Following up on this afternoon's post, let's note that while it's laughable for Stephen Harper to suggest that he doesn't have any say over his party's representatives on the Board of Internal Economy, it may be plausible that the broader issue of expenses is one where he actually does perceive some danger related to MPs thinking for themselves.
After all, Harper has exerted constant control over his MPs' actions in areas where they could possibly become a matter of public issue. But it wouldn't seem all that unlikely that MP expenses might have been classified as immune from public scrutiny precisely because of the lack of auditing in the past. And that might have led Harper to ease off on his usual strategy of micromanagement - leading to what he'd perceive as unacceptable risk of PR damage if those expenses become public.
But the question of whether Harper perceives the problem as being one of too much top-down control or not enough may be answered by his willingness to join in the tentative steps taken by the other party leaders toward increased disclosure.
Presumably the risks involved in what Harper doesn't know now could be reduced by actually requiring his MPs to turn over their books to the party before MPs agree on any audit. And I'd expect the Cons would be in the midst of assembling that information for themselves and preparing defences if they didn't already have full central control over MP expenses - which would presumably be followed by Harper changing his tune once a damage control plan is in place.
Conversely, if Harper's intransigence is the result of his party having top-down schemes in place to funnel MP funding to party supporters, then there isn't much Harper could possibly do other than stonewall as long as possible in hopes that the opposition will change the subject. And that possibility can only provide every incentive for the opposition parties to work together toward as much transparency as they can achieve.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
On authority
Shorter Stephen Harper:
Sure, I control what bills Conservative MPs are allowed to present. And their future career path. And what statements they make inside and outside Parliament. And when they clip their toenails. But their position when it comes to MP expense audits is the one area where I consider them to be entirely beyond my authority.
Sure, I control what bills Conservative MPs are allowed to present. And their future career path. And what statements they make inside and outside Parliament. And when they clip their toenails. But their position when it comes to MP expense audits is the one area where I consider them to be entirely beyond my authority.
Burning question
Stephen Harper considers the fact that one of his cabinet ministers is pro-choice to be a problem (on par with her being a poor communicator) when it comes to defending his party's principles on maternal health. So what does that say about what litmus tests Harper might plan to apply for cabinet assignments in the future?
(Edit: fixed wording.)
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Friday, May 21, 2010
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre - NDP Nomination Dates Set
For those wondering when they'll get the chance to choose between Don Hansen and Brian Sklar as the NDP's nominated candidate to challenge (and hopefully unelect) Con MP Tom Lukiwski, there won't be much longer to wait. The NDP's Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre nomination meetings have been set for June 23 in Lumsden and June 24 in Regina.
Deep thought
Nothing helps to rebuild the credibility of a party whose poll numbers are stuck in unimaginable depths like some blatant lying.
Update: Though I suppose the NDP probably won't complain if the Libs manage to get voters to call Mulcair's and Layton's offices demanding that they vote "no" on C-391. After all, both can say that they have and will continue to do so - and will presumably appreciate the opportunity to point out the absurdity of how the Libs are directing their activism.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Update: Though I suppose the NDP probably won't complain if the Libs manage to get voters to call Mulcair's and Layton's offices demanding that they vote "no" on C-391. After all, both can say that they have and will continue to do so - and will presumably appreciate the opportunity to point out the absurdity of how the Libs are directing their activism.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
On limited opportunities
It's noteworthy enough that the Libs are apparently focusing on only three ridings in Quebec as remotely plausible gains. But it's even more significant that a list that short includes one riding already held by the NDP, and another where the NDP has inside position on the Libs.
In effect, the Libs are publicly admitting that they're helpless to change the balance of power in Quebec against either the Cons in a national battle, or the Bloc in a federalist/separatist contest. And if the Libs can't claim any plausible hope of contesting more new seats than the NDP, then there's every reason for habitual Lib voters across the province to consider whether there's a better chance to bring about the change they want by voting for a party that actually has some room for growth.
