The premiers met in Toronto yesterday, and the Canada Jobs Grant programme was again up for discussion, and it should be no great surprise that the premiers are still united in their opposition. In fact, they said that they are looking for some clear alternatives from Jason Kenney, if he is serious about there being flexibility in the programme. The premiers also wanted some clarity around foreign investment rules, never mind that Harper has previously said that he doesn’t want too much clarity in order to have wiggle room in the event that they want to block any acquisitions they find to be undesirable.
Tag Archives: Toronto Centre
Roundup: Taking aim before the by-elections
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.
Roundup: Appalling arguments about federalism
Day two of the Senate reference hearings at the Supreme Court saw submissions from the rest of the provinces and territories (minus the Yukon) – some of whom had appallingly bad arguments, which the Justices picked apart to their logical ends – as well as Francophone groups and a couple of senators. The Francophone groups, in particular those outside of Quebec, pointed out the Senate’s role in protecting linguistic minorities that wouldn’t stand up the same way during elections. Senator Serge Joyal, however, had the most eloquent of all submissions so far, and as someone who was in the room when they drafted the constitution in 1982 and who helped draft the amending formula to it, he provided some much needed perspective, as well as on the entrenchment of the system of constitutional monarchy and Responsible Government that included two chambers in 1982 (hence why there is no mechanism to abolish the Senate – because it was unthinkable). Paul Wells points out that regardless of the arguments made to date, there is pretty much no chance that the Senate could be abolished, and that the reforms couldn’t happen without a constitutional amendment. Senator Elaine McCoy weighs in after the first day’s submissions, and calls out the government’s reform plans as red herrings.
Roundup: Like a case of beer to a drunk
It has not been the Liberals’ weekend for communications strategies, it seems. After days of enduring the hectoring over “Ladies Night” and the facetious comments that Justin Trudeau made about China, along came the Liberal veterans affairs critic, Jim Karygiannis, where he went on Power & Politics and quoted the director of Wounded Warriors Canada in saying that giving wounded soldiers lump sum disability payments was like “waving a case of beer in front of a drunk,” as many will spend it on houses, fast cars, or their addictions, and he cited examples of these kinds of things happening where he met the individuals involved. And cue the outrage. Said director of the organisation immediately distanced himself from the comments over Twitter, and a few hours later, Karygiannis apologised – sort of. Suffice to say, it didn’t help the perception that the Liberals have their a-game on when it comes to media messaging.
Roundup: A mess of Harper’s own creation
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court this week as the Senate reference goes ahead. The fact that there will only be two sitting Quebec justices is a major bone of contention, and highlights the mess that the government made of the whole appointment process. A mess, it needs to be said again, they didn’t need to make. On the subject of the reference question, this piece looking at the abolition of Quebec’s Legislative Council is a neat bit of history, but actually has almost no use in terms of abolishing the Senate because the provinces aren’t federations. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, and yet they keep pointing to places like Nebraska, New Zealand and Sweden as places that don’t have upper chambers – never mind that they’re either unitary states or sub-national governments, and don’t have the same dual federalism concerns that Canada as a whole does, which is why we need a bicameral legislature.
Roundup: Brad Wall’s sound and fury signifying nothing
The news had the NDP crowing, but it’s a lot of sound and fury signifying almost nothing. Over in Saskatchewan, Brad Wall’s government decided to repeal their senate “nominee election” legislation, and pass a motion to declare that they are calling for Senate abolition. Which is all well and good, but that legislation was of dubious constitutionality since the Senate is federal jurisdiction, the selection of Senators explicitly spelled out in the constitution as a Governor-in-Council appointment, not to mention that Wall refused to actually hold these “elections” because Ottawa wouldn’t pay for them. And then there’s the fact that abolition would require the unanimous consent of the provinces to achieve. So Brad Wall set out a marker, for what it’s worth – but it’s hardly going to get any ball rolling, especially before the Supreme Court hears the reference case.
Roundup: The tale of the second cheque
Boom! The ClusterDuff exploded yet again yesterday, with yet more revelations from Senator Mike Duffy, who took advantage of what could be his final days of the protection of parliamentary privilege, and laid out yet more accusations against the PMO. This after a morning where Stephen Harper took to the radio waves and declared that Nigel Wright had been fired, in direct contradiction to all previous assertions that Wright resigned. So while the Commons fixated on this contradiction, Senator Duffy took the floor in the Senate, and detonated his next bomb – that there was not one cheque, but two, and that the talk of an RBC loan was actually a script from the PMO that he had been made to deliver. That second cheque was from the Conservative party lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, which paid for Duffy’s legal fees – and this time, he provided documents to prove it. The party doesn’t deny covering the legal expenses, saying that they will sometimes pay the legal fees of their caucus members. This is likely an indication, according to John Geddes, that the party was still keen to defend him and by extension their decision to appoint him as a PEI senator, with their particular reading of those rules. While Duffy contended that there remains a whole other email chain in the hands of his lawyers that he wants to see turned over to the RCMP, though an envelope was later handed to the CBC which appeared to cast some doubt as to Duffy’s version of events – or at the very least was a good trial run as to his scripting around where the money came from. If there is one bright side to all of this it’s the level of engagement that the public is demonstrating, and the fact that senators are pointing to the number of emails they are receiving from people who want to see due process – and one senator that I spoke with this afternoon brought this up without prompting. And while these senators have zero sympathy for their three embattled peers, they at least want to ensure that there is process followed.
Roundup: By-election dates announced
Stephen Harper has finally called those four by-elections in Toronto Centre, Bourassa, Brandon-Souris and Provencher for November 25th. Toronto Centre NDP candidate Linda McQuaig has put out a YouTube video challenging Chrystia Freeland to a debate. Pundit’s Guide updates the lay of the land in the four ridings here.
Alison Crawford looks at five ways in which the impasse over Justice Nadon’s appointment to the Supreme Court can be resolved, including declaratory legislation, which is a novel approach that I hadn’t yet heard mentioned before.
Roundup: More challenges to Justice Nadon’s appointment
The Quebec bar association is now demanding that the issue of Justice Marc Nadon’s eligibility to sit on the Supreme Court as a Quebec judge be sent directly to the Supreme Court to have a swift ruling, seeing as the usual process of litigation could take some five years to work its way through. Because hey, let’s politicise this appointment even further, and set a potentially dangerous precedent for these kinds of challenges. Of course, given that this issue was foreseen (witness the legal opinion it came with), the Prime Minister could have actually avoided it all by appointing a different candidate instead.
Roundup: The Commonwealth, Maldives and Brazil
Canada had quite a day on the foreign policy circuit. It started out with Harper declaring that he personally would be boycotting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka because of their human rights record and lack of improvement, and that he would send Baird’s Parliamentary Secretary, Deepak Obhrai, in his stead. He also intimated that he would review funding that Canada gives to the Commonwealth secretariat, which Senator Hugh Segal – our Commonwealth envoy – said was because of the ways in which the Secretariat was withholding reports of Sri Lanka’s abuses.