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: Off we go with no idea where we’re headed

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 7, 2010 6:06pm - 0 Comments

The Scene. “Everything we’ve learned so far has all the hallmarks of a scandal,” Liberal Geoff Regan was quoted as exclaiming in a party press release this afternoon.

And indeed, on this—the hallmarks, that is—there can be little debate. There is a lucrative government contract. There is an RCMP investigation. There is an individual, unregistered to lobby the federal government, who received payments from the individual who was awarded the lucrative contract. There is the party fundraiser the contract winner hosted that was attended by the cabinet minister whose department oversees such contracts. There is—or at least was—some kind of departmental probe that may or may not be related to all of this.

That there is as yet little sense of what exactly, if anything, this amounts to only heightens the intrigue—the House rarely as excited as when it hasn’t the faintest idea where it’s headed.

Up first on the matter this afternoon was Liberal Marcel Proulx, rising to remind the minister in question, Christian Paradis, that he’d asked him nine months earlier to account for the refurbishment of West Block. “He tried to slough off my questions as fictional stories and said next we would ask him to start searching for Elvis in his department,” Mr. Proulx lamented.

At this the government sent up its House leader, the reliably emphatic John Baird, to assure the House that the government had acted quickly and resolutely to impose ethical standards on this place when it took office and that “anyone who breaks the rule will face the full force of the law.”

Mr. Proulx was unpersuaded. “They may try to disassociate themselves, but the scandal will eventually swallow them,” he predicted.

Gilles Duceppe stood to review all of the associations one of the individuals in question had with the Conservative party. Mr. Baird stood to explain everything this individual was not—namely a member or organizer for the party.

The aforementioned Mr. Regan used his turn to mix his metaphors. “Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to cover its tracks as the stench of corruption wafts around a well-connected lobbyist’s role in a $9 million construction contract,” he explained. “Yesterday the government House leader tried to snow the media when he claimed Gilles Varin has not had any involvement in the ‘new Conservative Party,’ and again today he is at it.”

Here Mr. Baird himself detected a whiff of something worth noting. “Maybe the member opposite should check his party’s own records,” he advised Mr. Regan. “I understand the individual has also donated money to the member for Bourassa.”

“Ohhhhhh!” sang the Conservative side.

Mr. Regan had little response for this, but he did have questions—five of them in fact. “Yesterday the Minister of Public Works said no member of the government is being investigated by the RCMP. How could she know that? Has the RCMP briefed the Prime Minister? The government House leader’s parliamentary secretary says they mean that the Mounties have not contacted any ministers. It is not the same thing. Why did the Prime Minister not say that? Why could he not be straight with Canadians? Are the Conservatives in this deeper than they wish to admit?”

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose had no response for any of these, except to say what Mr. Regan had accurately recalled her as saying the day before. “Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, no members of this government are part of this inquiry,” she confirmed.

Denis Coderre, the aforementioned member for Bourassa, picked up the line of questioning, allowing Mr. Baird to repeat his aforementioned allegation. Mr. Coderre pleaded innocence. Mr. Baird countered with aspersion. “Mr. Speaker, the member for Bourassa says that he does not give out large contracts, but there was a time when he held a very powerful position in the Government of Canada, not only being a senior minister in the Chrétien government, but in the Martin government he was the president of the Privy Council,” he recounted. “Of course the Privy Council is the central operating agency of the government, and I wonder when that cheque was dated. Was it when this government was in power, or was it when he was sitting around the cabinet table?”

Into this fine mess then jumped Pat Martin, the New Democrat aficionado of the absurd rising with a run-on condemnation of what lay before him. “Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Natural Resources must have gone to the Karlheinz Schreiber school of government relations because people should not have to grease the palms of a Conservative lobbyist to bid for a government contract and no, it is not okay for a minister of public works to shake down contractors at a so-called fundraiser,” he said. “Nobody should have to tell him that.”