In effect, the Libs are publicly admitting that they're helpless to change the balance of power in Quebec against either the Cons in a national battle, or the Bloc in a federalist/separatist contest. And if the Libs can't claim any plausible hope of contesting more new seats than the NDP, then there's every reason for habitual Lib voters across the province to consider whether there's a better chance to bring about the change they want by voting for a party that actually has some room for growth.
It's always good news for Brad Wall
Shorter Murray Mandryk:
The outcome of Saskatchewan's spring session in the Legislature was so lopsided in the NDP's favour that even I can't declare it a draw. But by sheer coincidence, I've just now decided that nobody likes a winner.
The outcome of Saskatchewan's spring session in the Legislature was so lopsided in the NDP's favour that even I can't declare it a draw. But by sheer coincidence, I've just now decided that nobody likes a winner.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The bill comes due
The inevitable consequences of Conadscam (remember that?) are just now starting to materialize. And not surprisingly, the Cons are panicking at the realization of what they've wrought by making up their worst excuses yet. Shorter Cons now that several of their cabinet ministers are in danger of being prosecuted:
As a matter of free speech, we're entitled to make up whatever numbers we want in reporting our electoral expenses.
As a matter of free speech, we're entitled to make up whatever numbers we want in reporting our electoral expenses.
Still in issue
While the initial legislative debates about the HST in both Ontario and B.C. are done, the issue isn't dying down in either province. So let's note the most interesting developments on both fronts.
In Ontario, there doesn't seem to be much talk of stopping or reversing the move toward benefiting corporations at the expense of citizens. But it's worth highlighting the effort of one Lib constituency association to try to counter public disgust at having the HST applied to a wide swath of consumer purchases - by countering with a list of some of the areas that are mercifully unaffected. Which strikes me as functionally equivalent to BP declaring we should all be grateful for its Gulf of Mexico spill by naming areas of coastline elsewhere around the globe that won't end up covered in oil.
Meanwhile, in B.C. the conventional wisdom appears to have changed from "the Libs will ride it out" to "the Libs are doomed whatever they do" - and not without reason given the remarkable strength of the province's petition campaign. And it doesn't figure to be much of a leap from that stance to the view that Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen may have to back down from their stubborn insistence on imposing the tax.
In Ontario, there doesn't seem to be much talk of stopping or reversing the move toward benefiting corporations at the expense of citizens. But it's worth highlighting the effort of one Lib constituency association to try to counter public disgust at having the HST applied to a wide swath of consumer purchases - by countering with a list of some of the areas that are mercifully unaffected. Which strikes me as functionally equivalent to BP declaring we should all be grateful for its Gulf of Mexico spill by naming areas of coastline elsewhere around the globe that won't end up covered in oil.
Meanwhile, in B.C. the conventional wisdom appears to have changed from "the Libs will ride it out" to "the Libs are doomed whatever they do" - and not without reason given the remarkable strength of the province's petition campaign. And it doesn't figure to be much of a leap from that stance to the view that Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen may have to back down from their stubborn insistence on imposing the tax.
Saskatchewan NDP Events Update
As Guest noted in comments here, there's another joint nomination meeting coming up for four of the Saskatchewan NDP's Saskatoon seats. With that in mind, let's note a few more of the significant events approaching in the next few weeks:
- May 26, 6:30 PM, Good Samaritan Parish Centre - Regina Coronation Park all-candidates forum.
- May 31, 7:00 PM, Royal Canadian Legion Hall (Saskatoon) - Saskatoon Riversdale, Saskatoon Fairview, Saskatoon Eastview and Saskatoon Centre joint nomination meeting.
- June 17, 7:00 PM,location not listed Sunset United Church - Regina South nomination meeting.
- June 19, 1:00 PM, Thom Collegiate - Regina Coronation Park nomination meeting. (This one isn't yet up on the party's events schedule, but will presumably be confirmed.)
Meanwhile, the policy review process looks to be taking a brief break after meetings the last two weekends. But I'll be sure to note when the next sessions are posted.
Update: Thanks to a reader for noting the location for the Regina South nomination meeting.
- May 26, 6:30 PM, Good Samaritan Parish Centre - Regina Coronation Park all-candidates forum.
