Despite it being caucus day, where most MPs are present and the energy level is high as they get pumped up before QP. Well, today it wasn’t terribly raucous, with one or two minor exceptions. Thomas Mulcair led off with reading a condemnation about Senator Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses, but Harper, not surprisingly, rejected the characterisation, and said that her travel costs were in line with other parliamentarians from that region. When Mulcair brought Brazeau up, Harper reminded him that the NDP played a part in inviting him to be on the floor of the Commons for the residential schools apology. For his final supplemental, Mulcair read a question about the Human Rights Watch report on the abuse of Aboriginal women and girls by RCMP officers, and Harper said that he was aware of the report and asked that anyone with more information come forward. Niki Ashton picked up that question — but insisted on standing in front of her desk rather than behind it for some reason— to which Vic Toews said that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission was going to look into it. Bob Rae was up next, and wondered why it would go to the complaints commission and not have another police force investigate it like would happen in a criminal complaint. Harper rather bizarrely returned to his point about people with information about these crimes giving that information to the appropriate bodies.
Tag Archives: First Nations
QP: Bombast and rejected characterisations
With all party leaders back in the House today, things got started with Thomas Mulcair reading a screed about the “corruption” in the Senate, to which Harper rejected the categorisation and noted how quickly they responded to the allegations. Mulcair moved onto the “fraud” of the Saskatchewan push-polls, earning him a warning from the Speaker about QP being for government business, not party business, but Harper responded anyway, talking about how everyone had a right to give input to the electoral boundaries process. For his final question, Mulcair asked about job creation, giving Harper a chance to tout his record. Peggy Nash was up next, asking about long-term unemployment and changes to EI, for which Jim Flaherty gave a rundown of their job creation numbers with a tone of exasperation. Bob Rae was up next for the Liberals, and taking up the theme of Bell’s Let’s Talk day about mental health, and wondered why recommendations by the Mental Health Commission. Harper reminded him that they set up the commission, and that they were looking to their recommendations going forward. For his final question, Rae asked about a parliamentary inquiry into murdered and missing Aboriginal women, but Harper
Roundup: A questionable CIDA grant
CIDA is funding a homophobic Christian group to do work in Uganda – you know, a country that Harper and Baird have called out for their government-sponsored anti-gay legislation, and one of the reasons why Uganda is no longer part of the Commonwealth? I have to wonder what John Baird thinks of this, considering how much he’s touted gay rights as part of Canada’s foreign policy – much to his credit. I can’t imagine he’ll be happy, but I also don’t imagine that anyone will take the blame except for the bureaucrats who “made the decision” when this gets brought up in QP today.
Senator Mike Duffy’s “neighbours” in PEI say that they never see him, and cast doubt on some of his other claims, like how much he’d allegedly spent in converting his cottage there into a year-round residence. Just to keep that particular story of residency requirements going (seeing as it could mean his removal from the job).
Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter
In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.
QP: Twisting words
It was a frosty Monday in Ottawa, with a bitter wind blowing from the west. None of the three main party leaders were in the House, but the ranks weren’t quite sparse enough to consider it a Friday QP on a Monday. Things started off with David Christopherson angrily reading off a question about protecting pensions, to which Gary Goodyear touted the ways in which the government has improved pensions. He then moved onto the topic of the supposed “quotas” for EI and Diane Finley apparently calling EI recipients “bad guys” (even though she did not such thing, but called people who abuse EI bad guys, and hey, remember when the NDP were all in a knot about the “bald-faced lies” about the carbon tax farce? Funny how that works, no?) John Baird — apparently the back-up PM du jour — insisted that Finley never said that, and yay for stamping out fraud. Nicole Turmel was up next, asking the same questions in French, and got the same responses from Goodyear and Finley. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about youth unemployment and demanding a freeze on “payroll taxes.” Baird was back up, touting their Economic Action Plan™, for what it’s worth. Stéphane Dion closed the round, decrying the “job-killing EI reform” and how it would destroy seasonal industries. Small surprise, Diane Finley got up to deny that was the case.
Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences
University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.
Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.
