Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
Tag Archives: Attawapiskat
Roundup: Buh-bye, Pauline Marois
It was akin to a massacre. The results are in, and it’s certainly a majority and almost a landslide for the Quebec Liberals considering the predictions going in, while Pauline Marois lost her own seat, and the Charter of Quebec Values is being consigned to the dustbin of history. And yes, Marois is stepping down as leader, while Pierre Karl Péladeau all-but declared his leadership intentions. Mark Kennedy looks at what Couillard’s win means for federalist forces in the country, which might mean an effort to rebuild some bridges, and remember that Couillard has even mused about getting Quebec’s signature on the constitution at long last. Andrew Coyne says that after this many elections were a referendum has been resoundingly rejected that in essence, Quebeckers have not only accepted the constitutional status quo but have pretty much signed the constitution. Paul Wells writes that the PQ is stuck between an electorate that won’t buy their policies, a party base that won’t retreat, and the looming threat that they will become the Tea Party of Quebec. Here’s the At Issue panel’s reading of the election results.
Roundup: Rail safety recommendations released
The Transportation Safety Board released their recommendations following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which not only includes phasing out the DOT-111 tanker cars (though there is no mandated timeline), but also choosing the safest routes, better emergency measures along those routes, and limiting train speeds along the routes that carry dangerous goods. Routes should also be inspected twice a year. The government accepts the recommendations, but because things are complicated and the systems integrated across North America, talks continue between governments.
Roundup: And Hyer makes two
As was widely guessed, NDP-turned-Independent MP Bruce Hyer joined the Green Party – not that this was any big surprise. I look a look at how the NDP botched their outraged reaction here. Interestingly, Hyer went on TV later in the day and let it be known that Thomas Mulcair is one of the reasons that he would never return to the NDP, and that the culture of whipping and control is getting worse under Mulcair than it would have been with almost any other leadership candidate. (Hyer backed Nathan Cullen, for the record). Mulcair went on to imply that Hyer didn’t have any values, which just makes the whole bitter act look all the more petty.
QP: False accusations abound
With the by-elections on, and Harper out of the House, it looked like it was going to be Thomas Mulcair versus Paul Calandra — a particularly debased bit of political theatre that serves nobody’s interests. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Comartin in the chair today and not Scheer, so it would remain to be seen if anything would be different. Mulcair led off by reading a question around the admission by the PM’s communications director that there was a cover-up in the PMO and likely criminality that took place. Paul Calandra rejected the premise of the question, and insisted that the PM had nothing to do with it. Mulcair demanded that everyone who had a hand in the event be fired, but Calandra insisted that they were cooperating with authorities. Mulcair wondered why Gerstein remained in caucus if he was involved in improperly attempting to influence the audit — but Calandra reminded him that the RCMP were only investigating Duffy and Wright. Mulcair closed the round by wondering about the “good to go” order being after he told Duffy to repay, but Clanadra insisted that Duffy was still trying to justify his inappropriate expenses in the interim. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, wondering how long Harper put up with the cover-up in his office, but Calandra assured him that the Prime Minister immediately ordered cooperation with investigators. McGuinty also tried to ask about the “good to go” discrepancy, not that Calandra’s answer changed. For the final question of the round, McGuinty wondered when the government would share all of the documents in its possession, but Calandra simply repeated that the PM ordered cooperation with investigators.
Roundup: A refresher course in open nominations
Nomination races are the backbone of our democratic system, yet are probably the least understood component – thanks of course to a pretty shite job of civic education in this country that does little to teach people about it. And as Alice Funke of Pundit’s Guide points out, we’ve been out of the habit of proper open nomination races in this country since about 2004 (blame the period of minority governments and the need to be “election ready” that protected incumbents), which means that these particular democratic muscles in the Canadian electorate have become pretty flabby. Fortunately, she’s penned a fantastic guide about getting back into shape, which everyone needs to read. And no, I’m not kidding – everyone needs to read this. Okay? Good.
Roundup: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.
Roundup: About those “robust” audits
Two new reports from the Auditor General show that the honour system is alive and well in both the Commons and the Senate, and it was all just a cursory look without digging into any MP or senator’s expenses. While the Senate has been making reforms to their internal processes before the current spending scandals erupted, the Commons has not, and it seems that only Justin Trudeau has been championing a more robust audit process by the AG. To hear Thomas Mulcair tell the tale, as he was all spring, the AG did a thorough and comprehensive audit and found no problems, which clearly is not the case.
Roundup: Knee-jerk populist stunts
The Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation has decided to lump themselves in with the group of civic illiterates who operate under the mistaken impression that a national referendum is a constitutional amending formula. In this case, they used a giant inflatable Mike Duffy to launch their lobby campaign for a referendum on Senate abolition. In other words, they want to spend a great deal of tax dollars for a useless, non-binding process that is little more than a case of populist knee-jerk reaction to the bad behaviour of a small number of individuals. How exactly this seems to fit in with their mandate of eliminating government waste is a little beyond me, especially considering that the Senate delivers a great deal of value for money – not that knee-jerk populists actually know enough about the institution to realise it.
Roundup: CSIS volunteers to help Vic Toews
The Director of CSIS has generously volunteered to assist Vic Toews in fixing his delayed Lawful Access bill. You can find the redacted letter here.
The federal government has announced that it will appeal the BC court ruling on assisted suicide.
What’s that? Federal bureaucrats weren’t impressed when John Duncan didn’t appear to understand the Attawapiskat file in public? You don’t say!