It’s egregiously partisan, and Pierre Poilievre won’t apologise for it. He released a pair of YouTube videos featuring himself talking about the government’s new tax measures, never mind that they still haven’t passed into law yet. Most of all, he filmed them on a weekend, using public servants on overtime. He says it was only two hours (but rules are they need to be paid a minimum of three), and not unsurprisingly, the public sector unions consider it an abuse of resources. Because it is. Liberal MP David McGuinty is hoping to leverage it into support of his bill to limit this kind of nonsense, much in the way that Ontario created an advertising commissioner in the Auditor General’s office to vet ads so that things like party colours, or the faces or voices of politicians are outlawed from government advertising. The funny thing is that the current Conservative government rode into power on the white horse of accountability, waving the banner of outrage over partisan advertising and polling by the previous government – never mind that their advertising was never this blatant or nakedly partisan. But apparently that doesn’t matter because this government can justify and rationalize absolutely anything, no matter how much they end up looking like hypocrites.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: The galling abuse of the Information Commissioner
The Information Commissioner is very unhappy about the government’s move to retroactively change the law to protect the RCMP for destroying gun registry records despite promises to her office that they wouldn’t in order to fulfil Access to Information requests. That the RCMP broke the law by destroying the information, and the government is protecting them by retroactively changing the law and putting that change in the middle of the omnibus budget bill, sets a very bad precedent, she warns, and she’s right. While the government wanted the long-gun registry data destroyed for political purposes, there was other information of value in the data that wound up being destroyed that had little to do with any future attempts at recreating a registry – something the Conservatives have long been afraid of, and are pressing for the hasty destruction of data to impede. And the way she characterises this is genuinely frightening – that they are backdating changes to the law to make something legal after a finding of wrongdoing. She uses the example of the Sponsorship Scandal – what if the Liberal government of the day retroactively changed the law so that the Auditor General was ousted from her jurisdiction after the fact. It’s unconscionable. What’s even more galling is the way that the prime minister is shrugging this off as just “fixing a loophole.” No, it’s not. It’s wilfully undermining the Commissioner and her ability to do her job, which this government has already made nearly impossible through starving her office budget and wanton disregard of their obligations under the Access to Information regime. All while they call themselves “open and transparent.” It’s grotesque, abusive, and in violation of their obligations as the government of the day. And if anything is any more upsetting about this situation, it’s that the opposition parties were too busy electioneering in QP instead of raising bloody hell about this issue – the Liberals not asking until nearly the end, and the NDP not raising it at all. Thanks for doing your jobs in holding this kind of unconscionable behaviour to account, MPs. Gold stars all around.
QP: Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.
Despite it only being a Thursday, the major leaders were elsewhere in the country, busy campaiging instead of doing their jobs. Megan Leslie led off, bringing up job losses at Bombardier and wondered why the government wasn’t doing more for manufacturing. Pierre Poilievre gave a pro forma expression of sympathy before touting the government’s job creation record. Leslie asked again in English twice again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice took another kick at it in French. Poilievre was just as adept in repeating the good news talking points in French. Marc Garneau led for the Liberals, also asking about the job losses, and Poilievre put a “Liberals would raise taxes” spin on his same talking points. Judy Sgro took a kick at it, naming some of the other closing plants and job losses, but Poilievre kept insisting the Liberals would raise taxes and kill more jobs.
Roundup: Committing to change – for real!
A rare bit of public damage control was on display yesterday as CBC obtained a copy of the orders that the Chief of Defence Staff put out two months ago, which told the nascent task force being assembled to deal with the forthcoming report by former Justice Marie Deschamps on sexual assault and harassment in the Forces, to basically set aside some of the coming recommendations. At this point in the timeline, General Lawson would have seen a draft copy of Deschamps’ report, and he would have had a good idea what was in it for recommendations. Within hours of the CBC report going public, Lawson put out a lengthy press release stating that the Forces would act on all ten recommendations, including the creation of an independent centre for reporting assault or harassment. A few minutes later in Question Period, Jason Kenney also said that all ten recommendations would be acted upon as well. It does make one wonder when any change in these orders occurred, and why Lawson changed his mind – though one can imagine that either the final wording of Deschamps’ report, and how it was received by both the government and the general public, may have forced a realisation that there was a real appetite for cultural change out in the wider public, and that the old way of dealing with issues internally, particularly with its culture of misogyny, weren’t going to cut it any longer. Meanwhile, it should also be pointed out that the Canadian Forces appointed a female commander, Brigadier General Lise Bourgon, to head our forces in Iraq, and more women in high-profile commanding roles can only help in driving home the message that it’s not a macho boys’ club any longer.
