Month: March 2010

The Parliamentary Budget Office has frequently complained, ever since its creation by the Harper government in 2006, that the Department of Finance, where budget officer Kevin Page used to work, refuses to give it the data that it needs to do its job. It complained about that again today in the PBO's assessment of last week's federal budget [PDF]:

“… although the use of private sector forecasts enhances the independence and, therefore, the credibility of the Government’s fiscal projections, the Government’s established practice of not providing the assumptions used by the Department of Finance Canada to translate the private sector economic forecast of these indicators into fiscal projections, as well as details regarding planned and approved program spending by departments, impedes a complete assessment of the reasonableness of the Government’s fiscal projections.

This lack of transparency was highlighted in the 2005 Review of Canadian Fiscal Forecasting and IMF staff have also noted that the Government “could enhance the understanding of budgetary forecasts by providing more information on the assumptions and methods underlying the translation of the macroeconomic outlook into fiscal projections.”2 A complete assessment of the fiscal outlook presented in Budget 2010 requires this additional information.”

Whenever he holds a press conference, tPrime Minister Stephen Harper insists that one of his own staff, usually press secretary Dimitri Soudas, choose the person who will ask him a question.

But today, Harper is ceding Soudas' job to Google.

Google, the online search giant, has a service called Google moderator and, through it, any Canadian can ask the PM a question, either via video or in text form. To get involved, Google and the PMO want you to watch an important speech Harper is giving this morning in the House of Commons: The Prime Minister's Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That will begin at about 10:45 a.m. Ottawa time. Other party leaders will give their response once Harper is done.

Though Harper's speech — and all House of Commons proceedings — are streamed online in any event using the House of Commons ParlVu service, Harper's speech today will be streamed through YouTube, another Google-owned service, through a service Google operates called CitizenTube.

“For the first time Canadians will have a chance to ask the Prime Minister questions, and/or vote on their favourite question through Google moderator (which will be open until Sunday at 1pm EST) on a new YouTube site creative specifically for the event, Youtube.com/talkcanada,” says Wendy Bairos Rozeluk, a spokesperson for Google Canada.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will give tomorrow what is usually one of the major speeches for any prime minister during any given session of Parliament: The reply to the Speech from the Throne. He will rise in the House of Commons to deliver those remarks at about 10:45 a.m. on Thursday.

You can watch that speech on CPAC and, via the Web, through the House of Commons ParlVu streaming Web site.

Now, though, the PMO is taking that speech even farther out into cyberspace, promising to stream it live on YouTube.

It will be the first time that a Prime Minister's speech in the House of Commons will be appearing live on YouTube. The PM has already made extensive use of YouTube — and other social media such as Twitter and Facebook — where viewers can find video archives of various prime ministerial speeches.

The PMO says the speech will be streamed at www.youtube.com/TalkCanada

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, who is also the senior minister for Manitoba, is unhappy with reportage on the Jaffer case done by Winnipeg Free Press Ottawa bureau chief Mia Rabson and me. The following is a “letter to the editor”-type of response Toews is circulating widely to supporters and others:

” Never let the truth get in the way of a good story”
– William Randolph Hearst,

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Others,

Yesterday (on March 9) a provincial prosecutor in the province of Ontario standing before a provincial judge withdrew charges of impaired driving and cocaine possession against former Tory MP Rahim Jaffer. Mr. Jaffer pleaded guilty to the outstanding charge of careless driving.

As he was required to do, the judge sentenced Mr. Jaffer on the basis of the charge before him and not on the basis of accusations withdrawn by the prosecutor.

As with all cases involving a provincial prosecutor it is the provincial Attorney General who is ultimately responsible for explaining why decisions involving a prosecution were undertaken. In this case the Attorney General conducting the prosecution was the Ontario Attorney General.

Not surprisingly, it didn't take long for Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mia Rabson to pick up the Liberal spin advanced by Manitoba MP Anita Neville who suggested that this was an example of the federal Conservative government falling down on the job.

My advice to reporters asking for an explanation of the prosecutor's decision was seen by Rabson as “political posturing” when I directed them to ask those questions to the Attorney General responsible for the prosecution. As I stated:

“I believe the Liberal – the Liberal government in Ontario would be responsible for that.”

I certainly have no knowledge why the province decided to handle the prosecution in that way. I suspect the decision was made because there were flaws in the case involving the impaired driving and cocaine charges initially laid against Mr. Jaffer and that a careless driving charge was all that the facts and the law could reasonably support.

