The Commons: Accepting responsibilities without taking responsibility

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. ”Who was responsible for the F-35?” Thomas Mulcair asked at the outset.

This was both straightforward and profound. A direct question, but a philosophical riddle. If a massive abuse of procedure and accountability falls in the forest, but no one is named, blamed and shamed as the culprit, did it ever really happen? One is reminded of the moment last November when Tony Clement could not say precisely who had broken the rules in the G8 Legacy Fund affair.

“Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is very clear regarding the responsibilities in this respect,” the Prime Minister offered by way of response.

Mr. Mulcair seemed to feel a lesson was in order. Our parliamentary system, he said, is based on the principle of ministerial responsibility. The minister is responsible for his ministry. The Prime Minister is responsible for picking his ministers.  ”Does the Prime Minister think,” Mr. Mulcair wondered, “that the Defence Minister has done his job?”

“Yes,” Mr. Harper offered. “The government and ministers accept their responsibilities.” 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…

Why the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Paul Koring tries to figure out why we might need to buy the F-35. Interoperability with our allies? Using different planes didn’t keep NATO from bombing Libya. To intercept or shoot down a terrorist threat? Any fighter plane will do. To protect our Arctic sovereignty? Drones could do that. So when might we need a stealth fighter? If we plan on bombing Iran or going to war with China.

While Lockheed Martin’s F-35 – a so-called fifth-generation strike fighter – is far and away the best available choice for flying bombing runs against a first-rate adversary (think China) in heavily defended airspace full of missiles and modern warplanes, it would be overkill against “softer” targets like Libya.

In other news, the first few F-35s could cost $104 million each.

The statement of operational requirements

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 8:37 AM - 0 Comments

The CBC gets a look at the F-35′s statement of operational requirements.

One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane’s sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment. ”According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they’re actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can’t do it,” Solomon reported…

The document, referred to as “Version 1.0″ of the statement of operational requirements for the “next generation fighter capability” was issued on June 1, 2010. It would normally take one to two years after a statement of operational requirements is issued to hold a competition to find a product and sign a contract with a supplier. But MacKay appeared on Power & Politics less than two months later, on July 16, 2010, to announce that the government was moving forward with the F-35 purchase.

Less than a week ago, Peter MacKay reported to Parliament that the conclusion of studies carried out between 2005 and 2010 was that the F-35 “met all of the mandatory requirements specified in the Canadian Forces’ statement of operational requirements.” He added that “the statement of operational requirements contains sensitive information and, like all such documents, cannot be disclosed publicly without redactions.”

In a report for L’Actualite and Maclean’s earlier this year, Alex Castonguay detailed the curious circumstances of the SOR. 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…

‘We don’t have any information about what happened in Guelph’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 5, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Whatever Peter MacKay said, Dean Del Mastro says the government doesn’t know what happened in Guelph.

Del Mastro again denied accusations from opposition parties that his party engaged in a voter suppression campaign, but told host Evan Solomon it appears that “what went wrong in Guelph was in fact untoward, it was intentional.”

“The allegations of what happened there [in Guelph] are serious. There seems to be an awful lot of evidence that people received these misleading calls,” said Del Mastro.

“We don’t know what happened in Guelph. We don’t have any information about what happened in Guelph. But what we can say is that the allegations that have come forward and the evidence that we’ve seen which is all public — we have no more information than anyone else on this — is troubling.”

The Commons: Let us debate that which is unsubstantiated

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. After tracing the necessarily circuitous route to her question, Nycole Turmel was as straightforward as she can be.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday on CBC, the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary said the Conservative party was investigating the allegations of election fraud. An hour later, on Sun TV, he said the Conservatives were not conducting an investigation,” the interim leader of the opposition recounted. “Could the Prime Minister tell us which it is? Are the Conservatives investigating, yes or no?”

Could the Prime Minister? Theoretically speaking, yes. Would he? Practically speaking, no.

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has made available, from the beginning, all information to Elections Canada,” Mr. Harper said. “The Conservative party can say absolutely, definitively, it has no role in any of this.”

On what basis can the government say this? It is difficult to say.

Continue…

Add Nipissing-Timiskaming to the list

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM - 0 Comments

Former Liberal MP Anthony Rota tells the CBC that people in his riding received calls, purported to be from Elections Canada, that direct them to incorrect polling stations.

In a separate interview, the CBC asks Defence Minister Peter MacKay about the robocalls and Mr. MacKay says “I think they’ve identified the individual that was involved in this” and “that individual is no longer in the employment of the party.” But it’s unclear to whom—Michael Sona? Someone else?—he is referring because neither the Harper government nor the party have identified any such person.

