Tag Archives: Rob Nicholson

Roundup: An important first report

Posted on by

While everyone was focused on Jane Philpott’s attempt to claim that the provisions in the garbage Reform Act weren’t met as it regards her expulsion from caucus, a much more important event was taking place, which was the release of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ first public report. This is the first time that Canada has seen any kind of public oversight into our national security and intelligence services, and it was important to see. One of the things that they focused in on was the oversight of military intelligence operations, for which the military thanked them for their suggestions on improving governance, but balked at the proposal for a legislative framework.

Nevertheless, the expert in this stuff is Stephanie Carvin, so I will turn over the reactions to her (full thread starts here):

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115716056247676929

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717071185301504

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717072657502210

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115678714291871746

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115683292928299008

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115688317452935168

Continue reading →

Roundup: May already has a job

Posted on by

In the wake of Monday’s election results, a number of people have been trying to circulate a few petitions calling on Justin Trudeau to appoint Elizabeth May as environment minster. It’s so ridiculous I barely know where to begin. First of all, why would she cross the floor? There is no need for a coalition government, and for her to abandon the Green Party to join the Liberals would be a bit of a repudiation of what she stands for. It also demonstrates a lack of awareness of what it means to be in a cabinet, which means solidarity with the government’s decisions as a whole. If you don’t agree with all of the cabinet’s decisions, you resign, because cabinet solidarity is part of our system of government. With her many strident positions on various policy files, it’s hard, if not impossible, to see May agreeing with the Liberal positions on so many files. Most of all, this call demonstrates a complete inability for people to appreciate the role that the opposition plays in our system of government. It’s vital, because it holds the government to account – and why wouldn’t you want May to be holding the government to account over their environmental policies? Why would it be a lesser job for her to be doing the holding to account? In the romantic notion that people have that everything should somehow be done by consensus, they don’t appreciate that there is a role for accountability when there is disagreement. It doesn’t need to be nasty – which is unfortunately where we’ve wound up in recent years because of the kinds of culture that has been allowed to breed in parliament – but it can be principled and fair, and certainly May is providing that kind of opposition. Trudeau is making other inroads, such as inviting her and other opposition members to the Paris climate summit – former practice that Harper abandoned when he decided that only his ministers should be allowed to attend these kinds of things. Can May play a role in the system? Absolutely, and she does? That doesn’t mean that she needs to be given a seat at the cabinet table. That’s just ridiculous.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Giving terrorists what they want

Posted on by

Because they’re totally not trying to use public service resources for electioneering purposes, it has been revealed that the Foreign Affairs minister Rob Nicholson wanted his department to produce a minimum of three media statements per week regarding the security threats posed by terrorism. While they would draw from events around the world, the statements would have been a steady stream delivered to media inboxes in the hopes of getting some kind of traction. Fortunately, the civil servants in the department realised this was ridiculous and pushed back, saying it wasn’t a priority for them to fulfil these requests, and good on them for doing so – it’s not their job to try and help the party build a narrative for their election campaign. And no doubt, we’ll likely hear a lot more about the security question from the Conservatives going forward, because it’s not like their economic record is doing them any favours right now. Of course, the irony in all of this is that it would appear to feed directly into the aims of terrorists, which is of course, to create fear. If the government is going to deliver nothing but a stream of statements saying “Ooh, terrorists! Be very afraid!” then doesn’t it mean that they’re letting the terrorists win? Even if they follow it up with the chest thumping about how awesome the government is by taking such a strong stand against them, etcetera, etcetera? I’m at a bit of a loss as to how this is a brilliant strategy in the bigger picture.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Narrowly avoiding back-to-work bill

Posted on by

It was only the flow of routine proceedings that kept the back-to-work legislation for CP Rail from being tabled yesterday, as the Teamsters ended their strike and announced that they would enter into arbitration with CP. In fact, the government has already put the procedural wheels in motion to limit debate on said legislation to a mere three-and-a-half hours for all stages, but the strike ended a mere half-hour before the actual bill was due to be tabled. So there’s that. I was curious to see how the government was going to get around the whole Supreme Court ruling on the right to strike, but alas, it didn’t see the light of day. This all being said, there were questions being put to the NDP about whether the rail should be considered an essential service because of the way that they have monopolies – particularly in the prairie provinces – but they refused to answer, instead giving yet another paean to workers’ rights. It would be nice if the debate could acknowledge that this is complicated rather than just yelling “fragile economy!” and “workers rights!” at one another the whole time.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan

Posted on by

A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All About Eve, Part 2: The Revenge

