Talk about the “permanent campaign” has been around for much longer than most people credit it for. In fact, the earliest mention I’ve seen was in a letter that then-PC youth leader Joe Clark sent to then-party leader John Diefenbaker warning about the implications of the permanent campaign, and well, things have only gone downhill from there. The advent of the “fixed election date” did nothing to temper the permanent campaign – instead of fearing an election that could come at any time, we are instead treated to a fixed date that everyone builds their campaigning around, and year-long campaigns are certainly now the norm, following in more of an American example than we have traditionally had in this country. Amidst it all, the former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, is warning that the fixed election date is eroding the campaign rules that we’ve developed over years, and in particular, campaign finance rules. Those rules, built for the era of when a campaign could come at any point, have no sway over the election spending limits that happen outside of the writ period, which means that they can spend as much as they want, particularly on advertising, and don’t have to report it. When the writ does eventually drop, people will have been bombarded by this messaging over the summer, and it’ll get pretty tired. But Kingsley is right – we have developed the best system in the world for election spending controls, and the permanent campaign of the fixed-election date is undermining that. There is a bill in the Senate that has stalled at committee for years that would see the same caps from an election apply to the writ period also apply to the pre-writ period, so that if you do a blitz of pre-writ advertising, well, it’ll deduct from your total spending cap in the writ period. It’s a novel idea, but it’s no surprise that nobody has picked up on it. It goes to reinforce that while fixed election dates sound swell on the face of it, if you look a little bit deeper, you’ll find that all of their supposed good aspects are in fact swamped by the unintended bad ones, which is what we seem to have completely taken over. Time to pull the plug on them.
Tag Archives: Trade
Roundup: Calling in the OPP
It took MPs long enough to respond, but one supposes that it’s about time they did. On Thursday of last week, the Information Commissioner issued her damning special report on the RCMP destroying records that were under Access to Information requests, related to the long-gun registry, and the government is now proposing legislation to make it retroactively legal (more in my column here). No MP other than Wayne Easter bothered to actually say something until yesterday – five days later – at which point the committees decided to get involved. The NDP are moving a motion in Ethics committee, which has jurisdiction over Access to Information policy, while the Liberals are proposing similar hearings in the Public Safety committee where they can haul the RCMP Commissioner before them. Still, it’s another week’s delay, and there’s no guarantee they’ll get the hearings given the limited number of sitting days left, and the fact that government MPs can block their request in camera. That having been said, it looks like Suzanne Legault’s recommendation that charges be laid for the destruction of those records might actually come to fruition, as the Attorney General’s office did forward the request on to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn has asked the OPP to investigate. We’ll see if the government proposes to still go ahead with retroactively changing the law while there is an active police investigation, but if they stick to their guns, that they’re just “closing a loophole” (which is not true), then they just might.
QP: Bringing back the Duffy questions yet again
Tuesday, and all of the leaders were finally present like they should be. If we’re lucky, we may see them for two days this week instead of just the one. Thomas Mulcair led off, once again returning to the issue of PMO interference in the Senate audit. Harper insisted that the premise was false and the matters were before the court. Mulcair tried to drag in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen into the conspiracy, but Harper wouldn’t take the bait. Mulcair asked about Duffy’s residency prior to appointment and the statement he allegedly signed before being sworn in, and Harper again retreated behind the courts. Mulcair finally segued to layoffs at Alcan, to which Harper and praised his government’s low-tax agenda. Mulcair read the question in French, bringing up Jack Layton’s name in the process, but Harper’s answer didn’t change. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking the government to cancel tax breaks for the wealthy. Harper insisted that their lower taxes benefit everybody, and insisted the Liberals would take everything away. Trudeau asked again, and Harper insisted his plan would make life better for every Canadian. Another round in French, and more of the same answer.
