How do you explain away an increase in tariffs?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM - 0 Comments

NDP MP Glenn Thibeault has written to the chair of the standing committee on industry, science and technology to request a “study into the increased taxation of iPods and other goods.” (The full letter is here.) And, tomorrow morning, NDP national revenue critic Murray Rankin will visit Joe Momma, a bike store in Ottawa, to discuss the Harper government’s “bicycle tax.” Joe Momma was the backdrop for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s announcement of C-45, last year’s second budget implementation bill.

In responding to the NDP’s motion in this regard yesterday, Shelly Glover, parliamentary secretary to the Finance Minister, bravely ventured there were no tax increases contained in budget 2013.

The NDP has made up all this fearmongering dialogue about tax increases in budget 2013. There are no tax increases in budget 2013.

Somewhat similarly, Heritage Minister James Moore, responding to a question on this from Justin Trudeau this afternoon, ventured that “if we were raising the taxes the Liberals would be all for it.”  Otherwise the government’s defence seems to be three-fold: assert that theirs is a “low tax plan,” claim a desire on the part of the opposition to raise taxes and allege that to not raise tariffs would be to give special treatment to China.

Meanwhile, Mike Moffatt figures the prices of fishing gear and certain firearms are also going up.

The Commons: A little progress

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 5:39 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. In succession, Susan Truppe, the parliamentary secretary for the status of women, Bloc MP Jean-Francois Fortin, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Conservative MP Shelly Glover stood in the moments immediately preceding Question Period to mark the anniversary of the massacre at  l’École polytechnique de Montréal. At the conclusion of Ms. Glover’s remarks, all members stood and a moment of silence was observed.

The Speaker then called for oral questions. Continue…

‘It is a question of credibility for the government’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 9:15 AM - 0 Comments

Here is the text of Thomas Mulcair’s speech in the House yesterday—with periodic interjections from Conservative MPs—on C-45, the second budget implementation bill. He spoke just after Shelly Glover began the debate for the Conservatives.

Mr. Mulcair is mistaken on one point. Stephen Harper did not promise a price on carbon of $65 per tonne in a speech to the British Parliament. The speech was delivered at the Canada-UK Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, in life, as in politics, everything revolves around whether we have credibility. I will read page 282 of the budget, because that is what my colleague was referring to. So we, along with all the Canadians who are watching, will know whether page 282 of the budget mentions the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In life, as in politics, everything revolves around whether we have credibility. The member just told us that on page 282 of the budget we would find a reference to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I will now read page 282 of the budget. Under “Transport Portfolio”, it states:

“Organizations in the Transport portfolio identified a combination of productivity-enhancing and transformative measures that change the way programs and services are delivered and support the Government’s agenda of refocusing government and reducing red tape.”

I ask members to retain that term because, in the Conservatives’ mouths, reducing red tape is synonymous with reducing public protection. Walkerton, XL Foods and listeriosis is reducing public protection. That is a theme we will be talking a lot about this afternoon. I will continue.

“Non-core activities will be reduced while maintaining capacity related to core mandates in order to protect the safety of Canadians and support economic growth.”

“For example, VIA Rail Canada Inc. will pursue productivity improvements such as augmenting the performance of the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems….”

Navigable Waters Protection Act? Not so far.

Continue…

Team Farce

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM - 0 Comments

By my count, 57 Conservative MPs have used the phrase “carbon tax” in the House of Commons since the House returned on September 17 (a total of 12 sitting days). The prize for the most-prodigious talking-point spouter goes to Shelly Glover, who has referenced the phrase eight times (for the purposes of this study, I’m not counting multiple uses of the phrase in the same intervention). Peter Van Loan, Kellie Leitch and the Prime Minister himself have made seven interventions that included the phrase. Eve Adams is coming on strong though, using the phrase four times just yesterday.

If my math is correct, that leaves 105 Conservative MPs—excluding the Speaker—who have yet to demonstrate their loyalty to the cause.

