The last QP in the Commons of 2014, and only one of the leaders was present, as Stephen Harper was preparing for a photo op in Mississauga, and Justin Trudeau was, well, elsewhere. Thomas Mulcair led off by demanding Julian Fantino’s resignation twice Julian Fantino, slightly more spirited than his usual robotic reply, decried how often the opposition voted against veterans. Mulcair then asked about impaired driving laws, to which Peter MacKay insisted that they were tough on criminals and respecting victims. Mulcair pivoted again, asking about compensation to Newfoundland and Labrador for CETA implementation, to which Rob Moore noted that the fund was created to compensate for losses, not as a blank cheque, so they were waiting for demonstrable losses. Another pivot, and Mulcair demanded specific emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector. Colin Carrie read that a job-killing carbon tax was “crazy.” Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and return to cuts to front-line programmes at Veterans Affairs, demanding that the minister be fired. Fantino insisted that the government supported veterans while the opposition voted against them. Joyce Murray noted the government distancing itself from the New Veterans Charter, to which Fantino simply recited his talking points. Frank Valeriote asked about the connection of General Dynamics to the new mental health research for the military, to which James Bezan praised the initiative.
Tag Archives: CETA
QP: Trying to protect bureaucrats
After the government unveiled their much ballyhooed price gap legislation, it remained to be seen if that would lead off QP, or if Julian Fantino would remain in the line of fire. Before things got started, however, the two new Conservative MPs from the recent by-elections, Jim Eglinski and Pat Perkins, took their seats. Thomas Mulcair had not yet returned from Paris, leaving Peter Julian to lead off, asking about the US Senate torture report, and how CSIS and the RCMP could use information obtained by torture. Harper insisted it had nothing to do with Canada. Julian moved onto the veterans file and demanded the resignation of Julian Fantino, to which Harper said that the NDP were more interested in protecting bureaucrats and cutting services. Nycole Turmel was up next, and asked about processing times for EI applications, and the decision to hire temporary workers to clear the backlog. Jason Kenney responded that they were dedicated to giving good levels of service, and thanked his parliamentary secretary for the report on processing. Turmel tied in the Social Security Tribunal and the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, calling Kenney incompetent, but Kenney repeated Harper’s line that the NDP is averse to efficiencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the sacred obligation to veterans, wondering why the priority was a tax break for wealthy families instead of veterans. Harper insisted that they provide benefits to both families and veterans, and the current court case was against a previous Liberal programme. Trudeau listed a number of veterans programmes cut or underfunded by the government, to which Harper recited of list of programmes that he claimed the Liberals voted against before trotting out his line that they were trying to protect bureaucrats. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper claimed that 100 of the jobs they eliminated existed solely to delay benefits payments. (Really?!)
Shorter Jason Kenney: OH NOES! Dozens of thousands of unionised government employees! #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 9, 2014
QP: Questions on back office cuts
The last Monday of the year, and it was a bitterly cold one in Ottawa. Like many a Monday, none of the leaders were there, and even Elizabeth May was gone, off to the climate summit in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, and asked about cuts to services at Veterans Affairs that were more than just “back office” cuts. Julian Fantino insisted that the story was false, and read about reducing bureaucratic expense. Leslie twice asked about the reduction in staff for rail safety, to which Jeff Watson insisted that the number of inspectors was up, as was the number of auditors. David Christopherson shouted the veterans cuts question again, got the same robotic answer from Fantino, before a hollered demand for resignation, earning another robotic recitation. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked about the government’s court arguments that there was no fundamental obligation to wounded veterans. Fantino robotically insisted that they were uploading services for veterans. Frank Valeriote listed off a litany of other cuts to veterans, but Fantino read a talking point about increases to front-line services. Valeriote asked a last question about VA managers getting bonuses in the light of cuts to services, but Fantino assured him that the decisions were always taken for the right reasons.
QP: Lapsed spending and a lack of analysis
Despite it being Thursday, the Commons had a lot of empty desks and none of the major leaders present. Megan Leslie led off, asking about Joe Oliver’s admission that his office did not do their own analysis of the EI tax credit. Oliver insisted that their reduction would create jobs, but the NDP would raise taxes. Okay then. When Leslie pressed, Oliver touted the government’s job creation figures. Leslie moved onto the $1.1 billion in lapsed spending on veterans, to which Parm Gill insisted that it was false. Nycole Turmel asked the same is in French, to which Gill repeated his answer. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, asking about spending on housing and infrastructure, to which Denis Lebel said that if Goodale was so concerned, he should have done more when he was finance minister. Goodale laughed, and raised the lapsed veterans spending, to which Parm Gill howled that the Liberals put the Forces through a decade of darkness. Marc Garneau asked the same question again in French, and Gill gave a slightly less hysterical answer about how much they’ve spend on veterans.
Roundup: Assisted suicide heads to the SCC
With the Supreme Court challenge to assisted suicide laws heading to the Supreme Court tomorrow, here’s a look at some of the other countries’ laws in that regard. Carissima Mathen gives us a primer on the assisted suicide case going before the Supreme Court this week.
