Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: Clerical errors and attack ads

Posted on by

The Supreme Court heard arguments about the Etobicoke Centre election yesterday, and the crux seem to hang on whether “clerical errors” are enough to overturn votes and “disenfranchise” Canadians. But how many errors are too many and how many should we let slide before it becomes “fatal” to the integrity of the election? It’s actually a weighty issue to ponder, and they have reserved judgement. While it’s supposed to be handled expeditiously, the point was also made that the remedy – a by-election – is time-sensitive, and so one can hope that the Court will be swift in its ruling. (I offered some of my own thoughts as to the arguments here).

The NDP launched their own attack ads in response to those the Conservatives launched against Thomas Mulcair. The crux of the message: Harper created the recession, the deficit, and is now making cuts to the vulnerable. It’s all pretty much demonstrably untrue and contradictory, but since when were attack ads supposed to be entirely factual when the intent is to cast doubt on your opponent? James Moore was quick to respond via the Twitter Machine: “Hope is better than fear.” Touché.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stampede Triumphalism

Posted on by

With it being Stampede time in Calgary, Stephen Harper has made a triumphant “homecoming speech” to the crowd there about how he wants to transform Canada to be one of the “next generation of economic powers,” and that even though all of his changes aren’t popular they are necessary. Note that he again takes credit for Paul Martin’s achievements and for resource prices. Also in attendance were Alison Redford and Danielle Smith, and Redford got more applause than Smith, even though that federal Conservatives tend to be more in the Wildrose Party camp.

As is typical at this time of year, journalists seem mystified that the Liberals are showing the flag in the heart of “enemy territory” – as if there are no Liberals in Alberta, which is not true. Bob Rae says that looking at the elections of Naheed Nenshi and Alison Redford shows that there is an appetite for centrist, progressive politics in places like Calgary – though traditionally this has been harder to achieve at the federal level, as Calgarians tend to vote increasingly conservative the higher level one goes. And add the obligatory Justin Trudeau leadership speculation as he works – and woos – the crowds there.

If you do plan on attending Stampede, here is some expert advice from stylists on how to dress without looking like a complete bumpkin.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A wee little cabinet shuffle

Posted on by

Stephen Harper surprised everyone yesterday with a wee little cabinet shuffle – Julian Fantino is going to CIDA in Oda’s place, and Bernard Valcourt gets the associate deputy minister position for defence while retaining his ACOA portfolio and the Francophonie.  Fantino is an…interesting choice, considering he’s spent his career being the guy who as getting tough on crime and now he’s being the face of Canada’s compassion and aid. As for Valcourt, he’s a Mulroney-era veteran who is moving a up the ladder a little bit, but considering how marginalised the military procurement file has become in the advent of the era of the procurement secretariat, it makes one wonder why they bothered to retain the portfolio. Also, interesting that Peter MacKay and John Duncan are staying put despite major gaffes of their own, and more evidence that Harper will refuse to make changes in order to avoid admitting that he made a mistake with his choices.

The government is tightening temporary foreign worker rules so that it will exclude exotic dancers, escorts and people who work in massage parlours, as they’re more “vulnerable to exploitation.” Of course, one suspects that this will just drive this all that much further underground and rather than have people documented so that they have access to some kind of assistance if they are being exploited, they’ll just be classified as “hostesses” or “servers” (provided they take a drink order) and it won’t actually have an effect on exploitation of human trafficking (assuming of course that we’re not just conflating human trafficking with the sex trade, as they are not the same thing).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A thousand omnibudget amendments

Posted on by

The next steps in the fight against the omnibus budget bill are heating up. After getting their interns to camp out, the Liberals deposited 503 deletion amendments to be considered. Moments later, the NDP deposited 506 deletion amendments of their own. (I’m informed that the number was just a coincidences and not a juvenile game of one-upmanship). This on top of Elizabeth May’s 200 or so substantive amendments. The Speaker is due to rule on Monday as to what is going to be admissible and how those amendments will be grouped together. Pity his poor staff, who will have to spend their weekend going through all of it.

