Despite having already lost their star candidate for the riding, Thomas Mulcair remains confident that the NDP can still win Edmonton Centre in the next general election – never mind that the confluence of factors that favoured Linda Duncan aren’t really present in that particular riding. Mulcair then headed to Calgary, where he scoffed at the notion of Harper as national unifier, and pointed to the current voluntary national securities regulator project as an example of sowing divisions with provinces like Alberta, who don’t want to sign on. Erm, not sure how it’s relevant, or why the Supreme Court would shut down a voluntary scheme, but whatever.
Tag Archives: Brad Wall
Roundup: “Captain Canada” remaining neutral
An election has been called in Quebec, but in Ottawa, Thomas Mulcair has declared that as there is no provincial NDP, he will remain “neutral.” And yes, he did just last weekend insist that he was going to be “Captain Canada” and fight for national unity. To that end, he says that he’ll support the federalist side (recall that he was once a provincial Liberal), but he doesn’t want people to vote only on that issue, especially because there are some Quebec Liberals who are in favour of private healthcare and so on. But wait – he also said that Marois would try to force a referendum if she wins a majority. So, he doesn’t want federalism to be the only factor, but it’s a major factor because she’ll launch a referendum that nobody wants. No doubt this has nothing to do with keeping the soft nationalists in the party fold. The Liberals, meanwhile, are on the attack saying that Mulcair can’t be neutral while the issue of separatism is on the table, while the Conservatives (who aren’t a big presence in the province) are holding back but saying that they would prefer Quebeckers choose the federalist option. Aren’t Quebec politics fun?
Roundup: Wall denies ambitions
From the Manning Networking Conference, we saw presentations by Brad Wall, who wants the country to be both a food and energy superpower (and he insists that he has no federal ambitions, which makes one wonder all the more about his motivations as to why he’s constantly carrying Stephen Harper’s lunch among the premiers), by Jim Prentice, who said that there needs to be stronger environmental connections to achieve their energy goals like Keystone XL, and Jason Kenney announced progress on his Canada Job Grant plan before saying that he not only supports income splitting, but he made a somewhat impolitic statement about “stable families” being the best way to help youth find economic success in adulthood – but then couldn’t answer about his apparent abandonment of kids from “unstable families.” (Also, one supposes that such a statement was also a sop to the social conservative base that he’s courting). The party’s pollster gave grave warnings about how the party’s numbers are doing, and it’s not good, as the Liberal brand has rebounded, something that happened even before Trudeau became the leader. He also found that there’s just no interest in a discussion on marijuana on either side, and suggested that they drop it. Andrew Coyne notes that the Conference is like the real Conservative convention – as opposed to the Harper Party one that happened last fall, and that we’re seeing more people starting to disassociate themselves from Harper and his way of doing politics.
Roundup: Brad Wall’s sound and fury signifying nothing
The news had the NDP crowing, but it’s a lot of sound and fury signifying almost nothing. Over in Saskatchewan, Brad Wall’s government decided to repeal their senate “nominee election” legislation, and pass a motion to declare that they are calling for Senate abolition. Which is all well and good, but that legislation was of dubious constitutionality since the Senate is federal jurisdiction, the selection of Senators explicitly spelled out in the constitution as a Governor-in-Council appointment, not to mention that Wall refused to actually hold these “elections” because Ottawa wouldn’t pay for them. And then there’s the fact that abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces to achieve. So Brad Wall set out a marker, for what it’s worth – but it’s hardly going to get any ball rolling, especially before the Supreme Court hears the reference case.
Roundup: Taunts and regurgitated priorities
Thomas Mulcair has decided to step into the fray over prorogation, and his contribution is that prorogation is fine and good, but suspending Parliament is not, and that since Harper is avoiding Parliament, he’s a coward. Because that’s raising the tone of debate, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, look – Harper wants the throne speech to focus on the economy and middle-class families. I wonder where I’ve heard that one before? Oh, and safe streets? Tell me more! I’ve totally never heard any of this before. Why, it’s positively game changing!
Roundup: The premiers demand thus
And that was the premiers’ meeting. Aside from the opposition to the Canada Jobs Grant programme as it is currently structured, they wanted disaster mitigation to stand apart from their infrastructure demands, which of course they want federal funds for both. They also agreed to work together on the issue of cyberbullying, and on some healthcare initiatives related to things like home care, diagnostic imaging, and brand-name pharmaceuticals. John Geddes has a brief rundown of the meeting as a whole, and notes how curiously late the infrastructure working group comes after the federal budget. Andrew Coyne looks at all of the things that these premiers could accomplish that are in their own jurisdiction, and yet they choose to spend their time ganging up on the federal government instead, demanding cash.
Roundup: Holding off on a committee investigation
The Commons transport committee met yesterday, some ninety minutes after Transport Canada handed down new rules when it comes to rail safety, based on the two letters that the Transportation Safety Board sent them last week in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And while the NDP wanted an immediate study of the rules, the Conservatives and Liberal decided that now was not the time, with as many as nine investigations ongoing or soon to be underway, and that it could either distract or draw too many people away from the front-lines of the investigation. But yes, they would study it, just later.
Roundup: Recall the committee
Olivia Chow has garnered enough support to recall the Commons transport committee on Tuesday to hold emergency meetings on rail safety, although I’m still not sure what they’ll accomplish other than the feeling that they’re seen to be doing something, even though there are still very few facts on the table as to what actually happened in Lac-Mégantic. Meanwhile, the Transportation Safety Board tabled their annual report to Parliament, and lamented the lack of expediency by which Transport Canada implements their regulations, something Lisa Raitt is now calling on the department to do.
Roundup: A feel-good committee for MPs
The NDP wants the Commons transport committee to meet over the summer to discuss rail safety and possibly hold a forum in Lac-Mégantic – you know, playing politics before the facts are known, drawing causal links but then quickly saying they’re not, and totally not trying to gain advantage from a tragedy. Yeah, it sounds like a brilliant idea, and one designed to simply make themselves look like they’re doing something about the tragedy. Fortunately, the Conservative chair of the committee seems to agree that such a move would be premature.
Roundup: A question of speaking fees
The desire to try and tarnish Justin Trudeau’s reputation took a somewhat bizarre twist yesterday as a New Brunswick charity decided to demand that Trudeau repay them for a speech they paid him for a year ago after the event they held flopped and they lost money. Odd that they asked nine months later, and that they are the party that wants to renege on a contract that they signed with the speaker’s bureau that Trudeau operates from, and that they seem to fail to understand that their failure to sell enough tickets to their event isn’t their own fault, but there you have it. (Also, as Scott Brison pointed out, they seemed thrilled by the event at the time). And never mind that this is all above board, that several other MPs and Senators also give speeches through the speaker’s bureau and that this has all been vetted by the Ethics Commissioner, and never mind the fact that Trudeau himself has been entirely above board and given an extremely high level of disclosure and transparency. These facts apparently don’t matter as the Conservatives have decided to characterise this as “millionaire” Trudeau “ripping-off charities.” And to make things all the more bizarre, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided to join the pile-on and both demanded that Trudeau return the same fee he was paid to speak at a literacy conference in Saskatchewan, and then insinuated that he used the funds to bankroll his leadership campaign (to which his office demanded an apology, citing that all of his campaign expenses were above board and cleared by Elections Canada – and Wall offered a non-apology in return). Funnily enough, that same literacy conference didn’t demand the money back and thought that Trudeau was worth every penny.