With much of the media’s attention turned to Rob Ford’s visit to Ottawa, all party leaders were in the House, ready to scrap. Thomas Mulcair led off by pointing out that a certain Senator headlined a fundraiser for Pierre Poilievre — actually not government business — not that Harper took the bait and praised the elections bill instead. Mulcair brought up the Deloitte audit and tried to insinuate that Senator Tkachuk was passing information to the PMO. Harper reminded him that it wasn’t a question for him to answer. Mulcair then asked why it was that the previous draft of the election bill was rejected by the Conservative caucus, but Harper insisted that Muclair’s information was wrong. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up slowing growth figures and wondered why the Building Canada Fund was losing money, but Harper hit back by saying that Trudeau didn’t understand the economy. And on it went for two more supplementals.
Tag Archives: Canada Job Grant
Roundup: Trudeau’s penitent face
Justin Trudeau put on his penitent face yesterday and made his apology for making a quip about Russia intervening in Ukraine because of a hockey loss. He apologised to the ambassador, and signed the book of condolences there for the dead protesters – and everyone pointed out that none of the other leaders had done so, nor had they spoken to the ambassador. Because we need to play cheap politics over the situation there, and try and drag their ambassador into our domestic political mud fights. Way to show that any party leader in Canada is statesmanlike! Meanwhile, Stephen Harper is sending John Baird to Ukraine with a Canadian delegation in order to meet with the interim government to see if Canada can help out in any way (and it’ll likely involve being part of a bailout package, since much of what started this whole revolt was the $15 billion that the former president accepted from the Russian government).
Roundup: Trying to court the retired general
A few hours before his speech at the convention, it was revealed that retired General Andrew Leslie would let it be known that the Conservatives tried to recruit him. He was vague about it in the speech, however, saying that he had discussions with several parties (to which both the Conservatives and NDP denied it, Pierre Poilievre trying to dismiss it that they didn’t want him anyway) and danced around it when asked during the press scrum afterward. Leslie did get quite a dig in at Rob Nicholson during said scrum, so there’s that. Later in the day, Leslie produced a series of emails in which he was talking to very senior Conservative staffers about various positions, including running for them in a couple of different Ottawa-area ridings, so those denials were all the more suspect, not that the Liberals minded that he was shopping around – they were glad that he wound up a Liberal. Aaron Wherry had a conversation with Leslie, in which he defended the $72,000 benefit, as part of the conditions of service.
Roundup: Commence the convention
The Liberals’ policy convention is now underway in Montreal, and while things started off with a bit of an oops – the feed from the main stage was live to the reporters’ room while Trudeau was practicing his speech, giving it away before he could make it, and it included his camera directions. He delivered his rah-rah partisan speech to kick things off, which included a couple of digs at Pauline Marois, and to Harper and Mulcair in which he said he wasn’t going to play their game of trying to make Canadians angry, and ended it with a Skype call to his family (as they stayed in Ottawa, his wife due to give birth any day now). A few Senate Liberals, but not many, are in attendance, for which the NDP are trying to get a social media shaming going. Mike Moffatt offers three questions for the Liberals to look at as they try to formulate economic policy during this weekend’s convention. Kate Heartfield notes the implicit populist tones in Trudeau’s economics video, and how it still creates an Us and Them in order to play that populist card, while still trying to look like he’s above tribalism. Michael Den Tandt writes that the broad strokes economic policy will be looking at ways to bring the Red Tories and Blue Liberals back into the fold and away from the Conservative coalition. Paul Wells writes about the Conservatives hoping that the convention will prove to be a gaffe-fest for Trudeau (and along the way, coins the best descriptor for the Fair Elections Act as being “Conservative-fair”).
Roundup: Checking in with the props
With all of the talk about the future of the income splitting promise in doubt, Jennifer Ditchburn checks in with the family that was used as the prop for the announcement during the last election. She found that they’re not really Conservative party members, and they’re waiting to see what else gets proposed instead of income splitting before they make up their minds. Stephen Maher notes Kenney’s intrusion into the file, and how he continues to stoke the social conservative base, which may be in support of his likely leadership bid.
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.
Roundup: Hysteria over a difference of opinion
All of the tongues were wagging yesterday as it appeared that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty started backing away from the government’s promise to implement income splitting for families once the budget gets balanced. Unfortunately, this also resulted in a number of hyperbolic lines of copy, with things like “split in the caucus,” because there can’t be disagreement without it being a major issue, which in turn makes the tendency for rigid message control all the more prevalent (although, it is a bigger issue when it’s the PM and finance minister who can’t agree, but let’s keep things within reason). Or all the musings about Flaherty “being in the doghouse” because Harper himself was answering questions in QP – which people started complaining about. Seriously – Harper was answering questions! Like a Prime Minister! This is a good thing, people! John Geddes puts Flaherty’s musings in with the context of his broader freelancing from the party line of late, while Kevin Milligan offers an overview on the research into income splitting. Andrew Coyne writes that the rift between Harper and Flaherty on clear party policy shows that perhaps Flaherty should think about stepping down.
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.
QP: Budget Day eve
As the Olympics distract the masses, the Grand Inquest of the Nation carries on. Well, minus most of the party leaders anyway. Thomas Mulcair was present, and started off by asking about the newly reported debt figures, and demanded action on ATM fees and credit card interest rates. Kevin Sorensen accused the NDP of wanting to “pick the pockets of Canadians,” and that they were encouraging Canadians to be careful with their debts. Mulcair rambled on about budget shoes and slippers, and returned to the same demand, to which Sorensen touted tax cuts that the government had made. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill and the topic of voter identification cards. Poilievre insisted that there was a mistake in one out of six of those cards, meaning that they weren’t secure but there were 39 other form of acceptable identification. Mulcair dropped a non sequitur Olympic reference before returning to the bill and the issue of democracy promotion. Poilievre spoke about more advanced voting days. For his last question of the round, Mulcair decried the gagging of the Chief Electoral Officer, to which Poilievre quoted other sections of the act to disprove Mulcair’s point. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, asking about the tariff changes and Canada Job Grant out of last year’s budget, and if they would be corrected in this year’s. Sorensen touted all the wonderful things their government had done. Ralph Goodale asked about other budget items like job training and infrastructure funds, but Sorensen recited good news talking points.