After a bout of procedural shenanigans and two separate time allocation votes in the Commons, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand spoke to the Commons Procedure and House Affairs committee, giving his assessment of the Fair Elections Act. He has a couple of major concerns – the lack of powers to compel testimony, the loss of the vouching system and the likelihood that it will disenfranchise voters, and inadequate paperwork filed by candidates who get their refunds nevertheless. He spoke about the privacy concerns over turning over the lists of who actually voted over to the parties, who have zero legislated privacy safeguards, and said that the fears of voter information cards to commit fraud is a lot of sound and fury over nothing as most of the errors recorded were procedural and not substantive. In case you couldn’t guess, Pierre Poilieve shrugged off most of the whole appearance, and tried to claim that Mayrand made a number of factual errors.
Tag Archives: Veterans
Roundup: Unhelpful comparisons with Crimea
While we wait to hear the latest developments with Russia’s troop movements in the Crimea, here’s an interesting piece about how the markets are punishing Russia even more swiftly than diplomats ever could, where they lost some $55 billion in the two days since they moved troops into Ukraine. Stephen Harper is threatening that Russia may also face expulsion from the G8. John Baird helpfully compared Putin’s actions to the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Andrew Coyne savages the “peace activists” defending Putin’s actions, and calls for NATO resources in the region to be bulked up.
QP: Statements instead of answers on Ukraine
After a busy weekend of foreign affairs matters, given the situation in Ukraine, it appeared that everyone forgot about the House as none of the major leaders were present, and there were a lot of empty desks. (It should be noted that Trudeau is at home with his new baby). To add insult to injury, Stephen Harper was holding a media event while in Toronto at the same time. So much for the primacy of the Commons. Leading off for the NDP, Megan Leslie asked about what the government has said to Vladimir Putin about the situation in Ukraine, and Deepak Obhrai read a statement in response. Leslie asked about how many Canadians were in the country and what was done to contact them, to which Obhrai assured her that they were in touch with those Canadians. Leslie changed topics and brought up the objections to the elections bill by Preston Manning and Harry Neufeld, but Pierre Poilievre recited the parts of the bill that Manning liked. Nycole Turmel repeated the same in French, and got the same response. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and returned to the situation in Ukraine, asking about the status of Russia in the G8. Obhrai repeated his previous statement of condemnation. Goodale changed topics to municipal infrastructure funding and the cuts to the Building Canada Fund. Denis Lebel insisted that the premise was false, and that they had tripled infrastructure funding. Dominic LeBlanc closed the round by asking the same in French, and got the same response.
QP: If a comedy show can do it…
A couple of hours after the speech in the Commons by the Aga Khan, things had quieted down considerably, and most of the leaders had fled. Thomas Mulcair was still around, and he led off by by asking about the elimination of vouching at the polls. Pierre Poilievre responded that in some 40 percent of cases of vouching, there was no way to contact the voucher to ensure there was no fraud. Mulcair wondered about cases where fraud by vouching was prosecuted and why not fix the system. Poilievre said that the Neufeld report showed that even when they tried to fix the vouching system and better monitoring it, there were still irregularities in more than 20 percent off cases. When Mulcair pressed, Poilievre reminded him that there were documented case of someone using the voter ID cards to vote more than once in his own hometown. Mulcair accused them of trying to make it harder for people who don’t vote Conservative, but Poilievre stuck to the facts around those documented cases, as part of a comedy show or not. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and thrice asked about the cuts to infrastructure spending and called their announcements little more than “creative accounting.” Peter Braid responded, and insisted that they’ve tripled investments in infrastructure.
Roundup: Kenney makes things awkward
Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
QP: Dodging and weaving around promises
With a Team Canada hockey game going on, the members were distracted as QP got underway, and there were a great many empty seats dotting the chamber. Even more, only Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May were the only leaders present. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, and wondered if income splitting was to be abandoned. Jim Flaherty rose to assure her that they were committed to tax relief for families, and that the opposition voted against income splitting for seniors. Leslie pressed, and Flaherty hit back about how only the Conservatives lowered taxes. Leslie turned to the elections bill and wondered why the government was reluctant to allow cross-country consultations. Pierre Poilievre insisted that he consulted outside of Ottawa and heard their complaints. David Christopherson shouted the same question again in English, to which Poilievre insisted that the opposition simply needed to submit a list of witnesses to the committee, and they would be bring them in. Trudeau returned to the issue of income splitting, and how Kenney rebuked his own caucus members by saying they always keep their promises. With that established, Trudeau wondered what happened to the patient wait time guarantee. After some hesitation, Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that billions had been invested in the problem. Trudeau then wondered about the promise to lower the price of diesel fuel, to which Flaherty dodged by insisted that they lowered all kinds of taxes. For his final question, Trudeau wondered about the promised oil and gas regulations, but Leona Aglukkaq skated and tried to accuse the Liberals of letting the infrastructure in national parks lapse.
