Because Thursday is the new Friday, none of the major leaders were in the Commons, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about Turkish reports that a Canadian helped those three British teens cross into Syria. Stephen Blaney wouldn’t comment, but invited her to support Bill C-51 instead. Leslie tried again in English, and got much the same answer. Nycole Turmel then asked about the extension of the mission in Iraq, to which Jason Kenney insisted that they hadn’t made a decision, but when they do, a motion will be tabled. Turmel and Leslie then wondered when a budget would be tabled, to which Kevin Sorenson decried Liberal and NDP tax increases. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, detailing the history of racist comments by John Williamson, and demanded that he be kicked out of caucus. Pierre Poilievre stood up to say that Williamson apologised, and that Justin Trudeau should apologise for his comments about the Holocaust (which, it bears noting, he didn’t actually mention). After another go around of the same, McCallum pressed one last time, and this time Tim Uppal repeated the very same talking points.
Tag Archives: CRA
QP: A Multi-Pronged Action Plan™!
Despite it being a Thursday, the leaders of the two main opposition parties were absent for no apparently reason. Way to show up and do your job guys — especially because the Prime Minister was in attendance. Megan Leslie led off asking about the powers listed in C-51, to which Harper boasted about our existing strong oversight, and accused the NDP of attacking our intelligence agencies. Leslie noted that it has been four years since better oversight was promised and not delivered, but Harper largely repeated his answer. Leslie turned to the topic of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and calling a national inquiry, to which Harper touted their “multi-pronged Action Plan™.” Romeo Saganash asked the same again, to which Kellie Leitch responded about the actions they’re taken, and then Saganash noted that C-51 was unconstitutional because it affects the rights of First Nations to protest. Stephen Blaney stated that peaceful dissent was allowed, and they needed to tackle terrorism. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and noted the poor job market. Harper stood up to insist that their Action Plan™ gets results. Ralph Goodale gave it another go in English, insisting that the government has been a failure when it comes to jobs, to which Harper touted their job creation record. Goodale listed off more damning statements about the job market, but Harper insisted that the vast majority of jobs created were full-time, good paying and in the private sector, while Goodale’s budgets were followed by police investigations.
And for the record, the politically-prompted investigation back in 2005 lasted 15 months + resulted in complete vindication (3/3)
— Ralph Goodale (@RalphGoodale) February 26, 2015
QP: National security and painting a bridge
Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.
QP: Questions on counter-radicalization
Despite it being only a Thursday, attendance in the Commons was already on its way down — Stephen Harper was off in BC, and Justin Trudeau in Toronto. Thomas Mulcair was still present, and led off by asking about the US summit on countering extremism, and wondered where this government’s support for counter-radicalism was, and gave a swipe that the government was anti-Muslim while he was at it. Peter MacKay gave some outrage and said that C-51 was giving tools to prevent terrorism. Mulcair wanted examples on disruption in the bill, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was incorrect in his characterisation. Mulcair wondered if the bill would give CSIS the power to investigate environmental groups or First Nations, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was simply fear-mongering as the bill specifically prohibits lawful dissent or advocacy. Mulcair changed topics and demanded expadited hearings for EI claimants at the Social Security Tribunal. Pierre Poilievre agreed that the backlog was unacceptable, and noted that his predecessor put in a plan to eliminate the backlog by summer. Mulcair said that was nonsense and decried the number of “Conservative buddies” being appointed to the tribunal, which Poilievre refuted. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, denouncing the economic uncertainty of a delayed budget. Andrew Saxton stood up to read some standard talking points about how great the government was doing. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, got the same answer.
QP: Demanding examples of promoting terrorism
Caucus day, after both opposition parties came out with some significant positions in the morning, and all leaders were present to begin the debate. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering if he had any examples he could share about “promoting terrorism” as is outlined in C-51. Harper gave a general statement about the importance of fighting terrorism. Mulcair wondered about the economic stability definition in the bill, to which Harper assured him that lawful protest was exempt. Mulcair wondered about what new kinds of “economic interference” did the bill have in mind, but Harper went on about the need for the power to disrupt. Mulcair repeated much of what was said before in English, to which Harper reassured him that the bill did no such thing, and that the defence of security undermines freedom. Another round of the same was no less enlightening. Justin Trudeau was up next, noting that he spoke with Mohamed Fahmi last night, and wanted Harper to make direct interventions about his extradition to Canada. Harper assured him that they have intervened with Egypt “at all levels.” Trudeau then turned to the question of vaccines, and wanted the government to cancel its partisan ads in favour of vaccine promotion. Harper assured him that the programme had not been cut and that vaccinations were good. Trudeau then turned to the Supreme Court decision on medically-assisted dying, and wondered if Harper would begin the process now and now wait for the election. Harper gave a bland reassurance that they were going to engage in consultations.
