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.

‘No decision has been made’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM - 0 Comments

If last night’s sketch did not sufficiently enlighten, the full transcript of last night’s inquiry into government’s defence policies—including the surrealist zen sentence that is this post’s title—is now online. Of all the exchanges contained therein, this was perhaps most entertaining.

Matthew Kellway: Madam Chair, that is two times the government made a decision to purchase the F-35 that we all know about. However, there is a third one, at least, that goes back to July 15, 2010. I know. I have seen pictures of the Minister of National Defence hopping in and out of the cockpit of the F-35 jet and announcing at a press conference on that very day that the government had made a decision to buy the F-35, 65 of them in fact. Could the government please confirm that actually happened?

Julian Fantino: Madam Chair, if I may again, I would like to remind the member that no decision has been taken. We are awaiting, as recommended by the Auditor General, the response to his concerns with regard to various issues. A secretariat has been put in place to develop independent response and validate those answers. No decision has been taken. I do not know how many more times I have to keep repeating that.

The Commons: A long night of known unknowns

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP Images

Less than 10 minutes into the evening, the NDP’s Jack Harris seemed to give up hope.

“I can see what kind of night this is going to be,” he sighed.

Mr. Harris stood here for the purposes of questioning the Minister of Defence and the Associate Minister of Defence, no less than four hours set aside for the purposes of scrutinizing the government’s policies and plans. The ministers in question—Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino—sat along the front row of the government side, each with a large binder of papers in front of them. With the two ministers sat Chris Alexander and Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretaries present and past, each with their own large binder of papers. And in front of the four Conservatives sat three officials, including the chief of defence staff, at a small table placed in the centre aisle, each official having arrived with a large binder of papers.

With so much paper present, the night had seemed so full of promise. Continue…

Sent to the whole

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM - 0 Comments

At the conclusion of regular business this evening, the House of Commons will set aside the mace and move into a committee of the whole to question Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino. Each May, the leader of the opposition is entitled to request that the estimates for two departments be referred to committee of the whole. The responsible ministers are then required to submit themselves to an interrogation lasting up to four hours.

The discussion needn’t be restricted to the spending plans of the given department. Here, for instance, is the 2010 session with Peter MacKay, which opened with questions about the handling of Afghan detainees.

The F-35 math gets fuzzier

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

The projected training budget may not be sufficient for the F-35.

About $1.3 billion was set aside for training, simulators and other infrastructure under the Harper government’s proposed $9-billion capital purchase of the radar-evading jets. But documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show air force planners have been concerned about the dollar projection.

That’s because it was calculated for the standard Defence Department estimate of 20 years’ of flying, rather than the lifetime of the aircraft, which is estimated at 36 years … The documents suggest taxpayers might have to shell out more training dollars after the 20-year window ends, and they indicate the investment plan comes up “approximately $2 billion short” of the requirement.

The auditor general projected that over the 36-year lifecycle, an additional 14 F-35s would be required to deal with normal attrition.

National Defence did inform the government of the need to consider the requirement for attrition aircraft at a later date. The cost of replacement aircraft is not included in the life-cycle estimate for this project and will be treated as a separate project in the future.

But in a comment to the Hill Times, Julian Fantino’s office sticks to the $9 billion budget for acquisition. Continue…

Who gets held to account

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne alleges Conservative MP Andrew Saxton is trying to ensure senior departmental officials don’t testify during committee hearings into the Auditor General’s F-35 findings.

“His motion is for one purpose and one purpose only, it’s to stop the witness list that I’ve proposed from being called and it’s to ensure that basically only the ministers will get called and they can run roughshod with the truth as they see fit,” Mr. Byrne told The Hill Times after Mr. MacKay explained the government’s position following a scathing report on the F-35 from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson…

Mr. Byrne said Mr. Saxton made it clear during an in-camera discussion of his motion after Mr. Ferguson appeared at the committee that the government will allow only the main Cabinet ministers involved—Mr. MacKay, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.,), Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino (Vaughan, Ont.) and Industry Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Éerable, Que.)—to show up and testify.

