Oh Julian Fantino – you’ve really done it this time. When a group of veterans came to meet him about the closure of eight service facilities, Fantino was an hour late, sending his parliamentary secretary and two MPs who are also veterans to assure them that the changes won’t really impact them, which just incensed the veterans. And when Fantino did show up, things got heated, and he stormed out saying that he wasn’t going to be finger-pointed to as one of the veterans was emphatically saying “You’re going to promise me that I won’t see any changes in service,” at which point said veterans filed down to the press theatre and denounced Fantino and the government. And it was quite the press conference to watch. To cap it off, Fantino put out a press release to highlight the “roundtable” held and to express his disappointment with PSAC, who brought the veterans to the Hill. Yeah, good job there. On a similar note, Fantino’s department is demanding repayment for $581 from the family of a soldier who committed suicide. No, seriously.
Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Roundup: Canada Post’s big announcement
Canada Post has announced that it will phase out urban home delivery over the next five years in favour of community mailboxes. Not only that, but they will raise stamps to $1 apiece, and that they will reduce their workforce by attrition. The government supports this plan, while the postal union and seniors groups are opposed. CBC has six myths and realities about Canada Post. PostMedia breaks down the numbers at Canada Post. The CEO of Canada Post, Deepak Chopra (no, not that Deepak Chopra) also serves on the board of directors of the Conference Board of Canada, whose reports seemed to suggest these very changes. Andrew Coyne argues that this is the time to eliminate Canada Post’s monopoly.
Roundup: Mandela, Reform Act and Senate privilege
Nelson Mandela passed away yesterday at the age of 95. Here is the text of his address to the Canadian parliament in 1990 and again in 1998. Maclean’s also has collected the tributes by Canadian MPs over the Twitter Machine.
Today in Reform Act news, Aaron Wherry talks to Michael Chong about the aspect of local nominations and the possibility of rogue operations. I agree that a system like that in several UK parties should be adopted, and I think that Chong is being a bit naïve when he feels that the media will let a leader get away with any nominations that “go rogue,” if the Wildrose party’s reaction is anything to go by in the last Alberta election. Andrew Coyne adds his voice to the call that party leadership selection needs to remain in caucus as well as the ability to remove said leader.
Roundup: Unnecessary supplemental estimates?
The Parliamentary Budget Officer wonders why the government is looking for $5.4 billion in the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, considering that they underspent $10 billion for each of the past three year. It’s another example of the lack of transparency that his government engages in when reporting to the House its fiscal responsibilities. And hey, maybe MPs should be scrutinising these estimates and asking questions, rather than the PBO doing their homework for them – once again. But math is hard, and so on.
Roundup: Flaherty’s frozen economic update
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his fall economic update in Edmonton yesterday, and faced a grilling inquiry by none other than the Conservative chair of the Finance Committee, James Rajotte. Ooh. Flaherty said that there will be a healthy surplus by 2015, paid for by frozen spending (aka de facto cuts when you factor in inflation), and asset sales that haven’t yet happened (which is one-time income, and not sustainable). Any future pay increases for public servants have to come out of those same frozen department budgets as well, which further limits any increases. As you can imagine, it went over like a lead balloon with the opposition. Flaherty also confirmed that he does plan to run again in 2015, despite his health challenges – for what it’s worth. Economist Stephen Gordon has a hard time seeing how the cuts will replace sluggish revenue growth, and remains sceptical about the projections. Former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page gives his read of the update, and sees a whole lot of missing information.
