QP: Confirming ideological cuts?

Without a weekly edition of Monday Morning Sanctimony to set the tone, we waited anxiously to see just how the Official Opposition were going to be holding the government to account. And when the appointed hour came, Thomas Mulcair stood up to denounce the omnibus budget bill and wondered what happened to those principles that Harper once espoused about these kinds of things. John Baird, acting as Back-up PM du jour responded that they were “focused like a laser” on jobs and growth, while the NDP was busy playing procedural games. (Could we please ban “focused like a laser”? It’s not cool or clever). When Mulcair asked about the environmental and EI provisions in the bill that gave the ministers an inordinate amount of power, Baird reminded him of Peter Julian’s 11-hour filibuster on the original budget. Peggy Nash was up next to wonder about the savings that the OAS changes will deliver, but Diane Finely was ready with her talking points about future sustainability. Bob Rae got up and listed off the number of organisations being slashed in the omnibus budget – the Inspector General of CSIS, Rights and Democracy, the National Round Table on Environment and Environment, the First Nations institute, the National Council of Welfare, and so on. Baird insisted that if they didn’t make these changes then the country would become the “Welfare capital of the world,” as Ontario was under Rae’s leadership. Not only that, but NRTEE advocated instituting a carbon tax, which the Liberals obviously were in favour of, which is why they wanted NRTEE kept intact. No, really, he said that. When Rae called him on that, Baird repeated it. Remember that the original reason why NRTEE was being cut was because it was from an era when there weren’t other such research organisations, but there are apparently plenty of them out there now. Now Baird seems to be indicating that the reason they were being cut was over a policy disagreement. Uh oh. (In the scrums after QP, Baird started combining both reasons, for the record). For Rae’s final question, he asked about the growing number of bungled military procurement contracts and wondered if we weren’t headed for a “Decade of Doofus.” Baird returned to an old talking point about how the Liberals oversaw a “decade of darkness.”

Continue reading

Roundup: Begin budget implementation week

It’s budget implementation debate week in the Commons this week, as Second Reading debate moves ahead under time allocation. The CBC’s Kady O’Malley made a very good point on the weekend that Second Reading debate on this bill isn’t going to matter very much, because it’ll simply be parties reciting their support or outrage into the record, but rather it’ll be the committee where all of the important debate happens. Given that the government has less ability to invoke time allocation on committees, there is still a chance for some more scrutiny and debate to happen there – however they still do have a majority on the committees, so that will be limited nevertheless.

Speaking of committees, here’s a look at the dysfunction creeping into the committee system as a whole – not that anyone can agree as to the causes or solutions. Part of this soul-searching was triggered after Liberal Mauril Bélanger quit the official languages committee after 17 years. Conservative Michael Chong believes there are simply too many committees, so MPs are stretched too thin as they have to do double-duty and are unprepared, and that they do too many studies when not considering legislation. Others, like Ned Franks, think the committees are too large, and that this is part of the symptom of party leaders having too much power over their MPs that said committee members are too afraid to actually speak their minds or have confidence in the expertise they develop. And they’re probably all right, to varying degrees.

The government has signalled that they’re going to put their weight behind a Conservative private member’s bill on banning facemasks during riots. The NDP say they’re supportive in principle, but want some clarification that it won’t muddy the waters with other legal inconsistencies.

It appears that changes to the OAS weren’t in the Conservative platform, because the issue wasn’t discussed until after the election when public servants presented those changes as one of a number of options the government could look at when it comes to addressing the demographic crunch.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 there has been a sharp decline in immigration applications from many Asian countries, due in part to tightening language restrictions. As immigrants can help be bridges between Canada and their countries of origin when it comes to business opportunities, the fact that the world economy is shifting toward Asia means that we could be losing out in the future if this trend continues.

Here’s a look at the examination of protocol at Heritage Committee last week.

And Joe Clark talks about the need for Canada’s foreign policy to innovate as more economic power and demographics shift toward the developing nations of China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico.

