Following yesterday’s budget, all of the leaders were on hand in the Commons to ask about it. It was also caucus day, which meant the benches were nearly full, usually guaranteeing a good day. Thomas Mulair led off, by asking about Joe Oliver’s statement about leaving the worry about future fiscal woes to “the prime minister’s granddaughter,” and then lamented future for his own grandchildren. Harper hit back, insisting that Oliver said it because it was a ridiculous supposition that the TFSA would create a problem. Mulcair worried about the environmental debt being left to their grandchildren, to which Harper claimed that his was the only government that reduced emissions (err, except the provinces made the reductions). Mulcair changed topics, and asked why Harper would have appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate if he didn’t live in PEI. Harper said it was established practice, and wouldn’t comment on the case befor the courts. Mulcair read out the eligibility requirements in the constitution, and got the same answer from Harper. Mulcair read out the inscription on that photo saying that Duffy was his best appointment, to which Harper demanded the NDP pay back their satellite office expenses. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked again about paying for TFSAs with the next generation of taxpayers. Harper repeated his assertion that lowering taxes was good for everyone, then repeated a distortion about Trudeau’s comments about small business tax cuts. Trudeau insisted that Harper was paying for the OAS age increase with his cuts, to which Harper insisted forcefully that he hadn’t cut a penny from seniors. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper insisted that the Liberals were the only ones who wanted to raise taxes on the middle class.
Tag Archives: Veterans
Roundup: Justin Trudeau and the division of powers
From the sounds of it, Justin Trudeau is apparently setting back the cause of federalism in Canada, as he is getting blamed for an increasing number of provincial woes. It’s been happening for a few weeks with some federal Conservatives like Parm Gill, who are agitating against the provincial Liberals’ new sex ed curriculum, but because Gill and others just refer to the programme as the Liberals’ – not specifying that it’s Kathleen Wynne’s government in Ontario – the implication is that they’re one and the same as Gill shills for federal votes on a provincial issue (that is being torqued by provincial Progressive Conservatives and others, one might add). Moving out east, Trudeau is being blamed for complicity in the provincial Liberals in Nova Scotia proposing to reform film and television tax credits in their provincial budget – apparently Trudeau not saying anything about that change, and a number of other provincial budgetary items, makes him complicit in the whole affair. (During his visit to Halifax yesterday, Trudeau did say he was supportive of arts and culture, but reminded them that he’s a Quebec MP and respects provincial jurisdictions). Yesterday took the cake, as the federal NDP put out a press release blasting Trudeau because the provincial Liberals in PEI remain, well, a little backward on the whole issue of funding abortions in that province. This isn’t the first time that the federal NDP have been trying to ride the provincial parties for their benefit, as they keep hauling out this study that shows that provincial NDP governments have better fiscal records than provincial Liberal or Conservative parties in order to somehow prove they’d be great economic managers – never mind that the various provincial parties are largely divorced from the federal ones (with a couple of minor exceptions in a couple of provinces) and that in many cases the only thing they share is a name, though the NDP like to claim that they’re all one party, federally and provincially. It also means that if you stretch that logic, that Thomas Mulcair is responsible for raising the HST in Manitoba, that province’s appalling state of child welfare cases, and the myriad of problems that the provincial NDP in Nova Scotia left behind when they were defeated (prompting the provincial Liberals to table the budget they just did). It’s actually pretty alarming that people don’t seem to understand the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government – particularly when it’s political parties fuelling this nonsense, and they really need to stop.
Wait, so the NDP are attacking Trudeau over the PEI Liberals? They know there are jurisdiction issues, right? pic.twitter.com/p3CGtIKYx0
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 15, 2015
Roundup: Legalism and homework monitors
Another day, another dissection of the rules of the Senate, this time with the revelation that nobody in Senate administration ensured that work got done when they paid out contractors that senators drew up. The defence maintained the legalistic hammering, to the point that lawyer Donald Bayne omitted one key phrase from the guidelines for Senators expenses: “Likewise, individual Senators must be conscious of the requirement to expend public monies prudently.” And really, that’s what’s at the heart of this trial – even if the rules themselves were loose, it doesn’t mean that it’s permission to go well beyond their intended use and purpose. It makes me wonder who should be checking in on the work of senators when they contract out services – should it be Senate Administration checking that speeches were written, and that research was conducted? Do they become the babysitters and homework monitors of the Senate? It’s a hard question to ask because you can only infantilise them so far before you start getting into problems. It’s even more problematic when senators’ policy work can take a wide variety of forms. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be some form of oversight to ensure that there isn’t abuse, but we need to keep in mind that these aren’t civil servants or functionaries. They’re parliamentarians, with all of the attendant privileges that comes with that, and that means something. It’s also one of the reasons why pundits opining that this is really a “trial about the Senate” bothers me, and that these “entitled” senators have “free reign to spend public money,” which is obviously not true. Questions were raised, particularly about Wallin but also Duffy, and things were coming to light, though it there may have been the intent to take care of it more quietly. None of it excuses what Duffy did, and the fact that he appears to have deliberately misled Senate Administration with the contracts he drew up, as he certainly appears to have done with his various and sundry claims. Is it the Senate’s fault, or do we blame them to absolve him of the personal responsibility? That should be kept top of mind as the pundit class makes their pronouncements. The Senate didn’t make Duffy do anything – he made all of his choices himself. Meanwhile, the daily behind-the-scenes look notes Duffy’s exit strategy, and here’s a profile of the courtroom sketch artist.
