Stephen Harper vs. Kevin Page -

Stephen Harper vs. Kevin Page

And now the parliamentary librarian steps in


Amid all else yesterday, the Prime Minister dismissed as a “partisan action” Kevin Page’s appeal to the Federal Court for a clarification of his mandate.

Thomas Mulcair: For over a year, the Conservatives have refused to tell Canadians the truth about their devastating austerity measures. According to the law, the new Parliamentary Budget Officer must have access to all the financial information she needs to inform parliamentarians and Canadians. The courts clearly said that they will intervene if the Conservatives do not comply. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister finally show some transparency by requiring his ministers to provide all the required information?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the court decision against the partisan action of the former Parliamentary Budget Officer and the leader of the NDP. This government created the position. We provide information on a regular basis and we will continue to do so.

Nonetheless, with that ruling in hand, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer is now sending letters to 84 departments and agencies of the federal government to request information on the Harper government’s budget cuts.


Stephen Harper vs. Kevin Page

  1. “For over a year, the Conservatives have refused to tell Canadians the truth about their devastating austerity measures.”

    Andrew Coyne March 2013:

    Certainly it would be hard to accuse the government of breaking the bank. That happened in 2009-10, you’ll recall, when spending increased by $37-billion in a single year. Since then it has been steadily chipping away at that mountain of profligacy, with the result that recent federal budgets have invariably been described as “austere” — though spending remains higher, after inflation and after population growth, than at any time in our history.

    So it continues: program spending is scheduled to increase this year over last …..

    • How does Andrew Coyne’s quote relate to what Mulcair is asking for? Do you know what Mulcair and the PBO are asking for?

      Simply writing quotes does not mean anything. People can write quotes about others all day long. What is the point of that? What does Charles De Gaulle’s or Andrew Coyne’s quote have to do with Mulcair’s question?

  2. “This government created the position. We provide information on a regular basis …. ”

    Charles De Gaulle – Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word.

    • You possess a potent force that you either use, or misuse, hundreds of times every day.
      J. Martin Kohe

  3. Did Aaron Wherry not watch Justin’s ‘message of nice’ yesterday. Justin’s publicity spot was all about doing politics differently. So, that much is clear now.

    Would Aaron Wherry be so kind as to include the full text of the question asked, as in the request made by the PBO for Mulcair, so that such request to the government can be read in its full form.

    It seems to me that the difference of opinion between Mulcair (via the PBO) and the government is all in relation to the question of the request.

    What, exactly, did Mulcair request for the PBO to sort out? What, exactly, is Mulcair (via the PBO) asking for?

    How is the public capable of debating this very topic concerning the government versus the PBO (sorry, Wherry, but Page is no longer the PBO) when not all relevant information has been included in Wherry’s report?

    • I find this to be an interesting observation: 4 people so far have thumbed down the contents of my post (at least, that is what I will assume. I could, of course, assume that the thumbs down in this case have nothing to do with the contents of my post but that the thumbs down in my case are simply done because I wrote the post, but I will not assume that here).

      So if 4 people have thumbed down this post so far (more to be expected) does that mean that those people do not want to know the question posed within the request by Mulcair via the PBO?

      Or have 4 people so far thumbed down my post because those people already know the question of the request by Mulcair and simply don’t want for the question to be widely known. Perhaps the 4 people who thumbed down my post think that the question of the Mulcair request should remain in the background, well hidden, so that the PBO has a chance for ‘winning’ its ‘case’ once more on grounds of not being direct enough.

      • People are thumbing down the contents of your post because you are whining about the Conservatives being made to be accountable and actually answer for what they are doing while in power.

        It’s called “democracy.” Get over it.

        • So, that would mean that I can put you in the category of not having read the Mulcair question, or can I put you in the category of not wanting to discuss the Mulcair question? You are confusing me. But to be fair, maybe I will not categorize you at all. Let’s just say that you could not hold back any longer, and just had to respond to my post in any case. Thank you for having read and for having responded to my post.

          • Francien, I must confess my admiration for your tactics here. They are worthy of Mr. Harper himself. This discussion began as a commentary on the government’s lack of response to the PBO information request(s). omehow, you are managing to re-focus it on whether or not the commentors have read the text of Mr. Mulcair’s question.
            The government’s unreponsiveness to PBO information requests has been commented on repeatedly since the office was created; the contents of the specific question IN THIS CASE hardly seem like the core of the issue.
            I will head off your inevitable rebuttal by admitting that I don’t know what Mulcair was referring to in this instance. As I am trying to pointout, the government’s non-cooperation with the office that it itself created supposedly to foster transparency and accountability is the issue that really needs to be addressed.

    • I love that old Conservative logic: “If you are critical of us in any way you are attacking us!!!! Just like those evil lefties and the liberal media!!! Wahhh wahhhh! We’re so oppressed by the office we created to keep the government accountable!”

      Being critical of the government is called “accountability.” You know, that thing Stephen Harper claims to be for all the time? An unaccountable government that can only complain about being taken to account instead of actually defending itself is treading very close to undemocratic.

      • No, being critical of the government, any government, means one has to offer a criticism. Offering criticism includes reasons upon which the criticism is based. Name calling and flinging out bold statements without substance, does not define a criticism. Such would be called ’empty criticism’.

        In what way would you say, critically speaking, that the Conservative government has said that the lefties are evil? When has the Conservative government said that it feels oppressed by the office they have created?

        And could you tell me where to find the meaning of the words Wahhh, Wahhh. I could not find the word in the dictionary. Or perhaps you’ve misspelled it; perhaps it should be spelled with only two h’s at the end? Perhaps.