Parliamentary Hot House

I sometimes run parlivu in the background while writing posts, and it is a plodding, soothing, sort of background murmuring, with the occasional heckle or thump, but today this could not possibly be pushed out of the limelight; people hollering, slamming desks, and generally getting their raucous fervor up so furiously that the government might need to pass a bill authorizing a bowl of heart medication to be passed around the house like popcorn. I even wish I was bilingual enough to not need to listen to the translators, since you tend to miss heckling that way (there was also one point where the screaming was so loud the translator simply said "Inaudible").

The situation? The government is so close to being found guilty of contempt that it keeps knocking it's elbow on it; the opposition has made a motion of non-confidence which is, as we speak, hotly debated in the house, and it's look like we should gear  up for an election in probably May, barring some form of Deus ex politicum machina. The fighter planes the conservatives desired have their first target of fire: the Conservative government. It may be their last target, however.

The conservatives are screaming to have their defense heard over the shouting, stomping, hollering, and what sounded at one point (I actually had to check) like a riot. The main defense they are hiding behind, like I did as a small child under my covers, is that Canadians purportedly do not want an election, conveniently ignoring the fact that they also don't want a shitty government.

The government takes a surprising tact, pointing out the fact that the Liberals, NDP, and bloc said they would not form a coalition, but are now working closely together.

Carson is being used as a talking point as well, "being investigated by the RCMP" is definitely not a good point for the Conservatives. But so far my favorite rhetorical question: "Can the Prime Minister take the oil sands out of his eyes?"

Rona Ambrose (her mouth looks so strange when she talks) placidly defends their decision to remove customs tariffs on importing ships, a move unfavorable in southern Ontario where a large part of the economy is based on shipyards.

The Prime Minister's decision not to attend today, with his previous decisions to prorogue government during times of hard questions, makes it seem like he is disposed towards  running away from problems.

This unscientific CBC survey seems to suggest people, or at least CBC readers, are 50/50 in favor of an election. Poll: Do you want there to be a federal election right now?



It was surprisingly closer than I had thought, but the vote of non-confidence in the Conservative government was passed (despite a "nay" Del Mastro / Dykstra fist-bump [now called "the fist bump heard 'round the world"]) at 12:22, March 25th, 2011. Quoth Rosie Barton: "This House is done."

PROC part 4

I woke this morning like a little kid on Christmas, bright eyed to see what the committee had brought us Canadians for our political stockings, but after I was forced to shift my focus to my Anthropology midterm, I came back to what looked more like Hallowe'en when the only candy gathered by the ruddy-haired tots were raisins and those horrible peanut marshmallows.
I wish I could exaggerate the amount of word nitpicking that was enacted for a full four hours today, but I could not possibly do so, even if I used some, several, a minority, a number of examples. They were literally moving through, page by page, to approve every page as written. I can understand the why, it just seems ridiculous when every third page has a word or two that offends someone. The chair is maintaining good humor, but as they rounded page 35 (recall this was originally theorized to be two pages long), there was some debate about whether he had skipped pages.
This is all quite exciting, still, when considering it like a puzzle that one is putting together since we don't actually know what the report says, but in the same way as watching a blob of spit trail from your mouth, down the side of a building toward a busy doorway; there is the possibility of excitement at the end, but for now it's just gravity. 
It just occurred to me, listening to Mr. Scott Reid (CON) talk about the budget requirements for the second reading of bills, that without more stringent requirements for going over budget, few positive results will be garnered.

The end of the report outlines four options for the committee to consider:
Option A:  Find the government in contempt; many options
Option B:  Find the government delayed unnecessarily to provide documents; finance dept. investigates
Option C:  That the mid-week document dump constitutes compliance; there would be no further action taken
Option D:  Government was blameless; No further option taken.

I feel strangely elated to be 'present' for this moment. Option A held after a vote, it seems the committee recommends holding the government in contempt. The government will apparently be submitting a dissenting report. This must be what history feels like.

Here is an amended copy of the report they debated; the dissenting report from the government is at the very bottom, whiny accusations included. 

PROC part 3

Today is the unofficial roast of Bev Oda; this committee is brought to you by the word "Stipulate" and the number "0", which is precisely how many straight answers we garnered. I can't help but feel that if we had a much less patient chair, this would be much faster. Joe Preston is great, very fair it seems (Edit: had been prior to today), but also has a slightly disinterested air, as though answers are not that integral.

