Senator Pamela Wallin takes the Toronto Star on a tour of her Saskatchewan hometown, and talks about her travel expenses, including the fact that it’s not easy to get to Wadena from Ottawa, and that because she’s an honorary captain in the Air Force, she has to travel to events at airbases around the country. Meanwhile, Senator Segal writes about his proposition to hold a referendum on Senate abolition as a means of getting people talking about the institution, but given the state of civic illiteracy in this country, my sense is that it’s a very dangerous proposition, and is akin to asking people if they want to remove their pancreas if they don’t know what it does. Senator McInnis thinks an elected Upper Chamber would have more “credibility,” but he doesn’t discuss any of the other consequences of such an action, including gridlock or battles over who has more “democratic legitimacy” and therefore clout. Jesse Klein writes about electoral and Senate reform while relying on meaningless emotional and romantic terms like “fairness” without paying enough attention to either current electoral realities or the actual consequences of the changes.
Tag Archives: Martha Hall Findlay
Magic Bean Economics and tragicomedy: The Mississauga debate
The third Liberal leadership debate was held today in Mississauga, and while the format was somewhat more successful than the previous debacle, it really did reinforce the candidate ranking that has emerged over the course of the debates. The one-on-one questions could have been better served if each exchange were another minute longer, and the moderate stepped in when they tried to talk about themselves in the form of a question. Because really, take the format seriously. The three-person debates worked quite well, and got the best traction of the debates to date.
Remaining in the bottom four were David Bertschi, George Takach, Martin Cauchon and Karen McCrimmon. If this contest were like RuPaul’s Drag Race, as it should be, then Bertschi and at least one other would have been eliminated by this point, but alas, they are still hanging around. And once again, they reminded us why they are in the bottom four.
QP: Gleefully calling out leadership candidates
Despite a fall on the ice earlier in the morning, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was in the House, perhaps a little tender, but ready to take on Harper nevertheless. He began by reading off accusations about the Conservatives’ Saskatchewan push-polling. Apparently it bears reminding that party business is not government operations, and therefore not the domain of Question Period. Harper rejected the accusations, and said that the party explained their actions and the boundary commissions were independent. For his final question, Mulcair wanted assurances that the next budget wouldn’t be another mammoth omnibus bill. Harper skirted around the answer. Peggy Nash carried on with questions about the future budget, to which Shelly Glover assured her that the 2012 budget was focused on jobs and long-term prosperity. For the Liberals, Bob Rae wanted assurances that there would be no partisan legislation to gerrymander the boundaries in Saskatchewan, to which Harper assured him that boundary commissions were independent and that he respected that. For his final question, Rae inquired after press reports that dairy was on the table in the CETA negotiations. Harper assured him that he was committed to protecting supply management, unlike a certain Liberal leadership candidate. *cough*Martha Hall Findlay*cough*
Domesticity politics: the Winnipeg non-debate
“I’m sorry my dears, but you are up for elimination.” Ten words that should have been spoken, but one again, were not as the second Liberal leadership – well, “forum” – happened in Winnipeg. It was not a debate, but a series of one-on-one interviews with failed candidate Harvey Locke, whose uninteresting and frankly dull interview style did nothing to advance the plot of the leadership race. Someone pointed out that leaders do more one-on-one interviews than they do debates, so from that viewpoint it made a certain amount of sense – but one would think you’d need a competent interviewer and some actual questions of substance.
There isn’t a whole lot to be said about each of their answers, other than the fact that several of them had a tendency to ramble aimlessly around the topic without offering a substantive answer, and it didn’t help that the interviewer didn’t call them on it or try and keep it engaging.
A few too many: the Vancouver Liberal leadership debate
Sunday was the first of five Liberal leadership debates, and it certainly showcased a few things – mostly the seriousness with which we should be paying attention to some of the also-rans, and how the field needs to be whittled down. Because it does. The nine candidates were about four too many in this round, and it should be whittled down even more as they proceed. I almost have this vision of the remaining debates being run like RuPaul’s Drag Race, where every week, the bottom two candidates must debate for their lives, at which point RuPaul will declare to one queen candidate “chanté, you stay,” and the other to “sashay away,” until we are down to the top three.
But a boy can dream.