QP: Not taking a clear no for an answer
It was a blustery day in Ottawa, and despite the gale-force winds, MPs made their way up to the Hill to conduct the business of the nation. With Thomas Mulcair absent today, Megan Leslie led off by reading a pair of questions on the Crown-First Nations relationship, given that it was the topic of their Opposition Day motion. Harper responded that a strong economy benefits all Canadians, be they Anglophone, Francophone, Aboriginal, or new Canadians. For her last question, Leslie asked about that rogue Conservative backbencher who wants the RCMP to investigate late-term abortions, to which Harper yet again reminded her that the issue is settled and they’re not reopening the debate. Peggy Nash was up next, and after first wishing Jim Flaherty a speedy recovery from his rare skin condition, she asked about the high level of youth unemployment. Keller Lietch got to answer her today, and she recited a bunch of good news talking points about job numbers. Bob Rae once again led off with a question about graduation rates for Aboriginal youth, and Harper once again assured him that the government was making concrete steps to improve education for First Nations youth. Rae then turned to the increase in EI premiums at a time of sluggish economic growth, to which Harper gave a rambling answer about paying for the EI programme and how the opposition wants to create a “45-day work year.”
Roundup: Context on Clarity and “Unity”
Political scientist Emmett Macfarlane takes apart the NDP’s “Unity Act” on replacing the Clarity Act with the Sherbrooke Declaration. Shorter version: the NDP is wrong about everything in it. Paul Wells then takes a crack at it, and reminds the NDP of just what was in the Supreme Court reference, and about the importance of this little thing called the constitution, and how anything to do with secession is actually pretty complex business, what with amending it in order to take Quebec out, and how there are explicit sections in that Supreme Court reference that the NDP are outright ignoring. Meanwhile, it seems that the bare minimum would be even less than that because the NDP’s proposal doesn’t take voter turnout into account. So yeah, there’s that.
Senator Patrick Brazeau and Conservative MP Royal Gallipeau were publicly belittling Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence at a local fundraiser for a provincial candidate. Gallipeau did have some more constructive comments afterward regarding his visit to Victoria Island over the Christmas break, but it still is a bit distasteful what went down.
QP: Benefitting all Canadians
As Wednesdays are caucus days, the MPs tend to be fired up, and QP a little more boisterous. Today was about average when it comes to energy levels and decorum, for what it’s worth. QP got underway with Thomas Mulcair reading off questions about youth unemployment costing the economy $21 billion. Harper responded that job creation and economic prosperity was his government’s top priority and look at all of the jobs that have been created. Mulcair ended by asking pretty much the exact same question on First Nations education as the previous two days, to which Harper touted the 250 newly-built and renovated schools on reserves. Jean Crowder was up next to ask about releasing documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Residential Schools, to which John Duncan said that they were reviewing the court decision on documents but intended to comply with the spirit of it. Bob Rae asked about low First Nation graduation rates, and why their issues weren’t mentioned in his caucus speech that morning. Harper said that their commitment to economic prosperity was to all Canadians. Rae moved onto the issue of EI and those without public transport, quoting Diane Finley’s explanation for why she bills for limo service as there is no transit in her riding, so why not that single mother in PEI. While Finley had a good laugh, Harper assured Rae that EI will always available to those who need it. For his final question, Rae turned his attention to the replacement of the PBO, and Harper replied that the office will be there to provide non-partisan advice (which really does seem to be quite the insinuation against Kevin Page).
Roundup: Like clockwork, here comes the decorum distraction
Like clockwork, Nathan Cullen unveiled yet another new idea for improving decorum in the Commons – giving the Speaker the powers to suspend misbehaving MPs and dock their pay. You know, something that’s unlikely to get signoff from everyone, while he ignores the name-calling that his own caucus engages in, or the fact that the Speaker has plenty of powers already but doesn’t wield them because it becomes a very slippery slope to determine what constitutes “misrepresentation of facts.” And, like MP Michelle Rempel tweeted in response, “Here’s a thought – we’re all adults, maybe we could take personal ownership for how we conduct ourselves in the House.” Because that might be too novel of an idea in an era where we infantilise MPs to the extent that they can’t even speak for themselves without being handed a script. (Aaron Wherry wonders about the question of incivility based on yesterday’s QP here).