Parliament in Review - April 3, 2012

Tuesday, April 3, 2012 saw the final day of debate at second reading of the Cons' budget - and once again featured plenty of work by Peter Julian to introduce the types of perspectives the Cons would never tolerate if they could avoid it.

The Big Issue

Once again, Julian focused largely on bringing forward comments and concerns from Canadians on the Cons' budget, featuring such apt observations as this:

I particularly agree with your opposition to raising the retirement age to 67. I am 39 and really hadn't given this issue much thought until I heard you present your case. I've worked in the distribution side of the flooring industry for 17 years. I am not an installer, but many of my customers and friends are. Many flooring installers walk with limps at 45 years old, let alone 67.

They literally spend their workdays on their knees and it takes a toll on their bodies. Most of them are too busy working to get involved in politics. I'll definitely take the time to bring this to their attention. Believe me, just because flooring industry workers look at the floor when we walk into a room doesn't mean we're shy. I always love to hear a compliment on a job well done and always try to thank others for one well done today. The NDP's chances of forming government are greatly bolstered with members like your caucus who all work together with experienced members working as mentors to the younger members of your caucus.

That encouragement for the NDP's effort to ensure that different voices be heard was echoed by plenty more comments. Meanwhile, other citizens noted that he hadn't had a chance to save enough for retirement to make up for the Cons' OAS slashing (in part due to the economic failings of provincial Conservative governments), and worried about how the OAS changes would drive seniors into poverty. Other correspondents emphasized that the Cons don't speak for all Albertans in pushing unregulated oil development as their sole economic priority while criticizing their refusal to listen to constituents; slammed the anti-democratic instinct to have the most important decisions about Canada's future made behind closed doors with no public input, as well as the cuts to Elections Canada in the wake of Robocon; spoke to the value of Katimavik (including the disappointment of students who had planned to participate this year until the Cons pulled the plug); lambasted the Cons' combined attacks on the environmental movement and complete lack of climate change funding or action, while also noting that First Nations and other affected citizens were being left out of their rubber-stamping process; pointed out that we'd be better off eliminating Deficit Jim Flaherty's sea of red ink by encouraging economic growth rather than throwing civil servants out of work;

Meanwhile, Jinny Sims sought consent to table the correspondence the NDP had received and read into the record; needless to say, that was shot down as the Cons tried to hide from Canadians and their concerns as much as possible. Robert Chisholm cheekily suggested that since the budget didn't actually address jobs and development, those concerns probably shouldn't be part of the budget debate. And Julian highlighted the regional job impacts of the Cons' civil service cuts, as well as the dangers of attacking food inspection.

Finally, Julian finished by discussing the CCF/NDP's proud record of pushing for positive social change long before any other party would countenance it, then moving the NDP's budget amendment. And it's surely a sign that the NDP covered all of the important bases that Scott Brison's subamendment was limited to criticizing a lack of cuts to Stephen Harper's pension and office, rather than any policy actually affecting Canadians directly.

Not My Jurisdiction

Andrew Scheer delivered his ruling on Helene Laverdiere's point of privilege on the Cons' refusal to answer written questions (accompanied by a questionable promise to answer at some point in the future). And while he predictably refused to actually do anything about the problem, at least a couple of his observations look like rather compelling indictments of his party's failure to answer the question as it's ostensibly required to:

In the case before us, I can appreciate the member’s frustration with the reply provided. That said, the authorities are clear: the Speaker's role in such matters is extremely limited.
...
(T)he hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie clearly feels aggrieved by the insufficiency of the response she received. I would therefore invite her to raise her concerns about our practice with regard to written questions with the Standing Committee and Procedure and House Affairs as that committee continues with its study of the Standing Orders. Indeed, as your Speaker, in light of the various complaints that have been voiced in the chamber with regard to written questions, from both sides of the House, I would encourage the committee to look closely at our current rules and to assess whether improvements can be made to our current practice to better serve the needs of the House and its members.

In Brief

NDP MPs introduced four private members' bills: Carol Hughes to create a registry of accidents and occupational disease incidents; Jinny Sims to meet Canada's longstanding commitment to foreign aid funding of 0.7% of GNI; and Joe Comartin to reintroduce judicial discretion in the face of mandatory minimums and to modernize our laws against cruelty to animals.

Meanwhile, Scott Simms spoke to his bill to allow bi-weekly payment of CPP and OAS benefits. Alain Giguere noted that the absence of an increase in benefits would limit what the bill would do for seniors, but Wayne Marston indicated the NDP's support for choice as to how benefits would be delivered - even if that was largely moot given the Cons' refusal to countenance any benefit to seniors which might involve public service jobs.

