Monday in the Commons, and true to form, none of the leaders were present — never mind that there are a mere four weeks left. Megan Leslie led off, asking about the GHG emissions targets announced by the government. Leona Aglukkaq got up and read a statement about their sector-by-sector approach, and that they wouldn’t implement a carbon tax. Leslie raised the use of offset credits, which the government used to decry, and Aglukkaq simply read the next non sequitur talking point on her list. Leslie then moved onto the PMO interference in the audit of Mike Duffy, to which Paul Calandra reminded her that it was before the courts. Peter Julian asked the same again in French, and got the same response from Calandra in English, and brought up the NDP satellite offices. Julian tried to bring the rest of the Senate into the mix, but Calandra gave a pro forma response about cooperation, and reminded them about the satellite offices. Emmanuel Dubourg led for the Liberals, and asked another youth unemployment as a way of touting the Liberal plan. Pierre Poilievre touted the government’s plan in response. Ralph Goodale was up next, and slammed the government’s growth record, to which Poilievre repeated his Tax Cuts, Training and Trade™ talking point. For his final question, Goodale decried the government’s child tax plans, to which Poilievre insisted that he was wrong, and that even the PBO said the government plan was okay.
Tag Archives: Environment
Roundup: Trying to politicize the GG
In a move so stunningly boneheaded that I can scarcely believe it, the NDP have gone to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to wade in on the Senate residency issue – because there’s nothing like trying to politicise the GG to show that you mean business about a petty issue. It’s like Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition doesn’t have a clue about what Responsible Government – the central organising principle of our democratic system – actually means. Here’s a refresher for their edification – the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister holds the confidence of the House of Commons, which is the chamber elected for the purpose of granting or withholding said confidence. The entire history of the struggle for Responsible Government in the colonies that became Canada, back in the 1830s, was because they wanted to control the appointments made by the Crown, rather than leave it up to the colonial masters in the UK. The entire history of Canadian democracy rests on the fact that it’s the elected government that advises the Crown on who to appoint, and not the other way around. And yet the NDP seem to suddenly think it’s cool to ask the GG to weigh in on which appointments he thinks are okay or not. Charlie Angus may tell you that he’s asking for an explanation and that he’s not trying to draw the GG into the “scandal,” but with all due respect, that’s a load of utter horseshit and he knows it. He’s trying to get the GG to tell him that the PM is wrong so that he has “non-partisan” authority to make the claim for him; that’s never going to happen. Ever. It is assumed that the advice the PM gives the GG is legitimate because the PM has the confidence of the Commons. That means that the quality of that advice is a ballot box issue – if we don’t like it, we get to hold that PM and that government to account by voting them out. It is not up to the GG to veto it unless it’s so egregious that it’s a blatant violation of the constitution, at which point he refuses the advice and the Prime Minister is forced to resign. But as much as Charlie Angus might like to think that Mike Duffy is some unprecedented scandal that rocks the very legitimacy of the Upper Chamber (which they don’t believe is legitimate anyway, so this is grade-A concern trolling on his part), it’s not a constitutional crisis. It’s just not. Even if Harper’s advice was dubious, it was up to Duffy to ensure that he lived up to the terms of that appointment, and ensuing he was a proper resident of PEI – which essentially would have meant a hasty house sale in Ottawa, buying a year-round residence on the Island (and not a summer cottage) tout suit, and then maybe renting an apartment or buying a small condo near Parliament Hill as his Ottawa pied à terre, being a legitimate secondary residence. Duffy did not do that. He instead got political opinions to ensure that he was okay with the summer cottage and a driver’s licence and that’s it, when clearly that was not enough. He bears as much culpability in this as the PM for making the appointment – not the GG. Charlie Angus should be utterly ashamed for this blatant attempt to politicise the GG, but I’m pretty sure he’s incapable of shame.
