Tag Archives: Veterans

Roundup: Scrutiny versus populist outrage

Posted on by

The government is backing another private members’ bill, this time about establishing a mandatory minimum sentence on kidnapping a person under 16 – despite the fact that a former Supreme Court justice calls this unnecessary and creating a more patchwork Criminal Code that increasingly is ad hoc and full of loopholes and inconsistencies. It’s like the government were going along with anything that sounded good without giving it proper thought or analysis. Oh, wait –that’s exactly what they’re doing. Who needs proper scrutiny when you’ve got populist outrage on your side?

Thomas Mulcair dismisses the premiers of Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan as “Harper’s messengers” when they go after him about his comments on the oil sands and our supposed “petro dollar.” Erm, okay. Because that makes sense. Paul Wells further dissects that particular line of thinking here.

Continue reading →

QP: Orwell was not a how-to manual

Posted on by

With the NDP now out to turn public opinion to their side on the omnibus budget bill, one wondered if this was going to lead off QP for the day. And in a sort of tangential sense it did, as Thomas Mulcair asked about Jim Flaherty’s comments that OAS changes could save $10 to $12 billion. Harper insisted there would be no actual pension reductions. Mulcair then turned to Flaherty’s “there are no bad jobs” comments with regards to EI changes – and several times was drowned out by Conservative applause when he repeated Flaherty’s statement. (And yet he kept repeating it and kept getting drowned out). After a warning from the Speaker, Mulcair finished and between that and two follow-up questions about how that also applied to seniors and the disabled, Harper insisted that Canada has a superior job creation record, and hey, they have a disabled member in the cabinet, so there’s nothing that disabled people can’t do. Bob Rae was up next, and brought up George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and how it shouldn’t be a how-to manual for governments, and he related this to the kind of silencing of critics the government has been engaged in, whether it is with the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, or any other number of NGOs or data-gathering organisations. Harper insisted that they were interested in administrative savings and doing away with duplication where the information these groups provide could be found elsewhere. For his final supplemental, Rae gave a nod to the Auditor General’s return to the Public Accounts committee and his assertion that the government wasn’t giving accurate numbers on the F-35s. Harper turned to his rote talking points about no contracts signed and no purchase having been made, and left it at that.

Continue reading →

QP: Playing coy during negotiations

Posted on by

Despite the fact that negotiations are apparently ongoing, Thomas Mulcair nevertheless opened QP today with a pair of questions about whether the government would split the omnibus budget implementation bill. Harper, however, played coy and spoke instead about the strong mandate that his party received and their desire to move forward. Mulcair then turned to the Environment Commissioner’s report and how the list of failures there would be compounded with the aforementioned budget bill, but Harper rebutted that his government had made record investments in environmental remediation. Megan Leslie picked up the torch and asked about the hidden costs of not having strict environmental legislation, but Peter Kent assured her that when the costing data was available they’d share it. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals and demanded that Kent account for his “money laundering” accusations, but rather than Kent speaking up, both Harper and Gail Shea got up instead – Harper to tout Responsible Resource Development™ and the responsible use of charitable dollars, and Shea to insist those budget measures were about greater education and transparency for charities. Kirsty Duncan took the last slot to also ask after the Environment Commissioner’s report, and Kent assured her that they would “take note” of the recommendations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Truth and ministerial accountability

Posted on by

As mentioned earlier, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facia breach of privilege in the government’s answers on the F-35s in the House. So what does this actually mean. First of all, it should be noted that Speaker Scheer parsed things pretty finely, and in that respect, noted that it was difficult to prove a deliberate misleading, which is why he couldn’t make his ruling. (You can read the text here). Fair enough, one supposes, but there were some additional eyebrow-raising aspects to this, in that he pretty much dismissed the notion of ministerial accountability out of hand. In other words, not his problem. This means that as always, this remains a problem for the Crown, and in that, it means that the only people who can punish the Crown for ministers not taking responsibility would be the Commons, by means of withdrawing their confidence. And of course that would mean in this case that backbenchers would have to be sufficiently exercised to want to punish their own party’s government (which this current lot of spineless louts is highly unlikely to do). Marc Garneau raised the additional point after the ruling that this further insulates a government from the actions of the civil servant because they can henceforth claim ignorance, and ministerial accountability may well be a past concept.

Here is the text of the motion the NDP are proposing for splitting the omnibus budget bill. Elizabeth May blogs about the various changes found within the bill and wonders if government spokespersons haven’t read the bill considering that their talking points don’t match the reality of the text. Maclean’s Aaron Wherry has an extremely trying interview with Peter Van Loan about the bill, and his justifying the omnibus-ness of it all.

The Veterans Ombudsman has released a scathing report about the conduct and performance of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, saying some 60 percent of cases were handled improperly. The minister’s response? That they’ll soon be launching a new Action Plan™ to deal with it.

The NDP “digital issues” critic wants to investigate if social media sites are doing enough to protect privacy. Fair enough – but I don’t think that labelling them “Big Data” is really helping anyone.

Here’s a look at the number of contaminated sites that need cleaning up across the country.

And a potential Liberal leadership candidate is launching trailers for his “exploratory committee” bid, but there are cautions about what kind of fundraising he can actually do at this stage.

Up today – the Mental Health Commission is releasing their first report, outlining their strategy, priorities and recommendations, which includes the need for $4 billion in new funds over the next ten years.

Roundup: Happy Harper-versary!

Posted on by

Happy one-year anniversary of the Strong, Stable, Conservative Majority Government! This morning we are looking forward to self-congratulatory speeches from Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, and an announcement from the Liberals about how they plan to not only open the doors to their party, but knock down the walls as well. No, seriously. (I write more about that here).

Eight deputy ministers and senior officials turned up at the Public Accounts committee yesterday to talk about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s. And by “talk about,” we mean basically say “Not my fault – don’t look at me.” And hey, because there were eight of them around the table, it meant there was very little questioning of any of them once they all got through their opening statements. (You know, the kind of thing that Liberal committee member Gerry Byrne was trying to avoid when he tried to pass a motion that the witnesses would be heard in panels of no more than two at a time). Accountability and transparency in action!

Quebec is officially calling for a Supreme Court reference on the constitutionality of the Senate “reform” bill. As well they should – the bill is unconstitutional, no matter how the government tries to make changes through the back door.

A Federal Court judge has given an “unreserved” smackdown of the practice of clawing back disability payments for veterans. Peter MacKay hasn’t yet said whether the government will appeal the decision.

Here is a pretty damning indictment about the death of oversight at CSIS.

Here is a look at the 40 diplomatic residences we’re considering selling, and the damage it’ll do to our “brand” abroad.

As was mentioned during QP yesterday, it looks like Conrad Black will be coming back to Canada after all, while the NDP took this case, along with that of Gary Freeman and showed the apparently double-standard being applied there.

Peter Kent accuses environmental charities of “laundering” foreign funds to undermine our country’s interests. Seriously.

And Steve Murray illustrates ways that we can help to improve decorum in the Commons.

QP: Decisive Action on apples and oranges

Posted on by

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: A lacklustre first showdown

Posted on by

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.