Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

QP: F-35 edition

Posted on by

After some Members’ Statements to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day and a moment of silence to pay respect, Question Period: F-35 edition got underway. Thomas Mulcair took up all five slots in the leader’s round to demand that Peter MacKay be held responsible for the debacle (not that he demanded his resignation outright), but Harper responded with his usual manner – standing up, shrugging, and saying that they’ve accepted the Auditor General’s report and have put in place a new secretariat to oversee the process. And it was probably Thomas Mulcair’s best performance, with shorter more direct questions, but he was still reading them off. Bob Rae stood up to decry the $10 billion misinformation and wanted Harper personally held responsible, right up to his resignation. Harper was sounding a bit more testy by the end, but kept going back to his talking points about accepting the report and the establishment of a new secretariat, but he did use the rather odd language of it being a more independent process to verify cost estimates, rather than to run an open competition. And in case you were worried, no, he didn’t offer his resignation over this affair.

Round two was largely dominated again by the F-35 debacle. Christine Moore, Matthew Kellway, Matthew Ravignat, Peggy Nash and Malcolm Allen had their own takes on it, whether it was more calls for MacKay to take responsibility, or trying to paint Christian Paradis with the same brush from his time as Public Works minister, or demanding an apology on behalf of the Parliamentary Budget Officer for the way he was treated when his estimates were unpopular but later proved correct. Answering were Julian Fantino, Rona Ambrose, and Peter MacKay, but they only repeated the very same talking points as before (though Ambrose, to her credit, could at least mix it up a bit and give the same talking point six different ways and make it sound like she was giving more information than she really was). Marc Garneau demanded MacKay’s resignation (MacKay: You’re misrepresenting the AG’s report), John McKay followed suit (Ambrose: Look! New secretariat!), and Judy Foote demanded that Fantino resign, calling him the minister without portfolio (the M-4 Unit stood up to respond, and you could hear his duotronic circuits whirring for a few seconds while he tried to formulate a response, before he simply went back to his talking points). From here, the topic shifted, and Hoang Mai asked about the AG report on tax avoidance (Shea: Look at all the things the AG praised us for!), while Nycole Turmel and Paul Dewar asked about the effect of public service job cuts (Saxton: Yay leaner government!).

Round three saw questions on Bruce Carson’s relationship with John Duncan, patronage appointments, CBC cuts, gas prices in Quebec, the demise of the National Round Table on Energy and the Requirement and Rights & Democracy, cuts to staff on military bases, and federal intrusion in BC’s coasts with regards to the Northern Gateway pipeline (Lebel: There are sound regulations in place).

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to John McKay for his charcoal suit with a pink shirt and light blue tie, and to Michelle Rempel for a simple yet tailored black dress with a blue and grey scarf that wasn’t distracting. Style citations go out to Jasbir Sandhu for a pale orange shirt and tie with his grey suit, and to Lynne Yelich for a yellow jacket with black piping with a black turtleneck.

Rae says Harper is not “just the piano player in the brothel”

Posted on by

In a speech to caucus that was open to the media, Bob Rae excoriated Stephen Harper over the F-35 debacle. Really, really took him to task, especially seeing as the Harper government is one whose hallmark is centralised control. And it was that control that Rae zeroed in on as he put the blame for the debacle squarely on Harper’s shoulders.

Rae pointed to the “leaks” coming from PMO in advance of the Auditor General’s report. The “leaks,” which don’t happen by accident, said that nameless officials misled Harper and that he was “privately furious” and he was going to make sure that it never happened again.

Rae typified the PMO as “the most highly centralised and tightly controlled government in Canadian history.”

“You can’t get away with the fiction that a $10 billion dollar mistake in calculating the cost of the F-35 stealth fighter had nothing to do with the man in charge, with the man whose name and whose moniker is on every single publication of this government.”

Rae says that such denials might work for others, but not for Harper.

“He cannot now pretend that he was just the piano player in the brothel who didn’t have a clue as to what was going on upstairs.”

Rae charged Harper with misleading the public, putting out a misleading prospectus, false figures and false documents to the tune of billions of dollars. “Any company that did those things would fire the CEO and replace the board of directors. Police would be called in and the civil litigation would be huge.”

And given that Canada no longer has cabinet government, but Harper government, Rae says that Harper personally must wear the debacle and resign.