Rosane Dore Lefebvre highlighted Invisible Work Day as a much-needed opportunity to recognize how much important work doesn't count in GDP figures. Dan Harris discussed the links between the Cons, their sketchy American election contractors and their lack of interest in questioning corporate think tank funding gathered by those exact same operators. Olivia Chow questioned cuts to airline safety, while Irene Mathyssen pointed out that the elimination of the National Council on Welfare figures to cover up the consequences of the Cons' attack on OAS and Laverdiere asked why Rights and Democracy had been trashed rather than being restored to its pre-Con level of respect and prestige. And finally in adjournment proceedings Mathyssen pointed out the Cons' sad track record of gender disparity in judicial appointment committees (and subsequent appointments), while Andrew Cash highlighted that "why don't they just buy a house of their own?" isn't a valid answer to Canadians who can't find or afford rental housing?

Wednesday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Frances Russell comments on the Canada which the Harper Cons are determined to destroy. But the more important point looks to me to be less any theory of constitutionalism than the desire to have governments be as ineffective as possible at all levels:

Harper, the man who co-authored the infamous 2000 Alberta firewall letter, abhors the 1982 Canadian Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He is a strict constitutional constructionist. He believes in the Canada of Confederation in 1867 when Ottawa managed defence, foreign affairs, fisheries, the currency and penitentiaries and the provinces looked after matters of a local nature.

Unfortunately for Canadians, what were local matters 145 years ago now constitute government's biggest, most expensive and important programs -- health, education and social assistance. The notion that 10 provinces and three territories of vastly different size and wealth can be left to finance them on their own assisted by an equalization program whose future is now in doubt as it comes under increasing attack from the right, is simply a prescription for growing disparity -- and disunity.

It was all predictable. During his years with the libertarian National Citizens' Coalition, the prime minister seldom hid his disdain for Canada and Canadians. "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status," he told the National Post in December 2000. In 1997, he asked an American audience not to "feel particularly bad" for Canada's unemployed. "They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance."

Most ominously in light of Thursday's budget, he told an NCC audience in 1994 that: "Whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or 10 governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country might be."

- If there's anything the Cons can abide less than public broadcasting, it's Rights and Democracy. Which is why the former is merely being cut, while the latter is meeting with a wrecking ball.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne, Bruce Anderson and John Ibbitson tear into the Cons for their combination of deception and incompetence in continuing to push F-35s long after they should have been well aware their talking points were utterly nonsensical.

- Paul Wells comments on the hidden release of another report on Afghanistan as a symptom of all that's wrong with a government more focused on propagandizing than discussing what it's actually doing - and a media far too willing to play into that choice.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk notes that while the Cons can never expect the facts to be on their side, they can usually expect the Wall government to come to their rescue in the PR department.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Erin notes that the revenue gap being used as an excuse to demand massive cuts in Ontario is nearly entirely closed with a more plausible set of underlying assumptions and projections - and that's without taking the look at revenue which was omitted from Don Drummond's mandate.

- thwap points out that Canadians need to highlight the importance of Robocon to make sure it leads to lasting consequences for the party which sees fraud as a valuable strategic tool. Which means it's well worth noting the followup reporting from Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor, the repentance of Victor Pocaterra, and new columns from Barbara Yaffe, Warren Kinsella, Chantal Hebert, Dan Gardner, the Calgary Herald and the Telegram. And even the dissenting voices of Nik Nanos and Colin Horgan questioning how voters will respond may make for a useful discussion as to whether Canadians will and should be outraged.

- Meanwhile, those looking to tie Robocon into larger issues of human nature will find some perfectly-timed reporting on the link between greed, unethical behaviour and wealth inequality.

- Bruce Cox opines that dissent is a vital part of democracy - rather than a bug to be crushed as the Cons seem to believe.

- Finally, Rights and Democracy hasn't gone away - and Paul Wells notes that the same issues he so carefully addresses over the past couple of years are now reported to have been equally obvious to the Cons for some time before that.

Friday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Susan Riley nicely sums up how quickly the Cons have adopted the worst abuses of the government they replaced:

For rampant patronage, however, it is hard to better the prime minister's moral collapse on Senate reform -- especially his tendency to provide failed candidates and party operatives a taxpayer-subsidized perch from which to conduct their partisan activities.

