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.
Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity
Roundup: Poilievre’s questionable moves
Being released today is the new election reform act brought forward by the government which promises to reshape Elections Canada. And yes, the opposition is nervous. Already there are questions as to why Pierre Poilievre was selective in his answers to the House yesterday during QP when he said that he had met with the Chief Electoral Officer about the bill. That meeting, however, was before it was drafted, and not about the actual provision or language of the bill, which is kind of a big deal. One of the big questions about the bill is the provision that the new Commissioner of Elections be appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the Chief Electoral Officer, and how that will affect his or her independence. Oh, and the most egregious part? That Poilievre is having his press conference to announce the bill before the technical briefing for reporters takes place. You know, so they won’t have time to read it or understand it before asking questions. Because that’s not a cynical move designed to frustrate the media and keep things as opaque as possible.
QP: Sedate questions sans Fantino
Monday in the House, and the benches slowly filled up before QP was about to get started, but Elizabeth May was the only leader present. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin in the Chair, and the Wooden Mace on the table. That left it up to Megan Leslie to lead off for the NDP, wondering about Julian Fantino’s union-bashing rather than supporting veterans. Parm Gill, Fantino’s parliamentary secretary, insisted that veterans would be better off with the new system as there would be more home delivery of service. Leslie moved onto the topic of CSE using airport Wifi to track travellers, to which Rob Nicholson repeated the talking point that the CSE Commissioner found their activities to be within the law. Jack Harris repeated the same again in English, not that he got a different answer. For the Liberals, Wayne Easter carried on with the questions of CSE’s activities, but Nicholson’s answers didn’t change. When Easter brought up the Commissioner’s report in which he stated that some of the activities may have been directed at Canadians in contravention of the law, Nicholson’s answers didn’t budge from their script. Marc Garneau have one last attempt at the question in French, but Nicholson insisted that CSE was in the business of protecting Canadians, and that should have the support of the Liberals.
Roundup: Reorganizing Elections Canada?
It sounds like the election reform bill will be tabled soon – possibly this week – and sources are saying that it will reorganize Elections Canada, removing the Commissioner of Elections from the organisation into its own standalone office. It also sounds like the Chief Electoral Officer has not thus far been consulted on the bill, so we’ll see just how problematic that actually ends up being.
QP: Fantino gives assurances
With things having calmed down on the Hill somewhat after yesterday’s excitement, and only one major leader in the House, it was certainly a much more sedate day in the Chamber. Mulcair opened with a series of questions about the closures of veteran service centres, and wanted to know if the Conservatives would be allowed a free vote on their opposition day motion. Julian Fantino, in his robotic monotone, insisted that there were over 600 points of service that were nearby these veterans, even when it was pointed out that one the nearest Service Canada centre to one the closed veterans centre in Newfoundland is eight hours away. Stéphane Dion led off for the Liberals, and asked about the recent job numbers. Andrew Saxton touted the government’s job creation record. Scott Brison got up to demand a real plan for jobs, but Saxton disputed his figures, and on the supplemental, Saxton read off a list of programmes the government brought in.
Roundup: Reverberations from the Senate bombshell
So, that whole Justin Trudeau expelling senators from caucus thing. It was a very interesting day to say the least. Trudeau’s speech, with all of its populist bilge about the Senate being “broken” can be found here. Senate Liberal leader (as he is now styled) James Cowan posted some thoughts on what the change means and how it’s more about solving the problem of the perception that Trudeau was issuing orders to his senate caucus when he really wasn’t, and you can see him discuss this on Power & Politics here. And yes, there seems to be some differing ideas on what “independent” means – who would have thought? My own column about the move looks at why it’s a problem with respect to responsible government and the loss of experience in caucus. Emmett Macfarlane, whom the Liberals consulted on the move, writes that there is nothing fundamentally unworkable about a “non-partisan” Senate, and that Trudeau’s move is an attempt at a culture change in the Chamber. Here’s more reaction from Paul Wells, John Geddes, and Michael Den Tandt. Senator Joyal is torn about the move and worries about the loss of collegiality, which is a very good point – it’s easier to use the Senate as a punching bag if you don’t have to see senators at caucus meetings. The NDP are making noise that Trudeau opposed their opposition day motion “on the very same thing” back in the fall, but as you can see, it’s not the same thing, especially as the House can’t legislate the Senate’s activities.
