Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: In search of loose change

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 6:17pm - 49 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff began with an attempt to weave together various disparate strands to form a basket. A basket within which he could carry his message from one middle-class suburban door to the next.

Or something like that.

The Bank of Canada, he reported, had today hiked—the only word one can use when describing this action—interest rates. Canadian families are already more indebted than households anywhere else in the G20. The government is spending a billion to secure three days of meetings of G20 world leaders later this month. How, he wondered, could the government explain putting so much into the latter in light of the former?

Here, though, the Prime Minister stood with his own basket to weave. The interest rate hike, he said, was due to Canada’s sound economy. The G20 meetings, meanwhile, would bring as many delegates as the Olympics had athletes with even greater security risks. Ipso facto, the money simply has to be spent.

This government had previously blamed its billion on the attacks of 9/11, the recent fire-bombing of a bank outlet in Ottawa and, perhaps most frightening of all, Paul Martin’s failed reelection campaign of 2006. So here, in a way, was the most reasonable explanation yet. Still, Mr. Ignatieff was unsatisfied.

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians still cannot understand it,” he presumed to report. “The Olympic Games were nearly three weeks. This is 72 hours. These are costing more. No one can understand it.”

And now a new strand. “The choices here do not make any sense,” he continued, “$1 billion for security; $6 billion in tax cuts for corporations that are already profitable. How does the government explain these choices to hard-pressed Canadian families caught in the mortgage squeeze?”

Presented with a pu-pu platter of alleged failings, the Prime Minister skillfully picked only that which he could most enjoy swallowing. “Of course everybody wishes that security costs for these major summits were less,” he conceded. “But the reality is we have more delegates at these summits than we have athletes at the Olympic Games. It is of enormous scale. The risks are immensely greater. The costs we are incurring are in line with what summits unfortunately today cost, and we will make the investments necessary to ensure the full security of the summits.”

For a third and final time this afternoon the two stood to face each other, each clutching sheets of white paper they entirely ignored.

“Nobody can understand how the costs got out of control and nobody can understand how we explain that to Canadians who are facing a mortgage squeeze,” Mr. Ignatieff posited. “Instead of helping these Canadian families, we have a government that does not know how to manage public money. Again, I ask the Prime Minister, how does he justify these charges to hard-pressed Canadian families?”

Over to Mr. Harper, first swiping his hand to pronounce it “utterly indefensible” to not spend that billion, then jabbing the air so vehemently that he nearly threatened to poke out one of Jim Prentice’s eyes. “When it comes to economic management,” he cried, “this government has the best growth rate in the developed world because of the policies of this government and because we do not listen to the irresponsible—”

His time had expired, but you can most likely guess the rest.

It was Marlene Jennings who, in her own understated way, attempted to find conciliation, some small point of mutual agreement.

Recalling the $2.1-million once paid to former prime minister Brian Mulroney to settle a libel lawsuit, Ms. Jennings wondered if now might be a good time to ask for that money’s prompt return. “Mr. Speaker, in 1996, Brian Mulroney denied, under oath, having any business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. He claimed, ‘We would have a coffee once or twice.’ What he failed to mention was that his coffee was sweetened with envelopes stuffed with cash,” she loudly proclaimed, perhaps misunderstanding that coffee actually tastes quite sour after it has been strained through money filled envelopes.

The Justice Minister was non-committal in response. But that $2.1-million would make it undoubtedly a little easier to cover that $1-billion.

The Stats. The G20, six questions. Brian Mulroney, the oil industry, the budget bill and foreign affairs, four questions each. Israel, three questions. Medical isotopes, securities regulation and multiple sclerosis, two questions each. Abortion, the environment, crime, ethics, the auto industry, hepatitis C and the economy, one question each.

