Month: October 2006

What's all the barking about?

The Liberals — ever helpful 🙂 — have generously freed up some space on their Web server to host an audio-taped recording of the now infamous “dog” exchange between Liberal MP David McGuinty and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

There is an MP3 audio version of the file and a video version for Windows Media Player.

I suggest the video version. The Liberals have added subtitles. Unless you know exactly what you’re looking for, it’s hard to hear the exchange on the audio file. Environment Minister Rona Ambrose had the floor at the time of the exchange and, under House broadcasting rules, the camera was required to be focused only on her and only her desk microphone would have been ‘hot’. The microphone, then, picking up the exchange would have been hers.

MacKay sits one row forward from Rona and four seats or so to her left. McGuinty is almost straight across the aisle from MacKay but in the fourth row.

 

Belinda on a point of order

At the conclusion of the daily Question Period in the House of Commons, Belinda Stronach, Liberal MP for the Newmarket-Aurora, rose on a point of order. This excerpt is courtesy of the Question Period “Blues” — which is the ‘rush’ transcript provided by Parliamentary staff. The ‘official’ Hansard transcript may be slightly different:

Hon. Belinda Stronach (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 18 reads as follows:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

Yesterday during question period the Minister of Foreign Affairs used a very inappropriate word to describe me. This is not the first time he and his party have revealed their true colours regarding respect for women in politics and how chilling this behaviour is for those women who contemplate entering politics.

For that, Mr. Speaker, I simply ask that the Minister of Foreign Affairs apologize to this House.

*   *   *

The Speaker :
As I indicated yesterday when this matter was raised, the news of these statements is something that is new to me because I did not hear the comments or see any of the gestures that are alleged to have taken place.

My staff have carefully reviewed the audio tapes of question period and the written transcript of Hansard which I myself have seen and of course there is no reference to these words in either. So, I am unable to confirm any of the suggestions that have been made. I know several members say they have heard these remarks.

In the circumstances there is nothing further I can do at this time. Obviously there may be further submissions on this point later.

*   *   *

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To make matters worse, during question period when I was asking a very serious question about the demeaning and sexist actions of one member of the Conservative benches, a member over here on the back bench of the Conservatives, I believe the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was heard to say “stop whining”.

I find that offensive and contrary to the spirit of this chamber. It makes a bad situation worse.
I hope now that we will have apologies from this government on all sides, specifically with respect to that remark about whining, when we are raising a very serious matter that affects the women of this country and the members from all sides in this place.

*   *   *

Hon. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I would state, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister did on many occasions during question period today, that I think it is incumbent upon all of us and I know that I have worked hard over the past number of months with my whip colleagues from all three of the opposition parties to try and restore some additional decorum to the House and to work with you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly that is the action that we are endeavour to take. I am sure all the other parties would like to see greater decorum in the House. We are committed to that.

*   *   *

The Speaker :
The opportunities for the Chair to intervene in respect of language used in the House, as hon. members know, are limited. We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House. Members are free to say what they want within fairly wide limits and the Chair enforces those broad limits.

The list of language that is unparliamentary is relatively short. Obviously words can be used in ways that are considerably impolite or improper in respect of other members. It may result in intervention by the Chair in certain circumstances.

I caution all hon. members to bear in mind that we do enjoy freedom of speech in this House. Members ought to conduct themselves in ways that are in accordance with the high expectations that Canadians have in members in electing them to serve in this place.

While I cannot hear everything that is said, especially when a lot of people are speaking at one time, I would urge hon. members to show proper caution in their use of language in the House and decent respect to each other because we are all elected to serve in this place, even though we may have differing political opinions.

*   *   *

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, in your remarks a moment ago you said you were not in a position having had your staff examine both the transcript and the audio tape.

On this side of the House at least a dozen Liberal members heard the comment. May I respectfully suggest or submit to the Chair that in this case, given the particularly egregious breach of parliamentary conduct by a minister of the Crown, that the tape in question be sent out to a professional audio house, at which point the tape can then be examined more closely and we can actually look more closely to see whether in fact the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the comments when he scurrilously referred to a member of Parliament on this side of the house as a dog.

*   *   *

The Speaker :
I am getting tired of this one. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

*   *   *

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, in matters where there have been questions of whether or not something occurred, those matters have been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs where the committee can call persons who would know. Certainly persons sitting in the proximity of the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be able to answer the question on behalf of the House.

