Roundup: A new front bench dynamic

The House is back this week, though Harper is over in Europe. We will, however, see the first of the new line-up on the government’s front bench, with Joe Oliver taking Jim Flaherty’s place, and Greg Rickford filling in for Oliver. Add to that the NDP’s front-bench shake-up and we’ve got a new dynamic of Nathan Cullen versus Joe Oliver, which I can just imagine will be full of passive aggressive snark from Cullen and impatient grumpiness from Oliver, if previous interactions are anything to go by. It also sounds like we’ll see the budget implementation bill get tabled this week, so we’ll see if that is as crazily omnibus as their previous implementation bills have been of late.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sticking to the sidelines

A number of Quebec senators are also shying away from getting involved in the provincial election there, though some are saying that they will play whatever roles they can along the sidelines. The mayors of a number of smaller towns in the rest of Canada are alarmed that their local newspapers are owned by QMI, which in turn is owned by Pierre-Karl Péladeau, especially considering just how concentrated his ownership of that media is. Michael Den Tandt notes that Pauline Marois has been articulating Jacques Parizeau’s vision, where it was “money and the ethnic vote” that lost them the last referendum, and that Marois is sidelining those ethnic minorities with her values charter and trying to bring money on her side with Péladeau. Economist Stephen Gordon writes about the desirability of a monetary union with an independent Quebec, and how Quebec’s debt load would make it a risky proposition for them. Marois tried to insist that it would be “borderless” and would welcome Canadian tourists. No worries, see!

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s questionable moves

Being released today is the new election reform act brought forward by the government which promises to reshape Elections Canada. And yes, the opposition is nervous. Already there are questions as to why Pierre Poilievre was selective in his answers to the House yesterday during QP when he said that he had met with the Chief Electoral Officer about the bill. That meeting, however, was before it was drafted, and not about the actual provision or language of the bill, which is kind of a big deal. One of the big questions about the bill is the provision that the new Commissioner of Elections be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the Chief Electoral Officer, and how that will affect his or her independence. Oh, and the most egregious part? That Poilievre is having his press conference to announce the bill before the technical briefing for reporters takes place. You know, so they won’t have time to read it or understand it before asking questions. Because that’s not a cynical move designed to frustrate the media and keep things as opaque as possible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: One Keystone XL hurdle cleared

The US State Department’s report on the Keystone XL pipeline has been released, and they have determined that it won’t have any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and also gave figures for what would happen if all of that oil were to be transported by rail, which would mean not only more emissions, but also more injuries and fatalities. Energy economist Andrew Leach parses what’s in the report here. Luisa Ch. Savage details the reception in Washington DC to the report and among environmentalists, who continue to remain opposed. Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall thinks the report is a cause for optimism that the pipeline will eventually happen.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Being seen to do something about cyberbullying

The government is launching a new cyberbullying awareness campaign, which includes TV commercials. You know, for the “cyberbullying” law that a) has little to do with cyberbullying and more to do with lawful access, and b) still hasn’t passed. One has to wonder, however, how effective it’ll be since many teenagers don’t see it as “bullying” but just “drama,” and may not relate to it in the way that the government intends. Let’s also not forget that this is the same government that put out some of the lamest and most ineffective anti-drug ads aimed at families, so we’ll see just how effective these cyberbullying ads will be. Michael Den Tandt says that the Conservatives need to address the bullying culture and lack of decorum in their own ranks first.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Strahl, Enbridge, and no broken rules

In regards to the hysteria around Chuck Strahl consulting on behalf of Enbridge in BC, it seems that Enbridge has been a client of his since 2011 – at least, with regards to any activities on the provincial level. He’s also registered in Alberta to lobby for a First Nations energy that is drilling for oil on its territory with a Chinese-financed company. Can’t you just see all of the conspiracy theories churning? But as Kady O’Malley points out, because the chairmanship of SIRC is considered a part-time gig (as they meet less than a dozen times per year), he’s exempt from many of the restrictions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Strahl also has stated that he’s not hearing any CSIS cases that involve Enbridge or any of his other clients, there’s no real conflict there.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No plan B

The country needs a new computer programme to deal with Employment Insurance claims, and Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Developmemnt have until 2016 to do it – leaving almost no time to address any inevitable problems once they procure and install said new system, and more ominously, their presentation says, “there is no Plan B.” Missing that deadline means an escalation of costs, and I’m sure a whole host of other problems with the EI programme as a whole. But hey, it’s not like this government has ever had problems with procurements, and there has never been a boondoggle around new software before, right? Oh, wait…

Continue reading →

Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Possible charges against Wright

And with the likelihood that charges will be laid against Nigel Wright, the ClusterDuff exploded all over again yesterday, as an 81-page court affidavit from the RCMP investigator was made public. There are some fairly shocking revelations in there – things like how Wright was in communication with Senator Irving Gerstein as Gerstein made back channel contacts with a partner at Deloitte to inquire about the progress of the Duffy audit and how the repayment would affect it – and that such partner is a top Conservative donor, and that the firm also audit’s the party’s finances. Or that the Prime Minister was told “in broad terms” that Wright was helping Duffy out with the repayment – though it also says clearly that Harper was not told the particulars. That Gerstein considered using party funds to repay Duffy when they thought it was a $32,000 price tag. That there are a number of problems with Duffy’s various speeches in the Senate where he painted himself as some kind of unwitting victim. And that there was a heavy PMO hand in the attempt to change the audits, though there was pushback (including from one of LeBreton’s staffers, Chris Montgomery), and frustration on Wright’s part because the Senate was not responding as they would like when it came to the management of the crisis. Why, it’s terrible that Wright and the PMO were confronted by the notion that the Senate is an independent chamber of parliament that is institutionally independent from their control. The horror! There was even apparently an incident where the Senate clerk had to have words with Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen about her partisan behaviour on the steering subcommittee of the Internal Economy Committee. (Mark Kennedy has some highlights here.)

Continue reading →

Roundup: Kenney and Rajotte back Wright

More signs of independent thought emerge within the Conservative caucus, as Jason Kenney has proclaimed that he’s still going to defend Nigel Wright’s character while Harper has taken the route of demonizing him in the wake of the whole ClusterDuff affair. Later in the day, James Rajotte joined that chorus. That Kenney, a minister, has a message deviating from Harper’s, is the third minister now who has had a different message from the boss, which John Geddes points out, is a blow for the notion of cabinet solidarity, which is a pretty fundamental notion in Responsible Government as the executive needs to speak with one voice. I’m not sure what it all means yet, but it’s certainly interesting – especially on the eve of a party convention where unity in the face of adversity will no doubt be the message that they are trying to put forward.

Continue reading →