Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
Tag Archives: Infrastructure
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.
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.
QP: Late out of the gate
Votes at the end of a series of procedural tactics given the NDP’s opposition to time allocation on the elections bill delayed the start of QP today, and when it did get started, Thomas Mulcair was the only leader in the House — Harper off in Quebec City and Justin Trudeau in Montreal. Mulcair started off , somewhat surprisingly, with a question about the funding gap for children on First Nations reserves, and if it would be addressed in the budget. Bernard Valcourt said that funding would come with reform of the system, which has been ongoing. Mulcair moved onto the morning’s PBO report that said that public servants don’t take any more sick days than private sector employees. Tony Clement said that if one added paid and unpaid sick days, public servants were still higher than the private sector. Mulcair brought up elections bill and the fact that it gave a veto to testing new election measures to the Senate. Poilievre assured him that it was to ensure parliamentary approval for experiments, and when the NDP tried electronic voting at their convention, it didn’t work. New MP Emmanuel Dubourg led off for the Liberals, and asked about the cuts to the Building Canada infrastructure fund, and would the shortfall be restored in the budget. Kevin Sorensen waxed poetically about a brighter future for everyone in Canada. Ralph Goodale repeated the same in English, but this time Peter Braid answered, who assured him that investments in infrastructure tripled. For his final question, Goodale hammered on consumer debt levels, but Sorensen gave some “stay the course” talking points.
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: Whither Santa Claus?
With rumours that the House might rise today, there was the very real possibility that this very well could be the last QP of 2013. Without Harper or Mulcair in the House, it was likely to be another fairly perfunctory day full of Paul Calandra’s classic lines of obfuscation. When things did get started, Megan Leslie decried the failure of an NDP motion at Ethics Committee to look into the once-missing Benjamin Perrin emails, and wondered who in the PMO ordered that it be shut down. John Baird, the designated back-up PM du jour, assured her that PCO took responsibility for the mistake, and the committee was in camera so he didn’t know what happened. Leslie tried again twice to no effect, and Nycole Turmel took over in French to ask if those emails proved there was “no legal agreement” around the Duffy repayment. Baird assured her that the RCMP were looking into things. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and asked about the funding gap for First Nations education. Bernard Valcourt responded by saying that they ended a comprehensive education regime, which required legislation, and that he remained committed to fixing the system that has failed those children, with funds to flow once the framework was in place. Trudeau moved onto the topic of the replacement of the Champlain Bridge, to which Denis Lebel accused the Liberals of 13 years of inaction on the bridge, but they were committed to a replacement ahead of the original schedule. For his last question, with some rhetorical flourish, Trudeau asked if anyone in the government was embarrassed by the conduct on the ClusterDuff file. Baird responded with a bit of a quip before reverting to the talking point that one person had taken responsibility and only two people were under investigation.
Roundup: Contradictions in energy policy
Thomas Mulcair’s speech to the Economic Club of Canada wasn’t full of a lot of details, but it raised a lot of questions – especially when he started to contradict himself. While Mulcair spoke about an “alternate vision” of development, with particular attention paid to a cap-and-trade system (which he has not yet outlined), and to resurrecting the home energy refit programme. But he also said that he would remove Cabinet’s ability to override a National Energy Board decision, while in the same breath saying that he would never have allowed the Keystone XL pipeline to go for regulatory approval – even though the NEB approved it. In other words, keep cabinet out of the decisions, but arbitrarily empower cabinet to keep it from being allowed to see a decision. Logic! He reiterated that he wants to increase refining capacity in Canada, grossly inflating the number of jobs that would create and ignoring the infrastructure costs (let alone the GHG footprint), but would have denied any way for that refined product to get to market, since he wouldn’t have allowed new pipelines to get approval. Logic. And then he also claimed that he was leader in 2011, by which point the plot was lost.
QP: Questions about missing emails
As is becoming the new norm on Mondays, Thomas Mulcair was the only main leader in the House, which meant that another soul-crushing day of Paul Calandra talking points was on the way — though one could always hope for a day free of innuendo and accusation as which happened on Friday (though we could also do without his wounded complaints about how the press didn’t like his answers). Once QP got started, Mulcair immediately asked about the reappearance of those emails from Benjamin Perrin, and asked why the story changed yet again. Pierre Poilievre took this one, somewhat surprisingly, and he quoted from the letter from PCO. Mulcair asked about the “unrelated litigation” that Perrin was involved in. Poilievre indicated that he wasn’t sure, but that they were cooperating with the RCMP. Mulcair pressed, but Poilievre simply reread from the letter. When Mulcair wondered wondered an bout the integrity of the he evidence after the government has been holding onto it for three months, and Poilievre again reiterated a passage from the letter. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and wanted assurances that nobody had access to those emails who was in a position to doctor or selectively delete them in any way. Poilievre assured him that they were cooperating with the RCMP. LeBlanc wondered if Harper was waiting of it all to go to trial everything was made public, but Poilievre answered with a single no.
QP: Half points for effort
Monday in the Commons, and there were few leaders in the House — just Elizabeth May and Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair kept up with this short questions, asking first the date in which the Prime Minister spoke with Mike Duffy about his expenses. Baird gave a packaged talking point about how Harper insisted that Duffy repay any improper expenses. Mulcair then asked whether Senator LeBreton recused herself from cabinet discussions involving Senate expenses (though I’m not sure why she would, but whatever). Baird returned to the talking points about how Harper learned about the deal on the morning of the 15th. When Mulcair asked about Senators being paid for campaigning, Baird said that all campaign expenses were paid from by party funds. Megan Leslie was up next, more questions on the expenses, to which Baird gave the same talking point about repaying expenses and hey, Mulcair sat on that bribe allegation for 17 years. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals and asked why not simply call one public inquiry than to have the several separate private enquiries currently going on with regards to the Wright-Duffy affair. Baird touted the Accountability Act, and hey, your caucus has a Senator with an offshore tax haven (which is of course false).
Roundup: The moral panic of campaigning Senators
The Toronto Star has a look at Senators who were reimbursed by various campaigns for work they did during the last election, which seems a bit curious because it’s not unusual that Senators campaign – they just can’t bill the Senate for those expenses, as Mike Duffy did. Not that it’s stopped the NDP from making a giant fuss about it, as though it’s a bad thing that party members help out in a campaign. “Oh, but they shouldn’t campaign at all!” they cry. “They’re on the taxpayer’s payroll!” Um, so are MPs, who also fundraise and do campaign activities outside of writ periods of all sorts. And some of them go to fundraisers while they should be in Ottawa as the House is sitting. And leaders? Well, they’re the worst when it comes to missing House duty for fundraisers and campaigning. They’re also on the public dime. It’s a kind of hypocritical and nonsensical argument that seems to ignore the fact that *gasp!* senators are also party members and partisans! You know, the way our system of government works, where you have governing and opposition parties in both chambers! In other words, the NDP is trying to create a moral panic, which should be paid little heed unless it can be proved that any of the Senators who campaigned billed the Senate for their expenses. And I have little doubt that none of them other than Duffy – and possibly Pamela Wallin – did.