No love lost

There was a real siege feeling around the Hill today after Question Period. Maybe it was because of bikers in the news. Maybe because there's nothing much happening here but nastiness, meanness and more nastiness.

But never mind about me trying to describe it -- this transcript of a scrum with the Conservatives' chief government whip, Jay Hill, says it all. The questions are from various reporters, trying to get something out of Hill before he slammed the door on them at his office just off the Commons' foyer.

Jay Hill: I don't discuss what takes place at the Board of Internal Economy.

Question: Why, isn't that public money, isn't that public money Mr. Hill?

Question: Are you guys proud of your behaviour in there today?

Question: (inaudible) isn't that public money Mr. Hill? Isn't that public money Mr. Hill?

Jay Hill: Are you proud of your questions?

Question: Yeah. Are you proud of your behaviour? Are you, are you proud of your questions?

Question: So you're doing what you just did in there. You're going to browbeat

Question: What's wrong in asking you a question? We can't ask you questions?

Question: You're trying to browbeat, browbeat, browbeat people?

Question: Isn't that public money in this budget? Isn't that my money?

And there, the scrum abruptly ends with a slammed door. Is it summer-break time yet?

Copps weighs in on Clinton's uphill battle

Yesterday, I noted that Hillary Clinton is not the first woman -- or last, probably -- to keep fighting on in a political race with the odds stacked against her. I noted that it happened in 2003 with Sheila Copps and again in 2006, with Martha Hall-Findlay.

Copps graciously has offered some thoughts on the subject. Here they are, verbatim:

I think the issue is much deeper, not to diminish the last woman standing angle. Why is Hillary even in this position? She has received incredibly biased coverage because let's face it: For all of our claims to a lock on democracy we in North America have difficulty with women in leadership roles. Sexism is still unfortunately rampant. Hence most political watchers don't understand the significance of a Hillary loss to the continuing disillusionment of political women.

Harper revs up damage control

THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO Maxime Bernier arrives to be sworn in as foreign affairs minister last August accompanied by Julie Couillard.

There was quite the scramble here in the last half hour, when we learned that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted to pronounce himself on the controversy over Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and his ex-girlfriend, Julie Couillard, who has also dated Hells Angels bikers.

Apparently, Harper wanted to make this rare foray before the microphones to label the opposition leaders as "gossipy, old busybodies." Seriously.

So we can all stand down. Though it's known that Bernier was warned only a few weeks ago that he'd be out of cabinet after one more gaffe like this, he's lived to fight another day.

I'm betting that Harper wanted to utter the "busybodies" line himself in Question Period, which starts in about a half hour, but he doesn't want to field the Bernier questions on national TV. The Prime Minister tends to only get on his feet to reply to questions from opposition leaders, and sometimes not even then.

A Conservative told me  this week that Harper likes to supply attack lines to cabinet ministers and has been known to chide them after Question Period if they miss an obvious opening to slam a Liberal.

Update: I wonder if Harper feared he was being a "gossipy, old busybody" or not minding his own business  when he had this to say about the defection of Belinda Stronach to the Liberals in May 2005?

"I think Peter is taking this pretty hard, as you could imagine,"  Harper said.

or

"If she has such a high opinion of Peter MacKay, I would venture today after my discussion with him, she has an awfully tough way of conveying that to him."

(For those who have amnesia or were perhaps travelling in the space shuttle at the time, Harper was tut-tutting over how Stronach broke the heart of her then-boyfriend, Peter MacKay, when she left the Conservative party.)

 

Get well soon

It is being reported - and debated - in other quarters of the blogosphere (sorry, we'll let you find the links yourselves).

Yes, it seems to be true - the Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, has undergone surgery this week associated with thyroid cancer.

The Star would just like to say at this point that we wish Ms. Buckler the speediest of recoveries and all the best for a happy, healthy return to work.

It isn't easy being green

There's a new environment commissioner.

His name is Scott Vaughan, and we wish him the best of luck.

First of all, it's no easy task to be a so-called independent commissioner in Ottawa these days. Just ask Linda Keen, the former nuclear-safety commissioner, or Marc Mayrand, the current Elections Canada commissioner, or even Graham Fraser, the official languages commissioner. (a hat tip here to Inkless Wells)

Or maybe Vaughan might want to seek some guidance from his new comrade in arms, Auditor-General Sheila Fraser. She hit the news last week when she complained about prospective Privy Council interference in her job -- the same thing the other Fraser, Graham, was criticizing.

