So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.
Tag Archives: Robocon
QP: Harper’s vigorous defence of trade
It was another bitterly cold day out in Ottawa, and the Hill was buzzing with news of Senator Brazeau’s arrest and removal from caucus. Thomas Mulcair was off at an event elsewhere, which left it up to Megan Leslie to lead off by asking about the Saskatchewan push-poll, but once again fell into that basic trap of asking about party business and not government operations. Harper reminded her that while the party position was well known, the commission had its work to do. Leslie then turned to the question of Senate ethics, and Brazeau’s arrest. Harper assured her that Brazeau was removed from caucus, and that it was of a personal nature and not with regards to Senate business. Peggy Nash was up next, asking why the government wouldn’t extend Kevin Page’s term until his his successor is chosen — unless they had something to hide in the budget. Clement simply repeated that there was a process in place to find his replacement, and they were respecting that process. For the Liberals, Ralph Goodale was up asking about possible gerrymandering of the Saskatchewan boundaries, to which Harper assured him that the process was underway and included Parliamentary input, before insinuating that Goodale didn’t care about rural communities. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the final question of the round, asking about household debt, for which Shelly Glover read off some good news talking points.
Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter
In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.
QP: Gleefully calling out leadership candidates
Despite a fall on the ice earlier in the morning, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was in the House, perhaps a little tender, but ready to take on Harper nevertheless. He began by reading off accusations about the Conservatives’ Saskatchewan push-polling. Apparently it bears reminding that party business is not government operations, and therefore not the domain of Question Period. Harper rejected the accusations, and said that the party explained their actions and the boundary commissions were independent. For his final question, Mulcair wanted assurances that the next budget wouldn’t be another mammoth omnibus bill. Harper skirted around the answer. Peggy Nash carried on with questions about the future budget, to which Shelly Glover assured her that the 2012 budget was focused on jobs and long-term prosperity. For the Liberals, Bob Rae wanted assurances that there would be no partisan legislation to gerrymander the boundaries in Saskatchewan, to which Harper assured him that boundary commissions were independent and that he respected that. For his final question, Rae inquired after press reports that dairy was on the table in the CETA negotiations. Harper assured him that he was committed to protecting supply management, unlike a certain Liberal leadership candidate. *cough*Martha Hall Findlay*cough*
Roundup: Push-poll “miscommunications”
Oh dear. It seems that despite initially denying the story, the Conservatives did eventually admit to being behind a push-poll in Saskatchewan designed to turn public opinion against the electoral boundaries changes – changes that will disadvantage the Conservatives as genuine urban ridings are carved out of the old distorting “rurban” ridings. Oh, but it was an “oversight” that they didn’t identify themselves. I’m sure the CRTC will be happy to hear that “guilty plea,” as Pierre Poilievre would term it, were this a Liberal mishap. But it’s not, so I’m sure their euphemisms will be equally creative.
The Environment Commissioner tabled his final report yesterday, which details frustrations with the pace of resource projects outstripping the capacity of regulatory agencies who are dealing with changing legislation, jurisdictional confusion, and not enough resources.
Roundup: Launching a new Action Plan™
Stephen Harper launched a new Action Plan™ in Montreal yesterday – the Venture Capital Action Plan™, to create Jobs & Growth™ as part of our Fragile Economic Recovery™. Economist Stephen Gordon wonders how this jives with Harper’s reluctance for government control in any industry, or how it benefits anyone other than consultants and lobbyists.
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo has been ordered by his doctor to take time off because of exhaustion, which given the events of the past couple of weeks is no real surprise. Meanwhile, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence still refuses to end her liquid diet.
Here is a look at some of the projected costs of implementing the new safe drinking water legislation for First Nations reserves, and whether or not the government will fully fund it. Thomas Mulcair has taken to criticizing Harper’s approach to natural resource development, which he says is behind the Aboriginal unrest, and that Harper needs to sit down with the provincial premiers, as they are the key to resource revenue sharing with the First Nations.
