One almost suspects that the Conservatives are worried about the Trudeau phenomenon in the upcoming by-elections as they continue to mount increasing attacks against him, whose relevance to reality slips further and further away. Today it was Peter MacKay suggesting that Justin Trudeau told schoolchildren that recreational drug use was okay and hay for legalising pot. Um, except that’s not what happened, but rather that at a school event he was asked about it, and Trudeau said that not only should children not use pot because their brains are still developing, but that right now the government’s approach was ineffective. Well done Conservative attack machine operating under MacKay’s name. Meanwhile in Toronto Centre, the NDP put out releases that decried how awful it was that Chrystia Freeland laid off all those journalists when she was at Reuters, but conveniently omitted the line from the story where the Reuters spokesperson specifically said the layoffs were not Freeland’s decision. Added to that, the NDP somehow intimated that they would protect media jobs by rewarding job creation with tax breaks. Erm, corporate taxes are not the woe that is facing the haemorrhaging media industry, and unless they plan to shut down the Internet and start subsidizing newspaper subscriptions, I’m not sure how exactly they’ll protect media jobs.
Tag Archives: Telecom
Roundup: No closure, new motions
There remains no resolution to the issue of the proposed suspensions in the Senate, as the Conservatives there found their attempt to impose closure to be out of order and they have pulled the motions in favour of a new one, which ties things up even further. Oh, but apparently their ham-fistedness is the Liberals’ fault, because they won’t stand aside and just pass it. Because yeah, that’s how things work in our parliamentary system. As it stands, those motions may not see a vote until Friday, but may stretch into next week. Glen McGregor checks Mike Duffy’s speech against his speaking notes, and where the deviations from Hansard were. Joe Clark doesn’t think too much of Harper’s handling of the whole Senate situation. Paul Wells dissects Harper’s role in the mounting problems facing him with the Wright/Duffy affair, and how his usual stubborn streak is playing out – in spades. Chantal Hébert wonders about Nigel Wright’s silence in the face of his demonization by Harper, and how he may be the one to bring Harper down. Andrew Coyne bemoans the way in which the Conservatives are chucking away the conventions that govern our parliamentary system.
QP: Harper hits back — at the Liberals
It’s Thomas Mulcair’s birthday, not that he was really going to get any answers out of Harper as a gift for the occasion. Mulcair began by asking a rather lengthy question around the stonewalling around what Nigel Wright knew, but Harper insisted that Wright kept the whole affair to himself. Mulcair brought up Ray Novak and Marjory LeBreton’s alleged call to Mike Duffy telling him that the deal was off. Harper responded that Mulcair was buying into the story that Duffy was the victim rather than the fact of the misspending that got him booted from caucus. When Mulcair tried to clarify whether or not Harper had singled out Duffy at the caucus meeting in February, Harper said that the spending of the three senators was brought up in caucus and he made his emphatic statement then. When Mulcair asked when Harper did threaten to expel Duffy from the Senate, Harper reiterated that rule-breakers had no place in caucus. Leading for the Liberals was Dominic LeBlanc, as Justin Trudeau was speaking away speaking in Washington DC. LeBlanc asked why one former PMO staffer who was involved was promoted despite potentially criminal behaviour. Harper responded by calling out Liberal senators for holding up the suspension without pay of those three senators. LeBlanc pushed, bringing up or their questionable hires by the PMO, but Harper kept insisting that the Liberal senators were keeping those misbehaving from being punished (which is of course false, as they are simply looking to put it to committee to give it due process).
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Roundup: Another heavyweight for Trudeau
Justin Trudeau announced a new advisory council yesterday, co-chaired by MP Marc Garneau and retired General Andrew Leslie, former commander of the Canadian Land Forces Command, and later the author of a report on how to best transform the Canadian Forces in an era of fiscal restraint (most of which has yet to be implemented). Leslie noted that his decision to become a Liberal was cemented last week when Trudeau was the only leader to come out unequivocally against the Quebec Charter of Values, and he certainly puts a big dent in the Conservative claim that the Liberals are bad for the armed forces. Leslie is also considering a run for a seat in the next election, but his high-profile role at this point is a signal that Trudeau is gathering some heavy-weights to his team, which will bolster his credentials in advance of the next election.