QP: Easter season Friday-on-a-Thursday
With it being an early end to the week in advance of Easter long weekend and a two-week constituency break, QP was held at the usual Friday time slot of 11 am. And while it was on a Friday schedule, there was better than usual Friday attendance, including one major leader — Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair led off by reading a rambling question about balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. Andres Saxton responded by reading some talking points about the family tax cuts, and warned that the opposition would take them away. Mulcair made some digs about Senator Nancy Ruth, to which Candice Bergen responded with some non sequitur talking points about those same family tax cuts. Mulcair then read some concerns about the Future Shop job losses, and Pierre Poilievre got a turn about those same talking points. Charlie Angus then got up to ask an out of bounds question about Senate travel — which earned him a warning from the Speaker after the fact, to which Paul Calandra reminded the House about their satellite office spending, and then they had another go around of the same. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, demanding infrastructure spending, to which Poilievre gave the same response. Scott Brison took another go of it in English, and Candice Bergen got another turn to deliver the approved lines. Brison then noted the amount of government advertising dollars that could go toward creating summer jobs, but Pierre Poilievre delivered a tired “forty million dollars” line before returning to the family tax cut talking points.
Roundup: It’s not an authorisation
Today is the day that the Commons will be holding their non-binding vote on the motion to support the government’s decision to extend the military mission in Iraq and into Syria, but you wouldn’t know it based on the headlines out there right now. “Tories to push through authorization of Syria air mission,” says the Globe and Mail. Nope. It’s not an authorisation, and the Conservatives aren’t pushing it through because they have a majority and it was a foregone conclusion. “Avoiding Syrian air defences a concern as Commons set to approve war expansion,” says The Canadian Press. Still nope – it’s not an approval. It’s an expression of support. It’s right there in the text of the motion. Granted, the government is courting this kind of false interpretation by forcing an unnecessary vote in the first place, and no matter how correctly the motion is worded, they are presenting it as an authorisation or an approval when it’s not, precisely because politically it will help to launder the decision, and make it look like the Commons approved it when they didn’t. That way, when things to wrong – and they inevitably do – and the opposition does its job in holding the government to account, the government could say “the Commons voted on it,” and try to wash their hands of it. Except it’s not an approval, the motion states that, and We The Media need to stop playing the government’s game for them. So repeat after me – it’s an expression of support. That’s all.
QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria
After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.
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.
Roundup: Rushing through the bill…again
With the clock ticking down to the end of the current parliament, the government is going to start lighting a fire to getting C-51 passed over the next two weeks, before the Easter break. That means accelerating the committee hearings to largely stuff them in the next week, with lots of witnesses in single sittings and little time to hear from each of them. It’s not a surprise that the government would use this particular tactic again to ram though contentious legislation, as they’ve done repeatedly, because they apparently have little capacity or desire to actually do the due diligence that they’re supposed to when it comes to these kinds of bills. Not surprisingly, there’s going to be plenty of opposition to large parts of the bill, and some of those who do support parts of the bill are at least concerned that there’s not enough study of the ramifications, or that there is enough needed oversight. But will the government make changes? Unlikely. Adding their voices to the opposition to the bill over the weekend was the Canadian Bar Association.
Roundup: Blowback on gun comments
The backlash from the Conservatives’ fundraising appeal for rural gun owners is starting, from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, to Quebec premier Philippe Couillard, to Ontario’s former attorney general. In fact, numerous legal authorities are reminding Canadians that they don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their homes – unless it’s a case of self-defence, but those situations are rare, and use of force must be proportional in order to not be criminal. And then the PMO started backpedalling about things Harper did or did not say, and how they are aware of criminal misuse of firearms, all while the gun lobby is chafing that the government hasn’t gone far enough for their liking. See the swamp that the government has stepped in, while curiously trying to import a culture war that doesn’t actually exist in Canada. It has also been pointed out that Harper made the gun comments in part of a broader discussion of rural issues while in Saskatchewan, and that he missed the mark on some of the more pressing concerns in that area as well.
Roundup: Contradictions over a niqab policy
It’s definitely starting to look like there’s a either a rift forming in the NDP when it comes to their position on the niqab, or they’re saying one thing in English and another in French, trying to please both audiences in contradiction to the other. Alexandre Boulerice went on Quebec media to talk about the need to keep it out of the civil service, and that we need a national Bouchard-Taylor-esque commission to determine reasonable accommodation for religious minorities around the country – because that worked so well in Quebec, and apparently the rest of the country has the same insecurities around multiculturalism that we need to develop some kind of nonsense term like “interculturalism” to cover for assimilationist policies. Meanwhile, in English, MPs like Paul Dewar and Pat Martin are saying there’s no issue with the niqab and no party policy around it, and Thomas Mulcair has been dancing around the issue when asked directly, talking only about how the Federal Court judgement on the citizenship ceremony issue went to process – a ministerial decree – than the substance of the niqab issue. And if you thought that Boulerice was just freelancing that opinion, it was being tweeted out by the party’s official French Twitter Machine account, and give the degree to which communications are centralised in that party (possibly worse than the Conservative centralisation), it would seem to indicate that such a message has been officially sanctioned, and that the party looks to be trying to please different audiences in the country with contradictory messages. Meanwhile, The Canadian Press took their Baloney Meter™ to the Conservative claims around the niqab ban for citizenship ceremonies (spoiler: It’s full of baloney).