Thomas Mulcair started off QP with one of those polite gimme questions that leaders occasionally ask one another, in this case on the situation in Syria – which Mulcair asked in English and then repeated immediately in French in the same 35 second block. Harper gave a perfunctory reply about how they’re working with their allies about binding sanctions, and then it was back to business as usual. Mulcair asked a pair of questions on the omnibus budget bill and the NRTEE’s final report today about the oilsands and greenhouse gas emissions. Harper responded by saying that when they took office, emissions were growing steadily but have levelled off. Peggy Nash was up next wondering about the effect of the EI changes on women, which got a rote talking point from Kellie Leitch, followed by Lisa Raitt giving her assurances about contractual obligations for income equity. Bob Rae was greeted with a standing ovation from all sides when he got up to speak, given his announcement earlier in the morning (though really, he’s not retiring), to which Rae quipped “Now they love me.” His first two questions were on Harper calling a first ministers’ meeting on national economic and energy strategies, which Harper insisted that he consults all the time and not just with premiers, and for his last question, Rae asked about the Del Mastro situation – with Del Mastro sniping “That’s a lie!” the whole while. Harper shrugged it off and said that they should treat all members with more consideration. Erm, okay.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Commence the voting marathon
Today begins the marathon of voting. Kady O’Malley’s estimates are that it should get underway between about 5:45 and 7 pm, depending on how quickly Orders of the Day happen after QP, and then we’re into somewhere around 24 hours worth of votes, again depending on how long each vote takes (the NDP has on several occasions in this parliament dragged out votes themselves by rising very slowly when their turns come).
Uh oh – timestamped call logs are showing that Dean Del Mastro’s version of what happened in regards to the election expenses he’s now under investigation for may not quite line up. He claims the cheque was based on a quote for services that he eventually cancelled and was refunded for, but we’re still waiting for confirmation of that.
Here’s a look at what’s left on the government’s legislative agenda, and what they’re going to look at pushing through before they rise at the end of next week.
QP: Power or lack thereof corrupting
With Stephen Harper back in the House after nearly two weeks away, it remained to be seen how the drama would play out. And, well, there really wasn’t a lot of drama. Thomas Mulcair asked a couple of rote questions on getting Harper to justify the environmental changes in the omnibus budget bill, and Harper responded calmly that there was still going to be a rigorous process for environmental assessment that included timelines for investors. For his final question, Mulcair asked why Harper had such a change of heart when it came to his opposition to omnibus bills. Harper gave a recitation about how it was a bill full of comprehensive measures for jobs and growth, and the economy, and sunshine and rainbows (well, okay, maybe not those last two). Libby Davies was up next to decry the cuts to health transfers to the provinces, and Ted Menzies bet Leona Aglukkaq to the punch and talked about how the transfers were still increasing and included a floor should the economy not grow, though Aglukkaq did respond to the supplemental question, during which she called Davies’ questions misleading. Bob Rae was up next, and wondered if Harper’s change of heart when it comes to omnibus bills meant that he had been corrupted by power. While Harper gave pretty rote responses about the comprehensive measures for his first two responses, on his final response he noted that Rae had promised not to run for permanent leader and now seemed to be changing his mind, which must mean that it’s a lack of power that corrupts. Oh, snap!
The omnibudget versus the role of the opposition
Amidst the anticipation and reaction to the Speaker’s rulings on the amendments for the omnibus budget bill yesterday, I was struck by the tone of the rhetoric being employed across the opposition benches, and how it varied from party to party. That tone was actually pretty instructive with how each party seems to consider its role as an opposition party.
First out of the gate this morning was Marc Garneau for the Liberals, who laid out why his party was prepared to vote on marathon amendments. When asked if all of these votes were a good use of Parliament’s time, considering that we all know how they’ll end up, Garneau gave an unequivocal yes. According to him, it is an effective use because it is holding the government to account. And while sure, the Liberals have offered to support the actual budget portions if the government hives off the four other sections of the bill (environment, fisheries, OAS and EI), it was with a firm tone.
Roundup: Between 67 and 159 votes
The Speaker has whittled down 871 amendments to between 67 and 159 votes, depending. In other words, about 18 to 26 hours of consecutive votes, more or less, which they’re now preparing themselves for. Speaker Scheer also ruled that because there are no firm rules for omnibus bills that this one is permissible, but hey, why don’t you guys lay down some rules for the future over in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. And so, the votes will take place probably Wednesday, and probably starting late at night since the government also moved to extend sitting hours to midnight every night for the remaining two weeks.
