by Samantha Bayard and Ish Theilheimer
OTTAWA, February 4, 2013 (Straight Goods News) — Although Canada's social report card ranking has been dragged down down by poverty and inequality among children and working aged adults, Canada's human resource minister has called EI claimants "bad guys."
by Samantha Bayard
OTTTAWA, January 30, 2013, Straight Goods News — Parliament’s first sitting day in 2013 had the NDP concerned that the successor to Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) Kevin Page will lose the power to anaylze governement finances. Page, appointed by Harper in 2008, has repeatedly come under attack from government members for revealing the truths that make them uncomfortable.
The PBO is an independent officer of the Library of Parliament created by the Harper government to fulfill a campaign pledge. Page was appointed in March 2008. His term, which has been marked by controversy because he has repeatedly pointed to government waste and financial inaccuracies, is almost up. NDP Finance Critic Peggy Nash says his successor could become a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister, so she has tabled a private member's bill to make the PBO an independent officer of Parliament.
"What the PBO was created for was to provide accountability for Canadians," Nash told SGNews. "If you remember, he was created from the Accountability Act on the heels of the sponsorship scandal and the point was to provide independent, economic analysis, timely information in real time for Canadians and not have to wait for an Auditor General to go back and tell us after the fact what has happened."
Peggy Nash wants PBO independent analysis to continue
NDP leader Tom Mulcair said Page has been vindicated each time he's disagreed with the Harper government. "Every time there’s been a discussion between the Conservative government and Kevin Page as Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conservatives have attacked him because he refuses to deliver Conservative talking points," he said. "Every time there's been a debate or a discussion or a disagreement, Kevin Page has been proven 100 per cent of the time to be right. He’s fulfilling an essential role. He's providing Canadians and parliamentarians with the real information."
Tom Mulcair says credible information from the PBO is essential.
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA, Straight Goods News, December 12, 2012: Conservatives lost big and won big on the last day of of the 2012 Parliament. They lost big when a reputable accounting firm challenged their claims about the true costs of the proposed F-35 stealth fighter jets. Even with egg on their faces, the government succeeded in passing stealth attack legislation against unions.
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA,, December 10, 2012 (Straight Goods News) — The Conservatives were on the defensive today in Parliament, offering shifting stories over the proposed F-35 fighter jet purchase, which has gone from prominent election promise to financial "fiasco."
Media leaks last weekend revealed the true cost of the purchase at up to $46 billion, over 40 years, in contrast with previous Conservative promises and readjusted projections of $9 billion, then $15 billion, $25 billion, and more. As recently as last May, defence minister Peter MacKay told the House that critics of the purchase "have a thinly veiled agenda, which is not to support military procurement." Yesterday, the Conservatives, again, would not put MacKay forward to take questions on the project, opting, as they have been doing for weeks, for public works minister Rona Ambrose, who insisted nothing has been spent on the program despite earlier assertions from MacKay to the contrary.
Ambrose told the House, "Of course, no money has been spent on the acquisition of any new aircraft and we will not purchase any replacement until the seven-point plan is complete. That of course includes a full options analysis, not simply a refresh of work that was already done."
"The Prime Minister keeps repeating that no money has been spent on acquisition," the NDP's Tom Mulcair shot back, "But of course, several hundred million dollars has been spent on the F-35 fiasco. It is as if it was not real money because the product does not exist yet. The reason that it is such a fiasco is because they never defined Canada's needs, they never went to public tender, so there is a basic question of public management involved. Are they going to go to public tender and give it to the lowest conforming bidder, yes or no?"
Stephen Harper, who had looked at ease fielding a previous question from Mulcair on the Nexen purchase, went on the defensive, accusing Mulcair of wanting to undermine aerospace jobs in Montreal. "If he does, he can go explain that to the workers in Montreal."
Later, Mulcair told reporters, "Since the beginning, Peter MacKay has shown that he’s an abysmal public administrator, but it’s endemic within the Conservative government. They lied straight up about the numbers, they said it was $9 billion, it turns out that it’s five times that. There’s no way to justify that and that was in the middle of an election campaign. This is about public management. This is about public money. They didn’t go to public tender, they didn’t for the lowest confirming bidder, they didn’t set out the needs of Canada. As this was rolled out, we learned that the F-35 could never have functioned properly in the Canadian Arctic. We had never taken the trouble to define what our needs were. So we weren’t able to buy the best product at the lowest price. That’s what everyone who knows anything about public administration has been saying. You know, the Conservatives love being in power but they don’t like governing. They just find that they can be dismissive and arrogant any time anyone asks them a question."