*   *   *

The Speaker :
Members can move motions to refer matters to the committee should they choose to do so. It is not for the chair to move motions in this House referring matters to committee. On a question of privilege, I may be able to do so. We have not had a question of privilege in this case. We have had points of order in respect of this case. It would not be for the chair to suggest that motions are the way to resolve those matters. That is not something in my jurisdiction.

Liberals lining up for Liberals

I’ll be heading to Montreal to report on the Liberal leadership debate that will take place there tomorrow afternooon. In advance of that event, some of the leading candidates are lining up more supporters. Bob Rae this morning announced that former Martin cabinet minister and — perhaps more importantly — Toronto MP John Godfrey will  support his candidacy. Stephane Dion, also today, says he has the backing of some Chretien-era cabinet ministers — Ontario’s Lyle Vanclief, New Brunswick’s Doug Young, and Newfoundland’s Fred Mifflin. He also has  the backing of former Ontario MP Russ Powers.

 

Don't take my word for it — read the Clean Air stuff for yourself!

Lots and lots of airtime and digital ink today about the Conservative Green Plan. But before you read the spin from both sides, have a gander at what’s been tabled in the House of Commons today. The key document is the “Notice of Intent”, an official notice which lets everyone know that regulations are on the way. It won’t take long to read — maybe 15 or 20 minutes. The Tories hold this document up as evidence that they are doing something right now right away. Their opponents say it’s vague and is nothing but evidence of more footdragging and delay.

The government has also published a document called “Why Do We Need the Clean Air Act?” (The first Clean Air Act, incidentally, was passed into law in 1971).

And, of course, there is the press release announcing all this.

Could Garth go Green?

Garth Turner can’t sit in the House of Commons as a Conservative. But rather than be an independent, might he ask if he could sit as a member of the Green Party? It will be up that party’s leader Elizabeth May to make that call and we may yet hear from her later today on that issue. On his blog (which, presumably from the traffic load is largely inaccessible right now) Garth has blogged a lot about environmental issues and, though many think that the Green Party and the NDP are interchangeable, many Green members might describe themselves as Progressive Conservatives without the social baggage.

Jim Harris, the leader prior to May, was, himself a former Tory, and the party has at times favoured a free-market approach to environmental issues.

For the Greens, it would be huge bonus to have an MP in the House. Why?

  • In the last election, only leaders of parties with sitting MPs were invited to take part in nationally televised leaders’ debates.
  • Because her party has an MP in the House, party leader Elizabeth May would be afforded some of the privileges of other leaders in the House of Commons, namely, the opportunity to scrum, after Question Period, in the same place and same time as other party leaders.
  • May would, presumably, have some ability to direct or advise how Garth should spend the money he gets from the House of Commons to run his MPs office.

Garth himself has a news conference scheduled for 5 pm Ottawa time and I’ll bet you might be able to catch it live on CTV Newsnet.

 

Tories table dangerous offender legislation

Justice Minister Vic Toews this morning tabled amendments to the Criminal Code that the Conservatives say will make the law tougher on dangerous and high-risk offenders. From the backgrounder distributed by the Department of Justice, here’s how things will work on the so-called ‘three strikes’ provision:

A) Changes to Dangerous Offender legislation:
The Dangerous Offender provisions, Part XXIV of the Criminal Code of Canada, are intended to protect all Canadians from the most dangerous and violent sexual predators in the country. These proposed reforms are aimed at achieving the objective of protecting innocent Canadians from future harm, by ensuring that the offender remains in prison until a risk no longer exists.

Under the reformed legislation:
i) An individual will be presumed to meet the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation when he or she gets a third conviction for a designated violent or sexual crime that is subject to a federal sentence of at least two years.  A Dangerous Offender designation will not be automatic. The burden will be on the offender to explain why he or she should not be designated a dangerous offender. The judge retains discretion to refuse the application.
ii) The current onus on the Crown to prove that the Dangerous Offender sentence is appropriate in the circumstances will be removed. This codification of the principle established in the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Johnson is an important reform that has the support of all provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
iii) The time allowed for the filing of a psychiatric assessment will be extended to 30 days from 15 days, as well as allowing for an additional extension of 30 days. This addresses a procedural difficulty identified by all provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
iv) The court now must hear a Dangerous Offender application if it is satisfied reasonable grounds exist for such a finding. This resolves a technical issue in the current provisions that had allowed courts to refuse to hear such an application.
v) Following conviction of a third designated serious violent/sexual offence, the Crown must declare in open court whether it intends to bring a Dangerous Offender application. This will increase vigilance among provincial Crown prosecutors to pursue such applications when there are adequate grounds to do so.

