The first day of the final four-week stretch of sitting days for the calendar year, and everyone was a little more fresh-faced and cheerful — something that won’t last too long. None of the leaders were present today, Harper still on his way back from the G20 in Brisbane, Justin Trudeau off to Whitby—Oshawa for the by-election there, and Mulcair similarly absent, even Elizabeth May absent owing to the death of her father. That left David Christopherson to lead off, denouncing the government’s lack of commitment to GHG emissions reductions coming out of the G20 in Brisbane. Leona Aglukkaq stood up to remind him that major emitters like China and the U.S. were finally coming to the table. Christopherson pressed, and Aglukkaq read off a list of “real action” that they have undertaken. Nycole Turmel asked the same question in French and got pretty much the same answers from Aglukkaq, before turning to the topic of the family tax cuts. Joe Oliver praised them and how the measures will help all kinds of families. For the final question, Turmel threw a bunch of budget cut figures hoping to make something stick, and Oliver reiterated how great his family tax cut plan was. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, noting the ways that the government actually raised taxes, be it payroll taxes or tariffs, and brought it all around to income splitting. Oliver read a talking point about how great income splitting was for families. Goodale demanded that the money spent on income splitting be spent instead on incremental infrastructure investments, to which Oliver decried the Liberal plan to raise taxes. Dominic LeBlanc closed off the round with another question of income splitting versus infrastructure investment in French, to which Jason Kenney rose to say that it was sad to watch the Liberals attacking families with children.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions
Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.
Roundup: Two suspensions and a resignation
Two Liberal MPs – Scott Armstrong and Massimo Pacetti – were suspended from caucus yesterday following complaints of harassment by two NDP MPs. Thus kicked off a firestorm of calls for independent investigations, bringing in the Speaker, and yes, political gamesmanship. There was, of course, a time when this kind of thing would be handled by the whips and party leaders behind closed doors, but in light of the Jian Gomeshi allegations and the conversation the nation is having about sexual harassment more broadly, Justin Trudeau felt he had no choice but to suspend the members pending an investigation, so that justice was seen to be done. But the fact that he didn’t inform the unnamed accusers – who had brought the matter to his attention in the first place – that he was doing this is suddenly bringing up accusations that he “re-victimised them,” as opposed to leaving him open to accusation that he did nothing when he was made aware of the allegations. The details of all of what happened remain sketchy, and the NDP are even more opaque on what happened and won’t confirm the details that the Liberal whip has revealed, and even the allegations are mostly couched in terms of “personal misconduct,” which both suspended MPs deny, Pacetti going so far as to say that he still don’t know what it is he’s being accused of. Aaron Wherry has collected the various letters and statements that were put out from the Liberal Whip, the Speaker, Thomas Mulcair, Trudeau, and the two suspended MPs. Chantal Hébert recalls the kinds of harassment that was on open display when she first arrived on the Hill in the late 70s. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board says that this story, now part of that conversation about sexual harassment an assault in this country, will hopefully start to bring about change. Similarly, Canadian Business discusses the need to stop treating sensitivity training with mocking, but rather as a way to shift reporting away from the victims alone and putting more onus on bystanders.
QP: A growing economy will solve it
It was a black morning on the Hill with two MPs suspended for allegations of harassment, and Stephen Harper was absent, headed off to China, making the mood on odd one. While Thomas Mulcair was present, QP was actually led off by Megan Leslie, who raised the Governor of the Bank of Canada’s comments about the job market. Joe Oliver praised the 1.1 million net new jobs since the recession. Leslie asked if the government agreed with Poloz’s (torqued, selective) statement that young people should be willing to live at home and work for free if they can’t get a job. Oliver praised their measures for young people, and that a growing economy would help youth. After another round in the other official language, Libby Davies asked about more childcare spaces, to which Jason Kenney insisted that their tax credit measures and the universal child benefit were better than spaces. When asked again, Candice Bergen praised increased transfers to the provinces, whose jurisdiction childcare belongs to. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and he asked about the income splitting tax credit, to which Jason Kenney called the premise “rubbish” and said that it would benefit half of families and that their other measures would help more low income families. Trudeau called them out for avoiding income splitting in their responses, and raised something from Scott Brison’s 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership platform. Trudeau retorted with Brison’s line about his misguided time as a Conservative before asking the question again in French. Jason Kenney responded by accusing the Liberals of wanting to take away money from families.
