For the first time in weeks, Stephen Harper was in the House for QP, as were all of the other leaders. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the repudiation for the Nadon appointment, and wanted a commitment that they would not attempt to reappoint him. Harper said that they would comply with the letter and the spirit of the ruling, and that the NDP didn’t have any objection to appointing a justice from the Federal Court. Mulcair asked about the fundraiser who travelled on the Challenger jet with Harper. Harper assured him that it was his practice to have those flights reimbursed at the commercial rate. Mulcair pressed, and alleged that the flight was a reward for fundraising, but Harper didn’t take the bait. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the elections bill and its repudiation by experts across the board. Harper retorted that the NDP opposed the bill without reading it, but shrugged off any further criticism. Justin Trudeau returned to the empty seat on the Supreme Court, and wondered when a new justice would be appointed. Harper reminded him that all of the parties supported having a judge appointed from the Federal Court and accused Trudeau of trying to politicise the appointment. Trudeau moved onto the cut to the Building Canada Fund, to which Harper insisted that they were making record investments, before making a crack about Trudeau’s definition of the middle class.
Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity
Roundup: Not denying the trail of evidence
The fallout from the departure of Dimitri Soudas continued around the Nation’s Capital yesterday, with Soudas giving this somewhat overdone defence of his “resignation” as doing it for the woman he loves, while other sources from within the party started to paint a picture of Soudas breaking his contract, with a data trail with his fingerprints on it leading to access to the party’s voter database and phone records that shoed hundreds of calls made to the riding where Eve Adams is contesting the nomination. Apparently he didn’t deny the allegations resulting from that investigation, and then he was out. There was also apparently pushback from the rest of the party leading up to the end, so it seems likely that Harper couldn’t ignore any problems with Soudas any longer. This now leaves a hole in Harper’s election organizing planning, as well as more questions about his judgement when it comes to appointments – adding to the long list that includes Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin, and other appointments like Christiane Ouimet, Arthur Porter, and now Justice Nadon./
Roundup: A debate that won’t see the light of day
Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher is introducing two Private Member’s Bills on assisted suicide in order to get the debate on the agenda. The problem with this, of course, is that a) he would only have one slot for Private Member’s Business, so introducing two bills means one of them won’t see the light of day, and b) as Fletcher was a minister, his debate slot is at nearly the bottom of the list, as he only got it after he was dropped from cabinet, so it remains unlikely to see the light of day. Nevertheless, with the court challenges going on, it is a good reminder that Parliament should be debating these kinds of issues, but we all know that they are reluctant to, and try to fob off the hard work to the courts so that they can be seen to be dragged into doing something about it.
QP: No intention of giving a detailed analysis
With Stephen Harper now in Germany as his European trip carries on, and with Thomas Mulcair in Winnipeg, the only leaders present were Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. Deputy leader David Christopherson led off by asking about the vouching provisions in the elections bill, to which Pierre Poilievre gave a soliloquy about voter irregularities. Christopherson brought up the robocall registry requirements, to which Poilievre said that the current requirement is zero, so the one year requirement was better. Christopherson moved onto the party fundraisers riding government jets, to which Paul Calandra insisted that the value of the flights were reimbursed, though he neglected to say that the rate of reimbursement was lower than that of an economy flight during a seat sale. Nycole Turmel asked the same again in French and got the same answer, and same with a boilerplate question about the elections bill. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and asked about cuts to climate change offices in Environment Canada. Leona Aglukkaq responded that they had cut projected emissions without a carbon tax, which basically meant nothing at all. Trudeau brought up the cuts to the Building Canada Fund, to which Peter Braid responded with a weak sauce “thousands of billions” quip before touting all of their infrastructure investments (neglecting to mention that those funds are back-end loaded).
Roundup: Kingsley’s revised praise
Former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley appeared at committee yesterday to give testimony on the Fair Elections Act, and said that unless vouching was reinstated, he could neither support the bill, and said that it could be considered unconstitutional. He also took issue with the provisions that would limit the CEO’s communications with Canadians, that allow parties to contact past donors without counting it as an expense, and for putting the Commissioner of Elections under the eye of the Director of Public Prosecutions – but you know that Pierre Poilievre will only focus on the things that Kinsley liked about the bill. Canadian Dissensus gives a superlative takedown of the bill and Poilievre’s defence of it.