[Source: Department of Justice]

Guns on our lakes – the political reaction

The issue of U.S. Coast Guard cutters conducting machine gun fire exercises on the Great Lakes has percolated up to Ottawa. Here's an exchange from Question Period:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, recently Mayor Bradley of Sarnia added his name to the chorus of Canadians who are concerned about the U.S. coast guard firing live ammunition into the Great Lakes. This is on top of the fact that the vessels of the coast guard have very powerful machine guns on them now.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how firing live ammunition into the Great Lakes where Canadians live, work and play is making them any safer?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was actually in 2003 that the previous government affirmed a treaty that had been in place since 1817 and permitted this type of exercise. It is currently under review. There has been a suspension of all activities of live fire exercises until November. There will be a public consultation. Canada has made its views known to the United States. Clearly, we will follow these consultations in the United States to make those views further known on the environmental side and the security side to see that we get a proper resolution.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a proper resolution is to make sure that the shooting in the Great Lakes is stopped.
We all know that the Liberals sold us out when they allowed a treaty concocted two centuries ago to keep the Great Lakes demilitarized to be violated.
The question is whether the Conservative government is going to put on the table a Canadian position that says there will be no firing of live ammunition in the Great Lakes because of the environmental, safety, tourism, economic and sovereignty consequences.
Will the Prime Minister stand in this place and say that he is going to tell the Americans to shut down the firing in the Great Lakes?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the NDP was not listening and he has taken the usual approach of ready, fire, aim.
I have said that the exercises are not taking place while the consultation is under way. In fact, there will be three public consultations, one taking place in Minneapolis and the others in Detroit and Buffalo. They are currently under way.
In April 2003 both countries agreed to an interpretation of an age-old contract, the Rush Bagot contract. We are pursuing this with the Americans. We have made our views known. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Later, Layton addresses reporters in the House of Commons foyer after Question Period:

“Well, the Liberals apparently opened the door to this arming of Coast Guard vessels in the Great Lakes without much fanfare. That was a grave error and Canadians should have in fact been consulted at that point. Now we see that live firing of ammunition on the Great Lakes is taking place and there are no hearings in Canada. The minister talked about hearings but they’re all in the States. What? Do Canadians not matter? These are our Great Lakes too. …
… I know that the mayor of Kingston, the mayor of Sarnia, the mayor of Toronto, mayors on the Canadian side and I understand some mayors on the American side are very concerned about the fact that a place that has been a place of work, a place of pleasure, a place for environment to thrive and ecosystems is now going to be shot at by the Coast Guard with these massive machine guns. There’s an awful lot of people out there on those looks who aren’t necessarily listening to their radios to get alerts that there’s going to be live fire with a range of up to 4,000 feet or more taking place on the Great Lakes. And our government needs to make a clear statement on the record with the United States administration to say that this must stop.

Technorati Tags:

Ottawa's Light Rail dispute: Mayor asks Harper to jump in

One of the big stories here in Ottawa nowadays is about the city's proposed light rail project. Ottawa city council led by Mayor Bob Chiarelli (right)— who everyone tells me is a Liberal — approved the $200-million deal and signed a contract with a consortium led by Siemens. Then Treasury Board President John Baird — who everyone tells me is a Conservative — stepped in. Baird is an Ottawa area MP and wanted to “review” the deal as the federal government is helping out with the financing. After Baird's review, the federal government let everyone know that it was withholding its absolute final approval until after the municipal elections in November. The light rail project is, indeed, a municipal election issue and there is a decent chance, if the polls are to be believed, that Chiarelli may not win again.