Mulcair brings up Layton in his final question, and in French. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
The Conservatives are miming that Trudeau is digging himself in deeper. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
QP: Dropping the ball on operational security
On most Tuesdays in the Commons, the leaders would actually be present, given that it’s usually one of the two days per week that Stephen Harper deigns to show up. Today, however, with Harper still in the Netherlands, none of the other main leaders bothered to show up either. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie led off, asking about the record trade deficit (which it needs to be stated is not necessarily a bad thing, just because it’s referred to as a deficit). Ed Fast insisted that exports were up, and yay trade agreements. Leslie asked again in English, capping it off with a demand for $15/day childcare. Candice Bergen insisted that theirs was the best plan for all families. Again, Leslie bemoaned the state of the manufacturing sector, to which James Moore praised all of their measures. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and decried the imminent passage of Bill C-51. Stephen Blaney wondered why the NDP refused to give tools to the police, or how they could deny that there were terrorist attacks in Canada. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and wanted help for the middle class, touting the plan they introduced yesterday. Pierre Poilievre responded that the Liberals would raise taxes by replealing the doubling of the TFSA (which is not actually true). Ralph Goodale was up and more forcefully asked the same again in English twice, and Poilievre doubled down on his blatantly untrue talking points.
QP: On bombing Syria
About four hours after Harper addressed the Commons about extending the Iraq mission, everyone gatherer again, all leaders present and full benches behind them. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the October statements that bombing in Syria would only happen with the permission of that government, and asked what changed. Harper responded that ISIS was taking refuge in Syria, and that we were following the lead of our allies in bombing across that border. Mulcair asked about the change in statements on painting targets, but Harper insisted that the government would act about the threat of ISIS. Muclair asked about how many new soldiers would be added, to which Harper insisted that those would not change. Mulcair asked for an exit strategy, and Harper responded by being “clear” about the threat that ISIS poses to Canada and the world. Mulcair wondered how Harper could still claim it wasn’t a combat mission, and Harper responded by wondering how the NDP could not support the mission. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the planning horizon for the combat role. Harper responded that the motion was for up to twelve months, and that they would continue to evaluate the situation. Trudeau wondered if our Special Forces would be operating in Syria, to which Harper assured him that the motion was only for them to continue training in Northern Iraq. Trudeau then wondered how Canada would communicate with the Assad regime to ensure that our fighters would not be targeted by Syrian air defences. Harper insisted that our allies were already doing it.
QP: The Wright connection
Wednesday, caucus day, and everyone was present and ready to go. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking if the prime minister was planning an extension or expansion of the Iraq mission. Stephen Harper responded by first thanking the House for its support of the mission and then said that no decision had been made and he would let them know when it had. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same response. Mulcair then switched to the topic of the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Diane Finley, and wondered about Nigel Wright’s role in the affair. Harper responded that she used her discretion while acting in good faith, and would take the advice of the Commissioner going forward. Mulcair pressed, but got the same response that she acted in good faith. Mulcair tried to push on the quote about Nigel Wright being asked to “sort out” the issue, but Harper tried to distance himself. Justin Trudeau was up next, and wanted the Prime Minister to explain to the half-million Muslims in the country how he found their faith to be “anti-women.” Harper responded by reading condemnations from Jewish groups about elements in Trudeau’s speech on Monday. Trudeau pointed out that Harper used to oppose Sihk’s wearing turbans in the RCMP, and Trudeau responded by reading some Muslim groups defending the no-niqabs-in-citizenship-ceremonies position. Trudeau then moved to Jason Kenney’s misleading photos on Twitter, to which Kenney doubled down, insisting we were in Iraq to protect women and girls from ISIS. So, no apology then.
QP: Junk food proposals
With Harper jetting off to the Francophonie Summit, and Justin Trudeau elsewhere, Thomas Mulcair was the only major leader in the House, where he led off by asking about junk food advertising targeting children — his latest policy proposal. Rona Ambrose responded that the government is concerned about child obesity, and they are investing in research and programmes on the ground. Mulcair insisted that his idea has proven effective in Quebec, to which Ambrose insisted that the real issue is getting children off the couch, no matter how healthy they eat. Mulcair moved onto thalidomide victims and his party’s motion on support for them. Ambrose noted that the government would support the motion. Mulcair then moved on to the issue of domestic violence and the need to find concrete solutions. Kellie Leitch started off going on about workplace safety and somehow weaving in violence against women, but confusingly. Mulcair asked if she would sit down with unions and employers about the issue of domestic violence, to which Leitch responded about meetings on mental health in the workplace. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, returning to the theme of the week about veterans, to which Parm Gill noted there were some concerns, but the government did offer support. Frank Valeriote picked it up, and Gill assured him that the minister works hard to consult veterans across the country. Joyce Murray recalled her question on a tragic veterans case that she raised yesterday, asking for an answer. Rob Nicholson noted how much they’ve increased the budget for veterans and to help those in need.
