What of the G20 and the largest mass arrest in Canadian history?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM - 0 Comments

Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director released last week its review of the G20 summit in Toronto. Among other issues, the report notes the federal government’s late announcement of the summit’s location.

As part of its membership in the G8 and G20, Canada committed to host the 2010 G8 and G20 summits. In June 2008 the Canadian prime minister announced that the G8 summit would be held on June 25 and 26, 2010, in the small town of Huntsville, Ontario, about 200 kilometres or three hours’ drive from Toronto. Not until December 2009 did the federal government announce that the G20 would be held in Toronto on June 26 and 27. The Metro Toronto Convention Centre was officially chosen as the  venue on February 19, 2010. That left the federal and provincial authorities with just four months to plan the security and policing needs for the summit. As a result of these short timelines, planning was rushed and inadequate, leading to a breakdown in executing many of the operations during the event itself.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews dismissed questions about the summit during QP last week. In doing so, he claimed to quote a New Democrat.

The NDP has made wild allegations about the actions of our national police force, such as, “Canada is becoming a police state, where the toe of an officer’s boot or punch in the gut is the rule of law.”

Unfortunately, it’s not clear whether any New Democrat has ever actually said this. I’ve asked Mr. Toews’ office to explain the reference, but have yet to hear back. (Update 3:51pm. The minister’s office confirms that Mr. Toews was quoting the Star’s paraphrase.)

A Google search shows that those words, with qualification, appear in a December 2010 report about a news conference convened by the NDP’s Don Davies. But as the reporter’s paraphrase of what Mr. Davies had to say. Continue…

Holding pattern

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM - 0 Comments

On May 1, as previously noted, I sent the following questions to the office of minister of state Julian Fantino.

Last week, the Auditor General suggested that the Department of National Defence possessed a 36-year lifecycle costing for the F-35. See here. Is the auditor general mistaken or does a 36-year lifecycle costing exist? If it does exist, why has it not been made public?

Those questions were then forwarded to the Department of National Defence.

As of this writing, I have yet to receive an answer. As of last Thursday, the defence department was “still working within the approval process” to provide me with a response.

The race* for Etobicoke Centre

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM - 0 Comments

An early poll gives the Liberals the lead in the contested riding. Alice Funke reviews the voting history and considers the political narratives.

The Conservatives need to figure out which trend is their friend in this case. Is it that they should avail themselves of some of the best election lawyering in the country to appeal the case and try to keep the seat for fear the national polling trends (and even Rob Ford is having some troubles holding onto Ford Nation these days too) could see them underperform in a do-over, as happened in York North. Or should they rely instead on the finding that defeated Liberal incumbents can rarely stage comebacks these days, and try to bank on a better split … For the Liberals, a by-election here would be either their time to shine in an old-school pure two-way Liberal-Conservative contest – the kind they love, and want to recreate in as many other places as possible – or another quantifiable measurement of their reduced status on the federal scene.

*Conservative MP Ted Opitz has this week to decide whether he will appeal the Ontario court’s ruling.

Thomas Mulcair, mostly undaunted

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

In interviews with the Globe and West Block, Thomas Mulcair expressed regret for his “messengers” remark about the Western premiers, but otherwise dug in.

… this is a fight that we’ve been looking for. We see this as a defining element of the next election campaign in Canada. We are leaving a less diversified economy by the choices. The very fact of the matter is, is the Conservatives are failing to enforce legislation that exists now. Polluter pay is a basic principle that all Canadians can agree upon. That’s the base of the problem. Right now we’re not enforcing several statutes federally; the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Act, the Navigable Waters Act, these are all things that should be included in the real costs of the oil sands. Instead, the federal government is failing. Stephen Harper’s government is failing to enforce that legislation. Polluter pay is the base of this whole debate.

For those of you keeping track of trends in alliteration, note that Dutch disease is out and polluter pay is in.

So far as the former is concerned, Stephen Gordon and Livio Di Matteo consider the economics. Brian Topp considers the politics of raw resources.

He means it this time

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 21, 2012 at 3:58 PM - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister makes his latest statement of certainty on the mission in Afghanistan.

“The end date is firm and final,” he said. “Canada will not have a military mission in Afghanistan after March, 2014.”

NATO secretary-general had told reporters Sunday he wanted Canada to extend the training mission. Mr. Harper said he wished it could end sooner, but 2014 was the earliest feasible date. He said he believed it’s important to press ahead with withdrawing foreign forces from the country. His judgment, he said, is “that the longer a foreign intervention stays, eventually, the less likely its success becomes.”

