While the Rob Ford story goes into total meltdown in Toronto, the amendment process for the Fair Elections Act hit close to the halfway mark last night, with just one day left before the clock runs out – and it might go a bit faster if parties didn’t file nonsense amendments (postal codes on ballots? Veiled voting? Letting all candidates be photographed casting ballots instead of just leaders? Seriously?) or go on lengthy tirades about things. But hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have been talking to The Canadian Press about the fact that the caucus has had a great deal of input into the changes being proposed to the bill after they too were unsatisfied with the original form.
Tag Archives: RCMP
Roundup: A looming deadline
The clock is ticking, and there are some 300 amendments to go through in committee for the elections bill before Friday – which the NDP thinks is ridiculous. Err, except they agreed to the timeline, and they filibustered for days and used up said clock. Actions have consequences, and yes, it’s an important bill that is under discussion, so they had best get to work rather than complaining about it. The Director of Public Prosecutions did appear at committee and said that the biggest concern he has is of perception of independence rather than the independence in fact. Meanwhile, Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged with the Guelph robocalls though he protests his innocence – wonders that if criminals don’t register guns, why would people who make misleading robocalls register them? It’s kind of a good point, and points to yet another flaw in the bill.
Roundup: Tutting and moralizing over the Senate
The National Post has an in-depth look at the issue of senators sitting on corporate boards, and it’s an interesting conversation but I’m not sure the tone of moralising really helps things. I think it needs to be more clearly acknowledged that until recently, most of these were “trophy appointments” on boards to give them prestige, and there was little real work involved. With recent changes in corporate governance, there is more of a due diligence model that is evolving with is becoming more onerous for senators to be involved with. And also with all due respect to Senator Hugh Segal, the work of the Senate is more than 80 or 90 days per year, given that most senators have a lot of committee work that extends beyond the sitting days of the chamber itself, as well as work on other projects that they are championing. I’m not sure that it’s as scandalous that the Senate rules are evolving to reflect these new realities, but we also need to be aware that in relative terms, most Senators don’t make a lot of money from being a Senator. It’s far less than an MP earns, and as has been stated many a time, most Senators take a pay cut upon appointment after an established career. I’m not sure that insisting they live lives of high-minded privation helps anyone. There were also arguments to be had that these kinds of directorships and activities were way by which Senators could still keep their feet in the “real world,” rather than to cloister themselves in the ivory tower that is the Red Chamber. As well, comparisons to the American Senate are not really applicable given the enormous differences between the two institutions, but they’re both called Senates, so it’s easy and lazy to try and cross-compare. So like I said – good conversation to have, but there are far more factors and context at play that should be recognized beyond the scope of this article.
Roundup: No charges for Wright
News from the ClusterDuff file last night as the RCMP announced that they won’t be seeking criminal charges against Nigel Wright – not that it doesn’t mean that he didn’t do anything wrong. It just means that they didn’t have enough evidence to that they felt that they could secure a conviction, which is a long way off from exoneration. The end of the RCMP investigation means that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s investigation into the activities can now restart, which doesn’t mean that Wright is free and clear (not that those sanctions will be too severe – a slap on the wrist and/or being named and shamed tends to be the extent of it). It also means that he is now free to be a witness in any other ongoing investigations, such as the one into Mike Duffy himself. Wright did put out a brief statement by way of his lawyer that said that he always knew his actions were lawful – but it’s still a stretch based on this turn of events to make that kind of a declaration. It also means that Harper can’t hide behind the excuse of an RCMP investigation when asked questions in the House – unless he tries to use the investigation into Duffy as the smokescreen, which I wouldn’t put past him. CBC put together a special At Issue panel to discuss this turn of events.
