Tag Archives: Nigeria

Roundup: Johnston carries on with the job

Posted on by

As expected, all of the opposition parties voted for the NDP’s motion to call on David Johnston to step aside and for the government to call a public inquiry, and it passed. It’s a non-binding motion, and so it doesn’t have much weight, and Johnston put out a reply shortly thereafter saying that his mandate comes from government and not Parliament, so he’s going to keep doing his job. (Of note, only government and not Parliament can call a public inquiry as well, so the notion that Johnston is “not independent” because his mandate comes from government is stupid, illogical, and made in bad faith). The NDP motion also ignores one other crucial bit of reality, which is that there is almost zero chance that there would be a suitable replacement who would actually want to subject themselves to ongoing character assassination and harassment, whom every party leader can also agree to because they have no conflicts of interest, real or invented (and there are a hell of a lot of invented ones at play).

I will note that David Cochrane put these questions to Jagmeet Singh on Power & Politics last night, and Singh just flailed and kept repeating his talking points about the “appearance of bias,” and accusing Johnston’s lawyer of being biased because she has been a Liberal donor (never mind that she doesn’t actually make any decisions here), and kept saying that he wasn’t casting aspersions on Johnston when he obviously was by repeating the false accusations of bias.

Meanwhile, here’s Jessica Davis on how untenable this situation has become, which is why Johnston unfortunately remains the best-placed person to finish the job (click through for the whole thread).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have kept up their air attacks on Kyiv, and at least three people were killed overnight as a result. Russians are claiming that Ukrainians shelled one of their towns, and that their drones struck two oil refineries (the veracity of said claims remains untested).

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unnecessary proposal to cover for abdicated responsibility

Posted on by

When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Continue reading →

QP: More questions on income splitting

Posted on by

With the three main leaders at the RCMP funeral in Moncton, it was due to be another relatively quiet day in the Commons. Libby Davies led off QP by quoting the Broadbent Institute report that said that income splitting won’t benefit nine out of ten Canadians. Kevin Sorensen said that income splitting was good for seniors, and that it would be good for families. After another fruitless round, Davis moved on to the procurement process for the fighter jet replacements, to which Diane Finley praised the independent review process that they undertook, but noted that they had not yet come to a decision. Sadia Groguhé repeated the same question in French and got the same response, her follow-up bringing up the promises for industrial benefits by some bidders, not that Finley’s response changed. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, bringing up the middling performance of our economy, hoping for something more than “mediocre talking points.” He was, however, disappointed as that was all that Sorensen had to offer. Stéphane Dion closed the round, lamenting the changes to the Building Canada Fund that would mean most municipalities missing an entire construction season, though Sorensen kept up with his good news talking points.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More pledges and hints of strategy

Posted on by

As part of the pledge not to raise personal taxes should he form government, Thomas Mulcair has added one that he would never appoint a senator. Never mind that he would be constitutionally bound to do so as it’s a listed imperative in the text, or that the mounting number of absences would start to grind the legislative process to a slow halt, or the fact that once a future government does start making appointments again, it’ll create a further shock to the system that will cause more problems down the road. But hey, it’s easy to make facile promises without thinking about them, right? Paul Wells parses this promise as well as Mulcair’s other promises, like biannual first ministers meetings, to get a glimpse of what Mulcair’s emerging constitutional strategy might look like. Michael Den Tandt looks at Mulcair’s economic promises and pokes holes in the conceits that they can grow the economy and attract investment while increasing taxes on corporations, especially if all of our pension plans are dependent on those corporations turning a profit.

Continue reading →

QP: A matter of criminal negligence

Posted on by

It was caucus day, when caucus is generally riled up as it is, and after Thomas Mulcair got into a bit of a fight with reporters earlier in the morning, it was likely that everyone was feeling pretty scrappy. Mulcair started off by asking about actions being taken to deal with a viral outbreak, to which Harper gave vague reassurances. Mulcair changed topics, and asked again who advised Justice Nadon to resign and rejoin the Quebec bar. Harper noted that he got legal and constitutional opinions before appointing Nadon. Mulcair noted the 650 lawyers and law professors demanding an apology to the Chief Justice, but Harper rejected the premise of the questions reiterated that he got independent opinions. Mulcair changed topics again, asking about penalties for rail safety violations, and Harper insisted that it wasn’t a matter of regulations but of criminal negligence which is now before the courts. Mulcair bemoaned that nothing has been done since 2012, to which Harper responded that they brought in significant changes to the system. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted the failures on the Temporary Foreign Workers file, but Harper insisted that they were taking action and ensured that Canadians got the first crack at jobs. Trudeau pressed — to loud objections from the Conservative benches — while Harper hit back by saying that the Liberals wanted more workers. Trudeau asked again in French, and got much the same response.

Continue reading →

QP: Who advised Nadon?

Posted on by

It being Tuesday, and lo and behold, all three leaders were in the House. Praise be. Thomas Mulcair led off with a softball about the assistance that Canada is deploying to Nigeria to help locate the schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Stephen Harper offered a condemnation of Boko Haram, needn’t said that Canadian personnel were in Nigeria to help authorities there. Mulcair moved on to ask a short question as to whether he advised Justice Nadon to resign and rejoin the Quebec Bar. Harper spoke about advice he received that said appointing him from the Federal Court would be okay. Mulcair noted that he didn’t get an answer and asked which staffer gave Nadon that advice to resign. Harper reiterated his answer. Mulcair changed topics again and demanded severe financial penalties for companies that breach railway safety rules. Harper noted improvements that had been made to the safety network, and that they were coordinating with the United States before congratulating the police for laying charges on the individuals involved in the Lac Mégantic disaster. Mulcair insisted that nothing had really been done, but Harper insisted that they were indeed taking measures. Justin Trudeau rose for the Liberals and noted his visit to Fort McMurray before saying that the Temporary Foreign Workers programme was increasing unemployment in Alberta. Harper retorted that the Liberals were looking for more TFWs for their ridings. Trudeau pointed out the ways that the government loosened the rules and demanded the adoption of his party’s plans. Harper said that while there was a need for some workers, it shouldn’t be a business model. Trudeau then noted the objections to the changes in Quebec, but Harper reiterated his assertion that the Liberals wanted even more TFWs.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern about Boko Haram

Posted on by

It being caucus day, it was all hands on deck in the House (more or less), and everyone was raring to go. Thomas Mulcair brought up the kidnapping of those Nigerian girls by Boko Haram and what the government was willing to do about it. Stephen Harper said that the government stood willing to help the Nigerian government and was waiting for word. Mulcair then returned to the issue of the spat with the Chief Justice, and noted that law deans from across the country were also calling for an apology. Harper simply reiterated yesterday’s response, that he was aware there may have been an issue going forward and that he sought independent legal advice for the potential that it went before the courts. Mulcair noted that the Federal Court was keeping the suit open in case that Harper tried to reappoint Nadon, but Harper once again insisted that he had no plans to do so, and then launched into a tirade about how the Nadon Reference made Quebec judges on the Federal Court second-class citizens. Mulcair changed topics once again, and wanted a guarantee that any World War II veteran would not be out of pocket to attend a D-Day ceremony. Justin Trudeau was up next, and invited Harper to withdraw his remarks about the Chief Justice. Harper, however, regurgitated his line that he was aware there might be an issue. Trudeau changed topics, and wanted government support for their plan to make changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers programme. Harper insisted that they’ve been making improvements for three years and those steps had reduced applications by 30 per cent.

Continue reading →