QP: The most pressing business of the nation

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

QP: Decisive Action on apples and oranges

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

QP: Accepting conclusions but not responsibility

On a day when the government released its first budget implementation bill – an omnibus monster of some 431 pages that amends some 50 Acts, and takes a huge axe to environmental legislation – there was not a question on this bill, or the environment to be found. Instead, Thomas Mulcair led off Question Period with a trio of questions about a possible future Afghan deployment, to which Harper assured him that any deployment would come before the House (see my discussion yesterday about Crown Prerogative and why it’s really a bad thing for Harper to do this), before Mulcair turned to the question of the Woodworth motion – otherwise known as the backdoor abortion debate. Harper assured him that he would be voting against it, but seeing as it’s private members’ business, he can’t do anything else about it, unfortunately. And that’s true. (I wrote a bit more about the issue and the mechanics here). Bob Rae then stood up to ask about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s – if Harper accepts the report, how can the deputy ministers be writing to the AG to disagree with it, given our system of government? Harper assured him that they accepted the conclusion of the report and were acting on it. Rae then asked if Harper accepts the conclusions, does he not then take responsibility for what happened. Harper, however, wasn’t going to fall for this and instead insisted that wasn’t the conclusion of the AG, but they did accept the conclusion he did draw.

Continue reading

QP: An unreserved apology

With all of the leaders back in the House, it was a question of what would be top of mind for the day. Thomas Mulcair started off with a brief question – was it okay for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament? Harper insisted that ministers tell the truth all the time. So why, Mulcair wondered, did the minister say that “no money has been spent” on the F-35s when in fact millions have already been spent. Well the minister was referring to acquisition costs, Harper insisted. And thus the accounting excuse remained trotted out. Peggy Nash was up next and asked just how much the government expected to save by changing the eligibility date for OAS, and Diane Finley insisted it wasn’t an issue of savings, but the long-term viability of the system. Bob Rae returned to the question of misleading figures around the F-35s, but Harper insisted that the Auditor General asked to review the figures, and they’ve a commitment to do just that. For his final question, Rae asked about CIDA staff being laid off while Bev Oda is swanning about in expensive hotels and limousines. Oda herself stood up and said that it was unacceptable, that the expenses shouldn’t have been charged to taxpayers, that she’s paid them back (well, except for the limousines) and that she apologised unreservedly. And that was the last we heard from her.

Round two kicked off with Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice asking again after Oda’s spending (Van Loan: She’s apologised) and the ongoing Robocon investigation (Del Mastro: These are sweeping allegations with no facts; Poilievre: A Liberal poll is not a replacement for an election), Guy Caron and Peter Julian asked about Christian Paradis’ latest ethical investigation (Van Loan: The Ethics Commissioner will provide a response to this Liberal letter), Niki Ashton asked about the government taking steps to address the sexual harassment in the RCMP (Toews: We’re taking it seriously, but there is litigation so we can’t comment). Mark Eyking asked about Oda’s chauffeurs (Van Loan: She repaid her costs – err, except for the costs of the limousines), Joyce Murray asked about that EKOS poll on robocalls in those seven ridings (Del Mastro: Baseless allegations), and Stéphane Dion asked about availability of search and rescue services in French (Ashfield: There will be no impact on safety). Closing off the round, Olivia Chow asked about railway maintenance (Lebel: We’ve set aside all this money for rail safety and service!), and Brian Massey asked about CBSA cuts allowing more for more smuggling (Toes: You voted against increasing their budget, so why are you complaining if it gets cut?).

Round three saw questions on scientists being muzzled, gutting fisheries habitat protection, food inspection cuts, cutting washing stations that prevent contaminated soil from infecting food-producing regions, Aveos workers, the true net savings of closing the Kingston penitentiary, punishing refugees under the current system and the proposed new one, and why it’s okay for Cuba to be excluded from the Summit of the Americas while China gets a free pass in Canada (Harper: It was agreed upon years ago to only include democratically elected governments).

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for a smart grey pinstripe suit with a pink shirt and tie, and to Lisa Raitt for a smartly cut black top and jacket. Style citations go out to Isabelle Morin for her boxy white jacket with a terrible black and gold floral pattern across it, and to Alex Atamanenko for a grey jacket, maroon shirt, forest green tie and brown trousers.

QP: Unity, focus, and expensive hotels

At the start of the day, new NDP house leader Nathan Cullen gathered the media together to tell us about how the dynamic in Ottawa has changed, that the NDP are a unified and focused team, and that they were going to keep Harper on his toes. Fast forward until Question Period when word hit the wires that NDP MP Bruce Hyer decided to leave caucus, largely because of Mulcair’s heavy hand on the whip when it comes to the party’s position on the long-gun registry. Yes, that’s apparently what united looks like. As for focused, well, I predicted on Friday that everyone’s attempt to get a spot to shine was going to result in a shambolic, scattershot QP. I was not wrong.

