Another two are down, and one wonders how many more are still contemplating the plunge. It was announced on Friday that both Shelly Glover and Christian Paradis, middling cabinet ministers such as they are, weren’t going to run again. Glover indicated she was going to return to her policing career, while Paradis cited “personal reasons.” Both, as it happens, have had a number of brushes with the Ethics Commissioner, and it does make one wonder if that really was a common denominator in their rather abrupt decisions – that all of the attention being paid to the Duffy trial is forcing some of the players with in Conservative Party headquarters to try and scrub away as many of the potentially embarrassing messes as they can before the election happens, so that it can’t be used against them in the race to be purer than pure. The late date of these announcements is also a bit of a puzzle, given the ultimatums that Harper had previously given, so that he had an election-ready cabinet in place, and we saw a number of ministers make their departures then. Baird later dropped out entirely, but Glover and Paradis plan to finish out their terms, and thus the question remains as to whether or not their announcements mean yet another mini-shuffle, with just eight sitting weeks left? It also makes one wonder if there are any other ministers considering their futures now, and wondering if the time isn’t right to get out while the going is good – or if they are seeing writing on the wall, and would rather leave on their own terms rather than face defeat in what could be a brutal slog of an election. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Tag Archives: Christian Paradis
Roundup: Reform Act reaction
The Reform Act 2013 has now been tabled, and it’s pretty much as has been reported, with the three key areas around the powers around nominations, caucus membership and forcing a leadership review on party leaders. (Text and sixty-second explainer here). Aaron Wherry rounds up some of the declared support today, including from the Conservative caucus, and those now outside like Brent Rathgeber, as well as some of the reaction and analysis to date. Alice Funke aka Pundit’s Guide looks at ways in which the provisions can be subverted by parties or leaders. Tim Harper points out the bill’s silence about a leader having to deal with an unsuitable candidate during an election. Andrew Coyne has a Q&A with Chong about the bill and tries to dispel some of the myths or concerns, but fails to ask some of the more pertinent questions around membership and inputs.
Roundup: Populist consumer-friendly proposals
As the Speech From the Throne gets closer, we’re starting to hear more about the populist consumer-friendly agenda that will be laid out in it. Not content with just cellphone bills and airlines, James Moore was on television on Sunday talking about things like cable channels, where they will break-up the packages that the cable companies offer in favour of a la carte channel selection. Which is great, except that the CRTC has already mandated that this will actually start to happen, and some cable companies have started to offer it as a way of trying to retain customers who are starting to cut their cable in lieu of other online options, so it’s not like the Conservatives are coming out of the blue on this one. But hey, anything to try and claim some populist credit. Of course it makes one wonder what supposed free market conservatives are doing promising tonnes of new regulations when they’re supposedly in favour of smaller government, but I think we all know that these aren’t really free market conservatives we’re dealing with anymore.
Roundup: Ken Dryden’s leadership debt to himself
In what is likely going to be an optics nightmare for the Liberals, former leadership candidate Ken Dryden said that he has no plans to repay his 2006 leadership debt, because it’s all loans he gave to himself. When the Conservatives and NDP changed the law mid-campaign to restrict donations (for the sole purpose of screwing over the Liberals), Dryden’s ability to secure the necessary donations could no longer happen. Given that Elections Canada can’t enforce the laws around those repayments (thanks again to the dog’s breakfast that the Conservatives and NDP made of the law in their rush to screw over the Liberals), he apparently no longer sees the point in getting strangers to repay his loans to himself. There are plans to make political loans to oneself illegal, but that legislation is stalled, and there are some serious concerns that it would give financial institutions too much power to determine who can and can’t run if they are to be given sole authority to grant loans. So while Dryden’s abandoning his quest to pay back his loans (to himself) looks bad, it would seem that the Conservatives and the NDP have only themselves to blame, and anyone complaining that this whole thing is anti-democratic should also ask themselves how “democratic” it was for two parties to collude to screw over another one. No one walks away from this one looking pure.
