Tag Archives: F-35 Fighters

Roundup: Truth and ministerial accountability

Posted on by

As mentioned earlier, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facia breach of privilege in the government’s answers on the F-35s in the House. So what does this actually mean. First of all, it should be noted that Speaker Scheer parsed things pretty finely, and in that respect, noted that it was difficult to prove a deliberate misleading, which is why he couldn’t make his ruling. (You can read the text here). Fair enough, one supposes, but there were some additional eyebrow-raising aspects to this, in that he pretty much dismissed the notion of ministerial accountability out of hand. In other words, not his problem. This means that as always, this remains a problem for the Crown, and in that, it means that the only people who can punish the Crown for ministers not taking responsibility would be the Commons, by means of withdrawing their confidence. And of course that would mean in this case that backbenchers would have to be sufficiently exercised to want to punish their own party’s government (which this current lot of spineless louts is highly unlikely to do). Marc Garneau raised the additional point after the ruling that this further insulates a government from the actions of the civil servant because they can henceforth claim ignorance, and ministerial accountability may well be a past concept.

Here is the text of the motion the NDP are proposing for splitting the omnibus budget bill. Elizabeth May blogs about the various changes found within the bill and wonders if government spokespersons haven’t read the bill considering that their talking points don’t match the reality of the text. Maclean’s Aaron Wherry has an extremely trying interview with Peter Van Loan about the bill, and his justifying the omnibus-ness of it all.

The Veterans Ombudsman has released a scathing report about the conduct and performance of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, saying some 60 percent of cases were handled improperly. The minister’s response? That they’ll soon be launching a new Action Plan™ to deal with it.

The NDP “digital issues” critic wants to investigate if social media sites are doing enough to protect privacy. Fair enough – but I don’t think that labelling them “Big Data” is really helping anyone.

Here’s a look at the number of contaminated sites that need cleaning up across the country.

And a potential Liberal leadership candidate is launching trailers for his “exploratory committee” bid, but there are cautions about what kind of fundraising he can actually do at this stage.

Up today – the Mental Health Commission is releasing their first report, outlining their strategy, priorities and recommendations, which includes the need for $4 billion in new funds over the next ten years.

QP: Polite requests to split the omnibudget

Posted on by

With Thomas Mulcair away, it was up to Nathan Cullen to lead the NDP for Question Period today. After this morning’s presser to put the government on notice that they were going to make a formal request to split the budget bill, Cullen asked a trio of questions about just that – splitting said budget bill. And lo and behold, James Moore – in his capacity as Deputy PM du jour – rose to say that this budget bill was getting more debate than any other in history. Peggy Nash rose to ask the very same thing, calling the bill a “Trojan Horse,” though I’m not quite sure it’s an apt analogy considering it’s not being used to breach any impenetrable walls as the Conservatives have a majority anyway. Regardless, both Jim Flaherty and Diane Finley dismissed Nash’s concerns considering all of the good things in the bill. Bob Rae got up and asked how it was that the government could cut mental health services to Canadian Forces personnel in light of their much-touted support for the troops. Moore talked about how Canada spends more helping its soldiers than any other NATO ally, but didn’t really answer the question. For his last supplemental, Rae asked about the forthcoming meeting with the UN Special Rapporteur on Food, but Moore responded by listing some of the great progress the government has made with First Nations issues.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fanboy due diligence

Posted on by

The media has acquired the letter that DND sent to Public Works in order to justify sole-sourcing the F-35 purchase. It’s two paragraphs, has amateurish technical specifications like “very, very low observable stealth capabilities,” and makes four references to “fifth-generation fighter,” which is not a real capability but is rather a trademarked slogan. And this is what passes for due diligence in military procurements. My question is which ministers were copied on this, and why they let it go through. And why Public Works thought that this letter – which has many of the hallmarks of a teenage boy’s fanfiction posts on a second-rate website – was at all acceptable is scandalous.

Also on the F-35 file, it looks like Industry Canada has downgraded their expected industrial spinoffs from our participation in the programme, which has the NDP in a lather. Because who needs to worry about due diligence when you’re worried about regional industrial benefits?

Elections Canada is closing in on the identity of “Pierre Poutine,” and has traced his activities to a computer used by the Guelph Conservative campaign, the IP address of which also matches that one campaign worker used for legitimate calls to RackNine.