See previously: A short history of the Harper government changing its mind on the mission in Afghanistan

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, May 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM - 0 Comments

The opposition and the government stated their cases as C-38 passed second reading. The NDP responded. Diane Finley wanted to get the budget bill passed before she explained its EI provisions. The CFIB encouraged the government to be more forthcoming. The president of the Canadian Medical Association expressed concerns. The Parliamentary Budget Officer again reported Old Age Security to be sustainable. We considered the political ramifications of the budget bill. And three weeks after the opposition first demanded an answer, the government finally explained how much will be saved by changing OAS.

Pat Martin conceded Parliament’s weakness. John McCallum and Tony Clement exchanged procedural tweets. Jim Flaherty heard things from the media and philosophized about the nature of employment. John Baird warned that a carbon tax would kill your family. Peter Kent threw Mr. Baird under the bus and doubled down on money laundering. LaVar Payne demonstrated his wit. Keith Ashfield needed to be reminded of what he didn’t know. James Moore and Dean Del Mastro took issue with the birds and the bees. And Speaker Scheer explained the finer points of criticizing another MP.

NATO asked Canada to stay in Afghanistan. The Harper government took its latest position on carbon pricing. The president of the National Roundtable rebutted Mr. Baird’s accusations. The Dutch Disease debate got messy. Last year’s result in Etobicoke Centre was declared null and void. And Ethical Oil went after Thomas Mulcair.

That was quick

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM - 0 Comments

Ethical Oil has already turned yesterday’s QP exchange into an attack ad.

Ethical Oil is presently run by Jamie Ellerton, a former aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. It was founded by Alykhan Velshi, a former aide to Mr. Kenney and currently director of planning in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Better late than never?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM - 0 Comments

In a note received just now, an official with the Finance Department explains how much will be saved by changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security.

By law, the minister of HRSD has to request a new actuarial report whenever the OAS program is modified. That report will quantify the cost of the program with the increased age eligibility and will be released some time after the new OAS eligibility becomes law. However, the Office of the Chief Actuary has provided preliminary estimate that the Government of Canada would spend $97.9 billion in 2030 on OAS, if these changes are implemented. The government would have spent $108.7 billion if the changes were not implemented. To better inform the discussion, and ensure proper focus on the substance of what and why OAS is being changed, the Government has agreed to release this information.

That means savings of $10.8 billion.

The opposition first asked for this projection three weeks ago. Thomas Mulcair asked the Prime Minister to The Finance Minister allowed this week that he’d heard projections of $10 billion and $12 billion, but he then dismissed those as figures he’d heard from the media.

Laura Payton notes that this matches an estimate that a finance official had provided to a CBC reporter, six weeks ago when the budget was released.

This week has four sketches

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 3:20 PM - 0 Comments

Monday. John Baird saves your family
Tuesday. More than 400 pages and still short on details
Wednesday. Help wanted
Thursday. No questionas asked

Redo in Etobicoke Centre?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM - 0 Comments

An Ontario court has ruled last year’s federal election result in Etobicoke Centre to be null and void.

The result, which saw Conservative Ted Opitz defeat Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj by 26 votes, had been contested on the grounds of irregularities—see CBC coverage here, here and here.

Unless today’s ruling is appealed—it would go directly to the Supreme Court—and subsequently overturned, a by-election will be held.

Update 2:07pm. A statement from Conservative party spokesman Fred DeLorey.

We are disappointed with the decision of the Court today. The judge has found problems with the way that Elections Canada ran the election in this riding. As the judge took care to point out in the decision, Ted Opitz and the Conservative campaign team followed the rules. Fifty two thousand people in Etobicoke Centre followed the rules, cast their ballots and today had their democratic decision thrown into doubt. Ted Opitz will continue working hard on behalf of his constituents.

Update 2:41pm. Mr. DeLorey, on the question of a possible appeal: “We are reviewing the decision.”

Update 2:57pm. Only five times since 1949 has a vote been declared null and void: the last time being in York North in 1988. The House of Commons guide lays out the procedural steps as follows:

The court sends a copy of the decision to the Speaker; the Speaker will also be informed if an appeal has been filed. If no appeal has been filed, the decision is tabled in the House. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada must be filed within eight days of the decision being rendered and is heard without delay. The Supreme Court’s decision is transmitted to the Speaker who tables it in the House. If the election is declared null and void, the Speaker addresses a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a new election.

Update 3:14pm. A statement from Mr. Opitz.

