Political Bytes

First Reading (10/26/09)

2009-10-26T14:00:44Z

Today's essential political reads:

]]> Today's essential political reads:

1) Conservatives fan out across the country to announce a crackdown on early parole

2) More details on the federal government's pension reform plans

3) Hey Canadians -- Scratch Libya off your vacation plans!

4) Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney: Banks need an attitude change

5) And from here @ home: Milewski waxes poetic on all those Conservative logos

Ka-Cheque!!!

2009-10-23T18:19:20Z

The "Welcome to the Cheque Republic" buttons were popular at last weekend's Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner.

And now there's a website.

Today, the Liberals launched www.chequerepublic.ca. It seems the oversized novelty cheque story has had an entirely unanticipated stimulus effect -- making the Liberals get all artsy-crafty. ]]>
And now there's a website.

Today the Liberals launched www.chequerepublic.ca. It seems the oversized novelty cheque story has had an entirely unanticipated stimulus effect -- making the Liberals get all artsy-crafty.

Last week there was that collage portrait of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

And now there's this site, an unsubtle ploy to try and keep the story alive over the weekend. And it may well, thanks to a clever and fun little gimmick that allows you to "cut your own cheque". By providing your name, the name of a friend, a monetary amount and a note for the memo portion, the website promises you can "start pumping out your very own stimulus funding!" When completed, the cheques look like this:

Just a Small Detail

2009-10-23T17:11:59Z

What a curious omission.

Yesterday, CBC contacted the office of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt to ask about the lobbyist who helped organize a fundraiser on her behalf on Sept. 24.

Michael B. McSweeney is vice-president of the Cement Association of Canada.

Both he and the association are registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. And a search of the registry shows that on Sept. 24, the Cement Association reported having lobbied Raitt directly.

]]> (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

What a curious omission.

Yesterday, CBC contacted the office of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt to ask about the lobbyist who helped organize a fundraiser on her behalf on Sept. 24.

Michael B. McSweeney is vice-president of the Cement Association of Canada.

Both he and the association are registered with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. And a search of the registry shows that on Sept. 24, the Cement Association reported having lobbied Raitt directly.

In an email to Raitt's new communications wrangler Jocelyne Turner, CBC News asked for more information about McSweeney's involvement in the fundraiser, as well as whether McSweeney was paid for his services.

Turner responded with a written statement that was almost identical to what Government House Leader Jay Hill read in the House of Commons yesterday while answering a question from Liberal MP Paul Szabo.

It started off with the usual statements about taking these allegations seriously and went on to say: "Minister Raitt is committed to working with the Ethics Commissioner and is cooperating fully. The Minister will abide by any ruling by the Commissioner.

"The issue is now being examined by the Ethics Commissioner and therefore it would be inappropriate to comment further."

Today, while perusing the latest online edition of a local newspaper in Raitt's riding, the Milton Canadian Champion, I noticed a story about how on Oct. 9, Raitt signed off on an "agreed compliance measure" to steer clear of any matters involving the Cement Association of Canada or McSweeney.

How odd that detail wasn't mentioned by Jay Hill or Jocelyne Turner in answering questions about Raitt yesterday. I followed up with Turner to ask why she omitted that detail in her email yesterday. She insists it was not an omission. "It is a publicly disclosed statement. This was information available to any reporting agency making inquiries."

The only way one can find Raitt's agreed compliance measure is by conducting a specific search on the "reporting public office holders" section on Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's website.

The Hon. Member for Pottymouth

2009-10-22T21:22:09Z

(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Having blogged earlier about the merits of watching the House of Commons live, or at least watching the videotape later, I must confess that sometimes Hansard can be better than the real thing.

The official transcribers of the proceedings sit in the middle of the room, and hear things that aren't that clear on the audio and video recording.

A case in point:

Yesterday, an MP Twitter'ed that Government House Leader Jay Hill said a naughty word in the House at around 1530.

]]>

(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Having blogged earlier about the merits of watching the House of Commons live, or at least watching the videotape later, I must confess that sometimes Hansard can be better than the real thing.

The official transcribers of the proceedings sit in the middle of the room, and hear things that aren't that clear on the audio and video recording.

A case in point:

Yesterday, a MP Twitter'ed that Government House Leader Jay Hill said a naughty word in the House at around 1530.

Now I like a good diversion as much as the next person. So I did take a moment and call up the tape when I had a chance to see exactly what he said.

On the tape, it's not that clear. Otherwise I'd have clipped it and posted it for you. Heck, maybe even made a ring tone.

But have no fear, enquiring minds... it didn't get by Hansard.

Here it is, recorded in the official records for posterity. Kids, don't say this at home.

Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

(I've snipped the exact motion -- it's not important to this story)

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Jay Hill:

That's bullshit.

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The government House leader has just used profane language in characterizing my attempt to get unanimous consent of the House to have the government grant citizenship.

The government House leader can be in disagreement; I have no problem with that. However, to use profane language to characterize the motion is simply unacceptable. I would simply ask him to apologize and retract his statement.

Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to apologize for the word that I just used and withdraw it. I offer my apologies specifically to the member. I was not directing it at the motion that she made. I was directing it at the repeated misuse of process in this chamber, a subject that I have raised on previous occasions.

The tale of the tape - Bill C-311 version

2009-10-22T21:04:00Z

The ultimate record of who votes yay and nay on every House of Commons Bill and Motion is contained in the official Hansard lists.

But sometimes, it's interesting to attend in person, or at least watch the videotape, for a sense of the mood and body language as a House vote unfolds.

]]> The ultimate record of who votes yay and nay on every House of Commons Bill and Motion is contained in the official Hansard lists.

But sometimes, it's interesting to attend in person, or at least watch the videotape, for a sense of the mood and body language as a House vote unfolds.

Earlier yesterday, we blogged about the Liberals' somewhat-divided communications strategy after their regular morning caucus meeting.

In House votes later yesterday afternoon, the divisions continued.

The vote in question was about extending the deadline for the environment committee's review of Bill C-311, a NDP Private Member's Bill called the Climate Change Accountability Act.

The NDP did not want this extension -- it wanted the bill to move to the next stage, in the hopes that it might become law, and compel the government to action, before the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in December.

The Bloc agreed with the NDP, but the Conservatives did not. It was the Liberal caucus that couldn't seem to make up its mind when the time came.

In the end, 42 Liberals voted with the government side to extend the committee's work for another 30 days. Like they'd said they would earlier.

But even before the vote, people began whispering in reporters' ears that the Liberal caucus wasn't unanimous in this view -- and they were right. 14 Liberal MPs voted with the NDP and the Bloc to move things along.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was not in the House for this vote.

Why the competing strategy? Well, on the one hand, a minority of Liberals evidently wanted to look like they supported action on climate change, and voted against a further delay. But on the other hand, more of them were said to be reluctant to support a bill that would allow the NDP to claim any edge or victory as far as championing environmental causes in Parliament. The fact that enough of them voted in favour (so the extension would pass) ironically made it easier for a few of them to take their policy stand and vote against, without any serious consequences. Get it?

Yeah, I'm a bit confused too. Maybe they just genuinely couldn't agree on this one. The Liberal Whip told one of our producers that in the end he decided to let his MPs vote as they chose.

You can read the NDP's take on what went down and why here.

But in the meantime, watch this video of the House vote. For time and file size purposes, I've joined the proceedings after the Conservatives finished voting in favour. (They all stuck together... surprise, surprise.) The video begins with those Liberals who decided to vote with the Conservatives on this environmental bill. Ironically, Stéphane Dion's name is called first.

Great -- now how do we privacy filter our brains?

2009-10-22T15:33:04Z

Louise Elliott, CBC News.

The bright minds at 3M may be on to something -- something that MPs and journalists on the Hill could really use.

In the mail this week I received my very own sample "privacy filter." It's a piece of transparent grey plastic from the famous makers of Post-It notes and just about anything sticky.

Once peeled, said plastic will adhere to any Blackberry screen (after you haul out the scissors and cut it to size - something I haven't yet mustered the energy to do.)

The pitch? The plastic contains microscopic Venetian blinds built right in, so that the person sitting next to you on the Parliamentary bus, on the Prime Minister's plane or even your seat-mate in Question Period can't read the treatise you are frantically banging out with your thumbs.

]]> Louise Elliott, CBC News

The bright minds at 3M may be on to something -- something that MPs and journalists on the Hill could really use.

In the mail this week I received my very own sample "privacy filter." It's a piece of transparent grey plastic from the famous makers of Post-It notes and just about anything sticky.

Once peeled, said plastic will adhere to any Blackberry screen (after you haul out the scissors and cut it to size - something I haven't yet mustered the energy to do).

Given the amount of Parliamentary work that now gets done on the little hand-held devices, this is not a bad idea at all. How many of our politicians (who, it must be said, are in constant motion) actually have time to sit at a computer these days? Not many. Instead, they can be seen in public frequently glued to their little crackberries, risking their lives on busy Ottawa streets as they scurry to press conferences and committee meetings.

For journalists of course, it's the same addiction and the same hazard.

But for some MPs, a privacy filter may not be the issue at all. Take for instance, those who are given to letting the world know their thoughts on a moment-by-moment basis. For those many MPs have flocked to Twitter, a privacy filter for their brains may be more a propos.

