The big move by the government yesterday was to send a list of reference questions to the Supreme Court with regards to Senate reform – and yes, abolition. The six questions – more like fifteen with the sub-clauses – come at a time when the notion is being mulled over by the Quebec courts at the behest of the provincial government, and the Supreme Court may opt to hold off on their deliberations until that decision is rendered, so that they can take it into consideration. And then comes the politics behind it all – the government claims this will “speed up” the reform process after years of opposition delay – never mind that this reference process could take up to two years, and the only ones stalling were the government themselves because they never brought their bills forward for debate (not that said bills were actually constitutionally sound). It also buys them time to keep the issue alive for the next election and as a fundraising issue for their base, but also provides them options when it comes to considering next steps, because they may need them if they want to continue this rather foolhardy pursuit. The Liberals are playing the smug game of “We wanted this reference six years ago – thanks for catching up.” And the NDP are accusing the government of “more delay” – even though they simply argue for abolition and give nonsense talking points about how much money they would save if that happened (forgetting of course that all of said “savings” and more would entirely be consumed in the interminable court challenges that would come from flawed legislation that would otherwise be caught in the Senate). And there are the legal arguments – is it really unconstitutional, or is the fact that the Prime Minister is still recommending appointments to the Governor General enough to avoid having to go the route of a constitutional amendment, no matter that they’re ensuring that these appointments are “elected,” and that the “democratic mandate” of these newly empowered Senators will have a tangible – and detrimental – effect on the way our system operates. I argue that the Supreme Court justices aren’t morons and will see a backdoor attempt for what it is and call bullshit. Other constitutional scholars aren’t so sure, and say that according to the letter of the law, it looks just fine. But politics – especially the way our Parliament operates – is more than just the letter of the law. It’s an organic whole, and surely that needs to be taken into consideration when a blatant backdoor proposal designed to get around doing the hard work of constitutional negotiation will have a serious and measurable effect on our democratic process. That has to count for something.
Tag Archives: CETA
Roundup: Re-focusing CIDA
International cooperation minister Julian Fantino has announced a new business-focused international development policy, and said that it’s not CIDA’s business to keep funding NGOs forever. There’s no word on what kinds of programmes will be cut in order to make this shift in focus, but Fantino says that no, they’re not getting into the mining industry.
Campaign Research polling company has been censured by the industry body for their reprehensible calls into Irwin Cotler’s riding alleging that he’s about to retire.
Bill C-398, the latest iteration of the attempt to reform Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime – which aims to get cheap generic medicines to developing countries – was defeated in the Commons last night by seven votes.
QP: No amendments, no mistakes
With a news-packed morning passed and the by-election anticipation building, the House was absent of party leaders today. Megan Leslie took the lead for the NDP, asking about Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge and the government’s refusal to accept amendments, despite having made mistakes in the previous omnibus budget bill that this bill had measures to correct. Jason Kenney, the back-up PM du jour, went on about unnecessary regulations and ponds on farmers’ fields. When Leslie asked him about the “contingency plans” spoken of by Flaherty as he and Harper contradicted one another on the deficit numbers, Kenney touted the Economic Action Plan™ instead. Peter Julian was then up to ask about the yet-unreleased foreign takeover rules, but Christian Paradis accused the NDP of being anti-investment. Paradis went a little off-message by accusing the Liberals of opposing foreign investment as well, when the usual talking point is that they rubberstamped every foreign takeover that came before them. (Looks like someone’s handler is going to have to give him a talking to). Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, and pressed about the refugee health cuts, especially with the comments made by Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall. Kenney said that the provinces can make any decisions they like about additional insurance for refugee claimants, and left it in their laps.
Roundup: Triple by-election day
It’s by-election day in Calgary Centre, Durham, and Victoria! While Durham is expected to be a Conservative hold, and Victoria likely to stay NDP (though the Greens are really pushing for a second seat there), all eyes will be on Calgary Centre. Over the weekend, at the final debate, Conservative candidate Joan Crockatt was making bizarre statements, like only a government MP could help you if you lost your passport while in Mexico because they could go across the hall to the minister’s office – which is patently not true (especially since you would go to the nearest consulate for non-partisan, civil service assistance). But then again, Crockatt has made a campaign of saying terribly wrong things about our political system, so why should she change now? (Recall this particular post after one of her very wrong statements early in the campaign. Yeah, this is a problem).
In the wake of the Trudeau apology, Aaron Wherry digs up some great moments in regional politics history, like the “no more prime ministers from Quebec” ad that the Reform Party launched – and Harper defended. Peter Armstrong wonders if Alberta has become the new Quebec. In this clip, Paul Wells makes some additional observations of the context of the interview that Trudeau said the aforementioned comments. And yes, Conservative Party headquarters has a big binder full of controversial things that Harper has said in the past. One wonders if the Trudeau camp is now compiling their own, so as not to be surprised when the next impolitic quote is dredged up.