When Tony Clement and John Baird testified about the G8 Legacy Fund last November, they brought four officials with them.

Update 12:20pm. Responding to the Hill Times story, the Prime Minister’s Office dismisses Mr. Byrne’s version.

The chief spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) said the government does not want to restrict the committee witness list for hearings on the F-35 report and called Mr. Byrne’s allegation and The Hill Times’ story “100 per cent incorrect.”

“At no time was Saxton calling ministers. That is a complete fabrication from Byrne. Had you bothered to ask, you would have learned that the government plans on welcoming officials to testify at committee,” Andrew MacDougall, Mr. Harper’s communications director, said late last night in an email to The Hill Times. “At any rate, you needn’t have relied on Mr. Byrne to speak to the government’s plans. Mr. Saxton’s motion was public for all to see.”

About that “contract”

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

As noted yesterday, the idea of there being a “contract” to purchase the F-35 seems to have changed. (Here and here are other examples of Mr. Harper using the c-word. And here is Michael Ignatieff using it. And here is Bob Rae using it five months ago.)

When the Prime Minister was confronted about his terminology last month, he explained that he was referring to a “memorandum of understanding.” That MOU was signed in December 2006. The decision to acquire the F-35 was announced in July 2010. And here is a handy fact sheet explaining the MOU.

Canada is buying the F-35 is through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) versus signing a contract…

Signing the MoU in 2006 did not commit JSF partners to buy the F-35, instead it laid out the terms and conditions should a partner country decide to purchase the aircraft.

Peter MacKay did refer to an “MOU” on two occasions in 2010, here and here. Tony Clement managed to describe it as both a memorandum of understanding and a contract. But that a contract had not been signed seems to have become a point of emphasis five weeks ago, when Julian Fantino stood in the House and said so.

But that is not quite the end of it. Understandably, the memorandum of understanding is referenced numerous times in the Auditor General’s report. Here is how Postmedia’s Lee Berthiaume summarized the relevant findings earlier this week.

The report says that in convincing the Conservative government to sign onto the MOU, the military talked up the potential billions in contracts Canadian industry could secure if the country continued to participate in the project. However, “while ministers were told, correctly, that signing the 2006 MOU did not commit Canada to buy the F-35, we did not see evidence they were told that retaining industrial benefits depended on buying the F-35 as a partner in the [Joint Strike Fighter] program.”

… Defence Department officials also did not tell ministers that by signing the memorandum of understanding, the government would be hard-pressed to run a fair competition in the future to replace Canada’s ageing fleet of CF-18s.

And now, quite interestingly, here is John Ivison’s latest column. He turns to an October 2010 meeting of the defence committee and an exchange between Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for material at National Defence, and former Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert. Mr. Ross apparently argued that holding an open competition to replace the CF-18s would require withdrawing from the memorandum and that would result in penalties and loss of benefits. But Mr. Wilfert was not convinced. Continue…

The amazing, disappearing contract that never was

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM - 0 Comments

Stephen Harper, November 3, 2010.  We are going to need to replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and the party opposite knows that. But instead, for the sake of getting the anti-military vote on the left, with the NDP and the Bloc, the Liberals are playing this game. The mistake is theirs. It would be a mistake to rip up this contract for our men and women in uniform as well as the aerospace industry.

Peter MacKay, December 13, 2010. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion contract for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft.

Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “I do find it disappointing, I find it sad, that some in Parliament are backtracking on the F-35 and some are talking openly about cancelling the contract, should they get the chance,” Harper said at the Heroux-Devtek plant in Dorval.

Stephen Harper, today. The government has not signed a contract.

Stephen Harper, today. As I have said repeatedly, we will ensure that when we replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and we have not yet signed a contract in that regard.

