The Commons: Incivility is in the eye of the beholder

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had asked the government side to account for its recent adventures in military procurement and John Baird had stood and enthused about supporting the troops and now Charlie Angus was on his feet with a segue.

“Mr. Speaker, speaking of non-answers,” he said, “the Canadian Association of Journalists has just voted the Conservative government the most secretive in Canadian history.”

Journalists being among our society’s most respected and revered professionals, this condemnation on its own seemed certain to chasten the government, but Mr. Angus was not through.

“Look at the minister it put in charge of spinning the openness. The Muskoka minister ran a $50 million slush fund through his constituency office and then buried the documents and is refusing to tell Canadians what services are on the chopping block,” he reviewed. “The Prime Minister promised Canadians he would establish open and accountable government. Why did he break that promise?”

Tony Clement, the aforementioned minister, rose to respond, but Peter Van Loan, the Conservative House leader, stood too. With a cross look for Mr. Van Loan, Mr. Clement returned to his seat. Continue…

The CCF, Hitler and history

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM - 0 Comments

Twice this week—see here and here—Stephen Harper saw fit to lament that a precursor to the NDP hadn’t supported World War II. A Conservative backbencher, Scott Armstrong, was sent up before QP this morning to directly attack JS Woodsworth and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird then repeated the citation in response to an NDP question about extending this country’s mission in Afghanistan (both Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Baird invoking Hitler by name).

It is true that Mr. Woodsworth, leader at the time of the CCF, the party that would become the NDP some 22 years later, opposed Canada’s involvement in the war. Mr. Woodsworth was a pacifist. But he was also the only member of the CCF to oppose the declaration of war. Indeed, he was the only MP in the entire House of Commons who opposed the motion. Major James Coldwell, who would soon thereafter succeed Mr. Woodsworth as leader of the CCF, supported the declaration. As apparently did a young CCF MP named Tommy Douglas.

This is not the first time a Conservative has raised Mr. Woodsworth’s vote as something the current NDP needs to answer for. Here is Jason Kenney, then of the Canadian Alliance, raising the issue in 2003. At the time, Mr. Kenney was advocating for the use of a “credible threat of force” against Iraq.

Meanwhile, Mr. Harper’s reading of history inspired something of a Twitter meme yesterday and the NDP duly sent up Dan Harris before QP today to inform the House of the highlights. Continue…

The whip

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 27, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats have said they will unanimously oppose Stephen Woodworth’s motion—which, as private members’ business, would generally be considered a free vote—and Jeff Jedras argues that the Liberals should whip their vote.

If this issue is as fundamentally important as our messaging makes it out to be (and I believe it is), why are we not whipping this vote? If Harper not killing a private members bill is evidence he supports it, what does it say when the Liberal leadership lets its members vote for it? How are we any different? And worse, we’re launching petition drives and releasing pious press releases while pretending to be different. It’s ridiculous, and we’re setting ourselves up to look like hypocritical idiots. 

As noted last night, the government’s chief whip spoke against Mr. Woodworth’s motion during the first hour of debate. During QP, the Prime Minister said it was “unfortunate” that the motion had reached the House floor. The NDP sent out a news release yesterday calling on the Prime Minister to prevent Conservative MPs from bringing forward initiatives related to abortion.

Today’s episode of Parsing the Prime Minister

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM - 0 Comments

Thomas Mulcair opened QP this afternoon with a look back to what the Prime Minister had said yesterday about what the United States had or had not requested of this country in Afghanistan after 2014. Mr. Mulcair wondered if Mr. Harper would confirm that Canada has had no contact from the United States about extending the mission. Mr. Harper stood and said that he said he had not received such a request.

The leader of the opposition then moved on to the question of whether or not an extension would be brought before Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated: “All of the military missions committed to under this government have come before the House.” However, that is not the case, and he knows it. The last extension in Afghanistan was authorized by the Prime Minister acting alone.

In his seat across the way, Mr. Harper turned to Peter Van Loan with a look of confusion on his face. Continue…

The c-word

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday’s exchange between Messrs. Mulcair and Harper was the highlight of the afternoon, but with his first question Bob Rae returned to this question of what Mr. Harper meant when he discussed the F-35 and a “contract” in relation to one another.

Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 2010, the Prime Minister accused the then-leader of the opposition of “…wanting to tear up jobs by tearing up the contract.” He implies there, and clearly states that there was in fact a contract with respect to the F-35. It is a statement the Prime Minister repeated again during the election campaign. If there was in fact no contract, which is what the Prime Minister is now saying, and he is saying there is in fact still no contract, why did the Prime Minister mislead the House on November 17, 2010?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course I did no such thing. I think Canadians and the industry understand full well that Canada’s participation in the development of the F-35, of the next generation of fighter aircraft, is intrinsic to the work that Canadian companies have received. It is almost $0.5 billion in contracts that have come to the industry in this country. Obviously this government will continue to support our air force, as well as our aerospace industry.

Here is the full context of what the Prime Minister said a year and a half ago. He has already explained to the interim Liberal leader that when he said “contract,” he was referring to a “memorandum of understanding.”

See previously: The amazing, disappearing contract that never was and About that “contract”

The Commons: Stephen Harper says a lot of things

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair began with a reminder of something Stephen Harper had once said. This is always a good place to start. Not for the sake of accuracy or precedent or for the purposes of demonstrating the seriousness with which one should regard the words of the Prime Minister, but for entertainment’s sake. A bit like sitting around with a bunch of friends recalling various things one of you once did or said. As that Nickelback song so poignantly captured.

“Mr. Speaker, this is what the Prime Minister said in 2009,” Mr. Mulcair said. ” ‘The military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011. I have said it here and I have said it across the country. In fact, I think I said it recently in the White House.’ ”

That is, indeed, what Mr. Harper said on October 1, 2009, as recorded in Hansard, in response to a question from Jack Layton.

“It is now 2012 and our soldiers are still in Afghanistan,” Mr. Mulcair continued, now speaking for himself. “Has Canada received a request from the United States to keep our troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014?”

Mr. Harper stood here and said another one of those remarkable things. ”Mr. Speaker,” he said, “our military presence in Afghanistan is determined by this House.” Continue…

Define ‘appropriate’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM - 0 Comments

Amid more questions about Bev Oda’s trip to the land of expensive orange juice, Peter Van Loan stressed to the House that Ms. Oda had paid all “inappropriate” expenses.

Noting this, the New Democrats and Liberals duly went after Mr. Van Loan’s understanding of appropriateness.

Sean Casey: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period we heard the government House leader claim that the Minister of International Cooperation had repaid all inappropriate expenses. I have a simple question. Could the House leader tell us if he believes that wasting $1,000 a day on a chauffeur driven limo, when a free shuttle was available, is an appropriate expense, yes or no?

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I have been clear and the minister has answered on this and has apologized. Inappropriate expenses were paid. As I have said, our approach is always to respect taxpayers’ dollars, ensure that travel is undertaken at a reasonable cost. A reasonable cost to us is one that is significantly lower than that under the Liberals, and that is what we have been doing.

Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we need to put this question to the Minister of International Cooperation. I asked her a straightforward question. Will she pay back $3,000 in frivolous limousine expenses? She refused to answer. I am giving her a second chance because I was disturbed by the House leader who said that she is only on the hook for appropriate costs. Will the minister pay that money back, or does the Prime Minister believe that her luxury lifestyle overseas is perfectly appropriate for Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill? Will she pay, yes or no?

Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this numerous times. The minister has repaid the inappropriate costs. I think that is what the public would expect, that is what the opposition would expect and I do not think she would be asked to repay costs that were appropriate…

Separating the good communists from the bad communists

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM - 0 Comments

She likely did not appreciate the response, but Elizabeth May did get the Prime Minister on his feet with this question at the very end of QP yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently said in Colombia that it was a matter of principle that Cuba should be excluded from the Summit of the Americas. As Communist China keeps buying up Canada, I am wondering where the principle is. While Cuba has a long way to go, it recently held an open mass where the Pope invited Cuban Catholics to worship. There is no such freedom of religion in China’s persecution of Tibetan monks, Falun Gong and Christians, which goes unimpeded.

I am asking the Prime Minister, as he hands the keys of Canada to China, what principle excludes Cuba?

The Commons: A simple misunderstanding

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair had a simple question. And lest the House fail to appreciate the simplicity, he said so explicitly.

“Mr. Speaker,” the opposition leader prefaced, “I want to ask a very simple question of the Prime Minister.”