Roundup: The commitment to transparency in the Commons
The Procedure and House Affairs held a rare emergency meeting yesterday to declare – unanimously – that they are committed to the ongoing study of ways to increase the transparency in the Commons, and voted to ensure that the House Leader commits to keeping said committee study going once Parliament resumes, and committed to a report on the topic by December 2nd. This allows the committee clerks to start to schedule hearings and lining up expert witnesses during the prorogation – a time when the committee is technically dissolved.
Roundup: Senators in defence of their institution
Liberal Senate leader James Cowan penned an op-ed in yesterday’s Chronicle Herald about the work that the Senate does, and the value that it provides to the legislative process in Canada. And it was an excellent read, which I’d highly recommend – it was about time that a senator was so eloquent in the defence of the institution. I do find it curious that so far it seems to be Liberal senators who are doing a disproportionate share of that defence – even though I know plenty of Conservative senators who feel the institution should be left alone (financial controls tightened, of course). Unfortunately, most of the Conservative Senate caucus, if they do speak up, are only sticking to the absurd and disingenuous party line of “the Senate must change or be abolished,” as though any of the proposed reforms would either do anything about the alleged graft of a small number (it wouldn’t), were constitutional (they aren’t), or that they could measurably be said to actually improve the institution (highly debateable, but when you look at the totality of the Senate and its work, the proposed reforms would only serve to create partisan gridlock with 105 new backbenchers for party leaders to control). I have no doubt that they want to keep their heads down because they don’t want to be accused of trying to protect their entitlements, but they’re liable to find that if they don’t speak up for the institution, that they will be the unwitting agents of their own demise, which would be an absolute shame.
Roundup: Votes on Syria and the question of Responsible Government
In the fallout of last Friday’s vote in the British Commons regarding military action in Syria, there are some very serious questions being asked about what it all means. In part, the concerns come from the nature of Responsible Government – if the House has not expressed support for the government’s foreign policy goals, which as a Crown Prerogative – then how can they continue to claim to have confidence in that government? How is foreign policy any different on a substantive level when it comes to the conduct of a government than a budget? Philippe Lagassé and Mark Jarvis debate the issue here, and I’m going to say that I’m on Lagassé’s side with this one – MPs can’t just deny the government the ability to exercise their prerogatives without also taking responsibility for it, meaning declaring non-confidence in the government. It’s not how Responsible Government works, and if they’re going to start changing the conventions of such a system of governance that works really quite well, then they need to think long and hard about the consequences of their actions. But that’s part of the problem – nobody wants to look at how actions affect the system as a whole, rather than simply patting themselves on the back for a nebulous and not wholly correct interpretation of what democracy means. And once people start tinkering with the parts without looking at the whole, then big problems start to happen, which we really should beware of.
Roundup: Bringing back the tough-on-crime narrative
Because he needs to change the channel of the national conversation, Stephen Harper announced yesterday that one of his government’s priorities coming back in the fall will be a bill to toughen the sentences for child sex offenders. Because nothing says “tough on crime!” like increasing sentences. Harper also blasted Justin Trudeau for putting pot ahead of the economy – as though it were an either/or proposition, or that there were no economic consequences from legalising marijuana, or the resources that it would free up from enforcing the existing laws in a rather futile way. Harper also seems to think that Trudeau is encouraging youth to use marijuana, when in fact Trudeau has said exactly the opposite – that legalising and regulating it will help to keep it out of the hands of children. But hey, since when to sound bites need to be factually accurate? Harper did say that he would take a look at the Chiefs of Police’s report recommending that marijuana possession be made a ticketable offence rather than one meriting a criminal conviction, so baby steps – right?
Roundup: A refresher course in open nominations
Nomination races are the backbone of our democratic system, yet are probably the least understood component – thanks of course to a pretty shite job of civic education in this country that does little to teach people about it. And as Alice Funke of Pundit’s Guide points out, we’ve been out of the habit of proper open nomination races in this country since about 2004 (blame the period of minority governments and the need to be “election ready” that protected incumbents), which means that these particular democratic muscles in the Canadian electorate have become pretty flabby. Fortunately, she’s penned a fantastic guide about getting back into shape, which everyone needs to read. And no, I’m not kidding – everyone needs to read this. Okay? Good.