- May 31, 7:00 PM, Royal Canadian Legion Hall (Saskatoon) - Saskatoon Riversdale, Saskatoon Fairview, Saskatoon Eastview and Saskatoon Centre joint nomination meeting.
- June 17, 7:00 PM,
- June 19, 1:00 PM, Thom Collegiate - Regina Coronation Park nomination meeting. (This one isn't yet up on the party's events schedule, but will presumably be confirmed.)
Meanwhile, the policy review process looks to be taking a brief break after meetings the last two weekends. But I'll be sure to note when the next sessions are posted.
Update: Thanks to a reader for noting the location for the Regina South nomination meeting.
On value for money
We may not find out exactly what some MPs think they have to hide until public opinion actually forces the Board of Internal Economy to allow a full value-for-money audit. But while we've heard some odd excuses as to what's being covered up, I'll point out another possibility.
It's not much of a secret that to varying degrees, the federal parties have pooled resources that were initially to be the prerogative of individual MPs to be used instead based on centralized instructions. The most obvious example may be the ten-percenters which have since been restricted, but other areas such as the use of private members' bills and speaking time in Parliament have also largely been brought under effective party control.
Given that tendency elsewhere, would it come as much of a shock if the same is effectively happening with MPs' funding so as to ensure that money gets directed toward party-friendly actors as service providers?
That might not become apparent on an audit which looks solely at a single MP's expenses, as a single charge for a service with some confirmed work product might not seem out of place. But adding up the total for a number of MPs for effectively the same work might paint an entirely different picture of the "value" involved - leading to embarrassment for both the party and the provider.
Of course, this is purely a matter of speculation for now. But it looks to me like one of the more plausible reasons why the federal parties might want to guard their MP expenses - even if it also serves as an additional reason why the public should demand that the books be opened up.
It's not much of a secret that to varying degrees, the federal parties have pooled resources that were initially to be the prerogative of individual MPs to be used instead based on centralized instructions. The most obvious example may be the ten-percenters which have since been restricted, but other areas such as the use of private members' bills and speaking time in Parliament have also largely been brought under effective party control.
Given that tendency elsewhere, would it come as much of a shock if the same is effectively happening with MPs' funding so as to ensure that money gets directed toward party-friendly actors as service providers?
That might not become apparent on an audit which looks solely at a single MP's expenses, as a single charge for a service with some confirmed work product might not seem out of place. But adding up the total for a number of MPs for effectively the same work might paint an entirely different picture of the "value" involved - leading to embarrassment for both the party and the provider.
Of course, this is purely a matter of speculation for now. But it looks to me like one of the more plausible reasons why the federal parties might want to guard their MP expenses - even if it also serves as an additional reason why the public should demand that the books be opened up.
On battle lines
Stephen Harper says that criticism of the regulators responsible for allowing off-shore drilling is "an attack on Canada".
The regulators responsible for off-shore drilling have allowed projects like Chevron's Lona O-55 to proceed even after being told that a major oil spill won't be cleaned up.
So if it comes to choosing sides in a battle, how many voters believe Canada should be on the side of uncontrolled oil spills against regulation that prohibits them?
(Edit: fixed wording, typo.)
The regulators responsible for off-shore drilling have allowed projects like Chevron's Lona O-55 to proceed even after being told that a major oil spill won't be cleaned up.
So if it comes to choosing sides in a battle, how many voters believe Canada should be on the side of uncontrolled oil spills against regulation that prohibits them?
(Edit: fixed wording, typo.)
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The right answer
In comments to this post, DL offers up the best suggestion I've heard as to the NDP's response to the issue of MP expense audits:
Those quibbles aside, it would make all the sense in the world for the NDP to push for greater accountability for government expenses in addition to the proposed MP audit, rather than playing into the narrative that the lone issue worth addressing involves Parliament rather than government agencies. And while I wouldn't expect the Harper Cons to ultimately accept such a proposal, there's still plenty of value in suggesting it - particularly if a Con refusal to see greater government accountability can be contrasted against eventual all-party agreement on MP expenses.