Stephen Harper, eight answers. Ted Menzies and Leona Aglukkaq, five answers each. Rob Nicholson and Christian Paradis, four answers each. Bev Oda, three answers. Rona Ambrose and Mike Lake, two answers each. James Moore, Diane Finley, Jim Prentice, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, John Baird and Lawrence Cannon, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

    I already miss the good old days when questions were asked and not answered about Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis.

    If Mr. Mulroney were, as a gesture of good faith, to pay back the $2.1 million, he could cover the security costs for the G8/G20 summits for approximately eight and one half minutes. I think Canadians would appreciate the gesture and perhaps reconsider the value of his Prime Ministership.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      For at least 520 seconds.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    The Bank of Canada rate skyrocketed from NOTHING (0.25%) to NOTHING (0.5%).

    This is a mortgage squeeze? Did Ignatieff come up with this brain cramp on his own, or do we credit his brilliant advisors for this effort?

    • JAG

      Yes, Im sure the bank of Canada is going to stop at .5%.

      You must have studied economics at Devry.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        You must be too young to remember when prime was in the teens.

        • wilson

          or at 22% after Trudeau's National Energy Program….

    • Boogard

      Grown men and women who care about Canada are talking politics here. Please leave, Liberal, if your only contribution is childish personal attacks.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/MacCross MacCross

        Don't people like you at least find it at least a little hypocritical to slam personal attacks with personal attacks? "You personally attacked MYL, therefore I will act like the more civilized one and call you a Liberal, and than slam you for using personal attacks."

        Listen to your own advice.

        And no, I'm not defending Jenn_.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        What??? Okay, I was speaking directly to MYL, and agreeing with him. Hopefully, he knows me well enough to know that. If not, hey MYL! I was agreeing with you. And crying because you were right. Even if I wasn't agreeing, I can't see how anyone could take what I said as a personal attack (unless it was a personal attack against myself, which while I guess it was an attack on my own ineffectiveness–shouldn't I get to do that?) And my comment attacking myself was deleted? Have you all gone insane?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

          I was pretty sure that was how you intended your now deleted comment, although I was not 100% sure. More emoticons, we all need to use more emoticons, I say.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          Well, looks like I've been away too long. JENN HAD A COMMENT DELETED? WTF?

          It must've been a doozy. Jenn is a rational thinker who represents the future of a sane Liberal Party, one that might even deserve the trust of a nation to govern one day. Which might be why "agreeing with MYL" wouldn't look so good on her resumé when she runs for the party leadership in a few years, so maybe Maclean's is protecting her political future.

          Jenn, I do know you well enough that, in agreement or in disagreement, conversations with you are always valuable. So now I am very intrigued about what you wrote. If only for whatever unintended double-entendre the administrators discovered.

        • madeyoulook

          OK. Just remembered that Intense Debate emails replies to me, so I have read Jenn's comment, and I am completely dumbfounded as to what would justify its removal. Boogard's retort is so out-of-bounds that either it was a misplaced reply that belongs to another thread, or Boogard's is the insult-riddled comment that contributed nothing of value and should have been the one removed. There was absolutely no childish personal attack in there. And I went looking for it on a re-read: nil.

          "Pass the kleenex, because I want to cry." If there's hidden snark in the subsequent phrase, it is so subtle I still can't find it. Jenn, I appreciate your reassuring "What???" comment, but rest assured yourself, I did not need them.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Thank you very much indeed, MYL, for your kind words and your support of my reputation.

            A reputation, I might add, that should not have needed any more support than the over 1,500 comments I have posted here at Macleans. I don't know who Boogard is, but I do know I have not seen that particular name around here for longer than a week or so, if that. Which is not to say this person isn't a longtime regular with a tarnished reputation of his own to speak for him. Nevertheless, the Maclean's administrator chose to completely ignore the name I have built for myself and jumped right on Boogard's complaint. A complaint, I again might add, that is without doubt attacking me personally and yet which is still visible to anyone who cares to read it.

