Category: Politics/Conservatives

What will Prime Minister Stephen Harper do about Senator Richard Neufeld, plucked 18 months ago out of B.C. Premier's Gordon Campbell cabinet by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a member of the Senate of Canada?

Harper has appointed 34 senators and, whenever has named them, Conservatives have been very clear that each and every one of them is committed to two basic tenets of Senate reform: There should be term limits of eight years for senators and, someday, senators should be elected. The government introduced legislation earlier this year towards those goals.

But yesterday, Neufeld told Senators:

I am not sure that an elected Senate is the way to go. Obviously there need to be a few changes, but I do not think the election of senators is the top thing on my mind….

I have heard some people say that the Senate is too partisan, that we have to elect senators so that we do not have a partisan Senate. My goodness! Take a look at the other place or at any other legislature. Are they not partisan? Of course not.

I think we work well here. Do we have differences of opinion? Of course we do, but if we cannot sit down and talk them out, sometimes we agree to disagree. That is democracy and I do not mind that kind of democracy.

If Canadians actually want an elected Senate, they need to be told both sides of the story. I do not think you can just continue to rant about how terrible the Senate is without telling people what the Senate does, what it has done and the good work that it does.

Wandering so far afield from bedrock Conservative Party policy would, one assumes, bring immediate excommunication from the Conservative caucus.

But Harper must balance his desire to continue with a plurality in the Senate versus his desire to send a message to any other Conservative senators who have some newly independent ideas about Senate reform.

The Conservative senate caucus numbers 51, more than any other party, but two seats shy of a majority of 53 in the 105-seat Senate. The Liberals have 49 senators; the Progressive Conservative have two, two others are independent and there is one vacancy.

If Neufeld is out, there are 50 in caucus to the Liberal 49, still a plurality, but, unlike the Conservatives in the House of Commons, not every Conservative senator walks the party line. Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, for example, has some of his own ideas about the government's legislative package, including Senate reform.

Dumping Neufeld, then, would likely send a message about caucus solidarity but it could imperil the government's ability to do what it wants the Senate to do: rubber-stamp the government's legislation.

We have asked the PMO for its thoughts on Senator Neufeld's new ideas and have been told that, perhaps later today, we will hear something about that from Harper's office.

It's hard not to get a little cynical about politics when you see press releases like this one. Christian Paradis (right), one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's favourite Quebec MPs, and the minister of natural resources, celebraed Canada Day in Thetford Mines, where about 25,000 people live in the heart of his riding of Megantic-L'Erable, and he did it with a $35,000 cheque from the federal government.

Canada Days are, of course, perfectly suitable things for federal governments to help fund. Indeed, as my colleague Laura Payton reported earlier this week, the celebration on Parliament Hill yesterdaay with Queen Elizabeth II is costing us an extra $1.1 million. I know hardcore opponents of government spending like Kevin Gaudet's group at the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation think this sort of thing is a waste of money but my gut instinct says that most Canadians don't mind having their tax dollars used for a free, giant party in the nation's capital when the Queen's in town.

But I'll bet there's towns and villages all over Canada yesterday where volunteers and service clubs have scrimped and saved to put on their own Canada Day celebrations. And I'll bet lots and lots of those towns and villages would like to have had $35,000 in federal grants “invested” in the their town to throw a party.

But that $35,000 went to a Conservative in a riding the Conservatives absolutely have to have in Quebec's eastern townships. Think the Tories would ever throw that kind of money at Alberta where they're a lock to win most seats? (Not that, I'm told, Albertans want any help from the federal government, but still…)

This iteration of Harper's government has now been in power for 625 days. In that time, they've made more than 4,200 announcements in which they've handed out money or announced funding for this or that project. Of those, 1,200 announcements — better than one-quarter of them all — have been made in and or are for the province of Quebec. And while Quebec seems to be getting roughly its fair share of total spending — about $14 billion of the more than $82 billion the government's handed out since last elected — Conserative politicians spend a lot more time standing around with cheques in that province than anywhere else in Canada, presumably in the hope that if they Quebecers lots and lots of attention that way, that will translate into electoral gains at the next election.

Meanwhile, as Thetford Mines and Christian Paradis celebrated Canada's birthday with $35,000 worth of the country's money, the rest of us in parts of the country that are not so important politically to the government partied under own steam, with the help of some local governments, volunteers, and whatever loonies we were able to dig up from under the couch.

Ahead of the G8 and G20 summits which he's hosting, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did four (so far as I know) media interviews. ON Monday of this week, he spoke to Reuters' David Ljunggren, to Theo Argitis for Bloomberg Television, to Joel-Denis Bellavance of La Presse and to me.

The transcript of my interview is online here.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scared that “next-to-non existent” job creation and growth in Canada's most important trading partners threatens Canada's otherwise robust economic recovery.