Here, again, is everything you need to know about the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.

The farce is strong in these ones

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 21, 2012 at 2:59 PM - 0 Comments

Among the Conservaties who stood in the House this week and criticized the NDP’s stance on cap-and-trade were Kyle Seeback, Peter Van Loan, Gord Brown, Leon Benoit, Shelly Glover, Chris Warkentin, LaVar Payne, Gerry Ritz, Pierre Poilievre, Christian Paradis, Rick Dykstra, Randy Hoback, Pierre Lemieux, Ed Fast, Tony Clement and Andrew Saxton. These individuals—like Phil McColeman, Joe Preston and Ed Holder, who attacked the NDP last week—were all Conservative candidates in 2008 when the Conservative party platform included a commitment to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system.

Here, again, is everything you need to know about the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.

The Commons: The joke is on you, Canada

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. John Baird pointed at Thomas Mulcair and laughed.

Conservative MP Andrew Saxton was on his feet a couple rows back, claiming that the leader of the opposition had spent the summer promoting the idea of a tax on carbon. Mr. Baird apparently thought this was funny. Mr. Saxton had been preceded by Shelly Glover. And Mr. Saxton and Ms. Glover would be followed by Conservative MP John Williamson, all rising in the moments before Question Period to recite their assigned talking points.

Peter Van Loan had accused Mr. Mulcair of favouring a carbon tax this morning at a news conference to mark the start of the fall sitting. Two hours later, the Conservative party press office had then issued a “fact check” repeating the claim. Veteran Affairs Minister Steven Blaney posted the talking point to Facebook. Tim Uppal, the minister of state for democratic reform, tweeted it. Minister of International Co-operation Julian Fantino tweeted it too.

Last week it was Conservative MPs Phil McColeman, Susan Truppe, Joe Preston and Ed Holder. The week before that it was Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. Back in June, the Conservatives launched television attack ads that repeated the claim.

All of this, each and every missive and every single individual willing to put their name to this claim, is part of a remarkable farce. Continue…

C-38 and the IMF

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 10:24 AM - 0 Comments

While the Conservatives fume about IMF assistance for Europe—three more members’ statements were devoted to lamenting for it all yesterday afternoon—the IMF also features in the budget bill. Clause 375 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act so that the Minister of Finance “may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Monetary Fund in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement set out in Schedule I of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions required from or permitted to be made by Canada, namely, eleven billion, twenty-three million, nine hundred thousand Special Drawing Rights.”

What does that mean? As part of the quota reform agreed to by the G20 ministers in October 2010, Canada’s exposure to the IMF will increase by slightly more than $1 billion. Here is the finance department’s explanation.

This is a commitment made by all IMF countries at the November 2010 G20 Seoul Summit of historic quota and governance reform. This will enhance the IMF’s capacity to provide support to the global economy, increasing the voice and representation of emerging market and developing countries. This predates and is unrelated to the current debate about the adequacy of IMF resources in the context of the European crisis.

How this is accounted for is explained here.

“Funds provided to the IMF do not affect Canada’s net debt measure as they constitute financial assets of the Government. Canada earns interest on these claims at the SDR interest rate when they are drawn to fund lending programs. IMF claims are booked as a part of the official international reserves of the Government of Canada. The preferred creditor status of the IMF, in addition to other financial safeguards, permits Canada to classify claims as official international reserves.”

Yesterday, Shelly Glover specifically mocked the suggestion, from Bob Rae, that IMF funding would be booked as an asset.

Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Europe

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM - 0 Comments

Before QP yesterday, the Conservatives used four members’ statements—from Shelly Glover, Randy Hoback, Bernard Trottier and Pierre Poilievre—to lament that Thomas Mulcair would prefer to bail out the “sumptuous European welfare state countries and the wealthy bankers that lend to them”—a “reckless” plan that would apparently “kill jobs and put a huge burden on the economy here at home.” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty then criticized Mr. Mulcair during QP, in response to questions from the NDP leader, and after QP, in a scrum with reporters. Today, another members’ statement—Mr. Poilievre, again—was dedicated to bemoaning it all.

