Roundup: Hopes rest on Trudeau

Saturday was the final Liberal leadership event, the big “showcase” faux convention, which was, well, a bit blah. (My take on it here). Aaron Wherry captures Trudeau’s speech. Tim Harper notes that while Trudeau clearly carried the day, the real work lies ahead of him. John Geddes looks forward to Trudeau’s first QP as leader.  Michael Den Tandt says that Trudeau’s biggest obstacle is going to be the party elites who want to control policy top-down rather than from the ground up like Trudeau is proposing. Andrew Coyne sees Trudeau as the best of an uninspiring lot, though he does think Martha Hall Findlay would be the candidate to actually shake up the party. The Toronto Star editorial board endorses Trudeau for leader.

Continue reading

Roundup: Kevin Page’s final battle

After two days of arguments at Federal Court, the judge there will deliberate on whether he should be providing clarity to the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer – and no, it’s not a cut-and-dried question. As lawyers for the Speaker asserted, it is a matter for Parliament to decide upon – and remember, Parliament is actually the highest court of the land – and Parliamentarians should not be going to the courts every time the government doesn’t turn over its numbers. And while Page’s request for clarity was just that – clarity – there are some inescapable and fundamental issues at the heart of the matter, and that is that MPs themselves have abdicated their role as guardians of the public purse. While journalists and the public hail Page as being a hero, what’s missing is that he has been saddled with the role of “watchdog” because MPs have decided they’d rather have him do their homework for them, because math is hard, and they can then invoke the magical talisman that is his independence to prove that the government is in the wrong with its numbers. That Thomas Mulcair sent along his own lawyer as an interested party is part of what muddies this issue and makes it look partisan – because Mulcair and company want Page and his successors to do the dirty work for them. This is not really an issue about the government arguing against the fiscal oversight position that they created, but about Parliament itself, and whether or not MPs on both sides of the aisle can take their own jobs seriously. That they are placing all of the emphasis on Page and his office to do their work for them is an indictment that they continue to refuse to.

Continue reading

QP: Not recognising the best finance minister in the world

Interrupting a day of debate on wanton constitutional vandalism, QP started off with Thomas Mulcair reading off a question about EI auditors “shadowing” claimants, to which Harper responded with some bog-standard response about EI being there when they need it. Mulcair then moved onto a question about Flaherty’s back-and-forth policy changes without consultation, and treated the Peter DeVries and Scott Clark article as though they were still currently employed by the department. Harper sang Flaherty’s praises in response. Mulcair carried on, citing Flaherty’s breach of ethics over the CRTC letter, not that Harper’s vigorous praises were diminished any less. Chris Charlton finished off the leader’s round, asking about EI training funds, but Jim Flaherty assured her that they consulted broadly on the budget. Bob Rae was up next, keeping up the issue of the EI training funds, but Harper touted just how transparent his government is as a non-sequitur response. Rae then brought up Dr. Arthur Porter’s party donations while he was SIRC chair, and wondered how he managed to escape a security clearance. Harper insisted that none of the allegations against Porter had to do with his time at SIRC — skirting the issue of donations. For his final question, Rae wondered why there wasn’t an inquiry into Jeffrey Delisle’s security breaches, but Harper told him that they’re not unique to Canada, and brought up the Bradley Manning case in the States.

Continue reading

Roundup: Supreme Court refines what constitutes hate speech

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Whatcott case, which basically refined the definition of what constitutes hate speech in the country. They also said that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is not acceptable either when it comes to hate speech against gays, for what it’s worth. Emmett Macfarlane notes the issues around defining what a ‘”reasonable person” would constitute as hate, as the decision seems to indicate. Charlie Gillis laments the lost opportunity to affirm free speech, no matter the content, because human rights legislation is being abused as a blunt tool in the country. Jonathan Kay sees the decision as privileging anti-Christian censorship because they believe in the fire-and-brimstone retribution for gays, especially because the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument holds value for Christians.  Andrew Coyne laments that the judgement didn’t spend enough time prefacing the value of free speech. And Bill Whatcott himself? Plans to keep up his anti-gay pamphleting because apparently Christ has nothing better to do than ensure that Whatcott denounces the gays.

Continue reading

QP: Temporary foreign workers vs unemployment

Despite it being Wednesday and a caucus day, when MPs are normally riled up, QP was a bit more staid today. It may have been because Harper was absent from the House, out entertaining Olympic and Paralympic athletes that he had just awarded Diamond Jubilee medals to. Thomas Mulcair led off by wondering how hiring more temporary foreign workers would help the unemployed in this country, leaving Peter Van Loan to act as designated back-up PM du jour, during which he recited talking points about how the government was creating jobs. All while folding his notes constantly. Mulcair went on to read further variations on that question, eventually wondering about rules changes that demanded that people take pay cuts or lose their EI, to which Van Loan recited that it was always better to have a job than to be on EI. For the Liberals, Dominic LeBlanc asked about EI clawbacks, income inequality and youth unemployment, but Van Loan simply listed off the tax cuts his government had offered to showcase all of the work they’ve done for Canadians.

Continue reading