Roundup: Del Mastro found guilty
Conservative-turned-Independent Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been found guilty, along with his official agent, of election overspending in 2008, and Del Mastro faces the possibility of three years in jail plus $6000 in fines. Del Mastro, obstinately, believes that the conviction is just the judge’s opinion, and that it’s not over, though there’s no indication on what grounds he would appeal. He told CBC that there’s more evidence of his innocence that wasn’t introduced at trial, but if he thinks he can introduce that at the appeal stage, well, good luck, because they almost never allow that. The question of his fate comes next, because there is some ambiguity as to whether he will be forced to vacate his seat and lose the ability to run in another election for five years – as stipulated by the Elections Act – or if they plan to wait until he is out of appeals, which could be a lengthy process. Del Mastro says he plans to be at work on Monday (sentencing isn’t until near the end of November), but the Government House Leader has recommended that the matter be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, where a determination could be made there. It appears that Del Mastro had been offered a plea deal earlier that would have had him pay a fine, probably enter into a compliance agreement, and have it be over with. Instead, he went to court, and had the judge call out his credibility, which is going to be very, very difficult to recover from. And while the former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, said that it would be in Del Mastro’s best interest to resign to minimise the damage, Del Mastro’s behaviour to date would seem to indicate someone who doesn’t know when to quit, and who will likely obstinately push this to the bitter end.
QP: Waiting on income splitting
Despite it being only Thursday, most leaders were absent from the Chamber today, Harper off in Vaughan to deliver his income splitting announcement, and Justin Trudeau campaigning for the by-election in Whitby. Thomas Mulcair did show up, and started off bringing up the request from three esteemed former Justices who warned against knee-jerk legislation after last week’s attacks. Stephen Blaney assured him that the new CSIS was balanced. Mulcair didn’t want this to be a partisan issue and wanted a multi-party committee to study the issue (never mind that all Commons committees are multi-party), to which Blaney said that all parties were being offered technical briefings. Mulcair brought up Stockwell Day’s endorsement of the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee for national security, but Blaney said that SIRC was robust enough. Mulcair sniped about Deborah Grey’s interim leadership of SIRC, before turning to the issue of income splitting. Kevin Sorenson told him to stay tuned for the announcement, and proclaimed that income splitting was good policy. Mulcair and Sorensen took another round at it, before Scott Brison led for the Liberals, recalling Jim Flaherty’s opposition to income splitting. Sorenson quoted an old Brison line about how income splitting was a good thing. Brison quipped that he said a lot of stupid things when he was a Conservative, and the House roared. Sorenson repeated the praise for the plan, before Emmanuel Dubourg asked about the plan in French, Sorenson not varying the substance of his response.
Brison: "I said a few stupid things when I was a Conservative. That was one of them." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
Sorenson "He still says stupid things." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
QP: Updates, softballs, and dodges
After yesterday’s events, and the statements and hugs on the floor of the Commons earlier this morning, things were settling back into their routine on the Hill. All of the leaders were present for QP, and most of the benches full, partisan members’ statements were eschewed in favour of tributes to soldiers and police, and of course, the Sergeant-At-Arms. Thomas Mulcair led things off by asking for an update about the events yesterday and about security measures for the public at large. Harper said that he was briefed and they are looking at options to increase the powers to surveil and to detain terror suspects. Mulcair asked for a public information session on the event to clarify any questions, to which Harper said that he understood that police would hold some kind of briefing later in the day. Mulcair asked about any measures being taken for those specific cases for those who have had their passports revoked, but Harper insisted that it was not confirmed that yesterday’s shooter had his passport revoked, and that there were those out there who wish to do Canadians harm. Mulcair asked for reassurance that Parliament would remain open to the public — not that it’s his decision. Harper noted that there have been incidents in the past but they wanted to remain in the same principle as before. For his final question, Mulcair wanted it noted that even if people disagree on how safety measures are achieved that they hold the same goals — not actually asking a question. Harper took the opportunity to opine on Canada’s record of unbroken democratic governance. Justin Trudeau was up next, and and brought up Paulson’s statement about the 90 individual on watch lists, and if he could update them on how many there are now. Harper said that he didn’t think the number had changed radically and that it was more of a question for security agencies. Trudeau asked about the passport revocation issue, and asked what actions were being made to arrest those trying to leave the country to commit terror. Harper noted that active investigations were underway, and that they remained concerned about the threat. Trudeau asked again in English, and got much the same response.
