The news that the Conservatives were going to bend ever so slightly and make some very minor amendments to their still massively problematic refugee reform bill yesterday may have buoyed NDP spirits that the government was going to agree to split up the omnibus budget bill – but to no avail. The government decided that no, even if they split it up, the NDP would simply delay seven bills instead of one, so they said no. Nathan Cullen responded by saying they were “afraid” of the debate, and that he would be consulting with his critics about their next steps, but one had to wonder why they didn’t already have that in place considering they were fresh out of a caucus meeting. (Marc Garneau, incidentally, described the NDP as having been slapped in the face by the Conservatives, and that perhaps they had been a bit naïve in believing this government would actually negotiate). So what did the NDP decide to do? Procedural delays, forcing votes in the Commons until time for government orders expired, with no actual debate taking place on said bill for the day. That’s fine, Peter Van Loan said – we’ll simply move your opposition day (scheduled for today) until next Wednesday, after the vote. The Liberals, meanwhile, criticised the NDP tactics as “too cute by half,” since they were only denying debate and not actually changing the voting date considering time allocation (though they fought over that bit of procedure). I guess we’ll see how this plays out over the course of today, because it’s going to mean a lot of procedural tactics if they want to try and delay a full day’s worth of debate, or if they’ll try some other kinds of tactics to prove their point.
Tag Archives: Budget 2012
QP: No warpath, just general questions
One would have thought that with the Conservatives having rejected the NDP formal request to split the omnibus budget implementation bill that Thomas Mulcair would be on the warpath. But no – he instead started off QP by asking a fairly broad question about the bill and its large environmental component, and Harper answered with a general response about the need to “streamline” review processes. Mulcair then went to the issue of the demise of the Public Appointments Commission in said bill, and he got into a back-and-forth with Harper about the NDP voting to kill it (never mind that it was a non-binding motion rejecting the proposed commissioner). Matthew Kellway then got up to ask about the updated cost figures from the F-35s, and Julian Fantino got up for the first time in ages to assure the House that there is not only a Seven-Point Plan™, but rather a Seven-Point Action Plan™ for the procurement process. Bob Rae rose for the Liberals, and went after the government for their using the CRA to investigate charities they don’t like, never mind that ones they do like get hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign donations. Harper insisted that the CRA is an arm’s length agency and that charities have to operate within clear limits.
QP: Playing coy during negotiations
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.
Roundup: Truth and ministerial accountability
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.
QP: Polite requests to split the omnibudget
With Thomas Mulcair away, it was up to Nathan Cullen to lead the NDP for Question Period today. After this morning’s presser to put the government on notice that they were going to make a formal request to split the budget bill, Cullen asked a trio of questions about just that – splitting said budget bill. And lo and behold, James Moore – in his capacity as Deputy PM du jour – rose to say that this budget bill was getting more debate than any other in history. Peggy Nash rose to ask the very same thing, calling the bill a “Trojan Horse,” though I’m not quite sure it’s an apt analogy considering it’s not being used to breach any impenetrable walls as the Conservatives have a majority anyway. Regardless, both Jim Flaherty and Diane Finley dismissed Nash’s concerns considering all of the good things in the bill. Bob Rae got up and asked how it was that the government could cut mental health services to Canadian Forces personnel in light of their much-touted support for the troops. Moore talked about how Canada spends more helping its soldiers than any other NATO ally, but didn’t really answer the question. For his last supplemental, Rae asked about the forthcoming meeting with the UN Special Rapporteur on Food, but Moore responded by listing some of the great progress the government has made with First Nations issues.
The threat of a formal request
Nathan Cullen started off this week’s Monday Morning Sanctimony with a quote from Young Stephen Harper about the very undemocratic nature of omnibus bills, and how they prevent MPs from voting on individual issues. You know, just to establish who has the monopoly on virtue. Behind him were Guy Caron and Peggy Nash, and together, they outlined the NDP strategy for tackling the undemocratic monster that is the omnibus budget implementation bill.
They’re going to make a formal request to split it up into at least five separate bills.
A formal request you say? I think Stephen Harper just broke out in a sweat. He probably can’t believe they’ve escalated things to…making a formal request.
Roundup: Begin budget implementation week
It’s budget implementation debate week in the Commons this week, as Second Reading debate moves ahead under time allocation. The CBC’s Kady O’Malley made a very good point on the weekend that Second Reading debate on this bill isn’t going to matter very much, because it’ll simply be parties reciting their support or outrage into the record, but rather it’ll be the committee where all of the important debate happens. Given that the government has less ability to invoke time allocation on committees, there is still a chance for some more scrutiny and debate to happen there – however they still do have a majority on the committees, so that will be limited nevertheless.
