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.
Tag Archives: Income Splitting
Roundup: Raising the spectre of domestic terror
It was an odd event yesterday – a Conservative MP asking the PM during Question Period to respond to “unconfirmed reports” to a domestic terrorism link to a hit-and-run case in Quebec involving two members of the Canadian Forces, where the suspect was shot and later died. It was only hours later that the RCMP released a brief statement that the suspect was known to them, and that he may have been radicalised. It’s still early days in the investigation, but one wonders if it’s perhaps too soon to suddenly believe we have ISIS cells operating in Canada, and that this wasn’t an isolated incident where one individual who, by all accounts, was a recent convert for whatever reason, and decided to act on the vague ISIS threats that were made public in media reports. I guess time will tell, but expect the government to start using this incident as justification for greater counter-terror legislation. At the same time as this story was breaking, the Director of Operations of CSIS was at a Senate committee, saying that they do the best they can with prioritizing their investigations, but can’t cover every base because of budget limitations. Duly noted.
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.
Roundup: Voices from the past
A number of has-been pro-life (and homophobic) former Liberal MPs sent out an open letter to Justin Trudeau decrying his decree that a woman’s right to choose is a Charter issue and not a matter of conscience. They decried it as “anti-democratic,” never mind the fact that this was the policy voted on by the party’s membership during the policy convention before Trudeau won the leadership. Oops. The pedigree of these former MPs is also worth mentioning, as several of them quit the party to join the Reform Party, while others left over the same-sex marriage issue. Not surprising, most Liberals simply shrugged off the whole thing, while Trudeau tweeted out a fairly decent comeback.
The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights.
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) September 18, 2014
QP: About this local issue…
With both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau off in Southern Ontario for events, Thomas Mulcair was the only major leader in the Commons. He led off by asking about the coming demolition of the Mirabel airport — likely because he has Quebec seats to shore up, and Lisa Raitt responded first by reminding him that she’s a she and not a he, and that it’s the Montreal Airport Authority that is the responsible authority. Mulcair shot back that he was referring to the Minister of Infrastructure, before he angrily wondered when the government when the government would listen to indigenous women about missing and murdered indigenous women. Kellie Leitch responded that families were thanking her for the Action Plan™ being tabled. Mulcair then switched to the bus-train collision in Ottawa a year ago, and asked about a train derailment in Slave Lake. Raitt was back up, and said they were working on rail safety. Chris Charlton was up next and bemoaned the declaration of bankruptcy by US Steel in Hamilton, which Mike Lake gave a somewhat shrugging response, and when Charlton demanded that the government protect the pensions of the affected retired workers, Kevin Sorensen touted all the ways they have cut taxes. Ralph Goodale was up for the Liberals, asking about job losses in the last month and suggested changing the EI tax credit to one where employers get a credit for a net job created. Sorensen insisted that the Liberals were making up policy on the fly, and made random potshots at the Liberal record on EI. Goodale’s final question was about the latest report on income splitting and how it would affect provincial budgets. Sorensen responded that Harper said that income splitting was a good policy. Well if Harper says so…
Roundup: Pushing back out of the gate
The new privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, went before the Commons justice committee yesterday to talk about the “cyberbullying” bill, and the moment that Therrien did his job and pushed back against the bill – pointing out the overreach into lawful access provisions, the lowered test for getting warrants, the lack of oversight mechanisms, and that the bill should be split so that the more technical aspects of those lawful access provisions could get more detailed study, the government lashed back, turning against him immediately with the bizarre accusation that he hasn’t been a police officer. Apparently because police demand more powers, the government feels that they need to fall all over themselves to provide them, no questions asked – despite the fact that we have a history of showing that when authorities are given new powers without adequate oversight that they tend to be abused (for entirely well-meaning reasons, no doubt). Also of concern is that information could be requested not only by peace officers, but also by “public officers,” which includes elected officials, certain airline pilots and fisheries officers. No, seriously. Peter MacKay, meanwhile, brings up the child porn defence for these new measures, despite the fact that he hasn’t provided an excuse for why they wouldn’t need a warrant to get this kind of information. As well, NDP MP Randall Garrison tried to put in an amendment to the bill to see that transgendered people are protected from hate – you know, like cyberbullying – and the government shot it down for no real logical reason. Well done, everyone.