With the ruling on May’s point of order in mind, after QP, Nathan Cullen tried to argue that the omnibus budget bill has become a contempt of parliament because the government won’t release the data on the cuts to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Scott Brison takes to the pages of the National Post to say that the issue of income inequality is not a left-or-right issue, but one that Parliament should be addressing.
QP: Angry tangents to distracting talking points
Stephen Harper remained away from the House of Commons today, off in Montreal to address a conference, leaving Peter Van Loan to face off yet again with Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair tried to ask about the omnibus budget bill, and list off all of the items being cut or changed in it, but Van Loan responded with accusations that the NDP want Canada to bail out Europe, and – oh, wow, that set Mulcair off. On each of his first supplemental, it was a bit of a retort, but on the second, after Van Loan kept up the distraction message, Mulcair went off an angry, red-faced tangent about Canada’s place in the world, which he then tried to awkwardly segue to a question about EI changes in his last few seconds, but it just gave Van Loan more opportunity to praise Canada’s fiscal situation. That was almost too easy to goad him, really. When Peggy Nash tried to talk about why the government was worried about cuts instead of job creation, Jim Flaherty accused her of trying to delay a bill that would create jobs. Bob Rae then got up, and first schooled Jim Flaherty on how IMF transfers work before wondering why the government was so sure that Canada was such an island of fiscal stability in an interconnected global marketplace. Van Loan then recited some of John McCallum’s quotes on the European situation by means of a reply.
Roundup: Prepare for marathon voting
And so begins the week where it all happens. All of those marathon votes, as many as the Speaker is determined to allow (the number of which we should know by around noon today).
Another leaking pipeline in Alberta has premier Alison Redford in damage control mode, professing confidence in the measures in place to deal with leaks as they happen, but critics say that there is too much industry self-reporting that needs to be addressed.
Preston Manning calls Thomas Mulcair a hypocrite for not making his “polluter pay” and internalising environmental cost ideas apply to Quebec’s hydro sector, which flooded forest areas the size of Lake Ontario.
Bernier can’t identify our Head of State
Our nation’s lack of civic literacy truly has reached crisis proportions when ministers of the Crown can’t even identify the very basic parts of our system of government. I’ve written before about the public’s general lack of understanding of the Canadian monarchy, and our need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that the monarchy is somehow “foreign” because the Queen doesn’t live in the country full-time. It’s an issue of education and awareness. I get it.
But when a minister of the Crown can’t even make this distinction, there is a problem. And a really big one at that.
Roundup: Up to 579 consecutive votes upcoming
While you’re enjoying your weekend, give pause for the poor clerks in the Commons spending their weekends preparing for report stage voting for the omnibus budget bill. You see, the Bloc has some 22 substantive amendments, Elizabeth May has some 330 amendments tabled, and of the 503 deletion amendments the Liberals submitted and the 506 that the NDP did, well, there’s a lot to go through. Peter Van Loan says that 579 of those don’t overlap, but we need to see how those amendments will be grouped together before the marathon of votes begins sometime next week.
There are new concerns around what happened in that senior’s residence poll in Etobicoke Centre in the last election, as a third version of events surfaces.
The CBC takes a look at the weakening of civilian oversight and the increasing influence of lobbyists with military procurement – especially when it comes to the F-35s.
Roundup: A thousand omnibudget amendments
The next steps in the fight against the omnibus budget bill are heating up. After getting their interns to camp out, the Liberals deposited 503 deletion amendments to be considered. Moments later, the NDP deposited 506 deletion amendments of their own. (I’m informed that the number was just a coincidences and not a juvenile game of one-upmanship). This on top of Elizabeth May’s 200 or so substantive amendments. The Speaker is due to rule on Monday as to what is going to be admissible and how those amendments will be grouped together. Pity his poor staff, who will have to spend their weekend going through all of it.
Court documents are undermining what Dean Del Mastro was claiming yesterday regarding his innocence with those allegedly improper payments that Elections Canada is now investigating.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer is preparing to go to Federal Court to get the information on the budget cuts that he is entitled to get, but that the government is withholding.