As the sitting week winds down in advance of the two-week March break, there was a definite feel of that very same happening in the House. Thomas Mulcair, the only leader present, led off by asking about the bottleneck of grain shipments on the prairies, for which Pierre Lemieux — a parliamentary secretary and not even a designated back-up PM du jour — assured him that they were working to address the logistics system. Mulcair gave an angry retort and demanded that Lisa Raitt answer the question, but Lemieux repeated his answer as the Conservative benches mocked Mulcair’s angry growl. Mulcair moved to the issue of voter information cards, and Pierre Poilievre listed possible kinds of ID that could be used. Mulcair brought up Marc Mayrand’s concerns about the ability to dress-up campaign advertising as fundraising under the elections bill, but Poilievre reminded him that the NDP leadership allowed the very same thing. Mulcair closed his round by saying that Mayrand demolished their arguments about voter fraud, but Poilievre disputed the factuality of that assertion. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, pointing out a section of the Railway Act that the minister of transport could use to get the grain on the prairies moving, but Lemieux stood up to deliver his same talking points. Goodale turned to the coming drop in funding for the Building Canada Fund, but Denis Lebel insisted that they tripled funding for infrastructure over the ten years.
Tag Archives: Chief Electoral Officer
QP: Trying to resurrect questions of the Senate
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.
QP: No, you ducked out the back door!
With all of the leaders in the House today, it was hopeful that there would be some excitement. Thomas Mulcair led off by bringing up Brad Butt’s “misspoken” voter card story and wondered if there were any real stories about this kind of fraud. Stephen Harper insisted that there were thirty-nine different options for ID available, and left it at that. Mulcair asked about seniors who don’t have most kinds of ID, but Harper reiterated his answer. Mulcair tried to press about Conservatives being charged for voter fraud, but Harper insisted that it was a question for investigators, and hey, your party was forced to pay back union donations. For his final question, Mulcair wondered if there was any investigation into fraud by way of vouching, but Harper merely praised the bill. Justin Trudeau got up and asked about Harper’s promise about income splitting, and if he ever intended to keep the promise. Harper insisted that the budget was not yet balanced, and that they did not balance themselves. Trudeau pressed, but it wound up being a back-and-forth on who was ducking out of back doors instead of facing the press.
Roundup: Ridiculous paranoia and shameless misspeaking
The Fair Elections Act was back front and centre in the House yesterday, with the NDP’s opposition day motion to hold cross-country hearings on the bill. Aaron Wherry heard back from Pierre Poilievre on the problems with vouching, and from the former BC Chief Electoral Officer who wrote a report on said issue, who doesn’t think it should be eliminated by simply streamlined. There are concerns that the changes in the Act could prevent the Chief Electoral Officer from reporting to Parliament on the investigation into the fraudulent robocalls (Poilievre insists it won’t be the case). The provision that both chambers of Parliament would need to sign off on future online voting experiments is bringing out the paranoia that the Conservative-dominated Senate will kill all future attempts, out of spite or something (because the Senate has never been dominated by an opposition party before apparently – and seriously, grow up). And then, to top it all off, Conservative MP Brad Butt decided that no, he didn’t actually witness voter fraud by people taking discarded voter identification cards and then using them illicitly – he just “misspoke.” Multiple times. In the House and in committee. Oh, but now he considers the matter to be “closed,” so stop asking. Yes, apparently he is that shameless.
Roundup: Kenney makes things awkward
Those questions of the government position on income splitting dominated the headlines again today, with some new added dimensions as Jason Kenney popped into the controversy. As Harper conspicuously avoided assuring reporters that the proposal was still on the table, Jason Kenney insisted that they keep their campaign promises – something that may be a signal and a warning. If it’s not an official government policy, then disagreement is certainly interesting, but if it is, then a split in cabinet means that cabinet solidarity is being ruptured, and someone is going to have to resign (unless we’re really keen to throw out the rules around Responsible Government). Michael Den Tandt believes that the government should step away from the policy, and the sooner the better.
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.
Roundup: Day of the many leaks
It was a day of leaks yesterday – first a plan to try to “disrupt” the Liberal convention and undermine Trudeau, which seemed a bit foolish and costly, given that their “agents” would have to purchase convention memberships for the purpose of lame buttons and Trudeau-branded rolling papers. (The Liberals, meanwhile, say the attention is flattering). And while that one looked deliberately leaked to the media, the following other leaks weren’t. A 70-page re-election strategy was next to make its way to the Toronto Star, which talks a lot about leveraging Laureen Harper to help put a human face on the government, while totally ignoring Thomas Mulcair in the strategy. And if that wasn’t enough, it was then revealed that the PM’s former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, will be the party’s new legal advisor. Paul Wells notes that even though the party has often ”leaked” false memos in the past this does appear that they have an unintended leaker in their ranks.
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.