My suggestion that the reporters look to the provincial government for an explanation of why the decision was made is only logical in this context.

But logic has never been a barrier to Rabson's efforts to ensure that the Liberal spin on any case – despite the facts – is fully advanced.

And consistent with her usual practice Mia Rabson has no interest in actually doing any work in advancing a particular story. If the speed dial to Anita Neville's telephone isn't sufficient to fully accomplish her goal, why not just pirate the work of a colleague if it supports a Liberal spin on the story?

And so it was that Mia simply took the work of her colleague David Akin, who conveniently works a few desks over from her to put the finishing touches on her smear job on behalf of the Liberals.

This smear job was based on the fact that the provincial judge sitting on the case had originally been appointed by the Ontario provincial government in 2000 when current federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was the provincial Attorney General. For Mia Rabson and apparently David Akin, the smoking gun in the case that led to a Conservative conspiracy was the political affiliation of the judge prior to his appointment to the bench in 2000.

Although Akin can actually put out a story that is grounded in fact, this is the kind of conspiracy theory story that Mia Rabson regularly engages in because they don't involve a great deal of thought or work. They just involve innuendo and a superficial understanding of the issue. In fact, the more superficial, the better, because a thoughtful examination of the issue quickly destroys the conspiracy.

In this article Mia carefully avoids mentioning the fact that when prosecutors stand up and “stay” or drop charges in court, a judge has no discretion to reinstate those charges. Those charges come to an end as a result of the decision by the prosecutor. Nor do judges ask for an explanation as to why charges are dropped. The extent of any explanation to be provided is the responsibility of the prosecutor handling the case and ultimately the political responsibility of Attorney General of the province responsible for prosecution.

While it is clear that judges sometimes do override joint defence and prosecution sentencing recommendations made in the context of a “plea bargain”, those are very rare. Furthermore, this was not a case where the judge was able to intervene in that manner, because this wasn't a joint recommendation on sentence. The provincial prosecutor had stayed the criminal charges and the only judicial responsibility left for the provincial judge to determine was the sentence to be imposed on the charge remaining before him – the careless driving charge.

But a clear examination of the facts or the explanation of a process like this one does little to enhance the partisan political agenda that Rabson is committed to advancing. It is so much simpler to run roughshod over the facts, and additionally in this case, the judge who imposed a sentence on the charge that was brought before him.

And when it comes to running roughshod over the facts,

Rabson rarely disappoints. Mr. Hearst would be nodding his approval.

Vic Toews

Rahim Jaffer was no longer an MP when he was pulled over in September while speeding through the sleep Ontario town of Palgrave. An Ontario Provincial Police officer on traffic patrol pulled him over after clocking his vehicle travelling at over 90 km-h in a 50 km-h zone.

Then …

…officers noted “an odour of alcohol on the driver's breath,” OPP spokesman Const. Peter Leon told the media. He was given a breathalyzer test, arrested and then taken to the Caledon OPP station.

There, Mr. Jaffer provided two more breath samples and was detained for four hours.

According to the police, the tests registered more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in Mr. Jaffer's blood. The OPP also allegedly found cocaine during a search of the car.

Jaffer ended up facing a drunk driving charge and a charge of drug possession. Today, he was in court, after his lawyer and the Crown prosecutor reached a plea agreement:

Jaffer plead guilty on Tuesday to one count of careless driving and was fined $500 in an Orangeville, Ont., courtroom. Mr. Jaffer, 37, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding stemming from an incident last September in Palgrave, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Toronto. Those charges were withdrawn Tuesday by the Crown, who said that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

That news broke before lunch in Ottawa so, as MPs headed into Question Period just before 2 p.m., reporters wanted to know from Conservative MPs if the disposition of the case against their former colleague — he was a popular MP from 1997 to 2008 and was chair of the National Caucus — would affect the views Canadians had of the current government. None could answer that on the way into the House of Commons because, to a person, the two dozen or so stopped had not heard about the case. They'd heard about it by the end of Question Period, when Liberal MP Anita Neville of Winnipeg rose to ask:

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their “get tough on crime” rhetoric. They always say, “You do the crime, you do the time”. What then is the government's comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?

