The House was a bit sleepy today, where Thomas Mulcair started off by reading out a pair of questions on the rules around foreign takeovers, the English one of which using the phrase “like a thief in the night.” John Baird, acting as the back-up PM du jour, thanked him for raising the tone of debate before proceeding to remind him how much the government supported foreign investment and that the minister was reviewing it. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s lowered growth projections, but Baird offered up some bland talking points about growth! And jobs! And warnings against the fictional NDP carbon tax! Megan Leslie followed up with a pair of English questions on the very same topic, for which Ted Menzies assured her that we are in a period of slow global recovery, and that the projections were on track. Bob Rae was then up and asked a pair of questions about the cancelled EI programme that offered five additional weeks of benefits in hard-hit areas, to which Baird responded that the measures were always meant to be temporary. For his final question, Rae wondered why Peter Penashue was still sitting in cabinet after his campaign overspent in the last election – along with additional allegations of improper donations. Baird assured him that the new Official Agent was working with Elections Canada, before launching into an angry rant about how the Liberals needed to get their own house in order before casting aspersions elsewhere.
Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Roundup: What fake parts?
The Americans discovered a problem that some of their military hardware was being sold to them with counterfeit parts, most of them from China. We buy most our military hardware from the Americans. So what is DND doing about this possible threat? Nothing. You’re welcome, Canada.
The Conservatives have consented to allowing ten different committees study aspects of the Omnibus budget bill, for what it’s worth. The NDP moved a motion to break it up into eleven parts, not that the government will take them up on it. Meanwhile, John Geddes parses what the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act means, and why the government talking points about it aren’t really all that accurate.
Not unsurprisingly, the recession derailed the government’s debt retirement plans, and even less surprising is the fact that they haven’t come up with any new plans. Seeing as long-term planning isn’t really this government’s forte and all.
Roundup: A no thank-you for transparency
In its response to the report from the Government Operations committee, the government has opted not to make certain changes that would make the estimates process more transparent. Currently the estimates reflect the previous year’s budget, and MPs wanted to change that so they have a better idea of what they’re voting on – by Tony Clement has said no. Because you know, it’s not like the estimates process is the backbone of why we have a parliament in the first place or anything. Not unexpectedly, they also rejected the call for a more independent Parliamentary Budget Officer as part of this report.
The government announced that three by-elections – Victoria, Durham, and Calgary Centre – will be held on November 26th. This precludes the possibility of Etobicoke Centre being included in that because a Thursday decision from the Supreme Court will be outside of the minimum time frame. The Conservative Party spokesperson then inexplicably stated that majority governments don’t win by-elections, which Kady O’Malley thoroughly debunked. (Also, the wouldn’t win Calgary Centre? Really? Unless he’s foreshadowing how unpopular Joan Crockatt really is…) Thomas Mulcair, meanwhile, calls these by-elections a warm-up for 2015.
Roundup: The MP pension agreement
With a bit of negotiation, the portion of Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge that deals with MP pensions was hived off and passed unanimously yesterday morning, and it’s now on its way to the Senate for consideration. This after a brief hiccup where it seems that the original Liberal motion would have included RCMP and public sector pensions in there as well, despite meaning to only pass MP pensions. Oops. One can imagine that this will likely be law before the end of next week, even if the Senate does want to actually study it, but seeing as it’s two clauses, I can’t imagine it’ll be that much. Now the opposition parties want other sections hived off, but fat chance of that happening – the government talking points seem to be that by agreeing to this deal, the opposition agreed that the rest of the bill should be able to stand intact. Sigh.
But wait! Former Conservative and now “Independent Conservative” MP Peter Goldring calls this pension move “cowardly” because it appeals to base populism and further distances MPs from fair compensation. Not that I don’t necessarily disagree, however we’ve so poisoned the discourse around political compensation that we may soon expect sackcloth and ashes for the privilege of service.
Roundup: Salary freezes vs casework
MPs say they’re fine with continuing the freeze on their own salaries, but they don’t want their office budgets cut – and indeed, some want an increase – because their offices are busy doing front-line EI and immigration casework because of cuts to Service Canada. All of which is infuriating because MPs offices aren’t supposed to be doing this kind of work, and it’s something that should be addressed. It’s not only not your MP’s job to do this paperwork, but it starts blurring lines between the political offices and the civil service, which is a Very Bad Thing. This is how bribery and corruption happens, and we need to start putting those barriers between these offices and the civil service in before things get any worse.
