As we await the Auditor General’s report, due next week, we hear that he is expected to report that the National Shipbuilding Programme doesn’t have enough money to fulfil its goals. Not that this should surprise us, as the constant delays and rising inflation have driven up the costs. Because this government has clearly done their bit for the procurement file every chance they get.
Tag Archives: Procurement
Roundup: Taking aim before the by-elections
One almost suspects that the Conservatives are worried about the Trudeau phenomenon in the upcoming by-elections as they continue to mount increasing attacks against him, whose relevance to reality slips further and further away. Today it was Peter MacKay suggesting that Justin Trudeau told schoolchildren that recreational drug use was okay and hay for legalising pot. Um, except that’s not what happened, but rather that at a school event he was asked about it, and Trudeau said that not only should children not use pot because their brains are still developing, but that right now the government’s approach was ineffective. Well done Conservative attack machine operating under MacKay’s name. Meanwhile in Toronto Centre, the NDP put out releases that decried how awful it was that Chrystia Freeland laid off all those journalists when she was at Reuters, but conveniently omitted the line from the story where the Reuters spokesperson specifically said the layoffs were not Freeland’s decision. Added to that, the NDP somehow intimated that they would protect media jobs by rewarding job creation with tax breaks. Erm, corporate taxes are not the woe that is facing the haemorrhaging media industry, and unless they plan to shut down the Internet and start subsidizing newspaper subscriptions, I’m not sure how exactly they’ll protect media jobs.
Roundup: Appalling arguments about federalism
Day two of the Senate reference hearings at the Supreme Court saw submissions from the rest of the provinces and territories (minus the Yukon) – some of whom had appallingly bad arguments, which the Justices picked apart to their logical ends – as well as Francophone groups and a couple of senators. The Francophone groups, in particular those outside of Quebec, pointed out the Senate’s role in protecting linguistic minorities that wouldn’t stand up the same way during elections. Senator Serge Joyal, however, had the most eloquent of all submissions so far, and as someone who was in the room when they drafted the constitution in 1982 and who helped draft the amending formula to it, he provided some much needed perspective, as well as on the entrenchment of the system of constitutional monarchy and Responsible Government that included two chambers in 1982 (hence why there is no mechanism to abolish the Senate – because it was unthinkable). Paul Wells points out that regardless of the arguments made to date, there is pretty much no chance that the Senate could be abolished, and that the reforms couldn’t happen without a constitutional amendment. Senator Elaine McCoy weighs in after the first day’s submissions, and calls out the government’s reform plans as red herrings.
Roundup: Harper’s need for ambiguity
At a business school event, the Prime Minister said that they don’t want foreign takeover rules that are too clear because the government wants room to manoeuvre in the event that some takeover bids aren’t good for the country and need to be blocked. He also said that the free trade deals that they are negotiating with China, India and South Korea aren’t going to be the same as the EU trade deal just agreed to, as they won’t be of the same depth or comprehensiveness.
Roundup: Gerstein’s contradictions
The big incident from the end of the Conservative convention was in the closing, when Senator Irving Gerstein took to the stage to boast about the party’s fiscal position, but in the process, revealed that he told Nigel Wright that he refused to allow the party fund – which he controls – to pay for Duffy’s expenses. This contradicts the Wright affidavit that said that they initially offered to pay the bill when they thought it was a mere $30,000 but balked when the bill was $92,000. Wright’s lawyer responded that they had nothing to say about “the latest characterisation of events” at this time – which has us all wondering which version of events is the truth. And more to the point, that if Gerstein was involved in the repayment scheme, even by refusing it, it begs the question as to why he’s not being hung out to dry like the others are. On Global’s The West Block on Sunday morning, Jason Kenney hinted that at some point, Wright will reveal what he knows, which could be very interesting if and when that happens – and if that timetable moves up should the PM continue to demonise him for the whole affair. As well, a PMO staffer says that the legal fees the party covered for Duffy were related to his audit.
QP: Fired or resigned?
With none of the leaders present in the House, it was up to Megan Leslie to lead off QP for the NDP, where she asked about the contradiction about Harper claiming on the radio earlier in the morning that Nigel Wright had been fired whereas it was previously established that he resigned. Paul Calandra was up to respond, and said that to his credit, Wright had taken full responsibility for the payout to Duffy and no longer worked in the PMO. Leslie tried to press as to how many Conservatives were aware of the payout to Duffy, but Calandra insisted that it was all in the court affidavits. Nycole Turmel was up next to repeat the same in French, to which Calandra repeated his same talking points, and for her supplemental, Turmel brought up the deal that Senator Carignan offered to Braseau, and wondered if the PM was aware of it. Calandra said that they wanted them to take a measure of responsibility and called for the Liberals in the Senate to stand down and pass the suspensions (never mind the senators in the Conservative caucus who are opposed). Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and returned to the same questions about the Prime Minister’s changing talking points, but Calandra didn’t veer from his same talking points, and again called on the Liberals in the Senate to stop their obstruction. LeBlanc closed the round by asking why Harper wouldn’t answer questions about the affair under oath, but Calandra’s talking points didn’t change.
