Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: An unreserved apology

Posted on by

With all of the leaders back in the House, it was a question of what would be top of mind for the day. Thomas Mulcair started off with a brief question – was it okay for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament? Harper insisted that ministers tell the truth all the time. So why, Mulcair wondered, did the minister say that “no money has been spent” on the F-35s when in fact millions have already been spent. Well the minister was referring to acquisition costs, Harper insisted. And thus the accounting excuse remained trotted out. Peggy Nash was up next and asked just how much the government expected to save by changing the eligibility date for OAS, and Diane Finley insisted it wasn’t an issue of savings, but the long-term viability of the system. Bob Rae returned to the question of misleading figures around the F-35s, but Harper insisted that the Auditor General asked to review the figures, and they’ve a commitment to do just that. For his final question, Rae asked about CIDA staff being laid off while Bev Oda is swanning about in expensive hotels and limousines. Oda herself stood up and said that it was unacceptable, that the expenses shouldn’t have been charged to taxpayers, that she’s paid them back (well, except for the limousines) and that she apologised unreservedly. And that was the last we heard from her.

Round two kicked off with Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice asking again after Oda’s spending (Van Loan: She’s apologised) and the ongoing Robocon investigation (Del Mastro: These are sweeping allegations with no facts; Poilievre: A Liberal poll is not a replacement for an election), Guy Caron and Peter Julian asked about Christian Paradis’ latest ethical investigation (Van Loan: The Ethics Commissioner will provide a response to this Liberal letter), Niki Ashton asked about the government taking steps to address the sexual harassment in the RCMP (Toews: We’re taking it seriously, but there is litigation so we can’t comment). Mark Eyking asked about Oda’s chauffeurs (Van Loan: She repaid her costs – err, except for the costs of the limousines), Joyce Murray asked about that EKOS poll on robocalls in those seven ridings (Del Mastro: Baseless allegations), and Stéphane Dion asked about availability of search and rescue services in French (Ashfield: There will be no impact on safety). Closing off the round, Olivia Chow asked about railway maintenance (Lebel: We’ve set aside all this money for rail safety and service!), and Brian Massey asked about CBSA cuts allowing more for more smuggling (Toes: You voted against increasing their budget, so why are you complaining if it gets cut?).

Round three saw questions on scientists being muzzled, gutting fisheries habitat protection, food inspection cuts, cutting washing stations that prevent contaminated soil from infecting food-producing regions, Aveos workers, the true net savings of closing the Kingston penitentiary, punishing refugees under the current system and the proposed new one, and why it’s okay for Cuba to be excluded from the Summit of the Americas while China gets a free pass in Canada (Harper: It was agreed upon years ago to only include democratically elected governments).

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for a smart grey pinstripe suit with a pink shirt and tie, and to Lisa Raitt for a smartly cut black top and jacket. Style citations go out to Isabelle Morin for her boxy white jacket with a terrible black and gold floral pattern across it, and to Alex Atamanenko for a grey jacket, maroon shirt, forest green tie and brown trousers.

Roundup: Redford wins a majority – surprise!

Posted on by

Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservatives rallied and came back to another majority mandate in the Alberta election last night, and the upstart Wildrose party, kind of fizzled out with less than twenty seats. Not that I want to be too shameless about it, but I feel like I was the only person who wasn’t willing to write them off. As a former Albertan, I wasn’t willing to discount the power of institutional inertia or the kind of one-party-state-ism that affects the voters of the province, and lo and behold, “brand loyalty” won out. Not that the Wildrose did themselves any favours by not denouncing more forcefully their more unpalatable candidates under the banner of “free speech,” or trying to play to social issues even though the province is more progressive than most people let on. I also think it can’t be overlooked the way in which that the PC party in that province tends to change in order to fit the shape of its current leader. While Redford certainly has her conservative bona fides (especially in areas like law-and-order), she is nevertheless far more socially progressive and I think that the electorate did respond to the changing shape of the party. And so the one party state rolls along, while all of those inaccurate polls are left in the dust.

Yesterday’s outrage was the revelation that CIDA minister Bev Oda refused to stay at a five-star hotel in London where a conference she was attending was being held, but rather insisted on staying at one twice as expensive, and expensing $16 orange juice while she stayed there. Speculation is that it was because the new hotel had smoking rooms, but still – taxpayers were still on the hook for the non-refundable deposit for the first hotel. Add to this is the fact that her penchant for limousines hasn’t abated in the years since she’s been in cabinet, and spent a thousand a day on those as well. All this at a time of fiscal austerity, when her department is cutting aid to several countries, one might add. Oda did paid the difference in price between the two including the cancellation fee for the first hotel, and the orange juice (but not the limo, which was the much larger figure), but she only did it yesterday morning – as the news was the talk of the capital. Paul Wells surmises that Oda has deduced that she is bulletproof, and can get away with anything at this point.

