The first of the 2014 budget implementation omnibus bills has now been tabled, and this one is only about 359 pages long. Included in its many, many pages are provisions relating to aligning trademark rules to match international regulations, changes to the temporary foreign workers programme when it comes to better enforcement mechanisms, formalizing the reintroduction of the “royal” titles to the Royal Canadian Airforce and Royal Canadian Navy, capping domestic roaming rates for wireless calls, keeping suspended MPs and Senators from accruing pension benefits, adding new Superior Court judges in Alberta and Quebec, funding the Champlain Bridge replacement (*drink!*), and implementing a controversial tax-sharing agreement with the US, to name but a few (more items here, while you can find the whole bill posted here.
Tag Archives: Peter MacKay
Roundup: Unnecessary supplemental estimates?
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.
Roundup: A contract flawed from the outset
A leaked government report gives a rather stinging indictment of the Sea King helicopter replacement procurement, calling it flawed from the outset. At the time, the government treated it like they were buying “off-the-shelf” helicopters, but with so many procurements, the military loaded it up with new specifications until it was no longer “off-the-shelf,” but was rather something that should have been treated like an in-development contract. And so we get delays, and penalties, and intransigence. The report recommends re-scoping the contract in order to treat it as an in-development project so that they can start accepting delivery of helicopters and phasing in new features, but there’s no word on if the government will accept this proposal or not, or if they’ll just continue to blame the Liberals for it rather than taking responsibility or action.
Roundup: Charlie Angus’ distraction and vilification
At a press conference in Ottawa Friday morning, NDP MP Charlie Angus declared that he doesn’t think that the Auditor General should look at MPs’ expenses because the Senate is evil and stuff. No, really. If that wasn’t a more clear-cut case of distraction (and vilification), I’m not sure what is. The AG put out a statement outlining a few things about his forthcoming Senate audit – basically, it’s like any other audit, so stop asking him about it. Academics are hoping that this new scrutiny will sweep away the “old boys’ network” in the Senate, never mind that it’s been on its way out slowly for the past number of years as increasingly rigorous new rules have been put into place. Have similar rules been put into place on the Commons side? Well, we don’t know, because they’re not transparent, while the Senate is – not that you’ll hear Charlie Angus or Thomas Mulcair admit that. Meanwhile, it seems that Pamela Wallin was whinging about “media bullying” when they made Freedom of Information requests to Guelph University about her billing them for flights for her duties as chancellor, because you know, she’s the victim in all of this. The CBC looks at what’s next for Wallin, and also provides a fact sheet on Senators’ pay, and the key players in the expenses scandals. Meanwhile a group of psychologists – and Andrew Coyne – say that the Senate itself breeds a sense of entitlement, which doesn’t seem to explain why the problems are confined to a small minority, or why MPs and cabinet ministers fall into the very same kinds of entitled behaviours (if not even worse, because they’re the people’s chosen representatives, and a strategic genius to boot, and are therefore even more entitled).
Roundup: Lisa Raitt is on the case
Two days on the job as transport minister, and Lisa Raitt paid her first visit to Lac-Mégantic to assess the scene there for herself, and to promise that yes, the federal government will assist in reconstruction. And while the NDP complained that she didn’t come with numbers in hand, it’s like they don’t understand how federal disaster assistance works – that at the end of the process, they write one big cheque that will cover something on the order of 90 percent of the costs. It just doesn’t happen up front, which is the role of the province and municipality.
Roundup: So long, Vic Toews
As had been expected, Vic Toews has now resigned not only his post in cabinet, but also his seat as an MP. That makes six cabinet vacancies and three by-elections now on the way. Stephen Harper has been meeting with his minsters up at Harrington Lake to get them to give self-evaluations of their performance, in advance of the shuffle.
The Queen sent condolences to Lac-Mégantic regarding the tragedy there. Blame is already being thrown around for the cause of the derailment. Paul Wells notes the absurdity on the scene of the press being kept away, while a dozen politicians have been given tours so far. Andrew Leach looks at how it will affect the entire oil industry, just as the Deepwater Horizon explosion had an effect on the offshore oil industry.
