Month: November 2007

Though the current session of Parliament has been up and running for a few weeks — and has even had a break week — it wasn’t until this week that the Committees of the House of Commons really got to work.

House of Commons Committees do important work.  They examine and make recommendations to government legislation; they study important issues; and are often the forum for some of the best political debates on the Hill.

For each committee, the Chair plays a key and often influential role. Indeed, in the last session of Parliament, we learned that the Conservatives had issued a “playbook” to help their Chairs guide the work of the Committee towards the government’s preferred outcome. Chairs receive an extra $10,700 a year on top of their MPs salary of $150,800 a year.

So, without further ado then, here is the list of all the committees and their chairs:

Committees where the Government (the Conservatives) has the chair:

• Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Devlopment – Barry Devolin (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock)
• Agriculture and Agri-Food – James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake)
• Canadian Heritage – Gary Schellenberger (Perth-Wellington)
• Citizenship and Immigration – Norman Doyle (St. John’s East)
• Environment and Sustainable Development – Bob Mills (Red Deer)
• Finance – Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead)
• Fisheries and Oceans – Fabian Manning (Avalon)
• Foreign Affairs – Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot)
• Health – Joy Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul)
• Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities – Dean Allison (Niagara West-Glanbrook)
• Industry – James Rajotte (Edmonton-Leduc)
• International Trade – Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre)
• Justice and Human Rights – Art Hangar (Calgary Northeast)
• National Defence – Rick Casson (Lethbridge)
• Natural Resources – Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright)
• Official Languages – Steven Blaney (Levis-Bellechasse)
• Procedure and House Affairs – Gary Goodyear (Cambridge)
• Public Safety and National Security – Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
• Transport – Merv Tweed (Brandon-Souris)
• Veterans Affairs – Rob Anders (Calgary West)

Committees where the Official Opposition (the Liberals) have the chair:

• Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics – Paul Szabo (Mississauga South)
• Government Operations and Estimates – Diane Marleau (Sudbury)
• Public Accounts – Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown)
• Status of Women – Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East)

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand told a House of Commons committee yesterday that the 2006 general election cost about $277–million — including the costs of reimbursements paid to candidates and to parties.

Mayrand was at the committee to comment on proposals to add two more advance polling days into general  elections. The bill for two more days, he figures, will come to $34–million, which means general elections in Canada will cost more than $300–million.

In a scrum outside the House of Commons today, NDP MP Pat Martin said that the terms of the reference for the Mulroney inquiry ought to be broad enough that the inquiry can take a look at donations Karl Heinz Schreiber made to Liberals as well as Conservatives — at the kind of lobbying “that makes Canadians puke,” to use his phrase . Here’s an excerpt from that scrum, in which Martin responds to questions from several different reporters:

Pat Martin:   … if the allegations are that they're greasing the wheels of commerce by lining the Conservative pockets, we started to think isn't it just as likely that an operator like Mr. Schreiber would be greasing the wheels of commerce with Liberals as well? And we did find evidence that Bearhead Industries, Mr. Schreiber's company, donated $10,000 in 1993 to the Liberal Party of Canada. 

But we also raised the question in Question Period today: what motivates Marc Lalonde to contribute to the million-dollar bail for Karlheinz Schreiber? It's just a question that comes to mind.  We make no allegations.  We're just saying that this is something that a public inquiry should be broad enough to, as Mr. Gomery says, follow the money.  Mr. Gomery said today that one of the limitations that he regretted about his own inquiry is that the terms of reference didn't allow him to follow the money to the extent that he thought would have been useful.

Reporter:   I'm not sure I understand what you're referring.  Is it illegal to make a donation to the Liberal Party?

Martin:   No, absolutely not.  All we're talking about now is the terms of reference of the public inquiry and it's reasonable to assume the possibility that maybe Mr. Schreiber was greasing other wheels than just Conservative. 

Reporter:   You're saying that Schreiber wanted to set up a light armoured vehicle plant in Bearhead, Cape Breton and so you're thinking that maybe a $10,000 contribution to the incoming Liberal government might grease the wheels.  Is that what you're suggesting?

Martin:   Well, 1993 was an election year and, you know, Mr. Schreiber was trying to influence public policy decision-making.  Who's to say that he wasn't trying to influence the Liberal government as well whether they're incoming or outgoing? All we're saying is the terms of reference of the public inquiry has to be broad enough to allow them to follow the money even if that leads to places other than the Conservative Party.

Reporter:   Isn't this inquiry supposed to be about Mr. Mulroney and his dealings with Mr. Schreiber and the $300,000 and Harrington Lake and not all Mr. Schreiber's business dealings over 20 years in Canada?