This week, Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh apologized after Twittering a comment about the Bloc -- from an in camera Defence Committee hearing.

It's an understandable mistake in a wired world where being fast is more rewarded than being on-point, appropriate, or sometimes, even legal.

And it's a mistake that all the privacy screens in the world won't prevent.

(And if you think these photos look amateurish, well... they weren't done by professionals, let's just say that. Hand modelling by Louise Elliott, blackberry photography by Kady O'Malley, and rudimentary Photoshopping by Janyce McGregor. Sorry 3M marketing people -- but hey, you got a free plug out of this, what more do you want?)

Hey Libs: Pick one and go with it!

2009-10-21T16:53:56Z

Running communications for a political party is a trying task at the best of times.

Even more so when you're competing with...yourself.

]]>

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Women's Caucus unveil the party's 'Pink Book III' after their morning caucus meeting Wednesday on Parliament Hill. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Running communications for a political party is a trying task at the best of times.

Even more so when you're competing with...yourself.

Picture it: the Hall of Honour of the Centre Block. Liberal MP Wayne Easter and the party's spin-machine, Warren Kinsella, camped outside the door to the Conservative caucus meeting. Clearly waiting to do something.

But, what...

Three sombre -looking Liberal staffers stand behind Easter with 8 x 10 photos of Conservative MPs who have, according to Easter, denounced the whole cheque-signing "scandal".

Easter explains how this is must be stopped.

Wouldn't be a bad little stunt if only: in the room right next door the Liberal caucus is launching the Pink Book on women's issues.

Cameras and reporters gathered around Easter.

And although there were other reporters and cameras in the room for the launch, one media event can't outdo the other.

Suddenly, Ignatieff's director of communications, Jill Fairbrother arrives in the scrum and abruptly whisks Easter away.

She didn't look pleased.

And the "stunt" ended awkwardly.

A sign of duelling communications strategies?

For the record, Jill Fairbrother says the two events were intended to take place 20 minutes apart, but ended up being at the same time because the Conservatives left from the back door.

Fairbrother says she was not "displeased", but simply "rushed".

The tale of our raw camera tape is here.

Twoops!

2009-10-20T19:36:34Z

A twitter gaffe, and apology. Both firsts, we think, by a Member of Parliament.

Ujjal Dosanjh rose on a point of order after question period today to apologize ''for tweeting about matters that ought not to have been tweeted about.''

Seems the Liberal MP from Vancouver South let his fingers do the talking about what was taking place at an in-camera, closed-door, for MPs-ears-and-eyes-only session of the Commons Defence Committee:

]]> A twitter gaffe, and apology. Both firsts, we think, by a Member of Parliament.

Ujjal Dosanjh rose on a point of order after question period today to apologize ''for tweeting about matters that ought not to have been tweeted about.''

Seems the Liberal MP from Vancouver South let his fingers do the talking about what was taking place at an in-camera, closed-door, for MPs-ears-and-eyes-only session of the Commons Defence Committee.

Dosanjh wanted the committee to summon Richard Colvin to testify. He's the senior Canadian diplomat who wrote a memo to senior bureaucrats in 2006 detailing the abusive treatment of Afghan detainees turned over to prison authorities in that country by Canadian soldiers.

But Bloc MPs joined with Conservative members of the committee to defeat Dosanjh's efforts to call Colvin as a witness.

Dosanjh turned to his Blackberry... and sent the following out on his Twitter account:

Dosanjh acknowledged his tweet was out of bounds because the meeting was supposed to be private.

"That was an error on my part,'' he told the Commons. ''And that entry will be deleted at the earlier possible opportunity, which is right after I get out of here.''

Alas, Dosanjh deleted the tweet from his account. But it remains on the unofficial political tweet archive. Proving once again that on the internet, everything lives forever.

White-Collar Redux (x2)

2009-10-20T17:05:52Z

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson held his fourth media event on the government's proposed white-collar crime law today in Ottawa.

Again, he was unable to flesh out many of the details because the legislation still hasn't been tabled. That will happen tomorrow.

But Nicholson did release a few details, including a two-year mandatory jail term for fraud over $1 million.

Just as he did at last month's "announcement on white-collar crime legislation," Nicholson surrounded himself with what he called "victims of fraud." One of the women present at today's announcement is a member of the Earl Jones Organizing Committee.

]]> (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson held his fourth media event on the government's proposed white-collar crime law today in Ottawa.

Again, he was unable to flesh out many of the details because the legislation still hasn't been tabled. That will happen tomorrow.

But Nicholson did release a few details, including a two-year mandatory jail term for fraud over $1 million.