Peter MacKay, today. Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, with no contract in place, no money misspent, and now funds frozen, we are injecting more accountability into this process.

Julian Fantino, today. We have not signed a contract to purchase a replacement aircraft.

Who is to blame? Who will take responsibility?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

NDP MP Matthew Kellway considers.

I don’t think responsibility in our political system should fall on the bureaucrats. The responsibility falls on the Minister. And so that’s where it rests. I think the Auditor General gave us a report that leads us right to the doorstep of the Associate Minister, two Ministers—one in Public Works and one of Defence —and the Prime Minister himself. And that’s where the responsibility lies.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau ponders.

The government of course is going to try to put all the blame on them and some of that blame does exist within DND. Certainly one can question whether the  Chief of Defence Staff should continue in his post because he is the top soldier. But let’s be very careful and not let the government suck us in and say, well, we were in the dark, it’s not really our fault. This is a pattern with this government. When they get themselves into trouble, they tend to attack the civil servants. They do not take their responsibilities … I used to be in DND. I spent my career in there and I did a lot of procurement. To suggest that the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Works were not in the loop on the biggest defence spending program ever is absolutely ludicrous. They knew what was going on. What happened is that Mr. MacKay bought in hook, line and sinker into what the generals wanted over there which was the F-35 and he said, yes, I’m going to go to bat for you and he did not take his responsibility as a minister for what is an expenditure of tens of millions of dollars.

Bob Rae suggested the Prime Minister might resign. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board points at Peter MacKay. The Toronto Star says heads should roll.

The Commons: Stephen Harper’s Royal Canadian Air Farce

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. “They knew it.”

What did they know? They knew the cost of purchasing the F-35 would be higher than they had let on. This much, Thomas Mulcair explained, had now been proven by the Auditor General.

“Why,” the leader of the opposition thus asked, “did the Conservatives deliberately gave false information to Parliament and Canadians?”

The Prime Minister stood here, shrugged and dismissed it all. “Mr. Speaker, I do not accept these conclusions of the opposition leader,” Mr. Harper said, without elaborating. The Auditor General had, Mr. Harper explained, made “certain findings” and “identified the need for greater supervision.” The government accepted this much.

Switching to English, Mr. Mulcair was sharp and stinging in response. Continue…

The rhetoric behind the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM - 0 Comments

Peter MacKay, September 15, 2010. “This is the right plane. This is the right number. This is the right aircraft for our Canadian forces and for Canada,” he said. ”If we don’t make this purchase there is a real danger we’ll be unable to defend our airspace, unable to exercise our sovereignty or unable to share our responsibility to both NORAD and NATO.”

Peter MacKay, December 13, 2010. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion contract for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft.

Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “I do find it disappointing, I find it sad, that some in Parliament are backtracking on the F-35 and some are talking openly about cancelling the contract, should they get the chance,” Harper said at the Heroux-Devtek plant in Dorval.

Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “I need your help making MPs from this region and elsewhere in Canada listen to reason,” Mr. Harper told workers at Héroux-Devtec, which is manufacturing door and wing parts for the F-35. “Honestly, I can’t understand how a Liberal MP from the Montreal region would want to cancel this contract. It’s unbelievable.”

Stephen Harper, January 14, 2011. “Contracts like this are not a political game,” Harper said, speaking from a blue podium with government Action Plan slogans perched in front of him and behind him. ”It is about lives and, as you well know, it is about jobs.”

Peter MacKay, February 25, 2011. ”Many figures have been circulated on the cost,” the minister said in a speech Friday before the Conference of Defence Associations. ”Let me repeat it. $9 billion. I have no idea where these other figures are coming from. They’re simply made up — or they’re guessing. If this procurement is cancelled … so another competition can be held, it will cost taxpayers $1 billion and will create an operational gap for the air force in the future.”

