With Stephen Harper now in Germany as his European trip carries on, and with Thomas Mulcair in Winnipeg, the only leaders present were Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. Deputy leader David Christopherson led off by asking about the vouching provisions in the elections bill, to which Pierre Poilievre gave a soliloquy about voter irregularities. Christopherson brought up the robocall registry requirements, to which Poilievre said that the current requirement is zero, so the one year requirement was better. Christopherson moved onto the party fundraisers riding government jets, to which Paul Calandra insisted that the value of the flights were reimbursed, though he neglected to say that the rate of reimbursement was lower than that of an economy flight during a seat sale. Nycole Turmel asked the same again in French and got the same answer, and same with a boilerplate question about the elections bill. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and asked about cuts to climate change offices in Environment Canada. Leona Aglukkaq responded that they had cut projected emissions without a carbon tax, which basically meant nothing at all. Trudeau brought up the cuts to the Building Canada Fund, to which Peter Braid responded with a weak sauce “thousands of billions” quip before touting all of their infrastructure investments (neglecting to mention that those funds are back-end loaded).
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
Roundup: Kingsley’s revised praise
Former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley appeared at committee yesterday to give testimony on the Fair Elections Act, and said that unless vouching was reinstated, he could neither support the bill, and said that it could be considered unconstitutional. He also took issue with the provisions that would limit the CEO’s communications with Canadians, that allow parties to contact past donors without counting it as an expense, and for putting the Commissioner of Elections under the eye of the Director of Public Prosecutions – but you know that Pierre Poilievre will only focus on the things that Kinsley liked about the bill. Canadian Dissensus gives a superlative takedown of the bill and Poilievre’s defence of it.
QP: Fundraisers on jets
Tuesday, and most of the leaders were in the House, but Harper was still not back from the G7 meeting at The Hague. Thomas Mulcair led off by bringing up a story on iPolitics about how the Prime Minister used government aircraft for party fundraisers. Paul Calandra responded with a scripted response about how the RCMP won’t let the PM fly commercial and they use the Challengers less than the Liberals did, and by the way, you abuse taxpayers with your branch offices where you have no members. Mulcair shot back that the Government Whip said they followed all of the rules, and asked about those flights yet again, while Calandra whipped up his rhetorical flight. Mulcair tried to ask about spending safeguards in the Senate, and used the justification that the House approves the Senate’s allowance. Calandra noted their efforts to make the Senate more accountable and that they would see wrongdoers published. Justin Trudeau got up for the Liberals, and congratulated the government for the trade agreement with South Korea and when would the details be made available. There was some confusion on the government benches that it wasn’t an attack to deflect, and Erin O’Toole stood to give a talking point about how great trade with Korea would be. Trudeau then asked about vacancy on the Supreme Court, to which Peter MacKay said that they were examining the Nadon ruling and would be acting “post haste.”
Roundup: Sanctions as a badge of honour
The Russian government has retaliated against sanctions imposed by Canada by instituting sanctions of their own against 13 Canadian officials, including the Clerk of the Privy Council, the deputy secretary to cabinet in the Privy Council, Speaker Scheer, Peter Van Loan, Senator Raynell Andreychuk, and MPs Dean Allison, Paul Dewar, Irwin Cotler, Ted Opitz, Chrystia Freeland and James Bezan, all of whom consider it a “badge of honour.” Notably absent were John Baird and Stephen Harper, which signals that there is still room for negotiation. Irwin Cotler wrote his response about how he was first banned from the Soviet Union in 1979, and that he was poisoned on his last trip to Moscow in 2006. Meanwhile, the G8 is essentially no more, as Russia has expelled after their invasion of Crimea. The G7 is now resurrected in its place.
QP: Shuffled sparring partners
After two weeks away, MPs were back and ready to carry on with the Grand Inquest of the Nation. With Harper still off in Europe, it was a question as to whether there would be a front-bench babysitter answering questions, or just ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the leaders’ round. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the situation in Ukraine, and David Anderson read a pro forma statement about travel bans and economic sanctions. Mulcair then turned to the Supreme Court ruling on the Nadon reference, and wondered if the government would accept the ruling. Peter MacKay stood up to reiterate that they got legal opinions beforehand, that they were surprised by the decision, and they felt that Nadon was a legal expert, and would study the decision. Mulcair then asked if the new minister of finance would abandon the national securities regulator project. Joe Oliver, in his debut answer in his new role, but said that he would wait for the new critic to ask in order to be fair to him after he took such a major pay cut. Mulcair then moved onto the elections bill, and Pierre Poilievre invited Mulcair to call witnesses before the committee, saying the bill would “protect” our system of democracy. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about the coming cuts to infrastructure funds. Denis Lebel answered that they were increasing funds. Brison reminded him that the funding commitments were back-end loaded and that communities would have to hike property taxes in the interim, but Lebel insisted the preamble was wrong. Marc Garneau took another stab at the question in French, and got the same answer from Lebel.
