On the campaign trail with Bev Oda

By Mitchel Raphael - Friday, April 15, 2011 at 11:41 PM - 14 Comments

Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda checked out the Tartan Day parade in Port Perry, Ontario. Before she started the parade she went to the The Wee Tartan Shop.

Continue…

Newsmakers

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 28, 2011 at 5:17 PM - 0 Comments

Eric Miller/Reuters

Old hat, new hat trick

It was a typical week at the office for Montreal Canadiens defenceman P.K. Subban. Last Thursday, he was hacked by an established NHL star, Vincent Lecavalier. On Friday he scored a goal against the New York Rangers and was challenged to a fight. On Saturday, he was disparaged on national TV by Don Cherry, and on Sunday he scored the first hat trick by a rookie defenceman in the 101-year history of les glorieux. The ebullient Subban is driving his opponents to distraction—not to mention a few prigs in the hockey media. But with each passing game, it’s becoming clearer that P.K.’s detractors will have to adjust to him rather than vice versa. As former Habs GM Bob Gainey put it: “Some of those people should just shut up and play against him.”

Hugo still boss

An autocrat’s work is never done. In between signing trade agreements with China, including a deal involving Venezuela’s state-run oil company, and an extended $4-billion line of credit for its capital of Caracas, Latin American strongman Hugo Chávez found time last week to accuse America of planning to sabotage his re-election bid in 2012, censure the West for its air strikes on Libya—and attack the boom in breast implants in his own country. He pointed the finger at doctors, who “convince some women that if they don’t have some big bosoms, they should feel bad.”

Continue…

Near miss

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM - 11 Comments

Not only does this reckless, unnecessary, opportunistic election imperil everything you hold dear, it also deprived Bev Oda her place in the history books.

A parliamentary committee reviewing whether she had misled the House of Commons over a decision to reject an international funding request was unable to adopt its report before Friday’s non-confidence motion vote brought down the government. ”Bev Oda missed becoming a footnote in history by about a millimetre,” said Liberal MP John McKay.

Mr. Speaker

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 1:51 PM - 64 Comments

When the government falls tomorrow afternoon and Parliament is subsequently dissolved, Peter Milliken‘s time as Speaker of the House of Commons will come to an end, Mr. Milliken having already decided that he will not seek reelection as the MP for Kingston and the Islands. First elected to the post in January 2001, he will retire as the longest-serving Speaker in the history of the House.

His tenure will be remembered as historic on a number of fronts, but his ruling last year on Afghan detainee documents and his rulings this year on statements made by International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda and the government’s refusal to turn over documents requested by the House will likely be of significant and lasting consequence. Amid much gnashing of teeth over the state of our parliamentary democracy, Mr. Milliken reasserted the power and preeminence of the House of Commons. As a legacy, a Speaker could not ask for much greater.

Choose carefully now, you hear?

By Scott Feschuk - Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 9:10 AM - 32 Comments

Reuters; Getty; Rex Features; CP; Photo Illustration by Taylor Shute

As I write these wurds an electon seems iminent, which is why I’m crrying and cant seee to spel corecktlee. Five weeks of empty promises, apocalyptic rhetoric and Stephen Harper using every photo op to sing the chorus to All You Need is Love: where’s a nice absolute monarchy when you need one?

At this critical juncture, let’s take a closer look at where the parties stand.

Conservatives. They’re ahead. And they’re increasingly emboldened by the fact that none of their mistakes, gaffes, fibs, lies, ethical lapses or John Bairds seem to be cutting into their popularity. There’s speculation the Conservatives feel so bulletproof they may actually let Bev Oda talk.

Meanwhile, election preparations continue. New attack ads are being shot. The war room is being staffed. And Cheryl Gallant’s mouth is being escorted to an undisclosed location.

New Democrats. Jack Layton recently underwent surgery, but unless it was to implant some bionic charisma—or a cool robot arm so he can flash a politically unprecedented Tri-Thumbs Up—he and his party seem destined to remain stalled.