I am disappointed with the decision of the Court today. The judge has found problems with the way that Elections Canada ran the election in this riding. As the judge took care to point out in the decision, I and my campaign team followed the rules. This is not about me. It is about fifty two thousand people who followed the rules, cast their ballots and today had their democratic decision thrown into doubt. I am proud that the people of Etobicoke Centre elected me to represent them as their Member of Parliament. I will continue working hard on their behalf.”

Update 3:27pm. A statement from interim Liberal leader Bob Rae.

“I was pleased with the Ontario Superior Court’s decision to declare the 2011 election results in Etobicoke Centre null and void. Liberal Member of Parliament Borys Wrzesnewskyj lost his seat by 26 votes and had outlined numerous irregularities that were, in the end, found by Justice Lederer to have undermined the results. It has become clear to many Canadians that our democracy was tested and perhaps undermined during the last election. Reports and allegations of election fraud are widespread and there are many cases still under investigation. This has cast serious doubts on the integrity of our electoral system, but we are confident that a by-election in Etobicoke Centre would help greatly in reaffirming the strength of our electoral system and Canada’s democracy.”

Update 4:40pm. CBC has the text of today’s court decision here.

C-38: What it is and where this is going

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM - 0 Comments

In this week’s print edition, I write about the budget bill and its various ramifications.

“The best thing for government is a budget that goes through unnoticed and unreported. And the worst thing is when a budget lingers,” says Brad Lavigne, a former adviser to Jack Layton, the late NDP leader. “Every day the NDP can keep the budget and what they’re trying to ram through, the policy changes in the budget bill, every day that they can keep that in the news, in front of Canadians, is a good day for the Opposition and a bad day for the government.” The public’s interest in parliamentary principles is demonstrably limited—after the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament last year, the electorate punished them with a majority—but issues like environmental regulation and employment insurance might play to the NDP’s goals of courting the 60 per cent of Canadians who aren’t inclined to vote for the Conservatives. “If Thomas Mulcair and the team are fighting for those issues, then those people will look to the NDP to be the non-Conservative alternative,” Lavigne says.

The budget bill is officially called the “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act” and on those terms the Conservatives are likely willing to continue debating. The most controversial aspects of the bill, those related to environmental assessment and resource development, might provide an opening for the NDP, but it might also set up an economic debate of the sort the Conservatives are willing to have. “I think the key debate is actually one that’s going to continue from now until the election, which is, what are we going to do about our energy resources here in Canada?” says Jason Lietaer, a Conservative strategist. “Are we going to use them and try to use them to be prosperous? Or are we going to take a different approach?”

How to properly chastise another MP

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM - 0 Comments

As noted yesterday, there was a small discussion after QP yesterday about the proper use of the adjectives of “stupid” and “ignorant.” Speaker Scheer explained as follows.

I would agree with the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that calling another member stupid would be unparliamentary. The phrase I heard was referring to the comments made by the member and criticizing the statements he made. That is as I heard it. I would not want to comment on not being able to find more appropriate words to make a point. Certainly, members might want to use their own judgment when it comes to the elevation of their debate. I certainly cannot find that referring to a member’s comments and criticizing the comments in that way would fall into the same category as making a personal attack and making a personal characterization. That is as I heard it today.

OAS: Show your work

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

While the projected savings from raising the age of eligibility remain unexplained, the Parliamentary Budget Officer again says Old Age Security is currently sustainable and the Harper government is refusing to disclose a 2007 draft report into the policy implications of demographic changes.

In his March 20, 2007 budget, Flaherty promised to release a report later that year that would “provide a broad analysis of current and future demographic changes and the implication of these changes for Canada’s long-run economic and fiscal outlook.” … However, Flaherty did not release the report when he issued his fiscal and economic update on Oct. 30, 2007. Since then, it has never been clear what happened to the report.

Earlier this year, Postmedia News requested a copy of a draft or final version of the report. The department said it has three documents, totalling 211 pages, in its files. But the department refused to release them, citing sections in the Access to Information Act which allow the government to deny public release of information involving “advice or recommendations” to a minister, and materials involving cabinet confidences which are excluded from disclosure under the Act.

James Moore vs. The Birds and the Bees

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

In response to the Heritage Minister’s criticism of the Canadian Science and Technology Museum, Senator Nancy Ruth questions James Moore’s judgment. Peter Julian mocks. Ottawa Citizen columnist Peter Simpson considers.

In a CBC panel, Dean Del Mastro, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary, questioned the parameters of science and compared the exhibit to what might be found in an adult video store.