Stephen Harper, March 10, 2011. Mr. Harper told reporters on Thursday that he refused to “get into a lengthy debate in numbers.” “This is the option that was selected some time ago, because it is the only option available,” he said. “…This is the only fighter available that serves the purposes that our air force needs.”

Stephen Harper, April 8, 2011.  “You have to understand that in terms of the F-35 costs, we’ve been very detailed with those to the Canadian public,” Harper said after releasing the Conservative platform in Mississauga, Ont. ”A lot of the developmental costs you’re reading in the United States, the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We’re very confident of our cost estimates and we have built in some latitude, some contingency in any case. So we are very confident we are within those measures.”

Julian Fantino, November 9, 2011. “We will purchase the F-35,” Fantino asserted. “We’re on record. We’re part of the crusade. We’re not backing down.”

Julian Fantino, November 18, 2011. “There’s a plan A, there’s a plan B, there’s a plan C, there’s a plan Z and they’re all F-35s,” he said.

Julian Fantino, March 13, 2012. “But we have not as yet discounted the possibility, of course, [of] backing out of the program,” he told MPs. “None of the partners have … And we’ll just have to think it through further as time goes on. But we are confident that we will not leave Canada or our men and women in uniform in the lurch.”

Stephen Harper, March 14, 2012. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of public record. At the time, I was referring to a memorandum of understanding. It has not been a secret that the government has not signed a contract.

Stephen Harper, March 16, 2012. Obviously at some point, the [CF-18] planes will reach the end of their useful life. At some point we will have to make a final decision, but obviously we have not signed a contract so that we can retain our flexibility in terms of ensuring the best deal for taxpayers.

The Harper government responds

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM - 0 Comments

A release issued by the offices of Julian Fantino, Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose and Christian Paradis.

The Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry, today released the Government of Canada’s comprehensive response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

In Chapter 2, Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets, the Auditor General recommends that the Government refine its estimates for the full life-cycle costs of the F-35 and make those estimates public. The Government accepts the Auditor General’s recommendation and conclusions.

The Government of Canada is taking the following seven steps to fulfill and exceed the Auditor General’s recommendation: Continue…

The Commons: Speaking of redundancy

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Kirsty Duncan rose and reminded the Environment Minister of what he had said three days ago.

“Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of the Environment said of the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy: ‘It was created before the Internet when there were few such sources of domestic independent research and analysis on sustainable development.’ This is no longer the case. There are now any number of organizations and university-based services that provide those services.”

“Very well,” the Liberal MP said, pausing for a moment as if about to say something quite dramatic.

“Can the minister name these organizations and services?” she finally asked.

Peter Kent stood here, not to answer Ms. Duncan’s question, but instead to essentially repeat what Ms. Duncan had just said he said. Continue…

The Commons: The NDP starts the budget debate a bit early

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. On the second question of his second day, the new leader of the opposition seemed to find the right key of indignation.

“Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives are so confident that the F-35s meet the operational requirements, they should be willing to table the full list in the House today,” he ventured. “Even when they are rigging the process, they cannot get a plane that meets Canada’s needs. It is way over budget, and they do not even have any guarantee of proper industrial benefits for Canada, one of the leading aerospace countries in the world.”

The indictment thus read—and today Mr. Mulcair opted to use the House’s small, portable lecterns—the question was then tabled.

“When are the Conservatives going to show some basic competence with public money,” Mr. Mulcair wondered, “and have an open, transparent, public competition to replace the CF-18s?”

The New Democrat members felt strongly enough about this to stand and cheer. Standing in for the Prime Minister, Jason Kenney rose and offered a rambling, somewhat hesitant, series of sentences, a rhetorical smorgasbord of the government’s finest charges and assurances. Continue…

So what did I miss?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 16, 2012 at 8:33 AM - 0 Comments

This was an interesting exchange.