Rae also touched on the federal budget, given that he has not had a chance to speak in the House about it, and said that there they had five simple questions about the document.

“Does it make the country more prosperous?” Rae asked. “Does it ensure that the prosperity in the country is deeply shared? Does it improve our environmental and fiscal sustainability – is it a budget that points the way to genuine sustainability for the country? Does it improve our democracy and the quality of life in our federation? And finally, does it allow Canada to be at its best in the world?”

Not surprisingly, Rae answered no to each of those questions. He also mentioned that the only time “climate” is mentioned with in the budget is as a reference to the investment climate, which is important, but so is climate change.

Rae’s criticism wasn’t spared simply for Harper, but he had a few words for the NDP as well, whose “filibuster” on the budget speech was not grounded in sound tactics, but simply prevented others from speaking in his estimation, and that it denied 40 MPs from getting a chance to speak.

“The era of love and good feeling is clearly over inside the NDP,” Rae said. “It’s a new regime. We now live in a world where anger is apparently better than love, arrogance is now better than humility, and petulance is much stronger than respect.”

And he had one last shot at Thomas Mulcair.

“The way to beat Harper is not to become mini-Harper. It’s not a strategy that’s going to work, but it says a lot about the new NDP.”

On being Friends of the Military

Posted on by

In and amidst all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Auditor General’s report on the F-35 procurement process, the issue of wilful blindness on the part of the government I think is something that needs further attention, and it goes back to the way in which they’ve positioned themselves since they first formed government in 2006. More specifically, they cast themselves as Friends of the Military™, and it makes one wonder if that’s the reason why they didn’t push back when officials at DND were feeding them incorrect information, or keeping their ministers out of the loop. After all, they invested so much time in denouncing the “Decade of Darkness” of the Chrétien years (never mind the fact that the Liberals under Paul Martin went a long way towards recapitalising the military, or that many of the problems during said decade were a result of mismanagement), that they didn’t want to be seen to be accused of being anything other than friendly. And so, they were quick to believe DND officials, despite the Statement of Operational Requirements being written specifically for the plane they wanted, or when the bidding process was rigged, almost in a transparent manner. They wanted to keep being the friend.

It’s not like they weren’t warned. Even if the opposition parties hadn’t been asking the questions about that process – and they were – remember the spanking Sheila Fraser gave them over the purchase of the Cyclone helicopters when DND also gamed the system, told their political masters one thing when the reality was a different picture. If the responsible ministers didn’t ask questions with this knowledge in mind, and with increasing questions from the opposition, then it can only be considered wilful blindness, especially when you look at the way in which they not only dismissed criticism, but gave a series of increasingly hyperbolic talking points in support of this fighter plane, no matter how much reality intruded.

I also think we need to point out that it’s been years since we’ve had any kind of a Defence white paper, or any other kind of guiding document as to what this government expects our military’s role in the world to be. That’s an important consideration with infrastructure and procurement, since it will determine the kind of hardware we acquire. This is at the heart of the F-35 issue – the F-35 is suited for a certain type of mission profile, and it’s one of being on the front lines of future engagements abroad – and is not as well suited for the defence our Arctic given its single engine and lack of cold-weather testing. And without any particular guidance as to the kind of missions we need this equipment for, it makes it really difficult to hold the government to account for its purchasing decisions.

And then we get to the issue of responsibility. The lines are muddy, but clearly heads need to roll, and in our system of government, it all boils down to the ministers of national defence and of public works. Ultimately, the buck stops with them. Not that Harper will either demand or accept resignations. But it should also be noted that against this government’s usual form, they’re not even blaming the bureaucrats for this debacle. In fact, the approved line is that this is all just the result of a series of miscommunications on such a complex file, so really, we can’t hold anyone responsible. And one has to suspect that we go back to this government’s intense desire to be the Friend of the Military™ that they don’t want to be seen to be being anything less than unwavering in their support for our men and women in uniform, no matter how many blind eyes they need to turn to what’s really going on under their own noses. And that needs to be called out for what it really is.

