Mere hours after the government took a beating from the Auditor General on the issue of veterans mental health, it was going to a tough day. That said, Thomas Mulcair was absent, and Megan Leslie led off, asking about the wait times posted in the report and tying it veterans suicides and the lapsed funding. Stephen Harper responded by selectively quoting the report about timely access, which conflated the programmes being reported on. Leslie responded with a different quote, and why the PM has not made it a personal priority. Harper reiterated the good portion of the report. Leslie moved onto the topic of the Nutrition North chapter and the lack of tracking of food prices in the North. Harper insisted that the food basket figure for Northerners had dropped by six percent. Peter Julian asked about the chapter on Library and Archives and the boondoggle of a $15 million system, to which Shelly Glover largely blamed issue on the previous head of the agency. Julian changed topics to the CBC story on the privacy breach at CRA, to which Kerry-Lynne Findlay assured him that measures were being taken, including notifying the Privacy Commissioner. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and returned to the veterans chapter of the report, and that a number of those veterans have waited seven years to see if they can even qualify for benefits. Harper reiterated the selective good portion of the conclusion, and said that the department would implement the recommendations to improve. Trudeau brought up veterans suicides and lapsed funding. Harper insisted that the lapse was because there was not enough uptake from veterans. Trudeau brought up that veteran’s wife who was trying to get more assistance for mental health, to which Harper again reiterated the selective quotes in French.
Tag Archives: CSIS
Roundup: Backfiring Conservative traps
Once again, Conservative operatives – and their friends at Sun News Network – have been too clever for their own good. While trying to get the Liberal candidate from Banff–Airdrie on tape saying something incriminating, a Conservative staffer recorded someone else talking smack about their childcare tax credits, and then tried to claim it was the candidate. This made the Twitter and Facebook rounds, Members’ Statements in the Commons, and even backbench suck-up questions about this “beer-and-popcorn” statement made by said candidate. Only, as it turned out, it was someone else who said it, and admitted to saying it, even after said candidate was mocked for denying that he said it, and how we have cabinet ministers with egg on their faces – though I have yet to see an apology for any of the insinuations or mocking made over social media. Given that Conservative – and Sun News Network – operatives have been trying this record-and-embarrass tactic a few times before (such as the nuanced explanation that retired General Leslie made on the situation in Gaza which they tried to spin completely to distortion), one has to wonder about the detrimental impact this will have on open political discourse in this country. Nobody wants candidates to turn into scripted robots, but these kinds of “gotcha” tactics are encouraging just that.
Roundup: An upcoming rounding error surplus
Joe Oliver delivered his fall economic update in Toronto, and as expected, the government is still technically in deficit until next year, at which point they are expected to turn out a modest $1.9 billion surplus, most of which is pretty much spent on their suite of “family” tax measures including the income splitting tax credit – all of it a challenge to the opposition parties and specifically Justin Trudeau, daring them to cancel the “tax cuts” (most of which aren’t really cuts). And it’s not a surplus plan without risks. Thomas Mulcair immediately called the figures a “mirage” because they depend on spending cuts, while Justin Trudeau referred to the tax measures as “unfair” because the income splitting measure in particular disproportionately benefits the wealthy. Andrew Coyne notes that Harper has put the opposition in a box with his tax cuts and expenditures unless those parties are willing to raise the GST. Paul Wells notes that this falls squarely within Harper’s re-election plans – that he doesn’t need to promise anything other than the fear that his opponents’ plans are ruinous. Stephen Gordon provides some context to Oliver’s pronouncements.
If not before Diefenbaker RT @InklessPW: Joe Oliver: Not since Diefenbaker has federal tax burden been this low. pic.twitter.com/Ov1ptUdYko
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 12, 2014
If you're buying into the CPC surpluses, you're buying into their austerity as well. Federal direct program spending: pic.twitter.com/RaFFuUUwBu
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) November 12, 2014
Roundup: What to do about Dean?
