Given that it’s the big March for Life on the Hill, reporters asked Justin Trudeau yesterday about the whole pro-choice thing for the party (I’m guessing since it’s a fun game to try and catch the Liberals out on being a nominally pro-choice party with a few pro-life MPs still in the caucus). Trudeau said that as was decided by the membership in the 2012 policy convention, the party is officially pro-choice, that such votes would be whipped, and that the existing pro-life MPs are being grandfathered in, but all future candidates must follow the pro-choice party line. “So much for open nominations!” the commentariat cries, ignoring the kinds of conditions – or indeed groupthink – that other parties employ with their own candidates. And pro-life Liberals like John McKay kind of shrugged and said that it’s normal to have some disagreements within a party and left it at that. And now everyone else will try to make hay of this, because that’s the way it works.
Tag Archives: Abortion
Roundup: Poilievre’s new conspiracy theory
Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
Roundup: Harper’s saint turns against him
Call it a shot across the bow, or maybe a broadside, but former Auditor General Sheila Fraser has weighted in on the Fair Elections Act, and she is not amused. In a blistering, no-holds-barred interview, the woman whom the Conservatives had previously sainted point-blank called them out for trying to rig up a bill designed to sideline Elections Canada because they had been investigating various voting irregularities and other misdeeds by the Conservatives, and which would advantage their particular donor base. And yet, during QP yesterday, Pierre Poilievre just kind of shrugged it off and denounced the “so-called experts” as not being able to stack up against “common sense and democracy.” Actual quote. And yet, when we see the real need for things like being able to compel testimony, as the investigation into “Pierre Poutine” continues to this very day. Former Guelph Conservative campaign worker Andrew Prescott, who has been granted immunity in exchange for testimony, has given evidence about Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged in that whole affair – as well as Ken Morgan, then campaign manager who is now living in Kuwait. Sona, meanwhile, asserts that he has ironclad alibis that will exonerate him, and that they didn’t learn their lessons after being coached into a story about Sona that was contradicted by the fact that he was in Aruba when an alleged incident took place. If the Commissioner of Elections had the power to compel testimony, it is likely this dance around the Guelph robocalls would have long been over. First Nations groups are also sounding the alarm about the bill, and pointing out the reality on most reserves are that the kinds of acceptable ID just aren’t there for most residents and that the bill is a fix for something that simply isn’t broken.
QP: Calls for Fantino’s head
While the shock waves of the morning’s bombshell from Justin Trudeau reverberated around the Hill, it was in the Commons where there was the smell of blood in the water. Thomas Mulcair led off with a demand that Julian Fantino apologise for the way he treated those veterans yesterday. Stephen Harper stood up to declare how much his government had done for veterans. Mulcair switched to English, and demanded Fantino’s resignation, but Harper insisted that Fantino had apologised. Mulcair went on to drive home the point about their “support” for veterans by brining up the case of a family of a veteran who committed suicide where the department wanted repayment for benefits. Harper said that once the minister was made aware, he took action. Mulcair carried on about the closure of veterans offices while ministerial staff was being increased, but Harper insisted that the minister took action when the bureaucrats made a mistake, and that it was the unions that didn’t like the closures. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the loss of individual case workers for veterans, but Harper insisted that they were increasing points of service. Justin Trudeau was up next, and rather plainly asked for Harper to fire Fantino. Harper repeated their pledges of support for veterans and the men and women in uniform. Trudeau changed topics and made the suggestion that Harper set his own senators free as he did — to gales of laughter in the Conservative and NDP benches. Harper made a jab about unelected Liberal senators and Senator Cowan’s declaration that little would change.
Roundup: A claim without evidence
John Baird and Leona Aglukkaq made the announcement yesterday that said that we made our submission to the UN regarding our Arctic sea floor claims. Apparently we have claimed the North Pole – but we don’t yet have evidence to support that claim. Um, okay. And yet this is the same party who is standing up in the House to ridicule Justin Trudeau for saying that he was going to listen to the advice of scientists before he determines if we do indeed have a claim on the North Pole or not. Because politics.