Court documents are undermining what Dean Del Mastro was claiming yesterday regarding his innocence with those allegedly improper payments that Elections Canada is now investigating.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is preparing to go to Federal Court to get the information on the budget cuts that he is entitled to get, but that the government is withholding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A too-predictable sympathetic report

Posted on by

The NDP have release their “report” on their “consultations” on the omnibus budget bill around the country. Their condemnation comes from having panels stuffed with representatives from sympathetic groups, and by avoiding Alberta or any regions whose economies are dependent on resource extraction. Funny how that happens. Meanwhile, they’re also promising some 200 deletion amendments at report stage of the bill in the Commons, which on top of Elizabeth May’s 50 substantive amendments and the 200 deletion amendments she’s working with the Liberals on means that there could be 30 hours or so of votes, depending on what the Speaker rules to be in order or how he groups them.

It cost $47,000 for Peter MacKay and company to put on the photo op with the mock-up F-35 when the government announced they initially were going to be buying those planes.

The NDP wants to charge the deputy minister of DND with contempt of parliament over his testimony on the F-35s. And while this drama unfolds in the Public Accounts Committee, Liberal MP Gerry Byrne charges that the NDP has been doing a lot of in camera cooperation with the Conservatives in order to try to stick it to the Liberals. Sigh.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Back to work, please?

Posted on by

Lisa Raitt wants CP Rail employees to voluntarily return to work before the back-to-work legislation passes, seeing as that awful Senate won’t violate all of their own rules in order to bend to her whims. How horrible is it for Parliament to have rules to be follows? Why do Parliament’s rules hate the economy?

It turns out that the severed hand found at the Canada Post depot in Ottawa yesterday was bound for Liberal party headquarters – not that there was any political motive. It looks like the suspect in this case was just a deranged and narcissistic individual, and nothing attracts the crazy like politics. More about the increasingly bizarre and gruesome tale can be found here.

On a lighter note, Jennifer Ditchburn looks at some other odd mail that MPs and Senators get, which include these wooden churches.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scrutiny versus populist outrage

Posted on by

The government is backing another private members’ bill, this time about establishing a mandatory minimum sentence on kidnapping a person under 16 – despite the fact that a former Supreme Court justice calls this unnecessary and creating a more patchwork Criminal Code that increasingly is ad hoc and full of loopholes and inconsistencies. It’s like the government were going along with anything that sounded good without giving it proper thought or analysis. Oh, wait –that’s exactly what they’re doing. Who needs proper scrutiny when you’ve got populist outrage on your side?

Thomas Mulcair dismisses the premiers of Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan as “Harper’s messengers” when they go after him about his comments on the oil sands and our supposed “petro dollar.” Erm, okay. Because that makes sense. Paul Wells further dissects that particular line of thinking here.

Continue reading →

QP: Orwell was not a how-to manual

Posted on by

With the NDP now out to turn public opinion to their side on the omnibus budget bill, one wondered if this was going to lead off QP for the day. And in a sort of tangential sense it did, as Thomas Mulcair asked about Jim Flaherty’s comments that OAS changes could save $10 to $12 billion. Harper insisted there would be no actual pension reductions. Mulcair then turned to Flaherty’s “there are no bad jobs” comments with regards to EI changes – and several times was drowned out by Conservative applause when he repeated Flaherty’s statement. (And yet he kept repeating it and kept getting drowned out). After a warning from the Speaker, Mulcair finished and between that and two follow-up questions about how that also applied to seniors and the disabled, Harper insisted that Canada has a superior job creation record, and hey, they have a disabled member in the cabinet, so there’s nothing that disabled people can’t do. Bob Rae was up next, and brought up George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and how it shouldn’t be a how-to manual for governments, and he related this to the kind of silencing of critics the government has been engaged in, whether it is with the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, or any other number of NGOs or data-gathering organisations. Harper insisted that they were interested in administrative savings and doing away with duplication where the information these groups provide could be found elsewhere. For his final supplemental, Rae gave a nod to the Auditor General’s return to the Public Accounts committee and his assertion that the government wasn’t giving accurate numbers on the F-35s. Harper turned to his rote talking points about no contracts signed and no purchase having been made, and left it at that.