Or maybe Vaughan should just keep his own counsel.

Vaughan may be in a tighter spot than the other commissioners. Not only will he have to protect his independence from the government - he may have to watch himself with the Auditor-General too. There is a long-running dispute over whether the environment commissioner is really a separate entity or just a junior partner to the Auditor-General. That dispute was at the root of the departure of the last environment commissioner, Johanne Gelinas. Apparently Fraser thought Gelinas was too much of an "advocate" and not enough of an auditor.

Some people, correctly or incorrectly, said that this whole thing boiled down to jealousy of attention - an occupational hazard in the capital at the best of times.

Whatever, it probably means that Vaughan should lie low. That's what all sensible bureaucrats do in Ottawa these days.

What would Sheila do?

Canadians think of themselves as followers of U.S. political trends. But as a matter of fact, there are Canadian precedents for Hillary Clinton's tenaciousness in the presidential race - especially as the lone, female candidate.

In 2003, recall, no one seemed to understand why Sheila Copps was staying in the Liberal leadership race, given Paul Martin's lock on victory.

In 2006, Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall-Findlay hung on to the bitter end, even though it was clear she had no hopes of winning. She was the only woman in the race by the time the convention rolled around at the end of that year.

Perhaps Clinton might want to check in with Copps and Hall-Findlay for advice about whether to keep toughing it out - as the only woman, up against insurmountable odds.

The results here have been mixed.

Copps, as it turns out, wasn't rewarded for her persistence, having to wage a losing fight for her own Hamilton riding in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 leadership.

Hall-Findlay has fared a little better. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion appointed her as the candidate in Willowdale, which she won in a March by-election.

24 Sussex crumbling

Canada's Auditor-General confirmed today that 24 Sussex Drive, the prime minister's official residence, is, well, a dump.

That's not news, though, to participants in the annual Doors Open Ottawa tour, or viewers of Rick Mercer's comedy show.

When Paul Martin occupied 24 Sussex a few years ago, his wife, Sheila, decided to include 24 Sussex among the grand old residences that annually open their doors to give architectural and heritage enthusiasts a closer look at the properties.

The Ottawa Citizen sent a columnist to do a bit of reconnaissance on the house, and she reported that the house was turning into a drafty old relic.

That prompted Mercer to stage this hilarious bit, in which he and the then-prime-minister headed to Canadian Tire and weather-sealed the windows themselves.

That Mercer/Martin repair may have to do for now. Apparently, though the Auditor General says that the house should be vacant for a year to get the proper renovations. But the Harper family has no intention of vacating in the near future, they said through a spokesperson.

 

 

Who CAIRS about access to information?

Of passing interest is why Prime Minister Stephen Harper keeps saying that the Coordination of Access to Information Requests System (CAIRS) - which has been killed by his government - was set up by the Liberals.

Here's a 2002-03 report from the Information Commissioner, specifically stating that CAIRS was set up in 1989.

Sure, that was nearly 20 years ago, but I'm pretty sure a Conservative government ruled Canada at the time.

Backlash on gas tax holiday

A debate is raging in the U.S.  -- one with strong echoes of the debate we didn't seem to have here in Canada over cutting the GST by two percentage points.

In the U.S., it's something called the "gas tax holiday" -- a proposal to suspend the federal tax on gas this summer; an idea first floated by Republican presidential candidate John McCain, but also endorsed by Democratic contender Senator Hillary Clinton.

The general view on this idea, just like the GST cut in Canada, seems to be: good retail politics, bad policy.

Unlike Canada, however, the economists are getting vocal with their opposition. Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution has found 150 of them to sign this letter.

Taking out the trash talk

Over the past weekend, CBC Radio's The House performed a bold experiment. It featured a panel of MPs, talking on the economy, but set ground rules: no using the airwaves to trash your opponents. The House host Kathleen Petty warned participants that producers would simply edit out any negative remarks directed at other parties.

You can listen to the result here.

The show is inviting the audience to call/write and say whether these new rules of engagement are welcome.

This may be an idea whose time has come. Anecdotally, you hear a lot of fed-up talk around Ottawa these days about the state of these panel discussions. When MPs or strategists simply come on the air to recite a list of "talking points" generated by central party command, the result seems to be simply noise.

