David Akin’s On The Hill

The political staffer who recently impersonated his boss, Ontario Conservative MP Gord Brown, in an e-mail exchange with a constituent says sorry:

May 4,2007

Please accept my apology for any misunderstanding caused by my response to your concern this week. I erred when I responded on behalf Member of Parliament Gord Brown (sic) without his prior authority , knowledge or approval.

The email that is in question was sent on Wednesday, May 2.

It followed a series of emails and telephone calls from you. I am responsible for emails, telephone calls and letters from all constituents in the riding and in this instance I showed a lack of judgment.

Feeling under pressure to respond to certain accusations and allegations, I did not handle this
situation properly.

I know this was wrong and regret taking this action.

My behaviour and the content of the email was not professional and I wish to point out that it in no way reflects Member of Parliament Gord Brown's position on the matters discussed.

Again, I extend my sincerest apologies to you and journalist Jennifer Ditchburn for this incident

Yours sincerely,

Mark King
Legislative Assistant
Gord Brown, MP
Leeds-Grenville

Here’s Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty (left) responding to today’s developments in the “Green Leak” affair. He is being questioned by several different reporters from different news organizations in a scrum in the House of Commons lobby after Question Period today:

Reporter:   So, Mr. McGuinty, what about the arrest of this Environment Canada employee?  Is this justified?

McGuinty:  Look, it's a very strange set of circumstances. Just 10 days ago at most the Minister of the Environment sent me an eight-page speech to the opposition lobby fax machine.  The elements of that speech were very much the same elements in this so-called secret plan.  Is the Minister of the Environment being investigated by the RCMP?  Are his staff being investigated by the RCMP? It's a bit rich.

Secondly, it's important for us to remember if this person's a whistleblower — for example, let's say this person is saying that I felt an obligation to reveal this document because the government's plan is a breach of international law under the Kyoto Treaty – which the government's plan is.  If the person was acting in good faith that way, had there been an actual commissioner of the kind that the government created — the post that we created collectively as Parliament, the one that Gwyn Morgan was supposed to fill, if that position had been filled, maybe the individual would have gone to that person instead to find out what his options could have been. 

But the heavy hammer here is very suspicious.  As a former criminal lawyer, it's very, very strange to see that someone's hauled away in handcuffs at seven o'clock in the morning in front of their workmates to be then released only an hour or so later, to be told they're not even being charged.  Then of course the charges that are levelled are the wrong ones because the RCMP says that he's being apparently charged under the Criminal Code for breach of trust for revealing detailed regulations.  That wasn't the case at all. 

Question:   Is the RCMP becoming a de facto arm of the PMO?

McGuinty:   You know that's a very tough question.  I know that the RCMP are now increasingly trying to keep, for example, the media away from ministers, media away from press conferences, the media corralled until official meetings are over.  That's not the common practice of the RCMP. I'm sure the RCMP themselves are uncomfortable fulfilling that function.  So, you know, is the RCMP basically here just an organ of the state so to speak at the beck and call?  That's a question for the prime minister.

Reporter:   Do you think there should be radical activists in the civil service who openly criticize the prime minister and his policies?

McGuinty:   I think that there should be a balance here and I think that the public servants that are there, that are doing their job, hundreds of thousands of them are doing their job well.  If they have a beef or a gripe there should be some kind of place to go.  The government still hasn't filled — the government still hasn't filled the whistleblowing commissioner's job. They tried to shove Gwyn Morgan down Parliament's throat.  We all said no because he's a Tory bagman and he's too close to the prime minister. I gave the prime minister an option.  I said give us five days, we'll give you five more names with all-party agreement.  He still hasn't filled the position. If the position were filled, maybe a public servant would feel comfortable going to that position and saying I have a problem.

 

I’m in Chicago covering Conrad Black’s trials but some political staffers have sent me messages to say that the Conservatives today are filibustering and putting up procedural roadblocks at various House of Commons committees meeting today. Then, on Facebook, Liberal MP Mark Holland publishes the following account of today’s meeting of the International Trade Committee. Holland is not normally a member of this committee but is subbing in for his colleague Navdeep Bains.

Holland’s account of the committee follows but at the end of the meeting, the lone NDP member of this committee, Peter Julian, begins a process to have the Conservative chairman of the committee, Leon Benoit (right), removed as chair. This is at least the second time Julian has tried to do this. The last time, Benoit and Julian worked out their differences. Not sure how it will work out this time around.

