The Fair Elections Act was back front and centre in the House yesterday, with the NDP’s opposition day motion to hold cross-country hearings on the bill. Aaron Wherry heard back from Pierre Poilievre on the problems with vouching, and from the former BC Chief Electoral Officer who wrote a report on said issue, who doesn’t think it should be eliminated by simply streamlined. There are concerns that the changes in the Act could prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from reporting to Parliament on the investigation into the fraudulent robocalls (Poilievre insists it won’t be the case). The provision that both chambers of Parliament would need to sign off on future online voting experiments is bringing out the paranoia that the Conservative-dominated Senate will kill all future attempts, out of spite or something (because the Senate has never been dominated by an opposition party before apparently – and seriously, grow up). And then, to top it all off, Conservative MP Brad Butt decided that no, he didn’t actually witness voter fraud by people taking discarded voter identification cards and then using them illicitly – he just “misspoke.” Multiple times. In the House and in committee. Oh, but now he considers the matter to be “closed,” so stop asking. Yes, apparently he is that shameless.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
QP: The post-Olympic high
With the Olympics now over, and MPs giving glowing statements about our medal winners, and the Liberals revved up after their weekend convention, one could almost hope for a punchy QP. Sadly, with a large number of empty seats in the chamber and only one major leader present, it wasn’t going to really be an exiting day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking for an update on the Ukrainian situation, to which Chris Alexander read a pro-forma statement. Mulcair segued to the elections bill, and demanded to know why Senate committees could hold consultative hearings across the country, but not the committee charged with the bill. Pierre Poilievre insisted that they were listening to Canadians and that the NDP didn’t bother to read the bill. Mulcair and Poilievre had a couple of back-and-forths , after which Speaker Scheer cautioned Mulcair to stop using the word “cheating.” Mulcair stood up and declared that the Conservatives were trying to pre-cheat the next election, and sat down, no question. Scheer said nothing, and moved on. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals and asked about that report on the foundering middle class and noted the ways in which the government raised taxes. Kevin Sorensen insisted rather vigorously that his government had cut taxes, and wouldn’t be dissuaded otherwise. Marc Garneau asked the same in French, not that Sorensen’s answer changed.
Roundup: Trying to court the retired general
A few hours before his speech at the convention, it was revealed that retired General Andrew Leslie would let it be known that the Conservatives tried to recruit him. He was vague about it in the speech, however, saying that he had discussions with several parties (to which both the Conservatives and NDP denied it, Pierre Poilievre trying to dismiss it that they didn’t want him anyway) and danced around it when asked during the press scrum afterward. Leslie did get quite a dig in at Rob Nicholson during said scrum, so there’s that. Later in the day, Leslie produced a series of emails in which he was talking to very senior Conservative staffers about various positions, including running for them in a couple of different Ottawa-area ridings, so those denials were all the more suspect, not that the Liberals minded that he was shopping around – they were glad that he wound up a Liberal. Aaron Wherry had a conversation with Leslie, in which he defended the $72,000 benefit, as part of the conditions of service.
Roundup: Commence the convention
The Liberals’ policy convention is now underway in Montreal, and while things started off with a bit of an oops – the feed from the main stage was live to the reporters’ room while Trudeau was practicing his speech, giving it away before he could make it, and it included his camera directions. He delivered his rah-rah partisan speech to kick things off, which included a couple of digs at Pauline Marois, and to Harper and Mulcair in which he said he wasn’t going to play their game of trying to make Canadians angry, and ended it with a Skype call to his family (as they stayed in Ottawa, his wife due to give birth any day now). A few Senate Liberals, but not many, are in attendance, for which the NDP are trying to get a social media shaming going. Mike Moffatt offers three questions for the Liberals to look at as they try to formulate economic policy during this weekend’s convention. Kate Heartfield notes the implicit populist tones in Trudeau’s economics video, and how it still creates an Us and Them in order to play that populist card, while still trying to look like he’s above tribalism. Michael Den Tandt writes that the broad strokes economic policy will be looking at ways to bring the Red Tories and Blue Liberals back into the fold and away from the Conservative coalition. Paul Wells writes about the Conservatives hoping that the convention will prove to be a gaffe-fest for Trudeau (and along the way, coins the best descriptor for the Fair Elections Act as being “Conservative-fair”).