Now in full rhetorical flight, he attempted to make sense of it all from his lofty perspective. “We now know that renovation slush fund money found its way into the coffers of the Conservative Party, so I have two questions to ask. One, are they going to give that money back?” he wondered.

“Two, are they going to make room in the hall of shame over there,” he asked, gesturing to the far corner of the room now assigned to Helena Guergis, “and fire that minister?”

He quite literally growled this f-word.

The Stats. Ethics, 12 questions. Veterans, four questions. Government spending, prisons, employment and the census, three questions each. Securities regulation, Nigel Wright, waterways, the environment and infrastructure, two questions each. Committee work and seniors, one question each.

John Baird, 16 answers. Rona Ambrose and Diane Finley, four answers each. Mike Lake and Dave MacKenzie, three answers each. Ted Menzies, Christian Paradis, Jim Prentice and Chuck Strahl, two answers each. Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Kevin Sorenson, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Even the construction boss is contradicting the minister
    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20101007/const…

    • Emily

      Yes it does.

      • Mike514

        Never mind. I was originally getting a message stating that the page did not exist, but when I restarted the browser, it magically worked.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Pat Martin:“We now know that renovation slush fund money found its way into the coffers of the Conservative Party, so I have two questions to ask. One, are they going to give that money back?”

    Is Pat Martin referring to the $500 that Gilles Varin donated to the Conservative riding association in Bourassa in January 2009?

  • Stewart_Smith

    Say what you will of Martin, "The Karlheinz Schreiber School of Government Relations" is not a bad line.

    • http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

      Speaking of Karlheinz Schreiber, how is it that Elmer Mackay's lad is sole-sourcing the largest aircraft purchase in Canadian history and no one's even asking the most obvious question.

      • Jan

        Did you say Nigel Wright? I could have sworn someone said Nigel Wright?

  • Oliver

    Can we just let the RCMP do it's job and have our MPs discuss about things they can do?

    • brooster

      It's too bad we may have to rely on the Mounties to investigate instead of a competent police force.

      • burlivespipe

        Cut to scene where civilian William 'I am in uniform!' Elliott kicks the stuffing out of his lazyboy lounger, wondering why other CON bagmen get the fun jobs…

        • Jan

          Who do we turn to now? International observers?

  • chet

    Calls of a conservative "scandal"?

    On this blog?

    It must be 2:00 p.m. Time for another "scandal" call.

    The question is: could this rise to the level of whether Harper ate a communion wafer, or dared to try to shorten a FORTY page census? Or even…gasp…the pooping puffin?

    What a scandalous government we have, eh?

    • Mike514

      Don't forget the oversized novelty cheque scandal.

  • NorthernPoV

    sorta off topic….RCMP investigates Tory MP over security breach
    "Poilievre <SNIP> pressed the security gate to let himself through, sparking an argument with RCMP officers."

    swelled head?

    • government_noob

      One guess as to which hyperbolic opposition member stated the following with regards to Mr. Poilievre's error:

      "It's inappropriate for an MP to jump out of his car, push the RCMP button and go through without proper clearance. He should be hanging his head in shame."

      • NorthernPoV

        your invective is misdirected

        Poilievre is the dink

        • government_noob

          You'll get no argument from me on that point.

          Martin is still a buffoon.

          • MostlyCivil

            Buffoon and Dinks. Isn't that a pub on Sparks Street?

            At least Poilievre didn't throw a loafer at the Mountie and call the House a hellhole.

          • brooster

            Actually, it's two pubs. Buffoons is the watering hole for former members of the Reform Party. Dinks is where the CPC crowd like to hang out.

          • Dave

            If it isn't, it should be.

  • chet

    The question that MUST be answered is:

    which liberals got ahold of these tens of millions of dollars, and

    are they still in parliament today. They or those who they support.

    I trust we'll have the full support of the Liberals here to were more than happy to look into Mulroney's dealings: a far older event, involving a fraction of the amount, and private as opposed to stolen taxpayer dollars.

