Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

QP: Taking Paul Martin’s name in vain

Posted on by

In the wake of the Auditor General’s report, and with all of the leaders present, it looked like we might have a decent Question Period for a change. One could hope, anyway. Thomas Mulcair led off, saying that the AG considered the government bad managers, particularly around tax expenditures. Stephen Harper disputed the interpretation of the report, said they would report more, and then slammed the NDP regarding their own high tax plans. Mulcair tied those into the budget and the “giveaways to the wealthy few,” and wondered if Harper thought he was Paul Martin. Harper hit back, saying that if he was Paul Martin, the NDP would be supporting him, before giving praise to his budget measures. Mulcair mumbled something else about Paul Martin before changing the topping to a declaration Mike Duffy may or may not have signed before he was appointed. Harper ignored the question, and praised the TFSA changes. Mulcair quipped “Mike who?” before asking about the appointment of Caroyln Stewart Olsen to the Senate, to which Harper insisted that the Duffy issues were before the court. Mulcair then brought up the Senate invoking privilege to block the release of an internal audit — something the PM has nothing to do with. Harper repeated the response about the matter being before the courts. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the money spent on advertising rather than on young entrepreneurs. Harper insisted that an entrepreneurial group was pleased with measures in the budget, and said that the Liberals would take them away. Trudeau repeated it in French, with the twist of job creation for youth, and Harper asserted that the Liberals hate benefits and tax cuts. For his final question, Trudeau accused Harper had changed with his decision to pour so much money into advertising. Harper listed things he claimed the Liberals opposed (but not really).

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate invokes privilege

Posted on by

In his attempt to cast the net far and wide in order to excuse Mike Duffy’s housing claims, it seems that Donald Bayne is trying to show that plenty of other senators were improperly claiming for Ottawa residences, and is trying to compel the release of an internal Senate audit conducted in 2012, where two Senators – retired Senator Zimmer and Senator Patterson – were found to have questionable claims which they later explained away. The Senate, however, is invoking privilege and refusing to turn it over, which is their constitutional right. They are under no obligation to help Duffy’s defence, after all, and as a legislative body they have the right to conduct their own affairs. And before anyone starts getting hysterical, remember that privilege is all about the independence of the institution, and keeping the courts out of parliament so that it can do its job without the constant threat of litigation during the legislative process. Likewise, Parliament doesn’t get involved in individual court cases because that would interfere with the independence of the courts. Otherwise, Bayne tried to bring up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen yesterday who was part of the subcommittee that “sat in judgement” of Duffy when she was claiming her long-time Ottawa residence as secondary for two years while she was trying to sell it in order to fully move back to New Brunswick (this is the point where I mention that she shouldn’t have been appointed as a New Brunswick senator until she was fully moved back). Also, the Senate finance officer continued to be grilled, and continued to push back against Bayne, going so far as to read more than the passages he indicated in order to provide context, which the judge allowed her to do. Nicholas Köhler paints that sketch with his usual aplomb.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Privacy Commissioner finally has his say

Posted on by

Bill C-51 is now getting its review in the Senate, hearing from someone that the Commons didn’t – the Privacy Commissioner. What they got was an earful – there are some big problems with the information sharing provisions in the bill that would allow large amounts of personal information to be collected and shared between departments with little justification, and that his office would be swamped with work because of it. He’s also calling for oversight – like everyone else – and for the ability for different watchdogs to communicate with one another and coordinate their investigations in order to get a better picture of what these organisations are doing as they work together but their oversight remains siloed. Those other oversight bodies – SIRC and the CSE Commissioner – had much the same concerns when it comes to the ability to work together, and just keeping pace with the increasing scope and scale of operations. But will any of this have an effect? Maybe, as there are some Conservative senators who are concerned about these kinds of things and who may push back. But the government may bully through, and said senators may decide that this isn’t the hill they want to die on (which does happen), and they’ll let it go through. Suffice to say, the issue has not gone away.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not expecting many budget surprises

Posted on by

It’s Budget Day – err, I mean Economic Action Plan 2015™ Day, and all of the big stuff has pretty much leaked already – because apparently there are no penalties for this kind of thing anymore when that it used to be a serious issue that was investigated by the RCMP. Suffice to say, Joe Oliver promises it’ll be balanced (and got some New Balance shoes as the most dad joke of Budget Day gimmicks ever), and we hear there will be things like some more money for security agencies, and more compassionate caregiver leave (but that’s coming out of the EI fund, which is already artificially high and being used to pay down the deficit), and they keep hinting about raising the limit on TFSA, and finally giving that adult fitness tax credit. And then there’s the fact that the government has been putting out all kinds of advertising to ensure that people don’t forget to sign up for the new child benefits – after all, they want to ensure that they’re in people’s bank accounts before the election so that they can warn that those awful Liberals (and NDP) will take them away. So there’s that. I guess I’ll see you after the lock-up with the rest of the details.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and the day before the budget, and attendance was pretty depressed, and none of the major leaders were present. Megan Leslie led off, demanding the government table a budget that helps families. Kevin Sorensen said she’d have to wait for tomorrow to get the details, but they were going to fulfil their provinces including tax breaks for families. Leslie insisted regular Canadians would face cuts, but Sorenson was not deterred from his good news talking points. Leslie then changed topics to the constitutionality of Mike Duffy’s Senate appointment, to which Paul Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite offices and demanded they repay them. Peter Julian repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and for his final question, Peter Julian decried cuts to marine safety as demonstrated by the fuel leak in English Bay. Lisa Raitt responded by commending the Coast Guard on their actions, and reminded them that the ship transiting Canadian waters who is solely responsible for their pollution. Scott Brison led for the Liberals, decrying the planned balanced budget legislation, and asked the government to make the law retroactive to repay the five percent penalty for the years that we weren’t in recession. Sorenson praised balanced budgets, and didn’t take Brison’s bait. Brison then decried the doubling of the TFSA limit as helping only the wealthy, and Sorenson responded with some non sequitur past quote of Brison. Brison wanted more help for students instead of advertising (Poilievre: You would raise taxes on students).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arctic Council changing hands