The question of what to do about Dean Del Mastro has seized the Commons, and the government seems amenable to going along with the NDP motion to suspend him without pay immediately, and further send the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, particularly for what it means for his staff and his constituents. This is a bit of a change from the government’s original position of wanting the committee to rule before they did, but apparently they’re going with the flow of public opinion on the matter. (The NDP’s unwillingness to let debate collapse so that the vote can proceed on its own accord, however, means that the government will likely invoke closure to ensure a vote later today). There is also a battle raging over Del Mastro’s pension benefits, while the NDP used a committee hearing on John Williamson’s private member’s bill to try to lay a trap. The bill would see MPs lose their pension if convicted of an indictable offence, and the NDP moved an amendment to specifically include elections expenses, which the government defeated because it wasn’t necessary, and wouldn’t apply to the Del Mastro case anyway – not that it stopped Mulcair and the NDP of using Question Period to say the government was trying to protect Mulcair. Because apparently they’re not yet too clever for their own good.
Roundup: Income splitting – sort of
As expected, Stephen Harper announced a scaled back version of his income splitting proposal, but structured as a tax credit and not actual income splitting, paired it with a number of other measures like increasing the universal child benefit payments, and childcare tax credits so as to try to blunt the criticisms that income splitting mostly benefits the most wealthy of families and doesn’t benefit those who need it most – single parent families and those of lower incomes. Jennifer Robson takes the proposal apart, and notes the real winners are lawyers and tax professionals. Economist Stephen Gordon adds a few notes, which need to be said.
Not yet, no RT @davidakin: In #elxn41, PMSH promised Income splitting when budget was balanced. Is budget balanced? pic.twitter.com/PZ91hL4zLk
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
Again, the surpluses that govt and PBO are projecting are based on scenario of spending cuts baked into 2014 budgethttp://t.co/j4TuHl16kP
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
So what PMSH is promising today is to cut spending (where? on what?) in order to finance those tax credits.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
For that matter, NDP's daycare plan is also based on cutting spending (where? on what?) to finance subsidised daycare.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 30, 2014
And if the LPC ever gets around to making a spending proposal, it will surely be financed by cuts in spending (where? on what?)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 31, 2014
QP: Waiting on income splitting
Despite it being only Thursday, most leaders were absent from the Chamber today, Harper off in Vaughan to deliver his income splitting announcement, and Justin Trudeau campaigning for the by-election in Whitby. Thomas Mulcair did show up, and started off bringing up the request from three esteemed former Justices who warned against knee-jerk legislation after last week’s attacks. Stephen Blaney assured him that the new CSIS was balanced. Mulcair didn’t want this to be a partisan issue and wanted a multi-party committee to study the issue (never mind that all Commons committees are multi-party), to which Blaney said that all parties were being offered technical briefings. Mulcair brought up Stockwell Day’s endorsement of the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee for national security, but Blaney said that SIRC was robust enough. Mulcair sniped about Deborah Grey’s interim leadership of SIRC, before turning to the issue of income splitting. Kevin Sorenson told him to stay tuned for the announcement, and proclaimed that income splitting was good policy. Mulcair and Sorensen took another round at it, before Scott Brison led for the Liberals, recalling Jim Flaherty’s opposition to income splitting. Sorenson quoted an old Brison line about how income splitting was a good thing. Brison quipped that he said a lot of stupid things when he was a Conservative, and the House roared. Sorenson repeated the praise for the plan, before Emmanuel Dubourg asked about the plan in French, Sorenson not varying the substance of his response.