QP: Terrorism and Ebola
With the revelations of that radicalized individual being identified in the hit-and-run in Quebec yesterday, it would be interesting to see how prominent that would be in QP. Thomas Mulcair led off asking for an update on the incident. Stephen Harper gave a “thoughts and prayers” response and called the incident a despicable act of violence. Mulcair wondered why they disclosed unconfirmed terror claims in the Commons yesterday and wanted a full briefing. Harper said that he told the House as soon as he found out. Mulcair moved onto the Ebola vaccine and the sale of the development rights for $205,000, which Harper didn’t quite answer as he reiterated that the government held the rights to the vaccine donated to the WHO. Mulcair asked about the auction of protective equipment, to which Harper responded that they made available all surplus materials when the WHO asked for them, and that they would continue to assist. Mulcair wanted clarification as to when the request came, to which Harper recounted his meeting with the WHO in New York and how Canada has been praised for our response. Justin Trudeau was up next, and after offering his condolences to the family of the soldier who was killed yesterday, and asked about those radicalized individuals under surveillance. Harper responded that they were examining the ways in which to give more tools to security organizations in order to make arrests more swiftly. Trudeau then asked about their supply day motion on the Ebola response and ensuring that the Health minister is available to committee, to which Harper insisted that the minister has been very available and they hoped a motion could be drafted that all parties could support. To close the round, Trudeau asked if the government could match donations made for the Ebola crisis, but Harper didn’t make such a commitment.
QP: Iraq vs Environment Commissioner
The Iraq debate continued through the morning, counting down to tonight’s vote, and once again broke for QP — this time with all of the leaders present. Thomas Mulcair led things off by asking about civilian casualties by air strikes in the Middle East, and now that would create new recruits for ISIS. Harper responded that ISIS was spreading like a cancer in the region and were a direct threat to Canada. Mulcair noted that ISIS was reverting to guerrilla tactics, to which Harper reiterated that they were a direct threat. Mulcair noted the lack of clear objectives in Iraq, for which Harper referred to the objectives when he spoke to the House — degrading ISIS’ capabilities. Mulcair changed topics to the Environment Commissioner’s report and the lack of progress on reducing GHG emissions. Harper responded that emissions reduced while there has been economic growth. Mulcair retorted with outrage about Harper facing his children and grandchildren. Harper insisted that they were working toward a binding protocol that would prevent developed countries shifting their emissions to developing ones. Justin Trudeau was up next, noting the refugee crises in Turkey and Jordan, and asked about the resources we were providing to aid them. Harper assured him that they were providing aid, and that a military action did not preclude a humanitarian response. After a round of the same again in French, Trudeau also asked about the Environment Commissioner’s damning report — switching between French and English. Harper retorted that the Liberals had one of the worst records in the world.
Roundup: Deployment debate continues
As the debate on the Iraq combat deployment carries on, with the vote set for later tonight, there are already questions as to just how effective air strikes can actually be given that ISIS has already taken lessons to heart about scattering in advance of a raid and reforming after the planes leave. In other words, could that really be the right use of forces. The government made a bit of a show of also adding another $10 million in aid yesterday, including for victims of sexual violence, which the NDP had specifically asked for – but the NDP responded that it’s not really enough to do anything, and then moved an amendment to the government motion to forbid combat and impose strict time limits. (Aaron Wherry recaps the debate here). Liberal advisor and potential candidate, former lieutenant general Andrew Leslie, made the case that an armed non-combat relief mission was a better use of resources because it wouldn’t divide our attention and resources the way doing both combat and aid would, while Roland Paris later noted on P&P that Canada didn’t necessarily need to participate in combat operations, but simply needed to be part of the coalition to help give political cover and legitimacy to the US-led operation. Hillary Clinton, during her speech in Ottawa yesterday, said that military intervention against ISIS was critical – but also not enough to really stop them. Andrew Coyne writes that there is no safe moral ground in this particular fight.