Continue reading

QP: That damning F-35 report

After a morning spent breathlessly talking about the Auditor General’s report, we were waiting for fireworks. Harper was in the House, Mulcair was ready with his scripted questions sitting on his miniature lectern on his desk, but when the time came, Mulcair instead led off with a fairly pro forma question on budget cuts, to which Harper responded about transfer payments growing faster than provinces themselves were, and that they weren’t actually being cut. So much for that. Mulcair then turned to the F-35s and the Auditor General’s report, for which Harper assured him that they had accepted the report and were putting into place more rigorous supervision of the procurement process. Christine Moore followed up with more of the same, and Julian Fantino delivered an answer just like Harper’s. Ralph Goodale demanded to know why there was still no open tender for replacement fighters, to which Fantino accused Goodale of ignoring the good things the AG said in the report, though Goodale immediately countered that those good things praised were what the Liberals had put into place. When Marc Garneau asked about the government’s wilful blindness on the problems in the process, Rona Ambrose got up to tout the new secretariat being put into place to manage the procurement process.

Round two was mostly taken up with F-35 questions from the likes of Matthew Kellway, Malcolm Allan, and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, for which we got mostly the same answers from either Fantino (who did mention a new Seven Point Plan™ on the process), or Ambrose. Peter Julian asked about a report claiming private sector job losses stemming from public sector cuts (Flaherty: those are wild numbers), Olvia how asked about the AG’s report on air safety (Lebel: We accept the report – basically shrugging off the reporting of serious lapses in safety inspections), and Jamie Nicholls asked about Aveos (Lebel: It’s an issue with two private companies). John McKay and Dominic LeBlanc returned to the F-35 and four years of mismanagement (Ambrose: New secretariat!). Irene Mathyssen and Kellie Leitch traded scripted outrage versus scripted bafflegab, Huang Mai asked about future tolls on the Champlain Bridge (Lebel: There’s no question about tolls right now), and Françoise Boivin asked about Quebec’s court challenge on long-gun registry data (Bernier: We’re going to defend our area of jurisdiction).

Round three saw questions on the demise of Rights & Democracy, Henk Tepper, OAS versus the Prime Minister’s special retirement allowance, environmental assessments at airports, a Canadian in a Spanish prison, drug shortages, GMO pork, and a final question on the long-gun registry data.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Greg Rickford who again proves that tailoring is key, with his black suit, white shirt and pocket square, and striped blue tie, and to Alexandrine Latendresse for her grey and black top, black skirt and black jacket. Style citations go out to Robert Goguen for a fluorescent blue shirt/black suit violation, and to Isabelle Morin for a black and floral jacket. The Christine Moore Shiny Watch today reports a multi-coloured metallic dress (that could have come from Talos IV) with black bordering around the waist and bust lines, paired with a black jacket.

QP: A lacklustre first showdown

It may have taken until Thursday, but the face-off between Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper finally took place today, and wow, was it pretty lacklustre. Mulcair’s first two questions were about cuts in the budget, and while Harper first congratulated him on his victory, he then brought up his strong mandate to gradually eliminate the deficit, but that they weren’t cutting healthcare or pensions. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Christian Paradis’ ethical lapses, but Harper reminded him that nothing untoward actually happened. Libby Davies and Leona Aglukkaq had another go-around about health transfers, before Bob Rae brought up the logical inconsistencies with the F-35 tendering process. Harper assured him that the numbers coming out of the States were within the contingencies, but there was no signed contract. Rae finished off his round with a question on Paradis, and Harper continued to shrug it off.

Round two opened up with David Christopherson brought up the Chief Electoral Officer’s testimony on the Robocon issue at Procedure and House Affairs (Del Mastro: Baseless smears!), Guy Caron and Charlie Angus asked about Paradis’ numerous ethical lapses (Van Loan: The minister in question does a superb job!), and Olivia Chow, Isabelle Morin, and Jamie Nicholls asked about Aveos job losses (Lebel: We’re disappointed but the legal advice we got says Air Canada is in compliance with the Act). Judy Foote asked about a certain MP advising youths to carry arms – especially young woman to avoid sexual assaults (Toews: We don’t support treating duck hunters as criminals), Dion asked about the appointment of unilingual Anglophone immigration officers (Kenney: The IRB respects the Official Languages Act), and Sean Casey asked about veterans medical records being improperly accessed (Blaney: We’re helping veterans!). Alain Guiguère, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Wayne Marston and Irene Mathyssen asked about OAS cuts (Leitch: It’s unsustainable!).