Roundup: Whistle-blowing potentially illegal instructions
A lawyer in the Department of Justice is taking his own department to Federal Court because of what he deems to be illegal instructions with drafting bills that could contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but without notifying Parliament. Think about all of the court challenges to those “tough on crime” mandatory minimum sentences, and how they’re being struck down. And for his efforts at transparency and accountability, he’s been suspended without pay. Because it’s not like this government is trying to politicise the civil service or anything – right?
Speaking of which, the Liberals want the Government Operations committee and the Clerk of the Privy Council to look into the issue of the M-4 Unit – err, Julian Fantino’s partisan letters on the CIDA website, even though CIDA staff insist it was all a mistake, that these letters were mixed in with a large volume of material they were uploading. Not that the Liberals are buying it.
Roundup: Launching a new Action Plan™
Stephen Harper launched a new Action Plan™ in Montreal yesterday – the Venture Capital Action Plan™, to create Jobs & Growth™ as part of our Fragile Economic Recovery™. Economist Stephen Gordon wonders how this jives with Harper’s reluctance for government control in any industry, or how it benefits anyone other than consultants and lobbyists.
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo has been ordered by his doctor to take time off because of exhaustion, which given the events of the past couple of weeks is no real surprise. Meanwhile, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence still refuses to end her liquid diet.
Here is a look at some of the projected costs of implementing the new safe drinking water legislation for First Nations reserves, and whether or not the government will fully fund it. Thomas Mulcair has taken to criticizing Harper’s approach to natural resource development, which he says is behind the Aboriginal unrest, and that Harper needs to sit down with the provincial premiers, as they are the key to resource revenue sharing with the First Nations.
Roundup: The omnishambles of a meeting that may not be
Here is the recap of yesterday’s omnishambles that was the drama over whether or not the First Nations meeting with the Prime Minister was going to happen or not. We’re still not sure. (It was so long that it became its own separate blog post). Here is a primer on some of the issues at play with the meeting, assuming it happens, and some of the broader First Nations discussions going on right now. This was the plan for the meeting – assuming it still goes ahead. The CBC looks at the issue with a group of diverse First Nations voices. Michael Den Tandt looks at Harper’s challenge in the meetings and the Aboriginal issue in the broader context.
Meanwhile, here’s a look at the blank slate that is what we know about Chief Theresa Spence’s history, which suits both her supporters and critics. We have learned that her partner and band co-manager has a history of bankruptcy, and yet he’s the one managing Attawapiskat’s books. Also, he claims to have been training for his CGA designation, and yet there is no record of that.
Roundup: A damning audit
Things on the Attawapiskat file got even more interesting yesterday with leaks of the independent audit of the band’s finances – the full report going online later in the day on the Aboriginal Affairs website. The gist – there was almost no due diligence with spending on the reserve, little to no documentation, and no way to tell if any of the money has been spent effectively. And remember that Spence’s partner is the band’s co-manager, whose job it is to handle the money. Spence has also known the audit’s results since August 28th, and has refused to comment to the audit firm about it. While it was due to be released no later than the middle of next week, the PM’s spokesperson denied that it had been withheld deliberately. And Spence? Shut out the media from her Victoria Island campsite while her spokesperson said that the audit was wrong and wondered about the timing of the release. Paul Wells notes that of all the leaders, past prime ministers and would-be leaders who’ve visited Spence, Thomas Mulcair was conspicuously absent, which may have turned out to be a prudent thing. Jonathan Kay parses the lessons inherent in that year-old CBC report on Attawapiskat, and applies them to the current situation. John Ivison looks at the audit, and the context of Theresa Spence’s ever-changing goal posts, while Andrew Coyne looks at the tensions in the Aboriginal community between those looking to modernise with incremental advancements the way the current government is proceeding with, and those who consider those advancements “genocide.”
Roundup: Onto time-allocated debate
After a much shorter voting marathon than we’ve become accustomed to, all of the amendments to Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge have been defeated, and it moves onto a one-day time-allocated third reading debate today. Remember when the government promised they’d be open to amendments and stuff? Yeah, good times.
The “temporary” measure of having prisoners in segregation double bunking – as in, two people in a small space for 23 hours a day – has been going on for two years in some prairie institutions. Yeah, this is going to end well.
Oh dear – it looks like the M-4 Unit – err, Julian Fantino didn’t get his duotronic databanks updated when he was given his new portfolio. As it turns out, he’s not familiar with the five principles of effective foreign aid that CIDA is committed to upholding.