Just as he did at last month's "announcement on white-collar crime legislation," Nicholson surrounded himself with what he called "victims of fraud." One of the women present at today's announcement is a member of the Earl Jones Organizing Committee.

The group works on behalf of 180 people who say financial advisor Earl Jones bilked them out of up to $75 million.

Jones stands accused of fraud and theft, but hasn't had a trial yet. A court hearing scheduled for today was delayed until December 4th.

There is no question a lot of people have some shocking tales about Jones and his dealings.

But justice ministers and attorneys general tend to stay out of the fray, favouring the oft-repeated line: "I can't comment as this is before the courts."

Today though, Nicholson didn't hesitate to dive right in.

After talking about the devastating impact of fraud Nicholson said: "the victims of fraud schemes represented here today can attest to the gravity of these crimes."

When asked whether Nicholson is pre-supposing the outcome of Jones' trial, he responded: "If an individual tells me that they're a victim, I accept that and I think it's appropriate to do so."

What do you mean the word "ethics" doesn't appear in the Conflict of Interest Act? - (Sort of) Liveblogging the Ethics Committee

2009-10-20T16:22:18Z

Kady O'Malley, CBC News

8:36:32 AM Greetings, fans of slightly time-delayed semi-livebloggish reporting! As noted yesterday, at the moment, I'm not yet able to post just-this-side-of-realtime dispatches from the parliamentary front, but the girl who sat through a seven-hour filibuster over the in-and-out affair isn't going to let a niggling detail like that stop her from covering what could turn out to be a surprisingly lively Ethics meeting. Yes, I'm back at Ethics -- oh, how I've missed it -- and on the agenda today is an appearance by the commissioner herself, Mary Dawson (last seen -- or at least liveblogged -- before the finale Oliphant policy forum over at the University of Ottawa.

This morning, she'll be discussing her annual report on the Code of Conduct for Public Office Holders, which I confess to not actually having re-read before scrambling my way here to the Hill this morning, so the contents will be just as much of a surprise to me as to any committee members who failed to do their homework last night.

]]> Kady O'Malley, CBC News

8:36:32 AM Greetings, fans of slightly time-delayed semi-livebloggish reporting! As noted yesterday, at the moment, I'm not yet able to post just-this-side-of-realtime dispatches from the parliamentary front, but the girl who sat through a seven-hour filibuster over the in-and-out affair isn't going to let a niggling detail like that stop her from covering what could turn out to be a surprisingly lively Ethics meeting. Yes, I'm back at Ethics -- oh, how I've missed it -- and on the agenda today is an appearance by the commissioner herself, Mary Dawson (last seen -- or at least liveblogged -- before the finale Oliphant policy forum over at the University of Ottawa.

This morning, she'll be discussing her annual report on the Code of Conduct for Public Office Holders, which I confess to not actually having re-read before scrambling my way here to the Hill this morning, so the contents will be just as much of a surprise to me as to any committee members who failed to do their homework last night.

Anyway, since this is a timed-release post, I'm going to stick to the highlights of today's meeting rather than making you all sit through sadly dated second-by-second coverage; I should warn any of y'all who aren't familiar with my usual practice of committee journalizing that my definition of "highlights" doesn't always correspond with that of my colleagues. Don't worry; you'll get used to it. Probably.

8:49:33 AM Before we get down to business, here's the lineup for today: Over on the government side, we have Pierre Poilievre leading the troops for Team Blue; the troops in question will be comprised of Kelly Block, Patricia Davidson, Greg Rickford and Bob Dechert, and you're allowed to have no idea who two -- but not *more* than two -- of those people are.

On the opposition side, meanwhile, we have Borys W. and Michelle Simson up for the Liberals, Carole Freeman and Luc Desnoyers for the Bloc Quebecois, and New Democrat Bill Siksay.

Also, Chairman Paul Szabo -- bless his heart -- is worried that,we-the-media, may be expecting fireworks that are unlikely to ensue; I assured him that I'm here because of my longstanding obsession with ethics legislation, although I can't speak for any of the rest of the reporters in attendance.

Right now, the commissioner is being pre-scrummed by Colleague Van Dusen, who - not surprisingly - wants to know more details about the commissioner's possibly soon to be ongoing investigation into ~~Lisa Raitt~~ UPDATE: le cheque affair, it turns out, not Raitt. (Darn inaudibility!)

Unfortunately, she's so very soft-spoken -- Mary Dawson, that is, not Colleague Van Dusen -- that I wasn't able to pick up most of her reply, but my guess would be that she wasn't willing to say much. Which, of course, is entirely appropriate -- there's nothing that lands an independent officer of Parliament in hot water faster than being the slightest bit interesting while on camera.