@InklessPW Oh p-lease. So the NDP opposes the Senate because it is undemocratic but is ok with the GG vetoing the PM? #cdnpoli
— Adam Dodek (@ADodek) May 20, 2015
Roundup: Poilievre’s egregious video problem
It’s egregiously partisan, and Pierre Poilievre won’t apologise for it. He released a pair of YouTube videos featuring himself talking about the government’s new tax measures, never mind that they still haven’t passed into law yet. Most of all, he filmed them on a weekend, using public servants on overtime. He says it was only two hours (but rules are they need to be paid a minimum of three), and not unsurprisingly, the public sector unions consider it an abuse of resources. Because it is. Liberal MP David McGuinty is hoping to leverage it into support of his bill to limit this kind of nonsense, much in the way that Ontario created an advertising commissioner in the Auditor General’s office to vet ads so that things like party colours, or the faces or voices of politicians are outlawed from government advertising. The funny thing is that the current Conservative government rode into power on the white horse of accountability, waving the banner of outrage over partisan advertising and polling by the previous government – never mind that their advertising was never this blatant or nakedly partisan. But apparently that doesn’t matter because this government can justify and rationalize absolutely anything, no matter how much they end up looking like hypocrites.
QP: Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.
Despite it only being a Thursday, the major leaders were elsewhere in the country, busy campaiging instead of doing their jobs. Megan Leslie led off, bringing up job losses at Bombardier and wondered why the government wasn’t doing more for manufacturing. Pierre Poilievre gave a pro forma expression of sympathy before touting the government’s job creation record. Leslie asked again in English twice again, got the same answer, and then Alexandre Boulerice took another kick at it in French. Poilievre was just as adept in repeating the good news talking points in French. Marc Garneau led for the Liberals, also asking about the job losses, and Poilievre put a “Liberals would raise taxes” spin on his same talking points. Judy Sgro took a kick at it, naming some of the other closing plants and job losses, but Poilievre kept insisting the Liberals would raise taxes and kill more jobs.
QP: Assistance for Nepal
As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.
Roundup: Enbridge and the Duffy pathology
Over in the Ottawa Citizen, David Reevely has a wonderful little piece about the ways in which Mike Duffy conducted himself as a Senator – and that was to basically farm out work to friends, including a $7000 speech about “Why I am a Conservative.” Apparently a former journalist writing about his own political convictions was too much work, and so he fobbed it off on someone else, on the taxpayer’s dime. Reevely is right to point out an emptiness to the way that Duffy treated the job, but it misses another aspect to the pathology – that Duffy wanted to be a player. Certainly by spreading the largess around to those who he thought would be impressed by it is indicative of that. We’re seeing more of this desire to be a player as more things come out of his diaries, and one of the most eyebrow-raising examples were his meetings with Enbridge. As it happens, those meetings were unsolicited. Duffy was trying to ingratiate himself and so he made busywork about trying to get some action on the Keystone XL pipeline, having conversations that weren’t reported to the Lobbying Registry, and then reporting them to the PMO. Apparently it got to the point where Enbridge officials themselves complained to the PMO about it, in the hopes that they could call Duffy off. And really, there was no point to Duffy’s efforts – the PMO was onside with the pipeline, and Enbridge has had no issues with reporting their meetings. Oh, but Duffy wanted to be a player, to show that he mattered in the corridors of power – the reason why he’d been begging for an appointment to the Senate for decades, from successive prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, who had no time for him. The NDP, incidentally, want those Enbridge meetings investigated, but I’m not sure it’s really necessary because it certainly appears that there is nothing to investigate other than Duffy’s inflated sense of self, and while the NDP may think that it’s some kind of smoking gun on Harper, it’s far more about Duffy’s ego than it was about corruption from the centre.
Roundup: The Privacy Commissioner finally has his say
Bill C-51 is now getting its review in the Senate, hearing from someone that the Commons didn’t – the Privacy Commissioner. What they got was an earful – there are some big problems with the information sharing provisions in the bill that would allow large amounts of personal information to be collected and shared between departments with little justification, and that his office would be swamped with work because of it. He’s also calling for oversight – like everyone else – and for the ability for different watchdogs to communicate with one another and coordinate their investigations in order to get a better picture of what these organisations are doing as they work together but their oversight remains siloed. Those other oversight bodies – SIRC and the CSE Commissioner – had much the same concerns when it comes to the ability to work together, and just keeping pace with the increasing scope and scale of operations. But will any of this have an effect? Maybe, as there are some Conservative senators who are concerned about these kinds of things and who may push back. But the government may bully through, and said senators may decide that this isn’t the hill they want to die on (which does happen), and they’ll let it go through. Suffice to say, the issue has not gone away.
