Tag Archives: Bev Oda

Roundup: Entirely proper backbench complaints

Posted on by

Conservative backbencher Brent Rathgeber complained publicly about Bev Oda’s expenses, the use of cabinet minister limousines. “Oh noes! Harper can’t control his caucus!” We The Media, decry, when really we should be saying, “Hey, look – backbench MPs are doing their job and holding the executive to account!” It also emphasises how much of a problem Oda has become for Harper, and that she will need to be shuffled – if not out of Cabinet (and likely to a Senate seat or other patronage appointment), then certainly a major demotion to something innocuous like National Revenue.

Senator Patrick Brazeau, the youngest Senator in the Upper Chamber, has the lousiest attendance record over the past year. In fact, he was four days away from being fined for it. (Note that Senators have attendance taken and can be fined after too many absences, as compared to MPs who self-report attendance, and those reports are not made public). So what did Brazeau do? Call the journalist who wrote the story a bitch (and did, eventually, apologise). Because that’s class. You can read the Storified Twitter Machine exchange here.

In a speech at Queen’s University, former senator Lowell Murray decries the fact that PMO and PCO – the political and the civil service sides of the Prime Minister’s staff – has become one and the same, and that’s detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer gives himself passing grades

Posted on by

Speaker Scheer feels that decorum has been improving in the Commons, and while it’s not perfect, he thinks that we mostly don’t notice the improvement because only the bad behaviour gets noticed. He also says that some of his discipline is quiet, so that it doesn’t draw more attention to the behaviour in question. As a regular attendee of QP, I’m not sure how much of this I would attribute to Scheer himself. Some of the “improvement” can be attributed to the NDP’s unctuous sanctimony with their so-called “heckle ban” – which they do break all the time, but they are on the whole quieter than the Liberals (well, those who don’t feel the need to yell constantly anyway). Scheer however seems just as reluctant to bring the hammer down in public as Milliken was, and at times he seems to ignore some pretty unparliamentary language. Suffice to say, I’m not terribly convinced.

It seems that not all Conservatives are happy with Bev Oda’s spending habits, or the fact that she has been changing her expense reports without explanation.

Continue reading →

QP: Kent’s version of what happened

Posted on by

While Thomas Mulcair was busy touring the Alberta oil sands, Nathan Cullen was once again holding the fort in Ottawa, and his lead series of questions were on the objections of those former Conservative fisheries ministers to the changes of the Act in the omnibus budget bill. Stephen Harper assured him that these changes were getting more committee study than ever, and that they would ensure a thorough and efficient review process. Cullen then brought up the upcoming website blackout protest and the attack on charities, but Harper shrugged it off, saying that most charities follow the rules and this was just ensuring that remains the case. Peggy Nash lamented that the government was offering no environmental leadership, to which Peter Kent reminded her that all three ministers showed up at the subcommittee for two hours! Except no, it was only for one hour, and it was a surprise appearance with almost no prior notice, and three ministers at once means that you can’t really get any substantive answers, but hey, details. Bob Rae asked about Rona Ambrose’s comments on the need to come with a new procurement process, and indicated that the government needed to take another step back in order to actually have some defence and foreign affairs policies in order before we decide what kind of planes we need. Harper simply retorted that at least his government was doing procurement, unlike the Liberals did. When John McKay asked for an open, fair and transparent competition for the fighter procurement, Jacques Gourde delivered Rona Ambrose’s talking points for her.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Begin the retrospectives

Posted on by

As we come up on the one year anniversary of the “strong, stable, national Conservative majority government,” the pundits are starting to weigh in – Den Tandt looks at the missing “hidden agenda” one year later, Tim Harper looks at the transformation that has happened, noting that none of it is hard-right stuff and hey, look at all the scandals, and John Ibbitson takes a rather in-depth look at the past year (and the five that preceded it), but I’m not quite sure that one can really consider the Conservative  a “values-based” party any longer, considering their abandonment of so much of what they once held dear.

Parents who were promised enhanced EI benefits to deal with gravely ill children are feeling betrayed that the campaign pledge was not in the budget.

Here’s a great look at “Responsible Resource Development” – the somewhat Orwellian name being given to the Conservative rewriting of the country’s environmental laws.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government kept two sets of books on the F-35 procurement process – the real set, and one full of low-balls to sell to the public.

The third wave of public sector layoff notices go out this week.

Seven officials from CRA’s Montreal office have been dismissed in connection with a corruption and fraud investigation, however charges have still not been laid.

Thomas Mulcair vowed to the annual convention of the Canadian Association of Journalists that he’d lift the veil of secrecy if he forms government. I seem to recall a certain other current Prime Minister who once vowed the very same thing.

