The Parliamentary Budget Officer wonders why the government is looking for $5.4 billion in the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday, considering that they underspent $10 billion for each of the past three year. It’s another example of the lack of transparency that his government engages in when reporting to the House its fiscal responsibilities. And hey, maybe MPs should be scrutinising these estimates and asking questions, rather than the PBO doing their homework for them – once again. But math is hard, and so on.

The Rob Ford clown show continues to roll on in Toronto, but the best that the PMO can muster about it is that it’s “troubling.” Meanwhile, they keep attacking Justin Trudeau instead. Because there’s nothing like playing politics on the face of a civic trauma – not alienating Ford Nation voters, while still trying to score points off of Trudeau, no matter how disingenuous the spin might be. Because there is apparently no shame left on the political landscape when it comes to this whole sordid affair. Andrew Coyne sees the inevitability of how this all devolved, and that the only solution now is for Ford to simply get out rather than get help. Paul Wells calls out Tim Hudak’s role as an enabler in all of this.

The government has added another $15 million to our Philippines typhoon relief efforts.

Leona Aglukkaq is headed to Poland for her first climate change conference as Environment Minister. Elizabeth May is also headed there – as part of Afghanistan’s delegation. No, seriously.

Aaron Wherry deconstructs Peter MacKay’s defence of Scott Reid’s talk of marijuana legalisation to high schoolers while still condemning Justin Trudeau doing the same when asked. Amy Minsky debunks MacKay’s insistence that a government backbencher has less power than the leader of the third party. (And may I point out that the Liberal Party voted on legalisation as a policy plank, and that Trudeau is communicating that policy?)

The NDP wants the Senate to fall under Access to Information laws, which is ridiculous, seeing as the Senate is not a government department (though they keep trying to pretend that it is). Worse still, they seem to think that the Senate should fall under it, but MPs shouldn’t, which is hypocritical. Ultimately, neither MPs nor senators should fall under it as they are not government employees, and as it was pointed out, democracy needs room to breathe. Rather, this NDP position is nothing but pure vindictiveness, and should be called out as such.

The Liberals, meanwhile, want the Information Commissioner to investigate why PCO didn’t have any records on the ClusterDuff deal. Um, maybe because PCO wouldn’t have had anything to do with it, as it was strictly a PMO/political affair? (Why is this dividing line so hard to figure out? Other than really trying to make it look like there’s a cover-up?)

Commons Clerk Audrey O’Brien is concerned that opening up the Internal Economy committee will drive the private discussions therein underground, to hallways and backrooms for no good reason

Kady O’Malley looks at Jason Kenney’s fundraising drawing power in Southwest Ontario, and how there is very little crossover between his personal donors and the general Conservative donor list.

Over in the Toronto Centre by-election, Maclean’s Erica Alini looks at how Chrystia Freeland could have better responded to Linda McQuaig during the first all-candidates’ debate – especially on the topics of Freeland’s time abroad, and McQuaig’s support for the American FACTA law, which may prove to be unconstitutional in Canada. Meanwhile, it seems that the NDP were once big fans of Freeland, especially once her book Plutocrats was first released. Oh how things change.

Meanwhile, as the by-elections heat up, Justin Trudeau is taking shots at Thomas Mulcair over his recent comments around the Clarity Act, accusing him of playing dangerous games with national unity, while Mulcair vows to “wipe the floor” with Trudeau in 2015.

And energy economist Andrew Leach shows that we are still exporting more than just oil – despite the political rhetoric that would have you believe otherwise.