9:06:33 AM And with that, the meeting is about to get underway. Remember, I won't be liveblogging every moment, so don't expect my usual manic attention to detail, but I promise to give you the gist.

9:09:37 AM Last minute switch on the Conservative side: Harold Albrecht will be filling in for Kelly Block, and Dean Allison for Bob Dechert. Also, and Pierre Poilievre is here, although very nearly late, and don't you have an office over at Langevin now, mister? That's a 30 second little green bus ride away. Max.

9:12:34 AM Okay, having dealt with some boring bit of housekeeping business related to the schedule, the chair hands the floor over to Dawson, and since this isn't going up til later, I can totally steal her thunder by skimming through the (very helpfully provided) speaking notes for her opening statement, and report that over the last year, she has conducted three "examinations" related to reporting public office holders, (PoHs) and there were "four other instances" where MPs "raised concerns" about potential contraventions of the Act (that's right, this is the *Act*, not the *Code*, and yes, it IS ridiculously confusing to have both of them). Anyway, after having the law explained to them, those unnamed MPs decided not to proceed with formal requests.

As for penalties, earlier this month, she imposed one administrative monetary penalty -- which can go up to $500 -- for "failure to report the holding of an office in the corporation".

Her recommendations: consider revising the rules on the prohibition on PoHs holding "controlled assets"; tighten up the reporting requirements for post-employment reporting; and finally, allow the commissioner to make public her reasons for *not* pursuing a particular issue or complaint as a self-initiated examination. Oh, and she can't discuss an ongoing investigation; the final report will be made public, and that's that.

9:23:25 AM Over to Borys, who waxes all philosophical on the "great public debate" that is brewing over "misrepresentations around phony cheques" -- is that within her mandate, he wonders?

She will be undertaking an investigation, Dawson tells him -- she just doesn't know exactly how she'll handle it; she's still waiting for the promised requests to arrive. Apparently, there are fifty or so that she's expecting to land, and once that happens, she'll figure out whether she can do one general investigation.

She'd also like to remind us all that, although the word "ethics" appears in her title, it doesn't show up in the code itself, so she's not sure how far her jurisdiction extends.

Is this a void in the Act, Borys wonders -- and, if it is, could the committee look at ways to improve it? Borys then wanders down a potentially dangerous alley, noting that "as many as fifty of [his]colleagues on the government side" could be implicated, which sends Pierre Poilievre into his usual snit about whether it's off limits for the committee to discuss non-Public Office Holders (i.e. Members of Parliament), and oh my heavens, did *anyone* not think about how insanely complicated and confusing this would inevitably become by making MPs *not* subject to the same rules as PoHs? Because it so is.

Anyway, Borys comes back with a very pointed question about the appropriateness of *committee members* who may or may not have been involved in the handing out of oversized novelty cheques, and eventually, the chair has to intervene and re-explain the rules, as far as this particular committee's mandate, and how anything related to MPs goes to Procedure and House Affairs -- as long as it doesn't implode and be incapable of holding a meeting for nine months, which is what happened during the in-and-out impasse, but I digress. (Speaking of which, guess what committee is meeting later this morning?)

9:37:04 AM Over to Carole Freeman, who has a more general question for the commissioner -- what does she see as her role, as far as monitoring ethics? It's unclear, Dawson admits -- as she mentioned earlier, the word "ethics" doesn't appear in the Code (or the Act), but she still deals with ethical matters.

Her mandate is to administer the Act (and the Code) and help PoHs comply with it, as well as investigate and report on possible violations. Freeman worries that her mandate is too limited; the public sees her as the ethics commissioner (lowercase intended), yet she apparently can't investigate all potential ethical breaches. Not surprisingly, Dawson disagrees -- well, not that her mandate is limited, but that it is excessively so.

9:42:56 AM When does the Federal Accountability Act come up for its five year statutory review? 2012? That should be fascinating. Meanwhile, Bill Siksay wonders if there are any countries out there with more rigourous ethics codes (or acts), and Dawson confesses that there likely are, but she's not prepared to give a 'dissertation' on the subject at the moment. She'll dig around and get back to him.

Siksay then brings up her investigation into Colin Watson, and wonders whether the definition of "friend" should be made a little ambiguous; she doesn't seem to think that's terribly necessary, as this was an unusual case, in which Watson repeatedly referred to someone as a "friend" despite the fact that it wasn't really the case.

9:50:34 AM Over to the government side, and Patricia Davidson, who tells Dawson that she's new to this committee; she, too, is intrigued by the commissioner's observation on her limited mandate to address ethical issues. Are there particular matters that she feels she *doesn't* have the power to investigate?

Dawson is a bit taken aback by the question -- she's not talking about ethical issues like, say, abortion, she notes -- and she can't think of any particular ethical matters that she'd like to examine, but doesn't have the power.

