Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Lisa Raitt is on the case

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poor, hard done-by Patrick Brazeau

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Transparency behind closed doors

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Angry Mulcair’s grand soliloquies

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Denying consent for transparency

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rathgeber wins the day

Posted on by

It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The utterly shameless Senator Duffy

Posted on by

The ClusterDuff exploded yet again yesterday with new revelations – this time a series of emails from July of 2009, when Senator Duffy was trying to lobby for a) a cabinet post as a minister-without-portfolio and b) compensation for an “increased role” within the party, mostly to do with fundraising activities that he was trying to find some way of making additional money off of. This was about six months into Duffy’s time in the Senate, and paints a picture of just how shameless and entitled he has been in his role as a Senator, especially as there was no way he would get a cabinet post as there is already a minister from PEI, and to get a post to simply do fundraising for the party is antithetical to the role of a minister of the Crown. He was also apparently cautioned with his travel expenses, but it keeps going back to the point of wow – he really is that shameless. On Power & Politics, John Ivison speculated that the leak of these emails came from PMO in a pre-emptive attack against any dirt that Duffy himself tries to dish out as he fights back, but it’s hard to get past the wow factor of just the sheer brazenness of it all. It also puts the focus more on Duffy himself as the problem rather than the Senate as a whole, which is really where the lion’s share of the blame does belong. Michael Den Tandt writes how Harper has lost the credibility to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to any of his excuses in this matter. Colby Cosh argues that the attention we’re paying to the ClusterDuff affair is distracting from the real problems facing our country, such as those uncovered in the Federal Court ruling on misleading robocalling. Maclean’s offers up a new cheat sheet of the people involved in the Senate expenses scandals.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The NDP get cute with the Senate

Posted on by

Because it seems that the NDP haven’t had their fill of amateurish stunts yet, they have decided to try to haul the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a Commons committee to discuss the Senate’s budget allocations. Apparently they think that the Senate isn’t actually a separate institution of Parliament, but just an arm of the government. Err, except that it isn’t. Here’s the thing that the NDP doesn’t seem to be grasping – aside from the basic constitutional position that the Senate holds within our system of government – and that’s the fact that two can play that game. While the Senate may not be able to initiate money bills, they can certainly amend them, or hold them up in committee indefinitely. And if the NDP wants to get cute and try to make the Senate put on a little dog and pony show for the committee in order to justify their spending, well, the Senate can do the very same thing, and question the basic budget allocation for the Commons and MPs expenses. While the NDP might bring up the few cases of improper residency expenses and travel claims that took to the media spotlight a couple of months ago, Senators could do the very same thing, and in fact, have a better case than the MPs would. You see, the Senate’s expenses are far more transparent than those of the Commons. Senators submit their travel claims to quarterly reports, have their expense claims posted publicly, and even their attendance is recorded and publicly available. That’s how all of this came to light in the media – because journalists checked it out. (Well, a certain Senator who shall remain nameless also leaked a number of things because of internecine warfare, but that’s another story). But MPs are not subject to the same levels of public scrutiny that Senators are, and if the NDP really want to down this route, then I don’t see why the Senate shouldn’t call Speaker Scheer and the various party leaders before the Senate’s national finance committee to justify their own expenditures. After all, they’re not public, and these are public funds that they’re expecting to spend, so it would be in the interest of sober second thought that these Senators very closely examine this spending and ensure that it’s in the public interest for the Commons to get these allocations. And it was only a couple of years ago that improper housing claims by a number of MPs were brought to light, and well, the Senate may need to ensure that this kind of thing isn’t going on again. You know, for the sake of the public. You see where I’m going with this? There’s a word that the NDP should learn – it’s “bicameralism.” They may not like it, but it exists for a very good reason, and they should educate themselves before they decide they want to get cute.

Continue reading →

QP: Reading off a condemnation

Posted on by

After what appeared to be a breakout of actual debate during the Orders of the Day relating to the NDP’s opposition day motion on climate change, no eruptions of MPs trying to catch the Speaker’s eye during Members’ Statements, and a moment of silence for workers killed on the job, it was time for QP. Tomas Mulcair started things off by reading a condemnation of Joe Oliver’s trip to Washington and his insulting of a climate scientist. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, insisted that the NDP doesn’t understand economics, and that the government was fighting to create jobs. Mulcair then switched topics and read a question about the concerns the Conservative premier of New Brunswick has about the EI changes. Moore assured him that they were working with the premier as they were helping get people back to work. Yvon Godin then asked the same thing in French, turning puce with outrage as he read his script. Diane Finley responded with her stock assurances that they were helping Canadians get back to work. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals, and after making a reference to Harper’s admonition about “committing sociology,” he turned to the party’s topic of the week — youth unemployment. Moore assured him that they had created programmes to help youth and were addressing the problem. For his final question, Rae asked about the growing number of reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, to which Deepak Obhrai assured him that they were monitoring the situation, which they found unacceptable.

Continue reading →