When Jack Layton suggested banning fundraisers and backroom boys from the Senate as a modest, doable reform, he was laughed out of town. When Liberals objected that Conservative star candidate, Larry Smith, is getting a free office, a $130,000 salary and a public profile to help with his first electoral campaign, Conservative Senate leader Marjory LeBreton's response was scathing. The Liberals did exactly the same thing, she declared. But wait -- weren't Conservatives supposed to be different?

Not so much, as it turns out. In a few short years, they have achieved much of what took their Liberal predecessors decades: shameless patronage, fraying caucus discipline, an air of entitlement and utter policy confusion (unless someone has figured out the Harper position on foreign ownership.) You wonder how long it will take the electoral cycle to catch up.

- But of course the Cons have also gone further in some cases - such as their efforts to ensure that official records bear no relationship to reality:

Liberal Sen. Jane Cordy said newsletters that serve as blatant partisan advertisements should be outlawed and said she made the point clearly during an in-camera meeting in December — but her point of view was not reflected.

“When it is blatant politics,” she said, interrupted by the chair, Tory Sen. David Tkachuk who was laughing. “When it is a blatant political advertisement in your newsletters, I have a problem with that.”

The minutes from the December meeting, however, state that “after discussion, it was agreed that senators’ newsletters, with partisan content, is acceptable.”

Cordy said she “did not agree to that.”

- And that's far from the only example.

- But then, when the record can no longer be denied, it's perpetually time to move on without fixing a thing.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Wells posts the definitive epilogue to the Cons' hijacking of Rights and Democracy:

Today the audit was released — not through a formal process, but because somebody leaked it to the Globe‘s Daniel Leblanc. You can read it here. (Well, the main narrative of the audit, anyway. Thousands of pages of annexes, including lengthy email correspondences, time sheets and so on, remain unreleased.)

It shows what Beauregard’s defenders have long asserted: that the agency was run without scandal, and without unusually lax management, even before his arrival; that he was taking clear steps to improve its management; and that specific claims against him and his staff from Gauthier and others hold no water. In short, that Rémy Beauregard died while fighting back against an unfounded witch hunt perpetrated by scoundrels who today stand unmasked and humiliated. The government of Canada under Stephen Harper and his minister Lawrence Cannon today continues to support those scoundrels, to its shame and ours as citizens.

But it's worth asking as well whether there's anything to the story that figures to actually motivate citizens to take action. And on that front, surely Beauregard's treatment should end any illusion that merely doing one's job effectively and without doing anything which could possibly be seen as an affront to the Harper government (which after all appointed Beauregard in the first place) serves as any protection from the danger of a political witch hunt.

- Susan Riley is frustrated with the lack of popular outrage over the Cons' F-35 money pit and other issues - but points out why the public has reason to be cynical when it comes to both the Libs and the Cons:

Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have all postponed, or reduced, their initial orders without noticeable penalty.

Not Canada. That isn't the way the Harper government does business. It decides on a course -- in this case, an impetuous and counter-intuitive course -- and then accuses critics of disrespecting the troops. From a distance this may pass for decisive leadership; up close, it looks weak.

Not that the Ignatieff Liberals -- who are calling for an open competition to replace the existing CF-18s -- would necessarily do better. They signed the original memorandum launching the F-35 program and seem as eager to join the U.S. military-industrial complex as their rivals.

What ever happened to the Presbyterian penny-pinchers of old, the careful Scots, the austere Prairie preachers and dust-bowl farmers, the Reform populists who didn't only rail against government waste but tried to respect "the taxpayer dollar"?

They live on, but only in myth. Not that anyone appears to notice.

- Fortunately, the heirs to the austere Prairie preachers do live on. But can they do more to claim a governing place on the federal scene than their predecessors? Let's check with Brian Topp:

What are Mr. Layton’s strengths? Clearly, as set out in many public-domain opinions polls, Canadians genuinely like Mr. Layton and appreciate his open, collaborative and sunny commitment to getting some positive things done. Mr. Layton’s bout with illness has caused Canadians to take a second look at him, to his benefit. And Mr. Layton’s extended experience with the balance of power in Parliament has matured him as a politician and a statesman in the eyes of the public. He is no longer prone to over-the-top statements rooted in the absolute necessity, early in his term, to be visible on the federal stage. Instead, Mr. Layton is an increasingly thoughtful and substantive contributor to the national debate – and has proved to be right on many issues. Canadians are responding by finding it increasingly easy to imagine him as (Prime Minister), a journey they have also made with Mr. Harper. Interestingly, in particular, Mr. Layton has developed substantial appeal among soft Liberals, of whom there are a generous supply these days.