Despite token efforts to get with the times, the NDP hasn’t moved beyond believing that government should be doing something to help everyone do anything. And so most people continue to figure that if New Democrats ever got their hands on power, the federal treasury would overnight come to resemble the Vegas hotel room in The Hangover.

In perpetual opposition, the only hard choice that New Democrat MPs ever need to make is whether to wear the suit that’s 12 years out of date or the one that’s 12 years out of date and brown.

Greens. I’ll be the one to ask it: what is the point of the Greens? I mean, they’re adorable and everything, but so are pandas—and pandas don’t give us a hard time about the light bulbs we choose.

Do the Greens exert influence on government? No. Do they take votes away from more popular parties on the left? Yes. Can anyone name a single Green candidate other than Elizabeth May? Other than Preachy McCompost, no.

Don’t get me wrong: the Greens are a lovely group of well-meaning people who forgot to brush their hair this morning. But their existence serves to undermine the political viability of the principles they believe in. They’d be better off as a movement, not a party. They could throw their financial support and volunteer efforts behind environment-minded candidates with a real shot at toppling Conservatives. As it stands, the Greens are planning a 2011 campaign that has zero impact—on both the environment and the election.

Liberals. This magazine put Michael Ignatieff on the cover last week and essentially depicted him as brain dead, testing as never before the theory that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. In defence of Maclean’s, the editors did NOT draw a pointy devil’s beard on his face or write “has cooties” alongside a big arrow pointing to his head. You’re welcome, Iggy.

Ignatieff could hardly have been surprised by the cover. Pretty much nothing’s gone right for him. He seems unable to shake the impression that he’s the Dean Wormer of Canadian politics, a stuffy tight-arse who is doomed to be served his comeuppance.

Using attack ads, the Conservatives have thoroughly diminished Ignatieff. But they still have money coming in, so it’s only a matter of time until they further erode the Liberal brand by badmouthing former party leaders: “Wilfrid Laurier claimed the 20th century would belong to Canada. But we finished third at best. LAURIER: A BIG FAT LIAR.”

Liberals have been held hostage by their unpopularity for so long now that they’ve come to accept it, even embrace it. They have upbeat answers for every dispiriting truth—strange, upbeat answers—Hey, look, we appear doomed to lose big in an election. So let’s have an election!

It’s odd: the less support the Liberals have, the more potential they believe they possess. It follows that only when they sink into the teens will they believe the conditions are right for a return to Liberal majority.

Still, you can’t blame them for wanting to take their shot now. Better the ass-kicking you fear than the daily wedgies you’ve come to know.

In the House's hands

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 1:11 PM - 15 Comments

Shortly after Question Period today, a report will be tabled from procedure and House affairs committee recommending that the government be found in contempt of Parliament for failing to turn over budgetary and financial information related to various pieces of crime legislation and the proposed purchase of 65 F-35 jets.

A separate finding of contempt against International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is still to be decided, but it appears Ms. Oda may have the sympathy of Pat Martin working in her favour.

Is Parliament about to make a comeback?

By Andrew Coyne - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 82 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

On second thought . . .

Perhaps there’s a more hopeful way to look at what’s happening in Canadian politics, or at least in Parliament. Maybe all of the indignities Parliament has suffered of late—ministers lying to committees, governments refusing to produce essential documents, all the way back to prorogation and the coalition crisis, or indeed to Paul Martin’s abuse of the confidence convention in 2005—maybe these are, in a way, the good news.

Maybe, that is, we are seeing the first stirrings of a parliamentary rebirth. Maybe things have come to such a pass, maybe Parliament’s weakness has become so obvious, that Parliament now has no alternative but to stand and fight. Indeed, almost in spite of itself, that is what the opposition majority in Parliament has begun to do.