Martin:   Well, the Airbus defamation libel suit is pluralistic by its very nature. I can't say how far they have to go but Canadians want to know and so if we are at the stage where we're trying to define the terms of reference of the public inquiry, what the NDP is saying is that we want it to be broad and expansive enough to include these other logical questions that follow.

Reporter:   So the link between Mr. Schreiber and the Tories and the link between Mr. Schreiber and the Liberals.

Martin:   And the Liberals.  Exactly.  I mean this whole sordid mess.  I don't think it's limited to the Conservative Party in my own opinion.

Reporter:   But how wide does the inquiry have to be to look into every political donation which was completely legal at the time?

Martin:   Well, common sense and reason will have to prevail but the public has a right to know.  The public needs to know and I argue the public needs to know before they can go to the ballot box again, to tell you the truth.

Reporter:   Mr. Schreiber says in his affidavit that he was assured by Brian Mulroney would win the '93 election. Did he give money to the Conservatives?

Martin:   We don't know.  We haven't found any evidence of donations to the Conservative Party of Canada.  What we do know is he gave envelopes full of money to the former Prime Minister of Canada. 

Reporter:   And now your thesis is that Mr. Schreiber might have tried to bribe any government that was in Ottawa.

Martin:   Well, I think if, as the allegations suggest, Mr. Schreiber was trying to grease the wheels of commerce, as we say, that it may well be he was greasing the wheels of any leader, government ruling party or the opposition party or the party that may become the next government. 

Reporter:   What does it say about Bearhead and the way they're conducting operations?

Martin:   Well, this is the kind of lobbying that makes Canadians puke.  You know this is exactly the reason why we're trying to tie a bell around lobbyists' necks so they aren't out there peddling influence and buying government favour.  I mean that old-school politics that this indicates is exactly why we want to change things.

Reporter:   You weren't around at the time and it's a different way of doing business now, right?

Martin:   I'm not sure it's changed that much.  I mean look around you now.  You can't swing a cat on Parliament Hill without hitting a lobbyist.  You know I don't know what they're up to but I do know there's very little rules that stop them from influence peddling.  They say the only difference between influence peddling and lobbying is about five years in prison but it's a fine line.

It’s probably important to underline that Dr. David Johnston will not play the role of John Gomery. That is to say, it is only his job to advise the government on the terms of reference for a public inquiry not to actually conduct the inquiry. The lucky (?) jurist who will play the role of Gomery will be named later.

In the meantime, here are Johnston’s Terms of Reference, including his compensation of up to $1,400 per day and his deadline — January 11, 2008:

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Whereas Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber has made various allegations with respect to his financial dealings with the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., that go beyond the private interests of the parties, including in an affidavit sworn on November 7, 2007; and

Whereas the allegations with respect to the Right Honourable Mulroney’s time as Prime Minister, although unproven and in part conflicting with other available information, raise questions respecting the integrity of an important office of the Government of Canada;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph 127.1(1)© of the Public Service Employment Act, hereby appoints to the position of special adviser to the Prime Minister, David Johnston of St. Clements, Ontario, as Independent Advisor, to hold office during pleasure, for a term ending on January 11, 2008; and

(a)  specifies the duties of the Independent Advisor as to conduct an independent review of those allegations respecting financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., and to submit to the Prime Minister by January 11, 2008 a report in both official languages, which shall

(i) make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a  public inquiry into those allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination, under the Inquiries Act,

(ii) state whether the Independent Advisor, in the course of his review, has determined that there is any prima facie evidence of criminal action; in that case, the report shall make recommendations as to how this determination should be dealt with, and what should be the appropriate mandate and timing for a formal public inquiry in those circumstances, and

(iii) make recommendations as to whether any additional course of action may be appropriate;

(b)  authorizes the Independent Advisor to adopt procedures for the expedient and proper conduct of the independent review, including reviewing relevant records and documents and consulting as appropriate;

© fixes his remuneration as set out in the attached schedule, which per diem is within the range ($1,200 – $1,400); and

(d) authorizes the payment, in accordance with Treasury Board policies, of the following expenses incurred in the course of his duties:

(i) travel and living expenses while in travel status in Canada while away from his normal place of residence in accordance with the Treasury Board Travel Directive and Special Travel Authorities,

(ii) expert staff, as required, and

(iii) any other reasonable expenses as necessary to conduct the independent review.

This just in ..

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the appointment of Professor David Johnston, President of the University of Waterloo, as Independent Advisor to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, in order to make recommendations for an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry. This appointment is effective immediately.

Professor Johnston will provide his final report to the Prime Minister, in both official languages, by January 11, 2008.