Here then is Holland(left)’s report from Committee, as he posted it on his Facebook page (I’d provide a link but as you have to signed up to use Facebook and you may also have to be Holland’s “Facebook Friend”, links would not be widely available. As a result I publish it here unedited as I copied and pasted it from his page at about 4 pm Ottawa time)

Via Blackberry –

Being the good friend that I am, I agreed to stand in today for Navdeep Bains at the International Trade Committee. Moments ago, the Conservative Chair Leon Benoit cut off the witness in the middle of his presentation. The witness was Gordon Laxer, a Director with the Parkland Institute. The puzzled Mr. Laxer was stopped by the Chair because Leon said he was off topic. He demanded the witness speak only about items linked to the days agenda. Fair enough – except that the witness was doing exactly that. In point of fact, the previous witness was also discussing the same thing – energy security as it pertains to Canada-US trade. After being rebuked by the Chair, the witness was allowed to continue. After about another minute of speaking, the Chair unceremoniously cut off the witness a second time leaving him with still half of his presentation to make. Flustered, Leon called upon the next witness to start speaking who just looked back at him totally baffled. There are about 30 or so people watching all of this – all of whom were laughing in bewilderment or shaking their heads. This all would have been odd enough but it gets worse.
The ruling that the witness could not continue was challenged. The Chair gave a long speech about why his ruling should stand. When people attempted to question this, he said a motion to challenge the chair is not debatable. It was pointed out that he had just been debating – he ignored that. Leon, then asked “Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?”. Only 3 Conservative hands went up. “If you want to support the decision of the Chair, put up your hand,” Leon clarified looking around hopefully. The same 3 Conservative hands rose. He asked who was opposed and all the opposition members raised their hands. Leon looked down, grabbed his gavel and snapped, “this meeting is adjourned!” He then stormed out, leaving all in the room in a surprised paralysis. After a time, it was pointed out that the chair can't just declare the meeting over and walk out. So, Lui Temelkovski as our Liberal Vice-Chair took position and the meeting resumed.
Honestly, it was an embarrassing episode and, if it didn't reflect so poorly on the committee, it would have been extremely funny. Parliament can be a strange and weird place. Leon didn't do the Conservatives or parliament proud today.
… Now back to committee, Mr. Julian of the NDP just introduced a motion to oust Leon as the Chair. Man this is a zoo. Nav – I'm glad this is your committee.

In the last election campaign, Prime Minister Paul Martin spent the last few days of the campaign suggesting that a Harper government would move to restrict abortion access rights. Harper, for his part, said the grassroots of his party had voted in March, 2005 to preserve the status quo on abortion access rights — and Harper agreed with that position.

I can recall pointing out in some reports at the time the hypocrisy of Martin’s attacks because many members of the Liberal caucus then and now would, if they had the chance, vote to roll back abortion access rights.

And indeed, it is a Liberal that has a bill before the current Parliament that would restrict abortion access. Paul Steckle — who celebrates his birthday today, by the way — introduced Bill C-338 last June, a private members bill that, if passed into law, would make abortion illegal after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Steckle, I suspect, may speak about this at today’s March For Life demonstration on Parliament Hill.

His leader, Stephane Dion, was asked by reporters about that bill after Question Period yesterday:

Reporter:   One of your MPs, Paul Steckle, has Bill C-338.  It's a private member's bill to restrict abortion … I want to ask you about that.  [Thursday]'s the big March for Life.  Today the Pope was saying any Catholic that votes in favour of abortion is automatically excommunicated.  In light of that is 338 the type of bill you'd give a free vote to or —

Hon. Stéphane Dion: No, the party doesn't want to revisit this issue. 

Reporter:   But would it be a whipped vote then?  I mean it's one of your MPs that brought it forward.  Would you just tell your caucus to vote against it?

Hon. Stéphane Dion: I just want to say the point of view of the party is that we don't revisit this issue.

 

Dion is essentially responding to a hypothetical question here because private members bills almost never get passed. This bill, like similar bills before it over the last decade, may wither and die on the order paper or in committee.

But I point this out because, so far as I know,  Dion has not yet said how he or his party would handle a vote in the House on abortion access rights. If you’ve got a link or other information about Dion’s position on this issue, I’d be pleased to be corrected. Would he whip MPs? Whip his cabinet as Martin did on the same-sex marriage vote? Would he allow Liberals to vote their conscience?

This issue may come up again today for, if last year’s event was any indication, there will likely be several hundred people on Parliament Hill today to demonstrate in support of legislation like Steckle’s (I counted 2,200 last year; organizers said there were many times more than that). Last year at the March for Life event, many Conservative MPs — including Jason Kenney who would later become Secretary of State — joined three Liberal MPs on the speaker’s platform at this event. Those three Liberals were Steckle, Paul Szabo and Tom Wappel.

Harper is on the record that he would allow all Conservative MPs, including cabinet members, to vote as they see fit.

NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe see the issue differently and would whip their MPs to vote to protect abortion access rights.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May, to my knowledge, has not said what she would do if she led a party in the House with MPs and such a vote came up but, when she ran in a by-election last year in London, she sounded personally uncomfortable with the issue of abortion though she she promised to fight for and defend her party’s platform which calls for the protection of abortion access rights.