I think the NDP should say it agrees to an audit of MPs and senators on condition that the Auditor-General also conduct a "value for money" audit of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Ministers Office - both massive wastes of taxpayers money!Now, I'm not entirely sure off hand as to what elements of PCO and PMO spending are already subject to what types of audits. And the NDP's scope for bargaining would be limited to the House of Commons since it can't speak for a Senate which doesn't include any NDP members - though any move in one chamber would presumably be followed in the other.
Those quibbles aside, it would make all the sense in the world for the NDP to push for greater accountability for government expenses in addition to the proposed MP audit, rather than playing into the narrative that the lone issue worth addressing involves Parliament rather than government agencies. And while I wouldn't expect the Harper Cons to ultimately accept such a proposal, there's still plenty of value in suggesting it - particularly if a Con refusal to see greater government accountability can be contrasted against eventual all-party agreement on MP expenses.
Unavoidable
When I posted on what the federal leaders might be expected to do when it comes to the auditing of MPs' expense accounts, I have to admit that this didn't even occur to me as an option which would merit consideration. And I'll stick by that assessment, even as Michael Ignatieff has made it his public stance that Sheila Fraser should present a lesser request to Parliament than the one which has won such widespread public approval.
That said, I have to wonder whether Ignatieff's bizarre statement might only make it more likely that we get a full audit in the end.
After all, the lone road which seemed to lead away from that outcome involved the leaders themselves refusing to say anything, with some external events then distracting the outside actors driving the issue. But now that Ignatieff has made a public statement, I'm not sure how either of the other national leaders in Parliament can resist the temptation to create a contrast by coming out in favour of the principle of auditing public expenses. And once that debate gets started, there still doesn't seem to be any way for it to end other than agreement on a full audit.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
That said, I have to wonder whether Ignatieff's bizarre statement might only make it more likely that we get a full audit in the end.
After all, the lone road which seemed to lead away from that outcome involved the leaders themselves refusing to say anything, with some external events then distracting the outside actors driving the issue. But now that Ignatieff has made a public statement, I'm not sure how either of the other national leaders in Parliament can resist the temptation to create a contrast by coming out in favour of the principle of auditing public expenses. And once that debate gets started, there still doesn't seem to be any way for it to end other than agreement on a full audit.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Saskatchewan NDP Nomination Roundup
There's plenty of news to point out on the Saskatchewan NDP nomination front - so rather than splitting it up into several posts, let's bundle it together for your reading convenience.
- On the federal side, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre nomination candidate Brian Sklar has unveiled his website, featuring sharp criticism of Con incumbent Tom Lukiwski along with a policy section that mirrors Dwain Lingenfelter's provincial vision. Meanwhile, Donald Hansen's Facebook page has become an extremely lively and informative source of news and opinion.
- On the provincial side, the biggest news is the scheduling of a joint nomination meeting for all six of Regina's NDP incumbents on May 25. Of particular note, the list includes includes the Regina-Dewdney nomination, which no longer appears to be contested (as confirmed by the deletion of any "running for" from Kaitlin Stocks' Facebook page).
- Meanwhile, a couple of the candidates working toward nomination dates next month have activities on the go which deserve pointing out. Jaime Garcia has become the latest NDPer to look to a money bomb to finance his campaign in Regina Coronation Park, while Heather McIntyre will be holding a BBQ tonight in support of her Regina South campaign.
- Finally, the Regina Northeast race looks like it's about to get even more interesting in the wake of the two initial entries. At least two more entrants are apparently set to announce their intentions, including one of the NDP's long-anticipated new candidates. Stay tuned...
- On the federal side, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre nomination candidate Brian Sklar has unveiled his website, featuring sharp criticism of Con incumbent Tom Lukiwski along with a policy section that mirrors Dwain Lingenfelter's provincial vision. Meanwhile, Donald Hansen's Facebook page has become an extremely lively and informative source of news and opinion.
- On the provincial side, the biggest news is the scheduling of a joint nomination meeting for all six of Regina's NDP incumbents on May 25. Of particular note, the list includes includes the Regina-Dewdney nomination, which no longer appears to be contested (as confirmed by the deletion of any "running for" from Kaitlin Stocks' Facebook page).
