Roundup: A drunken intrusion, NBD

Posted on by

In a bizarre twist, a nineteen year-old has come forward as the intruder in Justin Trudeau’s home, and claimed that it was all a drunken mistake – that he was trying to find his friend’s place with similar entry instructions, and that when he realized he was in the wrong place he briefly considered stealing the knives and some electronics in the kitchen before changing his mind and writing the note, intending it as an apology. And because he was drunk and didn’t mean any harm, the police have opted not to lay charges, but rather issue him a formal caution – because apparently drunkenness excuses trespassing, and the vaguely threatening note on a row of butcher knives.

While on his Northern Tour, Stephen Harper once again raised the spectre of the threat posed by the Russians in a speech to troops taking part in Northern exercises. Michael Den Tandt notes what is missing in Harper’s speech. Apropos of that omission, a new report says that climate change is altering the North so much that the Arctic Rangers need new equipment to navigate the new terrain. Elsewhere, unclassified CIA documents show how unhappy the Americans are with Pierre Trudeau’s plans for the North, and in particular his plans to enhance sovereignty through economic development.

As the premiers are gathering on PEI for the Council of the Federation meeting, they are not only planning to talk trade, but are also renewing their calls for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says that action to deal with poverty, lack of housing and the marginalisation of First Nations people is preferable to an inquiry.

The veterans ombudsman and the Canadian Forces ombudsman are launching a joint investigation into how injured soldiers are treated in the transition to civilian life.

The government looks to be on track to have cut 35,000 civil service jobs by 2017. Incidentally, they’ve also launched their latest civil service employee survey – in the middle of summer, when few people are around.

The head of the Canadian Medical Association says that doctors can assist in a patient’s death, but only when all other avenues are exhausted, and of course that means that they want more resources for palliative care.

It appears that NDP parliamentary staffers are trying to agitate to get Conservative and Liberal staffers to unionize along with them, using some questionable math about staff budgets.

The Conservative Party has dialled up their outrage to eleven after Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick wrote some disparaging things about the Prime Minister. Apparently it means that the “Ottawa Media” is out to get the PM – never mind that Mallick is actually in Toronto and not part of the Press Gallery – and they need money to promote all of the good things they’ve done instead. Um, okay.

In other Conservative missive news, a survey the party put out to supporters asking them about what they want to hear more about included “traditional family values” – but they won’t spell out what that means. Apparently, according to those in the know, it also means drug policy. Um, okay. Because there aren’t drug and alcohol problems in “traditional” families? Or is it that they find that drugs are not part of the traditional family narrative, where the acceptable problem is alcoholism?

The firestorm around Andrew Leach’s “unmuzzle the scientists” piece continues, and a couple of responses are from one former government scientist and Liberal science critic Ted Hsu, but the arguments continue to be at cross-purposes as they seem to be responding to things that were beyond the scope of Leach’s argument. Leach made a couple of added observations over the Twitter Machine:

And my column this week takes on Jim Prentice’s term limits proposal and demonstrates why it’s a very bad idea.

2 thoughts on “Roundup: A drunken intrusion, NBD”

  1. I don’t think that my rebuttal is at all beyond the scope of Andrew’s piece- it’s directed at the question he poses at the beginning of the piece. Rather, my argument is that Andrew’s missed the mark in terms of the ultimate motivation for government scientists to be able to speak with the media; that is, to simply report their scientific findings, *not* to try and challenge or undermine existing government policy. There were some responses to Andrew’s observations on twitter as well that I think clarify the debate to some extent.

    Thanks for picking up this important discussion.

Comments are closed.