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: Privacy
Roundup: Budget date set
Jim Flaherty has announced that the budget will be delivered on February 11th, in the midst of the Olympics. Because remember that Canadians would be too distracted by the last Olympic games to even have Parliament sitting? Apparently that’s no longer a concern, and Flaherty is confident that Canadians can pay attention to both the games and the budget at the same time. Well, that and he apparently has a few measures that are important to pass sooner than later. John Geddes notes that Flaherty’s tone has changed lately to one of striking informality of late, where he seems to be freelancing some opinions and hinting that others may be to blame if there is added spending in the upcoming budget.
Roundup: An immunity deal
One of the key figures in the case of the misleading Guelph robocalls has made an immunity deal with Elections Canada in order to give his testimony. Andrew Prescott, whose account was used in connection with the calls, has previously denied wrongdoing, and Michael Sona remains the only person charged to date, and he too maintains his innocence.
Jason Kenney is sounding like there may be some flexibility in the Canada Job Grant programme after all – but it would still mean no new funding, just that the provincial matching component would come from the federal government instead. That would mean fewer grants available overall, and the provinces would still lose that $300 million in funding annually. Kenney also announced that they are harmonizing apprenticeship programmes across the Atlantic provinces.
Roundup: Drama in Colombo
There was some New Year’s Eve drama as media reports out of Colombo, Sri Lanka, said that NDP MP Rathika Sistsabaiesan was under house arrest there during her trip to visit family. The reports turned out to be false, but consular affairs and John Baird were engaged on the file, though Sitsabaiesan put out a statement alleging political intimidation by local officials. The Foreign Affairs statement states that there was no arrest warrant, and that her visit was a private one and not on behalf of the government, though they continue to monitor her situation.
Roundup: Unimpressed with transformation plans
Kevin Page is none too pleased with what he hears about the “Blueprint 2020” plan to reform the public service, saying it’s a lot of nothing, and that change needs to come from the bottom up rather than being imposed top-down. He’s also critical of the public service for remaining silent in the face of these changes being imposed on them, and that their expert financial and policy advice will suffer as a result.
When she was Minsiter of Public Works, Rona Ambrose approved a list of 29 historical Canadian women to be used when naming future federal buildings. Of course that list has been redacted, so we don’t know exactly which names have been approved.
QP: Shouting, whinging, and Speaker’s cautions
With Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair both in South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s memorial, and Justin Trudeau elsewhere, it was shaping up to be another episode of Ask Paul Calandra. David Christopherson led off, shouting his way through a script about the ongoing ClusterDuff affair and whether the PM was telling the truth. Jason Kenney, the designated back-up PM du jour, assured him that the Prime Minister has been since May 15th, as the ITO showed. Nicole Turmel carried on in French, wondering about the role of Harper’s staff not telling him about what was going on. Kenney, cool and collected, stated that Harper was repeatedly clear that he was disappointed that his staff did not inform him about it and there have been staffing changes in his office. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, bringing up Senator Gerstein’s role in the affair, and wondered if the government would ask Gerstein and Michael Runia to appear at Ethics committee. Kenney reminded him that such a question had nothing to do with government administration. For his final question, Garneau asked about the “undeleted” Perrin emails, and wanted them tabled for public consumption. Kenney reminded him that PCO regretted their error, and that the PM wasn’t involved.
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.
QP: Questions about missing emails
As is becoming the new norm on Mondays, Thomas Mulcair was the only main leader in the House, which meant that another soul-crushing day of Paul Calandra talking points was on the way — though one could always hope for a day free of innuendo and accusation as which happened on Friday (though we could also do without his wounded complaints about how the press didn’t like his answers). Once QP got started, Mulcair immediately asked about the reappearance of those emails from Benjamin Perrin, and asked why the story changed yet again. Pierre Poilievre took this one, somewhat surprisingly, and he quoted from the letter from PCO. Mulcair asked about the “unrelated litigation” that Perrin was involved in. Poilievre indicated that he wasn’t sure, but that they were cooperating with the RCMP. Mulcair pressed, but Poilievre simply reread from the letter. When Mulcair wondered wondered an bout the integrity of the he evidence after the government has been holding onto it for three months, and Poilievre again reiterated a passage from the letter. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and wanted assurances that nobody had access to those emails who was in a position to doctor or selectively delete them in any way. Poilievre assured him that they were cooperating with the RCMP. LeBlanc wondered if Harper was waiting of it all to go to trial everything was made public, but Poilievre answered with a single no.
Roundup: Michael Chong’s attempt to save Parliament
The story that grabbed everyone’s attention yesterday was the fact that maverick Conservative MP Michael Chong is set to table a bill that would amend the Parliament of Canada Act in order to give riding associations the power to control nomination races instead of the party leader, while giving the party’s National Council the ability to have a veto in place in the event of a hijacked nomination race. This would eliminate the party leader’s ability to threaten MPs that he or she would refuse to sign their nomination papers if they step out of line. It’s the kind of reform that many people have been advocating for some time now, and would remove a substantial lever that the leader currently wields. The bill is also rumoured to contain clauses that would require that caucus chairs be elected and have rules for expelling and re-admitting MPs from caucus, and that the party by-laws must allow for the caucus review of a leader. Those are more problematic suggestions, and the caucus review is especially problematic for a couple of reasons. Number one is that unless leadership selection rules are changed so that it is the caucus that elects the leader, the argument will be that they don’t have the democratic legitimacy to remove said leader – one of the biggest problems with moving to the “more democratic” system whereby the party membership elects the leader (or as the Liberals recently demonstrated, anyone who totally swears that they don’t belong to another party), because that system obliterates accountability. As well, the power to challenge a leader already exists within our system of Responsible Government, whereby all anyone needs to do is declare a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister, and if they can get enough caucus support in the vote – along with the opposition – that leader will go down to defeat. It just requires enough MPs to have the backbone to follow through on it. Paul Calandra insists that his party already allows MPs to have direct input into legislation, which I’m not sure is the point of the bill. Andrew Coyne thinks this bill can save Parliament, and I agree that the first portion would go a long way, but the other portions are more problematic and we should treat them cautiously.
Roundup: No breached ethical walls
Auditors from Deloitte appeared before the Senate’s internal economy committee yesterday morning, and revealed a couple of things – that yes, senior Partner Michael Runia did try calling them, but they didn’t tell him anything, thus preserving their “ethical wall.” Also, their audit operated in a closed system and that there wasn’t any way for there to be any leaks of draft copies. But when the Liberals on the committee tried to move a motion for Runia to appear to explain himself, Conservatives on the committee blocked it, saying that they didn’t have the expertise to conduct an investigation parallel to the RCMP’s. Nor has there been any call for Senator Gerstein to appear to explain himself either. The Liberals will be moving a motion in the full Senate next week to give the committee the mandate to pursue these questions, but we’ll see if there is enough support. Kady O’Malley finds three key points from that testimony, and makes the relevant connections to the Wright testimony in the RCMP ITO. Incidentally, PMO has hired three different law firms to deal with the ClusterDuff file.