QP: Problems for our grandchildren
Following yesterday’s budget, all of the leaders were on hand in the Commons to ask about it. It was also caucus day, which meant the benches were nearly full, usually guaranteeing a good day. Thomas Mulair led off, by asking about Joe Oliver’s statement about leaving the worry about future fiscal woes to “the prime minister’s granddaughter,” and then lamented future for his own grandchildren. Harper hit back, insisting that Oliver said it because it was a ridiculous supposition that the TFSA would create a problem. Mulcair worried about the environmental debt being left to their grandchildren, to which Harper claimed that his was the only government that reduced emissions (err, except the provinces made the reductions). Mulcair changed topics, and asked why Harper would have appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate if he didn’t live in PEI. Harper said it was established practice, and wouldn’t comment on the case befor the courts. Mulcair read out the eligibility requirements in the constitution, and got the same answer from Harper. Mulcair read out the inscription on that photo saying that Duffy was his best appointment, to which Harper demanded the NDP pay back their satellite office expenses. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked again about paying for TFSAs with the next generation of taxpayers. Harper repeated his assertion that lowering taxes was good for everyone, then repeated a distortion about Trudeau’s comments about small business tax cuts. Trudeau insisted that Harper was paying for the OAS age increase with his cuts, to which Harper insisted forcefully that he hadn’t cut a penny from seniors. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper insisted that the Liberals were the only ones who wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.
Roundup: A possible return to deficits
The Parliamentary Budget Officer gave his pre-budget analysis, and said that while the books look balanced this year, the government’s continued focus on tax breaks, spending announcements and the low oil price environment could mean heading back into deficit in two years – not too surprising really if you’ve been paying attention. Part of the fiscal breathing room the government is using right now is coming from their decision to freeze EI rates rather than let them fall to a level that reflects the actual unemployment rate, which sounds a lot like the kinds of things they used to curse Paul Martin for doing. And then there are the asset sales, such as all of those GM shares – possibly sold at a loss – that just pad the books in the short term. But hey, they can claim to balance the budget without raising taxes (err, except for all of those tariffs that they raised this year) and try and sell that as sound economic management going into the election. The actual numbers tell a different story, as we’ve seen, but hey, why mess with a narrative?
Roundup: Justin Trudeau and the division of powers
From the sounds of it, Justin Trudeau is apparently setting back the cause of federalism in Canada, as he is getting blamed for an increasing number of provincial woes. It’s been happening for a few weeks with some federal Conservatives like Parm Gill, who are agitating against the provincial Liberals’ new sex ed curriculum, but because Gill and others just refer to the programme as the Liberals’ – not specifying that it’s Kathleen Wynne’s government in Ontario – the implication is that they’re one and the same as Gill shills for federal votes on a provincial issue (that is being torqued by provincial Progressive Conservatives and others, one might add). Moving out east, Trudeau is being blamed for complicity in the provincial Liberals in Nova Scotia proposing to reform film and television tax credits in their provincial budget – apparently Trudeau not saying anything about that change, and a number of other provincial budgetary items, makes him complicit in the whole affair. (During his visit to Halifax yesterday, Trudeau did say he was supportive of arts and culture, but reminded them that he’s a Quebec MP and respects provincial jurisdictions). Yesterday took the cake, as the federal NDP put out a press release blasting Trudeau because the provincial Liberals in PEI remain, well, a little backward on the whole issue of funding abortions in that province. This isn’t the first time that the federal NDP have been trying to ride the provincial parties for their benefit, as they keep hauling out this study that shows that provincial NDP governments have better fiscal records than provincial Liberal or Conservative parties in order to somehow prove they’d be great economic managers – never mind that the various provincial parties are largely divorced from the federal ones (with a couple of minor exceptions in a couple of provinces) and that in many cases the only thing they share is a name, though the NDP like to claim that they’re all one party, federally and provincially. It also means that if you stretch that logic, that Thomas Mulcair is responsible for raising the HST in Manitoba, that province’s appalling state of child welfare cases, and the myriad of problems that the provincial NDP in Nova Scotia left behind when they were defeated (prompting the provincial Liberals to table the budget they just did). It’s actually pretty alarming that people don’t seem to understand the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government – particularly when it’s political parties fuelling this nonsense, and they really need to stop.
Wait, so the NDP are attacking Trudeau over the PEI Liberals? They know there are jurisdiction issues, right? pic.twitter.com/p3CGtIKYx0
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 15, 2015