Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
Tag Archives: Pierre Poilievre
QP: Why do you hate the DPP?
As has become tradition, there were no major leaders in the House for Monday QP, which is a sorry comment in and of itself. When things got started, NDP deputy leader David Christopherson led off, shouting about the Conservatives’ dismissal of Sheila Fraser’s warnings about the elections bill. Pierre Poilievre responded that they simply disagreed with Elections Canada’s opinion and that it was reasonable to expect ID at the polls. Christopherson loudly mused dark conspiracy theories about the PMO cooking up smears against anyone who has had anything to do with Elections Canada. Poilievre, undaunted, gave his prepared talking points. Christopherson brought up the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not consulted about the changes in the bill that affect him, to which Poilievre accused him of casting aspersions on the DPP’s independence. Alexandrine Latendresse repeated the same questions in French, eliciting a similar response. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, worrying about the infrastructure needs of Fort McMurray being hurt by the cuts to the Building Canada Plan. Denis Lebel insisted that they were making record investments. David McGuinty asked the same again in French, but changed the location in need to Ottawa, not that Lebel gave him a different answer.
Roundup: Reactions to the Ukraine situation
The situation in Ukraine consumed much of the news this weekend, and Stephen Harper even took the unprecedented (for him) move of announcing an emergency cabinet meeting, and gave several media readouts over the weekend, which included news that we are recalling our ambassador from Moscow “for consultations” and that we have stopped our preparations for the G8 meeting in Sochi, as have the Americans and other allies. Of course, while the government put in travel advisories, it looks like the Paralympic games in Sochi plan to go ahead next week regardless, but I guess we’ll see. On Sunday, Baird ruled out the possibility of military intervention in the region, while experts felt that recalling the ambassador happened too soon, if only because this is a time for high-level diplomatic engagement. They also said that Canada has been largely reduced to making gestures, while others said that Canada needs to better re-engage with NATO allies. Liberal MP Chrystia Freeland is headed to Ukraine on her own to show solidarity and meet with both government and civil society leaders.
Roundup: Hints and small measures from Mexico
At the “Three Amigos” summit in Mexico, things indeed seemed a bit frosty heading into it, as Harper refuses to lift the visa restrictions on Mexicans, and Obama won’t speed along the Keystone XL decision – a decision which got a whole lot trickier as a judge in Nebraska has struck down the Governor’s approved route for the pipeline, which could mean yet more delays for the project. It does, however, sound like common standards on greenhouse gas emissions may be on the way for Canada and the US. Also agreed to at the summit were a continental transportation plan, more joint research, more security agreements, and a working group to ensure the conservation of the monarch butterfly.
Roundup: Emoting about the economy
The Liberals put out a YouTube video wherein Justin Trudeau narrated their concerns about the economy, which was a lot of angst about the middle class. Because apparently facts and figures can be displaced with talking about feelings. Suffice to say, reaction among economists has been mixed – while some like the format, they are quick to point out some of the inherent problems with the message. Things like the political nonsense that Prime Ministers directly run economies, or the assertion that the middle class “lives off their incomes and not their assets.” (Do you know which is the class that lives off of their assets? Retirees). And then there’s the assertion that middle class incomes have stagnated over thirty years, when they haven’t – they fell drastically and have recovered over that thirty-year period, so it’s not exactly an accurate description. And as Stephen Gordon points out, the recipe Trudeau offers is largely wishful thinking. But why should we let actual facts get in the way of emoting about the economy?
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.
Roundup: Economic Action duds
Survey data shows that the Economic Action Plan™ ads are getting little traction with the public. In fact, of a sample size of 2003 Canadians, only three of them actually visited the website. And yet, the government was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to show these ads during the hockey play-offs – which totally seems like an efficient use of tax dollars, and an important way of getting messages across to the public. Shall we also go back to the tautology about them being necessary to show consumer confidence?
Roundup: Knee-jerk populist stunts
The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has decided to lump themselves in with the group of civic illiterates who operate under the mistaken impression that a national referendum is a constitutional amending formula. In this case, they used a giant inflatable Mike Duffy to launch their lobby campaign for a referendum on Senate abolition. In other words, they want to spend a great deal of tax dollars for a useless, non-binding process that is little more than a case of populist knee-jerk reaction to the bad behaviour of a small number of individuals. How exactly this seems to fit in with their mandate of eliminating government waste is a little beyond me, especially considering that the Senate delivers a great deal of value for money – not that knee-jerk populists actually know enough about the institution to realise it.