Roundup: The big visit

Posted on by

With Trudeau now in Washington DC, we are being bombarded by What It All Means. And thus, the arrival was full of firsts, and we are being told to expect an announcement regarding the expansion of the border pre-clearance programme, however privacy concerns remain. John Kerry says there’s no urgent need for a new Canada-US pipeline as we already have some 300 already, while our new ambassador says that the Keystone XL issue “sucked all of the oxygen” out of the relationship between the two countries, while progress is coming on some “less sexy” files. And here’s a look at the State Dinner menu, which features both Canadian and American spring flavours. Trudeau is also expected to announce that he will host a “Three Amigos” summit with the American and Mexican presidents in June, something Stephen Harper was supposed to do and then didn’t.

Good reads:

  • Here’s the CBC’s recap of Mauril Bélanger’s time as Honorary Speaker, and a few of his supporters’ words on the occasion.
  • Davie shipyard in Quebec City is dropping its bid to build icebreakers at prices that would undercut contract winner Seaspan in Vancouver.
  • The cost of the new mission in Iraq is estimated to be some $628 million over two years.
  • Jean Charest denies lobbying the PMO on Energy East.
  • One public sector union wants a “science integrity” policy to guarantee no future muzzling, and it’s like they can’t see how this could blow up in their faces.
  • Embassy has a conversation with the head of the Royal Canadian Navy.
  • There are some questions as to why the Conservatives need a $5 million spending cap on their leadership contest.

Odds and ends:

BuzzFeed had an awkward elevator encounter with Cheryl Gallant.

4 thoughts on “Roundup: The big visit”

  1. Hi,

    Re : “One public sector union wants a “science integrity” policy to guarantee no future muzzling, and it’s like they can’t see how this could blow up in their faces.”

    I would like to know more about this. I have tried to word this so it doesn’t sound like a strident “What do you mean!!!”, — really, am just ignorant as to how this could blow up in their faces, for which I apologize and beg being informed.
    Thanks

    • It has to do with the role of the civil service when it comes to loyal implementation of the agenda of the government of the day, and giving them too much latitude for public comment on government policy threatens their neutrality. It is also ridiculously privileging of people in white lab coats for whom we feel deserve this kind of latitude, as opposed to government economists, for example, whom we certainly don’t allow to opine on fiscal policy. Giving them a group of scientists blanket immunity could set up a situation where they clash with the government of the day, imperilling the whole of the civil service. That’s a big part of why I’d be concerned by this kind of a policy.

Comments are closed.