Tag Archives: Liberal Leadership

Roundup: A thousand omnibudget amendments

Posted on by

The next steps in the fight against the omnibus budget bill are heating up. After getting their interns to camp out, the Liberals deposited 503 deletion amendments to be considered. Moments later, the NDP deposited 506 deletion amendments of their own. (I’m informed that the number was just a coincidences and not a juvenile game of one-upmanship). This on top of Elizabeth May’s 200 or so substantive amendments. The Speaker is due to rule on Monday as to what is going to be admissible and how those amendments will be grouped together. Pity his poor staff, who will have to spend their weekend going through all of it.

Court documents are undermining what Dean Del Mastro was claiming yesterday regarding his innocence with those allegedly improper payments that Elections Canada is now investigating.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is preparing to go to Federal Court to get the information on the budget cuts that he is entitled to get, but that the government is withholding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A too-predictable sympathetic report

Posted on by

The NDP have release their “report” on their “consultations” on the omnibus budget bill around the country. Their condemnation comes from having panels stuffed with representatives from sympathetic groups, and by avoiding Alberta or any regions whose economies are dependent on resource extraction. Funny how that happens. Meanwhile, they’re also promising some 200 deletion amendments at report stage of the bill in the Commons, which on top of Elizabeth May’s 50 substantive amendments and the 200 deletion amendments she’s working with the Liberals on means that there could be 30 hours or so of votes, depending on what the Speaker rules to be in order or how he groups them.

It cost $47,000 for Peter MacKay and company to put on the photo op with the mock-up F-35 when the government announced they initially were going to be buying those planes.

The NDP wants to charge the deputy minister of DND with contempt of parliament over his testimony on the F-35s. And while this drama unfolds in the Public Accounts Committee, Liberal MP Gerry Byrne charges that the NDP has been doing a lot of in camera cooperation with the Conservatives in order to try to stick it to the Liberals. Sigh.

Continue reading →

Roundup: False plots to take away votes

Posted on by

There is no set by-election in Etobicoke Centre yet – in fact, the Supreme Court has not yet decided if they will hear the appeal – and the ground war in that riding is already heating up. The Conservatives have been calling voters to warn them that the Liberals were plotting to “overthrow” their votes, and that their votes would be “taken away” by the court decision. Which is a complete distortion, but all’s fair in war and politics, or something like that. Not that the Liberals haven’t started fundraising in preparation for the by-election there either, though not using such patently false claims it should be noted.

Thomas Mulcair blames Stephen Harper for east-west divisions, not his own comments. Shocking, I know. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall has some concerns over the “Dutch disease” comments, as does Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty says that the high dollar does pose challenges for the manufacturing sector, but it’s not “Dutch disease,” which really, when you actually weigh what’s going on, is more the case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking the omnibudget threat seriously

Posted on by

So, remember what I was saying yesterday about how the opposition – and the NDP in particular would be hammering away at the government in QP about the omnibus budget bill if they truly considered it to be the major priority and affront to democracy that it is? Well, it only took them until the end of the second round – a full 25 minutes into QP – to ask a pair of broad and general questions about the omnibus nature of the bill, and 38 minutes to ask a couple of substantive questions about a particularly troubling measure within it (and didn’t take the parliamentary secretary to task for her nonsense answer during the supplemental question, like they should have). Apparently this constitutes taking an existential threat to parliamentary democracy seriously.

What’s that? More problems with defence procurements that say they’re going to be one thing (in this case vehicular power transmission components) and turns out to be something else (13 armoured vehicles)? You don’t say! Meanwhile, the military says that Peter MacKay would have known the actual cost estimates of the Libya mission when he reported a much lower figure to parliament. I am shocked – shocked!

The RCMP Commissioner has sent warning letters out to provincial commissioners of firearms to warn against setting up backdoor long-gun registries. The problem of course is that he doesn’t exactly have the ability to meddle in provincial jurisdiction like he – and Vic Toews – would like to on this issue.

The Public Service Commission is investigating whether eleven employees were improperly hired at ACOA due to political interference.

Here’s a more in-depth look at the situation that MDA finds itself in while the government drags its feet on signing the contract for the next phase of the RADARSAT constellation.

Harper and his team continue to try and get Helena Guergis’ lawsuit against them dismissed.

The punitive measures that the Conservatives and NDP imposed on the Liberals around campaign financing retroactively on the 2006 leadership race continues to haunt some of the former contenders.

Here’s a bit of an explainer of what some of the latest “Pierre Poutine” revelations mean.

And Lisa Raitt talks about her battle with post-partum depression to help raise awareness of mental health.