Round three saw questions on the F-35s, fleet separation policy for East Coast fisheries, Aveos jobs, calls for a Royal Commission on the last election, cut to the CBC (the first question from new NDP MP Craig Scott), which aid groups are on the chopping block next, veterans’ privacy, drug shortages, and “national security” in the Investment Canada Act.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for his navy pinstriped suit, with a white shirt and purple tie, and to Rona Ambrose for her fitted black leather jacket. Style citations go out to Hélène LeBlanc for her cherry-blossom patterned grey dress and jacket with an awful peach scarf, and Randy Kamp for his fluorescent aqua shirt with grey suit.

QP: Scourge of the middle class

His third day as opposition leader, and Mulcair still had no Harper to battle in the House. While his delivery was a little bit less wooden, he was still reading from a script on a miniature lectern, asking about provincial transfers coming in the upcoming budget. In Harper’s place it was John Baird’s turn to be designated back-up PM, and he asserted that their government has given more to the provinces than any other government before them. Libby Davies followed up, accusing the government of abandoning healthcare with the rather dubious claim that they’re “slashing” $31 billion in health transfers (it wasn’t really a cut, people), to which Leona Aglukkaq reminded her that the Conservatives have funded healthcare to “historic levels” and they’re trying to make the system more sustainable. Bob Rae then got up to ask about the lack of a government policy on addictions and mental health, and John Baird took it on a tangent about the Liberals wanting to legalise marijuana, and that they were fighting that for the safety of middle-class families. No, seriously. Rae immediately picked up on that – every evidence shows that alcohol is the most dangerous substance out there, and why is the government announcing proudly that they’re joining in the failed war on drugs in Central America? (You see, you can pick up on questions like that when you’re able to deliver them off-the-cuff. Just saying). Baird continued to beat his chest about how proud they were to stand against the scourge of drugs, ignoring the evidence of course. For his final question, Rae asked about Harper’s former complaints about minister staying with people who do business with their departments (back when it was Don Boudria and Harper was the leader of the opposition), but Baird wasn’t going to take that bait.

Round two kicked off with Peter Julian asking a series of questions on jobs in the budget and the Aveos workers, to which Denis Lebel assured him that this was a private sector issue, and Ted Menzies assured him that they would continue on the path of job creation from the ongoing Economic Action Plan™. Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asked about OAS changes (Leitch: OAS is unsustainable for “future Canadians,” not specifying if she meant Canadians in the future or those who are not yet Canadian), and Nycole Turmel and Paul Dewar asked about some unions not being allowed into the budget lock-up as stakeholders (Menzies: The budget is being delivered in the House where everyone can hear it). Judy Foote asked whether the government was asking the Conservative Party – as they’re actually separate entities remember – about its cooperation with Elections Canada considering that RackNine had an exclusive contract with the party for phone services and “Pierre Poutine” had access because of party connections (Del Mastro: You made your own illegal calls!), Denis Coderre asked about Aveos declining to appear at Transport Committee (Lebel: This is an issue between two private companies), and Judy Sgro asked about OAS changes (Leitch: Unsustainable!). Guy Caron and Charlie Angus closed off the round with questions on Paradis’ ethical latest ethical lapse (Paradis: I used my own means, and nobody lobbied me).

Round three saw questions on the F-35 Statement of Operational Requirements (one of those questions from Rae, as he tried to use logic to overload the duotronic circuits of the M-4 Unit – err, I mean Julian Fantino), environmental regulation changes to be “buried in the budget” (even though there is no indication this will be the case – broad outlines in the budget document doesn’t mean changes will be buried within implementation bills), the Northern Gateway pipeline, cuts to Katimavik (for which Justin Trudeau got a boxing joke in response), francophone immigration officers, the fleet separation policy for the East Coast fishery, rural post offices in Quebec, and the way the way the government handled the Air Canada strike versus the Aveos issue.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michelle Rempel for her fuchsia belted dress, and to John McKay for his grey suit with a pink shirt and pale blue tie. Style citations go out to Carol Hughes for the jacket equivalent of a ball of elastic bands, and to LaVar Payne for his black shirt with a white collar worn with a white tie and a grey suit. Just…no. Dishonourable mentions to Romeo Saganash for a fluorescent blue shirt/grey suit violation, and to Maxime Bernier, who is normally a snappy dresser, for a black suit/lemon yellow shirt violation.