Roundup: Fallout from the ITO
In the aftershocks of yesterday’s revelations in the ClusterDuff affair, everyone is still sorting through the pieces, trying to make sense of it all. Kady O’Malley digs into that ITO and finds three particular dangling threads in the documents that are begging for answers (and you really should read this). Aaron Wherry looks into those documents and finds the voice of sanity, Chris Montgomery – one of Marjory LeBreton’s staffers (apparently paid for out of the PCO budget, which seems to be the source of confusion for people who have said that he’s from PCO) who objected to the process and the interference of the PMO in the Senate’s operations. CBC has their own look at Montgomery in this video piece (with text from The Canadian Press). Senators on both sides of the aisle are reeling from the revelations that PMO was trying to pull the strings of the Duffy audit, because they feel strongly about the chamber’s independence – as well they should. That PMO thought that they could get away with it speaks to the level of control that this government is trying to impose on parliament as a whole, and which parliamentarians themselves should be resisting – as clearly a few in the Senate were, much to the PMO’s frustration. The RCMP are questioning the credibility of Senators LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen based on their interviews with them, and the quality of that testimony. The auditors from Deloitte are going to be hauled before the Internal Economy committee in order to answer pointed questions about the independence of that audit given the revelations that Senator Gerstein was trying to influence it, though Deloitte has come out to say that there was an ethical wall around those auditors to protect their information from any leaks. As part of that revelation, Charlie Angus is casting aspersions that some of Deloitte’s other work may be politically influenced, like the audit of Attawapiskat’s books (though I’ve heard from my own contacts at Aboriginal Affairs that there are definite governance problems in that reserve). The Law Society of BC is also considering an investigation into the conduct of Benjamin Perrin, the former PMO lawyer who is also implicated in this affair.
Roundup: The AG wants MP oversight
The Auditor General says that there needs to be an independent, non-partisan body to deal with MPs expenses in order for Canadians to be confident that they are being managed. The NDP immediately point out that this is what they have been looking for since the issue of Senate expenses exploded into the public consciousness. I would say that it’s too bad that we are reaching a place where we can no longer treat MPs like grown-ups, and that we need yet more mechanisms to police them.
Roundup: Another underfunded procurement
As we await the Auditor General’s report, due next week, we hear that he is expected to report that the National Shipbuilding Programme doesn’t have enough money to fulfil its goals. Not that this should surprise us, as the constant delays and rising inflation have driven up the costs. Because this government has clearly done their bit for the procurement file every chance they get.
QP: Back to form
The first Question Period of the new session, and the Prime Minister was absent, jetting off to Brussels to conclude the trade agreement with the EU. After a round of Members’ Statements which were pretty much bog standard for the rhetorical levels we’ve come to expect in the current parliament, Thomas Mulcair returned to true form — reading from a mini-lectern. But rather than beginning with questions on the ClusterDuff, Mulcair started with a calm and controlled question on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Peter MacKay, acting as the designated back-up PM du jour, assured him that they were taking the measures seriously. Mulcair then turned to the issue of “corruption” in the prime minister’s office, and accused him of hiding on the other side of the Atlantic. Pierre Poilivre responded and extolled the virtues of the Canada-EU trade deal. After another round of the same, Mulcair turned to the closure of Veterans Affairs service centres, for which Parm Gill insisted that they drive to meet veterans at a place of their choosing rather than forcing them to drive to designated locations. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of cyberbullying, and demanded that they pass Robert Chisholm’s bill at all states unanimously. (Proof right there as to why we need the Senate to do the scrutiny that MPs seem to want to avoid). MacKay assured him that a bill would come in due course. For his turn, Justin Trudeau asked why there was no mention of transparency or accountability in the Throne Speech. Poilievre assured him that once the Supreme Court provided then with a “legal reference manual,” they would reform the Senate. Trudeau then pointed out the government’s abysmal economic record, which Poilievre laughed off. For his last question, Trudeau asked why the government would not put in place a new system for MPs’ expenses reporting. John Duncan said that until a new system was agreed to, Conservative MPs would do it on their own accord.
Roundup: More challenges to Justice Nadon’s appointment
The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.