In this week’s Maclean’s, Aaron Wherry talks to Kevin Page about his new job at the University of Ottawa. In a separate but related piece, he talks to parliamentary scholar Donald Savoie about the PBO, and Savoie says some very cogent things about the office – that it is unnecessary because it allows MPs to fob off their homework onto someone else who can be seen as more “pure,” but it simply creates a new unaccountable personality that caters to the media rather than forcing parties to do the serious work of scrutiny and policy that they should be doing. Savoie’s solution is that parliament work to fix its own mess around the estimates process than work to fix the Parliamentary Budget Office, and it’s a position that I think is eminently more sensible if we want responsible government or the Westminster system to mean anything.
Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Roundup: Ken Dryden’s leadership debt to himself
In what is likely going to be an optics nightmare for the Liberals, former leadership candidate Ken Dryden said that he has no plans to repay his 2006 leadership debt, because it’s all loans he gave to himself. When the Conservatives and NDP changed the law mid-campaign to restrict donations (for the sole purpose of screwing over the Liberals), Dryden’s ability to secure the necessary donations could no longer happen. Given that Elections Canada can’t enforce the laws around those repayments (thanks again to the dog’s breakfast that the Conservatives and NDP made of the law in their rush to screw over the Liberals), he apparently no longer sees the point in getting strangers to repay his loans to himself. There are plans to make political loans to oneself illegal, but that legislation is stalled, and there are some serious concerns that it would give financial institutions too much power to determine who can and can’t run if they are to be given sole authority to grant loans. So while Dryden’s abandoning his quest to pay back his loans (to himself) looks bad, it would seem that the Conservatives and the NDP have only themselves to blame, and anyone complaining that this whole thing is anti-democratic should also ask themselves how “democratic” it was for two parties to collude to screw over another one. No one walks away from this one looking pure.
Roundup: Double-bunking in solitary
The Correctional Investigator is sounding the alarm as the number of isolation cases in prisons continues to rise, with solitary being used in cases that are increasingly inappropriate, and more mind-bogglingly, there are cases where they are double-bunking people in solitary. You know, the opposite of “solitary.” But hey, Vic Toews kept assuring us that there was no population crisis in prisons, and that all of the fears of a population explosion post-mandatory minimum sentence bill passing were all overblown. Somehow the numbers don’t seem to be showing that to be the case.
Thanks to government stonewalling, the Parliamentary Budget Office is now filing Access to Information requests in order to get information that they need, and paying for those requests out of their already meagre budgets. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund is giving former PBO Kevin Page high marks for his work while he was on the job.
Roundup: The premiers say no
As expected, the premiers unanimously rejected the Canada Jobs Grant programme as it is currently structured, not only because it was done without consultation and would demand a rollback of funds they’re currently receiving while demanding that they pony up more money. It also has to do with the fact that as is, it would largely benefit large companies to the detriment of smaller businesses who could use the training dollars, and it has little in the way of incentives for disadvantaged minority communities like First Nations to get training. Jason Kenney said that sure he’d meet with the premiers about the programme – but only to explain how great it is, which somehow I don’t think they’re going to be too keen on. Economist Stephen Gordon thinks the money should go directly to trainees by way of income, never mind the level of governments demanding control – especially as the problem of “skills shortages” are largely a non-existent crisis that would be sorted by offering higher wages. John Geddes reminisces about when “open federalism” was the buzzword of the Harper government, and look how well that’s turned out.
Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne
So there we have it – a future King of Canada has been born, and everyone’s delighted. No, seriously – everyone, though the NDP’s official statement of “warmest congratulations” was pretty lukewarm. And it was even more disappointing that the official Canadian Crown Twitter account was using the #BritishMonarchy hashtag rather than, you know, the Canadian Monarchy, which this baby is also heir to. Also, it seems that royal babies are good for business. Who knew?
Quebec’s attorney general has decided to weigh in on the challenge of the royal succession bill at the Quebec Superior Court, and he too believes that the provinces have a role in making such a change, as the constitution would otherwise indicate. The federal government says it will fight the challenge, since they would rather let political expedience trump the constitution.
Roundup: Lisa Raitt is on the case
Two days on the job as transport minister, and Lisa Raitt paid her first visit to Lac-Mégantic to assess the scene there for herself, and to promise that yes, the federal government will assist in reconstruction. And while the NDP complained that she didn’t come with numbers in hand, it’s like they don’t understand how federal disaster assistance works – that at the end of the process, they write one big cheque that will cover something on the order of 90 percent of the costs. It just doesn’t happen up front, which is the role of the province and municipality.
Roundup: Poor, hard done-by Patrick Brazeau
Global News caught up with Senator Patrick Brazeau as he was moving house in Gatineau, and he insisted that he still hasn’t received any formal notice that his wages are going to be garnished, and he continues to insist that he didn’t do anything wrong or that he broke any rules. He at least knows that he won’t win in the court of public opinion, but insists that he still hasn’t received his due process. Both Brazeau and Mac Harb are expected to have 20 percent of their pay garnished, though the judicial review that Harb has requested may put a spanner in that works.
Roundup: Transparency behind closed doors
In the wake of the defeat of Justin Trudeau’s four transparency motions on Tuesday, where the NDP confirmed that they were the ones who denied consent, Nathan Cullen took to the microphones to accuse the Liberals of making it up on the fly, that the NDP weren’t informed about the motions (err, except for that public press conference in front of the Centennial Flame last Wednesday), and that it was all a big stunt so that take credit. Add to that, he went on to laud all the work they were doing behind closed doors to improve transparency. No, seriously. Cullen also says that they’re concerned that female MPs will be put in a position of jeopardy if their places of residence are disclosed under these new rules, which seems like pretty weak sauce because I’m sure it would be a pretty simple amendment that they didn’t need to include their address as part of the line item on housing or hospitality costs. Oh, and after QP yesterday, Elizabeth May moved a motion to investigate MPs using the travel points to participate in by-elections, and it was voted down, Gordon O’Connor in particular making motions to kill it.
QP: Angry Mulcair’s grand soliloquies
The benches nearly full after morning caucus meetings, QP started off with Thomas Mulcair asking about the PM’s indication from the UK that he has access to the $90,000 but was simply refusing to turn it over. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, said that it wasn’t the case and that the PM simply indicated that there was an independent process underway. Mulcair asked the same again in English, returning to his old habit of grand soliloquies being read from his desk, while Conservative MPs made grizzly bear noises. For his final question, he asked about Van Loan’s chief of staff being part of the committee looking into replacing the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Van Loan insisted that this process was the same as the one that selected Kevin Page. Peggy Nash carried on the very same line of questioning, and Van Loan and Tony Clement gave the same answers in reply. Justin Trudeau was up next for the Liberals and asked a series of unanswered questions that still surrounded the Wright-Duffy affair. James Moore stood up and talked about passing S-2 on Aboriginal property rights and the great job numbers. When Trudeau pressed, Moore said that the questions had already been answered and took a number of gratuitous swipes instead.
Roundup: Denying consent for transparency
After QP yesterday, Justin Trudeau rose to seek unanimous consent for his four motions on greater transparency for parliament – MPs posting expenses, opening up Internal Economy, and calling in the Auditor General. None of them passed, and apparently it was the NDP who denied consent (though some reporters heard Conservatives dissent despite the party line being that they were in favour). What did pass was a motion from Nathan Cullen that would ban MPs from using their travel points to go to speaking gigs, as apparently the latest bout of Trudeau bashing is to assert that he apparently used his MP expenses to do speaking gigs, despite there not being any evidence to support this, and the fact that most speaking gigs include airfare as a standard part of the deal.