Bob Rae. Mr. Speaker, on the subject of electoral fraud, the Prime Minister, on April 8, 2011, in the middle of the election campaign, talked about the F-35 contract. He said, “the contract we’ve signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We’re very confident of our cost estimates”. His ministers are telling us now that there is no contract, that there is no assurance with respect to cost and, in fact, that signing a contract is a matter of if and when. Was the Prime Minister telling the truth when he spoke to the people of Canada on April 8, 2011, about a so-called contract, yes or no?

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of public record. At the time, I was referring to a memorandum of understanding. It has not been a secret that the government has not signed a contract. The fact is our country does not pay any increase on the development cost. That is the arrangement. It is also a fact that we have provisioned in our budget funds for future aircraft and we are prepared to live within that budget.

This has to do with the “realistic” and “forthright” musings of Julian Fantino.

Murray Brewster astutely noted two weeks ago that the government’s talking points changed. More now from Campbell Clark and Colin Horgan.

And now, turning back to December 13, 2010, a moment in Commons history. Continue…

Rae v. Fantino

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM - 0 Comments

The interim Liberal leader rose long after the customary leaders’ turns to join the interrogation of Julian Fantino, the associate minister of defence. Here’s how that went.

Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister, I think we need to explore this a little more deeply. The Prime Minister said that the government is going to live within its $9.5 billion budget. General Natyncyzk said they need at least 65 planes, and that is a minimum number. Now Lockheed has said that the price is going to be far higher than the original $75 million. These are three things that just do not go together. I am asking the minister very directly to tell us, face-to-face because he and I know each other well, what exactly is the government planning to do as we go forward? What is it going to do about this venture?

Julian Fantino: Mr. Speaker, friendship has nothing to do with the answer I will give my honourable friend. We are very much involved in the procurement of an asset that will ensure our men and women have the best opportunity of success. To the best ability, we will ensure that Canadian taxpayers are well served. At the same time, we will do what needs to be done, taking all these issues into account.

Continue…

Which part of the Bible covers jet fighter procurement?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM - 0 Comments

Julian Fantino, the associate minister of defence, responding this afternoon to questions from the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, that premise is absolutely false. The member opposite is referring to a failed NDP candidate who wrote this report, critical of everything that is holy and decent about this government’s efforts to provide our military men and women with the resources that…

The report referred to was authored by Michael Byers (a former NDP candidate) and Stewart Webb.

Touché

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM - 0 Comments

Under questioning again yesterday about the purchase of F-35 fighter jets, Julian Fantino offered the following in response to the NDP’s Christine Moore.

The one thing that should be stated in the House is for NDP members to state categorically that they do not support our military, that they do not support our men and women, that they do not support our airmen and women. That is really the theme here.

After QP, Ms. Moore rose on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, during question period, in response to my question, the Associate Minister of National Defence said that I do not care about the well-being of the Canadian armed forces. I would like to inform the minister that I served in the Canadian armed forces for three years and I can honestly say that I care a great deal. I would like to offer him the opportunity to withdraw his comments.

Ms. Moore apparently served as a physician assistant.

The Commons: That’s enough

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 6:32 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. It has been a long year. (Granted, no longer than any other year, but still, 365 days—or however many we’re at now—is an awful lot.) So you’ll forgive the Prime Minister if he didn’t seem all that interested this afternoon.

As Nycole Turmel hectored him about the latest problems to afflict the fabled F-35s, Mr. Harper fiddled with his mail, a particularly well-sealed envelope seeming to resist his attempts to open it. Apparently figuring he couldn’t get it open in the time allotted to Ms. Turmel to state her question, he put it aside long enough to get the gist of her complaint. He then stood and repeated his platitudes from memory.

“Mr. Speaker, I know very well that every time the government provides our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need, the NDP loudly opposes that and votes against it,” he sighed. “We are working on the best advice of the Canadian industry, including the Quebec industry, including our men and women in uniform in the air force, and we will continue to move forward and make sure that they have the best aircraft that are available when we have to replace the current fleet.”

