Former Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and Jean Chrétien are joining Stephen Harper at Nelson Mandela’s funeral in Johannesburg. Also joining them will be former Governor Generals Adrienne Clarkson and Michaëlle Jean, premiers Stephen McNeil, Alison Redford, Bob McLeod and Darrell Pasloski. Thomas Mulcair will be joining, as will MPs Deepak Obhrai, Irwin Cotler, Peter Braid, Joe Daniel, Roxanne James, and retired Senator Don Oliver, plus AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo. Joe Clark will be leading a delegation from the National Democratic Institute.
Tag Archives: Brian Mulroney
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Roundup: Historical outrage and undermining the Court
A new book claims that then-Chief Justice Bora Laskin kept political leaders informed as to the status of the patriation reference in the days of the patriation negotiations with London, and now the Quebec government is calling it an erosion of the legitimacy of the court and wants the Prime Minister to turn over all of the records from the period. PMO says no, and the Supreme Court said it’ll investigate the allegations. But seriously – trying to undermine a branch of government for narrow partisan gain? Way to go, guys. Slow clap. Martin Patriquin puts this into perspective with the rest of the Quebec perpetual outrage machine.
Roundup: The meaning of Margaret Thatcher
The death of Baroness Thatcher was all over the political scene in Canada yesterday. Susan Delacourt writes about her legacy with respect to political marketing, which shaped campaigns of Stephen Harper, and she also spoke with Brian Mulroney about his recollections of Thatcher – including a famous blow-up in an airport over the issue of sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Anne Kingston writes about Thatcher’s complicated relationship with feminism. John Ivison, who lived through the Thatcher years in Scotland, finds himself a little surprised at the legacy she left behind in reforming Britain’s economy. Michael Den Tandt says that she was popular because of her principles – though he notes that on occasion, she was on the wrong side of an issue.
Roundup post: Buckingham Palace says no
Buckingham Palace has written back someone who wrote to appeal to the Queen on Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s behalf. The message? That the Queen, by way of the GG, acts on the advice of the Prime Minister and cabinet, so go bug them. Which is the way it should be, seeing as we have Responsible Government and everything, and the fact that the Queen isn’t magic. And the Spence supporter who wrote her? Is going to write back to complain that his letter to Harper hasn’t been responded to yet, even though it’s only been days, and responses from PMO take something on the order of six months (given the constant deluge of mail they get daily). Oh, but I’m sure his letter was of such high priority that the PMO felt compelled to drop everything and ensure he jumped to the front of the response queue. And I’m quite sure that Buckingham Palace has nothing better to do than order the PMO to ensure that his letter is priority, because he’s special.
Roundup: Dissecting the by-election results
In the wake of the three by-elections, Pundit’s Guide crunches the numbers. While I disagree with the aggregation of the three events into a single grand number (for the same reason that I will remind you that the national “popular vote” numbers are a fallacy), the voter share breakdowns seem to indicate that the Greens were eating into the Conservative vote in Calgary Centre and Victoria, which further problematises the already dubious “unite the left” propositions. Because seriously – bundling both the Liberals and the Greens with the NDP as the “left” is too facile of an understanding of some of the issues the parties stand on, and one of the reasons why these “vote splitting” arguments annoy me. Colby Cosh gives his post-mortem of the Calgary Centre vote.
The government unveiled new emissions regulations yesterday for passenger vehicles a few years into the future – never mind that regulations are a far more costly way of controlling greenhouse gas emissions than simple carbon pricing. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry gets a response from Preston Manning about his thoughts on carbon pricing – apparently he wants complete cost accounting, but that includes things like paying for the volume of land flooded by hydro projects as well as oil sands development.
Roundup: Secret meeting with Mulroney
With a need to bolster his public image in Quebec, and the real sense of how much trouble he could be in should the PQ get elected in the province, Harper apparently had a secret meeting with Brian Mulroney last week for advice. (I’m still trying to figure out when that might have happened, given that Harper’s been a pretty busy PM of late, between international travel and vote-a-thons in the Commons). Nevertheless, necessity can make for strange bedfellows. Paul Wells dissects what it all means here.
The Rio+20 summit has ended with little in the way of agreed upon targets or timelines. Peter Kent says it’s a good thing, and that big conferences like that end up being counter-productive, and that binding targets are “inappropriate” and “unrealistic.”
Despite the requests to waive solicitor-client privilege in the investigation of a soldier’s suicide, Peter MacKay says no.