Peter Penashue’s “inexperienced” former official agents says that the corporate donation was “unintentionally” accepted, that Penashue himself didn’t know about the donation, and that the last four or five days of the campaign, “all hell was breaking loose” trying to get money in before the deadline, so the rush totally explains all of the ineligible donations. So really, it’s nobody’s fault because nobody takes responsibility for the documents they signed off on, right? Well, maybe not. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, notes that as the Elections Canada investigative process continues, charges may yet be laid, though not in time for the by-election. The CBC’s David Cochrane looks at the whole affair from the local angle and wonders if Labradoreans want a cabinet minister or to re-elect someone who ran an incompetent campaign and blames others for mistakes that he was responsible for.
Tag Archives: Fiscal Austerity
Roundup: 28 ineligible donations, $47K overspent
It seems that Peter Penashue accepted 28 different improper or illegal donations during the last election, and overspent his campaign by $47,000. You know, small change, and apparently he keeps claiming that it’s not his fault. Err, except that he signed off on all of it, and as the former Chief Electoral Officer said, those signatures mean something, and when the Elections Commissioner completes his investigation, this may yet result in criminal charges – albeit not before the by-election will be called, unfortunately. Laura Payton asks the outstanding questions about what happened in the Labrador election, and Peter Penashue’s resignation – most of it revolving around the money (most of which came from the party itself, it seems). Meanwhile, the former leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberals has announced that she will contest the nomination for the Labrador by-election. She may yet have to battle Todd Russell for that nomination if he decides to throw his hat back in the ring.
Roundup: A Métis victory
The Métis of Manitoba won a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that states that the government didn’t fully implement the 1870 promise that led to the creation of Manitoba in the first place. And while there was no remedy attached – so no, Winnipeg, you don’t have to worry about being displaced – it will be interesting to see how this moves forward now that there is this recognition.
Jim Flaherty met with private sector economists yesterday and declared that he was confident in the budget – whenever it may be tabled – thanks to good job numbers.
Jason Kenney says that the lower-than-promised refugee resettlement numbers are due in large part to the civil war in Syria. After promising to resettle a large number of Iraqi refugees who had fled to Syria, well, we can’t process them effectively with a civil war in that country having wreaked havoc with diplomatic missions and resettlement logistics.
QP: Trolling for support for abolition
It was a lovely Wednesday in the Nation’s Capital, the sun out, the snow melting. It being caucus day, the benches were almost full, and the energy level was high. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading a pair of questions designed to troll for support for his Senate abolition motion, but Harper wasn’t going to take the bait, and said that he favoured electing Senators because everybody knows that the provinces won’t agree to abolition. For his final supplemental, Mulcair turned to the issue of EI training funds, which Harper assured him that they were consulting widely on. Chris Charlton picked up on the same topic, to which Ted Menzies got to deliver the points about consultation and how training was helping with the economy. For the Liberals, Bob Rae asked about unemployment figures comparing between October 2008 and today, and whether the budget would address that. Harper didn’t really respond, but simply said that the Liberals voted against their job creating measures. Rae turned to the unilateral decision to reclaim the EI training fund, to which Harper said such a move would go against Rae’s assertion that they weren’t doing anything about the unemployed. For his final question, Rae asked why there hasn’t been an inquiry into security breaches like the Dr. Arthur Porter and Jeffrey Delisle, to which Harper gave the usual non-answer about Porter’s time at SIRC being unrelated to the allegations against him.
Roundup: Myth, folklore and intellectual dishonesty
So, yesterday was…enlightening. If you call the “debate” on Senate abolition, using incorrect facts, intellectual dishonesty, and treating the constitution as a suggestion to be informed debate, that is. It boggles the mind that the NDP, who claims to champion decisions based on things like science, to turn around and use myth, folklore and figures pulled entirely out of context to back up an ideological and civically illiterate position. For example, they claim the Senate only sits an average of 56 days per year – never mind that the figure aggregates election years (of which we’ve had quite a few of late) with non-election years, and only counts days in which the Chamber itself sits. Never mind the fact that committees sit on days when the Chamber itself doesn’t, that Senate committees often sit longer than Commons committees, or the additional days of committee travel for studies that they undertake, and that the Senate sat 88 days last year – being a non-election year. But those are mere details that get in the way of a good quip. And then there were Thomas Mulcair’s interviews – while he avoided directly answering whether or not he would theoretically appoint NDP Senators were he to form a government in the future, he neglected to figure that in refusing to do so, he would be in violation of the Constitution. You see, it’s one of the duties spelled out that must be done – the GG shall appoint Senators, and that is always done on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s not a may appoint – it’s a shall, an instruction or command. To refuse to appoint Senators is an abrogation of constitutional responsibilities, but hey, it’s not like wanton constitutional vandalism isn’t the whole backbone of the discussion in the first place. And then Mulcair skated around the question of how he would deal with regional representation if the Senate were to be abolished. He gave some vague response about discussing it with the provinces, neglecting that one of the founding principles of the Senate was to balance out the representation-by-population of the Commons so that smaller provinces wouldn’t be swamped. And if Mulcair thinks that simply tinkering with the Commons seat distribution formula to somehow protect the smaller provinces, well, he’s further overcomplicating the principle of rep-by-pop that the Chamber is founded on. But once again, let’s just let constitutional vandalism slide with some pithy slogans. It’s not like it’s important or anything.