Last year’s historic ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons in the matter of the Afghan prisoner documents was a watershed moment. Though constitutional scholars were vastly in agreement that Parliament’s powers to send for “persons and papers” was unconditional and unlimited, the issue was hardly uncontested—see the Justice Department lawyer’s letter claiming national security as an exception—nor had it been subjected to such a clear test in recent times. The Speaker’s ruling, unequivocal and unanswerable, will be studied not only in Canada, but in parliamentary systems around the world.

Indeed, it has already served as precedent, invoked by the Speaker himself in last week’s ruling indicting the government yet again for withholding documents it should properly be providing to Parliament, this time with regard to the costs of its crime bills. Though ultimately it is up to Parliament itself to decide whether its privileges have been breached, the Speaker found there were sufficient grounds to send the matter to the Commons procedure and House affairs committee, which will decide whether to put it to a vote of the full House next week—as it will with regard to whether Bev Oda misled, intentionally or otherwise, a parliamentary committee.

Continue…

The week ahead

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 16 Comments

The 40th Parliament began with a moment of unprecedented democratic intrigue and may soon end similarly. The House returns this morning at 11 and there are various pieces in play, or potentially in play: a budget, a contempt finding against the Harper government, a contempt finding against International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda, a budget amendment, a motion of non-confidence and a vote on the government’s financial estimates.

Oh, and there’s a military campaign against Libya to be discussed.

Greg Weston has a comprehensive accounting of what may happen when.

The Commons: Confusion clarified and epitomized

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 18, 2011 at 6:14 PM - 62 Comments

By her own reckoning, Bev Oda was here to address “the confusion.” ”At the outset,” she said, “let me state that I take full responsibility for the confusion my initial answers created—and I apologize for that.”

Of course, this was not quite the “outset.” Depending on when one starts the clock on this matter, Ms. Oda’s present predicament could be said to date back months, perhaps more than a year. Indeed, were this really the “outset,” she would not have had to show up here this morning to read from a prepared statement that, when distributed to the reporters present, included 12 footnotes and three appendices.

“I’m here today,” she continued, “to explain to this committee, and to the public, why, initially, I did not understand how my answers were creating confusion.”

Here was a tribute to the qualified statement—a four-page monologue that could plausibly qualify as an experiment in post-modern poetry or at least a brilliant satire. ”There was no intention to mislead the committee members,” she said of  her appearance before the foreign affairs committee in December. “I now realize that from someone else’s perspective it was confusing … People listening to my answers might have thought that I signed the document and then after that someone added the word “not.” That didn’t occur to me because I knew that wasn’t what happened. At the time I did not see the confusion that my answer would cause, and I apologize for creating confusion.”

By way of conclusion, she offered a sentence so beautifully crafted that it should be immediately hammered onto a plaque and hung above the entrance to the House of Commons. Continue…

How a minister of the crown conveys her wishes

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM - 43 Comments

More on Bev Oda’s appearance at committee this morning in a bit, but the government side has apparently now turned over two documents to demonstrate that ungrammatical editing was not entirely uncommon within her department.

The constantly evolving nature of democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 14, 2011 at 9:04 AM - 22 Comments

Stephen Harper, explaining Bev Oda’s situation. “Mr. Speaker, once again, the reality is that the minister took a decision that was contrary to the recommendations of her officials. In a democracy, the elected ministers are the ones who make decisions. That is what democracy means.”

Tom Lukiwski, explaining how the government failed to supply various documents requested by Parliament. “The information we had originally submitted to Parliament was on the advice of many of those within the public service who told us that this information should be able to satisfy the request … I suspect this is a situation where the public servants who were responsible for gathering the information were the ones who advised the ministers that the information that they’d provided was adequate and satisfactory.”

Twenty questions

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, March 13, 2011 at 11:02 AM - 50 Comments

Tabatha Southey listens to Tom Lukiwski.

