Thomas Mulcair’s speech to the Economic Club of Canada wasn’t full of a lot of details, but it raised a lot of questions – especially when he started to contradict himself. While Mulcair spoke about an “alternate vision” of development, with particular attention paid to a cap-and-trade system (which he has not yet outlined), and to resurrecting the home energy refit programme. But he also said that he would remove Cabinet’s ability to override a National Energy Board decision, while in the same breath saying that he would never have allowed the Keystone XL pipeline to go for regulatory approval – even though the NEB approved it. In other words, keep cabinet out of the decisions, but arbitrarily empower cabinet to keep it from being allowed to see a decision. Logic! He reiterated that he wants to increase refining capacity in Canada, grossly inflating the number of jobs that would create and ignoring the infrastructure costs (let alone the GHG footprint), but would have denied any way for that refined product to get to market, since he wouldn’t have allowed new pipelines to get approval. Logic. And then he also claimed that he was leader in 2011, by which point the plot was lost.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
QP: Responsible for his own ministry
For the first time this week, all three leaders were in the House and ready to go. Without adieu, Thomas Mulcair got to the point and ask if Benjamin Perrin was dismissed or if he resigned. Harper said that Perrin left of his own accord nine months ago. Mulcair brought up the guidelines around email retention and asked why they were broken. Harper said that they are expected to follow the rules and they found them. Mulcair changed topics and asked about Jim Love, the chair of the Royal Canadian Mint for his involvement in a tax avoidance scheme. Harper assured him that the matter was a private dispute and his minister has a record for closing tax loopholes. Mulcair changed topics again and asked about the recent rash of military suicides and what was being done. Harper said that their thoughts and prayers went out to their families, and that their support systems were available when they needed them. Mulcair closed the round by asking if they would reverse the closures of the nine veterans offices — to cries of “shame on you!” from the government benches. Harper assured him that the services were still available. Justin Trudeau kept up with asking about the services for those soldiers, to which Harper added that they all understood how these soldiers were suffering and encouraged them to get help. Trudeau changed topics and asked why Senator Gerstein still enjoyed the confidence of the prime minister if he offered an inducement to a sitting legislator. Harper insisted that it wasn’t the case and left it at that. Trudeau pressed, and wondered why he said that Gerstein was not under investigation but the Senate was blocking his testimony to avoid interfering with an investigation. Harper insisted that only Duffy and Wright were under investigation.
Roundup: Reform Act reaction
The Reform Act 2013 has now been tabled, and it’s pretty much as has been reported, with the three key areas around the powers around nominations, caucus membership and forcing a leadership review on party leaders. (Text and sixty-second explainer here). Aaron Wherry rounds up some of the declared support today, including from the Conservative caucus, and those now outside like Brent Rathgeber, as well as some of the reaction and analysis to date. Alice Funke aka Pundit’s Guide looks at ways in which the provisions can be subverted by parties or leaders. Tim Harper points out the bill’s silence about a leader having to deal with an unsuitable candidate during an election. Andrew Coyne has a Q&A with Chong about the bill and tries to dispel some of the myths or concerns, but fails to ask some of the more pertinent questions around membership and inputs.
Roundup: A lost learning moment
It was an unusual scene, where the Speaker of the Senate arranged a media event inside the Senate chamber. His purpose was two-fold – to give a bit of a lesson to journalists about the history and role of the institution, as he was alarmed that the kinds of misinformation that he’d seen in the media over the past several months; he also wanted to try and answer as many questions as he could at once. Unfortunately, much of the former goal as a “learning moment” seemed lost on many of my media colleagues as they started asking him questions as though he were the person in charge, as opposed to the presiding officer, and as such, it’s not up to him if they end up calling Michael Runia or Senator Gerstein before committee, but rather, it has to be a decision of the Senate. What they did find out was that the Senate is cooperating on getting those emails requested by the RCMP, and that parliamentary privilege cannot shield senators from an investigation.
Roundup: No breached ethical walls
Auditors from Deloitte appeared before the Senate’s internal economy committee yesterday morning, and revealed a couple of things – that yes, senior Partner Michael Runia did try calling them, but they didn’t tell him anything, thus preserving their “ethical wall.” Also, their audit operated in a closed system and that there wasn’t any way for there to be any leaks of draft copies. But when the Liberals on the committee tried to move a motion for Runia to appear to explain himself, Conservatives on the committee blocked it, saying that they didn’t have the expertise to conduct an investigation parallel to the RCMP’s. Nor has there been any call for Senator Gerstein to appear to explain himself either. The Liberals will be moving a motion in the full Senate next week to give the committee the mandate to pursue these questions, but we’ll see if there is enough support. Kady O’Malley finds three key points from that testimony, and makes the relevant connections to the Wright testimony in the RCMP ITO. Incidentally, PMO has hired three different law firms to deal with the ClusterDuff file.