  • Dick Richards

    Why are Canadian politicians in every party afriad to directly ask our PM about the Israel convoy raid and the three Canadians detained there?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/citizen_CA citizen_CA

      Those on the convoy knew the risks. I don't want taxpayer money spent on their behalf.

  • Anon 001

    "… pu-pu platter of alleged failings, the Prime Minister skillfully picked only that which he could most enjoy swallowing …"

    This statement would have been so much funnier if Aaron had employed the spelling from the original Daily Show sketch, namely "poo-poo platter."

  • Jim

    How many minutes of security would be paid for if the Liberals paid back the $40 million from Adscam, with interest?

    • Matlock

      A lot more if the Conservatives had used the military to augment security forces instead of paying for RCMP overtime. Alas, the Tories were afraid of what the big, bad Liberals would say about it. I didn't know them to be so sensitive.

      I'm being glib, of course. Sheila Fraser will be far more substantive when her audit is done.

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    Iggy wants to be PM, and yet he doesn't seem to know that the Bank of Canada rate has essentially no relationship at all to mortgage rates. The BOC rate is a short term interest rate. Mortgage rates are set based on 5 and 10 year rates, which are actually likely to go down because of the European debt crisis.

    And if Iggy is concerned about the overall indebtedness of Canadian families, then why did he force Harper into that massive two year stimulus program which with the home renovation tax credit, encouraged families to take on a lot of new debt.

    And the Liberals (i.e. Paul Martin) are the people responsbile for creating the stupid G20 that we are now wasting a billion dollars on. The Liberals also supported the Copenhagen monstronsity. And generally have been slupportive of agreements forced by these circus-like world leader plus entourage meetings.

    • cooper

      Paul Martin's fault? How twisted is your logic. It was his fiscal savy that got us relatively safely through the recession. Forced into the stimulus spending, aren't the conservatives taking credit for that too. And the G2o is very productive, communication always is ,but not for 1 billion dollars..

    • Matlock

      "…the Bank of Canada rate has essentially no relationship at all to mortgage rates."

      Zuh? Changes in the overnight rate almost always trigger changes in banks' prime rates, which affect every variable-rate mortgage out there. Someone needs to retake Macroeconomics 101.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Oh, Christ, Mr. Ignatieff.

    Tying the Bank of Canada rate increase to a billion dollars spent for the G8/G20 is idiotic. If you're going to waste your time asking questions to which you won't get the answers, at least ask questions that matter. Ask why the amount is so much more than the initial estimate. Ask for details on what a billion dollars buys in security that the initial estimate would not. Ask what the assumptions were in the initial estimate and who made them, and what's being done to ensure that this person in the future is not such a blithering incompetent.

    Asking why the government is spending a billion while bank rates are rising, however, is simply stupid. The real answer is "because this is the time period in which these two unrelated things, which we have no control over, have occurred." Now wasn't that useful?

    Things like this make me so glad I vote based on candidate.. because based on party currently, I'd be better off voting for the rhinos.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Thwim…..we don't agree very often but on this we do. I have been watching Iffy flailing away in QP and often ask myself is this guy for real. The questions are a mini speech with a question mark at the end. No wonder he hasn't asked questions on the economy. He apparently doesn't understand how the economy works. He appears to have trouble focusing on one issue at a time.

      The die is now being cast. Iffy is now a dead man walking. It will not be long before we have a caucus revolt. With the continuing stories in all the media the Libs are getting mighty uncomfortable. With the talk of coalition, no matter how many times Iffy denys it, the Libs are giving the impression they expect to lose the next election.

      The coalition will be the subject of the next election and therefore he will not need to worry about his platform. The only questions will be about the potential coalition among the losers of the next election.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        I have spoken to you about this before, Hollinm. You are writing as if you know what various Liberals are thinking. I have become a little more used to your writing style and realize you are not meaning to sound like that, but don't want to put a lot of "I assume" or "it seems" or "I'm thinking" to clutter up your post. Fair enough, but please do try to watch it.