Brison: "I said a few stupid things when I was a Conservative. That was one of them." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
Sorenson "He still says stupid things." #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 30, 2014
Roundup: Oversight versus good enough
Divisions are forming in the Commons about what happened with last week’s attack, with the Liberals now accepting that the shooter was a terrorist as that is what the RCMP have concluded, while the NDP are steadfastly refusing that label, saying that there’s not enough evidence to use it (contrary to what the RCMP Commissioner has said). But before anyone thinks that this is a signal that the Liberals are going to simply follow any anti-terror legislation that the government brings down, it’s important to note that they have also been the sharpest critics on the lack of civilian oversight mechanisms and the need for parliamentary oversight for national security agencies, as have long been recommended by a number of sources. Harper dismissed those calls and said the current oversight is enough (never mind that his government reduced oversight already by eliminating the post of Inspector General at CSIS a couple of years ago), while privacy commissioners around the country sounded the alarm. Of course, in the debate over whether the shooter was a terrorist or mentally ill, there are probably elements of both present, as the Ottawa Citizen editorial points out.
QP: Give CSIS a hand
Caucus day, and all of the leaders were finally in the Chamber. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for an update on last week’s events and what new measures were being taken to protect Canadian Forces members at home. Stephen Harper said that investigations were underway, and that he had nothing to add to their public statements. Mulcair noted the concerns of privacy commissioners, both federal and provincial, on new security laws. Harper said that they were interested in the views of various players in issues, and that they didn’t think there was a contradiction between safety and rights. Mulcair noted the need for civilian oversight and the two vacant chairs at SIRC. Harper assured him that things were great at SIRC, and we need to thank CSIS for their hard work protecting Canadians. Mulcair asked about funding cuts to security agencies, to which Harper said that they have adequate resources, then repeated in English the need to thank CSIS for their dedication to the protection of Canadians. Mulcair noted their differences in debating whether the attack was terrorism, but said that they wanted to work together to keep Canadians safe. Harper kept on with the praise for security agencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the need for a parliamentary oversight for national security agencies. Harper insisted that the current system works and “we will continue moving forward.” Trudeau pressed again for the need in French, to which Harper repeated his answer in English and got in a dig that police weren’t automatically a threat to Canadians’ rights. Trudeau noted the recommendations for oversight from the Arar Inquiry, wondering when the government would finally act on those recommendations. Harper insisted that they had acted, and repeated that CSIS works hard.
Roundup: A funeral felt by the nation
In Hamilton, the three party leaders attended the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Prime Minister speaking and addressing Cirillo’s son. The city and large numbers of first responders turned out for the funeral, and lined the streets of the procession. The Queen also sent her condolences as the regiment’s Colonel-in-Chief.
Sad exchange of letters. pic.twitter.com/s57rI0qTI4
— Stephen Maher (@stphnmaher) October 28, 2014
US Secretary of State John Kerry was in town yesterday, where he paid tribute to Corporal Cirillo, before he and Baird spoke about last week’s shootings as terrorism, and he and Harper met to discuss topics such as Russia, Ukraine, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Michael Petrou breaks down the meaning of the visit here.
QP: Ignoring questions on oversight
It was another day without major leaders in the Commons, as they were at the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in Hamilton, leaving some sparser-than-usual seats in the Chamber as a result. Libby Davies led off, asking about the CSIS bill and the need for more civilian oversight. Stephen Blaney responded instead with a paean to Corporal Cirillo. Davies repeated the need of better oversight, citing the Arar Inquiry, the loss of the Inspector General at CSIS and the vacancies on SIRC. Blaney said that privacy rights were in the bill, and that that there was already strong oversight in SIRC. Davies pointed out the SIRC report citing how uncooperative CSIS, to the point of misleading them. Blaney thanked SIRC for the report, and largely ignored the concerns that were addressed. Nycole Turmel repeated the questions in French, and Blaney praised the bill rather than answer the issue of concerns. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, and wondered about adequate resources for security services, wondering if an analysis of funding levels was being undertaken. Blaney said that the various agencies were reviewing what happened last week, but didn’t answer Goodale’s question. Goodale asked for an estimate of what incremental funding that the RCMP and CSIS would require to increase their operations, to which Blaney repeated his claim that they increased their funding already by one third. Dominic LeBlanc closed out the round, asking again about resources but in French. Blaney repeated his evasion in French in response.