QP: Budget reaction PMQ
With everybody digesting the yesterday’s budget, it was likely to be a day of round condemnation, punctuated by fulsome backbench praise. With all of the leaders and the finance minister in the House, it had the potential to be a good day. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if it was true that the finance minister no longer believed in the promise of income splitting. Harper responded that they brought it in for seniors, whereas the NDP wanted to raise taxes. Mulcair wondered why the Conservatives had fired 300 food inspectors only to re-hire them in the budget, to which Harper insisted that they had increased the number of inspectors, before reading a list of groups who liked the budget. Mulcair moved to the Elections Act, and wondered why the Elections Commissioner would be reporting to the justice minister. Harper said the Commissioner would be independent, and by the way, in the NDP leadership race, they didn’t count fundraising expenses either. Mulcair wondered why they wanted investigation suspects warned but not the general public when it comes to voter fraud, but Harper responded with accusations of the NDP using union funds. For his final question, Mulcair asked about using the EI fund to balance the budget, but Harper insisted there would be a long-term balance in the fund. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals and wondered why the minister didn’t ask for more funds for veterans, but Harper hit back with a comment that Trudeau made about budgets balancing themselves. Trudeau wondered about a plan for economic growth, to which Harper assured him that the record of Economic Action Plans™ spoke for themselves.
QP: In the shadow of the budget lock-up
With less than two hours to go before the budget is released, and a number of the seats in the Commons remained empty, but all three main leaders were present. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if the Prime Minister would remove the “gag order” from the the elections bill, to which Harper assured him that there was no such provision in the bill, but several sections that require him to act. Mulcair insisted that no, his reading was correct, and Harper assured him that there was no orchestrated fraud in the last election, but for the next election there would be an independent investigator. Mulcair asked about a section of the bill that doesn’t count communication with past donors, and Harper insisted that party fundraising shouldn’t be included as political communications. Mulcair hammered away at that, but Harper insisted that the only cheating was the NDP using union money. Mulcair closed off with a question of robocalls in the last election — ostensibly party business — but Harper didn’t bite. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the lapsing Labour Market Agreements, but Harper insisted that his government invested in job training programmes. Trudeau wanted an assurance that this year, the government wouldn’t start advertising any proposed budget measures that hadn’t yet passed, especially during the Olympics. Harper responded with a jab that the Liberals didn’t have any policies worth advertising.
Roundup: Day of the many leaks
It was a day of leaks yesterday – first a plan to try to “disrupt” the Liberal convention and undermine Trudeau, which seemed a bit foolish and costly, given that their “agents” would have to purchase convention memberships for the purpose of lame buttons and Trudeau-branded rolling papers. (The Liberals, meanwhile, say the attention is flattering). And while that one looked deliberately leaked to the media, the following other leaks weren’t. A 70-page re-election strategy was next to make its way to the Toronto Star, which talks a lot about leveraging Laureen Harper to help put a human face on the government, while totally ignoring Thomas Mulcair in the strategy. And if that wasn’t enough, it was then revealed that the PM’s former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, will be the party’s new legal advisor. Paul Wells notes that even though the party has often ”leaked” false memos in the past this does appear that they have an unintended leaker in their ranks.
Roundup: Mayrand hits back
Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand hit back against Pierre Poilievre’s slam against him that he is somehow wearing team jersey. Mayrand says the only jersey he is wearing are the black and white stripes – the referee – and the changes in the new Fair Elections Act will mean that he’s no longer on the ice. With time allocation on the elections bill looming, the NDP decided to spend the first half of the sitting day yesterday engaged in procedural warfare, trying to delay the debate on time allocation, with a series of votes that eventually delayed QP itself. With those hurdles now cleared, they are proposing a motion in Procedure and House Affairs committee that they travel around all regions of the country to consult with Canadians on the bill, though I have some concerns about some of the groups they want to hear from. After all, Fair Vote Canada is the largest voter suppression organisation in the country (who else goes around telling everyone that their vote doesn’t count?), and Democracy Watch is pretty much run by a crank that doesn’t have a clue about civic literacy. But hey, consultations!