Roundup: A federal factum of expediency
The federal government has submitted its factum to the Supreme Court on the Senate reference with great fanfare yesterday, with newly minted Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre insisting that they don’t really need to open up the constitution, and that they wouldn’t really need to get unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. Yeah, somehow I doubt the Court will agree. Reading the factum over, it’s an underwhelming document, full of “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” “Squirrel!” and plenty of “don’t worry your pretty heads about the actual longer-term consequences of these changes, just look at right now.” Yeah. Paul Wells’ take on the factum pretty much says everything you need to know, though I would hasten to add that some of the arguments the government makes are spectacularly moronic. But hey, it’s not like we should actually worry about the constitution when we could be focusing on short-term political expediency – right?
Roundup: All those arcane rules
A new parliamentary report says that arcane rules are keeping MPs from doing their jobs when it comes to scrutinising the estimates. It’s good that they acknowledge that, and I’m still working my way though reading the report, but some of those rules aren’t that arcane and were more recent additions in order to keep the opposition from bogging down the business of government (this being the “deemed” rule whereby estimates are “deemed adopted” if they pass a certain date on the calendar). And MPs have always had the ability to change those rules whenever they decided it was time to start taking the estimates process more seriously, so this tone of them being the poor victims of traditions dating back to the Magna Carta really reads hollow to me, sorry to say. There are also calls in the report to strengthen the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is all well and good, but a) good luck getting this government to agree to it, and b) we should be careful not to make it tempting for MPs to simply fob off their responsibilities of scrutinising the estimates to him more than they already are.
Uh oh – when Christian Paradis was minister of Public Works, he had the department roll out the welcome mat for firms from his riding. Apparently the Ethics Commissioner have him a talking to about the fact that while it’s all well and good to represent your constituents, as a minister there are limits. But like Paradis said, these are all just learning experiences, right?
QP: No warpath, just general questions
One would have thought that with the Conservatives having rejected the NDP formal request to split the omnibus budget implementation bill that Thomas Mulcair would be on the warpath. But no – he instead started off QP by asking a fairly broad question about the bill and its large environmental component, and Harper answered with a general response about the need to “streamline” review processes. Mulcair then went to the issue of the demise of the Public Appointments Commission in said bill, and he got into a back-and-forth with Harper about the NDP voting to kill it (never mind that it was a non-binding motion rejecting the proposed commissioner). Matthew Kellway then got up to ask about the updated cost figures from the F-35s, and Julian Fantino got up for the first time in ages to assure the House that there is not only a Seven-Point Plan™, but rather a Seven-Point Action Plan™ for the procurement process. Bob Rae rose for the Liberals, and went after the government for their using the CRA to investigate charities they don’t like, never mind that ones they do like get hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign donations. Harper insisted that the CRA is an arm’s length agency and that charities have to operate within clear limits.
QP: An unreserved apology
With all of the leaders back in the House, it was a question of what would be top of mind for the day. Thomas Mulcair started off with a brief question – was it okay for a minister to knowingly mislead Parliament? Harper insisted that ministers tell the truth all the time. So why, Mulcair wondered, did the minister say that “no money has been spent” on the F-35s when in fact millions have already been spent. Well the minister was referring to acquisition costs, Harper insisted. And thus the accounting excuse remained trotted out. Peggy Nash was up next and asked just how much the government expected to save by changing the eligibility date for OAS, and Diane Finley insisted it wasn’t an issue of savings, but the long-term viability of the system. Bob Rae returned to the question of misleading figures around the F-35s, but Harper insisted that the Auditor General asked to review the figures, and they’ve a commitment to do just that. For his final question, Rae asked about CIDA staff being laid off while Bev Oda is swanning about in expensive hotels and limousines. Oda herself stood up and said that it was unacceptable, that the expenses shouldn’t have been charged to taxpayers, that she’s paid them back (well, except for the limousines) and that she apologised unreservedly. And that was the last we heard from her.