Posted on by

It was a move that shocked pretty much everyone – Conservative parliamentary secretary Eve Adams crossed the floor to the Liberals, and called out Stephen Harper as “mean-spirited” and a bully. Of course, Adams is not without controversy, with her botched nomination and allegations of shenanigans, and the news from the Conservative Party that she was denied a further attempt to contest a nomination – not that it impacted her parliamentary secretary role or duties, which they apparently still had confidence in her carrying out. This makes her look to be self-serving in her decision to approach the Liberals, though it sounds like she approached Trudeau before the final no from the Conservatives. There are also suggestions that her relations with Harper started to deteriorate after a meeting last month, but it’s all still unclear at this point. For the Liberals, Adams played up her roots in the Progressive Conservatives – a party which is no longer and whose bona fides are fading from the modern Conservative Party (which, to be fair, has also tossed social conservatism in favour of base populism). Trudeau is trying to re-capture those blue Liberal voters who voted Conservative in the past couple of elections, as well as to get the Red Tories who still exist, particularly in Ontario but also in Alberta, to vote Liberal instead. Now she’s going to try and contest one of the still open seats in the GTA, but if any Liberals want to send a message that she’s not welcome in the party for her past Conservative sins, well, this is their chance to let their displeasure be heard. As for Adams, she leaves from a prestigious position with the government to the third party, and she goes from strict message control to a place where she’s going to have to do a lot more heavy lifting as she takes on a critic portfolio. Maybe she can make something of it and prove herself. She’s got about 14 sitting weeks to make something of her change. Then there’s the question of Adams’ spouse, Dmitri Soudas, former right-hand-man of the PM and former director of the Conservative Party. He says he supports her move, and has already made threatening tweets to Conservative MPs who have tried to be too snarky about it, but the Liberals have stated that he will have no formal role in the campaign other than supporting Adams with her nomination. It was, however, pretty rich of the Liberals to cast questions about this dynamic as sexist, because they were a “power couple” and that makes it relevant. I personally am curious about some of the wider-ranging implications, such as how the Soudas-Leo Housakos power structure will carry on, as that is currently part of the cabal at the centre of Senate leadership. The loss of Soudas from the Conservative fold could resonate there as well. Paul Wells offers some snarky – but entirely deserved – comments on the whole affair.

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564867569836765184

https://twitter.com/d_soudas/status/564910542037319680

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to smear Sheila Fraser

Posted on by

The comments by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser are drawing some fire because Fraser is part of the advisory board to Elections Canada that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand put together to help them on a number of issues facing the organisation and our country’s democratic processes in general. Pierre Poilievre and Tom Lukiwski seemed to assert that Fraser was speaking on behalf of Elections Canada, especially as she is being paid for this advisory work, which is really little more than trying to muddy the issue in order to try and defend his increasingly indefensible position. Meanwhile, Senator Hugh Segal, who is also on the same advisory board, thinks that both sides are going overboard and that everybody “needs to take a Valium.” Segal is looking for both sides to put some water in their wine, and for some amendments to come out of the process, which may ultimately wind up happening in the Senate, where Conservative senators are not all that keen on the bill in its current form.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Nicholson doubles down

Posted on by

The issue of retired General Andrew Leslie’s moving benefit payment continued on Monday, and perhaps even gained some steam as Rob Nicholson decided to double down on the partisanship, saying that it was indicative of a “Liberal sense of entitlement,” and claimed that Leslie was wrong when he said that he wasn’t aware of how much they totalled. Never mind that Leslie said that it was a private company that dealt with everything, and that the expenses were almost entirely due to real estate fees (which, on a million dollar house, would be close to that $72,000). Oh, and Nicholson also called it moving from “mansion to mansion,” which none of the photos really showed any house too mansion-like. The Auditor General assessed the programme from which he gained this benefit a few years ago, and that if Rob Nicholson wants to turn the blame to anyone, it may be the real estate companies that his department contracts out to. (Also, that if Nicholson thinks that every departing soldier who avails himself of the programme needs to do an independent assessment, he’s asking a lot of said veterans). Thirteen retired generals have made similar intra-city moves in the past few years, which may be prompting the review, but it would take away from the universality of the benefit. One former general used this benefit to move to the UAE – even though he was disgraced and tossed out for having sex with a subordinate. (This is the same former general currently in an Afghan jail over an issue with the private security company he works for). Andrew Cohen dissects the partisan tenor of the attack, and wonders why anyone would want to serve the public if this is the suspicion and abuse they are subjected to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forget the science of treating addiction, drugs are bad!

Posted on by

Rona Ambrose held a press conference yesterday to say that the government would be closing the “loopholes” in the Special Access Programme so that illicit drugs can no longer be prescribed for clinical purposes – never mind that the whole point of the programme that the injectable heroin was being prescribed in was because none of the other replacements worked, and that it was the safest and most effective way to preserve the health of the patient while getting them off the drug in a controlled manner. But hey, when did science matter over the ideological concerns that “drugs are bad”? Aaron Wherry talks to BC’s provincial health officer about the scientifically proven heroin-assisted treatment.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The judge and his hockey pedigree

Posted on by

Justice Marc Nadon appeared before MPs yesterday afternoon as part of the meet-and-greet exercise that serves as a not-really-confirmation-hearing as part of the consultation process for judicial nominees that the government put into place. In a series of softball questions – which are all that are allowed – we learned a bit about Nadon, which seemed to be a lot about hockey. Apparently we now need to establish someone’s hockey pedigree before we can appoint them to a major office, if His Excellency David Johnston, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz and Justice Nadon are anything to go by. Also, Nadon claims to have been “drafted” by the Detroit Red Wings when he was 14, though there is no record of this, and makes one wonder if he chose the wrong word, or if he remembers things a little more glorified than they really were. Regardless, any attempt to get an insight into his judicial thinking was rebuffed, so we were left with another round of questions that would have only been improved if one MP had bothered to ask Nadon which Spice Girl he would be if he could be a Spice Girl. (Incidentally, those demanding that MPs have a more active role in the final decision should also remember that in our system of Responsible Government, the accountability for appointments rests with the PM so that he can be held to account – either at the ballot box or by maintaining the confidence of the House – as giving MPs that power would muddy the accountability). Over at CTV, there is a clip of law professor Carissima Mathen explaining her reservations about the way the government has been making their Supreme Court appointments. Irwin Cotler, who began the process of opening up the Supreme Court nomination process to outside scrutiny, writes about the problems with this particular appointment process – especially the timelines laid out by the government.

Continue reading →