    I for one, welcome our Liberal friends support in this endeavor.

    Now, time to get to the bottom of which Liberals benefitted from adscam.

    I say we try to complete this excercise for…say…just before the next election.

    • Emily

      Yeah, cuz in 5 years in govt, and diligent searching, Cons haven't turned up anything on this.

      • chet

        so are you saying that the tens of millions just dissappeared?

        Perhaps a progressive unicorn took it?

        Also, no material investigation into tracing the funds has ever taken place.

        It's good to see how non-chalant you are about tens of millions of tax payer dollers dissappearing. I would have expected nothing less.

    • burlivespipe

      Yes, you keep digging at that… No doubt the answer is on a piece of paper in one of Harper's bagmen's pockets. You do realize that of those charged to date, most were longtime Conservative supporters, right? But when you finally develop your zapruder film — make sure to wrap it with that extra tinfoil you've got lying around, eh? – then we'll all be in the know…

      • MostlyCivil

        There was a second bagman.

        • Sigh

          On a grassy knoll.

          • Dave

            Sent by the CIA. Then shot so he couldn't talk.

  • NorthernPoV

    chet: a broken record
    boring – everyone stopped reading your incessant drivel ages ago -

    • chet

      I understand talk about tracking down tens of millions of stolen taxpayer dollars is boring to you. I really do.

  • government_noob

    Ill gotten booty? Since when does the Conservative Party of Canada care what goes on in Canadians' bedrooms?

  • burlivespipe

    … and on cue, the Harper fartcatchers form their familiar circle-the-wagon routine, including clowns jumping out of a tiny car casting buckets of confetti at a candle…

  • chet

    Quick fun fact:

    Possession of proceeds of crime is a continuing offence.

    Until those liberals who recieved the ill gotten booty return it, the wrong continues.

    So, my dear Liberal friends, Adscam is not only recent (comparing Adscam to a 100 year old scandal was rediculous in any event, particularily given how liberals were just recently salivating over the much older and less significant Airbus matter),

    ITS CURRENT.

    Now given how irate our fiscal conservative come lately Liberal friends are about legitimate purchases such as on defence ect,

    I trusty they will more than support our call to track down the tens of millions of dollars that can perhaps be used for such things as…homecare, for the elderly.

    • government_noob

      I'll admit that I voted to put Stephen Harper in power back in 2006. In fact, I was so keen to put him in power that I got home from work and full-out ran the three blocks to the polling station just so I could breathlessly get in my vote before it closed for the night.

      However, I didn't vote for the CPC in 2008 because they lack any sort of vision for Canada. All I hear is constant comparisons to the past, to old bogeymen which have long ago moved into the background. As the government, it's time for them to start to act like it.

      If they want to make Canada competitive by opening up trade and reducing taxes, fantastic. Put the proposed changes in writing with the assumptions underlying them and convince us. If they plan to tackle crime, excellent. Put those policies on paper so we know there's a plan.

      This current flipping from one policy to the next is making me nauseous, and has me convinced that there's no plan by the man at the helm, only reflexive jerks of the tiller whenever he sees a scary shadow.

      • NorthernPoV

        "there's no plan by the man at the helm, only reflexive jerks of the tiller"

        no plan, but there is a theme:
        Vandalize, beyond repair if possible, the modern, democratic, progressive society that we have built in this country.
        The behavior of confused, paranoid and petulant political-adolescents.

    • come again

      Ehm, The Libs stole some money, but they were way more fiscally conservative than the current bunch. It's ethical a lot less sound, but practically a hell of a lot better.

  • chet

    Surely the liberals here want those millions upon millions tracked down, so they can be put into Iggy's home care plan.

    Do it for the elderly and sick.

    You do care about the elderly and sick, don't you?

    • John.K

      Yes Chet, everyone cares deeply about you.

  • Dave

    Why, just this afternoon, my friend Amy the Liberal took me to brunch on sponsorship money!

