Peter Penashue’s “inexperienced” former official agents says that the corporate donation was “unintentionally” accepted, that Penashue himself didn’t know about the donation, and that the last four or five days of the campaign, “all hell was breaking loose” trying to get money in before the deadline, so the rush totally explains all of the ineligible donations. So really, it’s nobody’s fault because nobody takes responsibility for the documents they signed off on, right? Well, maybe not. The former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, notes that as the Elections Canada investigative process continues, charges may yet be laid, though not in time for the by-election. The CBC’s David Cochrane looks at the whole affair from the local angle and wonders if Labradoreans want a cabinet minister or to re-elect someone who ran an incompetent campaign and blames others for mistakes that he was responsible for.
Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair
Roundup: Exit Garneau
In a surprising move, Marc Garneau decided to up sticks and pull out of the Liberal leadership race. The assumptive number two challenger who was providing a lot of the heft in the race did the math and figured that he wasn’t going to be able to win, so it was time to be a loyal soldier and support Justin Trudeau – never mind the number of attacks he launched at him in the past few weeks, and his comments about his lack of depth. Mind you, he probably did Trudeau a lot of good by giving him some good practice for the kinds of attacks that will be launched at him should he win the race and have to face the Commons daily. Oh, but wait, the other challengers said – a preferential ballot where all of the ridings are weighted equally may mean that a sheer numerical advantage may be blunted. Well, maybe. I’m also sure that David Bertschi, who should have sashayed away a long time ago, is overjoyed that he’s no longer in eight place, and that he’s now gaining momentum. Chantal Hébert notes that this exit may have saved Garneau from a humiliating defeat where Joyce Murray might have overtaken him as she has a kind of “ballot box” issue to run on, where Garneau didn’t really. Paul Wells looks to the coming Trudeau Years, and what will likely be two years of people complaining about what a disappointment he’s been as leader. Andrew Coyne looks at how actual party memberships seem to have evaporated under the new “supporter” category, making the party little more than a personality cult that exists more in theory than in practice. Oh, and the party brass acceded to Trudeau’s request to extend the deadline by an extra week in order to work out all of the “technical glitches” with getting all of their supporters registered to vote.
Roundup: Ideological purity, backlogs, and penalties proposed
It was the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa over Friday and Saturday, and in it, Preston Manning said some pretty interesting things about how conservatives should distance themselves from those who cross the line – like Mr. “Lake of Fire” from the Wildrose in Alberta, or Tom Flanagan and his child porn comments. And yes, this is a pretty big departure from the Reform Party of yore, as Chris Selley notes. Also at the conference was US libertarian hero Ron Paul, and Aaron Wherry writes about Paul, Jason Kenney, and the notion of ideological purity as put forward in a conference like the MNC.
Roundup: Myth, folklore and intellectual dishonesty
So, yesterday was…enlightening. If you call the “debate” on Senate abolition, using incorrect facts, intellectual dishonesty, and treating the constitution as a suggestion to be informed debate, that is. It boggles the mind that the NDP, who claims to champion decisions based on things like science, to turn around and use myth, folklore and figures pulled entirely out of context to back up an ideological and civically illiterate position. For example, they claim the Senate only sits an average of 56 days per year – never mind that the figure aggregates election years (of which we’ve had quite a few of late) with non-election years, and only counts days in which the Chamber itself sits. Never mind the fact that committees sit on days when the Chamber itself doesn’t, that Senate committees often sit longer than Commons committees, or the additional days of committee travel for studies that they undertake, and that the Senate sat 88 days last year – being a non-election year. But those are mere details that get in the way of a good quip. And then there were Thomas Mulcair’s interviews – while he avoided directly answering whether or not he would theoretically appoint NDP Senators were he to form a government in the future, he neglected to figure that in refusing to do so, he would be in violation of the Constitution. You see, it’s one of the duties spelled out that must be done – the GG shall appoint Senators, and that is always done on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s not a may appoint – it’s a shall, an instruction or command. To refuse to appoint Senators is an abrogation of constitutional responsibilities, but hey, it’s not like wanton constitutional vandalism isn’t the whole backbone of the discussion in the first place. And then Mulcair skated around the question of how he would deal with regional representation if the Senate were to be abolished. He gave some vague response about discussing it with the provinces, neglecting that one of the founding principles of the Senate was to balance out the representation-by-population of the Commons so that smaller provinces wouldn’t be swamped. And if Mulcair thinks that simply tinkering with the Commons seat distribution formula to somehow protect the smaller provinces, well, he’s further overcomplicating the principle of rep-by-pop that the Chamber is founded on. But once again, let’s just let constitutional vandalism slide with some pithy slogans. It’s not like it’s important or anything.
Roundup: Fallout from a Thursday Gong Show
So, yesterday was a busy day. Bit of a gong show really. But let’s start with the more shocking news – that NDP MP Claude Patry crossed over to the Bloc. Okay, well, it’s actually not all that shocking. Paul Wells has predicted this since 2011, and it could very well be the first of many. A rather shamefaced Thomas Mulcair took to a microphone and rather sulkily declared that Patry had voted in favour of an NDP PMB that would require MPs to resign and run in a by-election if they wanted to cross the floor – not that said bill passed, and Patry indicated that the vote was whipped, and has let it be known that the rigid party discipline of the NDP is one of the reasons that he decided to take his leave. And I’m going to be a bit counter-intuitive here, but I say that Patry is under no obligation to run in a by-election. He was elected to fill the seat, and that means that voters have put their trust in him to exercise his judgement, and if his judgement is that the NDP was no longer where his values lay, then he should be free to exercise that judgement and leave the party. Despite what people may think, seats are not filled based solely on the basis of party affiliation – yes, it is a major part of the decision on the part of many voters, but we are also voting for a person to fill that seat – not a robot wearing party colours to recite the speeches prepared for him by Central Command and vote on command. And guess what – the accountability mechanism is that if those voters don’t believe he made the right choice in his judgement, they can vote him out in the next election. Michael Den Tandt writes that Patry’s defection is a mess of Mulcair’s own making.