Round two kicked off with Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice asking again after Oda’s spending (Van Loan: She’s apologised) and the ongoing Robocon investigation (Del Mastro: These are sweeping allegations with no facts; Poilievre: A Liberal poll is not a replacement for an election), Guy Caron and Peter Julian asked about Christian Paradis’ latest ethical investigation (Van Loan: The Ethics Commissioner will provide a response to this Liberal letter), Niki Ashton asked about the government taking steps to address the sexual harassment in the RCMP (Toews: We’re taking it seriously, but there is litigation so we can’t comment). Mark Eyking asked about Oda’s chauffeurs (Van Loan: She repaid her costs – err, except for the costs of the limousines), Joyce Murray asked about that EKOS poll on robocalls in those seven ridings (Del Mastro: Baseless allegations), and Stéphane Dion asked about availability of search and rescue services in French (Ashfield: There will be no impact on safety). Closing off the round, Olivia Chow asked about railway maintenance (Lebel: We’ve set aside all this money for rail safety and service!), and Brian Massey asked about CBSA cuts allowing more for more smuggling (Toes: You voted against increasing their budget, so why are you complaining if it gets cut?).
Round three saw questions on scientists being muzzled, gutting fisheries habitat protection, food inspection cuts, cutting washing stations that prevent contaminated soil from infecting food-producing regions, Aveos workers, the true net savings of closing the Kingston penitentiary, punishing refugees under the current system and the proposed new one, and why it’s okay for Cuba to be excluded from the Summit of the Americas while China gets a free pass in Canada (Harper: It was agreed upon years ago to only include democratically elected governments).
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for a smart grey pinstripe suit with a pink shirt and tie, and to Lisa Raitt for a smartly cut black top and jacket. Style citations go out to Isabelle Morin for her boxy white jacket with a terrible black and gold floral pattern across it, and to Alex Atamanenko for a grey jacket, maroon shirt, forest green tie and brown trousers.
QP: A lacklustre first showdown
It may have taken until Thursday, but the face-off between Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper finally took place today, and wow, was it pretty lacklustre. Mulcair’s first two questions were about cuts in the budget, and while Harper first congratulated him on his victory, he then brought up his strong mandate to gradually eliminate the deficit, but that they weren’t cutting healthcare or pensions. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Christian Paradis’ ethical lapses, but Harper reminded him that nothing untoward actually happened. Libby Davies and Leona Aglukkaq had another go-around about health transfers, before Bob Rae brought up the logical inconsistencies with the F-35 tendering process. Harper assured him that the numbers coming out of the States were within the contingencies, but there was no signed contract. Rae finished off his round with a question on Paradis, and Harper continued to shrug it off.
Round two opened up with David Christopherson brought up the Chief Electoral Officer’s testimony on the Robocon issue at Procedure and House Affairs (Del Mastro: Baseless smears!), Guy Caron and Charlie Angus asked about Paradis’ numerous ethical lapses (Van Loan: The minister in question does a superb job!), and Olivia Chow, Isabelle Morin, and Jamie Nicholls asked about Aveos job losses (Lebel: We’re disappointed but the legal advice we got says Air Canada is in compliance with the Act). Judy Foote asked about a certain MP advising youths to carry arms – especially young woman to avoid sexual assaults (Toews: We don’t support treating duck hunters as criminals), Dion asked about the appointment of unilingual Anglophone immigration officers (Kenney: The IRB respects the Official Languages Act), and Sean Casey asked about veterans medical records being improperly accessed (Blaney: We’re helping veterans!). Alain Guiguère, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, Wayne Marston and Irene Mathyssen asked about OAS cuts (Leitch: It’s unsustainable!).
Round three saw questions on the F-35s, fleet separation policy for East Coast fisheries, Aveos jobs, calls for a Royal Commission on the last election, cut to the CBC (the first question from new NDP MP Craig Scott), which aid groups are on the chopping block next, veterans’ privacy, drug shortages, and “national security” in the Investment Canada Act.