Several of Baird's federal political opponents are accusing him of interfering with a legitimate municipal political process to settle his own political hash while others believe he may have violated some confidentiality agreements.
In any event, Ottawa City Council asked the PM to step in and here's the documents filed by Chiarelli and his council:

City Council and Standing Committee
City Council and Standing Committee Motion
Moved by: Councillor D. Deans
Seconded by: Councillor J. Harder
WHEREAS Treasury Board President John Baird has acted unilaterally to override a decision by a democratically elected Council; AND
WHEREAS the decision of the Treasury Board President will result in cost overruns and possible legal action by the consortium;
AND WHEREAS the President of the Treasury Board took an unprecedented step in demanding and reviewing a commercial contract that the Federal Government is not a party to;
AND WHEREAS the Treasury Board President is misinterpreting a clause in the contract that is intended for financial closing and was not intended for use by a third party, namely the Federal Government;
AND WHEREAS the Federal Infrastructure Minister Lawrence Cannon has approved the submission to the Treasury Board;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Chiarelli seek assurance from the Prime Minister of Canada that the Government of Canada remains unconditionally committed to the providing $200 million funding for the N-S LRT project in keeping with the spirit and intent of the MOU dated April 21, 2005 and in keeping with the Council decision July 12, 2006.
October 16, 2006
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada…
Dear Prime Minister Harper:
At the request of Ottawa City Council, I am writing to you as Mayor of the nation’s capital regarding a critical issue affecting the future of our public transit system in Ottawa.
Ottawa City Council has approved over fifty votes leading to the award of a light rail contract to the consortium of Siemens PCL Dufferin. The Downtown to Barrhaven LRT project was ratified by Ottawa City Council on July 12, 2006 by a 14-7 vote. Pursuant to that decision, a legally binding contract was entered into on September 15, 2006, between the private sector consortium and the City of Ottawa.
Officials in Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada have been kept fully aware of the project and confirmed to the city prior to the application to Treasury Board that their review was complete, that no further information or documentation was necessary, and that the project would be recommended for approval by Treasury Board as per normal process.
Additionally enclosed is a copy of a letter by the Secretary of Treasury Board Wayne G. Wouters dated October 10, 2006 confirming Treasury Board approval of $200 million in federal funding. This letter also confirms that the Minister of Transport has authority to enter into a contribution agreement with the City of Ottawa, “once he has received notice after the municipal election that the new council supports the project”.
This condition is contrary to federal process and therefore raises serious questions of accountability.
It is with regret that I feel compelled to write to you under such unfortunate circumstances.
Your message to the Annual Meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in June 2006 was exemplary, focussing on a tone of respect for other orders of government. You described your speech there as “commitments to communities”. In the speech you said “ … for decades – and especially in recent years – Ottawa has stuck its nose into provincial and local matters”, and promised to change that orientation.
In addition I was very pleased by the remarks of the Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, at the same conference that “if we are to accomplish this (solve the problems of our cities and communities) we must build a strong and constructive partnership, where every jurisdiction is recognized and respected”. The actions of the President of the Treasury Board do not seem to reflect this respect for mature local governments.
In conclusion, I would ask you to consider all the circumstances on the position taken by our Council in order to permit the well-established and normal process concerning federal-municipal contribution agreements to be followed in this case. A copy of the resolution passed by Ottawa City Council on October 11 is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Bob Chiarelli
Mayor of Ottawa

Technorati Tags: , ,

Boats with Guns – on our lakes – Part Three

The New York Times, this morning, reports on the the U.S. Coast Guard’s plans to put machine guns on the decks of its Great Lakes patrol boats and establish 33 permanent live-fire exercise “safety zones”.

“The notion is so unusual that it prompted United States diplomats to negotiate with Canadian authorities in order to agree that it would not violate a 189-year-old treaty, signed after the War of 1812, limiting arms on the Great Lakes..

“Many here in Grand Haven [Michigan],  … a town that calls itself “Coast Guard City U.S.A.,” … say the thought of members firing machine guns anywhere near these waters strikes them as dangerous to ordinary boaters, potentially damaging to the Great Lakes’ ecosystem and, frankly, a somewhat surprising place to be bracing for terrorists.

“You know exactly what’s going to happen with this,” said Bob Foster, 58, who said he spends every chance he gets on the waters here. “Some boater is going to inadvertently drive through the live fire zone and get blown out of the water.”

Carole Loftis, the owner of Snug Harbor, a popular restaurant with windows on the water, said that although she certainly carried concerns, like most Americans, about terrorism, drunken boating seemed a more frequent threat around here. “This seems a little like overkill,” Ms. Loftis said of the shooting plans …”

[Read the full story]