Roundup: Supreme Court refines what constitutes hate speech
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Whatcott case, which basically refined the definition of what constitutes hate speech in the country. They also said that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is not acceptable either when it comes to hate speech against gays, for what it’s worth. Emmett Macfarlane notes the issues around defining what a ‘”reasonable person” would constitute as hate, as the decision seems to indicate. Charlie Gillis laments the lost opportunity to affirm free speech, no matter the content, because human rights legislation is being abused as a blunt tool in the country. Jonathan Kay sees the decision as privileging anti-Christian censorship because they believe in the fire-and-brimstone retribution for gays, especially because the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument holds value for Christians. Andrew Coyne laments that the judgement didn’t spend enough time prefacing the value of free speech. And Bill Whatcott himself? Plans to keep up his anti-gay pamphleting because apparently Christ has nothing better to do than ensure that Whatcott denounces the gays.
Roundup: Mulcair’s PMB on the PBO
It seems that Thomas Mulcair will be putting forward a Private Member’s Bill after all – relating to strengthening the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, Peggy Nash already has a similar bill tabled, so Mulcair’s will either have to be significantly different in order to meet the rules, or Nash will have to either withdraw hers or transfer it over to Mulcair (possibly by means of unanimous consent). They say that Mulcair’s will be different enough, but we’ll have to see what the committee in charge of these things says.
Well this is very interesting. It seems that the government approved two different sets of messages around its environmental reforms – one for First Nations, and another for industry, and no, they haven’t explained why there is that difference yet.
Roundup: Mike Duffy’s cognitive dissonance
Beleaguered Senator Mike Duffy went to the media last night, and declared that he was going to repay the residency expenses he’s been claiming for his “secondary” residence in Ottawa. He claims, however, that he still qualifies to sit as a PEI senator – because the cognitive dissonance, it burns! As his excuse, Duffy said that the Senate rules are fuzzy and the form wasn’t clear – err, except it was. It’s two ticky boxes, and fill-in-your-address. No, seriously. But no, this repayment doesn’t halt the audits, or the question as to his residency being in line with the constitutional requirement for residency. And while Charlie Angus may huff and puff and demand the RCMP be brought in, one has to ask if the RCMP were brought in when MPs were found to be improperly claiming housing allowances a few years ago. No? Didn’t think so. Meanwhile, the former editor of satirical Frank magazine reminisces about his fractious relationship with Duffy, and it paints a pretty interesting picture of the Senator back in the day.
Roundup: Meet the new Religious Freedom ambassador
The government has named Andrew Bennett, a former civil servant and current dean of a Christian college in Ottawa, as its new ambassador for the Office of Religious Freedom. We’ll now see what happens with this office – it’s small and its $5 million budget won’t go far, and there will be scrutiny to see if it prefers some religions over others, or if it speaks out against religious persecutions of women or gays and lesbians, or even atheists.
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair went to Calgary to address the Chamber of Commerce there, and talked about making foreign investment criteria more transparent, and then talked doom about the Canada-China FIPA. Experts, however, have panned his apocalyptic reading of the agreement.
Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status
The government did something well-meaning yesterday, but in the process, ended up doing something very, very bad. In what was no doubt a somewhat thoughtless attempt to circumvent the rules around constitutional amendments, they tabled their act to change the laws of succession for the Canadian Monarchy yesterday that evoked a moot section of the Statute of Westminster that basically said “whatever the Mother Country decides, we’re cool with.” And with that one fell swoop, the government of Canada has undone eighty-two years of Canada having an independent Crown, and has once again relegated us to the status of a Crown colony of Britain – and no, I’m really not being dramatic. (See the bill and the government’s nonsensical backgrounder here). You see, that section of the Statute of Westminster that they’re evoking – was repealed with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Oops. And by simply assenting to the UK change, it means that the Crown of Canada is not a separate corporate sole from the Crown of the United Kingdom – which means that Canada is not a sovereign country. And because the Office of the Queen – which the rules of succession are a Very Big Deal regarding – falls under s.41(a) of the Constitution – that means a constitutional amendment requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces. Yes, it’s a little messier and will take a little more time, but we’ve got at least two generations of heirs in order to get it right, and there is little reason that any of the provinces would object to such common sense changes. But hey, for the sake of expediency, let’s treat the constitution like it doesn’t matter! Which seems to be the modus operandi of the entire political discourse of this country of late – between this, the NDP’s “Unity bill,” and Bob Rae thinking that the Governor General should be involved in political meetings with the First Nations and denying royal assent on the Wheat Board bill, we have pretty much proven that civic literacy in this country is in complete and utter shambles. How many other mature democracies treat their constitutions like they’re relative documents that you can project your own interpretations onto as they suit your agenda? Unbelievable.