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Marc Garneau for his navy pinstriped suit, with a white shirt and purple tie, and to Rona Ambrose for her fitted black leather jacket. Style citations go out to Hélène LeBlanc for her cherry-blossom patterned grey dress and jacket with an awful peach scarf, and Randy Kamp for his fluorescent aqua shirt with grey suit.
QP: Scourge of the middle class
His third day as opposition leader, and Mulcair still had no Harper to battle in the House. While his delivery was a little bit less wooden, he was still reading from a script on a miniature lectern, asking about provincial transfers coming in the upcoming budget. In Harper’s place it was John Baird’s turn to be designated back-up PM, and he asserted that their government has given more to the provinces than any other government before them. Libby Davies followed up, accusing the government of abandoning healthcare with the rather dubious claim that they’re “slashing” $31 billion in health transfers (it wasn’t really a cut, people), to which Leona Aglukkaq reminded her that the Conservatives have funded healthcare to “historic levels” and they’re trying to make the system more sustainable. Bob Rae then got up to ask about the lack of a government policy on addictions and mental health, and John Baird took it on a tangent about the Liberals wanting to legalise marijuana, and that they were fighting that for the safety of middle-class families. No, seriously. Rae immediately picked up on that – every evidence shows that alcohol is the most dangerous substance out there, and why is the government announcing proudly that they’re joining in the failed war on drugs in Central America? (You see, you can pick up on questions like that when you’re able to deliver them off-the-cuff. Just saying). Baird continued to beat his chest about how proud they were to stand against the scourge of drugs, ignoring the evidence of course. For his final question, Rae asked about Harper’s former complaints about minister staying with people who do business with their departments (back when it was Don Boudria and Harper was the leader of the opposition), but Baird wasn’t going to take that bait.
Round two kicked off with Peter Julian asking a series of questions on jobs in the budget and the Aveos workers, to which Denis Lebel assured him that this was a private sector issue, and Ted Menzies assured him that they would continue on the path of job creation from the ongoing Economic Action Plan™. Wayne Marston and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe asked about OAS changes (Leitch: OAS is unsustainable for “future Canadians,” not specifying if she meant Canadians in the future or those who are not yet Canadian), and Nycole Turmel and Paul Dewar asked about some unions not being allowed into the budget lock-up as stakeholders (Menzies: The budget is being delivered in the House where everyone can hear it). Judy Foote asked whether the government was asking the Conservative Party – as they’re actually separate entities remember – about its cooperation with Elections Canada considering that RackNine had an exclusive contract with the party for phone services and “Pierre Poutine” had access because of party connections (Del Mastro: You made your own illegal calls!), Denis Coderre asked about Aveos declining to appear at Transport Committee (Lebel: This is an issue between two private companies), and Judy Sgro asked about OAS changes (Leitch: Unsustainable!). Guy Caron and Charlie Angus closed off the round with questions on Paradis’ ethical latest ethical lapse (Paradis: I used my own means, and nobody lobbied me).
Round three saw questions on the F-35 Statement of Operational Requirements (one of those questions from Rae, as he tried to use logic to overload the duotronic circuits of the M-4 Unit – err, I mean Julian Fantino), environmental regulation changes to be “buried in the budget” (even though there is no indication this will be the case – broad outlines in the budget document doesn’t mean changes will be buried within implementation bills), the Northern Gateway pipeline, cuts to Katimavik (for which Justin Trudeau got a boxing joke in response), francophone immigration officers, the fleet separation policy for the East Coast fishery, rural post offices in Quebec, and the way the way the government handled the Air Canada strike versus the Aveos issue.
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Michelle Rempel for her fuchsia belted dress, and to John McKay for his grey suit with a pink shirt and pale blue tie. Style citations go out to Carol Hughes for the jacket equivalent of a ball of elastic bands, and to LaVar Payne for his black shirt with a white collar worn with a white tie and a grey suit. Just…no. Dishonourable mentions to Romeo Saganash for a fluorescent blue shirt/grey suit violation, and to Maxime Bernier, who is normally a snappy dresser, for a black suit/lemon yellow shirt violation.