For fun, I took the transcript of a panel discussion yesterday on CTV's Question Period (see below) and did a similar type of editing. By my rough count, you lose about half the number of words in this discussion if you get rid of the snipes against others.

CTV Question Period Transcript for Sunday, May 4, 2008 – MPs panel

OLIVER: The Prime Minister says the economy's in good shape, don't worry. However, the Governor of the Bank of Canada says we could be into a slowdown for a whole year. Which is it, and what are the plans of our political parties to do anything about it? Well we're joined from Calgary by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance Ted Menzies who's standing by in Toronto, John McCallum a former banker who's now the Liberal finance critic, and Peggy Nash who is the industry critic for the NDP. Mr. Menzies, let me get to you first. Which is it? Is the economy in pretty good shape or are we heading into a recession?

TED MENZIES (Parliamentary Secretary – Finance): Well certainly the economy is in good shape and I would agree with the prime minister, but we can't help but look across the border and see the difficult challenges that the Americans are facing. And we're very dependent on trade with the Americans so we need to be cautious. And that's why in the fall economic statement, the Finance Minister addressed those issues and put in $60 billion worth of tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and businesses reacted. We heard positive comment from all across this country, from industry groups and from private individuals, that those tax breaks stimulated new business, stimulated new jobs. We're looking at, since this government has taken power, nearly three-quarters of a million, over three-quarters of a million net new jobs. And yes people are, jobs are being rationalized. There's people that are losing their jobs, but there's over three-quarters of a million net new jobs in all regions all across this country.

OLIVER: Alright, Mr. Menzies has brought us straight to tax cuts, Mr. McCallum. In a slowdown, are tax cuts the answer, and then I'm going to get you to answer the same question Ms Nash.

JOHN MCCALLUM (Liberal Finance Critic): Well I think Ted has a bit of a Pollyanna view. And I would argue that the basic problem is that this government spent like crazy over the last couple of years when the economy was strong, and now when we're looking at a weak economy the fiscal cupboard is bare and some are even saying we're in deficit, and so there's very little fiscal room now thanks to their overspending during good times. And the other point I would make is it's extremely unhelpful when Ontario, which is bearing the brunt of this storm, the government keeps attacking Ontario calling, saying that it's the last place to invest or that Dalton McGuinty is the small man of confederation. I think Canadians want their governments to work together, especially in Ontario when times are difficult, and this government should work with Ontario and stop trashing the business climate of Ontario.

OLIVER: Go ahead, Ms Nash?

PEGGY NASH (NDP MP): Well, you know, Craig, this week we had three different studies that came out that told us some pretty troubling news on Tuesday. We heard that just so far this year Canada has lost 55,000 manufacturing jobs, and that adds on to the hundreds of thousands we've already lost. On Wednesday we heard that the economy is stalled and in fact is shrinking, and on Thursday we had the StatsCan report that looked at the last generation, the last 25 years, and found that those who are very wealthy are getting wealthier, those at the bottom are falling further and further behind, and those in the middle are working harder, longer just to tread water, just to stay in place. So I don't think that the government's handling the economy well at all. I think Mr. Harper has turned his back on the manufacturing crisis. He's turned his back on Ontario. And he's turned his back on the real pressing needs that certainly people in my community are telling me that they're facing. They've got the lowest savings in their generation, they've got the highest debt in the country's history, and they're really struggling.

OLIVER: I want to get back to Mr. Menzies. There is a real economy and then there's the political economy, Mr. Menzies. Is your government worried about Ontario where you need votes and a third of the ridings in the country are there if you have any chance of getting a majority at all, you're going to get them with the kind of answers you've got about the Ontario economy, because that's what the problem is, isn't it?

MENZIES: Well let's talk about reality, as I stated, and Peggy didn't seem to hear my comment, that we have over three-quarters of a million net new jobs in this country. Jobs are changing.

NASH: But, Mr. Menzies, when you lose your job at General Motors like a thousand people did this week, if you lose a thousand jobs at General Motors, what's a job at Wal-Mart?

MENZIES: Craig, I...

OLIVER: Okay, we better get Mr. Menzies, I want to let Mr. Menzies make his point here.