What are Mr. Layton’s weaknesses? Canadians remain to be convinced that his agenda hangs together or that his party can win. Mr. Layton can cure the first problem by articulating a clear, coherent and responsible plan – including, in compelling terms, when people are paying attention to the details at election time. Mr. Layton can cure his second problem – perhaps – by speaking directly and credibly to how modern multi-party Parliaments can be made to work for Canadians. And by having a healthy dose of that essential ingredient in all winning campaigns, continuing luck in his opponents.

If anything, Topp may undersell the degree of public support for the NDP's policy agenda as they understand it. But there's little room for doubt that the "Libs as default alternative" factor is the main obstacle standing in the NDP's way.

- Finally, it shouldn't be much surprise that Bill Siksay's retirement has some opponents trumpeting the possibility of winning Burnaby-Douglas away from the NDP for the first time in over two decades. But let's note that the incumbent advantage is normally traced to opponents putting up something less than the toughest possible challenge - so given that the NDP has been outspent by one or both of its competitors in all but one of the elections where it's held Burnaby-Douglas, there's little reason to think the dynamics that have seen the NDP hold the seat will change.

One struggle among many

It's well and good that Paul Wells is continuing to highlight the continued obfuscations at Rights and Democracy. And I'll encourage readers to join in the effort to demand that we get some answers through the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development since it's clear none will be forthcoming from Rights and Democracy itself.

But at the same time, it's worth noting that what's happened at Rights and Democracy looks to be an entirely normal practice for the Harper Cons. From stimulus reports turned into infomercials to the systematic abuse of MP mailout privileges, from ignoring the will of Parliament on Afghan detainee documents to denying Kevin Page the information he's requested to accurately cost out crime policies, the Cons have made absolutely clear that their idea of transparency is using every means they can think of to spread political messages while hiding all other information from the public.

Of course, the situation at Rights and Democracy has received more attention than most - due to both some particularly damning facts, and a determined effort from one of Canada's top political reporters. And it's worth at least trying to show that public pressure can result in information coming to light, since the alternative is for Harper and company to conclude that they're absolutely home free.

But while a single runaround might be dismissed as an isolated incident, the bigger issue is the certainty that there are countless similar cases where nobody's even started to meaningfully chase down the Cons. So in making the effort to write in on Rights and Democracy, take some time as well to work on ensuring that Harper's vision of government serving the PM's interests alone doesn't endure any longer than we can avoid.

Thursday Morning Links

Assorted content for your perusal...

- Dr. Dawg picks up on a stunningly evasive answer from Gérard Latulippe of Rights and Democracy about the "forensic audit" which was supposed to have been made public six months ago. But I'm not sure that I agree with his description of the answer as "bafflegab": isn't it more of a flat-out declaration that he refuses to talk about the main issue facing his organization?

- Donald Savoie continues to be thoroughly unimpressed with the empty promises coming from Cons and Libs alike in New Brunswick's ongoing election. But while I can understand his not wanting to be seen taking any party's side, wouldn't it be worthwhile to mention the alternative which is actually talking honestly about the province's fiscal mess?

- Meanwhile, the federal NDP's push to make the Cons look completely out of touch with rural Canada seems to be proceeding nicely thanks to a concerted focus on issues that matter more than the long gun registry. Though as I noted yesterday, the especially fun part will come when the Cons get to stand up to try to defend keeping the registry as it stands as the NDP works to improve it.

- Finally, the Cons' distrust of evidence-based government has taken its most extreme form yet: apparently it's too intrusive to bother keeping track of how many health inspectors are actually monitoring livestock transportation.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your afternoon...

- Douglas Bell slams the Libs for not caring about civil rights in the wake of the G20 police abuses:

In a letter to Vic Toews dated June 29th Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic, raises a series of concerns regarding G20 security – not one of which mentions violations of civil liberties.

To wit: “As Canadians now know, Prime Minister Harper made the decision to hold the G20 in downtown Toronto – a decision that led to exorbitant costs and a nearly impossible security situation for police.”

The largest mass arrest of Canadians in history and the Grits primary concern is that the cops were overwhelmed. It would be as if Martin Luther King in his letters from the Birmingham jail wrote to Police Chief “Bull” Connor complaining about the stress he was putting on his department’s German shepherds.

- Barbara Yaffe recognizes that the Cons have no choice but to try to change the channel from health care given their obvious failings in the area. But that only makes it all the more important to make sure the issue stays at the forefront of public discussion.

