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: Supreme Court
Roundup: Anders down in defeat
The Conservative members of the new riding of Calgary Signal Hill have spoken, and Rob Anders will not be their candidate in the next federal election. Instead, former provincial finance minister Ron Liepert has managed to win the nomination, apparently by a “comfortable majority,” even though Jason Kenney had taken to not only endorsing but also voicing a robocall on Anders’ behalf late in the game. Liepert, after winning, told Kenney to mind his own business rather angrily, incidentally. Anders has indicated that he would sit the remainder of this parliament, but hasn’t indicated what he’ll do next, though there is some speculation that he’ll still try to contest another Calgary riding’s nomination. Anders had labelled this nomination as a fight for the “soul” of the Conservative party, his “true blue” version versus a more “red Tory” Liepert (but apparently not even really), and in the aftermath, Liepert has said that his victory shows where the mainstream of the Conservative party has moved. It also shows how open nominations give the grassroots members more of a voice for who they want to represent the party on their behalf, rather than being assigned that voice for them. Aaron Wherry tries to search for meaning in this nomination upset here. (And be sure to check out the Herald’s video from the aftermath).
Roundup: Another judicial rebuke
Another day, another unanimous judgement from the Supreme Court of Canada against the government and one of their “tough on crime bills.” This time, it was the Truth in Sentencing Act, which limits the credit for time served in pre-trial custody – time which is normally given credit for because it is seen as “harder” than in federal or provincial jails, as it is generally more cramped, has poorer conditions, and offers no programming or rehabilitation. Of the seven justices that rendered the decision, five were Harper appointees, so it’s not like he can even claim that these are Liberal activist judges out to get him – only that the government likes to push the limits of the constitutionality of their bills as far as they can. The ruling didn’t strike down the law, but sets a precedent that restores some judicial discretion to the credit for time served to 1.5-to-one as the Act allows.
Roundup: All about Eve
The tale of Eve Adams and her nomination race got even more sordid yesterday as all kinds of other allegations started appearing out of the woodwork, now that attention is being paid to her. First came word that the riding association was appealing directly to Harper to investigate her activities, with regard to things like her access to the party database, her purchasing the colour-coded maps, that she was door-knocking and telling people that she had been asked by Harper to run in that particular riding, and generally trying to bigfoot the nomination race. (Letter here). Harper in turn asked the party to investigate. After this was made public, the owner of an Ottawa gas station called the media to let them know that he had also asked the PMO to investigate Adams’ behaviour after she had a meltdown tantrum over a $6 carwash that she was unsatisfied with. It has been suggested that all of these leaks are being made public in order to have her discredited and lose the nomination race that way, rather than have Harper or the party disqualify her from afar. It’s not such an outlandish theory either.
QP: Harper makes an appearance
For the first time in weeks, Stephen Harper was in the House for QP, as were all of the other leaders. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the repudiation for the Nadon appointment, and wanted a commitment that they would not attempt to reappoint him. Harper said that they would comply with the letter and the spirit of the ruling, and that the NDP didn’t have any objection to appointing a justice from the Federal Court. Mulcair asked about the fundraiser who travelled on the Challenger jet with Harper. Harper assured him that it was his practice to have those flights reimbursed at the commercial rate. Mulcair pressed, and alleged that the flight was a reward for fundraising, but Harper didn’t take the bait. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the elections bill and its repudiation by experts across the board. Harper retorted that the NDP opposed the bill without reading it, but shrugged off any further criticism. Justin Trudeau returned to the empty seat on the Supreme Court, and wondered when a new justice would be appointed. Harper reminded him that all of the parties supported having a judge appointed from the Federal Court and accused Trudeau of trying to politicise the appointment. Trudeau moved onto the cut to the Building Canada Fund, to which Harper insisted that they were making record investments, before making a crack about Trudeau’s definition of the middle class.
Roundup: A debate that won’t see the light of day
Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher is introducing two Private Member’s Bills on assisted suicide in order to get the debate on the agenda. The problem with this, of course, is that a) he would only have one slot for Private Member’s Business, so introducing two bills means one of them won’t see the light of day, and b) as Fletcher was a minister, his debate slot is at nearly the bottom of the list, as he only got it after he was dropped from cabinet, so it remains unlikely to see the light of day. Nevertheless, with the court challenges going on, it is a good reminder that Parliament should be debating these kinds of issues, but we all know that they are reluctant to, and try to fob off the hard work to the courts so that they can be seen to be dragged into doing something about it.
Roundup: Kingsley’s revised praise
Former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley appeared at committee yesterday to give testimony on the Fair Elections Act, and said that unless vouching was reinstated, he could neither support the bill, and said that it could be considered unconstitutional. He also took issue with the provisions that would limit the CEO’s communications with Canadians, that allow parties to contact past donors without counting it as an expense, and for putting the Commissioner of Elections under the eye of the Director of Public Prosecutions – but you know that Pierre Poilievre will only focus on the things that Kinsley liked about the bill. Canadian Dissensus gives a superlative takedown of the bill and Poilievre’s defence of it.
QP: Fundraisers on jets
Tuesday, and most of the leaders were in the House, but Harper was still not back from the G7 meeting at The Hague. Thomas Mulcair led off by bringing up a story on iPolitics about how the Prime Minister used government aircraft for party fundraisers. Paul Calandra responded with a scripted response about how the RCMP won’t let the PM fly commercial and they use the Challengers less than the Liberals did, and by the way, you abuse taxpayers with your branch offices where you have no members. Mulcair shot back that the Government Whip said they followed all of the rules, and asked about those flights yet again, while Calandra whipped up his rhetorical flight. Mulcair tried to ask about spending safeguards in the Senate, and used the justification that the House approves the Senate’s allowance. Calandra noted their efforts to make the Senate more accountable and that they would see wrongdoers published. Justin Trudeau got up for the Liberals, and congratulated the government for the trade agreement with South Korea and when would the details be made available. There was some confusion on the government benches that it wasn’t an attack to deflect, and Erin O’Toole stood to give a talking point about how great trade with Korea would be. Trudeau then asked about vacancy on the Supreme Court, to which Peter MacKay said that they were examining the Nadon ruling and would be acting “post haste.”
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: A new front bench dynamic
The House is back this week, though Harper is over in Europe. We will, however, see the first of the new line-up on the government’s front bench, with Joe Oliver taking Jim Flaherty’s place, and Greg Rickford filling in for Oliver. Add to that the NDP’s front-bench shake-up and we’ve got a new dynamic of Nathan Cullen versus Joe Oliver, which I can just imagine will be full of passive aggressive snark from Cullen and impatient grumpiness from Oliver, if previous interactions are anything to go by. It also sounds like we’ll see the budget implementation bill get tabled this week, so we’ll see if that is as crazily omnibus as their previous implementation bills have been of late.