We have at least seen the face of the physical addition of the NOT, but she is now sitting with a different office. There are some pretty heavy questions about whether the decision to cut funding was provoked by a speech given by Jason Kenney that called KAIROS "anti-semitic", but Oda denies it and further proof is hard to come by.
I actually really hate the Bloc's line of questioning about why KAIROS was denied funding - whether she had the right to deny it's funding and the method she chose to indicate her denial are the issues at stake, her judgement, if it is her call to exercise it, should be examined in a separate committee. Either she has the right to determine it, or she does not; the nature of it's viability should not be in question.
When asked, she has no answer as to why she did not initial the NOT, which would have eliminated a lot of confusion.
Beverly Oda refuses to offer a suggestion about how often the auto-pen is used, i.e. if it is common practice to use it.The pen itself is stored in a small office where it is apparently locked and only two authorized public servants are able to use it, but the time limit interrupts the explanation of how it's use is put into practice.

There is some discussion about whether she misled the opposition through omission or commission, and Pat Martin raises and excellent point that she has "knee-capped" her senior officials, which is truly the case if she has taken the whole privilege of decision on herself. One would wonder why the requirements for funding should not be more strict, perhaps reducing these problems to an issue of "valid or not".

She closes by insisting that she has answered everything truthfully. She twiddles her fingers habitually.

Biggs from CIDA confirms at a question from Terence Young that the type of paper being discussed is often considered a memo for approval from the minister. He lobs her an easy question about what would happen if she approved every application- which no one really cares about, but this smells like a fillibuster. This idea was pretty well confirmed when someone raises a point of order that there is no time for additional questions with the time being taken up for conservative questions. Scott Armstrong follows the questions with some random flirting about how polite he is and how he plans on giving her ample time to answer - read, "Regurgitate the garbage you've been spewing". Bev Oda says her ministers are good but, "the buck stops here", indicating herself. You hear that, world? She is the DECIDER.
Armstrong: "Things are so hard for you, aren't they?"
Oda: "So hard!" *plaintive look*
She follows this up with the reasoning that there is no point to build a school in Haiti because it will just be destroyed anyway. I like when she later suggests that the government is made up of committees like a transformer.

Marcel Proulx says the chair is unfairly favoring the conservative. Preston seems to have been saved by the clock, since he was being pretty pointedly questioned about fairness, etc. Someone has objected that he was treating all the opposing parties like one big party, and I am inclined to agree with them. They gratefully break for an hour lunch.

Upon returning Mary Corkery, head of KAIROS, is being interviewed; Although I would rather if KAIROS was funded, no one cares that they have been funded in the past, or that they have a good relationship with CIDA. They have no obligation to fund them. It was a little heartless that KAIROS was informed over the phone that they were not being funded - they were cited that they did not meet CIDA priorities - but there are more gentile ways of breaking up with organizations.
KAIROS is made up of a gathering of smaller 'grassroots' organizations, but a minister wondered why the individual groups don't apply for funding; Mary's answer outlined that they are too small (lacking the administrative clout) to independently apply for funding. The committee noted how odd it was that they had only a few hours notice that they had been cut from funding, with no transition funding or such, but I am not sure if that is supposed to have higher ramifications or such.

A large amount of arguing about contempt and intention follows here, with the highlight being, in my opinion, that those who love and support parliament could never support diluting the word "contempt" with frivolous findings of such.
Pat Martin wonders if we should hold ministers to a higher level of truthfulness.
John McKay suggests that Bev Oda could have saved herself a lot of grief by holding herself to a higher standard and fully answering the questions, which just proves he hasn't read the rules of the game.

Harold Albrecht: received an apology from David McGuinty who was referencing Wikipedia for his information about Mr. Albrecht's relationships with members of churches.
Tom Lukiwski objects to yesterday's motion about the two page conclusion with no evidence. 

At the end they have carried the motion, a two-page draft report regarding the conclusion of the committee. Tommorrow shall see the decision about whether it will be made in camera or not, which if the report does not contain any evidence, as it is outlined to, will mean we, the people, get to open our mouths and shovel in whatever finding the committee horks up. 

PROC part 2

After some agressivly boring back and forth nattering ("You have to give us those!" "No we don't!" "Yes you do!"), the committee starts to heat up after lunch. The afternoon starts with a history lesson from professor Ned Franks who, in my opinion, is really the star of today's show, about the 8 previous cases of contempt in Canada, none of which involved cabinet members or the government itself, but this is kind of irrelevant fluff. The only part that I find myself disagreeing with the endearing Professor Franks is when he asserts that parliament should somehow 'constrain itself' by knowing which documents it can ask for or not. The notion itself seems ridiculous, but the alternative - the government saying what is too sensitive - is even more ludicrous. He reconfirms that the government does not have the right to say what it will and won't give the parliament.
To correct this problem from happening again, he suggests five points of reform, but when asked whether he thinks the government should be held in contempt or not he balks, saying it is for the committee to decide, but the best course of action is to prevent a similar problem from happening again.
The five (I didn't catch one) points being:
Parliament and government should work together to determine what is considered 'confidence' or not
All legislation should not pass first reading without a projected 5 year budget
Some official (that I didn't catch) should get their own interpretation of the finances
The House should undertake an inquiry into the House's ability to police papers
It is a pretty good assessment of how to prevent this from occurring again, and I respect his opinion, but I am not sure how quickly it could be instated.