QP: Calls for Fantino’s head
While the shock waves of the morning’s bombshell from Justin Trudeau reverberated around the Hill, it was in the Commons where there was the smell of blood in the water. Thomas Mulcair led off with a demand that Julian Fantino apologise for the way he treated those veterans yesterday. Stephen Harper stood up to declare how much his government had done for veterans. Mulcair switched to English, and demanded Fantino’s resignation, but Harper insisted that Fantino had apologised. Mulcair went on to drive home the point about their “support” for veterans by brining up the case of a family of a veteran who committed suicide where the department wanted repayment for benefits. Harper said that once the minister was made aware, he took action. Mulcair carried on about the closure of veterans offices while ministerial staff was being increased, but Harper insisted that the minister took action when the bureaucrats made a mistake, and that it was the unions that didn’t like the closures. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the loss of individual case workers for veterans, but Harper insisted that they were increasing points of service. Justin Trudeau was up next, and rather plainly asked for Harper to fire Fantino. Harper repeated their pledges of support for veterans and the men and women in uniform. Trudeau changed topics and made the suggestion that Harper set his own senators free as he did — to gales of laughter in the Conservative and NDP benches. Harper made a jab about unelected Liberal senators and Senator Cowan’s declaration that little would change.
Roundup: Neil Young vs. the facts
Canadian rock legend Neil Young has resumed his attack against the oilsands and the government, but along the way has decided that he’d make up a bunch of facts about the place. Things like the air quality there, which is supposed to be this burning toxic smog. Except that it’s not. My father works in the area, and has yet to say anything about the air quality, and he lived in China for several years and knows what poor air quality is really like. Or Young’s assertion that all of the oil sands product is headed to China. Really? How exactly is it getting to the coast? You know that whole issue about the Northern Gateway pipeline, or the possibility of rail transporting oil to Kitimat, which isn’t actually accepting those shipments because tankers aren’t coming into that inlet just yet? Yeah, that. It’s too bad that Young couldn’t inject a little bit of fact into his argument because while there are plenty of reasons to argue against the development of the oilsands, one might think that reality might be a good place to start.
Roundup: Dismal job numbers
There was some abysmal job numbers released yesterday, which sent the dollar plummeting, and a fresh round of wailing and gnashing of teeth from opposition MPs who demand a jobs strategy, which one imagines pretty much means new infrastructure programmes. Maclean’s Econowatch says that the numbers are showing that Flaherty’s wait-and-see approach to the economic recovery seems to be failing.
It appears that the government has already spent some $1.7 billion on the Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters, despite only a couple of training versions having thus far been delivered (but not actually accepted by the government because they’re not up to snuff). The price tag and the fact that the government decided to proceed with the process as is leads critics to believe the procurement has become “too big to fail.”
Roundup: Strahl, Enbridge, and no broken rules
In regards to the hysteria around Chuck Strahl consulting on behalf of Enbridge in BC, it seems that Enbridge has been a client of his since 2011 – at least, with regards to any activities on the provincial level. He’s also registered in Alberta to lobby for a First Nations energy that is drilling for oil on its territory with a Chinese-financed company. Can’t you just see all of the conspiracy theories churning? But as Kady O’Malley points out, because the chairmanship of SIRC is considered a part-time gig (as they meet less than a dozen times per year), he’s exempt from many of the restrictions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Strahl also has stated that he’s not hearing any CSIS cases that involve Enbridge or any of his other clients, there’s no real conflict there.