Statistics Canada is facing a major financial crunch, and is likely to do far fewer surveys this year. Because this government really doesn’t govern on the basis of statistics (unless they’re made up and sound like they support their position on something).

The attempt to overturn the election results in Etobicoke Centre is before the courts this week.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson was before the Commons status of women committee yesterday to talk about the ongoing harassment investigation within the Force. The Liberals want the committee to expand the scope of that investigation in order to hear more from the victims, but this government is allergic to any opposition motions, so one has doubt that it’ll go much further. Meanwhile, the head of CSIS was before a Senate committee to say that he’s just fine with new anti-terrorism legislation being proposed. Not that this is a surprise.

And over on BBC Scotland, Michael Ignatieff mused that if you increasingly devolve powers to subnational governments, independence is the likely result. While people immediately jumped on this as his foregone conclusion that he was saying Quebec separation was inevitable, others have suggested that this is a warning about further Quebec devolution plans – such as the Sherbrooke Declaration, that would further decentralise our already greatly decentralised powers.

About the Hyer defection

Posted on by

Bruce Hyer’s decision to leave the NDP caucus yesterday – mere hours after Nathan Cullen crowed about how united and focused the party was – got me thinking about a few things, both when it comes to parliamentary democracy, and the state of the NDP in general.

Hyer, lamenting the “dysfunctional” state of parliament, gave the primary reason for his departure as the heavy hand of the whip. Specifically, on the issue of the long-gun registry, which Mulcair wants to bring back and said that he was going to whip the party on. Hyer bristled, said that this wasn’t party policy (which gives one real pause as to just how much power party leaders have accumulated when it comes to dictating policy, which is supposed to be the role of the membership). That may very well be true, and if the leader is using a three-line whip on an issue that is not party policy, then that is something the NDP has to resolve for themselves.

Continue reading →

QP: Unity, focus, and expensive hotels

Posted on by

At the start of the day, new NDP house leader Nathan Cullen gathered the media together to tell us about how the dynamic in Ottawa has changed, that the NDP are a unified and focused team, and that they were going to keep Harper on his toes. Fast forward until Question Period when word hit the wires that NDP MP Bruce Hyer decided to leave caucus, largely because of Mulcair’s heavy hand on the whip when it comes to the party’s position on the long-gun registry. Yes, that’s apparently what united looks like. As for focused, well, I predicted on Friday that everyone’s attempt to get a spot to shine was going to result in a shambolic, scattershot QP. I was not wrong.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta on the edge

Posted on by

It’s election day in Alberta. Will the desire for change lead to an even more right-wing “libertarian” government of inexperienced rookies? Or will institutional inertia and one party state-ism that has otherwise defined the province carry the day? I guess we’ll have to stay tuned to find out.

Today’s Senate “nominee elections” in Alberta are likely to split along party lines – as in, PC and Wildrose, who have both pledged to sit as federal Conservatives in the Senate. Which is just one reason why this whole exercise is so problematic – there is no sense in provincial parties running candidates when those candidates will sit in different federal caucuses once they arrive in Ottawa down the road – assuming of course that they do make it to Ottawa. In fact, it makes the vote that much more disingenuous.

Vic Toews admits that Omar Khadr is a Canadian and he’s coming back, so he’s now in damage control mode – he won’t be a danger to Canadians, and at least if he serves his sentence here we can better monitor him and his activities upon release than if he’d served his entire sentence in the States and suddenly showed up on our borders.

There are thousands of buildings owned by the federal government that are crumbling, some of them in states of total system failure.

Despite the ongoing battles between the chief of Attawapiskat and the federal government, it seems that not everyone in her community are pleased with her leadership. Not only that, some members of the community are also tired of NDP MP Charlie Angus using them to score political points.

Susan Delacourt looks at a grand national project like the Charter 30 years later, and fears that such a feat couldn’t be accomplished in today’s political landscape.

What’s that? The Conservatives are dismissing more expert testimony with those court challenges to overturn the election results in seven ridings? You don’t say! Meanwhile, in the battle to overturn the results in Etobicoke Centre, the Elections Canada factum says that mere clerical errors shouldn’t be enough to invalidate an election result.