QP: That damning F-35 report

Posted on by

After a morning spent breathlessly talking about the Auditor General’s report, we were waiting for fireworks. Harper was in the House, Mulcair was ready with his scripted questions sitting on his miniature lectern on his desk, but when the time came, Mulcair instead led off with a fairly pro forma question on budget cuts, to which Harper responded about transfer payments growing faster than provinces themselves were, and that they weren’t actually being cut. So much for that. Mulcair then turned to the F-35s and the Auditor General’s report, for which Harper assured him that they had accepted the report and were putting into place more rigorous supervision of the procurement process. Christine Moore followed up with more of the same, and Julian Fantino delivered an answer just like Harper’s. Ralph Goodale demanded to know why there was still no open tender for replacement fighters, to which Fantino accused Goodale of ignoring the good things the AG said in the report, though Goodale immediately countered that those good things praised were what the Liberals had put into place. When Marc Garneau asked about the government’s wilful blindness on the problems in the process, Rona Ambrose got up to tout the new secretariat being put into place to manage the procurement process.

Round two was mostly taken up with F-35 questions from the likes of Matthew Kellway, Malcolm Allan, and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, for which we got mostly the same answers from either Fantino (who did mention a new Seven Point Plan™ on the process), or Ambrose. Peter Julian asked about a report claiming private sector job losses stemming from public sector cuts (Flaherty: those are wild numbers), Olvia how asked about the AG’s report on air safety (Lebel: We accept the report – basically shrugging off the reporting of serious lapses in safety inspections), and Jamie Nicholls asked about Aveos (Lebel: It’s an issue with two private companies). John McKay and Dominic LeBlanc returned to the F-35 and four years of mismanagement (Ambrose: New secretariat!). Irene Mathyssen and Kellie Leitch traded scripted outrage versus scripted bafflegab, Huang Mai asked about future tolls on the Champlain Bridge (Lebel: There’s no question about tolls right now), and Françoise Boivin asked about Quebec’s court challenge on long-gun registry data (Bernier: We’re going to defend our area of jurisdiction).

Round three saw questions on the demise of Rights & Democracy, Henk Tepper, OAS versus the Prime Minister’s special retirement allowance, environmental assessments at airports, a Canadian in a Spanish prison, drug shortages, GMO pork, and a final question on the long-gun registry data.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Greg Rickford who again proves that tailoring is key, with his black suit, white shirt and pocket square, and striped blue tie, and to Alexandrine Latendresse for her grey and black top, black skirt and black jacket. Style citations go out to Robert Goguen for a fluorescent blue shirt/black suit violation, and to Isabelle Morin for a black and floral jacket. The Christine Moore Shiny Watch today reports a multi-coloured metallic dress (that could have come from Talos IV) with black bordering around the waist and bust lines, paired with a black jacket.

QP: Attacking a provincial government

Posted on by

As the NDP’s budget filibuster – for lack of a better term – continues, it was little surprise that Thomas Mulcair decided to start off today’s Question Period by reading off a trio of questions about the budget and jobs, careful to mention the Aveos job losses and forthcoming public sector cuts. As Harper was off in Washington for a “Three Amigos” meeting, we were instead treated to Peter Van Loan as designated replacement PM for the day, who touted the focus on job creation and economic growth in the budget, and that the NDP’s plan for higher taxes would kill those jobs. Peter Julian got up to ask about the public service cuts, to which Jim Flaherty replied that Julian should read all about the job creation hiring credit within the budget. Bob Rae stood up to ask a pair of questions about why Flaherty thought it was acceptable to attack the province of Ontario’s finances, but Van Loan did not answer, but simply kept trying to assert that Rae was a terrible premier back in his day. For his final question, Rae asked about the “special allowance” given to retired Prime Ministers, but Van Loan insisted that the budget was clear that MP pensions would be brought into line with those of the private sector.

Round two kicked off with Robert Chisholm calling the budget “mean-spirited” (Flaherty: Look at the long-term growth projections!), Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asking about OAS pensions and downloading costs to the provinces (Leitch: We’re acting responsibly!), Libby Davies asked about the so-called cuts to health transfers (Aglukkaq: We’re not cutting transfers), and Hélène LeBlanc asked about the changes coming to the National Research Council (Paradis: We’ve doubled some research funds!). Marc Garneau and Justin Trudeau asked about the suggestions by Conservative MPs of incompetence at Elections Canada at the Procedure and House Affairs committee last week, and about their budget cuts (Uppal: We supported the motion in the House; Van Loan: They assured us they have all the resources they need), and John McKay asking about the forthcoming Auditor General’s report on the F-35s (Fantino: Wait for the report). Matthew Kellway and Christine Moore asked about the F-35 process (Fantino: We need replacement planes), and Jack Harris and Ryan Cleary asked about that search and rescue failure in Labrador (McKay: The Canadian Forces tries to respond to these requests).

