It seems that in the wake of the Speaker’s ruling on members’ statements, the restless Conservative backbenches have backed off of their support of the Liberal opposition day motion on making Members’ Statements alphabetical in distribution. The feeling seems to be that the Speaker’s advice that if they want to stand up and be heard, that it was enough for them. Um, okay. We’ll see if that actually happens, especially considering that the delicate balance of party allotments are also in play during both Members’ Statements and Question Period in general, but it seems to me that this becomes a case of everyone being contended with half-measures, rather than any genuine reform. Sure, Warawa might have been surprised to learn that the lists are mere suggestions for the Speaker, but that doesn’t mean that MPs – or Canadians – should be satisfied by this ruling. Rather, it should be the springboard to the restoration of our Parliament to the way it should act – without lists or scripts, where MPs are engaged in the debates, actively participating, capable of delivering actual back-and-forth exchanges with spontaneity and class, rather than the dull recitations into the record that we’re now seeing.
Tag Archives: Peter Penashue
QP: Testing Trudeau’s performance
The galleries were packed, including the press gallery, which was something of a rarity. Even more rare was Peter Mansbridge showing up for the festivities. Every leader was present — also a rarity for a Monday, but as Harper is travelling later in the week, he’s making up the day. And so, when things kicked off, Thomas Mulcair read off five questions about RBC and the use of temporary foreign workers, and called on Jason Kenney to apologise. Harper stood up to say that the programme was not intended to take jobs away of Canadians, and they would be investigating, but for his third supplemental, pointed out that eight NDP MPs wrote letters to the department asking for more temporary foreign worker approvals for their regions, which were regions with high unemployment. This set Mulcair off, and he got red-faced as he leaned over his mini-lectern as he yelled back at Harper. And then it was Trudeau’s turn. After a snag with translation, he asked a trio of questions about the increases in tariffs in the budget — not so much reading his questions but checking his notes on his desk occasionally. Harper, after congratulating Trudeau on his win, said that it didn’t make sense to give tax breaks to countries like China, which were no longer developing — to which Scott Andrews heckled “so you’re raising taxes on Canadians!”
Roundup: In the wake of a leadership and a convention
And so, it is done. Justin Trudeau has won the Liberal leadership, and lo, the party is reborn. Or something like that. To be fair, the fact that he won with some 80 percent of the vote share on the first count is quite remarkable, and Trudeau made a very important – and forceful – point during his speech that the era of the “hyphenated” Liberal – be they Chrétien-Liberals, Martin-Liberals, Turner-Liberals, or what have you – ends here and now. And considering that his leadership team was of a new generation that eschewed those former battles, it does send a strong signal that it’s the case, and perhaps the party will stop fighting with itself for a change. Perhaps. Meanwhile, the Conservatives wasted no time at all in putting out a congratulatory statement with a little dig about his experience in it. I write about what his election by means of the “supporter” category means from a civic literacy and accountability perspective. Leslie MacKinnon looks at how Trudeau became leader from what was an unlikely start. Michael Den Tandt wonders if Trudeau’s popularity may be his undoing, with the dangers of peaking early and not engaging the party’s veterans and loyal core support. John Ivison looks at the belief that Trudeau can single-handedly resurrect the party. John Geddes takes note of three key themes from the speech, and what they may portend for the future of the party.
Roundup: Assessing Mulcair’s QP performance
PostMedia takes a look at Thomas Mulcair’s QP performance, and the kinds of topics that he ends to cover – in particular, that he tries to focus more on economic issues than shying away from them. That said, I’m not sure that “Why won’t the government adopt the NDP’s plan” is really a question on the economy… Included in the analysis is a critique that Mulcair doesn’t seem to have grasped the way that the Liberals could set the agenda for days while they were the Official Opposition through careful use of QP, which the NDP haven’t been able to master. Indeed, they haven’t quite mastered actual debate as they simply give the same question to several MPs in both official languages, as though there wasn’t a response given that could embarrass them down the line when they asked the very same question again and again. Also, nowhere is it mentioned that he continues to read his questions from his miniature lectern on a daily basis.
Roundup: Beware those scary policy proposals
As the NDP policy convention draws closer, Jim Flaherty sends out a scathing missive about the negative economic impact of their proposals. But this totally isn’t a way to distract everyone from the assault that Flaherty is under for things like the “iPod tax” debacle or anything, right? (Speaking of, the Finance department is doubling down on its insistence that there’s no tariff on MP3 players – despite the all evidence to the contrary). Economist Stephen Gordon takes issue with some of the NDP’s underlying misunderstanding of profit in the modern economy – which they are largely against in their constitutional preamble – and how profit benefits everyone, especially those who live on investment income, such as pensions. The party also looks set to release a “get to know Thomas Mulcair” video at the convention as part of the new charm offensive to head off Justin-mania that is about to sweep the nation.