Roundup: Truth and ministerial accountability

Posted on by

As mentioned earlier, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facia breach of privilege in the government’s answers on the F-35s in the House. So what does this actually mean. First of all, it should be noted that Speaker Scheer parsed things pretty finely, and in that respect, noted that it was difficult to prove a deliberate misleading, which is why he couldn’t make his ruling. (You can read the text here). Fair enough, one supposes, but there were some additional eyebrow-raising aspects to this, in that he pretty much dismissed the notion of ministerial accountability out of hand. In other words, not his problem. This means that as always, this remains a problem for the Crown, and in that, it means that the only people who can punish the Crown for ministers not taking responsibility would be the Commons, by means of withdrawing their confidence. And of course that would mean in this case that backbenchers would have to be sufficiently exercised to want to punish their own party’s government (which this current lot of spineless louts is highly unlikely to do). Marc Garneau raised the additional point after the ruling that this further insulates a government from the actions of the civil servant because they can henceforth claim ignorance, and ministerial accountability may well be a past concept.

Here is the text of the motion the NDP are proposing for splitting the omnibus budget bill. Elizabeth May blogs about the various changes found within the bill and wonders if government spokespersons haven’t read the bill considering that their talking points don’t match the reality of the text. Maclean’s Aaron Wherry has an extremely trying interview with Peter Van Loan about the bill, and his justifying the omnibus-ness of it all.

The Veterans Ombudsman has released a scathing report about the conduct and performance of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, saying some 60 percent of cases were handled improperly. The minister’s response? That they’ll soon be launching a new Action Plan™ to deal with it.

The NDP “digital issues” critic wants to investigate if social media sites are doing enough to protect privacy. Fair enough – but I don’t think that labelling them “Big Data” is really helping anyone.

Here’s a look at the number of contaminated sites that need cleaning up across the country.

And a potential Liberal leadership candidate is launching trailers for his “exploratory committee” bid, but there are cautions about what kind of fundraising he can actually do at this stage.

Up today – the Mental Health Commission is releasing their first report, outlining their strategy, priorities and recommendations, which includes the need for $4 billion in new funds over the next ten years.

Roundup: Retroactively changing the facts

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence quietly amended a tabled parliamentary report on the F-35s under the guise of a correcting a “typographical error” when in fact they were changing a significant line about the status of the procurement. With nothing more than a quiet amendment notice on the Treasury Board website, they changed the status from “definitions” phase to “options analysis,” which is really significant. And they did it quietly, hoping nobody would notice – because nobody has anything to hide on how badly this whole file has been handled. Meanwhile, the name of the new procurement secretariat has officially been changed so that it isn’t specifically to procure F-35s, but rather is now the “national fighter procurement secretariat.” And University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagassé wants the opposition to ask better questions about the fighter since they keep getting distracted by shiny things and missing the real point – which of course is why a rigged process was allowed to happen and why due diligence was not followed.

Today in voter suppression news, an American Republican operative who was convicted and spent time in jail over improper calls says that the various misleading calls here were likely imported American tactics, and that it looks like a systemic and sophisticated operation. Over in the bid to overturn the results of the Etobicoke Centre election, it appears there are missing voter registration certificates, which could point to some improper votes being cast – enough to have changed the outcome. Meanwhile, over in Eglinton-Lawrence, it looks like a flyer was going around trying to get some improper votes cast on behalf of Jewish voters (not that the margin is enough to challenge in court).

DND looks to be set to chop mental health monitors and PTSD monitors. Because that sounds like a genius idea, not to mention totally “supporting our troops.”

What’s that? Major pipeline projects could face lengthy court challenges in the absence of robust environmental assessments? You don’t say!

Liberal Party president Mike Crawley indicates there are likely to be six or seven interested candidates in the upcoming leadership race – whenever it actually kicks off.

Here’s a look at Elizabeth May’s first year in Parliament.

Alison Crawford looks at the use of private members’ business to push through government business – not that it’s what they’re doing with the Woodworth motion.

The Conservatives’ latest proposed elder abuse television spots were panned by focus groups as being “too creepy” and the “worse commercials ever.” Yikes!

And the Procedure and House Affairs committee has tabled its report on the whole Anonymous vs. Vic Toews issue, and basically finds that they can’t do anything about it. Case closed.

Where the Liberal “party without walls” will lead

Posted on by

Wednesday morning, the Liberals are going to be marking the one-year anniversary of their stunning electoral defeat by doing something that has the potential to be political suicide. And they’re doing it with cheers and applause.

Back at their policy convention in January, the party decided adopt a new set of leadership rules that allow a new class of membership to vote in the next leadership contest. Indeed, this new class – known as “supporters,” don’t have to be party members, but simply have to promise that they’re totally not a member of another party, and voila, they can cast their ballot for the next Liberal leader. What could possibly go wrong?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta on the edge

Posted on by

It’s election day in Alberta. Will the desire for change lead to an even more right-wing “libertarian” government of inexperienced rookies? Or will institutional inertia and one party state-ism that has otherwise defined the province carry the day? I guess we’ll have to stay tuned to find out.