Roundup: To amend or not to amend the motion
As we get ready for another sitting week of Parliament, we are no closer to finding any kind of clarity or resolution to the issue of the suspension motions in the Senate. In fact, there are different stories being floated in the media – some that the Conservatives there are open to compromises in the motions, based on comments that Senator Claude Carignan, the leader of the government in the Senate, made. The PMO, meanwhile, is standing firm that they want the suspensions without pay – not that they actually have a say in the matter, given that the Senate is the master of its own destiny and not at the beck and call of the PMO (despite what many – including a handful of senators who haven’t learned better yet – may think). So that leaves the state of play still very much in motion as things get underway. Justin Trudeau, for his part, wants everyone involved to testify under oath, feeling that’s the only way everything will be cleared up. While Senator Cowan’s motion to send it to a committee would give an opportunity to summon the current and former PMO staffers involved, Parliamentary committees can’t summons Parliamentarians and force them to testify (because of privilege), so the really key players may yet be spared from testimony if that is the case. Law professor Carissima Mathen talks to CTV about the legal arguments in the Senate suspension motions. Tom Clark writes about how this is playing with the Conservative base, and how the push for swift action in the backrooms and behind closed doors is starting to look more like the Chrétien/Martin way of doing things, which is what the Conservatives rode into Ottawa promising to clean up.
Roundup: More challenges to Justice Nadon’s appointment
The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.
Roundup: Del Mastro facing charges
Elections Canada has now charged Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro with four breaches of the Elections Act stemming from the 2008 election, and charged his official agent with three of those offences. Within a couple of hours, Del Mastro was out of the caucus (he says voluntarily, but we all know what that means), which also means that his parliamentary secretary position was also out the door. And of course, Del Mastro insists that he’s innocent and plans to prove it – because Elections Canada just spent the past four years gathering evidence because they’re part of a Conservative-hating conspiracy, apparently. Oh, and if convicted, Del Mastro and his official agent could be sentenced to up to five years in jail plus a $5000 per offence – now multiply that by four, and you’ll see the stakes of Del Mastro’s situation.
Roundup: Abusing the PBO’s mandate
It’s official – MPs are now abusing the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A report was released from his office yesterday, which announced the costing of the Conservatives’ election promise to create a fitness tax credit for older adults once the budget was balanced. That’s right – MPs were getting him to check on an election promise that is years away from seeing the light – probably not until after the next election. Strange, but this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with independent budget forecasts or help in deciphering the supply cycle. In fact, this is little more than MPs fobbing off their homework to the PBO so that they can wrap themselves in his independent-and-therefore-credible analysis. Because math is hard! Is it any wonder that the government has become suspicious of the way in which the PBO has been operating, when opposition MPs are using it in such a way? It doesn’t matter that this particular report came from a Conservative MP either, because it’s still dealing with election promises rather than forecasts or the estimates and it still plays the independent-and-therefore-credible game. It also shouldn’t be a personal calculation service, as Galipeau was using the PBO in that manner before he “brought a recommendation” to Flaherty in advance of the budget – he has a caucus research bureau for these sorts of things. This is also an argument for not making the PBO an independent officer of parliament, because he would have no accountability to anyone at that point. When this kind of abuse by MPs for partisan gain becomes his modus operandi rather than the actual work he’s supposed to be doing then it’s hard to see how this won’t become a major problem for the way that our system of government functions.
Roundup: Affirming our constitutional monarch
It should come as little surprise that in a constitutional monarchy that an oath to the monarch was considered to be constitutional by the courts. No, seriously. This was an actual court challenge. But reading over the judgement, there are some very good things in there – things like the fact that the Queen is the embodiment of the country and its laws so swearing an oath to either instead would really still be an oath to the Queen, just indirectly. It affirmed that the Canadian Crown is a separate institution from its UK counterpart, which is an important concept that many people forget. It gave a thorough trashing of the false notion that the Canadian monarchy is a foreign imposition, but rather that because of our particular evolution as a country leading up to the constitutional patriation in 1982, the monarchy is an expression of a modern and equality-protecting Canadian democracy. It also points to the value of loyal opposition, and that nothing stops them from advocating for republicanism once they’re citizens. It’s a fantastic judgement and an affirmation of the values of a constitutional monarchy, which is what these three non-citizens are seeking to be a part of after all. Pretending that you can take the Queen out of that equation is more than a little ridiculous.