to pass a motion that the witnesses would be heard in panels of no more than two at a time). Accountability and transparency in action!
Quebec is officially calling for a Supreme Court reference on the constitutionality of the Senate “reform” bill. As well they should – the bill is unconstitutional, no matter how the government tries to make changes through the back door.
A Federal Court judge has given an “unreserved” smackdown of the practice of clawing back disability payments for veterans. Peter MacKay hasn’t yet said whether the government will appeal the decision.
Here is a pretty damning indictment about the death of oversight at CSIS.
Here is a look at the 40 diplomatic residences we’re considering selling, and the damage it’ll do to our “brand” abroad.
As was mentioned during QP yesterday, it looks like Conrad Black will be coming back to Canada after all, while the NDP took this case, along with that of Gary Freeman and showed the apparently double-standard being applied there.
Peter Kent accuses environmental charities of “laundering” foreign funds to undermine our country’s interests. Seriously.
And Steve Murray illustrates ways that we can help to improve decorum in the Commons.
Where the Liberal “party without walls” will lead
Wednesday morning, the Liberals are going to be marking the one-year anniversary of their stunning electoral defeat by doing something that has the potential to be political suicide. And they’re doing it with cheers and applause.
Back at their policy convention in January, the party decided adopt a new set of leadership rules that allow a new class of membership to vote in the next leadership contest. Indeed, this new class – known as “supporters,” don’t have to be party members, but simply have to promise that they’re totally not a member of another party, and voila, they can cast their ballot for the next Liberal leader. What could possibly go wrong?
QP: Decisive Action on apples and oranges
Question Period began innocently enough. Thomas Mulcair read out his trio of questions around an admission that Peter MacKay had made that cabinet knew of the alleged two sets of books on the F-35s, and Harper chided him about comparing apples and oranges, and Jack Harris and Peter MacKay had two more rounds of the very same, MacKay asserting that he was talking about the process of decisions flowing through cabinet, but since they AG’s report, they’ve taken “decisive action.” Bob Rae, a bit hoarse, got up to ask about the Deputy Minister of Defence telling the Public Accounts committee that the AG “got it wrong,” and the lingering question about how deputy ministers can disagree with a report that the government says it agrees with, but Harper insisted that Rae was the one getting it wrong, and talked up about how they were proceeding with an oversight committee on the acquisition. Stéphane Dion closed the round by asking the government to withdraw its unconstitutional Senate “reform” bill, but Harper got up and instead of answering the substance of the question, touted the latest Senate “consultation election” in Alberta. Because who needs to worry about the constitution?
Roundup: Illegitimate workloads
MPs are starting to grumble that cuts to the public service are dumping more workload on their offices, while their own budgets are being frozen and scaled back. This is worrying for one very basic reason – that this kind of work isn’t actually an MP’s job. Yes, constituency work has evolved as a means of serving the community and basically showing that they deserve to be re-elected. But it’s not their job. Their job is to hold the government to account, and to do that by controlling the public purse. That means scrutinising the estimates and the public accounts. But along the way, this kind of public service ombudsman role became attached to them, until it’s become the norm for certain departments not to touch a file until the MPs office pushes it forward, and that, my friends is a big problem and it’s something that needs for the person up top to put their foot down, starting with the Clerk of the Privy Council. If, as Bennett alleges in this article, people are just being told to go to their MPs office, then it’s a gross breach of the duties of the public service, and it should be called out.
The government has decided to remove the internal auditors of at least four regional development agencies in favour of letting the Office of the Comptroller General do said audit work. The complication? That the Comptroller General’s budget has also been slashed. Oversight! Accountability! Transparency! Meanwhile, here is a look at the other departments being faced with cuts as of yesterday’s announcements.
QP: Seven minutes of decorum
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.
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.