Roundup: Applying the Rathgeber principle
Former Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber is pleased that the Senate blocked the union transparency bill, and is similarly happy that they called it the “Rathgeber amendment.” In his blog post, he rather gleefully calls it a stick in the eye of the PMO, and praise the Senators for not only doing their constitutional duty, but for pointing out the absurdity of the PMO looking for transparency from others when it wouldn’t apply it to their own mandarins. Tim Harper and John Ivison both look at the Senate demonstrating their mettle, and proving that they’re not simply there to rubber stamp bills.
Roundup: Another day of the Senate doing its job
The Senate did its job, and sent the union transparency bill back to the Commons. Sixteen senators voted in favour of Conservative Senator Hugh Segal’s amendment, which raised the disclosure level in the bill (to the same level as the government changed Brent Rathgeber’s bill to, as it happens). Oh, and another six Conservative Senators abstained, which pushed the vote over. This has shown the rifts opening up in the Conservative caucus – MPs griping about Senators doing their jobs (because MPs of course never draft and then pass bad bills), and Senators in the caucus who are tired of being bullied into supporting bad bills. And in this case – a bill that was entirely dubious constitutionally – well, it was intolerable for most of them to support it, and yes, numerous Harper appointees voted for the amendment, including one of the “elected” Senators from Alberta. And while some Conservatives are grousing that this is just the Senate trying to justify their existence, it’s really just them doing their jobs. This shouldn’t be dramatic because the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and it never has been. Just because people expect them to be – out of civic ignorance – and are suddenly shocked that the system works the way it’s supposed to, it should be a reminder and a teachable moment. Instead we’re seeing complete butchery of civic literacy among the political talking heads, which is distressing to say the least.
Roundup: Rathgeber wins the day
It really was Brent Rathgeber’s day yesterday, from the very start when CBC’s Laura Payton caught up with him at the airport, and he said a lot of wonderfully civically literate things about the role of backbenchers to act as a check on the executive, and how executive control nowadays has bled so far into the committee system that it is a threat to our Westminster-style democracy. Rathgeber explained more on his blog, and his intention to largely vote with the Conservatives going forward, but will evaluate all decisions on a case-by-case basis. At the press conference he called in his riding, he also put the boots to the PMO, basically saying that they run themselves without involving Harper, which really makes one wonder who is running the show, since they’re the ones writing the scripts that they expect the backbenchers to read. Colby Cosh looks at the seven Conservative MPs who were responsible for gutting Rathgeber’s bill in committee. The one who moved the amendments, Brad Butt, gave Huffington Post an excuse that it was to avoid big bureaucracy getting involved, and to try it at the most senior levels first, but it seems fairly nonsensical.
Roundup: The moral panic of campaigning Senators
The Toronto Star has a look at Senators who were reimbursed by various campaigns for work they did during the last election, which seems a bit curious because it’s not unusual that Senators campaign – they just can’t bill the Senate for those expenses, as Mike Duffy did. Not that it’s stopped the NDP from making a giant fuss about it, as though it’s a bad thing that party members help out in a campaign. “Oh, but they shouldn’t campaign at all!” they cry. “They’re on the taxpayer’s payroll!” Um, so are MPs, who also fundraise and do campaign activities outside of writ periods of all sorts. And some of them go to fundraisers while they should be in Ottawa as the House is sitting. And leaders? Well, they’re the worst when it comes to missing House duty for fundraisers and campaigning. They’re also on the public dime. It’s a kind of hypocritical and nonsensical argument that seems to ignore the fact that *gasp!* senators are also party members and partisans! You know, the way our system of government works, where you have governing and opposition parties in both chambers! In other words, the NDP is trying to create a moral panic, which should be paid little heed unless it can be proved that any of the Senators who campaigned billed the Senate for their expenses. And I have little doubt that none of them other than Duffy – and possibly Pamela Wallin – did.