Tom Mulcair says any fighter purchase must be preceded by a clear definition of needs and open bidding.
Bob Rae told reporters the purchase represented "grotesque and total incompetence on their part," and that the public has been left in the dark. "One day there is a contract, on another day there is no contract. We’re still not clear. Again, we have no, we have no way of knowing is there going to be an open competition? Is there going to be a degree of transparency and openness to the public? What does it mean to start the refresh button? What does it mean to say we’re going to be looking at all options? What are the terms and conditions of those options? What are the new conditions being established for the purchase of the plane? None of that is clear."
NDP Military procurement critic Matthew Kellway told SGNews, "As a partner in the joint strike fighter partnership program, they have committed to $710 million to continue to be part of this partnership and to let the Canadian aerospace industry kind of play in the global supply chain for the F-35." He said the partnership would commit the government to another quarter of a billion in liabilities…
"We are close to this government having committed one billion dollars to this program, and, interestingly, Canadian industry has only received less than half of that in terms of contracts. So the Prime Minister's comments today about the hundreds of millions worth of contracts that have come to Canadian companies – well, indeed, there have been $435 million worth of contracts that have come out to Canadian companies, but our government is committed to spending close to a billion dollars to be part of the program."
Kellway said a simple, open process would be of greater benefit in terms of contracts and be less costly to Canadian taxpayers. "The regular procurement process would trigger the Industrial Benefits Policy. There would have to be the equivalent amount spent by the successful manufacturer in Canada. So if we bought planes for $25 Billion, then that policy would require that $25 Billion worth of industrial benefits would accrue to Canada," said Kellway.
NDP military procurement critic Matthew Kellway explains the numbers on fighter jet procurement
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA, December 6, 2012 (Straight Goods News) — A lowlight of the week in Parliament was Conservative House Leader Peter van Loan charging across the aisle Wednesday, cursing at, and trying to provoke a fight with NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen over a point of order over voting on the omnibus budget legislation.
Today, Van Loan offered the House a tepid apology.
"I acknowledge that I used an inappropriate word when I was discussing this matter with the opposition House leader," Van Loan told the House. "I should not have done that and I apologize for that."
In the next breath, however, Van Loan attempted to start another fight, implicating NDP leader Tom Mulcair in his brawl. "I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do the same," he said.
NDP MP Paul Dewar (Ottawa-Centre), who went in to split up the conflict, told reporters today, "It was very simple. Mr. Van Loan was saying some things at his desk and then he started across the aisle and he was looking very aggressive and he was wagging his finger and continued to say some very aggressive things and threats. That [behaviour] was unprompted and unbecoming any member of the House — let alone a House Leader — he continued to do that. I saw him coming across. I could see in his face that he was very upset and in a very aggressive kind of mode and so I’ve seen that before in men and I know it’s the best thing to do is to get people away from each other and that’s what I did."
Paul Dewar describes Peter Van Loan's charging incident and apology. 
"In terms of his apology, frankly, I think it’s unbecoming a minister or a House Leader," Dewar said. "And I’m not — I’m not sure if I was the Prime Minister I’d still have him as a House Leader. I don’t know how you can have your House Leader, you know, after a point of order is made, behave like that. And that was entirely something he did. No one else did anything. No one said a word to him. It was totally unprompted. He did it all by himself. So the only person who should be apologizing and maybe taking a timeout for a while is Minister Van Loan, no one else."
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA, December 6, 2012 (Straight Goods News) — On the 23rd anniversary of Montreal Massacre, where 14 women were killed, the Opposition grilled Stephen Harper about government recommendations to loosen access to certain prohibited weapons, including hand guns and assault rifles.
Harper repeatedly insisted the government will not change the classification of "prohibited weapons," saying, "Our government has no intention of changing that category."
NDP leader Tom Mulcair worried, however, that changes may, in fact, be in store. "Mr. Speaker, that is very clear for 'that category,' but he does not mention the others," Mulcair said, in Question Period. "On one hand, the Conservatives have, we might say, loaded the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee with lobbyists and arms dealers, leaving out the victims and women's groups. On the other hand, they have systematically ignored recommendations from the police and closed the door on the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, for example.