Even before she finished her question, the government benches were howling. I was sitting in the press gallery in the Commons during this question and saw and heard the Conservatives loudly shouting Neville down. Transport Minister John Baird thought the question was sleazy; Immigration Minister Jason Kenney shouted derisively, “classy, Anita!”; and the Minister of State for the Status of Women, Jaffer's spouse Helena Guergis, just started at Neville and shook her head. The Speaker tried to calm everyone down with little effect. Here is the exchange as it was recorded by the clerks in the House. It sounds about right to me against my notes but it was nearly impossible to hear the following exchange because of the yelling from both sides of the House …

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice. Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. Rob Nicholson: I almost do not know where to begin to comment on such an irresponsible question, Mr. Speaker. The government initiated the Director of Public Prosecutions for the very reason to make sure there would never be any political interference of any prosecution in this country. That should have the support of the hon. member, and she should get up, withdraw and apologize for that comment.

The Speaker: The hon member for Winnipeg South Centre. Order, please.

Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a hypocritical answer this minister gives. The government tries to pass the buck and the Conservatives are conspicuously silent, only when the law is being flouted by one of their own. Even the judge thought this was a “break” Why the double standard? Nothing stopped them from commenting before. Does the government really believe that the punishment fits the crime?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is about as low as one can go, in my opinion. This hon. member is talking about a provincial prosecution in front of a provincial judge within the appeal period, and she is asking us to comment. That is completely irresponsible and she should apologize to this House.

After Question Period, outside the House of Commons, MPs from all sides had more to say. The Conservatives, by and large, were not pleased and pretty much stuck to the last point that Nicholson had made in the House. Here, for example is Vic Toews, the public safety minister and former justice minister: “This is a provincial prosecution and you should ask the prosecution.” But, upon being pressed for a reaction, Toews adds an important qualifier: “I believe the Liberal – the Liberal government in Ontario would be responsible for that.”
Forget the law on this one. This is definitely about politics. Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting that politics were a factor in the disposition of the case — there's no evidence to suggest that the lawyers or judget were motivated by anything other than the appropriate application of the law — but it seems clear based on the back-and-forth in the House of Commons and in reaction by MPs, that the Jaffer case has given them some fodder with which to play politics.

Even the decisions of the judge in the case came under scrutiny. Joe Comartin, an NDP MP and lawyer, said, “I suppose the one criticism I have of the judge in this case is not insisting on an explanation as to why the more serious charges were not proceeded with. It is rare for a judge to refuse, you know, a plea agreement between defence and prosecutor, but this is one of the cases where I think he should have gone further.”
Comartin had more to say to reporters
“There isn't a Canadian in the country, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Jaffer, who doesn't feel that what happened today appears on the surface to be favorable treatment,” Comartin said outside the House of Commons. “There isn't a Canadian I think who would believe that he or she, faced with the same set of facts that Mr. Jaffer was faced with, would have at the very least had to go through a trial.
“The one-line explanation from the prosecutor that she felt that there wasn't sufficient evidence to get a conviction is simply not sufficient in these circumstances, especially with regards to the fact that it is admitted that [Jaffer] failed the breathalyser.” Comartin said that, unless the prosecution provides that explanation, the only conclusion to make is that the police officers who arrested Jaffer and investigated the matter messed up.”The police are being painted here with doing a sloppy job, that somehow they messed up the cocaine possession. That is the only other thing that you can conclude, that they somehow messed it up. That is not fair to them. If that in fact is the case, then tell us, but if it is not, you should not paint them with that brush.”Comartin said the judge should have insisted on a more complete explanation from the prosecution. “It is rare for a judge to refuse a plea agreement between defence and prosecutor, but this is one of the cases where I think he should have gone further,” Comartin said.

My colleague Linda Nguyen reports:

Former Alberta MP Rahim Jaffer plead guilty on Tuesday to one count of careless driving and was fined $500 in an Orangeville, Ont., courtroom.

Mr. Jaffer, 37, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding stemming from an incident last September in Palgrave, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Toronto. Those charges were withdrawn Tuesday by the Crown, who said that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

“I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one,” Judge Doug Maund told Mr. Jaffer before fining him . . .

Jaffer's former caucus colleagues immediately tried to distance themselves from the decision and the case. The line from all Conservative MPs, when asked, was that it was a provincial matter, that the prosecutor in the case was a provincial appointee. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews even went far enough to point out that it was a Liberal administration in Ontario responsible for the case.

Well, turns out the judge in the case, Doug Maund is a long-time Tory:

• When Brian Mulroney was prime minister, Maund was the chief of staff to Mulroney's health minister Perrin Beatty.
• He backed Kim Campbell in the leadership race to succeed Mulroney
• He was appointed to the Ontario bench in October, 2000 by the Ontario attorney general of the day, none other than current federal finance minister Jim Flaherty.