9:53:34 AM A few more questions from Davidson on the office administration front -- longtime Ethics committee watchers/liveblog followers will recall that Dawson has had some difficulty hiring and retaining staff -- before she moves onto the question of compliance in general, and whether some people just *forget* to update their post-employment disclosures when they move from one position to another.

9:58:34 AM Hey, it's a question from the chair! Actually, a series of questions, most of which seem designed to put certain parts of the report on the record, including the fact that the ministerial guidelines currently in place require undated letters of resignation. No, I'm not sure where he was going with that line of not-actually-questioning either, but you never know when that sort of footnote might turn out to be relevant in future.

10:04:19 AM Michelle Simson asks whether, if she had her druthers, the commissioner would raise the administrative monetary penalties, and Dawson sighs -- she really doesn't like to focus on punishment; she'd prefer to concentrate on compliance, although she does think that disclosure -- of wrongdoing, that is -- is the best incentive.

Undaunted, Greg Rickford wants to know whether she would extend the penalty framework to cover other violations, such as offers of employment, or other areas not currently covered. It doesn't sound like she does, although she notes that actually, her office isn't able to check any of these disclosures, with the exception of being late in filing, or reporting of gifts.

10:12:12 AM Bloc MP Luc Desnoyers has heard enough -- he just doesn't think she has the power to keep public office holders on the straight and narrow, at least as far as ethical behaviour, what with the word not actually appearing in the Act.

Not surprisingly, she disagrees -- I've rarely seen an officer of Parliament so uninterested in wrangling more power, really. Desnoyers wonders if she works in cooperation with the Lobbying Commission, since the rules overlap as far as the ban on post-employment lobbying; she doesn't, since there are confidentiality rules that protect the privacy of her clients during the advisory process.

10:16:46 AM And this, readers, is why it's a good idea not to ask what you think is a safe leading question: Poilievre points out that the Act has been in force for two years, and asks Dawson, point blank, if it's working.

And the answer? She's -- not sure, actually, and she tries somewhat clumsily to explain why: there are just so many things that her office doesn't -- and can't -- know, like how many gifts are never disclosed.

10:21:10 AM Siksay comes up with the bright idea of asking PCO to provide the current guidelines for ministers, and perhaps even appear before the committee to help them fully understand the rules, and Szabo concurs. Also, Borys wonders about the $200 fine that she imposed on a minister who was -- albeit inadvertently -- violation of the Act; does she really think that was sufficient punishment, he asks. Well, yes -- as she reminds him, she imposed it, and she could have gone as high as $500.

Borys gets snippy when this provokes giggles on the government side, and then tries in vain to get Dawson to share her thoughts upon first laying eyes on that now iconic photo of Gerald Keddy and the Giant Cheque, which she obviously doesn't, and is instead forced to remind him -- repeatedly -- that She Can't Talk About Stuff Like That. Sheesh.

10:27:45 AM After a brief round of questions from Dechert, who must have wandered in, on Dawson's recommendation on the RRSP/controlled asset prohibition, Szabo brings up what he sees as an important development on the ethics front: as per the federal court ruling in a recent case on alleged influence, the judge found that there doesn't have to be proof that a public office holder was influenced, but only that there was an an *attempt* made to so.

This leads to a very confusing exchange between Szabo and one of the commissioner's senior staff, Nancy Belanger, that leaves everyone, including the chair, looking somewhat confused at the end. Finally, Szabo manages to make his point about the loophole in ministerial responsibility that ultimately puts the prime minister -- or, at least, PCO -- in charge of administrating its own rules for ministers, which, as he points out, includes the political activities of public office holders and yes, cheques. We're discussing giant cheques, and how they're almost certainly not within her mandate.

10:37:10 AM Ooh! Apparently, there's an opening on November 17th -- as Szabo notes, that would be a perfect opening to bring forward the folks from PCO! The Conservatives are starting to look a little alarmed by this; one of them suggests that they go in camera to discuss this, but Szabo doesn't seem to be leaning that way.

First, though, the final questions from Freeman and Borys. Freeman wants to know exactly what Dawson is asking for, as far as having the power to reveal why she won't proceed with an investigation, even in cases that are all over the media, and she explains that she'd just like to be able to explain her reasoning: Sometimes, it may be because it's outside her mandate, which is very different from, for instance, not finding sufficient evidence to proceed.

10:42:53 AM Worth filing away in the huh cubbyhole: both the complainant and the complainee are informed of her decision by letter, but they can choose not to release it. (It's not clear whether both have to comply, or just one.)

10:44:28 AM One more attempt to make this meeting all about the giant cheques, courtesy of Borys - of course - he asks again whether Conservative members could be in a conflict of interest if they continue to sit on the committee after it begins an investigation into the practice.