Specifically and simply, Mr. Mulcair wanted to know whether Mr. Harper thought it acceptable for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament in the exercise of its functions.

Mr. Harper seemed to seek a word of clarity from Peter Van Loan before rising. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “I am not certain of the subject of that question, but obviously I expect that ministers tell the truth at all times.”

That much established for the record, Mr. Mulcair moved to his second question. Continue…

Upon further review

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM - 0 Comments

International Development Minister Bev Oda rose this afternoon in response to a question from Bob Rae and informed the House of the following.

Mr. Speaker, the expenses are unacceptable, should never have been charged to taxpayers. I have repaid the costs associated with the changing of hotels, and I unreservedly apologize.

Various Conservatives gave her a standing ovation for this.

Meanwhile, Joe O’Connor investigates the possibilities and politics of expensing lunch.

“If the politician is being excessively cheap, like expensing a Timbit or a Chicken McNugget, people will freak out, or excessively expensive, like an all-frills dinner with a steak and a bottle of wine — or a $16 glass of orange juice — people are going to notice and you are going to get killed for it,” says Chris Eby, a senior consultant with Navigator, a Toronto public relations firm. “If you are somewhere in the middle, say, like a $10 lunch, and it’s not out of whack in terms of what average people might be spending, then people don’t get upset.”

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…

The Commons: The government remains unapologetic

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. “Mr. Speaker, we do not apologize for the fact that Canada is following its laws and policies on procurement in securing replacements for the aging CF-18s,” Chris Alexander declared this afternoon of the F-35 mess.

It is unclear who demanded the Harper government apologize for following proper procurement policy. For that matter, it is unclear who has accused the Harper government of actually following proper procurement policy.

Indeed, the question here, from the NDP’s Jack Harris, the brusque Newf now back on the defence file, was something else entirely. “When,” Mr. Harris asked, “will the government stop making excuses for deceiving Canadians?”

Mr. Alexander’s response to this was to refuse to apologize. Twice. Continue…

The F-35 and clarity

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

On account of this, two previous appeals to clarity as it pertains to the F-35.

October 27, 2010
Jack Layton. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot accept the Auditor General’s recommendations and then refuse to implement them. That does not make sense. The Auditor General warned that the systemic mismanagement she observed is going to mean cuts in the operational support for our armed forces. This is a serious matter. Will the government abide by the recommendations of the Auditor General, which would mean putting a stop to its plan to implement a sole-source contract for the purchase of the F-35, or is it going to repeat the helicopter boondoggle?

Stephen Harper. Mr. Speaker, these are two different matters. Of course the government will act on the recommendations vis-à-vis the helicopter situation. There has been a process in place for this since the days of the previous Liberal government. The leader of the NDP, however, should not pretend for a moment that he is raising these concerns on behalf of the military. The military has been absolutely clear about the need here. This is simply coalition politics playing games with military contracts, against what the entire aerospace industry and the entire defence establishment realize is necessary. The government is going to proceed.

November 17, 2010
Michael Ignatieff. Mr. Speaker, we are indeed listening to the aerospace industry. They are saying that there would be more economic and industrial spinoffs with a competitive bidding process. I have done a lot of town halls this year. The Prime Minister does not hold open town halls, but if he did, he would listen to Canadians. What Canadians are saying is this does not make sense. We cannot persuade a small business person across the country that it makes sense to buy 16 billion dollars’ worth of equipment without a competitive bid. We would not run a small business like that, so we cannot run the Department of National Defence that way. How can the Prime Minister stand and assure business people across the—

Stephen Harper. Once again, Mr. Speaker, there was a competitive process held under the previous government to choose this plane. In fact, the Government of Canada, under the previous government, has funded the development of this aircraft. What are we to do when the CF-18 reaches the end of its useful life: simply ground the air force or spend more money on a second set of planes? The government’s position is clear. It is straightforward. The opposition is simply playing politics with the lives of air force members and with jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry.

What they said about the F-35 (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM - 0 Comments

Two weeks before the Liberals formally called for a reset of the fighter jet procurement process, representatives from Boeing and Dassault testified before the defence committee about their warplanes. The full transcript of those committee hearings is here.

That testimony prompted more questions in the House. Continue…

What they said about the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM - 0 Comments

The Harper government announced its decision to acquire the F-35 in July 2010. The House was on break at the time and did not resume sitting until September 20 of that year.