QP: Childcare spaces across governments past
The day after the by-election, but the Commons was on the more subdued side. All three major leaders were present today, and Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about failed childcare plans from previous governments, and wondered how many spaces the current government delivered. Stephen Harper noted that NDP plans would benefit a mere ten percent of Canadians, while the measures his government announced would benefit all families with children. Mulcair poked about the government giving money for the rich, while Harper accused him of looking to take money away from families. Mulcair wondered why Harper was borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts he announced, but Harper continued to insist that their plans would put money in the pockets of “real working Canadians.” Mulcair veered into money being “stolen” from the EI fund, but Harper retorted that the EI would raise EI premiums. For his final question, Mulcair asked if the government would agree with their proposals for dealing with harassment on the Hill. Harper responded that their government has policies in place and would be happy to share them with the Board of Internal Economy. Justin Trudeau rose to ask if the government would support on his bill on increasing transparency. Harper retorted that it was rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency given that they voted against all kinds of bills that claimed to be about transparency (but most really weren’t). Trudeau asked about the government’s commitment to GHG reductions for the Copenhagen targets, to which Harper said it was rich for the Liberals to talk about emissions when they went up under their government. When Trudeau brought up the deal between the U.S. and China on emissions, Harper bashed back about the lack of Liberal action on Kyoto targets.
Roundup: An upcoming rounding error surplus
Joe Oliver delivered his fall economic update in Toronto, and as expected, the government is still technically in deficit until next year, at which point they are expected to turn out a modest $1.9 billion surplus, most of which is pretty much spent on their suite of “family” tax measures including the income splitting tax credit – all of it a challenge to the opposition parties and specifically Justin Trudeau, daring them to cancel the “tax cuts” (most of which aren’t really cuts). And it’s not a surplus plan without risks. Thomas Mulcair immediately called the figures a “mirage” because they depend on spending cuts, while Justin Trudeau referred to the tax measures as “unfair” because the income splitting measure in particular disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Andrew Coyne notes that Harper has put the opposition in a box with his tax cuts and expenditures unless those parties are willing to raise the GST. Paul Wells notes that this falls squarely within Harper’s re-election plans – that he doesn’t need to promise anything other than the fear that his opponents’ plans are ruinous. Stephen Gordon provides some context to Oliver’s pronouncements.
If not before Diefenbaker RT @InklessPW: Joe Oliver: Not since Diefenbaker has federal tax burden been this low. pic.twitter.com/Ov1ptUdYko
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 12, 2014
If you're buying into the CPC surpluses, you're buying into their austerity as well. Federal direct program spending: pic.twitter.com/RaFFuUUwBu
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 12, 2014
Roundup: Shrugging off other harassment allegations
A suit was filed in Ontario Superior Court yesterday alleging harassment by an NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine, according to a former staffer – but it’s not quite the same as the other allegations that have gripped the Hill this week. Instead, it was another staffer in that office that harassed the female staffer who filed the suit, while she alleged that nothing was done because Chicoine acted in a sexist and misogynist manner by doing nothing about it, until he eventually fired her. The party closed ranks around Chicoine by saying that the staffer’s union had investigated and found nothing to be amiss, but were silent about the fact that they offered her a lesser data-entry job in the leader’s office if she agreed to drop her suit. Mulcair tried to claim that it had nothing to do with Chicoine but was simply a dispute between staffers – not true, according to the suit – and even went so far as to opine that as a lawyer, he thought her case was without merit – a rather unusual move for someone who was so concerned about re-victimization of other complainants just a day before. The change in tone between the two incidents is quite something.