Liberal Party brass were meeting in Ottawa this weekend to determine the rules for their (eventual) leadership contest, which they’ll have more firm rules on by June.

Here’s a look at Ruth Ellen “Vegas” Brosseau, one year after her election.

Here’s a timeline of the history of the Kingston Penitentiary.

And here’s a little bit about the Queen, as Saturday was her 86th birthday (not that we’ll celebrate it here in Canada until Victoria Day).

Roundup: Defence procurement versus policy

Posted on by

Courtesy of iPolitics.ca’s Colin Horgan is an excellent piece about the apparent fact that defence procurement now seems to be driving policy, rather than the other way around (possible paywall). You know, the way it should be when a military is under civilian control, rather than when the civilian government bows to the whims of the military. Meanwhile, there is more expert opinion that cabinet had to have known about the full costs of the F-35 procurement, given the way in which Industry Canada and Public Works needed to be quieted down to get around the regular process (which I remind you is still very much at the heart of this issue – not just the price tag).

Stephen Harper announced a new programme yesterday that will give support payments for the parents of murdered and missing children that will allow them to take paid leave from work to deal with the situation. Maclean’s John Geddes, meanwhile, raises a red flag about the rhetoric Harper was using at the announcement, talking about child sex offenders getting lax house arrest sentences, when this is obviously not the case, and galling for Harper to bring it up.

The CBC’s Laura Payton asks four very important questions about those prison closures.

There was a bizarre little incident in the Manitoba legislature this past week where Conservative MP Shelly Glover and three of her caucus colleagues took to the legislature to launch bitter partisan barbs at the provincial NDP government over the issue of changes to the immigration programme. Glover feels the federal government deserves far more credit for the provincial successes and complains that the province isn’t paying their fair share, despite the fact that the province foots the bills for things like social services, education and health care. But as far as Glover was concerned, it was a case of yay Harper Conservatives, boo provincial NDP.

It seems that Enbridge nearly pulled out of a Pacific Ocean management plan over fears that Tides Canada’s involvement would hijack it – even though they were not in a position to do so. It also appears that this incident led up to Joe Oliver’s infamous “radicals” open letter.

Bob Rae talks about the need for the Liberal Party change its ways, and admitting that they have yet to absorb all of the lessons of the last election. Meanwhile, Paul Wells notes the party’s message that they will respond to Conservative attack ads – eventually.

Here’s an interesting look at the meaning of our tendency to nickel-and-dime politicians, and the continual insistence that they get paid too much.

And on 4/20, Thomas Mulcair tried to clarify his position on marijuana, which is decriminalisation but not legalisation, apparently. The Young Liberals have been making great hay of this, plastering downtown Ottawa with pictures of an angry Mulcair face with his quote from Global TV in which he subscribes the “potent pot” myth.

Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 3

Posted on by

My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about what happened at the Public Accounts committee this week around the F-35 investigation, and we talk about the new NDP shadow cabinet.

And yes, we managed to get the running time down to a much more manageable clip.

Roundup: Prison closures looming

Posted on by

The government has announced that they are closing down the Kingston and Leclerc penitentiaries, as well as the Ontario Regional Treatment Centre, a mental health facility for inmates within the Kingston facility. But don’t worry, Vic Toews says – they have plenty of capacity in other facilities (which is not exactly true, seeing as there are different kinds of capacity in different facilities, and we have seen a rise in double-bunking), and we haven’t seen the great spike in prisoner population that everyone was afraid of. Err, except they’ve only just passed the omnibus crime bill, and it’ll be a couple of years before that boom will likely happen (and to be fair, the lion’s share of that burden will be borne by provincial institutions, with all of those two-years-less-a-day mandatory minimum sentences). The closure of the ORTC is probably most concerning because as it stands, there is already a gross lack of capacity for mental health services in prisons – and yet psychologists and mental health nurses have been given layoff notices. It’s also concerning that Toews feels that the provinces should be re-institutionalising more mental health patients rather than locking them up in prisons, but provincial health authorities have moved to release more people with mental health concerns into the communities, where they then wind up in prisons. Toews can’t simply wish this vicious cycle away. Suffice to say, Kingston was an ancient facility that was due to close years and years ago, but the fact that there seems to be little in the way of plans to keep up with appropriate capacity, and the fact that the government still hasn’t provided with costing or even detailed plans of their prisons agenda makes this a concerning enough issue.