All of this seems to have been inspired by the leader of the opposition’s questions in the House on Wednesday. Mr. Mulcair noted that the Prime Minister had, in an interview with the CBC, expressed concern about the global impacts of the European economic situation, but that, in April, Mr. Flaherty had refused to go along with other G20 countries in contributing to an IMF initiative to backstop Europe. The following is the closest Mr. Mulcair comes to endorsing a Canadian contribution to the IMF’s fund.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pretends to be concerned now, but two months ago in Washington the Conservatives were singing a different tune. At the G20 meeting in April the Minister of Finance led the effort to block an international plan to resolve the European economic crisis. He told European countries “to step up to the plate” and fix the problem on their own, as if our fate were not intimately connected to theirs, and he gets applause for that from the peanut gallery. When will the Conservatives stop lecturing European countries and put forward a real plan to protect and create jobs here in Canada?

Of the developed economies, only Canada and the United States are declining to participate. Mr. Flaherty’s concerns are, at least partially, related to the IMF’s governance structure. Germany has publicly registered its concerns with Canada’s reluctance.

Giving those other omnibus budget bills their due

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM - 0 Comments

Near the end of the finance committee hearings on Wednesday night, Conservative MP Shelly Glover spoke up to clarify a few points, including the relative size of C-38, the current budget implementation act.

I also want to correct the record with regard to the size of the budget bill. Let’s get to the facts. Bill C-10, which is Budget 2009, the first budget bill there was bigger than this one. Bill C-9, Budget 2010, BIA No. 2 was 880 pages. Bill C-13, Budget 2011, just last year, BIA was 644 pages. All bigger than this one. This is not unusual in any way, shape or form.

C-38 is, indeed, just the fourth largest budget bill the Harper government has tabled. Between 1994 and 2005, when the Liberals were in power, Parliament never passed a budget bill larger than 144 pages (2003). The Conservatives have passed eight budget bills longer than that, C-38 would be the ninth.

The 12 budget bills tabled between 1994 and 2005 averaged 73.6 pages.

The 11 budget bills tabled between 2006 and 2011 averaged 308.9 pages.

See previously: A short history of budget implementation acts

Aggressive federalism

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM - 0 Comments

Four Conservative MPs go to the Manitoba legislature to take issue with the Manitoba government.

Inside the house, Glover, Smith, Bezan and Hoeppner sat together stone-faced on a sofa on the floor of the chamber behind the Tory benches watching question period, when the immigration issue took centre stage. They either smiled or nodded their heads when their provincial counterparts defended Ottawa’s decision to manage the immigration program. They had to sit in the house because they could not get passes for the public gallery. 

Smith said she and her colleagues had no choice other than to come to the legislature instead of holding a press briefing at constituency offices or another location. ”Today the MPs are coming in to straighten the story out,” Smith said. ”The story has been totally misleading. It’s scaring people. We have to get that story straight.”

More here and here. The dispute carried over to Twitter last night between Jason Kenney and Pat Martin.

The Commons: Robocalls in human form

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 5:56 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Nycole Turmel wondered if the Prime Minister might wish to take a moment to correct the official record.

Last week, she recounted, Mr. Harper had said that only the Liberal party had been involved with American firms to facilitate its telephone campaigning. Alas, she explained, it turned out the Conservative party—or at least some of its candidates—had done likewise. Would the Prime Minister admit that he was wrong? she wondered. And, furthermore, would he admit that the Conservative party had made fraudulent calls?

The Prime Minister was unmoved. “Mr. Speaker, I gave clear answers regarding the activities of the Conservative party of Canada,” he professed. “All this information has been available to Elections Canada since the beginning. Now is the time for the opposition, which has spent millions of dollars to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls, to give all its information to Elections Canada.”