Roundup: The meaning of Margaret Thatcher
The death of Baroness Thatcher was all over the political scene in Canada yesterday. Susan Delacourt writes about her legacy with respect to political marketing, which shaped campaigns of Stephen Harper, and she also spoke with Brian Mulroney about his recollections of Thatcher – including a famous blow-up in an airport over the issue of sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Anne Kingston writes about Thatcher’s complicated relationship with feminism. John Ivison, who lived through the Thatcher years in Scotland, finds himself a little surprised at the legacy she left behind in reforming Britain’s economy. Michael Den Tandt says that she was popular because of her principles – though he notes that on occasion, she was on the wrong side of an issue.
Roundup: Tariff confusion reigns
The iPod tariff/tax debate has heated up into a convoluted partisan war, not only between parties but media outlets. And the answer is that, well, there is no real answer to whether or not the tariff applies given the measures currently in place as they are being interpreted differently by CBSA and Canada Post, and the exemption cited by Jim Flaherty’s office may not actually apply because iPods don’t plug into computers on a continual basis, which leaves this as an unresolved mess.
The Toronto Star catches up with the third radicalised Canadian, who is currently in prison in Mauritania on terrorism related charges, where he refused Amnesty International’s aid.
QP: Such a well-received budget
Harper’s first day in the House post-budget, and Thomas Mulcair was not present. Instead, he on his way to Labrador to meet his party’s candidate in the upcoming by-election there. David Christopherson led off for the NDP, and railed against measures contained in the budget. Stephen Harper assured him that the budget has been well received. For his final supplemental, Christopherson angrily denounced the case of the cancer survivor fighting against the government to reclaim her EI benefits. Harper said that the Act had already been changed so that this situation wouldn’t happen again — though he couldn’t comment on this particular case because it is before the courts. Nycole Turmel returned to the same question in French, and got the same response, before she finished off with a boilerplate anti-budget denunciation. Ted Menzies responded by telling the House what the NDP voting against the budget would mean. For the Liberals, Bob Rae asked about the unilateral nature of the Canada Jobs Grant changes in the budget, to which Harper told him that they were trying to address the problem of jobs without people in this country. For his final question, Rae noted that his Harper’s backbenchers were concerned that he wasn’t letting them speak their minds, just as Harper wasn’t listening to the provinces about their concerns about the budget. Harper dodged by sticking to the budget lines.
Roundup: On being anti-trade and avoiding another round of austerity
Economist Stephen Gordon has taken a second look at the budget, and declares that with higher tariffs on more countries, and tighter restrictions on foreign investment in Canada, the government is really more anti-trade than it lets on. He also calls out the logic about how the “preferential tariff” was some kind of a subsidy if its elimination means Canadian taxpayers end up paying more. Over in Hong Kong, Jim Flaherty says that the issue of the increased tariffs have not yet been raised, but closer to home, his plan to return to the issue of a single national securities regulator is still not getting a lot of traction from the more recalcitrant provinces. The NDP, meanwhile, have decided to call in the RCMP about the budget “leaks” that appeared in the media in the lead-up as part of the government communications strategy.
QP: Paternalism and making someone a good wife
While Stephen Harper was off welcoming the pandas to Canada, the business of the nation carried on without him. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off a question about the Nishiyuu Cree Walkers, and said that the budget was “crushing them” with paternalism — never mind that many chiefs asked for those very provisions. John Baird, the designated back-up PM du jour, assured him that they were helping First Nations to get ahead. Mulcair carried on slamming the budget, calling it a coming decade of darkness for communities because of a lack of infrastructure funds (or something to that effect), but Baird kept up the good news talking points. For his final supplemental, Mulcair asked about Kevin Page’s comments about unwinding the PBO. Baird deflected and called Mulcair out for his comments on Keystone XL in Washington. Megan Leslie was up next and asked about Keith Ashfield’s “you’re going to make a good wife someday” comment at a budget event on Friday. Ashfield said that if that was the worst that Leslie could say about the budget, then it must be a pretty good one. For the Liberals, Judy Foote, Scott Andrews and Gerry Byrne asked about Peter Penashue standing up for wasteful government advertising while other local services were cut. Baird reminded them of ALL THE THINGS that Penashue did for Labrador.