Tag Archives: Auditor General

Roundup: Fictional carbon taxes

Posted on by

The first day back in the Commons, and all anyone can talk about is whether or not the NDP was proposing a carbon tax. Which they weren’t. But hey, why not use this hysteria as a distraction from actual debate? Van Loan laid out what the plans were for the fall – new budget implementation bill, which will likely include changes to MP pensions, RCMP bill, more tough on crime measures – but the Lawful Access bill was notably absent. Amidst the whole Conservative/NDP carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade punch and counter-punch, economist Stephen Gordon lays out the economic differences between the two.

Oh noes! Government backbenchers are showing a bit of backbone and having independent thought. We The Media must immediately crush this by writing “IS STEPHEN HAPRER LOSING CONTROL OF HIS CAUCUS?” stories.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Farewell, Peter Lougheed

Posted on by

Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed passed away last night at age 84, in the hospital that bears his name. Lougheed started the reign of the Progressive Conservatives in the province, which has kept on for more than 40 years. He was one of the premiers at the centre of the patriation of the constitution, and fought for provincial rights. Here are some statements from Stephen Harper, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, and his ultimate political successor, premier Alison Redford.

Looking ahead to the return of Parliament next week, there will be another budget bill this autumn that promises to be pretty contentious as well.

Here is a good summary of the whole issue between the House of Commons and the Auditor General on that Access to Information issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blocking the Auditor General

Posted on by

The House of Commons (as its own entity rather than its occupants) is taking the Auditor General to Federal Court to block an Access to Information request around his correspondence for his committee appearances. The House says this is about parliamentary privilege, and the AG says that privilege doesn’t extend to his office. Kady O’Malley delves further into this, but it does seem unlikely that the Courts could even weigh in on this, and there is also that wee little fact that Parliament is a court in and of itself. Both the PMO and the Liberals say that they’re willing to waive privilege in this case. It was later revealed that the NDP were the originators of said ATIP request, which just makes this all the more curious.

Iran has responded to our embassy closures, and calls it “unwise, uncivilised, and hostile.” Brian Stewart looks at some of the possible intelligence that may have prompted the pullout, and wonders if it wasn’t threats on Canadian soil that they were more concerned with. The ousted Iranian charé d’affairs insists that they did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair seems to be distancing himself from some of Paul Dewar’s comments regarding the embassy closures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A minority plus some insanity

Posted on by

So, it’s looks like Pauline Marois is going to attempt to form a minority government in Quebec – assuming that she can get the confidence of the National Assembly. But hey, it was far from the wipe out of the Quebec Liberals that some were predicting, and it was fairly close in seat count – within four seats at writing time. (If you want to use the flawed metric of the popular vote, it was even closer, but again, it’s a flawed metric that isn’t actually measuring what you think it is). Jean Charest did lose his own seat, and we’ll see who runs to replace him as party leader once he steps down (which is likey to be announced soon). I’ve already heard rumours that MP Denis Coderre could be interested, for what it’s worth. Also, it’s worth noting that there is really no mandate for a new referendum – sovereignty is polling at an all-time low, and the mandate between the PQ and Quebec Solidaire is far less than the 40 percent that the previous PQ government felt would be necessary to even broach the topic. So, small favours. Stephen Harper, incidentally, is looking forward to working on their shared goals – like jobs and the economy.

And then things went crazy. Marois was pulled off-stage during her victory speech as apparently a man in a blue bathrobe entered the back of the theatre, shot two people and set a fire on his way out. He was quickly arrested and apparently shouted “Les anglais se réveillent” or “The English are rising” as he was loaded into the car. One person was shot and killed, another treated for shock, and the fire was quickly doused, and things were under control in short order. It was turned the tenor of the coverage around in a flash.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The vote-a-thon rolls along

Posted on by

The omnibus budget bill amendment vote-a-thon is currently underway in the House of Commons. Actual voting stated at 1 am, and will continue likely for 24 hours, give or take.  Andrew Coyne sees the virtue in the vote-a-thon, as one of the tools that the opposition has to bloody the government if only a little bit, which we need to see more of if we really respect democracy.

As you may have heard, Bob Rae officially announced that he’s not seeking the leadership of the party, but will stay on as interim leader until the convention, which will happen in April. And in a rare move in this place, he ended his speech/press conference with a few lines from Shakespeare’s Sonnet XXV. Susan Delacourt looks at some of the possible factors of the decision. All eyes are now on Justin Trudeau, who has admitted to feeling pressure to run, but he’s still saying no for now. Pundit’s Guide looks at lessons that the Liberals should learn from the NDP leadership.

Continue reading →

QP: Orwell was not a how-to manual

Posted on by

With the NDP now out to turn public opinion to their side on the omnibus budget bill, one wondered if this was going to lead off QP for the day. And in a sort of tangential sense it did, as Thomas Mulcair asked about Jim Flaherty’s comments that OAS changes could save $10 to $12 billion. Harper insisted there would be no actual pension reductions. Mulcair then turned to Flaherty’s “there are no bad jobs” comments with regards to EI changes – and several times was drowned out by Conservative applause when he repeated Flaherty’s statement. (And yet he kept repeating it and kept getting drowned out). After a warning from the Speaker, Mulcair finished and between that and two follow-up questions about how that also applied to seniors and the disabled, Harper insisted that Canada has a superior job creation record, and hey, they have a disabled member in the cabinet, so there’s nothing that disabled people can’t do. Bob Rae was up next, and brought up George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and how it shouldn’t be a how-to manual for governments, and he related this to the kind of silencing of critics the government has been engaged in, whether it is with the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, or any other number of NGOs or data-gathering organisations. Harper insisted that they were interested in administrative savings and doing away with duplication where the information these groups provide could be found elsewhere. For his final supplemental, Rae gave a nod to the Auditor General’s return to the Public Accounts committee and his assertion that the government wasn’t giving accurate numbers on the F-35s. Harper turned to his rote talking points about no contracts signed and no purchase having been made, and left it at that.

Continue reading →

QP: Decisive Action on apples and oranges

Posted on by

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?

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.

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 →

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.”