After two days of arguments at Federal Court, the judge there will deliberate on whether he should be providing clarity to the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer – and no, it’s not a cut-and-dried question. As lawyers for the Speaker asserted, it is a matter for Parliament to decide upon – and remember, Parliament is actually the highest court of the land – and Parliamentarians should not be going to the courts every time the government doesn’t turn over its numbers. And while Page’s request for clarity was just that – clarity – there are some inescapable and fundamental issues at the heart of the matter, and that is that MPs themselves have abdicated their role as guardians of the public purse. While journalists and the public hail Page as being a hero, what’s missing is that he has been saddled with the role of “watchdog” because MPs have decided they’d rather have him do their homework for them, because math is hard, and they can then invoke the magical talisman that is his independence to prove that the government is in the wrong with its numbers. That Thomas Mulcair sent along his own lawyer as an interested party is part of what muddies this issue and makes it look partisan – because Mulcair and company want Page and his successors to do the dirty work for them. This is not really an issue about the government arguing against the fiscal oversight position that they created, but about Parliament itself, and whether or not MPs on both sides of the aisle can take their own jobs seriously. That they are placing all of the emphasis on Page and his office to do their work for them is an indictment that they continue to refuse to.
Tag Archives: Peter Penashue
Roundup: Budget madness!
So, that was the budget – or Economic Action Plan 2013™ – A Responsible Plan For Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity© as the government would otherwise brand it. And there’s not a whole lot to it, with little in the way of new spending, little in the way of tax cuts or measures, extending a few of their existing incentive programmes, and one particular measure for First Nations, tying training dollars to making it mandatory for those receiving income benefits (which Thomas Mulcair dubbed as “workfare” and a slap in the face). It’s also going to fold CIDA into Foreign Affairs as a whole, but it’ll still keep its own minister, so Julian Fantino’s job is still safe. (Scott Gilmore considers this a good move because it will enhance the coordination of our foreign aid, which is often met with the two departments not speaking to one another). Canada Day, Winterlude and the Tulip Festival are being wrested away from the more independent NCC and being handed over to the Department of Heritage, which could be worrying if you hear the horror stories that I do about the competence of the staff in that department. Justin Trudeau predicts the budget will create friction with the provinces after it declared it would create the skills training program and that the provinces have to pitch in – while the government has consistently removed itself from a productive relationship with said provinces. And as if on cue, Quebec calls the budget a “frontal attack” on its economic interests, and “economic sabotage.” iPolitics gives you the nine most inane pieces of wisdom out of the budget. And if that wasn’t enough budget madness for you, iPolitics also has an e-print edition of budget coverage.
QP: Fears of the EI secret police
Budget Day — or Economic Action Plan 2013™ Day if you’re following the propaganda — and the House was a bit thin in the ranks. Thomas Mulcair was absent, and so Megan Leslie was up first, asking about the “witch hunt” against the unemployed. Stephen Harper assured her that EI was there for those who need it, and that they wanted to make sure it would be there for everyone who needed. For her last question, Leslie took jabs at “disgraced candidate” Peter Penashue, to which Harper said that Penashue had a record of achievement to run on. Peter Julian was up next, asking about how an oil spill response ship ran aground on the way to a photo-op. Joe Oliver was having none of it, and accused the NDP of rejecting science because they didn’t like the State Department report on the Keystone XL. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals, outlining the timeline between Elections Canada’s letter to Penashue and his resignation. Harper erroneously accused the Liberals of being against the seal hunt and Lower Churchill, and then praised ALL THE THINGS that Penashue did for Labrador. For his final question, Rae asked about Flaherty’s calls to banks about mortgage rates, to which Harper assured him that mortgage rates are the lowest they’ve ever been,
Roundup: Happy Budget Day, everybody!
It’s Budget Day, everyone! And in what looks to be an otherwise stay-the-course budget, it appears that the big shiny object is going to be…cheaper hockey equipment. Because that matters more than anything else, and Stephen Harper must solidify his credentials as the Hockeyest Prime Minister in the history of ever! Okay, so it’s actually lowering one specific tariff, but still. Meanwhile, Les Whittington gives the five myths of Conservatives budget making. Scott Brison finds a “leaked” copy of Flaherty’s budget speech.
MPs of all stripes – including a few Conservatives – were criticising Flaherty’s move in calling Manulife Financial to stave off a mortgage war. More surprisingly is that one of his own cabinet colleagues, Maxime Bernier, was publically critical. It remains to be seen if this will be treated as a case of “Mad Max” being a maverick, or if this is a breach of cabinet solidarity, Bernier not being a “team player,” and he’ll be bounced out of cabinet – yet again. Andrew Coyne finds the irony in Flaherty lecturing people about taking on too much debt considering how much he added to the national debt.