This week in the House, Tom Lukiwski, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, offered up a 20-Questions-rules defence of International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Ms. Oda’s failure to answer questions properly regarding the now-infamous “NOT” led House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken to rule that she may have misled the House.

“Specifically,” as Mr. Lukiwski explained it, the questions that should have been asked were, “Madam Minister, if you did not insert the word ‘not’ and you do not know who did, how did it happen? How did it occur?” If only the right question had been asked, you see, Ms. Oda would have been obliged to say “very clearly,” as no doubt she was dying to do …  “That would have answered everything right there, a pretty simple follow-up question,” Mr. Lukiwski chided. What? Is he going to have to explain the rules to I Spy next?

The Commons: John Baird will not be distracted by your democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM - 142 Comments

The Scene. The rules of this place require him to address the other side indirectly, but Michael Ignatieff did not bother to look at Peter Milliken as he spoke.

“Mr. Speaker, your rulings yesterday should not have been necessary,” the Liberal leader said, staring down the government side. “A decent government would have complied with the rules of democracy without being forced to, but this is not a decent government.”

There were groans from the Conservatives in attendance.

“This is not the first time, not the second time, but the third time the government has been forced to respect the rulings and order of the House. Now the game is up,” Mr. Ignatieff continued. “If the government actually respects the rulings of the Speaker, will it deliver the documents to the House and will it fire that minister?”

Had the Prime Minister not been away, he could have shrugged for the official record. In Mr. Harper’s place stood Mr. Baird and by Mr. Baird’s estimation this was all one big misunderstanding. “We had considered the information that we had provided to the House,” he explained. “We believe that it responded in substance to the request that had been made by the House.” All the same, he promised to make “every effort” to now comply.

Mr. Ignatieff was not satisfied. “Mr. Speaker, every effort is not good enough,” he declared. “The House order is clear. This is a question of compliance, it is not a matter of discretion.”

After the Liberal had restated his query en francais, Mr. Baird stood. And here he took a stand. Continue…

'Kangaroo court'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM - 41 Comments

During debate yesterday following the Speaker’s ruling, Conservative Tom Lukiwski, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, expressed his reverence for our parliamentary system.

On his first point, does the member believe that bringing the question before this House would have a fair and judicial response? Of course not. This would be nothing more than a kangaroo court.

The rulings

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM - 165 Comments

Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on the government’s refusal to produce documents:

Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on Bev Oda’s statements to Parliament:

In both cases, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege. In response to the former, Liberal Scott Brison moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 21. In response to the latter, Liberal John McKay moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 25.

The Commons: Stephen Harper, ever undaunted

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 6:34 PM - 222 Comments

The Scene. Mr. Harper’s government, as the government of Canada is now to be known, stands accused of various breaches. Of violating electoral law when it won office. Of withholding information demanded of it by Parliament. Of employing a minister who has misled Parliament. Of employing a minister who has misused government resources for his party’s gain. Of paying an exorbitant amount of money to disappear a woman who once held the title of “integrity commissioner.” And yes, of renaming the federal government in the Prime Minister’s own surname.

And so, of course, the government side this afternoon was as gleeful and aggressive as it has ever been. It roared and cheered and mocked and jeered. It laughed and lashed at its critics, it delighted in itself. It was loud and proud.

Mr. Harper sat and smiled and shared the odd chuckle. He reclined as best he could in his chair and fiddled with the cord of his desk’s earpiece. When he stood to answer the Liberal leader’s charges, he shrugged and sighed. If he was the least bit concerned, a tiny bit chastened, it was impossible to tell.

But, of course, he hardly ever appears daunted by such stuff. Indeed, if there is one thing that defines this Prime Minister it is his unrelenting undauntedness, his undaunting relentlessness. He is a man of the post-shame world. Continue…

The Commons: Leaping over a low bar

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 7, 2011 at 6:12 PM - 121 Comments

The Scene. Aside from the obvious, what is the difference between Jason Kenney and Bev Oda?