Roundup: Voiding Nadon’s appointment
It really was a blow to Stephen Harper, and his judgement when making appointments. The Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision rebuked not only the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court, but also the declaratory provisions passed in the omnibus budget implementation bill that made the appointment okay. Nadon never was a Supreme Court justice and remains a supernumerary justice on the Federal Court of Appeal, his appointment and swearing in ceremony null and void. There was a lot of reaction to the decision, including from Justin Trudeau who pointed out that this is a sign that Harper couldn’t even get the big things right, which puts his judgement into question (ironic, since that’s what the Conservatives are trying to attack Trudeau about). The Toronto lawyer who brought forward the challenge wonders why it was left up to him, a private citizen, to do something about the government’s attempt at subverting the constitution, and on his own dime. Adam Dodek walks Maclean’s through the decision, and in a separate op-ed says the ruling represents the entrenchment of the Court’s constitutional independence, and a serious blow to the “transparent” appointment process that Harper put into place. Emmett Macfarlane goes further into the repudiation of the appointment process, and says that the consequences of this decision will almost certainly mean doom for the government’s Senate reform reference. Carissima Mathen, who appeared at committee and said that the declaratory provisions were doomed to fail (and was mocked for it) gets the last laugh. Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler draws the lessons from the whole affair as to the flawed appointment process, the government’s own delays in selection, and their ignoring the warnings that Nadon’s appointment was going to present a problem.
Roundup: Exit Flaherty
Out of the blue, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced his resignation from cabinet yesterday, but not his seat (just yet). This after Flaherty promised that he was going to run again, while simultaneously dropping hints that he was ready to wind down his political career. And it looks like Joe Oliver will be tapped to replace him as Finance minister, but no word on who would then take over the Natural Resources file. Here are some facts about Flaherty and his career, and a look back at his best ties, which were pretty much all green, which was kind of his shtick. Here’s Paul Wells’ profile of Flaherty from a couple of months ago.
Roundup: A branch office in Montreal
The Liberals have big questions about the NDP’s “branch office” in Montreal, which they claim is totally for coordinating parliamentary work and is totally not doing any partisan work – really! Note that the NDP complained when the Bloc had an office set up in Montreal paid for out of Parliamentary funds, but when they do it, it’s not problem. What I find intensely curious about the whole affair is not only the way in which several of these staffers have dual titles, and that a number of them are labelled as “outreach.” The thing that I finds a little disturbing is the way that this points to a concerning level of central control when it comes to their MPs and staff, far and above the particular level of centralisation they already have with staffers on the Hill. Suffice to say, it all does look a bit suspicious.
Roundup: No ruling on “reasonable”
A Federal Court judge has declined to rule on whether a three-year delay in an Access to Information request is “reasonable” under the legislation, saying that it’s Parliament’s decision to make, not hers. This could make the Information Commissioner’s job much more difficult, if she doesn’t have a proper definition of what constitutes a reasonable delay to go by.
Roundup: Denying a green light
Drama in the Liberal ranks in preparation for a by-election in Trinity Spadina, as the nomination front-runner was apparently refused a green light from the Ontario Campaign Co-Chair because Christine Innes and her husband, former MP and junior minister Tony Ianno were accused of intimidating and bullying volunteers. Apparently they were telling these volunteers that their futures in the party would be over if they were on the “wrong side” of a nomination battle, meaning the future riding redistribution and their support for Chrystia Freeland. Innes put out a statement alleging backroom strong-arm tactics and that she refused to be “assigned” a riding to run in, which went against the promise of open nominations. The party responded that it was a request to keep candidates focused on the by-election, and not future nomination battles against incumbent MPs, which sounds like what the intimidation was about. As the battle waged over Twitter, the partisan concern trolling from all sides got cute, but the accusations of sexism because she was denied the green light over the actions of her husband do seem a bit over the top.