  • chet

    Rememeber the good ol days when a scandal meant stealing tens of millions of tax payer dollers and funneling it back to the party in the form of money laundering and brown paper bags?

    The days when the Liberals were in power that is.

  • brooster

    Or taking kickbacks like the Conservatives did in the CP scandal?

  • Richard_S_Argent

    careful what you ask for old boy…if Pat Martin is right, this might yet give you what you're looking for.

    "We now know that renovation slush fund money found its way into the coffers of the Conservative Party"

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Are you referring to the CP scandal that brought down Sir John A. Macdonald's government in 1871?

  • subversible

    Mr. Wherry

    It is clear you are certain (certain!) that their might be a scandal here. You're dedication to presenting all of the circumstantial evidence is noteworthy. Your insistence on quoting Liberal MP's opinions in order to help you set up all of your "scene's" is truly loyal and awe-inspiring.

    As per usual, the quality of your writing is making us all, "quite literally growl this f-word."

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Does Pat Martin know something that hasn't been reported? Otherwise, he's probably talking about the reported $500 donation that Gilles Varin made several months before the renovation contract.

    In that case, it would be it one of the most insanely over-the-top embellishments that Pat Martin has ever uttered–and we're talking about a guy who has made a career out of generating ridiculously hyperbolic (but always entertaining) soundbites for the news.

  • Emily

    Or maybe the big fundraiser this contractor held because it was suggested to him that this would be a suitable thank-you

  • burlivespipe

    Just wait for the puppet press conference version… I hear 'Oscar the PM' is caught on tape admitting to giving cookies to the late cookie monster if he knocked the stuffing out of big bird…

  • Emily

    That worried eh?

  • government_noob

    Are you reading the same article as I am? It's evident on more than one occasion that Mr. Wherry is not certain if there is, indeed, any scandal here at all. He's merely reporting that the house went completely bonkers over the listed circumstantial evidence.

    I'm beginning to think that you read the first two paragraphs and the last one, and skipped everything in between.

  • subversible

    Dear government_noob

    It's not just the content of Mr. Wherry's blog that I find annoying. It is also the style. Soon he'll be attempting to describe John Baird's heartbeat (or less likely, Jack Layton's lack of one) in order to invoke some kind of emotional response. He is lowering the quality of this magazine/e-zine.

    Dear Emily

    I am warmed by your feelings of sympathy. Feel free to use more than those three words to make assumptions about me in the future.

  • brooster

    Absolutely.

    Since chet likes to keep referring to a Liberal scam that took place over a decade (and three leaders ago), I didn't think there was a statute of limitations on scandal-dredging.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Ah, I see what you mean. Chet dredged up a Liberal scandal in recent memory, ten years ago, so why shouldn't you dredge up to a Tory scandal that happened one hundred and forty years ago? They both took place in the past, so what's the difference?

  • Emily

    There is no difference. That's the point.

  • brooster

    Yer a quick study!

    Who makes the rules about when it's time to move on? If chet has his way, it'll be when the last surviving Canadian with a memory of the odious "scandal o' '95" is eulogized.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    That's right, Emily. Whether it happened a year ago, a decade ago, a century ago, or a millenium ago, it's all the same thing. Thanks again for sharing your benevolent wisdom.

  • burlivespipe

    As CONs have proven with NEP, time heals no heels…

  • Emily

    And since it happened so long ago, it's not relevant.

    You try hard, but you just never catch on.

  • Emily

    Anyone who worries about a blog post pointing out Con buffoonry usually turns out to be a Con buffoon.

  • brooster

    "It's not just the content of Mr. Wherry's blog that I find annoying. It is also the style."

    Do you also enjoy going to the dentist and being examined by your proctologist? If Wherry's blog is so discomfiting, what are you doing here?

  • government_noob

    If I wanted to read a dry verbatim transcript I'd consult the hansard. Wherry's blog posts make me feel like I'm actually there on those days when I can't catch CPAC or make it there in person.