Going for a walk

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM - 0 Comments

Two weeks ago, Peter MacKay mocked Jack Harris’ attempts to explain to reporters the NDP’s position on a complicated matter. Today, perhaps having learned from Mr. Harris’ mistake, the Defence Minister opted to walk away from reporters seeking to ask him about his use of military personnel to defend himself.

On Friday morning, MacKay delivered a 20-minute speech to military officials and industry representatives at Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier before speed walking through the hotel, refusing to respond to the trail of reporters following behind.

The country’s top soldier, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, who was also attending the conference, said he was unaware of the specifics of the emails. He would not comment on whether military personnel had been inappropriately used for political purposes or whether an investigation would be launched.

The Department of Peter MacKay Defence

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 24, 2012 at 8:23 AM - 0 Comments

Before it stopped explaining Peter MacKay’s helicopter ride as a search-and-rescue demonstration, the government side thought it somehow relevant to point out that opposition members had taken in part in search-and-rescue demonstrations. Apparently that response required the assistance of the air force.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star. The search fixated on Liberal MP Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor), whose riding includes the 9 Wing Gander air force base and who was critical of MacKay in the initial CTV report.

By noon that day, the air force officials had found what appeared to be information that might take the edge of Simms’ criticisms. “Found it. Jan. 17, 2011, he (Simms) flew with the Standby crew for almost the whole day,” wrote Maj. Byron Johnson in an email to Royal Canadian Air Force headquarters in Ottawa. “Fax is on the way.”

The Commons: Why is Stephen Harper smiling?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Not typically one to acknowledge a question from anyone without the rank of party leader, Stephen Harper stood only too happily to answer Francoise Boivin’s provocation.

“I would simply put it this way, I thought yesterday was a great day for law-abiding Canadians,” he said of last night’s vote to eliminate the long-gun registry. “If the NDP really believes and the Liberal Party really believes in the long gun registry, then I challenge them to come here in the House every day from now until the next election and tell Canadians they will bring it back. We would be happy to take them on.”

The Conservatives present found this delightful, leaping up to express their triumphant joy. “Hear, hear!” sang a beaming John Baird. “Whoops!” mocked a voice on the government side. “Ouch!” yelped Mr. Baird. “Ouch!”

The Prime Minister seemed positively giddy for most of his hour in the House this afternoon. He smiled to the point of beaming. He chatted up his seatmates and chuckled at the displays of various opposition members. He seemed to be having something like actual fun.

But why exactly is this man smiling? Continue…

Zing?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 4:36 PM - 0 Comments

Defence Minister Peter MacKay responds to the suggestion, from the NDP’s Christine Moore, that he desired to use the F-35 fighter jets as his personal taxi service.

Mr. Speaker, to show just how informed the member is about the aircraft, there is only one seat in an F-35, so I could not take it as a taxi if I wanted to.

The Commons: The wild west

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 6:14 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Joe Comartin stood up, stepped forward and ventured a novel theory.

“Mr. Speaker,” the NDP House leader posited, “you cannot be half for torture. You are either for or against.”

Given those choices, the Defence Minister decided to go with latter. ”Mr. Speaker, our government has always respected the law and our position is clear,” Peter MacKay reported. “Canada does not approve of the use of torture and does not engage in this practice.”

Alas, this simple equation seems only to make perfect sense if you leave it at that. Continue…

The Commons: Starring Vic Toews as Kurt Russell

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. After offering a general appeal for clarity from the government—”What is happening on your side?” she begged—Nycole Turmel narrowed her complaint to a specific article of speech. In this case, a conjunction.

“Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety said ‘information obtained by torture is always discounted. However…’ What does he mean by ‘however?’ she asked. “There is no ‘however.’ There is no ‘but.’ Torture is either condoned or it is not. Which is it? No ‘however.’ No ‘if.’ No ‘but.’ ”

Rising as today’s stand-in prime minister, Peter MacKay offered a perfectly straightforward response that entirely avoided the question. “But! But!” the New Democrat side mocked. “But! But!”

Ms. Turmel tried again, this time en français. Mr. MacKay did likewise. “Mais!” the New Democrats chirped. “Mais!”

Switching to English and stepping forward, the Defence Minister attempted to put this all in perspective. Or possibly to read aloud from a script he’d recently submitted to television producers. Continue…

Strombo v. Peter MacKay

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

George S. talks to the Defence Minister. Around the eight-minute mark he talks about the helicopter ride and around the 13-minute mark he vaguely endorses an NDP-Liberal merger.

A couple things about that explanation for the helicopter ride. Continue…

Stressed out

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 20, 2012 at 5:46 PM - 0 Comments

Earlier today the Canadian Press reported that the Defence Department was looking to purchase 20,000 stress balls. In other news, the Defence Department is no longer looking to purchase 20,000 stress balls.