- Don't worry, Paul Wells: I'm sure Rights and Democracy will make its audit publicly available eventually. Just as soon as the Cons get around to regulating greenhouse gas emissions first.

- Finally, Leftdog points out that the annual Liberal lemming run is in full force. But the truly sad part is that the party genuinely seems to measure success by the number of followers who race off the cliff.

On core missions

Gerard Latulippe, imposed as the new president of Rights and Democracy over the objections of the opposition parties, describes the group's job:

"We have to work within the framework of government foreign policy, whatever political party is in power."

And whatever one's criticisms of the Con hacks who have taken over its board, it's tough to deny that R & D has been doing a brilliant job of furthering the Cons' foreign policy of funnelling public money to party loyalists at every opportunity.

Wednesday Morning Links

A few pieces of reading material for those waiting on tenterhooks for today's throne speech. Or, for that matter, the NHL trade deadline.

- Murray Mandryk's column on the Sask Party's underfunding of watchdogs is definitely worth a read as a whole. But one vignette in particular should serve as an antidote to the claim that all governments treat accountability with equal derision:

But even more unnerving is the mistrust the Saskatchewan Party caucus seems to have for the independent officers of the legislature. That seemed to be the case a year ago when Sask. Party backbencher Mike Chisholm suggested that Provincial Auditor Fred Wendel shouldn't expect his funding increase to be automatically granted just because his budget was increased in the past by NDP governments.

- Toby Sanger highlights what happens when researchers look at P3s without a vested interest in hyping them.

- Hugh MacKenzie discusses the most important bubble on Canada's economic and political scene.

- In case I don't get back to the topic later today, the Gazette covers the latest from Rights and Democracy - featuring a government ramming through an appointment disapproved of by all opposition parties, as well as the firing of three employees for the "insubordination" of allowing a few facts to go public rather than simply accepting the Cons' spin at all times.

- The latest Lib infighting may actually be more significant than QMI's coverage makes it appear. It's one thing for criticism to be levelled at Michael Ignatieff by random Coderrites who don't figure greatly in the Libs' chances of improving their standing in Parliament, but Nancy Charest's 2008 run in Haute-Gaspésie – La Mitis – Matane – Matapédia made her the second-closest Lib to winning an extra seat in Quebec.

- Finally, Jeffrey Simpson nicely sets the tone for the new session of Parliament.

Chutzpah

I'd hope nobody took seriously the claim that the Cons' efforts to hijack Rights and Democracy had anything at all to do with a lack of accountability, particularly after the steps taken on that front by the previous regime. But anybody who did should be thoroughly disabused of that notion now that word comes out that the new, hard-right regime has been pushing for lower levels of transparency in how the institute's president spends public money:

After criticizing the past president of Rights and Democracy for spending and accountability issues, the agency's directors want to give the new president even greater powers to award contracts without public tenders, the Star has learned.

A proposed change to the agency's bylaws would allow the president to appoint or engage "employees, agents, consultants and advisers" without first having to seek competitive bids for the work.
...
Under current rules, the agency must call for tenders for contracts worth more than $10,000; seek at least three tenders; and justify the choice taking into account price and quality of services.

The move to give the president greater freedom comes despite criticism from some directors that Beauregard had too much control over discretionary funding.

In an interview last month, Braun cited problems of oversight. Beauregard's decision to give $30,000 to three Mideast rights groups has been a flashpoint for clashes between directors and staff.

Edit: fixed label.

Must-reads of the day

You shouldn't need me to point out that Paul Wells' latest posts on Rights and Democracy are worth a look. But if you need a sample...

What to conclude from all this? I take it as a sign of progress. That last time the Conservatives sicced a notorious separatist with a shaky ethical past on a politically-motivated witch hunt, they had the separatist do the witch hunting. Now they are farming the witch hunt and the separatist-hiring out to different branches. Diversity is good!

On non-consultation

Lawrence Cannon has a rather interesting definition of consulting with Canada's political parties - at least, if his spin on what's to come with Rights and Democracy is any indication:

Interviews to select a new president are under way, and opposition parties will be consulted once a successor to Mr. Beauregard has been chosen.

So just as soon as it's too late to change anything, the opposition will be told which Con hack has been put in charge. Don't you feel better about Rights and Democracy's future knowing that cross-partisan interests are being protected with such care?

History repeating

I suppose that given the similarities in paranoid style between Stephen Harper and Richard Nixon, something like this was inevitable. Time for a wagering pool as to who ends up playing the role of John Dean by the time all is said and done?