Despite it being a Wednesday and caucus day, only Thomas Mulcair anchored the chamber. Harper was off in Toronto to host his summit on Maternal and Child Health, and Justin Trudeau off in Quebec City to meet the new premier. Mulcair began by asking about the refusal to fund safe abortions as part of the Maternal and Child Health initiative. John Baird responded that they have done a lot of work on maternal and child health, and got a number of other countries on board. Mulcair noted that they refused to fund the UN Population Fund as part of the initiative because of pressure from anti-choice lobbyists. Deepak Obhrai touted the 1.3 million children’s lives saved by their Initiative. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the Temporary Foreign Workers programme not helping unemployed Canadians. Jason Kenney insisted that they employers had an obligation to seek Canadian employees first. Mulcair insisted that posting jobs for TFWs at minimum wage distorted the free market, eliciting roars from the Conservative benches. Kenney noted that those minimum wage rates were largely in the seasonal agricultural sector and that the prevailing median wage was posted for other jobs. Mulcair again changed topics, and noted the objections of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner to the lawful access provisions of the cyberbullying bill. Peter MacKay insisted that the bill would protect children and the parents of victims of cyberbullying insisted that they pass the bill — not actually true. John McCallum led off for the Liberals asking about the TFW blacklist, to which Kenney insisted that those employers were no longer eligible to get new workers, and Chris Alexander followed up by claiming they were “cleaning up the Liberal mess.” McCallum found that hilarious and an evasion of responsibility, but Alexander insisted that they were indifferent to abuse and that they brought over exotic dancers “by the hundreds and thousands” with no corner for their welfare.
Tag Archives: Refugees
QP: A disputed apology
After Thomas Mulcair’s testy and evasive appearance at committee, he was in the House, ready for another round — and Justin Trudeau was also in attendance, which is now rare for a Thursday. Mulcair began by bringing up the centennial anniversary of the Komogata Maru incident and wondered why there had not been an official apology. Tim Uppal asserted that there had been an apology, and that they funded a monument in a Vancouver and they released a stamp. Mulcair switched topics and asked if the minister of Justice was aware of the advice that Justice Nadon resign from the Federal Court and rejoin the Quebec bar. Robert Goguen responded about the advice they received. Mulcair wondered if they would try the tactic with another Federal Court judge, to which Goguen insisted that they would respect the Supreme Court ruling. Mulcair switched topics again and brought up the cuts to refugee healthcare, for which Chris Alexander insisted that genuine, approved refugees would still get covered, but not those who are not approved — and he took a swipe at the Wynne government in Ontario while he was at it. Mulcair gave it another go in French, and got much the same answer. Justin Trudeau led for the Liberals and asked what problems the government thought were present in the Temporary Foreign Workers programme and what their solutions were. Jason Kenney didn’t really answer, but instead took swipes at Trudeau and the Liberals. Trudeau asked about the pathways to citizenship proposals, to which Chris Alexander touted their record on immigration. Trudeau asked his first question again in French, to which Kenney gave vague assurances before returning to his swipes.
QP: It was all the Liberals’ fault (once again)
It was a beautiful spring day in the Nation’s Capital, and the Prime Minister was back in the House, which is always an encouraging sign. Thomas Mulcair led off by trying the prosecutorial tactic once again, and asked about when abuses to the Temporary Foreign Workers came to light. Stephen Harper pointed out that the NDP often asked for permits, and then said that they wanted to ensure that Canadians got the first crack at jobs. Mulcair read some quotes and wanted to know again when the government was made aware. Harper was more forceful in his reply when he repeated both points. Mulcair responded that he wanted the Auditor General to investigate the programme — not really a question — to which Harper insisted that the NDP were trying to block the government’s own reforms to the programme. Mulcair changed tactics and wondered why Harper was giving up on Senate reform, to which Harper insisted that his position hadn’t changed, but it was up to the provinces to bring forward proposals. Mulcair tried the same in French, taunting Harper that he didn’t want to speak to the provinces, not that Harper’s answer changed. Justin Trudeau was up next and returned to the TFWs, to which Harper retorted that the Liberals were also blocking their attempted reforms. Trudeau noted that he raised the problems a year ago, to which Harper accused him of revisionist history. Trudeau noted falling wages and youth unemployment in the face of those illegitimate TFWs, but Harper stuck to his declaration that the Liberals were blocking changes.
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: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
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.
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.