So that was the budget – so close to being balanced, but apparently in a position to run a surplus next year – and just in time for an election, wouldn’t you know? Maclean’s gives you the highlights, like half a billion dollars for the auto sector, departmental freeze, money for bridges in Windsor and Montreal, $1.5 billion over ten years for research, internships and extending student loans to skilled trades, and vague promises to sic the Competition Bureau on those who perpetuate the price gap with the US (as problematic a promise as that is). Mike Moffatt points out how much more complicated the tax credits are getting in this budget, which increases the red tape and regulatory burden that they claim to want to be rid of, as well as nine changes in the budget that are likely to fly under the radar. Stephen Gordon shows how the Conservatives are aggressively reducing the size of government. Kevin Page wishes Jim Flaherty well if he reaches surplus next year and has to figure out what to do with it. And here are Maclean’s five key points from the budget.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
QP: In the shadow of the budget lock-up
With less than two hours to go before the budget is released, and a number of the seats in the Commons remained empty, but all three main leaders were present. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if the Prime Minister would remove the “gag order” from the the elections bill, to which Harper assured him that there was no such provision in the bill, but several sections that require him to act. Mulcair insisted that no, his reading was correct, and Harper assured him that there was no orchestrated fraud in the last election, but for the next election there would be an independent investigator. Mulcair asked about a section of the bill that doesn’t count communication with past donors, and Harper insisted that party fundraising shouldn’t be included as political communications. Mulcair hammered away at that, but Harper insisted that the only cheating was the NDP using union money. Mulcair closed off with a question of robocalls in the last election — ostensibly party business — but Harper didn’t bite. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the lapsing Labour Market Agreements, but Harper insisted that his government invested in job training programmes. Trudeau wanted an assurance that this year, the government wouldn’t start advertising any proposed budget measures that hadn’t yet passed, especially during the Olympics. Harper responded with a jab that the Liberals didn’t have any policies worth advertising.
Roundup: Day of the many leaks
It was a day of leaks yesterday – first a plan to try to “disrupt” the Liberal convention and undermine Trudeau, which seemed a bit foolish and costly, given that their “agents” would have to purchase convention memberships for the purpose of lame buttons and Trudeau-branded rolling papers. (The Liberals, meanwhile, say the attention is flattering). And while that one looked deliberately leaked to the media, the following other leaks weren’t. A 70-page re-election strategy was next to make its way to the Toronto Star, which talks a lot about leveraging Laureen Harper to help put a human face on the government, while totally ignoring Thomas Mulcair in the strategy. And if that wasn’t enough, it was then revealed that the PM’s former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, will be the party’s new legal advisor. Paul Wells notes that even though the party has often ”leaked” false memos in the past this does appear that they have an unintended leaker in their ranks.
QP: Budget Day eve
As the Olympics distract the masses, the Grand Inquest of the Nation carries on. Well, minus most of the party leaders anyway. Thomas Mulcair was present, and started off by asking about the newly reported debt figures, and demanded action on ATM fees and credit card interest rates. Kevin Sorensen accused the NDP of wanting to “pick the pockets of Canadians,” and that they were encouraging Canadians to be careful with their debts. Mulcair rambled on about budget shoes and slippers, and returned to the same demand, to which Sorensen touted tax cuts that the government had made. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill and the topic of voter identification cards. Poilievre insisted that there was a mistake in one out of six of those cards, meaning that they weren’t secure but there were 39 other form of acceptable identification. Mulcair dropped a non sequitur Olympic reference before returning to the bill and the issue of democracy promotion. Poilievre spoke about more advanced voting days. For his last question of the round, Mulcair decried the gagging of the Chief Electoral Officer, to which Poilievre quoted other sections of the act to disprove Mulcair’s point. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, asking about the tariff changes and Canada Job Grant out of last year’s budget, and if they would be corrected in this year’s. Sorensen touted all the wonderful things their government had done. Ralph Goodale asked about other budget items like job training and infrastructure funds, but Sorensen recited good news talking points.
Roundup: Budget hints
With the budget coming out on Tuesday, hints are starting to get dropped all over the place. Things like plans to extend or boost rural high-speed Internet access, and some infrastructure and job-creation money. Michael Den Tandt points out that the Conservatives may try to use this budget to try to reclaim their hold on the suburban middle-class voter, now that Trudeau has become real competition for them in that demographic.