MENZIES: Thank you. It's very important to realize that no one that graduates from high school today would expect to stay in that same job. Jobs are changing. People are moving. Eighty percent of these over three-quarter of a million new jobs are high paying jobs. People have employment. They're moving to new jobs. They're commuting to better stronger jobs. But to go back to Mr. McCallum's comment about spending, let's take into account what the Liberals have suggested we should do. Just last week, I believe it was on your show, Craig, the leader of the official opposition suggested that we should put a higher tax on gasolines and heating fuels. That's not what's going to help Canadians.

MCCALLUM: Actually he didn't say that.

MENZIES: That's not going to help Canadians survive through this summer and through a winter of cold conditions.

OLIVER: Mr. McCallum, I guess what I'd like to hear you say is a comment on this whole business of tax cuts. Is that what Ontario needs as its economy slips?

MCCALLUM: Well it's in the liberal DNA not to go back into deficit after we got rid of the huge Conservative deficit in the mid-90s, so everything I say is subject to not going back into deficit. But I think manufacturing is hemorrhaging jobs, and it's not much comfort to those losing their jobs to be told that jobs are going elsewhere. And I think we have already announced, subject to money being available, a one billion fund to help support the manufacturing sector. Much of that would be in Ontario.The government is ideologically opposed to measures of that kind. But I think when we have US Governors in the southern states giving huge subsidies to lure our companies and our jobs out of Canada we have to support our manufacturing sector as well, and this is a big difference between what we would do as a government and what this government is refusing to do.

OLIVER: The Bank of Canada Governor says we are into a slowdown, Miss Nash. Who's right here, because the Prime Minister suggests things are in great shape, or is it just Ontario we're talking about and we've got one nation and two economies, Ms Nash?

NASH: Well I think if you're in the commodities sector, you know if you're in the oil and gas sector things are looking pretty rosy. It's not only Ontario that's in manufacturing. If you're in a paper mill in British Columbia, and that mill is closing, you feel the impact the same as someone in Ontario. But because Ontario, and Quebec to a lesser degree, but Ontario especially is the manufacturing heartland, here's where we're really feeling the impact of the manufacturing crisis. And just on the issue of tax cuts, you know, Mr. Dion goaded the Prime Minister to cut taxes further and faster so he did and the Liberals supported that but, you know, it's the wrong way to go. What that has done, it's rewarded those very profitable companies that are already doing very well. Taken money out of the national purse that we ought to be spending to assist the manufacturing sector, but also meet people's needs in housing, social services, health care. That's what we should be doing.

OLIVER: Mr. Menzies, let me ask you about something I think you said, or I think it's where you're going, if you're out of work in Ontario and the economy of the west is booming move west where there are jobs. Isn't that in effect what you're saying? And I'm not being critical of that.

MENZIES: Well that isn't what I suggested at all. When I'm suggesting that people may travel to a job it's a short distance. But let's look at the facts. There's over 85,000 jobs in the province of Ontario that are producing products for the oil and gas sector in Saskatchewan and Alberta. That's where the jobs are going. They're going into building houses, into building new infrastructure in Ontario. They may not be building cars, but they have jobs. They have good paying jobs that are supporting the Canadian economy.

OLIVER:Quickly now, Mr. McCallum and Ms. Nash, you have to keep it quick, what are the chances that the Conservatives may suffer in Ontario politically, Mr. McCallum?

MCCALLUM: Well I think the fact that they keep insulting Ontario and attacking Dalton McGuinty and saying he's the small man of confederation rather than working with Ontario is one strike against them, and the fact that they have nothing to support the manufacturing sector having used up all the money during good times, they have nothing left to give and they're ideologically opposed to helping manufacturing anyway, and there's no consolation to those manufacturing people losing jobs to tell them there's jobs in Alberta. So I think they have two strikes against them.

OLIVER: Since then, by the way, the Prime Minister did say some nicy nicy things about Dalton McGuinty. But, Ms Nash, finally you?

NASH: Well, you know, we've seen 25 years mostly boom times and I think that boom was squandered. We didn't make the right decisions to invest where we needed to invest, both in infrastructure and in defending our value-added sectors, the manufacturing sector, and those that ignore that today I think do so at their peril. Canada cannot afford to lose its manufacturing sector. We're seeing the impact. It's hurting people very deeply.

OLIVER: That's it. That's got to be it, and I want to thank all three of you for giving us your time this Sunday. We appreciate it very much.

MCCALLUM: Thank you, Craig.

NASH: Thanks, Craig.

MENZIES: Thanks, Craig.

OLIVER: Just ahead, our journalists and our weekly cheers and jeers section.