QP: Telling the truth about the costs in Iraq
Tuesday in a frigid Ottawa, and all of the leaders were present, ready to take on the day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the role of our forces in Iraq, and the their refusal to turn over figures to the PBO about the costs of the mission. Stephen Harper said that they gave the costs — $122 million — and that the NDP hated any money going to the mission. Mulcair asked again in French, got much the same answer, and for the second supplemental, Mulcair changed topics to the definitions of activities that CSIS could disrupt in the new anti-terror legislation. Harper said that Canadians felt these measures were necessary. Mulcair tried again in English, and Harper accused Mulcair of conspiracy theory and black helicopters. Mulcair changed topics yet again, asking about Harper’s comments about Radio-Canada employees hating conservative values. Harper said that he believed the majority of Quebeckers agreed with him, and that the Orange Wave was over. Justin Trudeau was up, and ramped up the language on the questions, accusing the PM of attacking the ethics of CBC/Radio-Canada, to which Harper gave a non sequitur about high taxes and lax terrorism laws. Trudeau turned to the measles epidemic, and wondered why the government was not running any ads on the benefits of vaccination. Harper insisted that the minister of health was clear on the benefits of vaccines, and that vaccines were great.
Roundup: The Adams nomination
Day three of the Eve Adams floor crossing fallout, and once you wade through some of the sexist columns and tiresome Biblical references, a few things start to emerge. Adams had a very interesting interview on CP24 yesterday, and the host pressed her on a lot of issues and Adams seemed to have some coherent answers about changing her mind about income splitting when Flaherty came out with his objections, and that she was a loyal foot soldier for the Conservatives so their excuses about being happy to be rid of her are ringing hollow. She also said that she would be moving to riding she plans to run in, Eglington Lawrence, and that has already begun reaching out to the community there. The riding president says she’s welcome to run, but reminds everyone that it’s an open nomination. Trudeau told the media while in Winnipeg that he gave some reflection to accepting Adams into the fold, and said that it was Adams’ willingness to do the tough slog to win a difficult riding was what convinced him – and I think that’s borne out it in the fact that it’s going to be an open, contested nomination, and that Adams is going to have to do the hard work of convincing the grassroots members that she is the leopard who has changed her spots. And it’s going to be tough – here is one of the nomination candidates that she will be running against, and it’s going to be tough for her to beat someone of his credentials. I also believe that having Adams lose in a fair fight is part of Trudeau’s actual plan, where he gets the news value of her embarrassing the PM and then saying that the open nomination system worked. The fact that she was slotted into the riding’s nomination race without consultation seems to fit with that fact. But then again, what do I know?