Round three saw questions on the Northern Gateway Pipeline approval process, killing the Public Appointments Commission Secretariat, the environmental cuts in the budget (Kent: The budget proves how committed we are to the environment! Yes, indeed it does), Bell planning to double payphone rates to a dollar per call, the letter to Peter MacKay written by a former search and rescue technician about the impact of the changes, unilingual Anglophone IRB judges (Dykstra: Do you want us to fire the unilingual francophone ones in Quebec too?), cuts to the Council of Welfare, and environmental assessments with future airport construction.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Jonathan Genest-Jourdain for his grey suit with a white shirt a somewhat whimsical purple tie, and to Lisa Raitt for her tailored black leather jacket with a striped white collared shirt. Style citations go out to Maxime Bernier for a black suit with a yellow shirt and pocket square, with a red tie, and to Linda Duncan for a creation that appeared to be patchwork, but I can’t much describe it beyond that. Glance askance over to Christine Moore, whose love of shiny metallic ensembles was demonstrated today by a top that was comprised entirely of silver sequins.

And in case you missed it, this little rhyme from Liberal MP Roger Cuzner had everyone in the House laughing before QP got started.

Former conservative labour minister weighs in on back-to-work legislation

Posted on by

Since the last election, the Conservative government has made use of back-to-work legislation for Canada Post and Air Canada workers – even though Air Canada pilots, mechanics and baggage handlers weren’t even off the job yet. But while the NDP – traditionally the party of labour – has often decried its use and famously filibustered the first instance of such a bill, there are those on the small-c conservative side who also see the use of such legislation as detrimental.

Progressive Conservative Senator Elaine McCoy was provincial labour minister in the Don Getty government in Alberta back in 1989, and saw some major strikes during her time in office, including a teacher’s strike and an illegal strike by social workers. Her perspective comes from those experiences.

Labour relations are about the balance of power between labour and management, and the financial pressure that a strike or lockout can place on the other party, McCoy says, and back-to-work legislation destroys the balance of power.

“You tilt the balance of power by putting the full weight of the state on the one side, and it is really on one side, because it means that the revenues to the management continue,” McCoy says. “There’s no benefit to the workers. Suddenly you’ve removed all penalty from management.”

Back-to-work legislation also erodes the close working relationship between workers and management, which should be based on respect.

“What you get is resentment on labour’s side,” McCoy says. “It builds, and therefore much less desire to come to agreement of any sort, and a desire to get revenge. When you encourage one side to gloat and bully, and the other side to want revenge and bully, you what you have is long-term unrest. You resolve the immediate, but you plant the seeds for more trouble in the long term.”

As for the strikes that happened under her watch, McCoy kept those principles in mind.

“When the teachers went out on strike, we had to bring additional people into my office to answer the phones, because everybody’s grandmother and everybody’s parent was phoning to say ‘get those teachers back to work. I can’t handle the day care,’” McCoy recalls. “And indeed, there were quite a few members of caucus who wanted to use the sledgehammer and use back-to-work legislation, but I had to talk them down because as I say, it might give you an immediate Band-Aid, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying situation.”

This was also the case with the illegal strike by social workers.

“Some labour ministers feel they should get involved themselves,” McCoy says. “I never felt that personally I should go to the bargaining table. I didn’t have that kind of training or skill, but what I did do was use the services of some people who were well respected in the labour relations field to work behind the scenes to help the two sides get together quietly and to iron out their differences. Yeah it took a week or ten days, but they did ultimately, and everyone walked away satisfied.”

Judging the current labour situation and the instances of legislation but forward to date, McCoy says that if she were a federal labour minister, she would be reluctant to do any kind of back-to-work legislation simply because it’s bad public policy.

“I think the current government is sowing the seeds of discontent and labour unrest, which is going to be more disruptive in the long run than a strike or lockout situation would have been,” McCoy says.

Neither does she buy the argument that the economy is too fragile.

“There would have been a great deal of pressure on the labour and management teams to get back to work, but that’s part of the bargaining power,” McCoy says. “There is always in these public service kinds of situations, an attempt by both labour and management to win the hearts of the public, and sometimes management succeeds and sometimes labour succeeds in doing that. But public opinion is important. Air Canada has to respond to its customers and the union has to be careful that it doesn’t alienate public opinion because that doesn’t do it any good in the long run either.”