Here is some of what ensued in the House during the first two weeks of the fall sitting. Continue…

Restored for posterity

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM - 0 Comments

Kady O’Malley tries to track down an explanation for the missing Martin Luther King reference. Whatever the reason for it not appearing in Hansard, John Williamson is apparently going to make sure it is restored.

As it turns out, he had nothing to do with the mysterious redaction, as a helpful staffer was only to happy to explain. In fact, the original omission first appeared (or, in this case, failed to appear) in the Blues — the uncorrected and unofficial transcript, which is sent out within the parliamentary precinct before the final version is printed in order to give MPs the chance to review and, if necessary, request minor edits. 

Which, the same helpful staffer told me, is exactly what Williamson intends to do this week, which means that, provided no one objects, his full statement will be restored, and appear in future editions of Hansard as it was delivered on the floor of the House — Martin Luther King homage and all.

The Commons: The $25 billion question

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 8:02 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Joe Comartin stepped out from behind his desk and presented the question of the moment.

“This morning the Auditor General has said the responsibility for the misleading information that came to this House about the cost lies directly in the cabinet of the Conservative government,” the NDP House leader reported. “I would ask the Prime Minister today, will he stand in this House and tell us whether in fact the cabinet knew what the true costs were going to be for the F-35s?”

The Prime Minister might not have been expected to stand here: Mr. Harper generally declining to answer questions put to him by anyone who isn’t the leader of a recognized party. But here he stood to respond. Not to answer the question at hand, but to respond nonetheless.

“Mr. Speaker, once again, the government has not actually purchased any airplanes. The government plans to do that some years hence, and we will set up an independent committee to supervise that process,” he reassured. “What the Auditor General in fact did say is that in terms of his report the government is taking steps in the right direction. Of course he also confirms that no money has been spent on this acquisition.”

Mr. Comartin was unimpressed. “Mr. Speaker, is that not typical?” he lamented. “Again no responsibility, no true information coming to this House.”

The issue here is a matter of billions. Continue…

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 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 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 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…

Bob Rae v. Time

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM - 0 Comments

MPs rising during Question Period are allotted 35 seconds to state their query. Exceed that time and the Speaker will cut off your microphone. Your intervention will then appear abbreviated (ending with a long dash) in Hansard.

Over the past week, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, who admirably does not speak from a written script, rose to ask 16 questions. He failed to finish before being cut off a total of seven times—see here, here, here, here, here and here (and one question this morning). For the month, he’s run of time on a total of 12 occasions.

If you enjoy wagering on Question Period, you might add “Will Bob Rae finish his question in time?” to your list of prop bets.

Part of a balanced breakfast

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM - 0 Comments

Hansard officially records Bev Oda’s response yesterday to a question from Liberal MP Mark Eyking as follows.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure its international assistance is making a difference for those in developing countries. That is why we are focused on targeting the countries we work in. This is not about organizations. This is about getting more kids in school, more mothers to health clinics, more nutrition, more healthy infants at birth, more text books and more qualified teachers. This is getting results and making a difference.

What she actually said is this (emphasis mine).

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making sure its international assistance is making a difference for those in developing countries. That’s why we are focused on targeting the countries we work in. This is not about organizations. This is about getting more kids in school, more mothers to health clinics, more nutritious, uh, infants being born, more text books, more qualified teachers. Mr. Speaker, this is getting results and making a difference.

Guns for everyone

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 30, 2012 at 11:56 AM - 0 Comments

During QP yesterday, Liberal MP Judy Foote announced that Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz had recently regaled some area high school students with his views on firearms possession. Mr. Breitkreuz disputed Ms. Foote’s characterization.

The Citizen has spoken to the mother whose concerns are the basis for Ms. Foote’s question.

Breitkreuz also supposedly illustrated his arguments with “what if” stories. For instance, he presented the students with a scenario in which a group of eight people confronts a robber with a gun. He suggested it would be better if one of the eight possessed a gun and shot the robber before he had a chance to harm anyone.

The MP also told the students about a study in a community in the United States where there was a high incidence of rape. In an effort to deal with the situation, local authorities offered guns and training to local women. The program was widely publicized — at least 200 women had been trained and armed — and incidents of rape then dropped sharply.