The Commons: No questions asked

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 6:24 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. From the far southwest corner of the room, Conservative MP Wai Young wondered aloud whether New Democrat MP Rosane Doré Lefebvre had children.

“Do you have children?” she asked, loudly, of Ms. Doré Lefebvre, who stood in her spot in the opposite corner.

“Do you have children?” Ms. Young repeated.

“You don’t have children!” she concluded.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre was, at the time, attempting to challenge the Heritage Minister on his opposition to an exhibit about sex at the local science museum. Apparently Ms. Young objected to Ms. Doré Lefebvre’s criticism. Apparently Ms. Young considered the question of whether or not Ms. Doré Lefebvre was currently raising children to be somehow relevant to this discussion.

Afterwards, Nathan Cullen rose and suggested that perhaps Ms. Young’s comments were inappropriate and an apology thus in order. Eventually, and shortly after first declining to do so, Ms. Young did apologize. The House then moved on to a discussion of when and how a member might properly use the adjectives “stupid” and “ignorant.”

This seemed about right. A fine end to a brutish couple of days—yesterday and today—that capped a few weeks of futility.  Continue…

Line?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM - 0 Comments

Three cabinet ministers appeared, under debatable circumstances, this morning before the finance subcommittee studying C-38. Afterwards, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield attempted to explain himself.

When asked when he first leaned that he would be appearing at the sub-committee, Mr. Ashfield replied: “I think it was the day before yesterday.” His aide interjected to say he was not sure. “I’m not sure,” the minister added.

C-38: What it means for health care

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats held their second hearing on C-38 this morning. Among those who made presentations was John Haggie, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

Below, the prepared text of his remarks.

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you today. Bill C-38 covers a lot of ground and we welcome the occasion to discuss it.

Right at the outset, let me remind you that the Canadian Medical Association has a long tradition of staunch non-partisanship. Our mandate is to be the national advocate for the highest standards in health and health care.

In a bill as wide-ranging as this one, there is a great deal I could talk about. In the time allotted, however, I am going to frame my brief remarks around three themes… namely: First, what is very clearly in the bill; Second, what is lacking in the bill, and Third, what I would characterize as a general lack of clarity and consultation on certain aspects of the federal government’s actions on health care.

Continue…

The tenor of our times

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM - 0 Comments

The Conservatives have lately taken to trying to make funny quips based on the New Democratic Party’s initials. This morning, Conservative backbencher LaVar Payne tweeted his contribution.

May 17, wondering if the NDP should consider changing their name to National Dumb Party with statements by their Leader & other NDP MP`s.

Backing the bus over John Baird

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM - 0 Comments

John Baird was thrown under the bus on Tuesday. Yesterday, the president of the National Roundtable reversed the bus back over the Foreign Affairs Minister.

McLaughlin says he has “no idea” where Baird got his figures. McLaughlin says the group did not produce 10 reports recommending a carbon tax. Instead, the roundtable provided advice on how the government can reach its own goals. ”We never said … ‘you’re not doing enough’ or ‘your targets aren’t right’,” he told CBC News in an interview. “What we tried to do is take the government’s targets and say here’s some advice on the best way to do it.”

In 2008 and again in 2010, McLaughlin’s group produced two reports outlining options for Canada to reach its 2050 target to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Both recommended a cap-and-trade system, something the Conservative government was considering at the time. ”We had said that cap and trade was a more efficient way to go, rather than a straight carbon tax right across the country,” said McLaughlin. “But the idea of putting a basic form of carbon tax on everybody was not something we recommended, but it is (carbon) pricing so people can get confused I guess.”

I asked Mr. Baird’s office on Monday for the basis of his claim that the roundtable produced “more than 10 reports” that recommended a carbon tax. His office offered links to six reports that “talk of a carbon tax”—here, here, here, here, here and here.

Thomas Mulcair and the Premiers

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The NDP leader is scolded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.

“Here’s someone who wants to be a national leader, who, for the sake of politics, I think, would risk the economic advantage of the country,” Wall said. ”I work for the people of Saskatchewan and if Mr. Mulcair is wondering for whom I am a messenger, I am a messenger for the people of Saskatchewan and for the economic interests of this province.”

And dismissed by B.C. Finance Minister Kevin Falcon.

“Of course not. The prime minister or the finance minister has never phoned me to suggest what we should be saying about ignorant comments that a national leader may say,” he said. “I’m just telling you exactly what I think about those comments. When I read them, at the time, I was shaking my head. I just could not believe it,” he added.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford expands on her concerns via Facebook.