Today’s Senate “nominee elections” in Alberta are likely to split along party lines – as in, PC and Wildrose, who have both pledged to sit as federal Conservatives in the Senate. Which is just one reason why this whole exercise is so problematic – there is no sense in provincial parties running candidates when those candidates will sit in different federal caucuses once they arrive in Ottawa down the road – assuming of course that they do make it to Ottawa. In fact, it makes the vote that much more disingenuous.

Vic Toews admits that Omar Khadr is a Canadian and he’s coming back, so he’s now in damage control mode – he won’t be a danger to Canadians, and at least if he serves his sentence here we can better monitor him and his activities upon release than if he’d served his entire sentence in the States and suddenly showed up on our borders.

There are thousands of buildings owned by the federal government that are crumbling, some of them in states of total system failure.

Despite the ongoing battles between the chief of Attawapiskat and the federal government, it seems that not everyone in her community are pleased with her leadership. Not only that, some members of the community are also tired of NDP MP Charlie Angus using them to score political points.

Susan Delacourt looks at a grand national project like the Charter 30 years later, and fears that such a feat couldn’t be accomplished in today’s political landscape.

What’s that? The Conservatives are dismissing more expert testimony with those court challenges to overturn the election results in seven ridings? You don’t say! Meanwhile, in the battle to overturn the results in Etobicoke Centre, the Elections Canada factum says that mere clerical errors shouldn’t be enough to invalidate an election result.

Liberal Party brass were meeting in Ottawa this weekend to determine the rules for their (eventual) leadership contest, which they’ll have more firm rules on by June.

Here’s a look at Ruth Ellen “Vegas” Brosseau, one year after her election.

Here’s a timeline of the history of the Kingston Penitentiary.

And here’s a little bit about the Queen, as Saturday was her 86th birthday (not that we’ll celebrate it here in Canada until Victoria Day).

Roundup: Happy Birthday, Charter!

Posted on by

As it is now the 30th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution, and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we can expect some words of congratulations from the Prime Minister, right? Well, no. You see, Harper has decided that the Charter is too linked to the “divisive” issue of patriation, and how Quebec didn’t sign onto the Constitution, so he’s going to keep quiet. Which is pretty interesting, considering that he’s just feeding into the myth that Quebec didn’t support patriation (much like the so-called “Night of the Long Knives” myth, perpetuated by separatists). So not only does he appear to be spiting the Charter out of partisan considerations, terrible Liberal document that it is – despite it being more of a libertarian document than anything else – but he feels needs to feed the separatist rhetoric. (Paul Wells shares his views here). Not that either Jean Chrétien or Thomas Mulcair go blameless here either, if you cast your eyes back ten years ago and what both said back then.

Still on the Charter front, from Britain’s National Archives comes a tale from the cabinet minutes of Thatcher’s government, who were considering rejecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the constitutional patriation process. Closer to home, former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour looks at the impact of the Charter 30 years later.

On the Robocon file, it seems that Elections Canada’s investigation into the Guelph robo-calls has taken them to Conservative Party headquarters, and they’re looking into missing log-in information on the CIMS database, considering that the contact list provided by RackNine matches the CIMS list entirely. Meanwhile, NDP MP Pat Martin has apologised for unfairly maligning the calling firm RackNine over the whole Robocon affair – the second apology he’s had to make in the course of this issue (the previous one being to campaign research). And yes, it was almost certainly to avoid a lawsuit, though it’s not clear that this was enough to ward it off. This is why I keep questioning the wisdom of the NDP putting Martin out in front every time a story like this happens – yes, they know he’ll light his hair on fire in outrage, and he’s even aware that it’s why people come to him for quotes, and he says something outrageous, and the party gets press, but it almost always ends up badly. You’d think that the NDP would learn eventually, but I guess not.

Here’s an excellent breakdown – complete with coloured charts – about the “differences in accounting” when it comes to the cost of those F-35s. Meanwhile, here is a look at the mess that is the procurement process for the Cyclone helicopters, which should serve as a cautionary tale for what could very easily go wrong (and already appears to be going wrong) with the F-35s.

The government is axing a prison rehabilitation programme designed to help lifers who get parole, and has been able to claim success. But since their plan seems to be throwing more people in prison for longer with fewer programmes available to help them rehabilitate, axing this kind of programme makes perfect sense in their twisted logic.

And Bob Rae’s resolve not to run for the permanent leadership of the Liberal Party seems to be slipping, if this timeline of quotes is any indication.