The political loans bill is moving ahead, but the Liberals have concerns that it puts too much ability for banks to decide who should be able to run for office or not, seeing as they’ll be the primary entities able to make political loans once it passes. The NDP say they want to limit the same kinds of loans from previous Liberal leaderships – while their own last leadership contest features their own candidates taking out loans from private individuals. Imagine that.
Roundup: Mindful of one’s mandate
Tony Clement says he’s willing to go to court to insist that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is exceeding his mandate. Err, except that the PBO is trying to look at the Estimates, which is his mandate (and to be even more fair, he’s doing it so that MPs have data to hold the government to account, even though they’re passing off their work onto him). Good luck to Clement on this one.
The government is planning a new online portal for Access to Information requests next year.
The Canadian Forces have folded three operational commands into one – the Canadian Joint Operations Command, but it remains to be seen as to how much of a cost savings this will actually produce. Meanwhile, our special forces apparently have their eyes on wee little submarines.
QP: The missing minister
It could have been a rerun of yesterday, given the entirety of the leader’s found in QP. Thomas Mulcair once again began by reading out questions on the tainted meat “disaster,” and why store owners were acting responsibly but the Minister was not there to answer questions in the House. (He was over at the meat plant in question, and had a spectacular melt down of a press conference earlier in the day). Stephen Harper again responded that CFIA was the responsible authority and that they were containing the situation. Malcolm Allen bellowed outrage at the minister’s absence, and Pierre Lemieux (who is a much better communicator than his minister any day of the week, it should be noted), reassured him that CFIA was one of the top-rated food safety agencies in the world. Bob Rae asked why the head of CFIA said that he didn’t know the numbers yet for the new inspection standards, but Harper told him that it was not something to be determined by politicians, but rather by CFIA itself.
QP: Variations on EI questions and non-answers
It being a Wednesday, the Commons was a pretty packed chamber, and MPs were riled up from their morning caucus meetings. Thomas Mulcair took advantage of this frisson in the air to read a series of questions listing off Canada’s mediocre economic performance – trade deficit, billions of dollars in “dead money,” tax cuts for businesses not reinvesting it, and so on – and wondering why Harper wasn’t listening to Canadians about the economy. Harper acknowledged that there were great challenges facing the economy, but jobs, exports and growth were up. Peggy Nash brought up the Nexen deal and wondered why they weren’t paying attention to the hollowing out of the resources sector or the concerns of Canadian entrepreneurs. Christian Paradis reassured her about the Investment Canada Act’s criteria, and that those entrepreneurs don’t want a carbon tax either. Joyce Murray was up for the Liberals, and she brought up the Conservatives’ unwillingness to hand over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer data on cuts, to which Tony Clement assured her that they are accountable to Parliament by the regular channels. For her last question, Murray asked about what percentage of foreign ownership of the oil sands the government would allow, not that she got an actual answer from Paradis.
QP: Administrative arrangements
With Harper away, Thomas Mulcair faced off against John Baird instead as QP got underway. Mulcair read his first two questions, about slow economic growth, to which Baird responded with some fairly rote replies about the government’s record on job creation. Mulcair then turned to the burning question of the day – what about those joint embassies? Why did we find out through the UK press? Baird replied that these were simply administrative arrangements – putting a desk in embassies where we the UK doesn’t have a mission, and likewise a Canadian desk in a UK embassy where we’re not represented. Mulcair then suggested that if they’re so concerned about sharing with the UK, why not share armed forces, or combine the Senate and the House of Lords since they’re “the same thing” (at which point I nearly pulled a Naomi Campbell; they are most certainly not the same thing – not in the slightest), and so on, but Baird didn’t take the bait. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals, playing off that question and wondering why, if our foreign policy is so independent and great, was Harper not attending the UN General Assembly this week? Baird noted that Harper was going to be in New York to get a “Statesman of the Year” award, and that we play a leading role in the world. Rae then shifted to the topic of income inequality, which the government wasn’t addressing, but Baird returned to his job creation talking points, and listed off all of the government’s programmes for low-income Canadians.
Roundup: No information on the cuts
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page can’t get any information on government cuts, and feels the government is deliberately keeping people in the dark. Pat Martin says that the government should provide the PBO with the information so that MPs know what they’re voting on. Or, you know, MPs could compel the production of papers using the powers they already have and demand to know for themselves rather than involving a middleman like the PBO.
The NDP have agreed to wrap up the committee hearings into the Auditor General’s report on the F-35 procurement process because they heard from the witnesses they wanted to during their Potemkin committee hearing in the summer. You know, the one that’s not official, and not on the record? Good job.