Then the entire House was stunned when, on the next exchange, the Liberals' Bob Rae appeared to actually get Harper to agree with him when he asked, "I wonder if the Prime Minister could perhaps tell us if he would now consider, in light of the recommendations which have come out of this particular committee, adding the chiefs of police to the group of people who will be on the committee as well as those who are engaged in combating domestic violence and those who are dealing with suicide prevention."
Harper, replied, "Once again, I want to emphasize that the positions in this report do not reflect the positions of the government. I will take the advice of the leader of the Liberal Party under consideration. Obviously, there is concern with some of the recommendations made in that report and I think that the committee does need some re-examination in that light."
Later Rae told reporters: "I think the Prime Minister was probably taken aback by the lack of — frankly, the lack of political sensitivity and common sense of a committee that would come up with those kinds of recommendations at a time when Canadians are looking in a very different direction. And sometimes you — you know, when you do things, you learn. Let’s hope the Prime Minister’s learned something."
Bob Rae says police and domestic violence, suicide groups should be included in Firearms Advisory Committee.
"I mean this is an area where, frankly, the public does not share the ideological enthusiasm of the Conservative backbench, that people are just not interested in increasing, you know, access to weapons. They’re interested very much in reducing public access to dangerous firearms."
NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin, agreed, highlighting the impact pro gun lobby groups have on the government: "With guns we should always be on the prudent side on the public security side instead of just trying to make it so easy. It's complicated with a car, which is some aspects can be way less dangerous than a gun. I think we should be a bit more prudent but always it is the lobby of gun owners that are a bit more powerful with that government."
Françoise Boivin wants more prudent gun control.
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA, December 4, 2012 (SGNews) — Over 400 First Nations peoples marched on Parliament Hill today to demonstrate their frustration over omnibus budget legislation that affects their lands and rights. When NDP MP Charlie Angus arranged for several First Nations leaders to come to the House to meet directly with natural resources minister Joe Oliver, a dramatic confrontation occurred.
Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox went nose-to-nose with Oliver and told him about the frustrations First Nations feel about changes to laws like the Navigable Waters Act, which affect their territories. "There's no consultation. There's never been any consultation."
Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox confronts natural resources minister Joe Oliver in this YouTube clip captured, with poor sound, on a smartphone. 
After that, some of the chiefs attempted to enter the House during Question Period but were dissuaded by cooler heads.
NDP MP Charlie Angus explained to SGNews why the chiefs were so angry. "There’s a lot of subtext in this omnibus legislation. If you’re changing land use rights and the rights of First Nations, then do it in legislation that can be dealt with and you can have consultation. There’s not been consultation on these changes. This is supposed to be a budget bill and yet they’re ramming everything but the kitchen sink and so people are frustrated."
Charlie Angus talks with reporters about First Nations' frustration. 
Angus said, "This omnibus legislation is going to strip environmental protection of lakes. It’s basically declaring open seasons on all parts of Canada, but especially on first nation territory. No consultation, there’s a real frustration. So the desire was for some of the leaders to be able to come in and actually say, wait a minute, 'how come you’re pushing this through, this omnibus legislation, you haven’t spoken to us,' so I went to Minister Oliver and I just asked him, I said, 'Minister Oliver, there’s a number of chiefs out there that would like to speak with you. Would you come out and meet with them,' and he agreed and that’s what happened.
Oliver told the chiefs, "I think we can work together as partners to achieve what you want to achieve which is full respect for your rights."
Angus was not impressed. "I think the messages from the hundreds of chiefs who marched representing communities across this country is that this government is ignoring democracy," he said. "They’re ignoring people, they’re ignoring the first nations communities at their peril. I think there’s going to be push-backs if the government continues to act in this arrogant and abusive manner and you see it in the frustration that was on the hill today.
by Ish Theilheimer and Samantha Bayard
OTTAWA, Straight Goods News, November, 29, 2012 — New evidence suggests that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) safety standards are two-tiered, with one set of standards for Canadian consumption and another for those to be exported abroad. A September 2008 memo instructs inspectors to ensure all Japan-eligible beef has been 100 percent verified for removal of fecal, intestinal and spinal cord materials.
NPD agriculture critic Malcolm Allen told the House, "This memo was sent in 2008. We then saw 22 Canadians die of listeriosis and they resent the same memo. We then had the Weatherill report and they resent the memo.