“As soon as Minister MacKay was made aware of this contract, he instructed officials to immediately cancel this unnecessary expense of taxpayer money,” the minister’s spokesman, Jay Paxton, said in an email.

Canada’s hottest power couple

By Cathy Gulli and Charlie Gillis - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

The day began with a romantic walk on the beach. Nazanin Afshin-Jam and Peter MacKay ambled along white sand as waves crashed against dark rocks and pelicans dove around them. Eventually, they parted—it was, after all, their wedding day, Jan. 4, and in keeping with some level of tradition, they would get ready separately. The few dozen relatives and friends who had arrived in the last few days were now gathered inside the white chapel at the One & Only Palmilla resort in Los Cabos, Mexico. Afshin-Jam, an Iranian-Canadian human rights activist, model and singer, wrapped her arm around her father’s and they proceeded up the stone steps and down the aisle, where MacKay, Canada’s defence minister and, until that point, the country’s most eligible bachelor, awaited his bride. “I’ll never forget that moment,” Afshin-Jam, 32, recalls. “Peter looked so handsome. I saw a [glint] in his eyes.”

There were plenty of sentimental touches: on the altar, amid candles, were photos of their grandparents, all of whom have died, including Afshin-Jam’s maternal grandmother, who passed away recently; shoes she’d bought to wear to the wedding were tucked inside a pew. Their young nieces wore feathery angel wings. MacKay’s long-time pastor Glen Matheson from Nova Scotia performed the ceremony. “It was magical. There’s no other way to describe it,” says Matheson. “I’ve conducted more than 1,000 marriages in my career, but nothing compares.” The couple rode in a gold carriage, enjoyed an intimate oceanside reception under moonlight, and shared a first dance so personal they won’t reveal the song.

So secret were the details of this wedding, in fact, that the media and public only learned of it afterwards, when MacKay announced he had married “the most important person” in his life—never mind that his proposal to Afshin-Jam was not widely known. And what about that photo of the beaming newlyweds emerging from the chapel with white flower petals falling around them? It too was carefully released by MacKay days after the wedding, perhaps in an effort to quiet the frantic attempts online to piece together some information about—to make some sense of—this surprising turn of events.

Continue…

Back to work

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM - 0 Comments

Helena Guergis filed suit. Peter MacKay got married. Stephen Woodworth tried to start a debate about abortion. The Prime Minister appointed seven senators. And Sarah Polley endorsed Peggy Nash.

But let’s start 2012 with Michelle Rempel. Peter O’Neil profiled the tiny, perfect Conservative as a rising star on December 30, but followed that with a pensive blog post the next day.

My story on Calgary MP Michelle Rempel is as much an indictment of Canadian politics as it is a shot in the arm for the rookie Tory. What has caught everyone’s eye is how she calmly, confidently, and assertively handles opposition questions in the House of Commons. She doesn’t appear wooden or nervous, she doesn’t hold a sheet of paper before her eyes and read scripted answers from the prime minister’s office, and she doesn’t get rattled.

Don’t get me wrong. Rempel would be seen as an MP with potential in any era.  And there are some excellent speakers on both sides of the House of Commons. But shouldn’t all politicians, who are paid handsomely … be able to speak publicly? And if they can’t shouldn’t they learn?

For the sake of perspective, Peter digs up a profile he wrote of Stanley Knowles in 1988. And to that I’ll add my interview with Bob Rae from November.

Peter MacKay in Munich: Let’s not be pound foolish

By Paul Wells - Monday, December 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM - 0 Comments

Here’s the speech Peter MacKay gave at the Munich Security Conference in 2010. I’m not a huge fan of the Defence Minister’s speeches, but this one is sturdy enough. Here‘s who was in the audience: people who run much of the world, aren’t used to thinking about Canada, and will not particularly notice if a Canadian government minister fails to show up at the next conference. The kind of audience Canadian government officials need to speak to, in other words.  Continue…

The Commons: Post script

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Nycole Turmel aimed for summation. The Conservatives have a lot of explaining to do this holiday season, she said, proceeding to list a few particular concerns.

After she’d finished, the Prime Minister stood and ignored her entirely. ”Mr. Speaker,” he said, “especially at this time of year, we all appreciate the chance to be Canadian.”

And why are we all so particularly appreciative this year?

“One reason is that our government and our country have a very good record in job creation and economic growth compared to other major developed countries,” Mr. Harper explained. “That’s the target of this government and we intend to continue to target the economy, growth and job creation.”

Later, one of Mr. Harper’s lieutenants would describe the government’s omnibus crime bill as a “gift” to all Canadians. (You were probably hoping for an iPad, but imagine all the fun your kids will have on Christmas day when they’re sentencing each other to mandatory minimums.) Continue…