Roundup: Undermining accountability with dollar figures
The government has started attaching dollar figures to who much it costs to answer Order Paper questions – in this case, $1.2 million in a three-month period. Oh noes! Parliament costs money! And really, using this tactic of putting dollar figures on basic accountability is underhanded and violates the very premise of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account by means of controlling supply. To do that, Parliament needs facts and figures, quite simply. And making it seem like a costly imposition for Parliamentarians to exercise their most basic function is, in a word, despicable.
The federal and provincial finance minsters met at Meech Lake yesterday, and while they didn’t come to any consensus over boosting the CPP, they did agree to study it and come up with a report for their meeting in June.
Not that it’s any big surprise, but former assistant deputy minister of procurement at DND, Alan Williams, said the F-35 process as “corrupted” from the beginning, but the main question remains why the cabinet went along unquestioningly when the bureaucrats barrelled ahead with the sole-source contract. Meanwhile, the Americans are already looking at developing a “sixth generation” fighter jet by 2030.
Roundup: MPs head home while the F-35 storm rages on
The House has risen, and the MPs are all headed back to their ridings. Not the Senate though – they’re still sitting, and I’ll be heading up their for Senate QP later today.
Okay, so now the big news from yesterday – the KPMG report on the F-35 procurement process. With a cost now pegged at $46 billion over 42 years, the government says that it’s officially pushing the reset button on the process – or is it? The former ADM of procurement at National Defence, Alan Williams, says that it’s meaningless unless the department redraws the Statement of Requirements to make stealth a “rated feature” with a point value rather than a pass/fail and it then goes for open tender. There’s also the problem of attrition and the additional costs of buying replacement aircraft, which is outside of the $9 billion procurement envelope being set. John Geddes rips apart Peter MacKay’s remorseless performance yesterday, and notes that the officials noted that it will be difficult to keep the aerospace contracts for supplying F-35 parts if we don’t end up going with that plane. John Ivison goes through the process and finds that if the Conservatives still end up going with the F-35s, it will look like incompetence. Andrew Coyne takes offence that the government continues to spin the numbers and calls bullshit – it’s not 42 years, but $46 million over 30 years, and that the government tacked on those extra 12 years to cover “development and acquisition,” which costs a few hundred million, but by making it look like a little over a billion dollars a year, the government is trying to make it look more palatable. Paul Wells notes the Conservatives’ tendency toward hubris when they should be listening to their critics, who do have a point. Of course, the US “fiscal cliff” may end up killing the F-35s as it would slash their defence spending.
Roundup: Witness protection without oversight
The government introduced new witness protection legislation yesterday that the opposition sounds to largely be in favour of, though the proposal doesn’t include any provision for external review or oversight, which shouldn’t really be a surprise given this government’s apparent dislike of such things.
The PBO produced a report on public sector compensation for the sake of having baseline figures to use when looking at the impact of job cuts to government expenditures. And yes, he found some interesting figures about how its growth outpaced inflation and other levels of government. But all everyone will see is the “average $114K” figure, not think about what that includes or the range of salaries it encompasses, and will froth at the mouth about how horrible those bureaucrats are, and so on.
The Chief of Attawapiskat is engaging in a hunger strike in Ottawa to force a meeting with the Prime Minister about treaty obligations. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has offered to meet with her, but we’ll see what happens with that.
Roundup: Investment rules and an eye on joint ventures
Those new foreign investment rules unveiled by Harper along with the Nexen and Progress Energy decisions will likely have an impact beyond the oil sands – but it’s clear as to how just yet. What it will likely do is involve state-owned enterprises in more joint ventures and having them become minority shareholders to conform to the new rules. Economist Stephen Gordon looks at the economics of investing in the oil sands and why there is a need for foreign investment (and why most of the fears about foreign state-owned enterprises are overblown).
Oh, and those theories that Harper put these markers around state-owned enterprises as a marker for future trade negotiations with China? Paul Wells wonders about the logic of that considering that Canada-China FIPA that’s sitting there, unratified…
On the F-35 file, certain critics say that the promised industrial benefits (currently pegged in the $9 billion range, down from the $12 billion originally stated) aren’t likely to materialise, which is a ticking time bomb for the government. To date those industrial benefits have amounted to less than $500 million.