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).
Tag Archives: Immigration
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.”
QP: The Great Prairie Grain Crisis
As the sitting week winds down in advance of the two-week March break, there was a definite feel of that very same happening in the House. Thomas Mulcair, the only leader present, led off by asking about the bottleneck of grain shipments on the prairies, for which Pierre Lemieux — a parliamentary secretary and not even a designated back-up PM du jour — assured him that they were working to address the logistics system. Mulcair gave an angry retort and demanded that Lisa Raitt answer the question, but Lemieux repeated his answer as the Conservative benches mocked Mulcair’s angry growl. Mulcair moved to the issue of voter information cards, and Pierre Poilievre listed possible kinds of ID that could be used. Mulcair brought up Marc Mayrand’s concerns about the ability to dress-up campaign advertising as fundraising under the elections bill, but Poilievre reminded him that the NDP leadership allowed the very same thing. Mulcair closed his round by saying that Mayrand demolished their arguments about voter fraud, but Poilievre disputed the factuality of that assertion. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, pointing out a section of the Railway Act that the minister of transport could use to get the grain on the prairies moving, but Lemieux stood up to deliver his same talking points. Goodale turned to the coming drop in funding for the Building Canada Fund, but Denis Lebel insisted that they tripled funding for infrastructure over the ten years.
Roundup: Checking in with the props
With all of the talk about the future of the income splitting promise in doubt, Jennifer Ditchburn checks in with the family that was used as the prop for the announcement during the last election. She found that they’re not really Conservative party members, and they’re waiting to see what else gets proposed instead of income splitting before they make up their minds. Stephen Maher notes Kenney’s intrusion into the file, and how he continues to stoke the social conservative base, which may be in support of his likely leadership bid.
QP: Dodging and weaving around promises
With a Team Canada hockey game going on, the members were distracted as QP got underway, and there were a great many empty seats dotting the chamber. Even more, only Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were the only leaders present. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, and wondered if income splitting was to be abandoned. Jim Flaherty rose to assure her that they were committed to tax relief for families, and that the opposition voted against income splitting for seniors. Leslie pressed, and Flaherty hit back about how only the Conservatives lowered taxes. Leslie turned to the elections bill and wondered why the government was reluctant to allow cross-country consultations. Pierre Poilievre insisted that he consulted outside of Ottawa and heard their complaints. David Christopherson shouted the same question again in English, to which Poilievre insisted that the opposition simply needed to submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and they would be bring them in. Trudeau returned to the issue of income splitting, and how Kenney rebuked his own caucus members by saying they always keep their promises. With that established, Trudeau wondered what happened to the patient wait time guarantee. After some hesitation, Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that billions had been invested in the problem. Trudeau then wondered about the promise to lower the price of diesel fuel, to which Flaherty dodged by insisted that they lowered all kinds of taxes. For his final question, Trudeau wondered about the promised oil and gas regulations, but Leona Aglukkaq skated and tried to accuse the Liberals of letting the infrastructure in national parks lapse.
QP: In the shadow of the budget lock-up
With less than two hours to go before the budget is released, and a number of the seats in the Commons remained empty, but all three main leaders were present. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if the Prime Minister would remove the “gag order” from the the elections bill, to which Harper assured him that there was no such provision in the bill, but several sections that require him to act. Mulcair insisted that no, his reading was correct, and Harper assured him that there was no orchestrated fraud in the last election, but for the next election there would be an independent investigator. Mulcair asked about a section of the bill that doesn’t count communication with past donors, and Harper insisted that party fundraising shouldn’t be included as political communications. Mulcair hammered away at that, but Harper insisted that the only cheating was the NDP using union money. Mulcair closed off with a question of robocalls in the last election — ostensibly party business — but Harper didn’t bite. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the lapsing Labour Market Agreements, but Harper insisted that his government invested in job training programmes. Trudeau wanted an assurance that this year, the government wouldn’t start advertising any proposed budget measures that hadn’t yet passed, especially during the Olympics. Harper responded with a jab that the Liberals didn’t have any policies worth advertising.
Roundup: More concerns about the elections bill
By day two of examining the Fair Elections Act, more of the flaws have become apparent – limiting the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to speak publicly, leaving the job of promoting elections to parties – who tend to only target likely voters and would be in danger of entrenching disenfranchisement, the end of the “vouching” system likely to disenfranchise more marginalised voters, and no real oversight of parties themselves during elections. Even more concerning – even to former CEO Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who has been otherwise in favour of the bill – is the provision that exempts the party from counting fundraising expenses for anyone who has donated over $20 to the party over the past year. In other words, it’s a backdoor loophole to keep an increasingly costly practice from counting against spending limits. Oh, and after a whole two hours of debate, the government moved time allocation. Because we apparently can’t have too much democracy. Canadian Dissensus finds even more problems with moving the Commissioner of Elections over to the Director of Public Prosecution’s desk. Kady O’Malley writes how the provisions on limiting bequests will likely disadvantage the NDP the most.
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: 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.