All of those young NDP MPs who were students prior to the last election are being forced to stay out of the student protests in Quebec, as it could quickly become a provincial election issue and their support could benefit the Parti Québécois.

Oh, look – Peter Penashue is in the news. Who? Exactly.

Here’s a look at how Quebec used to be loyal to the Crown, but one incident of police overreaction turned them against it.

And Scott Feschuk writes possibly the most note-perfect recap of the Bev Oda affair, striking the balance between humour and insight.

Roundup: The budget omnibus bill lands

Posted on by

The government tabled their first budget implementation bill yesterday – a 431-page omnibus bill that amends over 50 Acts, and a huge chunk of that being environmental legislation, like major changes to the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and repealing the Kyoto implementation law. Oh, and they’ve indicated that they want to put the rush on this one too. Because there’s nothing like actual scrutiny for bills that this government wants passed.

Stephen Woodworth’s motion to have a debate saw its first hour of debate, and was smacked down from all sides – even his own, when Conservative whip Gordon O’Connor savaged it and encouraged his own party to vote against it. (Niki Ashton then followed up by accusing the government of “Trojan Horse legislation,” obviously tone-deaf and unable to think on her feet considering the speech that immediately preceded hers). The chance that this non-binding motion will go anywhere are increasingly remote.

Bev Oda has repaid the cost of her limousine rides. Now we can sleep again at night. (Incidentally, Paul Wells looks at the two incidents together and sees the signs of Harper’s loosening discipline, and what it all means).

The Auditor General appeared at the Public Accounts committee yesterday, and lo and behold, there is a reason why he focused on the 36-year lifecycle costs of the F-35s, and that the department and government tried to sell 20-year costs is a problem. Meanwhile back in the House, Bob Rae continued to argue his point of privilege that the government not telling the truth with regards to these costs – in the face of all evidence – is a contempt of parliament. And he’s got a very good point.

And here is part two of the Huffington Post Canada’s excellent series on redrawing the electoral boundaries in this country, with the challenges faced by the “rurban” ridings in Saskatchewan, where in the previous exercise the commissions were told there was no such thing as an “urban interest” in the province (though the distortionary effect is also quite pronounced in Alberta as well), and the battles that went on in New Brunswick during the last redistribution.

QP: Accepting conclusions but not responsibility

Posted on by

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: Appropriate limousines

Posted on by

Thomas Mulcair opened up QP today taking all five slots in the leader’s round, asking whether Harper planned to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2014, despite the House having voted to end the mission. Well no, Harper said – we haven’t had any request to extend the mission (amidst speculation that the Americans would be asking us to extend our Special Operations forces there), and of course he’d ask the House for permission to extend. Err, except this is a big problem. You see constitutionally, deploying the armed forces is a Crown Prerogative, and that’s a means of accountability. Yes, it sounds nice on paper when you have the House agree to put our troops into harm’s way, but when things go wrong, you need that clear line of accountability. Because deployments are a Crown Prerogative, it means that the executive remains responsible when things to wrong. If it’s the House in charge, not only do we find that we have watered down missions full of caveats (like all of those European countries in Afghanistan), but then Harper can turn around and say “Well, the House agreed to the mission, not me, so not my problem.” You see why this is a problem, right? And now that Harper has a majority in the House, he can hold a vote and then say “The House has spoken, we’ll extend,” thus being able to both absolve himself of responsibility while appearing to have it be a “democratic” choice. Not that Mulcair seems to have considered this constitutional reality.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hey, big spender!

Posted on by

All eyes may be on Bev Oda’s limousine habit and posh hotels, but it seems that the highest spending cabinet minister is Gerry Ritz, who spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on travel in the past year. But look at all of our agricultural export markets he’s securing! Oh, and take it away, Dame Shirley Bassey.

So, that Michael Ignatieff interview. Which he later said the criticisms of which were taken out of context and is now said to be backpedalling while other Liberals repudiate his words and separatists are revelling in them. But. Having watched the full interview, I will note that Ignatieff does seem to be conflating a lot of the division of powers from the 1867 constitution (where things like healthcare and education are provincial responsibilities) with Quebec’s control over their immigration stemming from a 1968 law, and some of the kinds of concessions that were made post-1995 that weren’t structural. But put this into the context of the last election, where there was a great deal of debate around the NDP proposals for further decentralisation on a selective basis with Quebec (while simultaneously seeking more centralising powers for pretty much every other province), which was the point of the “Sherbrooke Declaration,” and the frustrations that many a federalist politician feels when it comes to the fact that Canada is already the most decentralised federation in existence. Ignatieff did seem to be indicating that the damage from further devolution of powers, in a post-Scottish independence world, would be eventual independence, but that seems to have been lost in most people’s analyses. (Speaking of, here’s a great analysis from @Kyle_a, who puts a whole bunch more context in there).