Dawson points out that would be covered by the code, not the act, and doesn't seem to have an answer; the Conservative members in question, on the other hand, appear to have plenty of thoughts - or at least angry muttering noises -- to share with their Liberal colleague.

10:49:42 AM After a long and hopefully cathartic vent about the "merry-go-round" of responsible officers of parliament, Szabo dismisses the witnesses, and invites Siksay to speak on his proposal that the ministerial guidelines be provided by PCO. He offers to give notice, but it turns out, that's not necessary -- the Conservatives are willing to give consent - yes, that *was* a pleasant surprise - which means that we'll get to hear from PCO on November 17th, or thereabouts. Ooh. That could be interesting.

10:52:57 AM And that's it for today's Ethics antics -- once again, I'm sorry for not being able to bring it to y'all in realtime, but since I ended up liveblogging all the way through, I'm hoping you'll forgive me. It's just a temporary thing. (And for those of you who now have Lou Reed stuck in your head -- you're welcome. C'mon, it's an awesome song.)

UPDATE (6:50 PM)

Don't pop the champagne corks yet, but ...

Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner Mary Dawson has confirmed that she's going ahead with an investigation into the raft of monogrammed and -- on at least two occasions -- party logo-festooned cheques that Conservative MPs have been handing out to lucky local recipients of stimulus-related government largesse.

Political Bytes would strongly advise that opposition parties hold back on the celebrations, however: During this morning's meeting -- liveblogged here -- Dawson didn't seem entirely convinced that the matter would fall within her somewhat limited mandate; as she pointed out more than once, although her title does include the word 'ethics', it doesn't appear in the Conflict of Interest Act or the Code of Conduct for MPs. (Nor, incidentally, does the word "partisan", which is the favoured term by opposition members to describe such behaviour by government MPs.)

So, who actually is in charge of making sure MPs play by the rules when it comes to cheque presentation protocol? That's what committee members were grumbling about, and as far as PB can tell, they may have a point: If it comes down to an alleged breach of ministerial guidelines, it would be Treasury Board -- or, depending on the situation, Privy Council -- that would be responsible for administering the rules. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the respective responsible ministers -- Vic Toews, and Stephen Harper -- would leap at the opportunity to launch a sweeping investigation into the actions of their own caucus and cabinet members.

Flyer Fight

2009-10-19T19:13:43Z

Making accusations of excessive partisanship is a dangerous game.

First of all, you have to find issues that average Canadians will care about.

Second, you have to make sure you can't be accused of doing the same thing.

]]> Making accusations of excessive partisanship is a dangerous game.

First of all, you have to find issues that average Canadians will care about.

Second, you have to make sure you can't be accused of doing the same thing.

Readers will recall the on-going debate that began last week over those over-sized novelty cheques. Some were signed by Conservative MPs, making it appear it was their money. Others had the Conservative Party logo plastered where the "Government of Canada" should be written.

Well, today I asked the Liberals about a new example of what they say is excessive partisanship by the Conservatives.

They're called 10-percenters. These are flyers on any topic that MPs can mail to any riding in Canada - with the postage paid by taxpayers - as long as they aren't sent to more than 10 per cent of the households in the riding.

A recent series from Conservative MP Laurie Hawn questions Michael Ignatieff's leadership skills. In addition highlighting his record of teaching in "elite universities" and being a "true cosmopolitan," the flyer provides an Internet link to a Montenegro-based, Conservative Party-approved web site that further attacks Ignatieff's character.

Today, Liberal MP David McGuinty joked that he's been "blessed with many 10-percenters" in his Ottawa riding. He called them ''over-the-top'' in attacking Ignatieff. And blatantly partisan.

When I pointed out that all parties tend towards the partisan in these mailouts, McGuinty responded that he only ever remembers seeing Conservative Party logos on 10-percenters.

"I stand to be corrected, the NDP may have done that in the past,'' he said. '' I don't recall ever seeing a Liberal logo on a 10-percenter. That is a flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money. If you're using public resources to further the cause of your own party in held or unheld ridings, it's against the rules. And if it's not against the rules, it's against common sense."

Well, it didn't take long for me to get a few helpful e-mails from the NDP. They contained examples from Liberal MPs Bernard Patry and Martha Hall Findlay, as well as the one below from Siobhan Coady. In addition to prominently featuring the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as links to Liberal party web sites, the flyers appear to do no more than accuse Prime Minister Stephen Harper of patronage and "Harpocrisy".

The Conservatives have put more examples up on this Flickr site.

A Message from Kady

2009-10-19T18:24:51Z

Kady O'Malley, CBC News.

