As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.
Tag Archives: Refugees
QP: Avoiding answers with congratulations
Three leaders out of four, which still isn’t great for the respect for the institution. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about a minister misleading the House, and whether it was an unacceptable practice. Harper responded first by congratulating Philippe Couillard for his victory and said that he looked forward to working with him. Mulcair got up and, after a screed about the Senate, pointed out the attacks that Pierre Poilievre made against the Chief Electoral Officer at the Senate committee. Harper again congratulated Couillard, this time in English. Instead of asking again, Mulcair stuck to his script and asked about voter fraud allegations that Poilievre made. Harper insisted that they were trying to ensure that voters had proper identification. Mulcair pressed, got the same answer, and moved onto the quotes of Sheila Fraser. Harper responded that elections shouldn’t be decided by people who can’t prove their identity. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals for a second day in a row, and again asked about the Building Canada Fund, the problems with which was impacting Nova Scotia municipalities. Harper responded, proclaiming ignorance of that issue, but touted their record investments. Brison pressed, to which Harper gave a staged plea for the Liberals to stop opposing infrastructure investments. Marc Garneau brought up the impacts to infrastructure programmes in Quebec, not that Harper was moved from his “disappointed” talking points.
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.
QP: Burying the Sheila Fraser lede
Despite it being only Thursday, there was only one major leader in the House, as Stephen Harper was in Mississauga to announce a bill, and Justin Trudeau in Fort McMurray in advance of the by-election call there. Thomas Mulcair, still present in Ottawa, led off by asking about a refugee deportation case, to which Chris Alexander seemed to imply that the woman in question was not a genuine refugee. Mulcair brought up the plight of someone thrown in jail in China for assisting the labour movement, to which Alexander gave a paean about how great their refugee reforms were. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill, demanding that it be withdrawn. Pierre Poilievre insisted that his stories about widespread voter fraud were true. Mulcair then brought up former Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s objections to the bill — something I figured would have led off QP — but Poilievre was undaunted in his praise of the bill. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the request that the families of fallen soldiers pay their own way to a national memorial service. James Bezan said that expenses would be covered, and laid blame on the Colonel who sent out the letter. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, and brought up the changes in median incomes since the Conservatives came to power. Kevin Sorensen insisted that everyone was better off since they were in power. Freeland brought up other worrying figures, but Sorensen praised the government’s job creation record. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same again in French, and Sorensen accused Trudeau of voting against middle class families time and again.
QP: Shuffled sparring partners
After two weeks away, MPs were back and ready to carry on with the Grand Inquest of the Nation. With Harper still off in Europe, it was a question as to whether there would be a front-bench babysitter answering questions, or just ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the leaders’ round. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the situation in Ukraine, and David Anderson read a pro forma statement about travel bans and economic sanctions. Mulcair then turned to the Supreme Court ruling on the Nadon reference, and wondered if the government would accept the ruling. Peter MacKay stood up to reiterate that they got legal opinions beforehand, that they were surprised by the decision, and they felt that Nadon was a legal expert, and would study the decision. Mulcair then asked if the new minister of finance would abandon the national securities regulator project. Joe Oliver, in his debut answer in his new role, but said that he would wait for the new critic to ask in order to be fair to him after he took such a major pay cut. Mulcair then moved onto the elections bill, and Pierre Poilievre invited Mulcair to call witnesses before the committee, saying the bill would “protect” our system of democracy. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about the coming cuts to infrastructure funds. Denis Lebel answered that they were increasing funds. Brison reminded him that the funding commitments were back-end loaded and that communities would have to hike property taxes in the interim, but Lebel insisted the preamble was wrong. Marc Garneau took another stab at the question in French, and got the same answer from Lebel.
Roundup: Ignoring previous suggestions
Our Officers of Parliament are saying that Mark Adler’s “witch-hunt” bill to ensure that they don’t have partisan pasts rings hollow considering that they jointly sent suggestions to the Commons about making their offices more transparent in the wake of the Christiane Ouimet affair, and nobody followed up on that. Of course they didn’t, as there wasn’t any partisan advantage to it.
QP: In the shadow of a Quebec election call
With the election called in Quebec, which will no doubt consume the news cycle for the next six weeks, things carried on here in the Nation’s Capital unabated, despite the added media attention to Quebec MPs and any role that they’ll play. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking whether Canada would be sending observers to Ukraine along with the Americans and others, to which Harper said that we were, as well as freezing some Russian assets and suspending more bilateral operations. Mulcair asked if Harper had reached out to the IMF, to which Harper said that they had. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the consultations on the elections bill. Harper expressed his disappointment in the NDP’s opposition to the bill (err, kind of their job, you know). Mulcair said that the partisan tactics around the bill were unprecedented (um, not sure about that), to which Harper reminded him that they opposed the bill without reading it. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the lack of sanctions against Brad Butt for his “mis-speaking,” but Harper shrugged it off, saying that Butt had apologised of his own volition. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked if elections observers would, be sent to Ukraine, and Baird indicated that we would be. LeBlanc turned to the decrease in funding from the Building Canada Fund, to which Denis Lebel insisted that the fund was $70 billion over ten years.
QP: Trying to resurrect questions of the Senate
With much of the media’s attention turned to Rob Ford’s visit to Ottawa, all party leaders were in the House, ready to scrap. Thomas Mulcair led off by pointing out that a certain Senator headlined a fundraiser for Pierre Poilievre — actually not government business — not that Harper took the bait and praised the elections bill instead. Mulcair brought up the Deloitte audit and tried to insinuate that Senator Tkachuk was passing information to the PMO. Harper reminded him that it wasn’t a question for him to answer. Mulcair then asked why it was that the previous draft of the election bill was rejected by the Conservative caucus, but Harper insisted that Muclair’s information was wrong. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up slowing growth figures and wondered why the Building Canada Fund was losing money, but Harper hit back by saying that Trudeau didn’t understand the economy. And on it went for two more supplementals.
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: Sedate questions sans Fantino
Monday in the House, and the benches slowly filled up before QP was about to get started, but Elizabeth May was the only leader present. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin in the Chair, and the Wooden Mace on the table. That left it up to Megan Leslie to lead off for the NDP, wondering about Julian Fantino’s union-bashing rather than supporting veterans. Parm Gill, Fantino’s parliamentary secretary, insisted that veterans would be better off with the new system as there would be more home delivery of service. Leslie moved onto the topic of CSE using airport Wifi to track travellers, to which Rob Nicholson repeated the talking point that the CSE Commissioner found their activities to be within the law. Jack Harris repeated the same again in English, not that he got a different answer. For the Liberals, Wayne Easter carried on with the questions of CSE’s activities, but Nicholson’s answers didn’t change. When Easter brought up the Commissioner’s report in which he stated that some of the activities may have been directed at Canadians in contravention of the law, Nicholson’s answers didn’t budge from their script. Marc Garneau have one last attempt at the question in French, but Nicholson insisted that CSE was in the business of protecting Canadians, and that should have the support of the Liberals.