        Especially in this case, when you are pretty close :)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      Thwim, on a few occasions I have said "It sucks when you are right." Usually because some piercing criticism of the (allegedly limited-government) government was bang-on.

      Here, you are also bang-on. And it sucks that you are right. The country is as ill-served by an inept opposition as it is by an inept government.

      WILL THE REAL LOYAL OPPOSITION TO HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT PLEASE STAND UP AND START ACTING LIKE ONE??!!!!!???

  • chet

    Prorogue happened 104 previous times, but the 105th was politicized as some freakish happening never before seen.

    Interest rates are hiked when an economy heats up (ours is at an astonishing 6% annualized growth as of latest numbers) almost as a matter of course to stave off inflationary pressures.

    Forget the mechanics of why this is done for a moment, and ponder that it is done. Done nearly routinely by every government ever to hold office, because its basic economics.

    That a desperate failing politician is trying to portray the normal/routine as some freakish act of malevolence is not surprising. That the media doesn't absolutely lambast him for it, speaks much of the water carrying that is going on right now.

    • ex canuck

      Right on the mark, Chet. What does a Liberal have to do to get a slap on the wrist from the Canadian Media?

    • D.D.S

      Really ….because coalitions have happened before too….as a matter of fact Harper sent a letter to the GG to try to form a coaltion with the oposition as well………..so why exactly is this being portrayed as an affront to democracy….I would say that when it comes to the Reform party(for that is what they still are) it is all …"do as we say and not as we do"

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

        Now, now – don't bring up facts they don't like to hear. They can't handle truths. They go on the Con website to get their talking points and instructed and approved by Harper.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      chet…..I agree with you. The Libs and their media loving supporters would tear Harper apart if he made some of the statements that Iffy has made and is consistently making. If Harper was in opposition supporting a coalition could you imagine the stories written depicting him as a loser etc.etc. etc.

      No wonder Iffy doesn't talk about the economy. He doesn't understand it. Harper made him look foolish in QP yesterday when he told him the rate increase indicates the robust growth in the economy. However, I think that Iffy is too dim to catch the point.

      As the pressure grows on his leadership watch for Iffy to make even more outlandish and incredible statements. He is a dead man walking and it will not be long before there is significant rumblings coming from the caucus.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

    "…an astonishing 6% annualized growth…"

    Not really that astonishing, actually. It all depends where your baseline is, and in this case, the baseline is subsequent to two years of economic decline, so "growth" doesn't necessarily represent a material improvement over our position before the recession struck.

    The use of percentages without providing the context of the baseline is of my biggest "bugbears" about economic reporting, actually, and it misleads people terribly. Everyone seems to do it, too!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

      Just as an obvious example of what I'm talking about. Suppose I had a house that was worth $500,000. If the value of that house falls 20% to $400,000, that becomes the baseline. And then if there's an increase in value of 10%, that SOUNDS great, doesn't it? But my house is still only worth $440,000; I'm NOT better off than when my house was worth $500,000.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

      Party_of_One…….you obviously didn't follow the coverage. It was the largest growth in one quarter (annualized) in the past decade.

      You cannot simply acknowledge the fact the country had a very good first quarter because that would allow the government to take credit.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

        I don't know, did you miss my point? Growth, expressed as a percentage, is meaningless unless you also express the baseline you're working from. If the growth is instead expressed as nominal increase (and, normally, adjusted for inflation…but by definition, during a recession inflation is negligable), that's something else altogether! I was responding to Chet's claim that 6% growth was "astonishing", and merely pointed out that it isn't necessarily "astonishing" DEPENDING ON WHERE THE BASELINE IS!

        And it doesn't really make a difference if that growth (expressed as a percentage) is annualized or not. In fact, it's rather meaningless to say "annualized", because the rest of the year hasn't happened yet. It encourages people to think that everything is rosy, which I'm pretty sure is the intent. And ANY government would try to do that.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Party_of_One Party_of_One

        My beef is not with the government of the day, my beef is with the general publics' statistical illiteracy, and how that allows the public to be misled.