QP: More questions on income splitting
With the three main leaders at the RCMP funeral in Moncton, it was due to be another relatively quiet day in the Commons. Libby Davies led off QP by quoting the Broadbent Institute report that said that income splitting won’t benefit nine out of ten Canadians. Kevin Sorensen said that income splitting was good for seniors, and that it would be good for families. After another fruitless round, Davis moved on to the procurement process for the fighter jet replacements, to which Diane Finley praised the independent review process that they undertook, but noted that they had not yet come to a decision. Sadia Groguhé repeated the same question in French and got the same response, her follow-up bringing up the promises for industrial benefits by some bidders, not that Finley’s response changed. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, bringing up the middling performance of our economy, hoping for something more than “mediocre talking points.” He was, however, disappointed as that was all that Sorensen had to offer. Stéphane Dion closed the round, lamenting the changes to the Building Canada Fund that would mean most municipalities missing an entire construction season, though Sorensen kept up with his good news talking points.
QP: Burying the Sheila Fraser lede
Despite it being only Thursday, there was only one major leader in the House, as Stephen Harper was in Mississauga to announce a bill, and Justin Trudeau in Fort McMurray in advance of the by-election call there. Thomas Mulcair, still present in Ottawa, led off by asking about a refugee deportation case, to which Chris Alexander seemed to imply that the woman in question was not a genuine refugee. Mulcair brought up the plight of someone thrown in jail in China for assisting the labour movement, to which Alexander gave a paean about how great their refugee reforms were. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill, demanding that it be withdrawn. Pierre Poilievre insisted that his stories about widespread voter fraud were true. Mulcair then brought up former Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s objections to the bill — something I figured would have led off QP — but Poilievre was undaunted in his praise of the bill. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the request that the families of fallen soldiers pay their own way to a national memorial service. James Bezan said that expenses would be covered, and laid blame on the Colonel who sent out the letter. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, and brought up the changes in median incomes since the Conservatives came to power. Kevin Sorensen insisted that everyone was better off since they were in power. Freeland brought up other worrying figures, but Sorensen praised the government’s job creation record. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same again in French, and Sorensen accused Trudeau of voting against middle class families time and again.
QP: A premier present, but not the PM
BC premier Christy Clark was in the Speaker’s gallery, here to watch QP in the federal parliament after signing some agreements with the federal government. Alas, despite being back in the country, Stephen Harper was not present to take questions in the House. Neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau were there to ask said questions either, for what it was worth. That meant that it was up to Libby Davies to lead off for the NDP, decrying the expiration of the 2004 health accords. Rona Ambrose reminded her that they were still providing record levels of funding to the provinces, that the provinces were asking for funding predictability, and they were providing that. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet asked the same again in French, and got the same response in English. Boutin-Sweet moved onto infrastructure funding, which Denis Lebel assured her of how great the new Building Canada Fund really was. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about expanding the CPP, as recommended by the Finance Department’s own reports. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Kevin Sorensen got up to answer to say that the Fragile Economy™ could not afford more payroll taxes. Brison reminded him that they were keeping EI premiums artificially high to balance the books, and that those payroll taxes could be better spent on CPP enrichment, but Sorensen decried all of the things the Liberals voted against. Ralph Goodale got up to ask about the loss of infrastructure funds coming tomorrow (Lebel: We are giving record funding).
QP: Let me read this quote out of context
It was another day where the two main leaders were again absent from the House today, with Justin Trudeau on the far front bench, and Elizabeth May tucked away in the far corner of the Chamber. That meant that it was up to Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about Pierre Poilievre’s remarks about Harry Neufeld’s report on voter vouching, when Neufeld I himself there was no connection with vouching and fraud. Poilievre continued to selectively read the report and read quotes out of context in order to justify the provisions in the bill. Leslie moved onto the way that Jason Kenney took employment data from Kijiji rather than other, credible sources. Kenney, a little hoarse, listed anecdotes about sectoral skills shortages that need to be taken seriously. Sadia Groguhé repeated the Kijiji question in French, getting the same response. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted the criticism of the rail grain bill and wondered if amendments would be accepted. Pierre Lemieux touted how great the bill was. Trudeau moved onto the coming 90 percent cut to the Building Canada fund, and insisted that the minister of finance answer. Instead, Peter Braid assured him that they were making plenty of infrastructure investments, neglecting to say that most of the funds won’t be available for years.