Change of Command JTF-Iraq: BGen Lise Bourgon assumed command from BGen Dan Constable: http://t.co/4WnHzj09cB #RCAF pic.twitter.com/dKFYWjnNJY
— Royal Canadian Air Force (@RCAF_ARC) May 13, 2015
QP: Reiterating a commitment
Wednesday, caucus day, and the benches were mostly full for the second day in a row that all leaders were present. It shouldn’t be noteworthy to say so, but apparently this is the way of things now. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering about the role of Ray Novak in the Duffy Audit conspiracy — because we’re still on about that. Stephen Harper said that Mulcair’s reading of the court documents was creative, and retreated to the shield of the courts. Mulcair then demanded the statement that Mike Duffy allegedly signed to indicate he was a resident of PEI before he was sworn in. Harper said it was Duffy’s actions who were on trial, and it was before the courts. Mulair then moved to the issue of the slow response to the Deschamps Report on military sexual harassment, but Harper stated that the quote came from a letter written two months before the report was issued. Mulcair demanded action on the items in the report, and Harper insisted that the Chief of Defence Staff was acting on the recommendations, including an independent centre for reporting assault. Mulcair pivoted again, and demanded amendments to the budget to end the tax on feminine hygiene products. Harper insisted that Mulcair’s true purpose was to offer that tiny tax cut while planning to raise the GST. Justin Trudeau was up next, and immediately started plugging his plan, and wondered why the government wasn’t investing in the middle class. Harper responded by misconstruing Trudeau’s “fairness” comment from yesterday, and insisting that the Liberal plan doesn’t balance. Trudeau indicated he looked forward to raising that in the debate, and Harper continued to insist the Linerals want to raise taxes. Trudeau responded by insisting that fairness was helping those who need it, and asked his same question again in French. Harper repeated his talking points about what he claimed the Liberals would take away.
Roundup: Breaking the debates
The Conservatives have decided that they’re going to opt out of the major broadcasters when it comes to election debates this fall, and will instead entertain the option of independents who don’t have the same kind of widespread broadcast capabilities, by accepting the invitations of Maclean’s/Rogers, and TVA in French. In a way, it’s more of this attempt to portray themselves as poor, put upon underdogs that the “big media elites” are trying to control – as though being in power for the past ten years doesn’t make them elites. There has been this particular undercurrent in pre-election conversation that they want plenty of debates because apparently it’ll be how they can trip up Justin Trudeau (ignoring both the fact that he cleaned up in his party leadership debates, and the fact that the more debates, the more chance that any gaffes will be minimised). It’s also a curious strategy that they would forgo the broadest audience that the major broadcasters’ consortium could provide – and a bit tone deaf as to the reality of the media landscape that they think that it’s just a matter of some university hosting an event and everyone brings their cameras. What it does is twofold – firstly, it’s a power game by the Conservatives to unilaterally pull out of the consortium negotiation process and throw everyone into disarray, and secondly, it’s an attempt to control those debates by creating a proliferation of independent offers that they can then cherry pick when it comes to things like format and hosting choices. It has also been pointed out how hypocritical their position is considering that they very rarely allow their candidates to even attend local debates, so for them to be concern trolling over the state of the leaders’ debates is a bit rich. Suffice to say, it’s throwing a lot of added confusion out there and is setting up a power play that will further break our system more than it already is.
QP: Bringing back the Duffy questions yet again
Tuesday, and all of the leaders were finally present like they should be. If we’re lucky, we may see them for two days this week instead of just the one. Thomas Mulcair led off, once again returning to the issue of PMO interference in the Senate audit. Harper insisted that the premise was false and the matters were before the court. Mulcair tried to drag in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen into the conspiracy, but Harper wouldn’t take the bait. Mulcair asked about Duffy’s residency prior to appointment and the statement he allegedly signed before being sworn in, and Harper again retreated behind the courts. Mulcair finally segued to layoffs at Alcan, to which Harper and praised his government’s low-tax agenda. Mulcair read the question in French, bringing up Jack Layton’s name in the process, but Harper’s answer didn’t change. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking the government to cancel tax breaks for the wealthy. Harper insisted that their lower taxes benefit everybody, and insisted the Liberals would take everything away. Trudeau asked again, and Harper insisted his plan would make life better for every Canadian. Another round in French, and more of the same answer.