Professor Franks believes that if parliament weighs a crime bill against an immigration program, cost must be considered; the house of commons must include a budget assessment at the second reading of any legislation, even considering the increased expected rate of expenses, which he feels an be accommodated for by skilled economists. When he outlines it so rationally, it makes me wonder why we have not included this idea before.

During the subsequent question period, it feels like the government is trying to undermine his authority by asking if he's written anything prior, but he asserts that he has dealt with similar circumstances before. The government continues on to say that just because papers are being hidden, doesn't mean they're anything bad, but the point is irrelevant; if I find my husband has a second bank account I don't care what it's for (Except for surprise vacations), I care that he's hiding things from me. The proceedings get bogged down at this point because the conservatives are really focusing on the dynamics of the budget estimates that would be attached to the second reading of every bill, which could be hashed out if and when the government ever decided to include them.
When asked what he, Ned Franks, thinks the government should do if the committee concludes the government is guilty, he replies: find them guilty, find them guilty and put them in jail, or just ignore it. He doesn't understand how, short of reading  all the submitted paperwork, the opposition can come to any conclusion, short of finding a way to ensure this doesn't happen again, a way to live with the government. The fact is, he says, that governments tends to keep information to themselves and this needs to be balanced by a higher power who can force them to be overseen and accountable.
McGuinty tries to act like the Liberals would be a happy, healthy, open government, but Franks functionally says, 'don't blow smoke up my ass, every government is the same - we should give parliament more power'. I really like him.

After dancing in and out of the room (camera, non-camera, camera)  for a bit, it seems a motion was put forth to make a draft that contains the conclusions of the committee in process, but with drafts not longer than two pages in both official languages. Everyone is losing their minds about it but I'm not sure why this is a big deal, or why the members think all Canadians should read it. It does require that no evidence be included in the draft, but it must still come to a specific conclusion, which is a waste of all those witnesses and scintillating debate. The motion is now to be distributed and they are adjorned. If you find yourself having trouble sleeping tonight, go grab a copy of the motion - it's not long, but it is boring.

PROC part 1

I'm just going to jot a quick update to hold this spot for when something exciting happens in the Government's contempt trial, which is scheduled to run for three days starting today, but with all the baying for conservative blood that has been happening, I won't be surprised if the proceedings grind to a halt after a day and a half when someone just goes for Harper's throat. Carpe Jugulum.

My initial thoughts, however? Bev Oda is not going to be held in contempt for her ridiculous bit of equivocation about the errant extraneous "NOT", but since the will fail in this arena, the committee may feel obligated to throw them a bone and hold the whole government in contempt for failure to disclose cost estimates for the tough-on-crime, fighter jets, and corporate tax cuts, which I personally feel we have a right to know. Even if they fail, which they are not expected to, a contempt court looks terrible on a party resume.

From the sound of it, the conservative strategy is to minimize and distract; Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently stated that the point of the committee was to discuss the cost of being 'tough-on-crime'. Close, Mr. Toews; but only in the same way that I get mad at my husband when I find lipstick on the collar of his shirt because I'm concerned about the stain. Then Justice Minister Rob Nicholson assured everyone present that some costs just couldn't be estimated, which is scary when it is coming form your kitchen contractor, and terrifying when it comes from your country contractor.  

Just for anyone keeping notes the total bill for the proposed changes, including the fighter jets, is $631 million. I think we might be getting low-balled. Where's the ref when we need him?

I feel so lucky to be present for this bit of preposterous-court history. If they are found guilty I am going to pretend to be a Liberal and rub this in Victor's face so hard...

The rest of the process runs thusly:
-Childish sniping about binder size and whether or not it matters (size does matter, but content matters more)
-It seems pretty conclusive that, despite the verbose nature of the binders they do not, in fact, provide the necessary information - there are threats about the government's fitness to withstand contempt.
-There is some debate as to whether the fighter jets were intended to be included in the budget or not.
-Apparently the two days process will not include any defense witnesses.
(Both these details are scuttled with the observation that  Laurie Hawn was intended to take the stand, and would be able to answer questions about the F-35's on the defense's behalf, but it is unclear whether he will attend or not.)
Finally everyone agrees how much of a bargain it is that this fun is apparently costing only $8900.
Can not wait to see what tomorrow brings.