In an exclusive interview with QMI Agency, as he prepares to host this weekend's G8 and G20 summits, Harper voiced his fears about debt crises in Europe and an American economy that could take years to recover.

“This is going to remain a very delicate, a very dangerous situation,” Harper said.

“I think what Canadians really need to understand – I think they do but let me punch it home – how fragile the global recovery really is. And Canada really is an exception where we have strong growth and strong job creation …

Read the full story:

And we squeezed one more story out of that interview:

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Chinese President Hu Jintao meet here in Ottawa Thursday, one of them will be able to talk about the new Arctic icebreaker his country will launch in a couple of years.
It won’t be Harper.
…
China is playing for keeps when it comes to vast natural resources that lie under the Arctic Ocean. A top Chinese admiral said earlier this year that, by his reasoning, because one-fifth of the world’s population lives in China, China was entitled to one-fifth of the resources that lie in the Arctic’s international waters.
“The Arctic belongs to all the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it,” Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo said in the spring. “China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world's population.”

Read the full story:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s top aide is telling friends and colleagues to gird themselves for what could be a tough political season next fall, one that could include a general election.

Guy Giorno, Harper’s notoriously media-shy chief of staff, has told friends he’ll stay as chief of staff at least until next winter, Sun Media has learned.

There had been speculation that Giorno, already with two years in the post and a young family, might return to his law firm.

Several other top Conservative aides, however, moved on last week, knowing that if they don’t go now they’ll be expected to put on their game faces in case the government is defeated in the fall . . . They include PMO staffers Darrel Reid, Dave Penner, Jason Plotz and key ministerial staffer Chris Froggatt and Dan Dugas . . .[Read the rest]

Also: See former PMO staffer Keith Beardsley's post on the same issue.

Arthur Hamilton, a partner at the law firm, Cassels, Brock and Blackwell LLP, is the lawyer for the Conservative Party of Canada. He is testifiying this afternoon in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He is here to talk about the events that led to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to fire Helena Guergis as Minister of State for Status of Women, kick her out of caucus, and refer some allegations to the RCMP and Parliament's ethics commissioner. Here's some excerpts from his opening statement:

“I confirm that Ms. Guergis and I had to two separate telephone conversations in the morning of April 9. At that time, I detailed the allegations which were being made not only against her but also against her husband, [Rahim] Jaffer. These allegations also spoke to a number of matters which involved Mr. Jaffer's business partner, Mr. [Nazim] Gillani.'

[Hamilton then described how Guergis issued various media statements saying that she has not ever been apprised of the detailed allegations.]

“What no one knew until today is that on the afternoon of April 9, I was contacted by Jaime Watt, the chairman of Navigator Ltd. I understood that Mr. Watt was contacting me on behalf of Ms. Guergis. When Mr. Watt and I spoke, two things become clear. First, he had recently spoken to Ms. Guergis, Mr. Jaffer or both of them.

Second, he knew the allegation that I had explained to Ms. Guergis. Ms. Guergis still maintains that she does not know the allegations. As I have said, I explained them to her at length. Moreover, clearly Ms. Guergis remembered enough of the allegations to brief Mr. Watt, or to brief someone who then briefed Mr. Watt.

… Any suggestion that Ms. Guergis does not know the details of the allegations which were made against her is not accurate. To the contrary, not only was she briefed fully on those allegations by me, but I also spoke in detail about them with Mr. Watt when he called on the afternoon of April 9.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a few hours away from leaving Paris, France after arriving here Thursday night (left). This Paris trip followed a day-trip to London, England.

Harper met with the leaders of each country as part of his pre-G8/G20 summit consensus-building tour.

In Paris today, Harper started the day with a late-morning visit at the Palace Élysée with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Reporters were treated to a photo opp of Harper's arrival, a greeting from Sarkozy, and 30 seconds in their meeting room before being whisked to the Hôtel Matignon, the official residence of the French prime minister. The current occupant is François Fillon.

Reporters were treated to a similar photo opp — Harper's arrival, Fillon greeting — but, at the end of the hour-long meeting of the prime ministers, the pair emerged for a press conference. (Sarkozy did not speak to reporters after his meeting with Harper, continuing a tradition that his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, established leaving his PM Dominic de Villepin to talk to reporters.

As has become customary for press conferences involving Harper and foreign leaders, the press corps of each country was afforded one question each. For our part, we asked Harper about Liberal MP's Bob Rae's musings earlier this week that the Liberal Party could see a post-2011 Afghanistan mission that involved keeping Canadian troops in that country [Read the story about his response] and we asked him about the battle between Canada and many European countries, including France, over the issue of a global bank tax [Read that story here].