QP: Fundraisers on jets
Tuesday, and most of the leaders were in the House, but Harper was still not back from the G7 meeting at The Hague. Thomas Mulcair led off by bringing up a story on iPolitics about how the Prime Minister used government aircraft for party fundraisers. Paul Calandra responded with a scripted response about how the RCMP won’t let the PM fly commercial and they use the Challengers less than the Liberals did, and by the way, you abuse taxpayers with your branch offices where you have no members. Mulcair shot back that the Government Whip said they followed all of the rules, and asked about those flights yet again, while Calandra whipped up his rhetorical flight. Mulcair tried to ask about spending safeguards in the Senate, and used the justification that the House approves the Senate’s allowance. Calandra noted their efforts to make the Senate more accountable and that they would see wrongdoers published. Justin Trudeau got up for the Liberals, and congratulated the government for the trade agreement with South Korea and when would the details be made available. There was some confusion on the government benches that it wasn’t an attack to deflect, and Erin O’Toole stood to give a talking point about how great trade with Korea would be. Trudeau then asked about vacancy on the Supreme Court, to which Peter MacKay said that they were examining the Nadon ruling and would be acting “post haste.”
Roundup: Voiding Nadon’s appointment
It really was a blow to Stephen Harper, and his judgement when making appointments. The Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision rebuked not only the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court, but also the declaratory provisions passed in the omnibus budget implementation bill that made the appointment okay. Nadon never was a Supreme Court justice and remains a supernumerary justice on the Federal Court of Appeal, his appointment and swearing in ceremony null and void. There was a lot of reaction to the decision, including from Justin Trudeau who pointed out that this is a sign that Harper couldn’t even get the big things right, which puts his judgement into question (ironic, since that’s what the Conservatives are trying to attack Trudeau about). The Toronto lawyer who brought forward the challenge wonders why it was left up to him, a private citizen, to do something about the government’s attempt at subverting the constitution, and on his own dime. Adam Dodek walks Maclean’s through the decision, and in a separate op-ed says the ruling represents the entrenchment of the Court’s constitutional independence, and a serious blow to the “transparent” appointment process that Harper put into place. Emmett Macfarlane goes further into the repudiation of the appointment process, and says that the consequences of this decision will almost certainly mean doom for the government’s Senate reform reference. Carissima Mathen, who appeared at committee and said that the declaratory provisions were doomed to fail (and was mocked for it) gets the last laugh. Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler draws the lessons from the whole affair as to the flawed appointment process, the government’s own delays in selection, and their ignoring the warnings that Nadon’s appointment was going to present a problem.
Roundup: A branch office in Montreal
The Liberals have big questions about the NDP’s “branch office” in Montreal, which they claim is totally for coordinating parliamentary work and is totally not doing any partisan work – really! Note that the NDP complained when the Bloc had an office set up in Montreal paid for out of Parliamentary funds, but when they do it, it’s not problem. What I find intensely curious about the whole affair is not only the way in which several of these staffers have dual titles, and that a number of them are labelled as “outreach.” The thing that I finds a little disturbing is the way that this points to a concerning level of central control when it comes to their MPs and staff, far and above the particular level of centralisation they already have with staffers on the Hill. Suffice to say, it all does look a bit suspicious.
Roundup: Denying a green light
Drama in the Liberal ranks in preparation for a by-election in Trinity Spadina, as the nomination front-runner was apparently refused a green light from the Ontario Campaign Co-Chair because Christine Innes and her husband, former MP and junior minister Tony Ianno were accused of intimidating and bullying volunteers. Apparently they were telling these volunteers that their futures in the party would be over if they were on the “wrong side” of a nomination battle, meaning the future riding redistribution and their support for Chrystia Freeland. Innes put out a statement alleging backroom strong-arm tactics and that she refused to be “assigned” a riding to run in, which went against the promise of open nominations. The party responded that it was a request to keep candidates focused on the by-election, and not future nomination battles against incumbent MPs, which sounds like what the intimidation was about. As the battle waged over Twitter, the partisan concern trolling from all sides got cute, but the accusations of sexism because she was denied the green light over the actions of her husband do seem a bit over the top.
QP: Statements instead of answers on Ukraine
After a busy weekend of foreign affairs matters, given the situation in Ukraine, it appeared that everyone forgot about the House as none of the major leaders were present, and there were a lot of empty desks. (It should be noted that Trudeau is at home with his new baby). To add insult to injury, Stephen Harper was holding a media event while in Toronto at the same time. So much for the primacy of the Commons. Leading off for the NDP, Megan Leslie asked about what the government has said to Vladimir Putin about the situation in Ukraine, and Deepak Obhrai read a statement in response. Leslie asked about how many Canadians were in the country and what was done to contact them, to which Obhrai assured her that they were in touch with those Canadians. Leslie changed topics and brought up the objections to the elections bill by Preston Manning and Harry Neufeld, but Pierre Poilievre recited the parts of the bill that Manning liked. Nycole Turmel repeated the same in French, and got the same response. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and returned to the situation in Ukraine, asking about the status of Russia in the G8. Obhrai repeated his previous statement of condemnation. Goodale changed topics to municipal infrastructure funding and the cuts to the Building Canada Fund. Denis Lebel insisted that the premise was false, and that they had tripled infrastructure funding. Dominic LeBlanc closed the round by asking the same in French, and got the same response.