        • chet

          But the rate of change, ie the percentage, is the crucial number in the context of interest rate hikes. Any way you slice it, a 6% change is drastic.

          Indeed, inflationary pressures happen after downturns, precisely becuase of the natural cylcle of growth. In this case the increase is nearly unprecedented, hence the extremely predictable rate increase.

          Predictable to everyone except Iggy, who tommorrow may have a teleconference and express concern for the Sun also rising.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      It seems to me your legitimate beef is even more relevant when the growth rate is compared across countries. Ethiopia could enjoy "explosive" 25% growth and I will still be happier with 2.5% growth right here in stodgy ol' Canada, thanks much.

  • Oliver

    It seems the discussions that stem from these articles are just as childish and inconsequential as the Question Periods are; aside from the few good points that are brought up and that are, just like in QP, promptly ignored by the majority.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I enjoyed this.
    Fave line: “Mr. Speaker, Canadians still cannot understand it,” he presumed to report.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

    While I do not intend to defend the indefensible the opposition is wrong in suggesting that because Mr. Mulroney did not admit he know Schreiber better than he admitted he should be forced to return the $2.1 million government settlement he received.

    The fact is the government accused the former PM conspired to steal money through the sale of Airbus planes. That was the defamation. The fact that he knew Schreiber was not of material significance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

    Again with the selective memory…what is it with you guys?

    A letter from the RCMP to the Swiss government asking to investigate was leaked by Mulroney, and that constitutes defamation by the government…?

    Your hero, Mulroney, defamed himself. And now it turns out that he was in fact the slimy guy we all thought he was.

  • cooper

    it was the RCMP that brought about the charges not the Liberal government of the day.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Hey, if they're gonna freak out over a "mortgage squeeze" when the BoC rate rises from a quarter to a half a percent, I suppose there is quite a large number of Canadians who need help in the understanding department.

  • wilson

    The letter from the RCMP stated that Mulroney was under CRIMINAL investitgation. Which he was not.
    Countries will only send info IF there is a criminal investigation.

    The RCMP lied to get the info…….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

    Partially related question for you: Do you have any concerns about Mulroney's behaviours with respect to Schreiber and the cash payments?

  • chet

    Mulroney was in power how long ago again? How much was involved again? Were public dollars involved?

    Let me ask you, does it concern you that the tens of millions of public dollars siphoned into Liberal party coffers in adscam were never traced and recovered and might very well be still lining the political pockets of current sitting liberal MP's who benefited from these laundered, plundered funds?

  • D.D.S

    Trudeau was in power how long ago again?…and yet I see someone has already brought up the NEP……

    ..very selective outrage on the Conservative side…….it's ok for the right to bring up old PM history but not the left………..a coalition is bad bad bad….and yet Harper HIMSELF sent a letter to the GG regarding forming a coalition too…….

  • Phil

    Mulroney was in power from 1984 until mid 1993, which would be 26 to 17 years ago. The amount involved was $225,000 (or $300,000, dependant on source of info), which did go directly into one pocket – that of Mulroney. It is almost certain that those dollars came from a pool of money that Schreiber had received from Airbus, a pool of money set aside to help Airbus win the AIr Canada contract to supply a number (about 20, perhaps you can remind me how many aircraft were involved?) of new aircraft. At the time of this sale the federal government still had control of Air Canada; we may disagree if this meets the threshhold of public dollars or not.

    It concerns me greatly that some of the ~$40,000,000 that was paid out to advertising firms for work of questionable value made its way back to the Liberal party.

    So, I have given you answers to your questions; can you now extend me the courtesy of answering my questions [edit] to Wilson[end of edit]?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    Ya, why do they stop there? I think we should go w-a-y back and discuss Sir John A's corruption and his drinking problem – you know, when he would puke his brains out in parliament.

From Macleans