The House was a bit sleepy today, where Thomas Mulcair started off by reading out a pair of questions on the rules around foreign takeovers, the English one of which using the phrase “like a thief in the night.” John Baird, acting as the back-up PM du jour, thanked him for raising the tone of debate before proceeding to remind him how much the government supported foreign investment and that the minister was reviewing it. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s lowered growth projections, but Baird offered up some bland talking points about growth! And jobs! And warnings against the fictional NDP carbon tax! Megan Leslie followed up with a pair of English questions on the very same topic, for which Ted Menzies assured her that we are in a period of slow global recovery, and that the projections were on track. Bob Rae was then up and asked a pair of questions about the cancelled EI programme that offered five additional weeks of benefits in hard-hit areas, to which Baird responded that the measures were always meant to be temporary. For his final question, Rae wondered why Peter Penashue was still sitting in cabinet after his campaign overspent in the last election – along with additional allegations of improper donations. Baird assured him that the new Official Agent was working with Elections Canada, before launching into an angry rant about how the Liberals needed to get their own house in order before casting aspersions elsewhere.
Tag Archives: China
Roundup: Discovering the domain of private members’ bills
Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti has a private member’s bill up for debate that proposes a tax credit for domestic travel that crosses three provinces – in order to help Canadians discover their own country instead of always travelling south. He calls it the “Discover Your Canada Act,” and it is a laudable goal, as domestic travel is ridiculously expensive in this country but – and this is a very, very big but – it’s not the domain of a private member’s bill. In fact, it is so far outside of the domain of private members’ business that it demands expenditure – which tax credits are in effect – and expenditure requires a Royal Recommendation if it’s not government legislation. And this is not government legislation, nor will the government endorse this because we’re living in an era of “fiscal austerity,” and it’s not a boutique tax credit that will appeal enough to the supposed Tim Horton’s crowd. But seriously – MPs really need to knock off this foolishness of trying to make government policy from the opposition benches. Private members’ business has its place, but these kinds of stunts, while trying to capture the populist imagination, just end up looking ridiculous.
Update: I’m reliably informed that tax credits are a way of getting around the requirement for a Royal Recommendation – but that kind of technicality doesn’t mean that this is still the domain of private members’ business. My criticism of this kind of stunt stands.
Roundup: Opitz keeps his seat
In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the election result in Etobicoke Centre, allowing Ted Opitz to remain as the MP. It’s a difficult decision, because it leaves open some questions as to how many procedural errors we bother to enforce so long as we ensure that people can vote, whether or not it is actually proper for them to do so in that manner, rather than see anyone’s right to vote taken away. Here are the reactions, from Opitz, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Bob Rae, and others. Paul Wells parses some of the meaning of the split decision, the players on both sides, and throws some cold water on those conspiracy theories of stacked courts (and if anyone believes them, then they obviously haven’t paid any attention to the Supreme Court of Canada in the past). Emmett Macfarlane, who has literally written a book on the Court, discusses what he believes would have happened if they had ruled the other way. Adam Goldenberg uses this decision as a reminder about how our Supreme Court is not partisan, unlike the one in the States.
QP: Ridicule and non-sequiturs
Things were a bit more subdued in the House today as QP got underway, as Thomas Mulcair asked about a Conservative MP’s accusation that the Canadian Association of Retired Persons was a partisan organisation. Harper responded that his government was preserving pensions while still eliminating the deficit. Mulcair wondered if the Calgary Chamber of Commerce was next on the enemies list after their criticism of the foreign takeover review process, but Harper joked about how their ideological differences with the NDP were vast. For his final question, Mulcair asked when they would get clarification on the takeover rules, to which Harper said the decision was still with the minister. Jack Harris was up next, curious about that letter Harper sent Peter MacKay about the cuts to his department, but MacKay would only respond that under their watch, spending for defence had gone up every year. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, asking about reciprocity agreements with foreign takeovers, but Harper responded with ridicule and the canard that there was no growth in trade with China under the Liberals, unlike his government. (Goodale later tweeted that under the Liberals two-way trade increased 669 percent, whereas it was only 77 percent under Harper). For his final question, Goodale asked about how they could enforce conditions with those takeovers, but Harper didn’t even bother trying to answer the question, and instead read a selective quote from this morning’s Supreme Court decision on Etobicoke Centre – a complete non-sequitur if there ever was one.
QP: They’re not cuts, they’re changes
With Members’ Statements getting rowdy before Question Period even started, Speaker Scheer warned, “let’s not have this again.” And really, we didn’t. QP was fairly listless overall. Thomas Mulcair started out reading a question on the $10 billion in cuts to Old Age Security, to which Harper said that no, there were no cuts but changes coming in 2023. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Parliamentary Budget Officer not getting the information he requested, to which Harper responded that they wrote the Act that created the position, and they report that information to Parliament. Megan Leslie was up next wondering why it was that the FAQ page on about the Navigational Waters Act was pulled down from the government’s website, to which Lebel said that they were fixing “erroneous information” about that Act on the site. Down the memory hole it goes (excepting of course for Google cache and the Library and Archives Canada backup copy). Bob Rae was up next, asking if the changes to OAS were really worth it considering the negligible percentage of money that it affected, but Harper insisted it was all about future sustainability. For his final question, Rae asked why the government wasn’t prosecuting some HSBC tax evasion cases, to which Harper insisted that they don’t tolerate that behaviour, and that CRA was investigating.