Roundup: Hints and small measures from Mexico
At the “Three Amigos” summit in Mexico, things indeed seemed a bit frosty heading into it, as Harper refuses to lift the visa restrictions on Mexicans, and Obama won’t speed along the Keystone XL decision – a decision which got a whole lot trickier as a judge in Nebraska has struck down the Governor’s approved route for the pipeline, which could mean yet more delays for the project. It does, however, sound like common standards on greenhouse gas emissions may be on the way for Canada and the US. Also agreed to at the summit were a continental transportation plan, more joint research, more security agreements, and a working group to ensure the conservation of the monarch butterfly.
Roundup: Emoting about the economy
The Liberals put out a YouTube video wherein Justin Trudeau narrated their concerns about the economy, which was a lot of angst about the middle class. Because apparently facts and figures can be displaced with talking about feelings. Suffice to say, reaction among economists has been mixed – while some like the format, they are quick to point out some of the inherent problems with the message. Things like the political nonsense that Prime Ministers directly run economies, or the assertion that the middle class “lives off their incomes and not their assets.” (Do you know which is the class that lives off of their assets? Retirees). And then there’s the assertion that middle class incomes have stagnated over thirty years, when they haven’t – they fell drastically and have recovered over that thirty-year period, so it’s not exactly an accurate description. And as Stephen Gordon points out, the recipe Trudeau offers is largely wishful thinking. But why should we let actual facts get in the way of emoting about the economy?
Roundup: Partisan questions over a move
The partisan machinery got ramped into full gear over the weekend after CTV aired a story saying that retired General Andrew Leslie legitimately claimed $72, 000 in moving expenses upon his retirement when he bought a new house in Ottawa. Most of that was apparently real estate fees, which the expenses are allowed to cover. But apparently after the years of service he put in, this figure is “shocking” for critics. Sackcloth and ashes, everyone! What wasn’t aired or put in the web version was Leslie’s explanation, which is not only the universality of that programme, its rationale, and the fact that he didn’t know the figure because it was handled by a private company. All of which raises questions as to why that number found its way into CTV’s hands. Not able to resist making a partisan swipe, as Leslie is now an advisor to Justin Trudeau, Defence minister Rob Nicholson announced that he was going to take a look into the expenses, while Leslie explained himself by way of Facebook. Even the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation decided to get in on the game and said that Leslie was an embarrassment to his ancestors and compared him to Mike Duffy. Because he’s classy like that, I guess. I am also struck by the fact that everyone is blaming Leslie for bilking the system, when he made it clear that he wasn’t involved – a private company was. Perhaps they are the one who should be answering the questions, not Leslie.
Roundup: Kenney makes things awkward
Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
QP: Dodging and weaving around promises
With a Team Canada hockey game going on, the members were distracted as QP got underway, and there were a great many empty seats dotting the chamber. Even more, only Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were the only leaders present. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, and wondered if income splitting was to be abandoned. Jim Flaherty rose to assure her that they were committed to tax relief for families, and that the opposition voted against income splitting for seniors. Leslie pressed, and Flaherty hit back about how only the Conservatives lowered taxes. Leslie turned to the elections bill and wondered why the government was reluctant to allow cross-country consultations. Pierre Poilievre insisted that he consulted outside of Ottawa and heard their complaints. David Christopherson shouted the same question again in English, to which Poilievre insisted that the opposition simply needed to submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and they would be bring them in. Trudeau returned to the issue of income splitting, and how Kenney rebuked his own caucus members by saying they always keep their promises. With that established, Trudeau wondered what happened to the patient wait time guarantee. After some hesitation, Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that billions had been invested in the problem. Trudeau then wondered about the promise to lower the price of diesel fuel, to which Flaherty dodged by insisted that they lowered all kinds of taxes. For his final question, Trudeau wondered about the promised oil and gas regulations, but Leona Aglukkaq skated and tried to accuse the Liberals of letting the infrastructure in national parks lapse.
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.