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.
Tag Archives: Thomas Mulcair
Roundup: Partisan posts and blaming the bureaucrats
That line between political and public service got blurred again for a short while on the CIDA website, as op-ed responses from the M-4 Unit – err, Julian Fantino – were posted on the department site. And these were very partisan posts. Within a couple of hours of the cry of alarm being raised, they were taken down, and Fantino’s office blamed the department for putting up the wrong information after they had been told to populate the site. Um, okay. Sure. We’ll totally buy that, even though the government has steadily been trying to politicise the civil service. Thomas Mulcair blasted the incident as breaking all of the guidelines set out by Treasury Board. Kady O’Malley Storify’d the whole afternoon’s craziness here. Meanwhile, National Post columnist Michael Den Tandt doesn’t think Fantino is capable of any cabinet position. Poor M-4 Unit! *sad trombone*
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 Carney conundrum
The Globe and Mail wrote a story that tried to paint a picture of how Liberals were wooing Mark Carney, and that while he spoke at an exclusive event in Nova Scotia, he spent a few days at Scott Brison’s house with his family. And *gasp!* they both talked about income inequality at one time! Nobody else ever talks about income inequality – never! They must have been in cahoots about getting Carney to run for the party leadership! Never mind that they have a lot of similarities in experience and circles that they both travel in. The problem is that the story is largely sourced by unnamed “officials” and is dependent upon one particular organizer who was trying to get Carney to run and who may have simply been spinning a fabulation that Carney was actually entertaining a bid while he tried to get an organization behind him that was based on a false understanding of how the leadership ballot process was being run. It’s a bunch of random information being strung together with a bunch of supposition that something might have been discussed, because nobody wants to talk about it. And from a journalistic perspective, it reads a lot like rumour being reported as fact – especially with almost nobody going on the record to confirm or deny anything.
Whether the events in the story are true or not is no longer the issue, however. Economist Stephen Gordon worries about the irreparable harm that the Carney story does for the office of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, simply so that some “senior Liberal sources” could try and find some imagined gain.
Roundup: “Safe” countries and harsher rules
Jason Kenney released his list of “safe” countries of origin for refugee claimants, where claimants from those countries will be subject to an expedited process (which critics charge is an inadequate time to prepare a case), and no access to appeal. Included on the list are countries like Hungary and Latvia, where Roma populations have been targeted by far-right groups (and despite Kenney’s repeated claims to the contrary, they can’t actually seek asylum in other EU nations), but Mexico has not been (yet), to which Kenney says they are still deciding because of the security situation in that country. (Maclean’s has an interesting article about refugee claimants from Mexico who were targeted in that country because they were wealthy).
The Supreme Court upheld anti-terror legislation when weighted against other Charter rights.
As part of Leona Aglukkaq’s mandate to get Health Canada out of the business of doing anything at all, the department is now getting out of the medical marijuana business and turning it all over to approved commercial growers, which may make it easier to get, but also way more expensive, which is a problem for people on fixed incomes because they can’t work as a result of the conditions for which they are using said medical marijuana.
Roundup post: Retributive justice for mentally ill offenders
The release of a mentally ill offender has the government reaching for yet another knee-jerk response to a high-profile case. James Moore went on TV yesterday to say that making laws on single cases is bad policy, but those cases expose flaws in the system, and said that the government wants to put in place changes that will put the victim “at the heart” of the justice system. Now, if you know anything about justice or the rule of law, this should be setting off the big red klaxon because some of the most important features of the justice system are that it a) be blind, and b) not be retributive. Putting the victim “at the heart” of the system debases those two central tenets. Yes, the public reacts with outrage when someone is released after they have been treated for an illness which caused them to do terrible things, because they believe that they haven’t suffered enough, and that they’re using insanity as a way to get off easily – never mind that mental illness is real and can have terrible effects, and that when treated the risk the person poses to the community is minimal at best, and never mind that said person is also being supervised in order to ensure that they remain being treated. And even when the government says they want “science” to determine these things, we don’t see them putting additional resources into treatment or prevention by means of early detection of mental illness. It remains reactive and now, they want to add an element of retribution.
The Commons finance committee has recommended that there be a royal commission on the tax system in order to modernise and streamline it. Or you know, they could do it themselves, being as they’re a gods damned parliamentary committee and all. But no, doing it themselves would be unseemly as it would be terribly partisan and all of that.