QP: Backhanded allegations about Mulcair
With Harper off at Newmarket doing pre-budget consultations, but with the news cycle being consumed by the Conservatives on the Senate Internal Economy committee’s reluctance to call that senior partner from Deloitte before them to testify, it was likely to be a day full of non sequiturs delivered by Paul Calandra. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking why the government asked their senators to block the appearance of Michael Runia before them. Paul Calandra responded that they learned that the audit was done without interference. When Mulcair pressed, Calandra immediately turned to the “You sat on a bribe allegation for 17 years!” talking point. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the report that CSE was conducting intelligence during the G20 in Toronto. Rob Nicholson reminded him that CSE doesn’t have the authorisation to spy on Canadians. When Mulcair asked if they did it anyway, Nicholson reminded him that they couldn’t even ask allies to spy on Canadians. Mulcair tried to tie this in with the ClusterDuff allegations, but Nicholson reminded him that CSE has judicial oversight. Joyce Murray led off for the Liberals, and asked about the suicide of two soldiers connected CFB Shilo and asked what action the minister was taking to address the issue. Nicholson offered the families his condolences and assured her that the Canadian Forces were investigating. Ralph Goodale was up next, and returned to the issue of Runia and Gerstein being blocked from testifying at committee, but Calandra tried to insist that the Liberals defended those three suspended senators. Goodale demanded to know why Gerstein remained chair of the Senate a banking committee, but Calandra continued to insist that the Liberals fought against holding those senators to account.
QP: More ClusterDuff questions, more Paul Calandra obfuscation
With Stephen Harper off making an announcement in Lac Mégantic, we were guaranteed that it was going to be yet another episode of the Paul Calandra Show for QP today. Would he bring up his father’s pizza parlour? Would there be a homily about the lessons he teaches his daughters. Add to that, the only leader in the House was Thomas Mulcair, which promised to make for a rather lopsided day. When QP started, Mulcair returned to his former mode of solilioqusing, and wondered lengthily about why the Prime Minister couldn’t take responsibility. Paul Calandra got up and praised the leadership the Prime Minister showed in his conduct, and that the documents showed that he didn’t know. Mulcair brought up statements regarding the Prime Minister approving actions, thus implicating him in a cover-up. Calandra offered much the same in response. Mulcair then wondered why a senator would require the PM’s approval to repay his own expenses, but Calandra responded with the allegation that Mulcair sat on a bribery allegation for seventeen years. Mulcair wondered why nobody else lost their jobs if they were involved, but Calandra reiterated the alleged bribe story. Mulcair’s final question got cut off for unparliamentary language, and the Speaker moved on. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and asked about the “good to go” statement. Calandra shrugged it off and carried on battering at Mulcair. Goodale brought up the sentiments of this affair in the riding of Brandon in his follow-up, which gave Calandra an opening to batter the Liberals about a panoply of their ills. For his final question, Goodale brought up the interference in a Senate committee proceeding, but Calandra decided that returning to the days of the Sponsorship scandal was the way to go.
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: Flaherty’s frozen economic update
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered his fall economic update in Edmonton yesterday, and faced a grilling inquiry by none other than the Conservative chair of the Finance Committee, James Rajotte. Ooh. Flaherty said that there will be a healthy surplus by 2015, paid for by frozen spending (aka de facto cuts when you factor in inflation), and asset sales that haven’t yet happened (which is one-time income, and not sustainable). Any future pay increases for public servants have to come out of those same frozen department budgets as well, which further limits any increases. As you can imagine, it went over like a lead balloon with the opposition. Flaherty also confirmed that he does plan to run again in 2015, despite his health challenges – for what it’s worth. Economist Stephen Gordon has a hard time seeing how the cuts will replace sluggish revenue growth, and remains sceptical about the projections. Former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page gives his read of the update, and sees a whole lot of missing information.
Roundup: Suspensions and scripts
It is done – Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau have been suspended without pay after two weeks of anguished debate in the Senate about the role of fairness and due process, with the official motion here for your perusal. And once it was all over, Senator Carignan, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, went out to the Foyer to dutifully read a PMO script about how the “Trudeau Liberals” were trying to defend those Senators – not only an odd characterisation considering that Justin Trudeau hasn’t appointed any of those senators (though a couple of his father’s appointments do remain), nor does he control them. And now begins the wailing and beating of breasts at the need to update the financial rules of the Senate, a process that has been ongoing for a couple of years now. John Geddes paints the scene of the evening’s events here. Michael Den Tandt writes that these expulsions will reinforce the “Angry Harper” narrative. I muse about the loss of due process in the face of political expediency here.