Roundup: A new hope for leadership debts
One of the aspects of the new electoral reform bill that I was always wondering about – leadership fundraising – is being changed. Once it comes into force, contributions to leadership campaigns can be annual instead of lifetime, so that means that some of those former leadership candidates can start to fundraise from the same donors again. The bill doesn’t change the enforcement of those old debts, which was basically unenforceable. Meanwhile, Jason Kenney has said that the government would consider amending the bill at committee to include a ban on veiled voting, after a question by the Bloc about this. While David Christopherson may warn that it’s a dangerous game to find a wedge issue like this, he seems to forget that his party was also in favour of banning veiled voting when it was an issue in the Commons a couple of years ago. Stephen Maher points to the various flaws in the bill that require correcting – and all party support to make the whole endeavour legitimate. Andrew Coyne wonders just what problems the bill was intending to solve, because the provisions in the bill seem to be reflecting problems that aren’t actually there.
Roundup: Mayrand hits back
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand hit back against Pierre Poilievre’s slam against him that he is somehow wearing team jersey. Mayrand says the only jersey he is wearing are the black and white stripes – the referee – and the changes in the new Fair Elections Act will mean that he’s no longer on the ice. With time allocation on the elections bill looming, the NDP decided to spend the first half of the sitting day yesterday engaged in procedural warfare, trying to delay the debate on time allocation, with a series of votes that eventually delayed QP itself. With those hurdles now cleared, they are proposing a motion in Procedure and House Affairs committee that they travel around all regions of the country to consult with Canadians on the bill, though I have some concerns about some of the groups they want to hear from. After all, Fair Vote Canada is the largest voter suppression organisation in the country (who else goes around telling everyone that their vote doesn’t count?), and Democracy Watch is pretty much run by a crank that doesn’t have a clue about civic literacy. But hey, consultations!
QP: Late out of the gate
Votes at the end of a series of procedural tactics given the NDP’s opposition to time allocation on the elections bill delayed the start of QP today, and when it did get started, Thomas Mulcair was the only leader in the House — Harper off in Quebec City and Justin Trudeau in Montreal. Mulcair started off , somewhat surprisingly, with a question about the funding gap for children on First Nations reserves, and if it would be addressed in the budget. Bernard Valcourt said that funding would come with reform of the system, which has been ongoing. Mulcair moved onto the morning’s PBO report that said that public servants don’t take any more sick days than private sector employees. Tony Clement said that if one added paid and unpaid sick days, public servants were still higher than the private sector. Mulcair brought up elections bill and the fact that it gave a veto to testing new election measures to the Senate. Poilievre assured him that it was to ensure parliamentary approval for experiments, and when the NDP tried electronic voting at their convention, it didn’t work. New MP Emmanuel Dubourg led off for the Liberals, and asked about the cuts to the Building Canada infrastructure fund, and would the shortfall be restored in the budget. Kevin Sorensen waxed poetically about a brighter future for everyone in Canada. Ralph Goodale repeated the same in English, but this time Peter Braid answered, who assured him that investments in infrastructure tripled. For his final question, Goodale hammered on consumer debt levels, but Sorensen gave some “stay the course” talking points.
Roundup: More concerns about the elections bill
By day two of examining the Fair Elections Act, more of the flaws have become apparent – limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to speak publicly, leaving the job of promoting elections to parties – who tend to only target likely voters and would be in danger of entrenching disenfranchisement, the end of the “vouching” system likely to disenfranchise more marginalised voters, and no real oversight of parties themselves during elections. Even more concerning – even to former CEO Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who has been otherwise in favour of the bill – is the provision that exempts the party from counting fundraising expenses for anyone who has donated over $20 to the party over the past year. In other words, it’s a backdoor loophole to keep an increasingly costly practice from counting against spending limits. Oh, and after a whole two hours of debate, the government moved time allocation. Because we apparently can’t have too much democracy. Canadian Dissensus finds even more problems with moving the Commissioner of Elections over to the Director of Public Prosecution’s desk. Kady O’Malley writes how the provisions on limiting bequests will likely disadvantage the NDP the most.
QP: Questioning the elections bill
Despite it being caucus day, the Conservative benches were surprisingly sparse as QP got underway, but given that all leaders were present, we would at least have some excitement. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking if impersonating an elections official to suppress votes was not already a crime. Harper instead talked up his new elections bill, and all the great things that were in it. Mulcair hit back by accusing the bill of being a cover for an attack on Elections Canada given the various investigations, but Harper insisted that the courts cleared them of any wrongdoing, which wasn’t entirely the case if memory serves. Mulcair turned to the provisions around voter IDs and the vouching system, but Harper rejected the claim that this was discouraging people from voting. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the tariff hikes from the last election, and noted that the lower dollar would make things even more expensive. Harper rejected the claim, and said that it was about levelling the playing field. Trudeau brought up the IMF’s projections regarding anaemic growth, to which Harper insisted that Canada came out of the recession with some of the strongest growth in the world.