While it was Thursday, Elizabeth May was the only leader present, guaranteeing another mediocre day. Megan Leslie wondered rhetorically whether the PM was going to defend the status quo in the Senate. Paul Calandra reminded her the Senate called in the Auditor General themselves. Leslie responded that the PM “rushed off” to another continent when scandal broke — you know, because the G7 meeting was called at haste and wasn’t arranged months in advance, and Calandra called the NDP out of their depth. Leslie tried again, at which point Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite office expenses. Romeo Saganash was up next to ask about the PM’s meeting at the Vatican and if residential schools came up. Mark Strahl said that the PM raised the letter that the minister had sent. Saganash noted the invitation to the Pope to be in Canada for the 150th anniversary and if an apology could happen then. Strahl repeated his answer. Judy Foote led for the Liberals, pointing out trade deficits and wanted a resolution to the issue of the Newfoundland processing compensation, but Parm Gill read a talking point about how treat trade was. Ralph Goodale asked about pension shortfalls, to which Kevin Sorenson decried the Ontario plan. Goodale pressed, and got the same answer.
Tag Archives: CRA
QP: Misrepresenting the AG report
Though Harper was off in the Baltic Sea visiting our frigate there, the other leaders were in the Commons for another QP running on fumes. Mulcair led off, flirting with libel with his assertions about the AG report on the Senate — grossly mischaracterising what was found. Paul Calandra reminded him that the non-partisan House Administration found problems with their satellite offices, and that he should repay them. Mulcair wanted Harper to take accountability for the senators he appointed, but Calandra repeated the satellite offices line. Mulcair then gave complete falsehoods about why Marjory LeBreton resigned as leader in the Senate, and got the same response from Calandra. Mulcair brought up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen and wondered about other senators who repaid expenses before the audit — which has nothing to do with the government. Again, same answer from Calandra. for his final question, Mulcair wanted the PM to ask the Pope to apologise for residential schools. Bernard Valcourt took this one, and gave some bland assurances. Justin Trudeau was up, and wondered about the Prime Minister’s 57 patronage appointments to the Senate as a lack of a desire for real reform. Paul Calandra said that Trudeau’s position made no sense, that he would appoint Liberals to appoint non-partisan senators. Trudeau gave a pitch for his plan in French, got derision from Calandra about relieving Liberal senators from the burden of having to attend his caucus meetings. Trudeau wanted the Prime Minister to end partisan appointments, but Calandra gave some broad-based derision of the Liberals in response.
QP: Senate reform questions from the past
Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.
"Last I checked, I am female myself," Kellie Leitch says. Um, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 4, 2015
Roundup: Last-minute legislation
With less than three sitting weeks left, the government has announced that they will introduce yet another bill, this time to give the Minister of Transport enhanced powers when it comes to ordering vehicle recalls. The bill won’t be tabled until later in the week, and there’s no timeline for its passage, but Lisa Raitt is confident she’ll get all-party support for the bill to expedite it. Of course, it’s not guaranteed, and in the light of the recent Takata airbag recall, it does start to smack a little bit of desperation, that the government is doing one last push to show that they’re on top of things, even though they knew this deadline was coming, and this recall issue has been going on for weeks now. As well, they have nearly twenty more bills that they want to pass before the Commons rises, and as it stands, it looks like some of their showcase bills, like the “life means life” parole bill, aren’t going to make it, and Peter MacKay is admitting as much. This speaks to a couple of different issues – one is that there are doubtlessly bills that they’re going to allow to die so that they can campaign on them, both as unfinished business and under the falsehood that the opposition held them up (which really, they can’t do given that this government has the time allocation hammer and aren’t afraid to use it) so they need another majority in order to get these kinds of measures through. Of course, it also showcases that this government – and Peter Van Loan as House Leader – has been spectacularly terrible when it comes to the basic management of getting bills through (not that it’s all Van Loan’s fault – the NDP haven’t exactly played ball when it comes to any routine House management either, and it has been said several times that Peter Julian has managed to make Van Loan look downright reasonable). Suffice to say, good luck to Raitt, because she’s probably going to need it if she wants to get this bill through.
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.