Roundup: Trudeau pile-on while committee vote-athon continues
Justin Trudeau said something a bit impolitic in an interview two years ago about how Quebeckers were tired of Albertan prime ministers and how having more Quebeckers in positions of power would be better for the country – all in the context of pandering to a Quebec audience while fighting for his seat against separatists, which is not wholly unexpected. But SunTV “revealed” it yesterday, and suddenly everyone lost their minds. Because we had nothing better to talk about, apparently. Also lost in the pile-on was the old Reform ad campaign about “no more prime ministers from Quebec, “ but hey, that’s all in the past, right? And it’s not like politicians in this country could ever be accused of regionalism, ever. Anyway, Trudeau refused to apologise, and simply declared it to have been taken out of context, for what it’s worth.
Over in the Commons finance committee, voting continues apace on the 3000+ amendments that Scott Brison introduced, and because the Conservatives and NDP on the committee voted to change their own rules, so that the amendments would be kept in the committee rather than going to the House once time elapsed, the voting continues in committee. Kady O’Malley has been liveblogging the proceedings diligently.
QP: Not meeting with the premiers
The day was not off to a promising start as more statements condemning David McGuinty and the Liberals continued to make the rounds during the QP warm-up, because hey, there’s a by-election four days away, and there’s nothing like cheap political hay to be made. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading a pair of questions on why Harper wasn’t attending the First Ministers’ meeting in Halifax to talk about the economy, to which Harper assured him that he meets with the premiers regularly, and he’s focused on the economy. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the court case against the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but Harper didn’t answer about that, only offered to “correct” Mulcair’s preamble aside about how job numbers weren’t really that great, and so on. Libby Davies was up next asking about child poverty rates, to which Diane Finley assured her that they were less than half of what they were under the Liberals because of the government’s good work. Bob Rae returned to the question of Harper not speaking to the premiers, and Harper said that he not only met with premiers regularly, but members of the business community and ordinary Canadians too!
QP: By-election questions in the House
With Stephen Harper off answering audience questions at the Canadian American Business Council’s fall policy conference, and John Baird over in the United Arab Emirates discussing the Gaza situation with his counterparts, it was up for grabs as to whose turn it was to be back-up PM du jour. So when Thomas Mulcair got up to read a pair of questions on Harper and Jim Flaherty contradicting each other’s deficit rounding error numbers, we found out that Tony Clement was the day’s designated hitter, who informed the House that it was their objective to balance the budget by 2015, and the NDP wants to raise taxes. Mulcair moved onto a question about why Harper wasn’t meeting with premiers in Halifax, what with the “fiscal cliff” looming and all, by Clement reminded everyone that the NDP wants to raise taxes. Peggy Nash tried to press after why Harper wasn’t meeting with the premiers, but this time Ted Menzies got to respond, reminding her that Harper meets with the premiers regularly. Bob Rae was up next, asking about a Calgary infrastructure project that was to have benefitted from an arrangement with P3 Canada, only to have the rules changed once the project was completed (and incidentally, this happened a year ago, and in the scrums afterward, Rae openly admitted that yeah, he’s asking these questions because there’s a by-election in Calgary Centre and god forbid there be politics in the House of Commons). Menzies accused Rae of having incorrect information, but did congratulate him on his concern for Calgary, and only wished that the Leader of the Official Opposition felt the same. For his final question, Rae asked about the situation in Gaza and working toward a cease-fire, to which Peter MacKay responded with a reaffirmation of the right of Israel to defend itself.
Roundup: Talking about the economy sans Harper
The provincial premiers are meeting in Halifax to talk about the economy, and yet, Stephen Harper won’t be there – despite insisting that the economy is his favourite topic and the one thing that all Canadians really care about instead of any other pesky political problems. Funny that.
New refugee laws come into force next month, which mandate mandatory detention for “mass arrivals” – basically refugees that arrive on boats. Never mind that this has proven to be a costly failure in Australia, Jason Kenney still insists it’ll be a deterrent for false asylum seekers – even though it’ll make things worse off for legitimate refugees.
Northern Gateway environmental hearings have added an additional ten weeks in BC, seeing as a lot of people want their say on the project.
Roundup: Not taking all the blame
Peter Penashue’s former official agent isn’t willing to take the blame for all of the campaign spending overruns and curious donations, but he does seem to admit that there were some mistakes made in any case.
European negotiators are in town to make a final push toward completing the Canada-EU Trade Agreement.
The Privy Council Office was also interested in monitoring ethnic media – but they don’t seem to have been concerned about how the minister or Prime Minister were perceived.
Roundup: Another year of deficits
Jim Flaherty delivered his fiscal update yesterday, and what do you know? All of that global economic uncertainty and lowered commodity prices means that we’ll be in deficit for an additional year. Looks like all of those “wait until the budget is balanced” promises from the last election won’t happen before the next one. Meanwhile, Macleans.ca’s Econowatch explains the difference between the $5 billion and $7 billion deficit figures (which boils down to choosing optimistic or pessimistic forecasts), while economist Stephen Gordon says that Flaherty should pretty much stay the course (thanks in large part to the thicker cushion left to him by the debt reduction efforts of Paul Martin and company).
Embattled minister Peter Penashue didn’t hold a meeting yesterday as promised to explain the irregularities with his campaign spending and donations. Constituents were told they could write him if they have questions, while a one-question phone survey has been going around the riding about whether or not people would vote for him again. It’s all a bit odd. Penashue did put out a letter on his website, in which he pretty much blames his former Official Agent for everything, which is convenient, and would show negligence on his own part for not keeping an eye on things as the candidate who is ultimately accountable.