The Canadian Forces will be reorganising their command structure as part of cost saving measures. They’re also pulling back on the potential cuts to mental health services after pushback. Meanwhile, the process for modernising our fleet of frigates is running into problems and could wind up with delays and operational gaps. The Forces are also testing more unmanned drones in Canada, which could have some unforeseen legal consequences.

Five former Prime Ministers gathered in Toronto on Thursday night to be honoured for their public service.

Paul Wells talks to Justin Trudeau about the Liberal leadership, and lays out the case as to why Trudeau should run. Trudeau says it’s not going to happen. At least not anytime soon.

Here is a look at the sizes of budget implementation bills past.

The final circulation penny has been minted, and will now be off to the Royal Canadian Mint’s currency museum.

And Tabatha Southey imagines a conversation with an NDP volunteer from the future.

Roundup: Six days of debate

Posted on by

So you know that 420-ish page omnibus budget bill, that affects some fifty Acts, completely rewrites the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species At Risk Act, removes the Inspector General from CSIS, disappears the immigration backlog and all manner of other measures? Has been subjected to time allocation. The government, feeling generous, is giving it some six days of debate, which really means twenty-something hours in the House at Second Reading, which is hardly anything at all for a bill of this magnitude. The Senate at least will begin pre-studying the bill next week and actually breaking it up into appropriate committees, which the Commons won’t be doing (though as a half-measure, the government will allow a sub-committee at Finance to study all of those environmental changes, which I’m sure will last all of a week, tops). I think John Ivison put it best:

It makes you wonder: What is the point of Parliament? Why not have one whopper of a bill once a year, allow MPs to give it a cursory skim and then send them back to their constituencies to do the ceremonial work of opening supermarkets and attending Rotary barbecues?

If the abuse of time allocation and omnibus legislation continues, that may very well be the way things are headed.

Continue reading →

Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 5

Posted on by

My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about the decorum, the omnibus budget bill, and new developments with the F-35s.

QP: Look everyone, Rush!

Posted on by

With both Mulcair and Rae out of the House, the question hovered as to whether Stephen Harper would even bother answering a question today, as he often won’t bother unless asked by another party leader. But when Megan Leslie, in her capacity as part of the deputy leader trilogy, stood up to ask about that troubling instance of DND retroactively changing a parliamentary report once it had been tabled, Harper did stand up to answer. Well, to say “answer” is a bit charitable, considering he avoided the question all together and shrugged about contracts not having been signed and no money spent on any acquisitions, but didn’t really talk about the issue at hand. And Leslie, incidentally, performed much better than Mulcair on any given day, with minimal checking of notes and clear delivery rather than reading from a lectern. Snaps for that. Jack Harris was up next, asking about cuts to mental health services for the Canadian Forces, but Peter MacKay told him that he was mistaken and that they were moving a clinic to Petawawa for that very issue. Marc Garneau was up for the Liberals, retuning to the question of the contradiction of the Deputy Minister of Defence not accepting the Auditor General’s report when the government does, to which Harper assured him that it wasn’t what the Deputy Minister said, but that he was disputing a specific item. John McKay finished off the round by wondering why the government authorised the release of low-balled F-35 costs in 2010, but Harper answered (actually quite surprisingly) and assured him that they were taking a careful look at those costs going forward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Retroactively changing the facts

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence quietly amended a tabled parliamentary report on the F-35s under the guise of a correcting a “typographical error” when in fact they were changing a significant line about the status of the procurement. With nothing more than a quiet amendment notice on the Treasury Board website, they changed the status from “definitions” phase to “options analysis,” which is really significant. And they did it quietly, hoping nobody would notice – because nobody has anything to hide on how badly this whole file has been handled. Meanwhile, the name of the new procurement secretariat has officially been changed so that it isn’t specifically to procure F-35s, but rather is now the “national fighter procurement secretariat.” And University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagassé wants the opposition to ask better questions about the fighter since they keep getting distracted by shiny things and missing the real point – which of course is why a rigged process was allowed to happen and why due diligence was not followed.