"Was the minister really not aware front line food inspectors were being directed to ignore food safety procedures? Conservatives have lost all credibility on food safety, so will they now agree to an absolute audit of CFIA, as instructed in the Weatherill report, and do it now?"
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz said the allegations were, "Totally unfounded. CFIA has the budgetary capacity, thanks to our government and not thanks to the NDP."
Later, however, Allen told SGNews he has been hearing from meat inspectors since the XL meat plant scandal came out. "What they’re saying is, 'Here’s what we were instructed to do. We were instructed to do it one way for a Japanese carcass and another way for a Canadian carcass.' So they don’t have to say it’s two-tier. We’re looking at a system that’s saying, 'Treat domestic cattle one way and treat export cattle totally differently.' And our view is they should all be treated exactly the same when it comes to fecal material that’s on cows and indeed spinal material that may be left in or ingesta that may be left on a carcass. It needs to all come off."
Malcolm Allen wants all meat to held to the same standard
As part of the inspection process any contaminated portions should be cut off, in the cases described here they were instructed to be washed off so as to not slow down or stop the line of production. Allen says veterinarians have suggested this is not an adequate option and could spread contamination throughout the carcass.
by SGNews staff
OTTAWA, November 30, 2012 (Straight Goods News) — Alexandre Boulerice filibustered the finance committee on Monday in a battle against Bill C-377, Russ Hiebert's private member's bill that claims to be about union accounting but that appears to be more about crippling the labour movement. The filibuster used all committee time and forced it to send the bill — which observers from all sides say is flawed — back to the House unamended.
Boulerice explained his tactic to SGNews: "The bill of Mr Hiebert is so flawed that it cannot be fixed. This is why I took my right to speak full time to explain exactly what are the problems with this bill. The cost for the government, the burden on a lot of organizations, the cost for our economy, the investments, the privacy problems, the constitutional problems. You know, that is so many problems, that I had to take this time to explain everything. I think that it was really, really important in that context. Now they have to explain if this is really, really a private bill — we will see."
Alexandre Boulerice says Bill C-377 is so flawed it cannot be fixed.
Before the bill can reach a vote the NDP has asked to speaker examine aspects of the legislation in hopes of killing it. Private member’s bills aren’t allowed to cost the government money.
When asked if the government is testing the waters and will make this into a government bill, Boulerice agreed. "Yeah, I think so. First I have asked the speaker to rule on a point of order that this bill needs the Royal recommendation because of the cost for the Canada Revenue Agency, so we are waiting for this rule. After that we will see if the government will bring back some amendments. Our position is that if the doctor tells you that you have a cancer, you need a full relief; you don't want a half a cancer. This is why we want this bill to be voted for or against."
Liberal labour critic Rodger Cuzner agreed with Boulerice. He told Straight Goods News, "I don't think there was very much doubt from the outset that this was pushed by the government. Organized labour has been in the crosshairs from the outset. The government has to 'fess up to its own responsibility. They've had 90 days to bring amendments forward, they asked for an extension, they got the extension, and then to have everything jammed up at the end… The government's at fault here."
Liberal labour critic Rodger Cuzner says the government should "fess up" to its own interest in the anti-labour Bill C-377.
by SGNews staff
OTTAWA, November 27, 2012 (Straight Goods News) — Liberal leader Bob Rae questioned Stephen Harper about his government's commitment to public health care in Question Period today.
"As many as three million Canadians have no coverage at all with respect to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs and another three million only have coverage for the catastrophic cost. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research have identified inadequate drug coverage as the next issue that has to be dealt with by the first ministers. I wonder if the Prime Minister would agree that in a health accord that needs to happen in 2014 the question of drug coverage will be front and centre in terms of the position of the Government of Canada," said Rae.
Harper responded: "The federal government recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces over much of the health care system. At the same time, we do continue to transfer money to the provinces for that health care system. In fact, in recent years we have been transferring money for health care to provinces much faster than their own budgets are growing. We will continue to uphold our responsibilities in this area."
Bob Rae questions Stephen Harper's commitment to a federal role in care in the 2014 health accord
Later, when Straight Goods News asked Rae to interpret Harper's response, he said, "What I make of the response on the health accord is the Prime Minister doesn't give a fig about health care. He doesn't think it's a federal responsibility and I think that when he says that is isn't a federal responsibility that will come as news to Canadians who think it is a federal responsibility or a shared responsibility between different levels of government. It's a compact between Canadians and it is a compact which he is breaking by the ideological approach which he is taking."