Ms. Turmel tried again. Mr. Harper, switching to English, repeated himself.

“Of course,” he assured, “I answered questions very clearly about the activities of the Conservative party of Canada. Those calls are all very well documented. All that documentation is available to Elections Canada, and has been available since the beginning. What is not available is all of the information that is coming from the opposition, the NDP in particular. There is a complete lack of transparency on the hundreds of thousands of calls that they made. They should give that information to Elections Canada.”

If the government’s implication was not obvious as yet, the Prime Minister’s dutiful parliamentary secretary made matters clear a moment later. Continue…

Where do we draw the line?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM - 0 Comments

Kris Kotarski makes an important observation: what Vic Toews said last Monday wasn’t without precedent.

On Nov. 15, 2011, Toews responded to a parliamentary question by saying, “I would call on the Liberals to finally stop putting the rights of child pornographers and organized crime ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens.” So, the Liberals were siding with child pornographers.

On Feb. 2, 2012, Toews told Parliament that “Rather than making things easier for child pornographers, I call on the NDP to listen to the police, listen to the provinces, and support these balanced measures that protect law-abiding Canadians and their children.” So, the NDP were enabling child pornographers.

Just in case anyone missed that, on Feb. 3, 2012, Toews tweeted that “Lawful access will aid child porn investigations. I call on the NDP to stop making things easier for predators and support these measures.”

As I wrote last Tuesday, I don’t think anything we’ve heard over the last month or so has been beyond the rhetorical parameters of the last four years. And in that regard, having had a front row seat for such stuff, it’s been interesting to watch Mr. Toews’ sentence become such a problem for him and his government. I suspect that owes a lot to the legislation involved: online surveillance is much more tangible to the average Canadian than say justice policy or war, so the slur is more easily transferred beyond Mr. Toews’ partisan opponents. The Prime Minister can say Stephane Dion sympathizes with the Taliban, for instance, without great swaths of the public feeling insulted. But when the Public Safety Minister says anyone who has doubts about the government’s pursuit of online surveillance stands with child pornographers, a sizeable number of people are going to feel insulted.

Maybe there’s also something more tangible about the evil invoked as well. Maybe suggesting someone sides with a foreign enemy seems almost cartoonish. I suppose the Internet’s great ability to churn out reaction and draw attention also elevated Mr. Toews’ attack. But it still seems to me to be nothing more than an extension of everything else that has been said these last four years. I’m not sure, in the moment, I heard it as something above and beyond what I’d already heard. And, for that matter, I’d be interested to know whether anyone on the government side (or even the opposition side) immediately knew that a previously uncrossed line had been breached.

I’d note that no one stood after QP on the day of Mr. Toews’ remark to raise a complaint. Not until a full day later did someone stand and demand that Mr. Toews apologize (and in that case it wasn’t even the MP at whom the minister had directed his remark).

Two days after Mr. Toews’ comment, Conservative MP Shelly Glover stood and ventured that the NDP was “anti-Canada.” When Liberal MP Denis Coderre demanded she apologize, Ms. Glover declined and, in fact, declared that she stood by her comment. A quick search of Google News seems to show no reporting of this.

‘I think it’s better that we stick to the facts’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM - 19 Comments

Conservative MPs on the finance committee move to ensure you are not frightened by this week’s hearings.

At a planning meeting Monday evening, NDP finance critic Peggy Nash put forward a motion requesting that a panel of economists be included as witnesses Friday, but the Conservatives used their majority to limit the invite list to Mr. Flaherty and Bank of Canada officials.

“It’s imperative, in my opinion, that we not do anything that might worry Canadians. And I think that hearing from the Minister of Finance and the Bank of Canada will help to reassure them, as they should be, that there is concern, but that we are proceeding, as parliamentarians, in their interests,” explained Conservative MP Shelly Glover, who is Mr. Flaherty’s parliamentary secretary.