- Meanwhile, a couple of the candidates working toward nomination dates next month have activities on the go which deserve pointing out. Jaime Garcia has become the latest NDPer to look to a money bomb to finance his campaign in Regina Coronation Park, while Heather McIntyre will be holding a BBQ tonight in support of her Regina South campaign.
- Finally, the Regina Northeast race looks like it's about to get even more interesting in the wake of the two initial entries. At least two more entrants are apparently set to announce their intentions, including one of the NDP's long-anticipated new candidates. Stay tuned...
Memo to Conservative donors
Your hard-earned money is being used to pay for Stephen Harper's psychic friend and personal primping. Govern yourselves accordingly next time the party comes calling for cash.
Your money, their Amicus
I haven't yet blogged about the Saskatchewan NDP's strong questioning of the Wall government about the sweetheart deal given to the builder of a Saskatoon care home. But it looks like the story will be a big one in the months to come, and Murray Mandryk nicely summarizes why it figures to be important:
(S)tories of how Grant Devine's Progressive Conservative administration first got into trouble are legendary in NDP ranks -- stories of water purifier contracts that went to PC party friends, the manufacturers whose plastic shopping carts didn't quite fit in supermarket aisles or investments in computerized French translation services that didn't exactly translate anything.
...
(V)eteran Saskatchewan New Democrats know that it was a lot of these smaller stories -- the rewarding of business supporters, family members and sometimes even themselves with favourable taxpayer-financed contracts or loans through the old Sedco and other avenues of government finances -- that first started to turn the political tide against the PCs.
Well, a story emerging out of the legislature, raised by veteran MLA Pat Atkinson, about an untendered contract to build a Saskatoon nursing home let to a construction firm owned by a large Saskatchewan Party donor appears to have many of the elements of these old stories that first got the Devine government in trouble.
...
Atkinson last week spoke of an "odour" wafting around the plan to build a 100-bed, private long-term health-care unit that will allow Level One and Two residents occupancy with more critical Level Three and Four spouses. The agreement, announced by the Saskatoon Health Region, sees Amicus Health Care Inc., a subsidiary of the Catholic Health Ministry of Saskatchewan, paying the upfront capital costs, supported by what Atkinson described as a government loan guarantee. She also questioned the government's decision to charge a larger-than normal daily bed fee.
...
On Monday, Atkinson raised the spectre of the Saskatoon Health Region (read: provincial taxpayers) having to pay the outstanding balance should Amicus or the health region decide to terminate the contract. As Atkinson noted, this does seem to fit the definition of a loan guarantee, causing the Saskatoon MLA to ask: "Why is the Sask. Party government using taxpayers' money to reward its friends?"
For a Sask. Party government that has both vowed not to pick winners and has desperately tried to distance itself from the Devine Tories, such allegations are not good a sign.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Regina Coronation Park - Roger Bucsis Enters NDP Nomination Race
Jason mentions the news only as an aside, but it's worth noting that there's another apparent entrant in the already-crowded field pursuing the NDP's nomination in Regina Coronation Park.
Unfortunately there isn't much to be said about Roger Bucsis based on what's publicly available to this point - and he'll figure to need to change that in a hurry in order to make up ground on his competitors. But it's still a plus to see even more interest in the race, and it'll be interesting to see how much of a challenge Bucsis can mount following his late start.
Unfortunately there isn't much to be said about Roger Bucsis based on what's publicly available to this point - and he'll figure to need to change that in a hurry in order to make up ground on his competitors. But it's still a plus to see even more interest in the race, and it'll be interesting to see how much of a challenge Bucsis can mount following his late start.
Alone in the world
Shorter Harper cabinet ministers fanning across the globe at public expense:
To our neighbours in an increasingly interconnected world, we say: Canada is an island with no reason to bother planning for the next crash. So keep your developing international consensus on financial stability the hell out of our summit.
To our neighbours in an increasingly interconnected world, we say: Canada is an island with no reason to bother planning for the next crash. So keep your developing international consensus on financial stability the hell out of our summit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)