Two weeks ago, the latter became the subject of various questions related to the ethical standards by which she takes her ministerial responsibilities. And so she sat. And sat. And sat. And sat. And sat some more. And when she did finally stand, she didn’t have much of anything to say.

Last week, the former became the subject of various questions related to the ethical standards by which he takes his ministerial responsibilities. And so, today, he stood and stood and stood and stood some more. Indeed, of the eight questions posed on the matter this afternoon, Mr. Kenney answered (or at least responded to) each and every one.

Perhaps the government took an operational decision to spare Mr. Kenney the sort of mockery that Ms. Oda had endured. Perhaps they have recently revived their commitment to ministerial accountability. Perhaps from now on there’ll be no more hiding of ministers in plain sight.

All of which would certainly go to what the Conservative side is fond of claiming: that it is a government of standards. That it, no matter how loudly the likes of Ralph Goodale protest, regards its responsibilities quite seriously. Continue…

Why Svend Robinson speaks so well of Harper

By Mitchel Raphael - Monday, March 7, 2011 at 3:30 PM - 2 Comments

Photographs by Mitchel Raphael

Does Bev Oda know?

These have been rough times for International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Just before the scandal surrounding the addition of the word “not” into her department’s funding recommendations blew up, she had eye surgery, resulting in her having to wear sunglasses most of the time in the House. It’s also meant the notes she refers to have to be supersized, a feature not lost on some Liberals who sit in the gallery above Oda and who told Capital Diary they can read what the notes say.

Photograph by Mitchel Raphael

Svend Robinson rumours

With the announcement that NDP MP Bill Siksay would not be running in the next election, there were whispers on the Hill that Svend Robinson, the man who held the seat before him, might make a comeback. Siksay was Robinson’s aide for many years and ran after Robinson bowed out of politics. Robinson did try a comeback in the 2006 election, going up against Hedy Fry, but lost to the Teflon Liberal who has had big name after big name try to defeat her. Robinson was recently on the Hill meeting with MPs who are on the HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis (HAT) parliamentary caucus founded by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. Robinson told Capital Diary there is no chance he will run. He likes his job with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which involves working with elected officials all over the world to secure funding. Robinson notes that the Harper government increased funding to the Global Fund last year by 20 per cent and he is happy to give credit where it is due: “The buck stops at [the PM's] desk. Good for Stephen.”

Continue…

The Commons: This unserious business

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM - 38 Comments

The Scene. To his credit, Pierre Poilievre, the fresh-faced and ambitious young parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, does not take himself too seriously.

“We are building the country,” he sighed in response to a Liberal question this afternoon about the in-and-out affair, “rather than tearing people down.”

Now so long as you have paid even a little attention—or watched even a little television—these last five years, you will understand this to be a hilarious statement. Indeed, so long as you do not believe Mr. Poilievre to be completely delusional, you must regard this statement as an attempt by Mr. Poilievre to make a joke—a knowing wink, a cheeky taunt.

Mind you, the punchline here is not merely that the government side hardly lives up to the genteel principles of respect and manners invoked by Mr. Poilievre. Rather, the joke here is that it’s all a joke. Continue…

The Commons: Law and points of order

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 7:07 PM - 99 Comments

The Scene. Bev Oda stood this to day to audibly commit various words to the official record. Really, it was the least she could do.

In keeping with the government side’s “operational decision,” John Baird stood to take the first two questions asked of the International Cooperation Minister this afternoon, but then the Liberals asked generally about the functioning of Canada’s development agency. Here Ms. Oda motioned to Mr. Baird that she could take this one and so she stood and mouthed various platitudes.

Then though, Liberal Anita Neville stood with her supplementary, wondering if, while she had the minister’s attention, she might ask some questions specific to the handling of KAIROS. And so she did. And so Ms. Oda apparently felt compelled to stand again. What followed from her had absolutely and precisely nothing to do with the particular issue at hand. But she spoke words. And she did so while standing. And that was apparently more than enough for members of the government side to leap up and applaud her when she’d finished.

