Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: Begin the retrospectives

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The budget omnibus bill lands

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking another crack at the numbers

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

QP: Appropriate limousines

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair opened up QP today taking all five slots in the leader’s round, asking whether Harper planned to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2014, despite the House having voted to end the mission. Well no, Harper said – we haven’t had any request to extend the mission (amidst speculation that the Americans would be asking us to extend our Special Operations forces there), and of course he’d ask the House for permission to extend. Err, except this is a big problem. You see constitutionally, deploying the armed forces is a Crown Prerogative, and that’s a means of accountability. Yes, it sounds nice on paper when you have the House agree to put our troops into harm’s way, but when things go wrong, you need that clear line of accountability. Because deployments are a Crown Prerogative, it means that the executive remains responsible when things to wrong. If it’s the House in charge, not only do we find that we have watered down missions full of caveats (like all of those European countries in Afghanistan), but then Harper can turn around and say “Well, the House agreed to the mission, not me, so not my problem.” You see why this is a problem, right? And now that Harper has a majority in the House, he can hold a vote and then say “The House has spoken, we’ll extend,” thus being able to both absolve himself of responsibility while appearing to have it be a “democratic” choice. Not that Mulcair seems to have considered this constitutional reality.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hey, big spender!

Posted on by

All eyes may be on Bev Oda’s limousine habit and posh hotels, but it seems that the highest spending cabinet minister is Gerry Ritz, who spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on travel in the past year. But look at all of our agricultural export markets he’s securing! Oh, and take it away, Dame Shirley Bassey.

So, that Michael Ignatieff interview. Which he later said the criticisms of which were taken out of context and is now said to be backpedalling while other Liberals repudiate his words and separatists are revelling in them. But. Having watched the full interview, I will note that Ignatieff does seem to be conflating a lot of the division of powers from the 1867 constitution (where things like healthcare and education are provincial responsibilities) with Quebec’s control over their immigration stemming from a 1968 law, and some of the kinds of concessions that were made post-1995 that weren’t structural. But put this into the context of the last election, where there was a great deal of debate around the NDP proposals for further decentralisation on a selective basis with Quebec (while simultaneously seeking more centralising powers for pretty much every other province), which was the point of the “Sherbrooke Declaration,” and the frustrations that many a federalist politician feels when it comes to the fact that Canada is already the most decentralised federation in existence. Ignatieff did seem to be indicating that the damage from further devolution of powers, in a post-Scottish independence world, would be eventual independence, but that seems to have been lost in most people’s analyses. (Speaking of, here’s a great analysis from @Kyle_a, who puts a whole bunch more context in there).

Conservative MPs from Alberta were hurting a bit yesterday in the wake of the PC victory in Alberta, as most were supporting the Wildrose party. I witnessed two of them yesterday morning conversing where the one said, “I see you were campaigning for the wrong party,” to which the other replied that he had been campaigning for the party that should have won. Oh, well.

Aaron Wherry has a chat with Bruce Hyer, who hints more about some of the internal battles within the NDP that Jack Layton was able to manage, but that Nycole Turmel couldn’t, and Thomas Mulcair isn’t so far.

As was referenced during QP yesterday, a particular poll was entered as part of the evidence for improper calling in six of the seven ridings where the results are in a court challenge. I get the methodology and that it was structured to serve as a comparison and to correct for the inaccuracies of memory, but a poll does seem like thin evidence for a case of this magnitude.

Here’s a look at the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that critics argue will weaken fish habitat protection in the rush to speed up environmental assessments.

Here’s more about the “media monitors” being assigned to Canadian scientists at a climate conference.

And the man behind the Vikileaks Twitter account went before the Ethics Committee yesterday. Apparently the Conservatives not only don’t understand how the Twitter Machine works, but they believe that he needed a vast conspiracy to make it all happen – while apparently they also believe that a lone operative is behind the misleading robo-calls.