Roundup: All About Eve, Part 2: The Revenge
It was a move that shocked pretty much everyone – Conservative parliamentary secretary Eve Adams crossed the floor to the Liberals, and called out Stephen Harper as “mean-spirited” and a bully. Of course, Adams is not without controversy, with her botched nomination and allegations of shenanigans, and the news from the Conservative Party that she was denied a further attempt to contest a nomination – not that it impacted her parliamentary secretary role or duties, which they apparently still had confidence in her carrying out. This makes her look to be self-serving in her decision to approach the Liberals, though it sounds like she approached Trudeau before the final no from the Conservatives. There are also suggestions that her relations with Harper started to deteriorate after a meeting last month, but it’s all still unclear at this point. For the Liberals, Adams played up her roots in the Progressive Conservatives – a party which is no longer and whose bona fides are fading from the modern Conservative Party (which, to be fair, has also tossed social conservatism in favour of base populism). Trudeau is trying to re-capture those blue Liberal voters who voted Conservative in the past couple of elections, as well as to get the Red Tories who still exist, particularly in Ontario but also in Alberta, to vote Liberal instead. Now she’s going to try and contest one of the still open seats in the GTA, but if any Liberals want to send a message that she’s not welcome in the party for her past Conservative sins, well, this is their chance to let their displeasure be heard. As for Adams, she leaves from a prestigious position with the government to the third party, and she goes from strict message control to a place where she’s going to have to do a lot more heavy lifting as she takes on a critic portfolio. Maybe she can make something of it and prove herself. She’s got about 14 sitting weeks to make something of her change. Then there’s the question of Adams’ spouse, Dmitri Soudas, former right-hand-man of the PM and former director of the Conservative Party. He says he supports her move, and has already made threatening tweets to Conservative MPs who have tried to be too snarky about it, but the Liberals have stated that he will have no formal role in the campaign other than supporting Adams with her nomination. It was, however, pretty rich of the Liberals to cast questions about this dynamic as sexist, because they were a “power couple” and that makes it relevant. I personally am curious about some of the wider-ranging implications, such as how the Soudas-Leo Housakos power structure will carry on, as that is currently part of the cabal at the centre of Senate leadership. The loss of Soudas from the Conservative fold could resonate there as well. Paul Wells offers some snarky – but entirely deserved – comments on the whole affair.
Do men get accused of ambition when they cross the floor? I don't really know any politicians who aren't ambitious. #cdnpoli
— Susan (@susandelacourt) February 9, 2015
https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564867569836765184
To clarify: Soudas will not have a formal role in the LPC but he, like her whole family, is supportive of @MPEveAdams's decision and her run
— Kate Purchase (@katepurchase) February 9, 2015
https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564910542037319680
QP: What about the Target liquidation sale?
A freezing Thursday in the Nation’s Capital, and the only major leader in the Chamber was Thomas Mulcair, as the Prime Minister apparently had better things to do, while Justin Trudeau was off in Calgary. Mulcair led things off by asking about the Target liquidation sale, and wondered what the government would do for those workers. Jason Kenney responded by saying that they were working on an accelerated EI process for those employees and touted their new and improved job bank. Mulcair then trolled for support for the opposition day motion on “creating jobs,” which James Moore outright rejected. Mulcair gave some meandering outrage about the government’s treatment of the premiers and wondered if it would be applied to the mayors meeting in town. Peter Braid responded by praising their “largest ever” infrastructure programme. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and asked what CSIS would be allowed to do to “disrupt” terrorists under the new bill. Peter MacKay skirted the question and called it “comprehensive.” When she pressed, MacKay continued to give bland assurances. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, decrying the backloading of the Building Canada Fund. Braid insisted that they have spent three times the amount on infrastructure than the Liberals did when they were in government. Scott Brison called that false and gave more facts and figures about when those funds would be available. Braid continued to insist that the Fund was the best thing ever. Brison went harder in his final supplemental, to which Braid skirted an answer by praising the doubling of the gas tax.
Roundup: London Liberal retreat
With the Liberals kicking off their winter caucus retreat in London, Ontario, there were some defensive press releases sent out by the local Conservative MP, and later by Joe Oliver regarding comments that Trudeau said about the economic situation in the region – a region that has seen a “lost decade” compared to the rest of the province. Trudeau did make remarks about the economy in the evening, and while he still won’t lay out policy planks, he can now claim that it’s been a prudent move because he hasn’t committed to any grand spending plans in a time of falling oil prices. That said, he has made infrastructure spending one of his priorities, something that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne made an explicit call for while in Ottawa yesterday, to the tune of five percent of GDP. It’s ambitious, and this government isn’t exactly going to be receptive – look at how they continually pat themselves on the back for back-loading their infrastructure spending plans as is – but Wynne was making some interesting points that this didn’t have to be all money in the next fiscal year, but other options about leveraging surpluses when approaching the markets for capital loans. Add to that, but economists like Mike Moffatt have been talking about the need for better infrastructure in southwestern Ontario in order to help them regain their productivity – after all, it’s hard to get your manufacturing business off the ground if you can’t get high-speed Internet in the area. It will be interesting to see how this will all play out in the upcoming election.
Do we get to look forward to missives like these every time Justin Trudeau enters a Conservative riding? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/I78AqYfqTO
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 20, 2015
So the solution is what? Keep pumping more subsidies into the sector? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/KqdtgkvQWS
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 20, 2015