Continue reading →

QP: Confirming ideological cuts?

Posted on by

Without a weekly edition of Monday Morning Sanctimony to set the tone, we waited anxiously to see just how the Official Opposition were going to be holding the government to account. And when the appointed hour came, Thomas Mulcair stood up to denounce the omnibus budget bill and wondered what happened to those principles that Harper once espoused about these kinds of things. John Baird, acting as Back-up PM du jour responded that they were “focused like a laser” on jobs and growth, while the NDP was busy playing procedural games. (Could we please ban “focused like a laser”? It’s not cool or clever). When Mulcair asked about the environmental and EI provisions in the bill that gave the ministers an inordinate amount of power, Baird reminded him of Peter Julian’s 11-hour filibuster on the original budget. Peggy Nash was up next to wonder about the savings that the OAS changes will deliver, but Diane Finely was ready with her talking points about future sustainability. Bob Rae got up and listed off the number of organisations being slashed in the omnibus budget – the Inspector General of CSIS, Rights and Democracy, the National Round Table on Environment and Environment, the First Nations institute, the National Council of Welfare, and so on. Baird insisted that if they didn’t make these changes then the country would become the “Welfare capital of the world,” as Ontario was under Rae’s leadership. Not only that, but NRTEE advocated instituting a carbon tax, which the Liberals obviously were in favour of, which is why they wanted NRTEE kept intact. No, really, he said that. When Rae called him on that, Baird repeated it. Remember that the original reason why NRTEE was being cut was because it was from an era when there weren’t other such research organisations, but there are apparently plenty of them out there now. Now Baird seems to be indicating that the reason they were being cut was over a policy disagreement. Uh oh. (In the scrums after QP, Baird started combining both reasons, for the record). For Rae’s final question, he asked about the growing number of bungled military procurement contracts and wondered if we weren’t headed for a “Decade of Doofus.” Baird returned to an old talking point about how the Liberals oversaw a “decade of darkness.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cutting legislative corners

Posted on by

Concerns have been raised that private members’ bills are creating laws with less rigorous scrutiny, and that the government is using this to cut corners. Which is pretty much a big “well, yeah – obviously.” Private members’ bills are not drafted with the assistance of the Department of Justice, but rather by some underpaid clerks in the Library of Parliament, and the time allotted for debate is really limited – two hours per stage in the Commons, and maybe two committee meetings. And yes, the government has been taking advantage of this fact, but for a number of reasons. Sometimes that advantage is tactical – if it’s a PMB and not a government bill, it’s open for a free vote so you can get some opposition MPs onside as they (normally) won’t be whipped on it. If those free votes can sow some division, as with the long-gun registry bill in the previous parliament, so much the better. Sometimes it is genuinely an idea from the backbenches that the government likes, which I suspect the masked rioter bill was after it tapped into some good old-fashioned populist outrage after incidents like the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver. But this having been said, I doubt that it’s often being done for the sake of less oversight and debate considering the speed with which these bills proceed, and no, not every bill or motion from a government backbencher is a backdoor attempt by the government to do something (like the Woodworth abortion motion, so stop insisting that it is. Seriously – just stop). A large part of the problem, however, stems from the fact that MPs are conflating their own roles, and they like to think of themselves as American-style lawmakers, and certain opposition parties – like the NDP in particular – like to use their private members’ business to advance party goals rather than the personal policy hobbyhorses of their MPs, like PMBs are intended to do. We need to be mindful that MPs are not there make laws, but are rather to hold those who do to account, and that has been eroded. PMBs are supposed to be limited in scope and effect because it’s not an MP’s job to make laws.  When this role becomes conflated, problems like this one start creeping into the system.

Continue reading →