The Senate, it turns out, passed a tough-on-crime private members’ bill that contained a gaping error in it, and they knew it had an error in it and passed it anyway – with observations attached about the errors. Why? Because said private member had become a parliamentary secretary, and sending it back to the House to fix the error would have basically killed it because its sponsor could no longer sponsor it. It seems to me that there should have been a fix for that – generally a unanimous vote in the Commons that someone else take it on, as has happened when an MP retires while their bill is in process – but more to the point, if the government was so enamoured with it, then they should have drawn up a government bill that fixed the errors and put it through the process, which likely would have been expedited since it had already had committee hearings in its previous form. But hey, let’s keep up this nonsense of backbenchers sucking up to the government with these nonsense bills, and let’s keep up this bawling that the Senate shouldn’t overturn flawed bills that passed the Commons because they’re not elected. It’s really helping our legislative process, clearly.
At the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales, Canada has announced it will heed an American – and not NATO – call and provide some hundred Special Forces troops as military advisors in Iraq. But while other countries, like the US, would have their Special Forces in the field training Iraqi Special Forces, it sounds like ours will mostly be based in Baghdad doing intelligence work and command and control exercises, which seems like a terribly modest contribution for the level of rhetoric that Harper has levelled against ISIS. Also, the outgoing Secretary General of NATO said that they will stand with Ukraine – but stopped short of promising anything else, including military aid in the event of invasion. The NDP want a debate and a vote before sending any troops to Iraq, however a) they curiously don’t want any despite military commitments to the area around Ukraine, and b) a debate is fine, but a vote launders the prerogative and make it harder for the government to be held to account because it makes the entire Commons complicit in the decision to commit forces in the first place. Accountability is hard!
Here’s an interesting look at the recent use of staffers as provocateurs that the Conservatives have been employing, getting these young staffers to ask difficult questions at open forums and recording the results, which they then torque, as with John McKay and General Andrew Leslie. That these in some cases these are staffers from ministers’ offices makes it all the more a dubious practice, and it’s just going to have the inevitable result of ensuring that there is zero spontaneity or off-the-cuff honesty left in politics, and we’ll have nothing but canned talking points at all times. Well done, everyone.
Scotiabank’s economists are sceptical about the latest job numbers from Statistics Canada, saying there are too many coincidences and that the numbers shouldn’t be that volatile, and given last month’s data woes, it’s not that difficult to see why they are suspicious.
The government’s vaunted Victims Bill of Rights leaves out military personnel, which is a problem considering the number of sexual assaults that happen in that environment, and those victims won’t be able to access the same services or have the same rights as civilians. And no, the government won’t say why.
Another Ontario judge has ruled the mandatory victims’ surcharge to be unconstitutional. I can’t wait for these cases to start making their way through the appeals courts and wind up at the Supreme Court of Canada once and for all.
James Moore is looking for private sector help to create an index of interprovincial trade barriers, as he works to try to bring them down.
One of the financial backers of Mobilicity, which is currently in bankruptcy protection, is suing Industry Canada for basically not living up to their promise to help competition in the wireless sector thrive.
The Liberals want the public safety committee to conduct a study on the danger posed to Canada by radicalised individuals who return to the country after fighting abroad. They’re hoping to get this underway once the House comes back in a week.
It is expected that Stephen Harper will attend the festivities in Quebec City to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of George-Etienne Cartier, one of the principle Fathers of Confederation. Cartier was the leader of the Bleus in Lower Canada, and joined forces with John A. Macdonald to create the Conservatives, and later became a kind of co-premier and co-Prime Minister, helping to unite the linguistic and cultural dualities.
Here’s a look at the length of Harper’s tenure as Prime Minister, and how long before he overtakes the next one on the list.
Scott Reid makes some astute observations about the candidate nomination process in this country.
The NDP’s science critic, Kennedy Stewart, tries to take on Andrew Leach’s post about “muzzled” scientists, and proposes precisely what Leach warned against – that these scientists can speak to the media whenever they want when they disagree on government policy, even if it’s to spout their own opinion. Quite reasonably, Leach blows holes in the proposal.
In Maclean’s, Anne Kingston profiles finance minister Joe Oliver.
With all of those interviews he’s been doing this week, on the 30th anniversary of his big election win, Brian Mulroney has some harsh words for Stephen Harper, especially with respect to the spat with the Chief Justice.
Aaron Wherry tries to dissect Brian Mulroney’s assertion that Thomas Mulcair is the best opposition leader since Diefenbaker (which I’m not so sure about, because I doubt that most opposition leaders post-Diefenbaker read their questions daily, or would start off QP everyday with a mini lectern on their desk).
Brian and Mila Mulroney are mourning the death of Joan Rivers, whom they considered a good friend.
And Sonya Bell and Jessie Willms ask which Justin is in over his head – Trudeau or Bieber?
A friday op-ed in the Globe by Paul Manson said that certain veterans are “militants” because they went public with their grievances. Is that getting any play? The comments were pretty much all critical of him. I thought militants was kind of slanderous.
I tend not to read Globe op-eds because I don’t have a subscription. This is the first I’ve heard of it, sorry.