Conservative Senator criticises foreign money inquiry

Posted on by

Conservative senator Nancy Ruth has occasionally found herself on the other side of positions taken by other members of her party, and today was no exception. In the Senate earlier this afternoon, Senator Nancy Ruth took issue with her fellow Conservative senator Nicole Eaton’s inquiry into foreign money into Canadian non-profit organisations. Eaton and several of her fellow Conservative senators are going after environmental groups primarily, who they see are asserting undue influence on the Canadian political process, as well as our economic interests when it comes to natural resources – thinking primarily of course of the Alberta oilsands, and pipelines needed to transport the bitumen to places where it can be upgraded into more conventional oil forms.

Nancy Ruth says that while she supports the pipeline, she has three questions around the inquiry – why is the net being cast so narrowly in that it targets only charities, what evidence is there that these foreign foundations are pushing Canadian groups into taking positions that they wouldn’t otherwise, and why the current mechanisms for policing charities are inadequate.

“If the concern is about foreign influence, then why is the inquiry not considering the lobbying efforts of foreign corporations with huge interests in the development of the oil sands and the construction of the pipeline?” Nancy Ruth asked. “Why is the inquiry not considering the lobbying efforts of Canadian corporations with foreign investors?”

Nancy Ruth also wonders about the proof, considering allegations made by Senator Eaton of “interference, abuse, political manipulation, influence peddling, manipulation,” and by  Senator Daniel Lang of “money laundering and support for terrorism, and active engagement in elections.” These allegations are coupled with the notion that the foreign funders are somehow exerting undue influence.

“Could it not be that Canadian charities went looking for financial support both within and without Canada to support their positions?” Nancy Ruth wondered. “Furthermore we live in a global culture with global ideas.”

In pointing to the existing policing mechanisms, and the fact that any charity can’t spend more than ten percent of its budget on political advocacy as it stands, and the fact that there are already disclosure rules for non-residents, Nancy Ruth doesn’t see the same issue that Eaton does.

“If you want the CRA, the NGOs or charities to make foreign monies public – that’s fine with me – if it does not infringe on the Canadian laws on privacy and the principle of confidentiality of tax,” Nancy Ruth said. “More transparency suits me, as it would let me see who is funding Ethical Oil and who it’s ‘puppets’ are.”

She drives home her point about the tone being set by the existence of the inquiry as one that attacks Canada’s democratic principles.

“What is really being advocated is that some groups should have influence, and others should not,” Nancy Ruth said. “What is really being advocated is that some points of view cannot be questioned, while others are a waste of time and cause delay.”

Fellow Conservative senator Dennis Patterson, who represents Nunavut, followed up by decrying the misinformation given by these environmental non-profit groups and their “convoluted” financing, which he blamed “lazy journalists” for propagating. As an example, he talked about protests against seismic tests in Lancaster Sound, saying that it was based on falsehoods.

He then said that Canada does not need foreign aid, and that groups in these countries, be they from the States or Europe, they should turn their attention to their own backyards, and worried about “philanthropy as an instrument of foreign policy.”

At the end of the day’s debate, before it was adjourned, Liberal Senator Jim Munson stood up to ask Patterson about why those “poor, impoverished lobbyists” wandering around Ottawa aren’t similarly being asked for the same kinds of transparency.

Senator Eaton was not amused, and called the question ridiculous, though Patterson did concede that perhaps the transparency requirements shouldn’t focus solely on charities.

QP: A lacklustre first showdown

Posted on by

It may have taken until Thursday, but the face-off between Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper finally took place today, and wow, was it pretty lacklustre. Mulcair’s first two questions were about cuts in the budget, and while Harper first congratulated him on his victory, he then brought up his strong mandate to gradually eliminate the deficit, but that they weren’t cutting healthcare or pensions. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Christian Paradis’ ethical lapses, but Harper reminded him that nothing untoward actually happened. Libby Davies and Leona Aglukkaq had another go-around about health transfers, before Bob Rae brought up the logical inconsistencies with the F-35 tendering process. Harper assured him that the numbers coming out of the States were within the contingencies, but there was no signed contract. Rae finished off his round with a question on Paradis, and Harper continued to shrug it off.