Roundup: Suspending errant senators
In a blatant bit of damage control, Conservatives in the Senate have moved to suspend Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin without pay for “gross negligence” in the use of their parliamentary resources. This came shortly after Duffy sent a message out to say that he was going on medical leave due to heart problems. There are concerns from Senators on both sides that this move comes without a lot of due process, seeing as none of the three have been charged with a crime, though Liberal Senate leader James Cowan noted that he felt there had been insufficient sanctions applied back in the spring, but the government didn’t seem keen on action then. I will admit to my own reservations about this move to suspension without pay without due process, but that has been mollified somewhat when it was explained that this particular disciplinary measure is not a reflection of the RCMP investigations, but as a result of the findings by the Senate’s internal economy committee that found that those Senators had broken the rules. There will still be debate on these motions and the opportunity for each Senator to defend themselves – though it was also pointed out that it will be hard to continue to garnish Brazeau’s wages if he’s suspended without pay. To top if off, Thomas Mulcair felt it appropriate to crack wise that these suspensions are a good first step and that he would prefer to see all Senators suspended without pay before they move to abolish the Chamber. Which is hilarious until you realise that no legislation could actually be passed by a chamber that was entirely suspended (and would have had to suspend itself, as only the Senate itself has the power to suspend its membership). Apparently “good public administration” in Mulcair’s books means ignoring the constitution.
Roundup: Speech From the Throne Day!
It’s time for the Speech From the Throne! Finally! Amidst all of the largely futile speculation – and the speculation about whether all of the consumer-focused hints are distracting us from something else – we also have learned that the government plans to give honorary citizenship to Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, which I’m guessing is an attempt at a consolation prize for the Nobel Peace Prize that she didn’t win. The Conservatives have put together an animated trailer for the Speech From the Throne, narrated by Shelly Glover, and done up in nothing but Conservative blue. Go targeted messaging, go! While the economy will no doubt be the prime focus, so many of the issues at play – such as pipelines and trade agreements – are actually out of the government’s hands. John Geddes points to the limitations of the consumer-driven focus that we are anticipating, while Michael Den Tandt points to the risks of such a move. Brent Rathgeber gives his wish list here. Kady O’Malley reminds us of the vigorous opposition that Pierre Poilievre had to an airline bill of rights the last time the NDP proposed it – oh, how things have changed. And yes, in case you were wondering, Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau are all invited to attend as sitting Senators – and that the motion to suspend Brazeau needs to be moved again because it’s a new session.
Roundup: More challenges to Justice Nadon’s appointment
The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.
Roundup: Special rules to punish Justin Trudeau
Because they are never short of such ideas, the NDP held yet another press conference yesterday to announced new proposals to make Parliament “more accountable.” What that really was code for was “let’s try to punish some Liberals, and in particular, Justin Trudeau.” You see, of their three proposals, the main one was to ban MPs and Senators from “double-dipping by banning payment for work that is part of their job as an MP or Senator.” Which is news to me because nowhere in any legal or constitutional text does it say that it’s part of a Parliamentarian’s job to be a motivational speaker. In fact, that’s the reason why certain MPs and Senators sign up to speaker’s bureaux – in order to do these kinds of gigs without having to expend their parliamentary resources on it, and because they’re not talking about matters that are related to their parliamentary duties, but usually their careers before they were in public life (Marc Garneau’s astronaut career, or Larry Smith’s football commissioner career for example), it makes sense not to treat it as part of their duties. Oh, but Justin Trudeau was able to make a successful living at this and still accepted speaking gigs after he got elected, therefore it must be awful and should be banned. Never mind that he almost always made money for the organisations that he was invited to speak at (with that one notable exception, where it was a case of organisational failure), or that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner cleared these gigs – this is strictly a case of cheap punitive politics. There can be cases made for the other two suggestions – banning parliamentarians from being on corporate boards (but family businesses are okay), and strengthening the powers of the aforementioned Commissioner – but they are less about scandals than perception. Parliamentarians have any corporate board work cleared by an ethics regime, and sure it could be strengthened, but there has yet to be a demonstrated case of any kind of influence peddling, and one suspects it’s simply a case of “corporations bad!” at work. And as for strengthening the role of the Commissioner, well, it seems to me that it’s the NDP who are in charge of the Commons Ethics committee and this has yet to make it onto the agenda when the review of her legislation is a year overdue. Perhaps if they made an effort to actually focus on that rather than play partisan silly buggers and constantly demanding investigations into the wrongdoing of individual MPs, then perhaps they might make progress on such a change.