Greetings from the CBC Hill bureau newbie!

Okay, so the original plan was to have me lay comparatively low for the first week, since the new blog won't be up and running until next Monday, but due to my visible wilting from the enforced temporary withdrawal from my beloved political interwebs, the Powers That Be have agreed to let me to file the occasional dispatch to Political Bytes.

Due to boring technical limitations, there won't be any liveblogging until I'm happily ensconced in my new corner of the universe, but until then, I'll do my best to keep y'all posted on the latest happenings in and around the parliamentary precinct. (Hey, it was either that, or come up with increasingly sneaky ways to get around that capricious 140 character limit over on Twitter.)

Oh, and feel free to drop me a line at my new address: kady.omalley@cbc.ca. ]]> Kady O'Malley, CBC News.

Greetings from the CBC Hill bureau newbie!

Okay, so the original plan was to have me lay comparatively low for the first week, since the new blog won't be up and running until next Monday, but due to my visible wilting from the enforced temporary withdrawal from my beloved political interwebs, the Powers That Be have agreed to let me to file the occasional dispatch to Political Bytes.

Due to boring technical limitations, there won't be any liveblogging until I'm happily ensconced in my new corner of the universe, but until then, I'll do my best to keep y'all posted on the latest happenings in and around the parliamentary precinct. (Hey, it was either that, or come up with increasingly sneaky ways to get around that capricious 140 character limit over on Twitter.)

Oh, and feel free to drop me a line at my new address: kady.omalley@cbc.ca.

Welcome Back, Coderre!

2009-10-19T18:19:59Z

What do you know? Denis Coderre is back in the House of Commons.

You may remember that little bit of trouble he stirred up when he quit his job as the Liberal Quebec lieutenant and then proceeded to diss his leader for running things "out of Toronto."

Well, after laying low for a couple of weeks...he's back.
]]>
You may remember that little bit of trouble he stirred up when he quit his job as the Liberal Quebec lieutenant and then proceeded to diss his leader for running things "out of Toronto."

Well, after laying low for a couple of weeks...he's back.

And he had this to say: "Le retour fait aimer l'aideu."

Rougly translated: The return makes you appreciate the goodbye.

Do You Know What AECL Stands For?

2009-10-19T16:28:14Z

Susan Lunn, CBC News.

Do you know what AECL stands for?

If you can't answer that, don't worry. You're not alone.

An Ipsos Reid poll done last February and March show that nearly 70 per cent of respondents admitted they didn't know much about the Crown corporation.

The union representing the engineers and scientists who work at AECL held a news conference today, in part to spread the word about what it is they actually do.

]]> Susan Lunn, CBC News

If you can't answer that, don't worry. You're not alone.

An Ipsos Reid poll done last February and March show that nearly 70 per cent of respondents admitted they didn't know much about the Crown corporation.

The union representing the engineers and scientists who work at AECL held a news conference today, in part to spread the word about what it is they actually do.
The poll also comes at time when the federal government is in the process of reorganizing AECL. That's expected to be finished this year.

Oh, and the answer is: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the crown agency that makes medical isotopes and CANDU nuclear reactors. It's been around for 50 years.

Novelty Cheques, Novel Portrait?

2009-10-15T18:02:22Z

The giant novelty cheque story appears to have inspired the the Liberal party's artsy side.

Today at a news conference, Liberal MPs David McGuinty and Marcel Proulx announced the party is launching 47 complaints with Canada's ethics commissioner, saying that they've found 181 examples where Conservative MPs have taken credit for taxpayer-funded Government of Canada funding announcements through the use of "personalized partisan cheques" since 2007.

Why 47 complaints? One for each Tory MP the Liberals say handed out the cheques.

Today's news conference also featured a crafty multi-media presentation, which included an image of Prime Minister Stephen Harper made up of a collage of those oversized cheques.

]]>
The giant novelty cheque story appears to have inspired the the Liberal party's artsy side.

Today at a news conference, Liberal MPs David McGuinty and Marcel Proulx announced the party is launching 47 complaints with Canada's ethics commissioner, saying that they've found 181 examples where Conservative MPs have taken credit for taxpayer-funded Government of Canada funding announcements through the use of "personalized partisan cheques" since 2007.

Why 47 complaints? One for each Tory MP the Liberals say handed out the cheques.

Today's news conference also featured a crafty multi-media presentation, which included an image of Prime Minister Stephen Harper made up of a collage of those oversized cheques.

Ben Parsons, 24, created the portrait. He works in strategic communications at the Liberal Research Bureau and says it took him about an hour on Adobe Photoshop to arrange all the cheques and alter the colour scheme.

Parsons says he then layered a transparent photograph of Harper over this collage: