Tag Archives: Public Accounts

Roundup: Scheer throws stones at Fergus from his glass house

Posted on by

The saga around Speaker Fergus’ fate is starting to become farcical, as Andrew Scheer brought up more “proof” that Fergus has been engaged in partisan activities, because he went to a party event…for a Quebec Liberal MNA, which, again, is not the same party or the same league. (Honestly, there are a bunch of former Quebec Liberal MNAs currently sitting in the Conservative caucus, much like there are a bunch of former BC Liberal MLAs in the Conservative caucus.). Scheer’s urge to keep finding this “proof” and tattling is becoming ridiculous.

But then, a twist—CBC found out that Andrew Scheer was fined by the House of Commons for filming a partisan video in support of a by-election nomination candidate in his Hill office, which isn’t allowed, and then had that successful candidate pay for the fine out of his campaign expenses, which may run afoul of Elections Canada rules (but those returns haven’t been audited yet because the by-election is too recent). The NDP have also been finding instances of where Scheer attended party fundraisers when he was the Speaker, but Pierre Poilievre’s spokesperson insists this was totally different, while also falsely saying that the provincial party event was a “fellow Liberal’s fundraiser.” But the fact that Scheer is not only a liar but a hypocrite (to say nothing of being a braying doofus) is no surprise to absolutely anyone.

And because the stupid twists don’t stop, we also learned that Fergus had a conversation with former MP Glen Pearson, who went on to write an op-ed in Fergus’ defence shortly after he took the role (before the drama happened) about the decorum in the Chamber. I’m starting to get very tired of this particular back-and-forth, and hope this doesn’t carry into the New Year.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians launched 42 drones and six missiles at southern Ukraine overnight Wednesday, which killed one person. Ukraine and Molodova got the green-light to start fast-tracking their bid to join the European Union, but Hungary remains an obstacle as they held up new aid funding for Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/kyivindependent/status/1735378672029167827

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hybrid sittings are now permanent, and Parliament will suffer

Posted on by

I knew that this was now inevitable, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not infuriating. After invoking closure and ramming it through with little debate, the government has forced through the changes to the Standing Orders that will make hybrid sittings permanent. The government has ignored all criticisms about this move, and blinkered itself to the supposed benefits to this system that are largely a false economy, because it “feels progressive.” They tried to force this before the pandemic, and they certainly didn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

The biggest losers out of this are the interpretation staff. Working by Zoom is an absolute killer for them, both from acoustic injuries because MPs can’t be arsed to use their headsets properly most of the time, or simply ignore those rules when it suits them (as the Conservatives did when they pretended to have issues with their voting apps), and because the cognitive load from interpreting this way burns them out. The Speaker, meanwhile, can’t be bothered to enforce rules or guidelines, and merely gently chides MPs that they should be nice to the interpreters, but with no consequences, these behaviours continue undaunted. We’re now accelerating toward a crisis of bilingualism in Parliament because they can’t just hire more interpreters. They’re not graduating enough at a rate to overcome attrition even before the injuries, and fewer of them are going to stick around in order to expose themselves to injury and the possibility of permanent hearing loss. It’s morally repugnant and unconscionable that MPs behave this way, treating the interpreters like furniture, but they’re still in the fuck around stage. They’re going to find out really soon, and Parliament is going to be in a genuine crisis, because the Liberals and NDP in particular are too self-centred to look at the harm they’re causing.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian authorities say they’re staging elections in occupied territories as a sign that they’re in control, as the Ukrainian counter-offensive makes progress but faces “tough resistance,” according to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Ukrainian officials also say they are still advancing on Bakhmut around the north and northwest.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1669255405610909698

Continue reading →

Roundup: Winds of change in the Senate

Posted on by

Interesting things are afoot in the Senate, with a number of new motions and bills introduced that could change the way it operates in the future, as well as debates on operations. It’s been pretty fascinating so far, and so far we’ve had:

  • Senator Housakos’ point of privilege on the lack of a Leader of the Government in the Senate;
  • Senator Carignan’s motion to call ministers to answer questions in the Chamber;
  • Senator Mercer tabling a bill that would amend the constitution to allow Senators to elect their own Speaker (and yes, this is the easiest amending formula);
  • Senator Wallace leading a debate on committee memberships and how they’re determined.

It’s all very interesting, and there has been some spectacular pushback on the facile notion by some senators that only partisan senators can be effective. There will have to be a great number of rule changes that will have to be debated by the Senate, and in particular the Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament committee, whenever it is formally struck (which should be very shortly). Some of those changes will have to be the determination of funding for the Senate Liberal caucus as they are not the government caucus, nor are they the opposition caucus (no matter that they currently sit on the government side, more out of convention than anything). Part of the discussions that were had in response to Senator Housakos’ point of privilege are that Question Period did not enter into the Senate until 1979 (ETA: This is disputed. Senate rules dating to 1969 include it, as does a 1916 edition of Bourinot. Thanks for the corrections), and that independent Senators have chaired committees in the past. These are all matters that will remain up for discussion, but the process of internal change in that Chamber is already upon them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Combing through the Public Accounts

Posted on by

The public accounts were released yesterday, which give a detailed accounting of where money was actually spent. Whether or not MPs will take the time to compare the public accounts with the last year’s estimates – you know, like they’re supposed to in order to hold the government to account – remains to be seen, but in the meantime, We The Media have combed through them for salacious details. Things like a strip club being among the recipients for G20 compensation, or the loss of $1.9 million in stolen government property – including weapons from the military.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer – who is no doubt also combing these documents – is waiting on that legal opinion about his mandate, incidentally.

Food bank use in the country is still on the rise, despite the “fragile economic recovery” and all of those net new jobs that the government keeps touting.

Continue reading →

Public Accounts vs. F-35s: Procedural chaos

Posted on by

The Public Accounts committee’s first meeting on the study of the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s was a battle of duelling procedural motions as the government tried to set the timeline further into the week, versus Liberal Gerry Byrne’s motion to accelerate the pace, much to the exasperation of NDP members.

Conservative MP Andrew Saxton’s motion, which was up for debate first, would see the planning meeting for the hearings to be held on Tuesday the 24th, with the suggestion that they begin hearing witnesses on the following Thursday. But when pressed as to why they didn’t use today’s meeting to do the planning session, the government offered no excuse, only that they wanted to “set forward a clear process” to move forward.

Continue reading →

Public Accounts vs. F-35s: Preview edition

Posted on by

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne held a press conference this morning to preview this afternoon’s meeting of the Public Accounts committee, where they’re going to lay out the process by which they’ll examine the Auditor General’s report on the procurement process for the F-35s. Byrne has a relatively open-ended motion before the committee that includes a suggested witness list, a list of documents he wants tabled, and the provision that they begin immediately.

But the Conservatives aren’t quite so keen. They’ve tabled a competing motion which says that sure, they’ll begin a study on that chapter of the report, but they don’t want to meet to start scheduling witnesses until Tuesday, and they don’t have any suggested witnesses or requests for documents.

So why is this difference important? Byrne says that by beginning immediately, they can hold a full day of hearings starting tomorrow, rather than the four hours a week that the committee is allowed to sit while the House is in session. (He wanted to start this past Monday, but NDP committee chair David Christopherson called the meeting for today, and he respects that decision). He is also concerned that because the Conservative motion is less open-ended, that the Conservatives will use it to limit the number of meetings held and witnesses heard from in order to keep the process and investigation under wraps. The Conservatives have publicly said that they won’t support his motion – only their own, and they do hold a majority on the committee as well.

“There is no games being played unless my motion is defeated with no explanation, and with no alternative witness list actually being presented at that point in time,” Byrne said, and reiterated that he’s quite open to friendly amendments with regards to witnesses.

Byrne suspects that the Conservatives are trying to take control of the issue after the hammering they’ve taken in the media over the past two weeks. And if they try to take the meeting this afternoon in camera, he will let the media know what went down behind closed doors, even if it opens him up to a charge of being in contempt of parliament.

“Holding a public accounts committee in private is a bit of an oxymoron into what public accounts are what all about,” Byrne said. “It’s contemptible – the real contempt of parliament here is holding such important meetings in private and trying to basically squander the opportunity that’s available to us.”