Speaking of committees, here’s a look at the dysfunction creeping into the committee system as a whole – not that anyone can agree as to the causes or solutions. Part of this soul-searching was triggered after Liberal Mauril Bélanger quit the official languages committee after 17 years. Conservative Michael Chong believes there are simply too many committees, so MPs are stretched too thin as they have to do double-duty and are unprepared, and that they do too many studies when not considering legislation. Others, like Ned Franks, think the committees are too large, and that this is part of the symptom of party leaders having too much power over their MPs that said committee members are too afraid to actually speak their minds or have confidence in the expertise they develop. And they’re probably all right, to varying degrees.
The government has signalled that they’re going to put their weight behind a Conservative private member’s bill on banning facemasks during riots. The NDP say they’re supportive in principle, but want some clarification that it won’t muddy the waters with other legal inconsistencies.
It appears that changes to the OAS weren’t in the Conservative platform, because the issue wasn’t discussed until after the election when public servants presented those changes as one of a number of options the government could look at when it comes to addressing the demographic crunch.
Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 there has been a sharp decline in immigration applications from many Asian countries, due in part to tightening language restrictions. As immigrants can help be bridges between Canada and their countries of origin when it comes to business opportunities, the fact that the world economy is shifting toward Asia means that we could be losing out in the future if this trend continues.
Here’s a look at the examination of protocol at Heritage Committee last week.
And Joe Clark talks about the need for Canada’s foreign policy to innovate as more economic power and demographics shift toward the developing nations of China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico.
Roundup: Fanboy due diligence
The media has acquired the letter that DND sent to Public Works in order to justify sole-sourcing the F-35 purchase. It’s two paragraphs, has amateurish technical specifications like “very, very low observable stealth capabilities,” and makes four references to “fifth-generation fighter,” which is not a real capability but is rather a trademarked slogan. And this is what passes for due diligence in military procurements. My question is which ministers were copied on this, and why they let it go through. And why Public Works thought that this letter – which has many of the hallmarks of a teenage boy’s fanfiction posts on a second-rate website – was at all acceptable is scandalous.
Also on the F-35 file, it looks like Industry Canada has downgraded their expected industrial spinoffs from our participation in the programme, which has the NDP in a lather. Because who needs to worry about due diligence when you’re worried about regional industrial benefits?
Elections Canada is closing in on the identity of “Pierre Poutine,” and has traced his activities to a computer used by the Guelph Conservative campaign, the IP address of which also matches that one campaign worker used for legitimate calls to RackNine.
The Canadian Forces will be reorganising their command structure as part of cost saving measures. They’re also pulling back on the potential cuts to mental health services after pushback. Meanwhile, the process for modernising our fleet of frigates is running into problems and could wind up with delays and operational gaps. The Forces are also testing more unmanned drones in Canada, which could have some unforeseen legal consequences.
Five former Prime Ministers gathered in Toronto on Thursday night to be honoured for their public service.
Paul Wells talks to Justin Trudeau about the Liberal leadership, and lays out the case as to why Trudeau should run. Trudeau says it’s not going to happen. At least not anytime soon.
Here is a look at the sizes of budget implementation bills past.
The final circulation penny has been minted, and will now be off to the Royal Canadian Mint’s currency museum.
And Tabatha Southey imagines a conversation with an NDP volunteer from the future.
Roundup: Six days of debate
So you know that 420-ish page omnibus budget bill, that affects some fifty Acts, completely rewrites the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species At Risk Act, removes the Inspector General from CSIS, disappears the immigration backlog and all manner of other measures? Has been subjected to time allocation. The government, feeling generous, is giving it some six days of debate, which really means twenty-something hours in the House at Second Reading, which is hardly anything at all for a bill of this magnitude. The Senate at least will begin pre-studying the bill next week and actually breaking it up into appropriate committees, which the Commons won’t be doing (though as a half-measure, the government will allow a sub-committee at Finance to study all of those environmental changes, which I’m sure will last all of a week, tops). I think John Ivison put it best:
It makes you wonder: What is the point of Parliament? Why not have one whopper of a bill once a year, allow MPs to give it a cursory skim and then send them back to their constituencies to do the ceremonial work of opening supermarkets and attending Rotary barbecues?
If the abuse of time allocation and omnibus legislation continues, that may very well be the way things are headed.
Lord and Smith Commission, Episode 5
My friend Destine Lord and I have a new video up, in which we talk about the decorum, the omnibus budget bill, and new developments with the F-35s.