QP: Selective rate regulation
Being both Budget Day Eve and caucus day, the excitement was palpable. Thomas Mulcair led off QP by reading off a question about how Peter Penashue broke the law, and wondered what it said about the rest of the caucus. Harper rejected the characterisation, and touted ALL THE THINGS that Penashue did for Labrador. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Flaherty’s haranguing banks to not engage in a mortgage war when he wouldn’t regulate credit card rates. Harper insisted that mortgage rates were at the lowest rate in history, and Flaherty was trying to ensure market stability. Françoise Boivin was up next asking about the PBO’s latest report on crime legislation spending, but Rob Nicholson mostly deflected by bringing up Mulcair’s meeting with Gary Freeman while in the States. Bob Rae returned to the question of Penashue, to which Harper considered Rae’s characterisations to be negative campaigning. For his final question, Rae brought up the Competition Act with respect to Flaherty’s calls to the banks about mortgage rates, not that Harper’s answer about market stability changed.
Roundup: Carefully managed budget leaks
As is the usual order of business these days, a carefully managed pre-budget “leak” was released yesterday in the form of a private letter to caucus – the “private” being a full wink-wink-nudge-nudge, of course. This is what we call building the narrative and managing the message. In said letter, Jim Flaherty signalled that his priorities will be skills training, infrastructure and “value-added” manufacturing jobs (never mind that “value added” is a misnomer term, as “value-added” is simply labour input + capital input). Maclean’s has produced a preview guide to the budget coming down this week. Michael Den Tandt believes it’s going to be a “stay the course” budget without any transformational change.
QP: Peter Penashue, hardest working minister ever!
Tuesday before Budget Day, and all leaders were in the House. Thomas Mulcair started off QP by reading off questions about cracking down on tax havens, but Stephen Harper was eager to continue needling him about his trip to Washington, and how he apparently undermined the economy. For this second supplemental, Mulcair read a pair of questions about reversals in fiscal policy, not that Harper let up on his attack against Mulcair’s position on Keystone XL. For his final question, Mulcair asked about Peter Penashue’s resignation, to which Harper assured him that Penashue did the right thing and that he was the best MP from Labrador in the history of ever. Bob Rae carried on that line of questioning — off the cuff and without scripts, mind you — not that Harper’s answer was any different.
Roundup: Who are the unreal people who don’t deserve real things?
The NDP were out first thing Monday morning to launch their pre-budget ad campaign, dubbed “Real things for real people.” No, seriously – that’s what it was. And it was all about all kinds of anti-austerity things they wanted to see – but had no costing figures to present either. Because it’s not like that’s what the first thing the media is going to ask or anything. It directs people to their website, which is full of all kinds of fun and specious dichotomies like “failed fighter jets or public transit” – because you can only have one or the other, apparently. I’m also still waiting to hear about what counts as a “real person” – clone troopers? Flesh “Gangers”? Soong-type androids? Lyekka? Cylons? How about childfree singletons that don’t live in suburbia? Yeah, genius move whoever thought up this particular gem.
QP: Sniping about Mulcair’s trip to Washington
Monday after a constituency week, and kicking off budget week, Members’ Statements were dominated by sniping back and forth over Thomas Mulcair’s trip to Washington last week. QP started off with Thomas Mulcair reading questions about the upcoming budget being full of “corporate giveaways for their buddies.” James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, read some good news talking points before he too accused Mulcair of “selling out” the country in Washington. On his second supplemental, Mulcair bizarrely accused the government of “listening to Tom Flanagan,” which Moore ignored in his response. Mulcair took all the slots in the leader’s round, moving onto Peter Penashue’s election expenses. Moore responded that Penashue took responsibility and stepped down. Leading off for the Liberals was leadership contender Joyce Murray, who kept on about the Penashue resignation. Moore repeated that Penashue took responsibility and stepped down, before adding a gratuitous “Where is the stolen $40 million?” For her final supplemental, Murray asked about the muzzling of scientists and federal archivists and librarians. Moore insisted that it simply was not the case, and said that the directive to staff was independent of government, and doesn’t bar them from speaking publicly.
Roundup: “Inexperience” and other likely excuses
Peter Penashue’s “inexperienced” former official agents says that the corporate donation was “unintentionally” accepted, that Penashue himself didn’t know about the donation, and that the last four or five days of the campaign, “all hell was breaking loose” trying to get money in before the deadline, so the rush totally explains all of the ineligible donations. So really, it’s nobody’s fault because nobody takes responsibility for the documents they signed off on, right? Well, maybe not. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, notes that as the Elections Canada investigative process continues, charges may yet be laid, though not in time for the by-election. The CBC’s David Cochrane looks at the whole affair from the local angle and wonders if Labradoreans want a cabinet minister or to re-elect someone who ran an incompetent campaign and blames others for mistakes that he was responsible for.