Less enthusiastic was the response to another day of questions about how the Conservatives funded their campaign for high office in 2006. Continue…

An operational matter

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 12:39 PM - 44 Comments

In an exchange with reporters yesterday after QP, John Baird explained why he was responding to questions on Bev Oda’s behalf.

Reporter: But is she unhealthy or something now? Is there some reason that she can’t respond to direct questions on her portfolio?

Baird: No, as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I have been responding to that issue.

Reporter: Why is that? Isn’t that her purview?

Baird: That’s an operational decision we’ve made.

The Commons: To stand and say something

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 6:47 PM - 57 Comments

The Scene. The public undermining of the Honourable Beverley J. Oda’s professional standing continues at a methodical pace.

The opposition side is now engaged in unabashed mockery for the still-seated minister. “How can she remain in her position as minister when, by her silence, she refuses to be accountable to Parliament?” asked Liberal Hedy Fry after quoting from the Prime Minister’s own guidelines on ministerial accountability.

John Baird stood to take this one and so Ms. Fry upped the rhetorical ante. “The Minister of International Cooperation sits behind the Prime Minister, dutifully, day after day and is not allowed to answer,” she observed. “Is it this Prime Minister’s position that women in his cabinet should only be seen and not heard?”

This was enough to receive an admonishment from Mr. Baird, but not enough to get Ms. Oda on her feet. The Liberals pursued her twice more, but Mr. Baird stood for those as well. The Liberals jeered and yelled. They chanted “Let her speak” and thumped their desks. Ms. Oda sat quietly. Mr. Baird turned at one point to acknowledge her presence directly as he commended her “great leadership.” This earned her an ovation from the Conservative side and a pat on the back from Sylvie Boucher seated behind her.

On some antiquated principle of parliamentary democracy and representative government, the Liberals are probably correct to wonder why the minister does not stand in her place to respond to opposition queries and condemnations during the time allotted each day for the House to hear such things. But implicit in that is the assumption that her standing will serve some purpose beyond confirming her ability to perform the physical act itself. Continue…

The case for and against Bev Oda

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM - 21 Comments

The Speaker heard final arguments yesterday on the matter of Bev Oda and the inartfully edited paperwork. He has promised to return to the House with a decision in due course.

The original question of privilege was raised by John McKay in December. The Speaker ruled on that question in early February.

A few days later, Ms. Oda rose in the House to “clear up any misunderstandings that exist”—misunderstandings that might have resulted from what had previously been said and written.

In response to Ms. Oda’s statement, the foreign affairs committee—with a notable Conservative dissent—filed a report with the House. A new question of privilege was then raised with the Speaker. The next day, the government delivered its official response. Which brings us to yesterday’s interventions. Which brings us to the moment at which Peter Milliken must rule.

In addition to all that one can glean from the links above, there is the original Embassy story on the document in question.

The Commons: 'A five-year-old accounting dispute'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM - 141 Comments

The Scene. Imagine, if you will, that it was 2003 and several Liberal party officials, two of them sitting senators, were accused of violating the election laws of this country. Imagine that a department of government created by the prime minister had decided to pursue charges in this regard. And imagine that, in responses to questions about this matter in the House of Commons, the prime minister sent up his parliamentary secretary with something like the following.

“Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a five-year-old accounting dispute.”

Imagine how incensed Stephen Harper, seated across the way in the opposition leader’s chair, would have been to hear such a response, how angrily he would have condemned this as galling and outrageous and unacceptable. Indeed, imagine how he might have waxed philosophic about democracy and the moral authority to govern.

Good thing then that Mr. Harper was absent this day, away from the House of Commons as his parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, stood to say this much on the Conservative party’s behalf. Continue…