So Support the Troops, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Continue…

‘Very routine’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

On Thursday, the NDP pressed Julian Fantino with specific questions about Peter MacKay’s helicopter ride. Mr. Fantino wandered off script just long enough to say that the Defence Minister’s ride was “a very routine endeavour.”

On Friday, the New Democrats sent Ryan Cleary after this point.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Associate Minister of National Defence described a flight on a search and rescue helicopter fromva fishing camp as “a very routine endeavour indeed.” “Routine” is taking a taxi to an airport. “Routine” is taking a taxi to work. I would like to ask the associate minister exactly what he means by “routine”. How frequently does the minister use a search and rescue helicopter to get back from vacation?

Standing in for Mr. Fantino, who was standing in for Mr. MacKay, Chris Alexander ignored this question as best he could.

Back to work

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 6:02 PM - 14 Comments

The Defence Minister is apparently considering legal action.

Mr. MacKay’s office says statements like that show the minister was telling the truth when he said he was taking advantage of an opportunity to participate in an exercise. “Minister MacKay has had his character and personal reputation attacked,” spokesman Jay Paxton said. “Minister MacKay is looking into legal options against those who have attacked his integrity.”

However much today’s claim bolsters Mr. MacKay’s case, the government side didn’t bother to reference it when the opposition pressed the matter this afternoon. Thrice, Julian Fantino, covering for the absent minister, stood and explained that “the minister was called back from personal vacation to go to work,” without any mention of search-and-rescue training.

John Geddes looked at what apparently inspired to Mr. MacKay to cut short his vacation yesterday and the NDP’s Matthew Kellway pursued various questions on that front today.

As for his decision to hop in the basket to get to London for a press conference on a new military contract, I have a few questions. When exactly was this contract signed, when was the minister told and when did he decide to travel to London?

In response, Mr. Fantino said only what the script, as noted above, allowed.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM - 1 Comment

We tried to save the House of Commons.

Brian Topp pitched higher taxes (and considered equality). Nathan Cullen pitched democratic reform. Martin Singh pitched a national pharmacare plan. Paul Dewar prioritized. Robert Chisholm talked leadership.

Elections Canada tried to figure out kids these days. The Department of National Defence tried to keep the cost of its new headquarters quiet. The NDP bought billboard space. The omnibus crime bill went unaccounted for. The House voted to keep curtailing debate. The Harperization of Canada was confirmed. The Conservatives peddled rumours and defended their right to do so. Tony Clement explained his verbal typo. And the Speaker ruled John Williamson and Geoff Regan out of order. Continue…

On pointlessness

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM - 10 Comments

Julian Fantino, the associate minister of defence, responding to a question this morning about Peter MacKay’s helicopter ride.

There is no point in repeating the same response which is that he used the aircraft while on vacation to fulfill requirements to do with his job.

The Commons: Darkness in the mid-afternoon

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM - 31 Comments

The Scene. The obscenity on the Hill carries on undaunted.

Maybe it is just the season—as soon as the clocks are turned back each fall, Ottawa is suddenly made even darker and colder than usual—but the daily insulting of the public’s intelligence seems particularly dreary of late. For sure, it has been worse. And it may yet get worse. But has it ever seemed so witless? Has it ever felt so leaden? Is it just us or is it getting dim in here?

There is much to be said—with expletives and otherwise—about the government’s recent penchant for shutting down debate. But it is surely more than that.

It is, no doubt, certain practicalities: the temporary status of the two opposition leaders, the prolonged nature of certain disagreements or the lack of some tangible new gazebo-based outrage to focus on, for instance. But it is also the collective and universal decision that sound economics, study and evidence are not particularly necessary when formulating public policy. It is the rote demagoguery. It is general neglect. It is smug disregard. It is the willingness of grown men and women in business attire to stand and allow themselves to be used to read scripted banalities and invective into the official record.

It is not all bad, of course. Continue…