Conservative MPs from Alberta were hurting a bit yesterday in the wake of the PC victory in Alberta, as most were supporting the Wildrose party. I witnessed two of them yesterday morning conversing where the one said, “I see you were campaigning for the wrong party,” to which the other replied that he had been campaigning for the party that should have won. Oh, well.

Aaron Wherry has a chat with Bruce Hyer, who hints more about some of the internal battles within the NDP that Jack Layton was able to manage, but that Nycole Turmel couldn’t, and Thomas Mulcair isn’t so far.

As was referenced during QP yesterday, a particular poll was entered as part of the evidence for improper calling in six of the seven ridings where the results are in a court challenge. I get the methodology and that it was structured to serve as a comparison and to correct for the inaccuracies of memory, but a poll does seem like thin evidence for a case of this magnitude.

Here’s a look at the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that critics argue will weaken fish habitat protection in the rush to speed up environmental assessments.

Here’s more about the “media monitors” being assigned to Canadian scientists at a climate conference.

And the man behind the Vikileaks Twitter account went before the Ethics Committee yesterday. Apparently the Conservatives not only don’t understand how the Twitter Machine works, but they believe that he needed a vast conspiracy to make it all happen – while apparently they also believe that a lone operative is behind the misleading robo-calls.

QP: An unreserved apology

Posted on by

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.

Roundup: Redford wins a majority – surprise!

Posted on by

Alison Redford’s Progressive Conservatives rallied and came back to another majority mandate in the Alberta election last night, and the upstart Wildrose party, kind of fizzled out with less than twenty seats. Not that I want to be too shameless about it, but I feel like I was the only person who wasn’t willing to write them off. As a former Albertan, I wasn’t willing to discount the power of institutional inertia or the kind of one-party-state-ism that affects the voters of the province, and lo and behold, “brand loyalty” won out. Not that the Wildrose did themselves any favours by not denouncing more forcefully their more unpalatable candidates under the banner of “free speech,” or trying to play to social issues even though the province is more progressive than most people let on. I also think it can’t be overlooked the way in which that the PC party in that province tends to change in order to fit the shape of its current leader. While Redford certainly has her conservative bona fides (especially in areas like law-and-order), she is nevertheless far more socially progressive and I think that the electorate did respond to the changing shape of the party. And so the one party state rolls along, while all of those inaccurate polls are left in the dust.

Yesterday’s outrage was the revelation that CIDA minister Bev Oda refused to stay at a five-star hotel in London where a conference she was attending was being held, but rather insisted on staying at one twice as expensive, and expensing $16 orange juice while she stayed there. Speculation is that it was because the new hotel had smoking rooms, but still – taxpayers were still on the hook for the non-refundable deposit for the first hotel. Add to this is the fact that her penchant for limousines hasn’t abated in the years since she’s been in cabinet, and spent a thousand a day on those as well. All this at a time of fiscal austerity, when her department is cutting aid to several countries, one might add. Oda did paid the difference in price between the two including the cancellation fee for the first hotel, and the orange juice (but not the limo, which was the much larger figure), but she only did it yesterday morning – as the news was the talk of the capital. Paul Wells surmises that Oda has deduced that she is bulletproof, and can get away with anything at this point.

Statistics Canada is facing a major financial crunch, and is likely to do far fewer surveys this year. Because this government really doesn’t govern on the basis of statistics (unless they’re made up and sound like they support their position on something).

The attempt to overturn the election results in Etobicoke Centre is before the courts this week.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson was before the Commons status of women committee yesterday to talk about the ongoing harassment investigation within the Force. The Liberals want the committee to expand the scope of that investigation in order to hear more from the victims, but this government is allergic to any opposition motions, so one has doubt that it’ll go much further. Meanwhile, the head of CSIS was before a Senate committee to say that he’s just fine with new anti-terrorism legislation being proposed. Not that this is a surprise.

And over on BBC Scotland, Michael Ignatieff mused that if you increasingly devolve powers to subnational governments, independence is the likely result. While people immediately jumped on this as his foregone conclusion that he was saying Quebec separation was inevitable, others have suggested that this is a warning about further Quebec devolution plans – such as the Sherbrooke Declaration, that would further decentralise our already greatly decentralised powers.