Roundup: The minister of state who could not be shamed

Pierre Poilievre once again affirmed his complete and utter shamelessness yesterday, as Harry Neufeld, the author of the report that Poilievre likes to cite, appeared before committee and said flat out that Polievre is misquoting the report, that he never said anything about voter fraud, and that the portions of the elections bill that remove vouching as an option should be scrapped, and if they’re not, the bill as a whole should be. But never mind that, Poilievre not only carried on selectively quoting Neufeld, and then said that Neufeld may have written the report but he couldn’t write the law. No, seriously. Because the best response to being caught out misquoting is to double down and insist that the author is wrong. Well done.

Continue reading

QP: Shuffled sparring partners

After two weeks away, MPs were back and ready to carry on with the Grand Inquest of the Nation. With Harper still off in Europe, it was a question as to whether there would be a front-bench babysitter answering questions, or just ministers and parliamentary secretaries in the leaders’ round. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the situation in Ukraine, and David Anderson read a pro forma statement about travel bans and economic sanctions. Mulcair then turned to the Supreme Court ruling on the Nadon reference, and wondered if the government would accept the ruling. Peter MacKay stood up to reiterate that they got legal opinions beforehand, that they were surprised by the decision, and they felt that Nadon was a legal expert, and would study the decision. Mulcair then asked if the new minister of finance would abandon the national securities regulator project. Joe Oliver, in his debut answer in his new role, but said that he would wait for the new critic to ask in order to be fair to him after he took such a major pay cut. Mulcair then moved onto the elections bill, and Pierre Poilievre invited Mulcair to call witnesses before the committee, saying the bill would “protect” our system of democracy. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, and asked about the coming cuts to infrastructure funds. Denis Lebel answered that they were increasing funds. Brison reminded him that the funding commitments were back-end loaded and that communities would have to hike property taxes in the interim, but Lebel insisted the preamble was wrong. Marc Garneau took another stab at the question in French, and got the same answer from Lebel.

Continue reading