Round two opened up with David Christopherson brought up the Chief Electoral Officer’s testimony on the Robocon issue at Procedure and House Affairs (Del Mastro: Baseless smears!), Guy Caron and Charlie Angus asked about Paradis’ numerous ethical lapses (Van Loan: The minister in question does a superb job!), and Olivia Chow, Isabelle Morin, and Jamie Nicholls asked about Aveos job losses (Lebel: We’re disappointed but the legal advice we got says Air Canada is in compliance with the Act). Judy Foote asked about a certain MP advising youths to carry arms – especially young woman to avoid sexual assaults (Toews: We don’t support treating duck hunters as criminals), Dion asked about the appointment of unilingual Anglophone immigration officers (Kenney: The IRB respects the Official Languages Act), and Sean Casey asked about veterans medical records being improperly accessed (Blaney: We’re helping veterans!). Alain Guiguère, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Wayne Marston and Irene Mathyssen asked about OAS cuts (Leitch: It’s unsustainable!).

Round three saw questions on the F-35s, fleet separation policy for East Coast fisheries, Aveos jobs, calls for a Royal Commission on the last election, cut to the CBC (the first question from new NDP MP Craig Scott), which aid groups are on the chopping block next, veterans’ privacy, drug shortages, and “national security” in the Investment Canada Act.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for his navy pinstriped suit, with a white shirt and purple tie, and to Rona Ambrose for her fitted black leather jacket. Style citations go out to Hélène LeBlanc for her cherry-blossom patterned grey dress and jacket with an awful peach scarf, and Randy Kamp for his fluorescent aqua shirt with grey suit.

Voter misdirection is not an error: Mayrand

Posted on by

The appearance of Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee was to a packed house. Everyone was happy to see him there – even if most of the NDP MPs on the committee were late in arriving, and the fact that Bob Rae turned up to join Marc Garneau for the Liberal contingent was sure enough of a sign that he was taking this seriously.

Mayrand’s opening statement gave us a few new facts – that the volume of contacts that Elections Canada has received has climbed to 40,000, of which some 800 are specific complaints; that the Elections Commissioner and his investigators have been looking into specific complaints since May 5th of last year; and that there were some 61 late polling location changes in the last election. But perhaps the most important thing that he kept hammering home was that Elections Canada does not have a list of voters’ phone numbers. They couldn’t call voters even if they wanted to. And this is a very important thing to remember.

Why? Because the narrative that the Conservatives were trying to build was that this was really just about errors on the voters list. Yes, there are errors on the list, Mayrand says. It’s hard not for there to be – it’s a database of 24 million names. It can never be fully accurate because the moment you print it out, it’s no longer accurate since people move all the time, and it’s not mandatory that people notify them. And yet one Conservative MP after another kept returning to the point of these errors. That, or trying to minimise the extent of the issue. It works out to one complaint every 100 polling stations – not that they’re trying to minimise this. 800 specific complaints in 200 ridings? That’s like four per riding – not that they want to minimise this. At the same time, they would say that one legitimate complaint is too many. But of course, these 800 complaints are “unsubstantiated,” which by the way is not another word for “unproven,” even though they tried to use the two interchangeably. Oh, and can’t this be chalked up to errors on the voters list?

No, Mayrand put his foot down. Calls from people claiming to be Elections Canada to misdirect voters are not errors – they’re outrageous and should be dealt with severely. And to that effect, Mayrand spoke about reviewing the penalties currenty in place within the Elections Canada Act, which he says need to be improvement as many penalties are simply too lax, and he’ll be submitting that report to Parliament in addition to the one on the ongoing investigations.

There were a few more interesting revelations: that they’ve determined that some 6700 calls went out from RackNine in the Guelph riding, of which they only received 70 complaints, so make of that ratio what you will. There are 250 files now open on the election being investigated. That they are looking into evidence of “voter augmentation” in those ridings, but much of the evidence is vague, or that what is being taken to the media is not necessarily proper (like copies of special ballots, which are not voting day registration forms). And that the court proceedings currently underway in eight ridings, trying to overturn the results, are a separate process that he will cooperate with when asked, but are otherwise not his jurisdiction. Oh, and he didn’t pre-clear those robo-calls that Frank Valeriote’s campaign made, but it’s not clear if they fell under the legislative grounds of advertising – which is his domain – so they’re continuing to investigate it, no matter how much Tom Lukiwski tried to get him to condemn them as having been illegal.