QP: Not recognising the best finance minister in the world
Interrupting a day of debate on wanton constitutional vandalism, QP started off with Thomas Mulcair reading off a question about EI auditors “shadowing” claimants, to which Harper responded with some bog-standard response about EI being there when they need it. Mulcair then moved onto a question about Flaherty’s back-and-forth policy changes without consultation, and treated the Peter DeVries and Scott Clark article as though they were still currently employed by the department. Harper sang Flaherty’s praises in response. Mulcair carried on, citing Flaherty’s breach of ethics over the CRTC letter, not that Harper’s vigorous praises were diminished any less. Chris Charlton finished off the leader’s round, asking about EI training funds, but Jim Flaherty assured her that they consulted broadly on the budget. Bob Rae was up next, keeping up the issue of the EI training funds, but Harper touted just how transparent his government is as a non-sequitur response. Rae then brought up Dr. Arthur Porter’s party donations while he was SIRC chair, and wondered how he managed to escape a security clearance. Harper insisted that none of the allegations against Porter had to do with his time at SIRC — skirting the issue of donations. For his final question, Rae wondered why there wasn’t an inquiry into Jeffrey Delisle’s security breaches, but Harper told him that they’re not unique to Canada, and brought up the Bradley Manning case in the States.
QP: Specious and unclever comparisons
Monday afternoon, and MPs were still filtering back into Ottawa after the weekend. Thomas Mulcair started things off by reading questions on EI inspectors’ guidelines, and how the government could justify that kind of invasion of privacy. James Moore, the designated back-up PM du jour, accused Mulcair of fear-mongering. Mulcair then moved onto the specious comparison between the Senate and its “honour system” and the EI inspections. Moore pointed out that Mulcair was happy to trash people without offering any particular solutions for reform. Alexandre Boulerice was up next, and continued to decry said “honour system” (not that this has anything to do with the business of the Commons, and never mind that MPs’ books are even more opaque). Poilievre stood up to speak to Boulerice’s separatist credentials instead of answering. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals next, wondering about the government’s curious plans for dealing with slow economic growth by means of more austerity and curtailing competition. Moore instead insisted that the Liberals had no credible economic plans. Rae asked then about the EI inspections, not that Moore’s answer differed much. For his final question, Rae asked about how security clearances have become more lax under the present government. Moore insisted that the allegations against Dr. Arthur Porter had nothing to do with his time as an appointee.
Roundup: Attack ads and shadow MPs
The NDP are launching anti-Conservative attack ads in Quebec. Because they’re the party that wants to raise the tone of debate and end the politics of division! They’ve also declared that MP Dany Morin will act as a kind of “shadow MP” for Claude Patry’s riding, to ensure that his constituents can still get their voices hear. Um, okay – remember when people were up in arms that the Conservatives had defeated candidates as “shadow MPs” in opposition ridings? How is this any different, really?
The government is going to scale back on their Arctic operations, as well as some training operations in other environments, because of budget cuts. Also being scaled back are plans for a naval base in the North. Remember the whole “use it or lose it” mentality that the government was applying to Arctic sovereignty? Yeah, what ever happened to that?
QP: Baird backs up everyone
The morning on the Hill was a bit of a gong show — NDP MP Claude Patry crossed the floor over to the Bloc, and Conservatives everywhere were frantically distancing themselves from Stephen Harper’s former mentor and chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, after he made comments about child pornography. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read a pair of questions about those sixteen Senators who didn’t tell the CBC about their residency, and doubted their ability to investigate themselves — you know, like MPs do. John Baird, the designated back-up PM du jour, responded by assuring him that the outside auditors had been called in for the four Senators in question. For his final question, Mulcair asked about the PBO’s report on the Joint Support Ship plans. Baird didn’t answer, but ridiculed Mulcair’s Private Member’s bill on the PBO, which would require Senate sign off for for a new PBO, even though his position on the Senate is abolition. Matthew Kellway was up next and asked the very same thing, but this time Rona Ambrose answered, touting the expertise that they have in place, but they would make any adjustments with the Navy and the Coast Guard going forward. Bob Rae wouldn’t let up, and demanded to know if those “adjustments” meant fewer ships or a bigger budget. For his final question, Bob Rae wondered about how the government went about trying to get a security clearance for Dr. Arthur Porter, and related it to other lapses like Bruce Carson. Vic Toews tried to summon high dudgeon for the opposition “abdicating” their responsibility in approving Porter’s appointment, apparently oblivious to his own abdication of accountability for the appointment.
QP: Quotas and downshifting
It’s an awful, wet day out in the Nation’s Capital, the precipitation an ugly mix of fluffy wet snow and needle-like ice pellets. Inside the Commons, QP kicked off with Thomas Mulcair reading a question about cuts to services for First Nations including policing. Harper responded that there were no cuts, and that new funds would be announced in due course. Mulcair’s second question was about Flaherty’s letter to the CRTC, to which Harper reminded him that he already answered the question the day before. Mulcair then asked a question about those Senators who have not yet responded to the CBC about their residency. Harper assured him that all Senators respect their residency requirement (though I suppose that remains to be seen). Nycole Turmel was up next to ask a pair of EI “quota” questions, speciously tying in the Senate, to which Diane Finley assured her that there were no quotas or bonuses for achieving cuts. Rae pressed on the issue of bonuses for cuts, to which Harper talked about how they wanted to ensure that EI funds were there for those who paid into them. Rae carried on about how this move was simply downshifting the unemployed onto provincial welfare rolls, but Harper insisted there was no such plan.