“I am confident that Professor Johnston will carry out his duties with diligence and rigour”, said Prime Minister Harper. ”As an independent and impartial third party advisor, Professor Johnston will provide the government with the parameters for the public inquiry as well as any other course of action that may be required.”

An eminent lawyer with a distinguished academic career, Professor Johnston was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario from 1974 to 1979, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University from 1979 to 1994 and has served as President of the University of Waterloo since June 1999. Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees. Recognized for his considerable legal experience and expertise, Professor Johnston is ideally suited to conduct this review and provide independent advice to the government on these allegations and the way forward.

Prime Minister Harper announced in the House of Commons moments ago that there will now be a full public inquiry into the allegations raised against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Here’s the statement just released by Harper:

“On Friday I announced that I would be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber’s new sworn allegations.  These allegations remain unproven and untested in a court of law and arose in a private lawsuit.  There are however now issues that go beyond the private interests of the parties in the lawsuit.

Many have called for a public inquiry, including most recently Mr. Mulroney.

Given the conflicting information and allegations (including what appears to be some conflicting information under oath) and the extended time period over which the events referred to in various documents and allegations surrounding this matter have occurred, I have decided to ask the third party to advise the government on appropriate terms of reference for a public inquiry.

If in reviewing material, the independent party finds any prima facie evidence of criminal action he or she will identify this and advise how this should be handled and what impact, if any, it should have on the nature and timing of the inquiry.

A public inquiry is a major step and one that should only be taken when it addresses Canadians’ interest, not those of the various parties, whether Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney or political parties.  That is why it is important that we engage the necessary independent expertise and take the time to ensure that the terms of reference meet that test.”

This hit a public relations newswire at 11:06 pm yesterday. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apparently has had enough:

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney Wants a Full Fledged Public Commission of Inquiry

MONTREAL, QUEBEC–(Marketwire – Nov. 12, 2007) – “Twelve years ago to the day I was trying to deal with very grave and damaging accusations against me contained in a letter sent to the Swiss authorities. These accusations were related to the sale in 1988 of Airbus planes to Air Canada, back then a Crown Corporation. After a tough and lengthy battle against these false and horrendously libelous accusations, the Government of the day had to admit that they had absolutely no evidence to support them and apologized to me and my family. In addition they had to reimburse me for all legal and other expenses.

Twelve years later, the same people at the CBC and in certain other media organizations, who were at the origin of the 1995 accusations, are still conducting their vendetta. Last Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided that he needed the counsel of an independent third party to advise him on the course of action to follow after new allegations were made in an affidavit filed by Karlheinz Schreiber from his prison cell where he is detained pending the execution of an extradition order confirmed twice by the Supreme Court of Canada. I will fully cooperate with the Special Advisor soon to be appointed by the Prime Minister but I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the roles played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities as well as journalists, the only solution is for the Government to launch a full fledged public Commission on Inquiry which would cover the period from 1988 to today. Only then will the whole truth be finally exposed and tarnished reputations restored.

I am willing to meet the Special Advisor that the Prime Minister will appoint to reiterate my conviction that this is the only way to prove to Canadians that I have done nothing wrong.”

Shortly after 10 am tomorrow morning, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan will rise in the House of Commons to table “An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure) and An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.”

Van Loan and Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, will then hold a press conference.

No doubt they will be announcing that Sen. Michael Fortier – appointed by the Prime Minister early in 2006 to howls of outrage from his party’s grassroots so that he could solve a political problem he had vis-a-vis representation in his cabinet from the City of Montreal – will be stepping down immediately. Most Canadians, we assume, expect their politicians to walk the walk if they’re going to talk the talk about Senate reform. Something tells me, though, that Fortier will still be a minister at the end of the day …

It seems odd to me that one could write a few thousand words about the world's oil economy without even mentioning Canada once. Only Saudi Arabia, after all, has more proven oil reserves than Canada. Moreover, Canada, helped along by its energy wealth, is the only G8 country whose federal government is running a budget surplus (and has done so for several years now.)

Still, if you were going to take a look at the world's economy and describe how $100-a-barrel oil is affecting things from St. Petersburg to Kano, Nigeria without mentioning on the world's largest energy exporters, this piece, on the front of today's Washington Post, is not a bad place to start:

High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone …

… there is no end in sight to the redistribution of more than 1 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Earlier oil shocks generated giant shifts in wealth and pools of petrodollars, but they eventually faded and economies adjusted. This new high point in petroleum prices has arrived over four years, and many believe it will represent a new plateau even if prices drop back somewhat in coming months.

“There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices “are not spiking; they're just rising,” he added. [Read the rest of the story]