QP: We learned from the AG’s report…
The drinking game of the day could have been “We learned today in the Auditor General’s report…” Because for about the first half of QP, nearly every question was prefaced by that statement. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off a question about cyber-security from the report, who which Harper insisted the report said that they were making progress, and then a pair of questions on the hidden costs of cuts to OAS, which Harper insisted was a misnomer because there were not cuts – just changes coming down the road. Peggy Nash asked a pair of questions about changes to the labour code, to which Tony Clement first gave a bland non-answer about respecting taxpayers and fair changes, before Lisa Raitt answered the supplemental about how these changes gave clear deadlines for payments for employees where they didn’t exist previously. Bob Rae was then up, asking a pair of questions relating to the AG’s report, wondering why our Cyber-security response centre couldn’t be staffed 24/7, to which Harper insisted that they were making investments in cyber-security and had accepted the Auditor General’s recommendations. For his final question, Rae asked about the Correctional Investigator’s report on the skyrocketing number of aboriginal women in prisons, but Harper’s response wasn’t terribly edifying.
QP: No plans to privatise
Lacklustre and listless – two words that could easily describe today’s Question Period. Harper was absent, which is not unusual for a Monday, and he’d just finished entertaining the Prime Minister of Jamaica before getting ready to head to Toronto to pay his respects to Lincoln Alexander, currently lying in State at the Ontario Legislature. Thomas Mulcair read off his first two questions, in French and English, about the rejection of the Petronas deal, to which Christian Paradis responded that he was not convinced that it would be of net benefit to Canada. And hey, at least it was Paradis responding and not a back-up PM du jour. Mulcair’s third question was about the rumours that the government wanted to privatise the CMHC, which Ted Menzies stood up to say that no, they had no plans to do so at this time. Peggy Nash then stood up and said “At. This. Time.” And then proceeded to read her two scripted questions on privatising the CMHC, where Menzies gave her the very same answer twice more. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals next, and first asked just what constituted “net benefit” with regards to the Petronas rejection, not that Paradis deviated from his message. Rae then asked about the Indian Act – the subject of his private member’s motion that was up for debate – and when the government would consult and head towards true equality with First Nations. John Duncan stood up and accused him of wanting more talk when the government was taking action. For his final question, Rae asked for a judicial inquiry in to the Jeffrey Delisle spy case, to which Peter MacKay told him that the issue was still before the courts.
QP: Rejecting calls to split the bill
With Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge now tabled, Thomas Mulcair was up first to read out a trio of questions that demanded it be split up – not that Harper really cared, preferring instead to recite some careful lines about “Jobs!” and “Growth!” Malcolm Allen followed up with questions about the problems at XL Foods turned up by routine USFDA audits, but Ritz responded with a call to pass Bill S-11 without haste. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals, asking that the portion of the omnibus bill dealing with MP pensions be split out and its passage hastened – but Harper countered with a demand that they pass the entire bill in short order. For his final question, Rae asked if Ritz himself knew about those USFDA audit results, but Harper insisted that the CFIA took action when they had information.
QP: Not biting on the resignation demands
With Harper heading home from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Bob Rae away elsewhere, it was up to Thomas Mulcair to be the sole leader in the leader’s round of questions. He began QP by reading a trio of questions on the tainted beef issue, his third question including a demand that Gerry Ritz resign. Ritz was up to speak each time – rather than another back-up PM du jour – but spoke about taking food safety seriously and science-based decision, but wouldn’t take the bait on the resignation demand. Malcolm Allen was up next to say that there aren’t enough meat inspectors in the system, to which Ritz replied that the Union said there were. Marc Garneau was up for the Liberals, first asking a pair of questions on reassurances around food safety, to which Ritz took the classy move of blaming previous Liberal cuts for the problems and to tout their government’s “reinvestments” in food safety. For his last question, Garneau asked about the issue of bullying, to which Rob Nicholson replied that the government was taking action, there were two Parliamentary committees studying the issue, as well as funding for RCMP and cyber-tips hotlines.
Roundup: Extending the Nexen deliberations
The government has indicated they will be extending the consideration of the Nexen deal by another 30 days – though this is a fairly common occurrence. Expect the renewed calls for “public consultations” to begin when the House returns on Monday.
Apparently the federal government has been studying ways to change the provincial equalisation programme. Changes to things like the way hydro revenues are calculated could have a major impact on the equalisation that Quebec receives.
Not only have the Conservatives ramped up their advertising spending in an age of fiscal austerity, it seems that over the past five years, they’ve exceeded said advertising budgets by 37 percent. Fiscal discipline, everybody!