QP: Taking Paul Martin’s name in vain
In the wake of the Auditor General’s report, and with all of the leaders present, it looked like we might have a decent Question Period for a change. One could hope, anyway. Thomas Mulcair led off, saying that the AG considered the government bad managers, particularly around tax expenditures. Stephen Harper disputed the interpretation of the report, said they would report more, and then slammed the NDP regarding their own high tax plans. Mulcair tied those into the budget and the “giveaways to the wealthy few,” and wondered if Harper thought he was Paul Martin. Harper hit back, saying that if he was Paul Martin, the NDP would be supporting him, before giving praise to his budget measures. Mulcair mumbled something else about Paul Martin before changing the topping to a declaration Mike Duffy may or may not have signed before he was appointed. Harper ignored the question, and praised the TFSA changes. Mulcair quipped “Mike who?” before asking about the appointment of Caroyln Stewart Olsen to the Senate, to which Harper insisted that the Duffy issues were before the court. Mulcair then brought up the Senate invoking privilege to block the release of an internal audit — something the PM has nothing to do with. Harper repeated the response about the matter being before the courts. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the money spent on advertising rather than on young entrepreneurs. Harper insisted that an entrepreneurial group was pleased with measures in the budget, and said that the Liberals would take them away. Trudeau repeated it in French, with the twist of job creation for youth, and Harper asserted that the Liberals hate benefits and tax cuts. For his final question, Trudeau accused Harper had changed with his decision to pour so much money into advertising. Harper listed things he claimed the Liberals opposed (but not really).
The Senate invoking privilege has ZERO to do with the PM. The chambers are independent. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 28, 2015
Roundup: An incredulous picture by the defence
As we head back to the Duffy courtroom for week two, there are a couple of pieces of note. David Reevely is incredulous at the picture being painted by Duffy’s lawyer – that somehow, a man who has been desperate to be on Parliament Hill and who has haunted it since the early 1970s was somehow naïve about the way that the place worked and was such a “rookie” that he had trouble following its intricacies. In other words, yeah right. James Cudmore, meanwhile, looks at the Duffy Diaries and sees in them Duffy’s personal desire to be a player, and those diaries break down some of his façade for the public. The desire to be a player is not news – it’s long been a fact of life on the Hill that Duffy coveted a seat in the Senate and the romantic (and utterly false) notion of the “taskless thanks,” and a former PEI senator used to say that Duffy would check his pulse every time he shook his hand, and Duffy certainly let several prime ministers know that he wanted the job, and finally Stephen Harper took him up on it in his mass of panic appointments in late 2008 during the coalition crisis, despite all of the warning signs (including Duffy’s prior conviction in Tax Court of trying to fiddle with his expenses on television). Duffy had previously said that the only question Harper had asked him was his commitment to Senate reform – such a long ago notion now that we have the Supreme Court reference that lays out the path for such a notion – but it’s clear from Duffy’s actions that it wasn’t really the case. He wanted to be a player, remember, and so he took up the torch for Harper. There are plenty of other Senators, even Conservative ones, who don’t do any fundraising for the party, but Duffy was fully aboard with it, his partisanship ratcheted up as he attacked opposition MPs, premiers of other political stripes, and put on dog-and-pony shows about the Economic Action Plan™, which led to that now infamously signed photo. Does this sound like someone who was a poor naïve legislator who was trying to fumble his way through the flexible rules of the Senate? I’m not sure that’s the picture that the broader context paints, but one has to wonder how much any of this will be the fodder of the Crown. It’s still early days in the trial, but one should be wary of the portrait the defence is painting of Duffy and the institution itself.
QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria
After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.
QP: On bombing Syria
About four hours after Harper addressed the Commons about extending the Iraq mission, everyone gatherer again, all leaders present and full benches behind them. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the October statements that bombing in Syria would only happen with the permission of that government, and asked what changed. Harper responded that ISIS was taking refuge in Syria, and that we were following the lead of our allies in bombing across that border. Mulcair asked about the change in statements on painting targets, but Harper insisted that the government would act about the threat of ISIS. Muclair asked about how many new soldiers would be added, to which Harper insisted that those would not change. Mulcair asked for an exit strategy, and Harper responded by being “clear” about the threat that ISIS poses to Canada and the world. Mulcair wondered how Harper could still claim it wasn’t a combat mission, and Harper responded by wondering how the NDP could not support the mission. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the planning horizon for the combat role. Harper responded that the motion was for up to twelve months, and that they would continue to evaluate the situation. Trudeau wondered if our Special Forces would be operating in Syria, to which Harper assured him that the motion was only for them to continue training in Northern Iraq. Trudeau then wondered how Canada would communicate with the Assad regime to ensure that our fighters would not be targeted by Syrian air defences. Harper insisted that our allies were already doing it.