But above all, Mayrand’s message is this – let the investigations continue, and don’t draw any conclusions prematurely. He plans to have his report on the issue tabled in Parliament within a year, but will certainly try to get it tabled as soon as possible. In the meantime, the committee has agreed to call Mayrand back before the House rises in June so that he can update them as to the progress of the investigations, and that they will also call the Commissioner of Elections for him to discuss his own investigations – or at least as much as he’s able to reveal at this juncture anyway.

QP: Scourge of the middle class

Posted on by

His third day as opposition leader, and Mulcair still had no Harper to battle in the House. While his delivery was a little bit less wooden, he was still reading from a script on a miniature lectern, asking about provincial transfers coming in the upcoming budget. In Harper’s place it was John Baird’s turn to be designated back-up PM, and he asserted that their government has given more to the provinces than any other government before them. Libby Davies followed up, accusing the government of abandoning healthcare with the rather dubious claim that they’re “slashing” $31 billion in health transfers (it wasn’t really a cut, people), to which Leona Aglukkaq reminded her that the Conservatives have funded healthcare to “historic levels” and they’re trying to make the system more sustainable. Bob Rae then got up to ask about the lack of a government policy on addictions and mental health, and John Baird took it on a tangent about the Liberals wanting to legalise marijuana, and that they were fighting that for the safety of middle-class families. No, seriously. Rae immediately picked up on that – every evidence shows that alcohol is the most dangerous substance out there, and why is the government announcing proudly that they’re joining in the failed war on drugs in Central America? (You see, you can pick up on questions like that when you’re able to deliver them off-the-cuff. Just saying). Baird continued to beat his chest about how proud they were to stand against the scourge of drugs, ignoring the evidence of course. For his final question, Rae asked about Harper’s former complaints about minister staying with people who do business with their departments (back when it was Don Boudria and Harper was the leader of the opposition), but Baird wasn’t going to take that bait.

Round two kicked off with Peter Julian asking a series of questions on jobs in the budget and the Aveos workers, to which Denis Lebel assured him that this was a private sector issue, and Ted Menzies assured him that they would continue on the path of job creation from the ongoing Economic Action Plan™. Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asked about OAS changes (Leitch: OAS is unsustainable for “future Canadians,” not specifying if she meant Canadians in the future or those who are not yet Canadian), and Nycole Turmel and Paul Dewar asked about some unions not being allowed into the budget lock-up as stakeholders (Menzies: The budget is being delivered in the House where everyone can hear it). Judy Foote asked whether the government was asking the Conservative Party – as they’re actually separate entities remember – about its cooperation with Elections Canada considering that RackNine had an exclusive contract with the party for phone services and “Pierre Poutine” had access because of party connections (Del Mastro: You made your own illegal calls!), Denis Coderre asked about Aveos declining to appear at Transport Committee (Lebel: This is an issue between two private companies), and Judy Sgro asked about OAS changes (Leitch: Unsustainable!). Guy Caron and Charlie Angus closed off the round with questions on Paradis’ ethical latest ethical lapse (Paradis: I used my own means, and nobody lobbied me).

Round three saw questions on the F-35 Statement of Operational Requirements (one of those questions from Rae, as he tried to use logic to overload the duotronic circuits of the M-4 Unit – err, I mean Julian Fantino), environmental regulation changes to be “buried in the budget” (even though there is no indication this will be the case – broad outlines in the budget document doesn’t mean changes will be buried within implementation bills), the Northern Gateway pipeline, cuts to Katimavik (for which Justin Trudeau got a boxing joke in response), francophone immigration officers, the fleet separation policy for the East Coast fishery, rural post offices in Quebec, and the way the way the government handled the Air Canada strike versus the Aveos issue.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michelle Rempel for her fuchsia belted dress, and to John McKay for his grey suit with a pink shirt and pale blue tie. Style citations go out to Carol Hughes for the jacket equivalent of a ball of elastic bands, and to LaVar Payne for his black shirt with a white collar worn with a white tie and a grey suit. Just…no. Dishonourable mentions to Romeo Saganash for a fluorescent blue shirt/grey suit violation, and to Maxime Bernier, who is normally a snappy dresser, for a black suit/lemon yellow shirt violation.