Today in voter suppression news, an American Republican operative who was convicted and spent time in jail over improper calls says that the various misleading calls here were likely imported American tactics, and that it looks like a systemic and sophisticated operation. Over in the bid to overturn the results of the Etobicoke Centre election, it appears there are missing voter registration certificates, which could point to some improper votes being cast – enough to have changed the outcome. Meanwhile, over in Eglinton-Lawrence, it looks like a flyer was going around trying to get some improper votes cast on behalf of Jewish voters (not that the margin is enough to challenge in court).

DND looks to be set to chop mental health monitors and PTSD monitors. Because that sounds like a genius idea, not to mention totally “supporting our troops.”

What’s that? Major pipeline projects could face lengthy court challenges in the absence of robust environmental assessments? You don’t say!

Liberal Party president Mike Crawley indicates there are likely to be six or seven interested candidates in the upcoming leadership race – whenever it actually kicks off.

Here’s a look at Elizabeth May’s first year in Parliament.

Alison Crawford looks at the use of private members’ business to push through government business – not that it’s what they’re doing with the Woodworth motion.

The Conservatives’ latest proposed elder abuse television spots were panned by focus groups as being “too creepy” and the “worse commercials ever.” Yikes!

And the Procedure and House Affairs committee has tabled its report on the whole Anonymous vs. Vic Toews issue, and basically finds that they can’t do anything about it. Case closed.

QP: The most pressing business of the nation

Posted on by

After a morning of speeches and a whole lot of self-congratulation all around, the NDP decided that the most pressing business of the nation, the one topic to lead off Question Period, for which they are holding the government to account, was that of Conrad Black’s return to Canada. Or rather, as the framing device that they employ says, “notorious British criminal” Conrad Black, or “British citizen Lord Black of Crossharbour” in their subsequent press releases. While this is factually true, it’s still a framing device that they’re employing. And while Mulcair didn’t play the race card today, Harper still called him on yesterday’s usage, and chastised Mulcair for denigrating the work of public servants. Mulcair then moved onto the report about the big bill for the overtime paid to cabinet ministers’ limo drivers, but Harper dodged and touted the country’s economic performance instead. Charlie Angus picked up from here, and yes, Team Decorum still employs the epithets of “Muskoka Minister” when he goes after Tony Clement. Clement, by the way, cited that they were living within the rules and paying out the overtime owed to their drivers per their collective agreement, and hey, these cabinet ministers work long hours. So there. Bob Rae closed off the leaders’ round with a trio of questions about the contradiction in how the Deputy Minister of Defence can dispute the Auditor General’s findings but the government agreeing with the report, but Harper parsed and equivocated, and insisted that Rae was mistaken as to who said what.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Happy Harper-versary!

Posted on by

Happy one-year anniversary of the Strong, Stable, Conservative Majority Government! This morning we are looking forward to self-congratulatory speeches from Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, and an announcement from the Liberals about how they plan to not only open the doors to their party, but knock down the walls as well. No, seriously. (I write more about that here).

Eight deputy ministers and senior officials turned up at the Public Accounts committee yesterday to talk about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s. And by “talk about,” we mean basically say “Not my fault – don’t look at me.” And hey, because there were eight of them around the table, it meant there was very little questioning of any of them once they all got through their opening statements. (You know, the kind of thing that Liberal committee member Gerry Byrne was trying to avoid when he tried to pass a motion that the witnesses would be heard in panels of no more than two at a time). Accountability and transparency in action!

Quebec is officially calling for a Supreme Court reference on the constitutionality of the Senate “reform” bill. As well they should – the bill is unconstitutional, no matter how the government tries to make changes through the back door.

A Federal Court judge has given an “unreserved” smackdown of the practice of clawing back disability payments for veterans. Peter MacKay hasn’t yet said whether the government will appeal the decision.

Here is a pretty damning indictment about the death of oversight at CSIS.

Here is a look at the 40 diplomatic residences we’re considering selling, and the damage it’ll do to our “brand” abroad.

As was mentioned during QP yesterday, it looks like Conrad Black will be coming back to Canada after all, while the NDP took this case, along with that of Gary Freeman and showed the apparently double-standard being applied there.

Peter Kent accuses environmental charities of “laundering” foreign funds to undermine our country’s interests. Seriously.

And Steve Murray illustrates ways that we can help to improve decorum in the Commons.

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 →