Tag Archives: Terrorism

QP: Triumphalism and playing catch-up

Posted on by

In the wake of the Alberta election, there was a giddiness among the NDP benches — never mind that they had nothing to do with what happened there. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the Deschamps Report and the lack of action on eight of the 10 recommendations. Jason Kenney refuted the questions, and said they were working on implementation. Mulcair brought up a recent case of an Inuk soldier who was in the media, and Kenney insisted that they were taking action. Mulcair then changed to Mike Duffy’s appointment and the declaration Duffy allegedly signed before being sworn in. Paul Calandra turned it around on the satellite offices that the NDP owe for. Mulcair demanded the document, and Calandra offered the same response. Mulcair tried once more in French, bringing in the Nigel Wright “good to go” claim. Calandra was undaunted in his talking point. Justin Trudeau stood up for the Liberals, asking about tax breaks for the wealthy and asked if they would cancel those tax breaks. Pierre Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was going to raise taxes. Trudeau rephrased it, and Poilievre insisted that Trudeau’s platform won’t balance, and insisted Trudeau would raise taxes. One last round in French was no more edifying.

Continue reading →

QP: Dropping the ball on operational security

Posted on by

On most Tuesdays in the Commons, the leaders would actually be present, given that it’s usually one of the two days per week that Stephen Harper deigns to show up. Today, however, with Harper still in the Netherlands, none of the other main leaders bothered to show up either. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie led off, asking about the record trade deficit (which it needs to be stated is not necessarily a bad thing, just because it’s referred to as a deficit). Ed Fast insisted that exports were up, and yay trade agreements. Leslie asked again in English, capping it off with a demand for $15/day childcare. Candice Bergen insisted that theirs was the best plan for all families. Again, Leslie bemoaned the state of the manufacturing sector, to which James Moore praised all of their measures. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and decried the imminent passage of Bill C-51. Stephen Blaney wondered why the NDP refused to give tools to the police, or how they could deny that there were terrorist attacks in Canada. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and wanted help for the middle class, touting the plan they introduced yesterday. Pierre Poilievre responded that the Liberals would raise taxes by replealing the doubling of the TFSA (which is not actually true). Ralph Goodale was up and more forcefully asked the same again in English twice, and Poilievre doubled down on his blatantly untrue talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Carry on the middle-class talking points

Posted on by

As Monday is the new Friday, none of the main leaders were in the House — Harper in Europe, Mulcair in Quebec City, and Trudeau across the river in Gatineau, having just laid out his party’s new tax plan. When QP kicked off, Megan Leslie led off, asking about job losses in the manufacturing sector. Pierre Poilievre took the question, and listed off some talking points about how great their family tax cuts were. Leslie noted the media reports that Conservative MPs will personally benefit more from income splitting than others, but Poilievre was undaunted from his talking points. Leslie then changed to the topics of coalition air strikes in Syria hitting civilians. Rob Nicholson noted that they had a 12-month commitment. Jack Harris then asked about Harper’s comments that they were not sure how effective the bombing campaign was. Nicholson noted it was a precision campaign, and wanted the NDP to thank the men and women in uniform. Harris then asked about reports about allegations of mistreatment of Taliban by military police. James Bezan insisted that they were taking the allegations seriously. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, praising their recent announcement and wondered why the government wouldn’t adopt it (Poilievre: Yay our plan), and Ralph Goodale got increasingly critical of that plan Poilievre was touting (Poilievre: You just said you want to raise taxes on people making $60,000 — blatantly untrue).

Continue reading →

QP: Vintage Calandra

Posted on by

With the King of Jordan in town, the PM was absent for QP, which is a rarity for a Wednesday. That Justin Trudeau was also absent was unusual and disappointing. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the constitutional requirements for Senate appointments, and why he thought Mike Duffy could be counted as a resident of PEI. Paul Calandra insisted that the NDP were trying to make a victim of Duffy, and it was his actions that were on trial. Mulcair pressed, bringing in Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, but Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair accused the government of a cover-up of fraudulent expenses in the Senate — not sure that it was in bounds — but Calandra repeated his response. Mulcair invited Calandra to repeat the utterances outside — which he has, repeated — before asking about the “typical family” example in the budget. Kevin Sorenson decried that the NDP seems to think that anyone making under $60,000 per year is wealthy and needs to pay more taxes. For his last question, Mulcair brought up the Auditor General’s report on First Nation’s healthcare, and Rona Ambrose rose to assure him that action was being taken. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, returning to Duffy’s constitutional eligibility, to which Calandra repeated the “making a victim” line and then attacked the NDP. In another round in English, Paul Calandra brought in Mac Harb, and Scott Brison closed the round by asking about ad spending versus the Canada Summer Jobs programme. Pierre Poilievre insisted they were creating jobs with “tax cuts, training and trade.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Senate invokes privilege

Posted on by

In his attempt to cast the net far and wide in order to excuse Mike Duffy’s housing claims, it seems that Donald Bayne is trying to show that plenty of other senators were improperly claiming for Ottawa residences, and is trying to compel the release of an internal Senate audit conducted in 2012, where two Senators – retired Senator Zimmer and Senator Patterson – were found to have questionable claims which they later explained away. The Senate, however, is invoking privilege and refusing to turn it over, which is their constitutional right. They are under no obligation to help Duffy’s defence, after all, and as a legislative body they have the right to conduct their own affairs. And before anyone starts getting hysterical, remember that privilege is all about the independence of the institution, and keeping the courts out of parliament so that it can do its job without the constant threat of litigation during the legislative process. Likewise, Parliament doesn’t get involved in individual court cases because that would interfere with the independence of the courts. Otherwise, Bayne tried to bring up Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen yesterday who was part of the subcommittee that “sat in judgement” of Duffy when she was claiming her long-time Ottawa residence as secondary for two years while she was trying to sell it in order to fully move back to New Brunswick (this is the point where I mention that she shouldn’t have been appointed as a New Brunswick senator until she was fully moved back). Also, the Senate finance officer continued to be grilled, and continued to push back against Bayne, going so far as to read more than the passages he indicated in order to provide context, which the judge allowed her to do. Nicholas Köhler paints that sketch with his usual aplomb.