Roundup: Deployment debate continues
As the debate on the Iraq combat deployment carries on, with the vote set for later tonight, there are already questions as to just how effective air strikes can actually be given that ISIS has already taken lessons to heart about scattering in advance of a raid and reforming after the planes leave. In other words, could that really be the right use of forces. The government made a bit of a show of also adding another $10 million in aid yesterday, including for victims of sexual violence, which the NDP had specifically asked for – but the NDP responded that it’s not really enough to do anything, and then moved an amendment to the government motion to forbid combat and impose strict time limits. (Aaron Wherry recaps the debate here). Liberal advisor and potential candidate, former lieutenant general Andrew Leslie, made the case that an armed non-combat relief mission was a better use of resources because it wouldn’t divide our attention and resources the way doing both combat and aid would, while Roland Paris later noted on P&P that Canada didn’t necessarily need to participate in combat operations, but simply needed to be part of the coalition to help give political cover and legitimacy to the US-led operation. Hillary Clinton, during her speech in Ottawa yesterday, said that military intervention against ISIS was critical – but also not enough to really stop them. Andrew Coyne writes that there is no safe moral ground in this particular fight.
QP: “The PM’s war in Iraq”
It was the last day we were going to see all of the party leaders in the Chamber this week, so the hope was for a repeat of yesterday’s performance, but the chest-thumping over Iraq during Members’ Statements didn’t raise any hopes. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about Ebola precautions being taken in Canada. Stephen Harper assured him that there were no cases in Canada, and that the Public Health Agency has been seized with the matter and is ready in the event that a case does reach here. Mulcair changed topics and asked how many soldiers were on the ground in Iraq, to which Harper said that it was 26 as of today, with a maximum of 69 authorised. Mulcair groused about how many times he had to ask for that figure, to which Harper said that the number was fluctuated, but there was a maximum number. Mulcair asked if there were Canadian troops on the ground in Syria, to which Harper said no, and after that, Mulcair launched into a length diatribe about an open-ended mission with no end in sight, to which Harper insisted that there were no American troops in Iraq when this situation began, and it was a serious situation. Justin Trudeau declared that Harper had not yet made the case for a combat mission, and asked how many troops were supposed to be on the ground at the end of the 30-day mission on Saturday. Harper pretended not to hear what the question was, and instead gave a speech about the gravity of the threat that ISIS poses. Trudeau tried again in French and got much the same again. Trudeau pointed out the secrecy and evasiveness, and Harper said that they were making a decision, before hitting back at the Liberal position.
QP: Baird delivers relevant answers
The day was already off to a shaky start, where Peter Van Loan spent the NDP’s supply date motion on amending the Standing Orders to have the relevancy rules apply to QP, by arguing that QP shouldn’t be a one-way street and that the NDP should answer the questions they pose back to them. It really was mystifying. No major leader was present in the Commons for QP, where Megan Leslie asked about plans to send CF-18s to Iraq to conduct airstrikes. John Baird said that they were dealing with humanitarian operations over there, but no further decisions had been taken. Leslie demanded a vote on increasing participation, to which Baird insisted that they would hold one on a combat mission. (Wait — it’s a trap!) Hélène Laverdière picked up the same questions I’m French, and asked how many of the planned 69 special forces were on the ground. Baird said that he would get back to her on the number, and reiterated the threat posed by ISIS. Leslie got back up for the final question, and trawled for support for the supply day motion, to which Van Loan assured her that our Parliament has the most accountable Question Period in the world, and that the government should be able to pose questions too. And then my head exploded. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and cited media leaks on extending the Iraq deployment, and wanted more details on the parameters that cabinet was considering. Baird replied that cabinet had not yet weighed in on it. Joyce Murray asked about the time period that they were considering for an extended deployment. Baird spoke with exaggerated slowness to insist that no decision had not yet been made.
Roundup: Excuses for exit controls
Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.
Roundup: Calandra’s tearful apology
It was rather stunning, and certainly unexpected, when Paul Calandra got up after Question Period and choked back tears as he apologised for his behaviour on Tuesday, and offered direct apologies to both Mulcair and the House as a whole. He also insisted that the answers were his, and not the “kids in short pants” – even though he later said that he was given the information on that former NDP staffer by a member of the PMO. That said, the fact that he also equivocated, refused to promise to never do it again, and tried to rationalize it as being angry by that NDP fundraiser’s Facebook rant, really took away from the sincerity of the tears and the moment itself. It certainly does raise the question about what changed between now and Tuesday – especially after he doubled down on Wednesday (which led to the Paul Dewar facepalm meme that hit the Internet all day Thursday). I will say that it’s an awfully big coincidence that he suddenly got tearful and apologised on the very same morning that Stephen Harper got back to town after being away since the initial incident happened. Sure, Calandra was pilloried and publicly shamed by the media and the pundit class, but it’s not for the first time either. Paul Wells gives his take on the dynamics at play, while Andrew Coyne takes particular issue with Calandra’s equivocating during the apology, and how it continues to make a mockery of parliament.