Tag Archives: War of 1812

Roundup: Happy Budget Day, everybody!

Posted on by

It’s Budget Day, everyone! And in what looks to be an otherwise stay-the-course budget, it appears that the big shiny object is going to be…cheaper hockey equipment. Because that matters more than anything else, and Stephen Harper must solidify his credentials as the Hockeyest Prime Minister in the history of ever! Okay, so it’s actually lowering one specific tariff, but still. Meanwhile, Les Whittington gives the five myths of Conservatives budget making. Scott Brison finds a “leaked” copy of Flaherty’s budget speech.

MPs of all stripes – including a few Conservatives – were criticising Flaherty’s move in calling Manulife Financial to stave off a mortgage war. More surprisingly is that one of his own cabinet colleagues, Maxime Bernier, was publically critical. It remains to be seen if this will be treated as a case of “Mad Max” being a maverick, or if this is a breach of cabinet solidarity, Bernier not being a “team player,” and he’ll be bounced out of cabinet – yet again. Andrew Coyne finds the irony in Flaherty lecturing people about taking on too much debt considering how much he added to the national debt.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who are the unreal people who don’t deserve real things?

Posted on by

The NDP were out first thing Monday morning to launch their pre-budget ad campaign, dubbed “Real things for real people.” No, seriously – that’s what it was. And it was all about all kinds of anti-austerity things they wanted to see – but had no costing figures to present either. Because it’s not like that’s what the first thing the media is going to ask or anything. It directs people to their website, which is full of all kinds of fun and specious dichotomies like “failed fighter jets or public transit” – because you can only have one or the other, apparently. I’m also still waiting to hear about what counts as a “real person” – clone troopers? Flesh “Gangers”? Soong-type androids? Lyekka? Cylons? How about childfree singletons that don’t live in suburbia? Yeah, genius move whoever thought up this particular gem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: 28 ineligible donations, $47K overspent

Posted on by

It seems that Peter Penashue accepted 28 different improper or illegal donations during the last election, and overspent his campaign by $47,000. You know, small change, and apparently he keeps claiming that it’s not his fault. Err, except that he signed off on all of it, and as the former Chief Electoral Officer said, those signatures mean something, and when the Elections Commissioner completes his investigation, this may yet result in criminal charges – albeit not before the by-election will be called, unfortunately. Laura Payton asks the outstanding questions about what happened in the Labrador election, and Peter Penashue’s resignation – most of it revolving around the money (most of which came from the party itself, it seems). Meanwhile, the former leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberals has announced that she will contest the nomination for the Labrador by-election. She may yet have to battle Todd Russell for that nomination if he decides to throw his hat back in the ring.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.

Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debates, and a trip to James Bay

Posted on by

So, the federal Liberals had their first leadership debate yesterday, and it was…without a whole lot of sparks or drama. I mean, it wasn’t NDP dull and full of violent agreement, but there weren’t too many fireworks or memorable exchanges. Aaron Wherry liveblogged it here, here is the CBC recap, and Michael Den Tandt gives his thoughts on its tepid nature here. (I wrote up my own thoughts on the debate here).

Jonathan Kay visits several James Bay Cree reservations, including Attawapiskat, and finds that things are not necessarily as bleak as we might otherwise think – though Attawapiskat is noticeably poorer-run than the others. The other conclusion is that those communities that are doing best are doing it outside of the Indian Act system, which is something I’ve heard said about the successful First Nations communities on the West Coast. Nevertheless, Kay’s story is a must read.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Following a failed policy really badly

Posted on by

While Canada continues to follow Australia’s failed policies around detaining asylum seekers, there are some important differences – in Australia, the dedicated refugee detention centres are focused on their wellbeing, and are designed not to be prisons. In Canada, detained refugee claimants are sent to overcrowded provincial jails, with the convicted criminal populations. Yeah, this is really going to end well.