Continue reading →

QP: Assistance for Nepal

Posted on by

As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Enbridge and the Duffy pathology

Posted on by

Over in the Ottawa Citizen, David Reevely has a wonderful little piece about the ways in which Mike Duffy conducted himself as a Senator – and that was to basically farm out work to friends, including a $7000 speech about “Why I am a Conservative.” Apparently a former journalist writing about his own political convictions was too much work, and so he fobbed it off on someone else, on the taxpayer’s dime. Reevely is right to point out an emptiness to the way that Duffy treated the job, but it misses another aspect to the pathology – that Duffy wanted to be a player. Certainly by spreading the largess around to those who he thought would be impressed by it is indicative of that. We’re seeing more of this desire to be a player as more things come out of his diaries, and one of the most eyebrow-raising examples were his meetings with Enbridge. As it happens, those meetings were unsolicited. Duffy was trying to ingratiate himself and so he made busywork about trying to get some action on the Keystone XL pipeline, having conversations that weren’t reported to the Lobbying Registry, and then reporting them to the PMO. Apparently it got to the point where Enbridge officials themselves complained to the PMO about it, in the hopes that they could call Duffy off. And really, there was no point to Duffy’s efforts – the PMO was onside with the pipeline, and Enbridge has had no issues with reporting their meetings. Oh, but Duffy wanted to be a player, to show that he mattered in the corridors of power – the reason why he’d been begging for an appointment to the Senate for decades, from successive prime ministers, both Liberal and Conservative, who had no time for him. The NDP, incidentally, want those Enbridge meetings investigated, but I’m not sure it’s really necessary because it certainly appears that there is nothing to investigate other than Duffy’s inflated sense of self, and while the NDP may think that it’s some kind of smoking gun on Harper, it’s far more about Duffy’s ego than it was about corruption from the centre.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Privacy Commissioner finally has his say

Posted on by

Bill C-51 is now getting its review in the Senate, hearing from someone that the Commons didn’t – the Privacy Commissioner. What they got was an earful – there are some big problems with the information sharing provisions in the bill that would allow large amounts of personal information to be collected and shared between departments with little justification, and that his office would be swamped with work because of it. He’s also calling for oversight – like everyone else – and for the ability for different watchdogs to communicate with one another and coordinate their investigations in order to get a better picture of what these organisations are doing as they work together but their oversight remains siloed. Those other oversight bodies – SIRC and the CSE Commissioner – had much the same concerns when it comes to the ability to work together, and just keeping pace with the increasing scope and scale of operations. But will any of this have an effect? Maybe, as there are some Conservative senators who are concerned about these kinds of things and who may push back. But the government may bully through, and said senators may decide that this isn’t the hill they want to die on (which does happen), and they’ll let it go through. Suffice to say, the issue has not gone away.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not expecting many budget surprises

Posted on by

It’s Budget Day – err, I mean Economic Action Plan 2015™ Day, and all of the big stuff has pretty much leaked already – because apparently there are no penalties for this kind of thing anymore when that it used to be a serious issue that was investigated by the RCMP. Suffice to say, Joe Oliver promises it’ll be balanced (and got some New Balance shoes as the most dad joke of Budget Day gimmicks ever), and we hear there will be things like some more money for security agencies, and more compassionate caregiver leave (but that’s coming out of the EI fund, which is already artificially high and being used to pay down the deficit), and they keep hinting about raising the limit on TFSA, and finally giving that adult fitness tax credit. And then there’s the fact that the government has been putting out all kinds of advertising to ensure that people don’t forget to sign up for the new child benefits – after all, they want to ensure that they’re in people’s bank accounts before the election so that they can warn that those awful Liberals (and NDP) will take them away. So there’s that. I guess I’ll see you after the lock-up with the rest of the details.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget

Posted on by

The first day back from the Easter break, and the day before the budget, and attendance was pretty depressed, and none of the major leaders were present. Megan Leslie led off, demanding the government table a budget that helps families. Kevin Sorensen said she’d have to wait for tomorrow to get the details, but they were going to fulfil their provinces including tax breaks for families. Leslie insisted regular Canadians would face cuts, but Sorenson was not deterred from his good news talking points. Leslie then changed topics to the constitutionality of Mike Duffy’s Senate appointment, to which Paul Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite offices and demanded they repay them. Peter Julian repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and for his final question, Peter Julian decried cuts to marine safety as demonstrated by the fuel leak in English Bay. Lisa Raitt responded by commending the Coast Guard on their actions, and reminded them that the ship transiting Canadian waters who is solely responsible for their pollution. Scott Brison led for the Liberals, decrying the planned balanced budget legislation, and asked the government to make the law retroactive to repay the five percent penalty for the years that we weren’t in recession. Sorenson praised balanced budgets, and didn’t take Brison’s bait. Brison then decried the doubling of the TFSA limit as helping only the wealthy, and Sorenson responded with some non sequitur past quote of Brison. Brison wanted more help for students instead of advertising (Poilievre: You would raise taxes on students).

Continue reading →