  • Jan

    Anyone sensing Kory is in the room? Got that corncob feel…

  • subversible

    Dear Emily

    It's nice to know that you are capable of saying more than "That worried eh?" to every comment I post.

    Thank you for embracing your new-found freedom of vocabulary and discourse. Next time you feel the need to criticize me, I'd appreciate it if you could explain why my "worries" "worry" you. Otherwise you might come off as looking like a "Lib buffoon" counterpoint to my "Con buffoon" melody.

  • Emily

    LOL I've never heard of you….and I've said 'that worried, eh?' once.

    Get over yourself.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    I try so hard to keep up with you, Emily. It's a pity I'll never catch on.

    The 2005 Gomery report helped propel the current prime minister into office, but according to your impeccable logic, the Sponsorship Scandal happened so long ago, it's as irrelevant as a scandal from the year 1871.

  • Emily

    I know you do.

    Sad to think you never will, but such is life.

    My condolences.

  • brooster

    C_R: The Gomery Commission has filed its report and long ago adjourned. The police have, presumably, desisted in their inquiries. The principal participants have been charged or exonerated or have, in event, receded into history.

    In an era when (it's often said) a week is a lifetime in politics, when do you and chet and your ilk move on? I don't see Mulroney's transgressions being hauled out on these boards for constant autopsy.

    Do you want to participate in current political discourse or pursue archeology?

  • subversible

    Dear Emily

    I am pleased to be a source of your LOLZ. I find it rather patronizing that you clearly feel the need to comment on EVERYTHING on this website and yet have the audacity to tell me to get over myself.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    The principal participants have been charged or exonerated or have, in event, receded into history.

    Yes. They receded into very recent history. That's different from history that happened 140 years ago.

    In an era when (it's often said) a week is a lifetime in politics, when do you and chet and your ilk move on?

    First, I didn't even bring up the sponsorship scandal. I was just pointing out that the 1871 CP Scandal might not be the brilliant counterexample that you thought it was.

    Second, the cliché that "a week is a lifetime in politics" doesn't really persuade me that stuff that happened five or ten years ago should be disregarded.

    Do you want to participate in current political discourse or pursue archeology?

    Yes, when QP is dominated by the pseudoscandal du jour, anyone who dares to invoke Canada's most serious scandal in recent memory is "pursuing archeology".

  • Jan

    I don't know – I'm visualizing Mickey Mouise for some reason.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    I asked a simple, pertinent question. Instead of trying to answer it, you insult me and give me a warning.

    I'm not repeating Baird's blustering. You completely misread what I wrote. I'm talking about Varin's donation to the Conservative riding association in Bourassa in January 2009, not the Liberal riding association in Bourassa years before.

    That's what I assume Pat Martin was referring to when he mentioned "the coffers of the Conservative Party".

  • brooster

    So, what's the statute of limitations on the exhumation of old grievances here? Are we allowed to exhume the scandals of the Mulroney years every time we have a grievance with the Harper iteration of the Conservatism?

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Hey, if you want to mention Mulroney's scandals every time you have a grievance with Harper, be my guest.

    I'm not sure it would make much sense, given that Harper belonged to a different party and was forcefully criticizing Mulroney at the time. However, if you think that "exhuming the scandals of the Mulroney years" is an effective way to attack Harper, please go ahead and present your arguments.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Just when I thought burlivespipe's "Sesame Street" reference was as clever as things could get, Jan comes up with a brilliant "Mickey Mouise" repartee and knocks it out of the park!

    Kudos to you both!

  • brooster

    I don't plan to carp on Mulroney's scandals because it's as counter-productive, pointless, and tiresome as constantly revisiting the Adscam, as chet does. That occurred three Liberal leaders ago at a time when, as his critics never miss a chance to remind us, the current leader wasn't even in the country.

    It just gets old after a while.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    It just gets old after a while.

    On that point, I completely agree.

  • Dave

    Or Oily the Splot.

From Macleans