Posted on by

It’s the end of Leona Aglukkaq’s two years as Chair of the Arctic Council on Canada’s behalf, and well, there’s not a lot to show for it. That’s not much of a surprise considering what we’ve seen of Aglukkaq in any of her roles so far. As the Americans prepare to head up their turn as Chair, we’re hearing a lot about their priorities, much of it having to do with climate change – you know, that thing at Aglukkaq likes to scold provincial governments about while doing next to nothing on the file herself, while simultaneously taking credit for the reductions that Ontario achieved by shuttering their coal-fired electricity plants. Aglukkaq instead pats herself on the back for encouraging private sector investment in the Arctic, but we haven’t really heard much in the way of good economic news in the North – instead, we’ve heard much more about the skyrocketing food prices and the lack of political will to do much about Nutrition North, or even for the government to acknowledge that problems exist with it. Like so many things during her time in federal politics, Algukkaq seems absent even from the conversation, so you can’t even say that she’s more talk than action. I’m not sure why anyone might have expected this to go any differently.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A possible return to deficits

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave his pre-budget analysis, and said that while the books look balanced this year, the government’s continued focus on tax breaks, spending announcements and the low oil price environment could mean heading back into deficit in two years – not too surprising really if you’ve been paying attention. Part of the fiscal breathing room the government is using right now is coming from their decision to freeze EI rates rather than let them fall to a level that reflects the actual unemployment rate, which sounds a lot like the kinds of things they used to curse Paul Martin for doing. And then there are the asset sales, such as all of those GM shares – possibly sold at a loss – that just pad the books in the short term. But hey, they can claim to balance the budget without raising taxes (err, except for all of those tariffs that they raised this year) and try and sell that as sound economic management going into the election. The actual numbers tell a different story, as we’ve seen, but hey, why mess with a narrative?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cabinet confidences for slogans

Posted on by

In case you wanted to know why the government has chosen the slogan “Strong Proud Free” on their new ad campaigns that blur the partisan line, well, good luck, You see, they’ve been declared a cabinet confidence, which means that they’ll be sealed for twenty years. Ladies and gentlemen, the most open and transparent government in the history of ever! It’s one of those cases where one hopes that The Canadian Press will file a complaint with the Information Commissioner, because then there’s a chance that she’ll be able to actually examine the file (eventually – she’s a bit overloaded and has little operating budget left) to test whether it really should be a cabinet confidence, and if not, she can work what powers she does possess to get it released (though that is likely to mean going to court given the current sad state of Access to Information legislation). Elsewhere, a court case involving misconduct of the RCMP protection detail of the Prime Minister is looking to get the records in question sealed, apparently using clauses from terrorism trials, to keep information about the PM’s family private. While there is likely some reason to keep certain details private, and We The Media are generally reluctant to drag a politician’s family though the mud, RCMP misconduct is serious business and probably shouldn’t be kept behind closed doors for the very reasons why there have been problems in the Force for so long. Sunlight, generally, is the best disinfectant. But it’s not all bad news for Access to Information – a Federal Court judge ruled that government departments can’t charge fees for requested electronic documents, as they have been trying to do, as that undermines the very point of the Access laws in the first place, which are supposed to cost no more than $5, and it’s not like you’re photocopying or printing these documents – they’re already electronic. In all, however, it points to the genuine need to modernise the system, and this government just voted down a chance to do just that when they killed Justin Trudeau’s private member’s bill on doing just that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Legalism and homework monitors

Posted on by

Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dodgy contracts and sophomoric pranks

Posted on by

The start of week two in the big trail, and Crown apparently regained some ground –getting the Senate’s HR clerk to note all of the things Duffy either tried to charge for and was rebuffed, or did end up charging for by means of the apparent clearing house that his former camera man started on his behalf, and all kinds of non-Senate related things were paid for that way, be it photo framing or personal training. No doubt Duffy’s lawyer will try to argue that in the absence of enough rules or controls, it should be treated as acceptable, but perhaps I’m getting pessimistic. Here is Nicholas Köhler’s piece of the kinds of nostalgia that the trial is evoking. Meanwhile, the NDP have been trying to have their juvenile fun at the expense of the Senate over the course of the trial to date. Last week it was small boxes with pieces of Camembert and crackers, and this week it was handing out their “Senate hall of shame” hockey cards, with the new addition of Senator Nancy Ruth – because apparently making a deadpan joke is a scandal. But hey, whatever distracts them from having to justify their own expenses scandals with those improper mailings and satellite offices, right? Imagine what they could accomplish if they put their energy to productive use rather than the sophomoric pranks and snarky press releases that they seem to be so heavily invested in as they chase the impossible dream of Senate abolition (which, I remind you, will never, ever happen ever).

Continue reading →