QP: Angry questions in advance of the KPMG report
What was likely the final QP of the year was very nearly a full house in the Commons, and saw the arrival of the two new Conservative MPs who recently won the by-elections in Durham and Calgary Centre. Once Erin O’Toole and Joan Crockatt took their seats, Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off demands for amendments to the Investment Canada Act, and intimated that the Prime Minister is scaring off investment. Harper pointed out that the markets responded positively to the decision, and hit back about how the NDP would shut down the oil sands. Mulcair then switched tracks and went after the F-35s, to which Harper shrugged and said that the Auditor General’s report found some problems with cost assumptions, but they had this new process going forward. Bob Rae then got up, and took umbrage with Harper’s characterisation of the the Auditor General’s report, and got into a back-and-forth with Harper about what was in the report.
Roundup: That “worrying trend” in the oil sands
Industry minister Christian Paradis said there was a “worrying trend” in oil sands development, which is why they’ve drawn their line in the sand about state-owned enterprises – err, barring any yet-undefined “exceptional circumstances.” Meanwhile, Alison Redford is pleased with the decision, but wants clarity around some of the conditions, especially when it comes to corporate governance. In case you were wondering, here is a timeline of the Nexen and Progress Energy takeovers.
Changes to medical marijuana regulations may end up putting the onus more squarely on doctors to make prescriptions rather than requiring Health Canada approval – which seems entirely consistent with Leona Aglukkaq’s unspoken mandate to divest Health Canada of any and all responsibility for anything.
Roundup: Near-fisticuffs and self-serving narratives
The big news of the Commons yesterday was what appeared to be the near-outbreak of fisticuffs between Peter Van Loan and Thomas Mulcair (a spectacle Bob Rae later referred to as making “Sumo wrestling look like a fitness contest). Apparently once the votes were over – and the Speaker ruled against an NDP Point of Order that the Report Stage vote last night shouldn’t have counted because Jim Flaherty wasn’t there to move his own motion – Peter Van Loan crossed the floor, shaking his finger, and said something along the lines of “it was your fucking guy,” referencing an error made by Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin in the chair when that vote was taken last night, and that Cullen was being a hypocrite by making a big deal out of it. And Mulcair allegedly snapped back with “get the fuck back to your own side.” And MPs started rushing over until Peter MacKay and Paul Dewar broke it up before any punches could be thrown. Now, Van Loan doesn’t deny his choice of words, but other NDP MPs are claiming that Mulcair only told Van Loan not to threaten his House Leader. What this does, however, is set up a couple of counter-narratives, each of them self-serving. For the NDP, it’s that Van Loan and Harper’s gang are bullies – and we are in the midst of a crusade against bullying these days. For the Conservatives, it’s about Mulcair and his temper, citing an incident three years ago where it was Mulcair who crossed the floor and menaced Gerald Keddy in a similar manner. And then there is the crowd that is shaking their head and lamenting it all – or as Colby Cosh put it, “Wah wah wah parliamentarians get angry sometimes wah wah wah disgrace to democracy etc. etc.” Pretty much. Good thing there are a mere seven sitting days left.
Roundup: Another embattled minister
It looks like Intergovernmental Affairs minister Peter Penashue overspent his campaign limit by some $20,000. Seeing that he won by a mere 79 votes, this could be a Very Big Deal. The problem? The penalty for overspending is a fine of $1000, and maybe three months in jail, which would more likely be served by the official agent, it appears. Add to that the number of people chalking this up with the other incidents in the last election with illegitimate robo-calls or the various irregularities in Etobicoke Centre that led to the Supreme Court challenge. We’ll have to see if Penashue faces any real consequences for the overspending, and if he doesn’t, what kind of precedence that creates.
Omnibus Budget Bill the Second is being tabled and is likely to begin debate on Friday. Jim Flaherty says there will be no surprises (likely a lot of tax code changes) and yes, it will have MP pensions. And please, for the love of all the gods on Olympus, don’t resurrect the inaccurate talking point about the previous bill being a “Trojan Horse” because it was not. If it was a Trojan Horse, you wouldn’t have been able to read the provisions within the bill, but since they were all in the text, well, it’s time to find a different metaphor.