His claims about unregulated development and disregard for the environment are false. I would also like to make it clear to Mr. Mulcair that as Premier of Alberta I expect that someone would have the courtesy to properly inform themselves rather than making disparaging comments about Alberta.

Previous coverage here, here and here.

Time to explain

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is urging the Harper government to explain what changes it wants to make to the EI system.

However, the CFIB is echoing opposition party demands for the Conservatives — particularly Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Human Resources Minister Diane Finley — to finally explain what sort of overhaul they have planned for the EI system. ”It’s time for Flaherty and Finley to put forward what they’re planning to do because there is a bit of mass hysteria over this that I think is completely overplayed at the moment,” CFIB senior vice-president Dan Kelly said Wednesday. ”The government is right to be flagging this, but it’s a little past time now for them to actually put on the record what they’re planning to do.”

In the past year, the Conservatives have cited the CFIB’s views to justify government policy on Old Age Security, Employment Insurance rates, credit cards, pooled pensions, trade, the temporary hiring tax credit, the Canadian Wheat Board, Canada Post and the 2011 federal budget.

The Commons: Help Wanted

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM - 0 Comments

Adrian Wyld/CP Images

The Scene. Peggy Nash was very nearly pleading. ”Will someone in the government,” she asked, “please outline right now what constitutes suitable employment?”

In Ms. Nash’s moment of need it was Ted Menzies, minister of state for finance, who stood. ”Mr. Speaker, I actually have some examples here of what constitutes suitable employment,” he reported.

At last, clarity seemed at hand. ”A mining company in Newfoundland is looking to hire 1,500 people in St. John’s, Newfoundland, through the temporary foreign worker program,” Mr. Menzies explained. “There are 32,500 people looking for work right now. That is why we are trying to make EI more effective to help these mining companies get people to employ.”

What precisely was the minister of state suggesting here? That if you are presently looking for work you might soon be expected to strap on a helmet lamp and make for St. John’s? And are there really only 32,500 people in this country presently looking for work?

There were chuckles of incredulity from the opposition side. Continue…

The Dutch disease debate

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 1:35 PM - 0 Comments

Two weeks after he made a diagnosis of Dutch disease, Thomas Mulcair is dismissing the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia and Alison Redford is tweeting her disappointment in Mr. Mulcair. As to the central economic question, the Institute for Research on Public Policy has a new report.

The results are more nuanced than conventional wisdom would suggest. Only 25 of the 80 industries (accounting for about one-quarter of total manufacturing output) show a significant negative relationship between the US-Canada exchange rate and output. The effects are most pronounced in small labour-intensive industries such as textiles and apparel. Larger industry groups such as food products, metals and machinery are much less adversely affected by the strong dollar, and these minor problems have generally been offset by strong growth in demand. Interestingly, automotive industries do not show symptoms of the Dutch disease; their weakness stems from cyclical changes in demand and lagging productivity growth.

On balance, the evidence indicates that Canada suffers from a mild case of the Dutch disease, which warrants a commensurate policy response. It is difficult to implement national policies to directly counteract the rising exchange rate (policies such as investing resource revenues in foreign assets, as Norway does), because resource revenues are under provincial jurisdiction. However, Ottawa can use additional federal tax revenues stemming from natural resource booms to invest in infrastructural and other activities that bolster the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector as a whole.

See previously: The Dutch, oil and Thomas Mulcair

Media speculation

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM - 0 Comments

Appearing before the finance committee yesterday, the Finance Minister attempted to clarify what he’d “heard” about the savings created by changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security.

Peggy Nash: The information for Canadians to be able to have this debate about these major changes is not available to people. You, yourself, yesterday said that you speculated the changes to OAS would mean a change of about $10 billion to $12 billion that seniors would not get. That’s what the savings would be.

Jim Flaherty: No, no, that’s not what I said. There was speculation—

Peggy Nash: You said that’s what the change would mean.

Jim Flaherty: There was speculation about those numbers by the media.

Peggy Nash: What are the numbers, then?

Jim Flaherty: In fact, there are no cuts to OAS in the budget, period.

Peggy Nash: What was the $10 billion to $12 billion?

Jim Flaherty: The media was speculating about later on, would there be any savings? As I told them, there are no cuts to OAS in the budget.

Peggy Nash: You said you had heard the $10 billion to $12 billion figure. What was that figure?

Jim Flaherty: I heard it from the media. That’s the figure they were using. They asked me about it.