If you dare look, here are some of those economists now.

The Commons: The faint sound of disagreement

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM - 66 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister stood and congratulated the leader of the opposition on his election. The leader of the opposition congratulated the Prime Minister on his election. In his front row seat, Tony Clement wrapped his arms around himself and mimed a hug to celebrate this new spirit of mutual appreciation.

The civility that we were promised—and which everyone is now monitoring with the sort of close attention and nervous anticipation usually reserved for the rescue of Chilean miners or small children from holes in the ground—is now almost entirely insipid. Newly elected members and newly appointed ministers are applauded for simply existing. Everyone claps for everything and everyone. David Anderson was widely saluted today for apologizing after suggesting that a member opposite had made a “fool of himself.” It is like being in a kindergarten classroom where encouragement and self-esteem and positive affirmation are paramount.

This Decorous Era achieved total farce this afternoon when Conservative parliamentary secretary Shelly Glover thanked one of her opposition critics for their re-election. “Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague once again for returning to this House,” Ms. Glover said of New Democrat Irene Mathyssen. Presumably she meant to congratulate. Hopefully we will soon enough be sufficiently reacquainted with each other that even that seems unnecessary.

In the meantime, this place remains mostly concerned with serious matters of public policy. And whatever this may lack in salaciousness, it does at least allow members of different parties to acknowledge their critical views of each other’s intentions. Continue…

Jim Prentice’s goodbye bash

By Mitchel Raphael - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM - 1 Comment

Former cabinet minister Jim Prentice held a goodbye party before the House rose. Prentice (left) with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

.

Tory MP Lynne Yelich (left) with Karen Prentice.

Continue…

The consequential times in which we live

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 5:39 PM - 42 Comments

Despite the transcript and the retraction, the Conservatives sent up Shelly Glover before QP this afternoon to demand that Michael Ignatieff apologize for his “insulting and offensive” comments to the Winnipeg Free Press. She pointedly dismissed the Liberal leader’s protestations because the original story was “pushed” on the Twitter account and website of the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg-North.

If he did not believe the story to be true, why would he push it out for all to see? It is simple. He believed it. He does believe that her candidacy is a game.

Charles Adler, meanwhile, blames the vast left-wing media conspiracy.

Just say no

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM - 38 Comments

Michael Ignatieff has indicated that a Liberal government would support the decriminalizing of marijuana, so understandably, while taking part in the announcement of a new anti-drug campaign yesterday, Conservative backbencher Shelly Glover lamented that the Liberal leader was encouraging the nation’s children to smoke marijuana.

For whatever it is worth, last March Mr. Ignatieff told a crowd of high school students that the “last darn thing” he wanted was for them to be smoking marijuana.

MPs taste wine!

By Mitchel Raphael - Friday, June 11, 2010 at 4:30 PM - 5 Comments

The Canadian Vintners Association was on the Hill to allow MPs to sample some wine. There were wines from Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and one table from Nova Scotia. Below, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (right).

.

Bloc MP Christiane Gagnon.

. Continue…

The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 4:02 PM - 15 Comments

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…

The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, May 23, 2010 at 6:45 PM - 1 Comment

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…

What else could there possibly be?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 17, 2010 at 2:34 PM - 28 Comments

Shelly Glover teases the possibility of still more exciting developments to come in the story of Helena Guergis.

“I can assure you that there is far more to come out,” Shelly Glover, parliamentary secretary for official languages told CTV’s Question Period Sunday. “This isn’t finished.”

So far we’ve got allegations of cocaine, prostitutes, compromising photos, improper lobbying and use of a government Blackberry, not to mention an alleged con man, a dog photographer, a former member of the Toronto Argonauts, Robert De Niro’s son and a private investigator. Place your bets on what’s next.

The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 4:38 PM - 9 Comments

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…

The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, May 9, 2010 at 9:35 AM - 20 Comments

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…

The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 5:01 PM - 24 Comments

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…