QP: Regarding the Commissioner’s testimony…
With caucus day, not only were the leaders all present and accounted for in the House, but so were most of the MPs, which set up for a boisterous day. Thomas Mulcair started off by asking about the grain rail bottleneck and the lack of compensation in the bill due to correct it. Stephen Harper mumbled some vague assurances that they were working with producers and would increase the volumes shipped. Mulcair moved onto the testimony of the Commissioner of Elections, who said that some investigations might be shut down because of a lack of compelled testimony. Harper insisted that the bill gives greater independence to the Commissioner, and took a dig at the NDP’s “branch offices” around the country. Mulcair took a few more digs about Conservative “election fraud” before reiterating about the ability for the Commissioner to compel testimony. Harper responded with yet another dig about branch offices. Mulcair asked the same again in French, and got the same answer in French. For his final question, Mulcair asked if Harper thought that Eve Adams should step down, to which Harper called Mulcair a hypocrite, and the Speaker duly cautioned him for unparliamentary language. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the status of the electoral mission to Ukraine. Harper thanked him for his support, and said that there would be updates as they became available. Trudeau switched to a CIBC report on Canadians not saving enough and having too much debt. Harper retorted that Trudeau didn’t have an actual definition for middle class, and dismissed the question. For his final question, Trudeau asked a boilerplate question on the plight of the middle class in French, to which Harper gave a dig that Trudeau wouldn’t know if he was meeting with middle class Canadians or not.
Roundup: Not denying the trail of evidence
The fallout from the departure of Dimitri Soudas continued around the Nation’s Capital yesterday, with Soudas giving this somewhat overdone defence of his “resignation” as doing it for the woman he loves, while other sources from within the party started to paint a picture of Soudas breaking his contract, with a data trail with his fingerprints on it leading to access to the party’s voter database and phone records that shoed hundreds of calls made to the riding where Eve Adams is contesting the nomination. Apparently he didn’t deny the allegations resulting from that investigation, and then he was out. There was also apparently pushback from the rest of the party leading up to the end, so it seems likely that Harper couldn’t ignore any problems with Soudas any longer. This now leaves a hole in Harper’s election organizing planning, as well as more questions about his judgement when it comes to appointments – adding to the long list that includes Senators Duffy, Brazeau and Wallin, and other appointments like Christiane Ouimet, Arthur Porter, and now Justice Nadon./
Roundup: The minister of state who could not be shamed
Pierre Poilievre once again affirmed his complete and utter shamelessness yesterday, as Harry Neufeld, the author of the report that Poilievre likes to cite, appeared before committee and said flat out that Polievre is misquoting the report, that he never said anything about voter fraud, and that the portions of the elections bill that remove vouching as an option should be scrapped, and if they’re not, the bill as a whole should be. But never mind that, Poilievre not only carried on selectively quoting Neufeld, and then said that Neufeld may have written the report but he couldn’t write the law. No, seriously. Because the best response to being caught out misquoting is to double down and insist that the author is wrong. Well done.
Roundup: A branch office in Montreal
The Liberals have big questions about the NDP’s “branch office” in Montreal, which they claim is totally for coordinating parliamentary work and is totally not doing any partisan work – really! Note that the NDP complained when the Bloc had an office set up in Montreal paid for out of Parliamentary funds, but when they do it, it’s not problem. What I find intensely curious about the whole affair is not only the way in which several of these staffers have dual titles, and that a number of them are labelled as “outreach.” The thing that I finds a little disturbing is the way that this points to a concerning level of central control when it comes to their MPs and staff, far and above the particular level of centralisation they already have with staffers on the Hill. Suffice to say, it all does look a bit suspicious.
Roundup: Unhelpful comparisons with Crimea
While we wait to hear the latest developments with Russia’s troop movements in the Crimea, here’s an interesting piece about how the markets are punishing Russia even more swiftly than diplomats ever could, where they lost some $55 billion in the two days since they moved troops into Ukraine. Stephen Harper is threatening that Russia may also face expulsion from the G8. John Baird helpfully compared Putin’s actions to the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Andrew Coyne savages the “peace activists” defending Putin’s actions, and calls for NATO resources in the region to be bulked up.
Roundup: Inconvenient evidence
When asked about why his concern over the “stagnating” middle class and how it doesn’t fit with the trend lines in the data, Justin Trudeau said that he’s looking at the data since the 1980s – just before two massive recessions – and cited that ESDC report that said that the middle class dream is “more myth than reality.” It certainly raises questions about the supposed commitment to evidence-based policy when it doesn’t fit with the narrative that they’ve decided to fight the next election on.