On the Robocon file, online postings from before the 2011 election match the complaints that Elections Canada was getting about calls telling people that their polling locations had changed. Meanwhile, over in the Federal Court case where those six ridings are being challenged, the Conservative party lawyer has filed a factum that says that there’s no evidence that these calls actually dissuaded anyone from voting.

Kady O’Malley outlines the next steps in the battle over Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Incoherent laws on political loans

Posted on by

The Chief Electoral Officer says that the current law around political loans is incoherent and unenforceable. You know, the one that the Conservatives and NDP rushed through in order to screw over the Liberals in the midst of a leadership contest at the time. And while the current bill to address political loans would fix some of those problems, well, it’s languishing on the Order Paper in order to keep those current Liberal debtors twisting a bit. Not mentioned? All of the Conservatives with outstanding political loans.

Canadian Special Forces have lost millions in secret or “black” assets, and because it’s secret, auditing becomes a tough process through all of the redaction. Meanwhile, the new commander of the RCAF thinks the F-35s are the best choice, but he’ll respect whatever decision the government makes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reluctantly opposing exporting carcinogens

Posted on by

The federal government has reluctantly decided to stop opposing the listing of asbestos as a hazardous chemical product, and is blaming the PQ for the move, as they also announce funding to help the communities around Thetford Mines transition to a new economy. No, seriously – they’re actually put out that they have to stop supporting the export of known carcinogens because Pauline Marois no longer wants to play ball. At least one Conservative MP has broken ranks and is happy about the announcement. Paul Wells offers up his analysis here.

John Baird has made a major policy announcement that lists the rights of women and gays and lesbians as priorities with our engagement with emerging democracies, which is an encouraging sign. Jason Kenney wants you to pat him on the back for making Canada a haven for gay Iranian refugees – while politely ignoring the fact that he’s made it more difficult for gay African refugees.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Blocking the Auditor General

Posted on by

The House of Commons (as its own entity rather than its occupants) is taking the Auditor General to Federal Court to block an Access to Information request around his correspondence for his committee appearances. The House says this is about parliamentary privilege, and the AG says that privilege doesn’t extend to his office. Kady O’Malley delves further into this, but it does seem unlikely that the Courts could even weigh in on this, and there is also that wee little fact that Parliament is a court in and of itself. Both the PMO and the Liberals say that they’re willing to waive privilege in this case. It was later revealed that the NDP were the originators of said ATIP request, which just makes this all the more curious.

Iran has responded to our embassy closures, and calls it “unwise, uncivilised, and hostile.” Brian Stewart looks at some of the possible intelligence that may have prompted the pullout, and wonders if it wasn’t threats on Canadian soil that they were more concerned with. The ousted Iranian charé d’affairs insists that they did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair seems to be distancing himself from some of Paul Dewar’s comments regarding the embassy closures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Barrick connection

Posted on by

There are questions as to whether Harper’s Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, is in violation of conflict of interest rules because he sat in on a couple of calls related to Barrick Gold Corp. when they were calling to discuss concerns about government policy on the Falkland Islands, where they have operations. Wright, who is close to Barrick’s founding families, apparently only sat in on the call, and didn’t participate in any way, nor does he has personal financial stake in it – but the conflict of interest rules apparently also apply to friends benefitting, so it looks like this is being referred to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will doubtlessly narrowly read the rules, and declare it to be not her problem.

Here are five issues facing the incoming Chief of Defence Staff, Lt-Gen. Tom Lawson. Steve Saideman, the Patterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, finds it curious that the government chose a CDS with no combat experience. Aaron Wherry collects some of his past quotes in praise of the F-35 and his use of “fifth generation” as though it were a term that had an objective meaning, as opposed to being a trademarked slogan.

The Ontario boundaries redistribution means at least a couple of new Ottawa ridings, including a new one in Nepean. Glen McGregor looks at the situation for Pierre Poilievre – take a relatively safe suburban Nepean seat, or an even safer rural Nepean-Carleton one?

Continue reading →