Given the amount of research capacity that is being cut at Environment Canada, here is a look at how their mandate is going to start changing over the next few years. One of those changes includes the closure of the BC oil spill office, which Peter Kent dismisses as only providing information on sensitive areas and not actually cleaning up oil spills. Seriously. Meanwhile, cabinet is giving itself the veto power over pipeline projects, despite what the National Energy Board may rule on any project, which pretty much makes any pretence of rigour meaningless at this point. But it’s all for the economy, which is still fragile, everyone!

In case you missed it, here is the recap of yesterday’s Public Accounts meeting on how they’re going to handle looking into the Auditor General’s findings on the F-35s. The takeaway – that the Conservatives, by their actions and votes, look like they’re going to use their majority to hold a bare minimum of meetings (say, one hour for the AG, one hour for the PBO, and two blocks of a half-dozen deputy ministers who will each pass the blame around), and the report will come down saying “see, not our fault, blame the bureaucrats. Or maybe I’m being cynical. Meanwhile, The West Block helpfully compiles the F-35 paper trail.

Meanwhile, Peter MacKay has another defence procurement headache at his feet, this time over armoured infantry vehicles, where the process was halted by fairness monitors and now needs to be restarted. How long will MacKay’s Teflon coating resist these mounting, embarrassing, screw-ups on his watch? Or, more importantly, when will the government actually undertake to radically reform defence procurement in this country so that it’s actually a coherent process under a single accountable authority?

And here is Thomas Mulcair’s new shadow cabinet – three deputy leaders and critic roles for almost everybody! Some of the choices are pretty peculiar (Charmaine Borg for digital issues, when she allegedly didn’t even have a cell phone until she was elected? Joe Comartin to democratic reform? Linda Duncan to Public Works? Jinny Sims to immigration?), and I’m especially curious why this was a press release after 5.30 last night. But I’m suddenly picturing a return to scattershot Question Periods where they try to give questions to everyone, and diffuse any momentum that was possible.

Public Accounts vs. F-35s: Procedural chaos

Posted on by

The Public Accounts committee’s first meeting on the study of the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s was a battle of duelling procedural motions as the government tried to set the timeline further into the week, versus Liberal Gerry Byrne’s motion to accelerate the pace, much to the exasperation of NDP members.

Conservative MP Andrew Saxton’s motion, which was up for debate first, would see the planning meeting for the hearings to be held on Tuesday the 24th, with the suggestion that they begin hearing witnesses on the following Thursday. But when pressed as to why they didn’t use today’s meeting to do the planning session, the government offered no excuse, only that they wanted to “set forward a clear process” to move forward.

Continue reading →

Public Accounts vs. F-35s: Preview edition

Posted on by

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne held a press conference this morning to preview this afternoon’s meeting of the Public Accounts committee, where they’re going to lay out the process by which they’ll examine the Auditor General’s report on the procurement process for the F-35s. Byrne has a relatively open-ended motion before the committee that includes a suggested witness list, a list of documents he wants tabled, and the provision that they begin immediately.

But the Conservatives aren’t quite so keen. They’ve tabled a competing motion which says that sure, they’ll begin a study on that chapter of the report, but they don’t want to meet to start scheduling witnesses until Tuesday, and they don’t have any suggested witnesses or requests for documents.

So why is this difference important? Byrne says that by beginning immediately, they can hold a full day of hearings starting tomorrow, rather than the four hours a week that the committee is allowed to sit while the House is in session. (He wanted to start this past Monday, but NDP committee chair David Christopherson called the meeting for today, and he respects that decision). He is also concerned that because the Conservative motion is less open-ended, that the Conservatives will use it to limit the number of meetings held and witnesses heard from in order to keep the process and investigation under wraps. The Conservatives have publicly said that they won’t support his motion – only their own, and they do hold a majority on the committee as well.

“There is no games being played unless my motion is defeated with no explanation, and with no alternative witness list actually being presented at that point in time,” Byrne said, and reiterated that he’s quite open to friendly amendments with regards to witnesses.

Byrne suspects that the Conservatives are trying to take control of the issue after the hammering they’ve taken in the media over the past two weeks. And if they try to take the meeting this afternoon in camera, he will let the media know what went down behind closed doors, even if it opens him up to a charge of being in contempt of parliament.

“Holding a public accounts committee in private is a bit of an oxymoron into what public accounts are what all about,” Byrne said. “It’s contemptible – the real contempt of parliament here is holding such important meetings in private and trying to basically squander the opportunity that’s available to us.”