Mulcair brings up Layton in his final question, and in French. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
The Conservatives are miming that Trudeau is digging himself in deeper. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
Roundup: The Senate should strangle Chong’s bill
There has been a sudden flurry of concern regarding the state of Michael Chong’s Reform Act, currently in the Senate, because the bill is likely to die there. In fact, if there were any sense in the world, it would, but not before the pundit class starts wailing and gnashing their teeth about how terrible it is that the unelected Senate would defeat a wildly popular bill from the Commons. Of course, that’s immediately where my head hits the desk, because that’s exactly why we have the Senate we do – because sometimes MPs overwhelmingly vote in dumb things, and cooler heads in the Senate can talk them down and defeat them without fear of electoral repercussion. You know, sober second thought, the raison d’etre of the Upper Chamber. And let’s face it – the Reform Act is a spectacularly terrible bill that will undermine Responsible Government and our system of Westminster-style democracy pretty much permanently. And if you think the gong show that just happened with the leadership review in Manitoba was an exception, well, Chong’s bill would see to it that those become somewhat more the norm across the country. The bill will do nothing to “empower” MPs. It will do the opposite by disincentivising them from rebelling against their leaders, as has successfully overturned bad leaders in many instances (most recently Alison Redford comes to mind). What will empower MPs is for them to actually stiffen their spines and do their jobs, because they have all the power that they need already – a lesson that Senator Fraser reiterated in her speech against Chong’s bill. But contrary to Andrew Coyne’s assertion, the Conservative leadership in the Senate has been inclined to pass the bill, but there are a number of Conservative senators who have wised up to the fact that the bill is terrible and they would do well to kill it in one way or another. Other senators are keenly aware that even MPs who voted for the bill know it’s terrible but didn’t think they could be seen to vote against it, so they sent it to the Senate, where it could be killed there, and they could use it as political cover (and denounce those terrible, awfully, unelected and unaccountable senators for killing a bill that passed the Commons even though MPs knew it was terrible). The “pass it off to the other chamber” game is not a new phenomenon (second only to “let’s pass it off to the Supreme Court”), but it’s another sign of how spineless MPs have become. Not that Chong’s bill would do anything about that spinelessness, ironically. Instead, it looks like it will be up to the Senate to save MPs from themselves yet again, and MPs won’t learn their lessons about taking their responsibilities seriously.
The Senate always sits later than the Commons to finish passing bills. With so many on their plate, they will likely sit into July. 2/2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
With another omnibus budget bill on the way, they will hold more hearings on it than the Commons will. But you know, "leisurely."
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
Also wondering how many senators @acoyne spoke to about the Reform Act. His take doesn't match conversations I've had with them.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
I don't agree with all of her points, but she gives Chong a good kicking for his disingenuous use of terms in the bill. 2/2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
QP: Repeated questions about sick mothers
Monday, and the only leader in the Commons was a sheepish Elizabeth May, fresh from her morning apology tour after her off-the-rails speech at the Press Gallery Dinner on Saturday. The NDP chose their other, other deputy leader, David Christopherson, to start things off by shouting out a pair of questions regarding the PMO trying to whitewash the Duffy audit. Paul Calandra said it was before the court. Christopherson shouted a question about Senate residency rules for appointments, to which Calandra reminded him of their satellite offices that needed repayment. Christopherson changed topics, and shouted about a mother who couldn’t get sick benefits while on parental leave, while Pierre Poilievre, calmly, said he couldn’t comment on a specific case, but noted they had sympathy for people in cases like that which was why they tabled legislation in 2013, solving it for future cases. Sadia Groguhé asked the same question in French, got the same answer in French, and then Groguhé asked it again, getting yet the same answer. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, asking about the trade deficit and job numbers, and wondered why the government would use income splitting to help the wealthy instead of single mothers. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Poilievre responded with talking points about things the Liberals would supposedly do. Goodale gave some talking points about the Liberal plan, Poilievre responded with some fabrications about the fictitious Liberal plan, and when Goodale hit back, Joe Oliver finally stood up, and read some talking points off a cue card.
"I've actually balanced a budget, Mr. Speaker," Goodale retorts and the Conservative benches start howling. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 11, 2015
Roundup: Speaker Housakos’ telling silence
It was with some interest that I listened to the first major interview with new Senate Speaker Leo Housakos over the weekend, and in it, there was the requisite amount of tough talk with regards to the recent spending allegations that some senators face. To wit, Speaker Housakos spoke of recognising their problems internally, bringing in the Auditor General on their own, the willingness to name any names that the AG does in his report, and as far as the three suspended senators are concerned, those suspensions are likely to continue into the next parliament until their legal situations have been resolved one way or another. Where Housakos did not talk tough, but instead shied away from answering, was regarding questions of the complicity of some senators in changing the internal audit to protect Mike Duffy. Housakos mumbled about it being before the courts, but as the Speaker and the new head of the Internal Economy committee, he had an opportunity to make a statement about past practices that will no longer be tolerated, or the staking a claim about Senate independence and severing the ties to the PMO, or anything like that. He didn’t, and it’s not too surprising to me because Housakos is known as someone who is close to the PMO, in with a tight cabal that surrounds the current Government Leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan. In other words, Housakos is no Pierre-Claude Nolin, who had some fairly high-minded ideals about the Senate and its independence, particularly after the Supreme Court’s reference decision. The fact that Housakos did not make any claims for institutional independence is telling, and reminds us that he bears watching so as to ensure that he personally does not become implicated in more of the PMO machinations into the Upper Chamber and its workings. The Senate needs an independent Speaker, and I’m not sure that Housakos is it. Meanwhileback in the Commons, the government refuses to answer questions on residency requirements for appointing senators.