The French press corps asked a first question which must have delighted Canada's prime minister: Given the fact that Canada's federal government is in the best fiscal shape of the G8, what can France learn from Canada. The second question from the French press was for Fillon alone, about the fall of the euro and the ongoing currency crisis.

Prime MInister Stephen Harper is in London, England today, having lunch, as I write this, with Prime Minister David Cameron. Both Cameron and Harper are Conservatives but Cameron does not lead a Conservative government: he leads a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. Harper said he and Cameron talked about that during a morning meeting they had. After that meeting, they held a joint press conference and Canadian reporters asked about coalition governments, given Canada's experience with the failed Liberal-NDP coalition proposal of early 2009. Here's what he had to say:

“David and I were discussing this — I think the debate in Britain was instructive. There was an interesting period of a few days when people discussed the various constitutional issues that were involved and the various constitutional options but I think in the end, the verdict of public opinion was pretty clear which was that losers don't get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments. Obviously, David was able to form an innovative arrangement to give Britain I suspect the kind of arrangement it needs to deal with the kind of budgetary challenges that face the country. But I say in the end, the coalition in Britain — I think it's important to point out — was formed by the party that won the election and, of course, this coalition in Britain doesn't contain a party dedicated to the breakup of the country. And these were the two problems in Canada. The proposition by my opposition was to form a coalition for the purposes of excluding the aprty that won the election and for the purposes of including a party dedicated to breaking up the country. I do think [Cameron's coalition] has some instructions for Canada.”

Click through here to listen to Harper and to hear David Cameron's reaction to the question:

A Christian group, El Shafie Ministries, recently asked, through the Conservatives, if a large card “Support Our Troops” could be placed in the House of Commons lobbies for MPs to sign.

The Conservatives had the agreement of all parties to do this and many MPs from all parties have, over the last couple of days, signed the card.

Conservative MP Rob Anders, though, signed it this way; “If in doubt, pull the trigger. Rob Anders, Calgary West” (See pic, left, obtained by Canwest News Service)

MP from all parties, including Defence Minister Peter MacKay, have criticized Anders for saying it was an inappropriate thing to say.

“Anders could have picked a million other things to write,” said NDP MP Peter Stoffer. Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed the card, saying “You're the best.” Defence Minister Peter MacKay wrote, “You all make us very proud. You are our Team Canada. Thank you for your service. Come home safe.”

Yesterday, as my Calgary Herald colleague Jason Fekete reported, Anders apologized.

Meanwhile, at their weekly House Leaders meeting, NDP House Leader Yvon Godin asked Conservative House Leader Jay Hill that Anders name be removed from the card before it is sent on to the troops. Hill not only agreed but said his message would also be removed.

Justice Jeffrey Oliphant was appointed on June 12, 2008 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to conduct an inquirty ito certain allegations respecting the business and financial dealings between Karl Heinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Oliphant sat through 39 days of public hearings, including several days with Mulroney himself on the stand, heard from 28 witnesses, waded through 5,000 pages of transcripts and reviewed 150,000 pages of documentary evidence.

His report is released today. It includes a 67-page executive summary, a 400-page Factual Summary, a 382-page volume on policy and consolidated findings and recommendations; and a 137-page review of independent research studies.

The bottom line to all of this is neatly summed up by Oliphant at the beginning of the executive summary:

The genesis of this Inquiry is a relationship between a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, and Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-Canadian businessman. The relationship spanned two decades and included a secret agreement between the two men made approximately two months after Mr. Mulroney left the office of prime minister and was sitting as a member of parliament. For many years Mr. Mulroney concealed the fact that, on three separate occasions, in three different hotels in two countries, he had received thousands of dollars in cash, in envelopes, from Mr. Schreiber. There was no contemporary documentation, as is normally found in legitimate business dealings, for any of these transactions. No invoices or receipts were provided, no correspondence or reporting letters were written. I conclude that the covert manner in which Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber carried out their transactions was designed to conceal their business and financial dealings.

Mr. Mulroney accepted the first instalment of cash on August 27, 1993, while he was still a sitting member of parliament, and the other two instalments on December 18, 1993, and December 8, 1994. He had several opportunities to disclose these dealings – when he filed his tax forms between 1993 and 1999, for instance; when he gave evidence under oath in his lawsuit against the Government of Canada in 1996; and when he or his spokespersons were interviewed by various journalists – but he chose not to do so. Instead, at all times he attempted to prevent the public disclosure of his dealings with Mr. Schreiber.

…This Inquiry provided Mr. Mulroney with the opportunity to clear the air and put forward cogent, credible evidence to support his assertions that there was nothing untoward about his dealings with Mr. Schreiber. I regret that he has not done so. I express this regret on behalf of all Canadians, who are entitled to expect their politicians to conserve and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity, and impartiality of government. Mr. Mulroney’s actions failed to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public office holders.