Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.
Tag Archives: Corrections
Roundup: Big turnout for Remembrance Day
It was a gorgeous Remembrance Day in Ottawa, and Laureen Harper could be heard on camera remarking that this was probably the nicest Remembrance Day she’s ever seen here. Some 50,000 people turned out for the ceremony in the Nation’s Capital, which also saw the re-dedication of the War Memorial to feature the dates of the Boer War and the Afghanistan mission, along with the phrase “In the Service of Canada,” which captures the other peace-keeping operations and missions that our soldiers have been deployed on. The Governor General delivered his speech, and Princess Anne delivered a message from the Queen for the re-dedication. John Geddes writes about why this year felt different than others past. Stephen Saideman writes about how Canada does Remembrance Day better than the Americans do Veterans Day (and Memorial Day). Maclean’s has some photos of ceremonies around Canada and the world.
The National War Memorial Ottawa. @CdnPress photo by @SKPhotography pic.twitter.com/HxqgWMrhqA
— The Canadian Press Politics (@CdnPressPoli) November 11, 2014
QP: Major network censorship!
Despite it being a Thursday, none of the major leaders were present in the Chamber for QP. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie kicked off by asking about radicalized Canadians who were not stopped before they left the country. Stephen Blaney said that there were 63 investigations underway covering over 100 individuals, and why didn’t the NDP support their anti-terrorism legislation. Leslie asked why they were relying on US intelligence for these radicals, but Blaney gave a non sequitur about supporting the mission in Iraq. Leslie turned to the Ebola crisis, to which Rona Ambrose assured her of all the ways in which Canada was contributing. Libby Davies carried on asking about the Ebola vaccine and reiterated the tale of the intellectual property concerns, but Ambrose assured her that the supply that was given to the WHO did not have those concerns and it was up to them to decide what to do with it. Davies quoted a WHO release stating that the commercializations of the vaccine was held by that U.S. company. Ambrose, somewhat exasperated, insisted that they were two completely different issues, and the intellectual property on the donated doses belonged to Canada. Ralph Goodale asked about the plans to stuff things like copyright changes into the budget bill. Kevin Sorenson insisted that Goodale wait until the bill was tabled. Goodale blasted the plans to change those copyright plans so that news clips can freely been used in political ads, calling it “expropriation without compensation.” Shelly Glover said she wouldn’t comment on rumours or speculation, but gave an excuse about networks censoring content. No, seriously. The round closed with Dominic LeBlanc giving the same question in French, and Glover repeating as well.
Roundup: Not an imminent threat
The heads of CSIS and the RCMP went to committee to say that while ISIS is not an imminent threat to Canada, we have to be vigilant about domestic terrorism threats. Well, sure. And then Stephen Blaney talked about arresting these people and throwing them behind bars, because you know, due process and stuff. Blaney also said that they won’t be implementing exit controls, because those belong to totalitarian countries – but they do share entry data with the Americans, which is a de facto exit control system because if one enters one country, they had to exit the other. But that’s not totalitarian. Incidentally, the government has also announced funding for a bunch of new studies on finding the root causes of domestic terrorism and radicalization. And here Pierre Poilievre assured us that the root cause of terrorism is terrorists.
Roundup: A modest contribution
The NATO Summit is underway in Wales, and Canada is contributing a modest $4 million to assist against Russian aggression – $1 million to helping Ukraine build up its command and control capacity, and the rest to be distributed among three NATO trusts to help strengthen capacities in the Baltic region. Aside from that, it remains unclear what kind of a role Canada will play in the region, and if we will contribute troops to a rapid response force in the area. As for the ISIS threat, the US and UK are discussing potential bombing campaigns, but we’ll see what comes from discussions, though word has it we may be offering military advisors to help Iraqis counter ISIS. The end of the Afghan mission has also been under discussion at the summit.
Roundup: A surprise trip to Iraq
John Baird quietly took a trip to Iraq along with is opposition critics, Paul Dewar and Marc Garneau, to meet with officials there and to pledge aid. James Cudmore looks at what Canada could contribute if we take the fight to ISIS, which could include special forces or aerial reconnaissance and support, but unlikely boots on the ground, as it’s politically unpalatable in an election year. Whatever we do, Harper has stated that it’ll be done on a tight budget because we really want to be cheap about fighting the kinds of grave threats that Harper is making them out to be.
Roundup: Protectionism panic!
Panic! Burger King may be looking to buy Tim Horton’s in order to move their combined headquarters to Canada in order to take advantage of a lower tax rate! But let’s all be concerned about the loss of a national treasure – um, which has only just returned its headquarters to Canada after it spun off from American owners Wendy’s. The NDP were immediately out front, concern trolling about the loss of small town Tim Horton’s outlets and Canadian jobs when in fact the bigger story is that Burger King wants to move their headquarters here, meaning money in government coffers – while the practice of “tax inversion” (where a larger company buys a smaller one in a lower-tax jurisdiction and moves their joint headquarters to the lower tax jurisdiction) angers American Congressmen. Canadian Business wonders what’s in it for each partner of the takeover, while Jason Kirby wonders if the merger is trying to mask each other’s weaknesses. Here’s a look at the activist investor who was behind the previous move, and who is helping to drive the current one. Here’s a history of Tim Horton’s ownership, and a history of the less-than-optimal past partnership with Wendy’s. If you’re concerned about brand nationalism – which companies are still “Canadian” – it may be a dying trend in a globalized future, but here are five that are still ours. And Stephen Gordon leaves us with this:
“I just don’t feel right about the BK-Tim Horton’s deal” is not a reason to demand govt intervention to stop it.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 26, 2014
Consider any other transaction: “I just don’t feel right about my neighbour selling his house to an immigrant family.” So what?
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 26, 2014
Roundup: A good kid
Correctional Services’ own reports show that Omar Khadr is a “good kid,” non-radicalised and highly compliant, but that hasn’t stopped the government from trying to paint him as a heinous war criminal as they continue to deny journalists’ requests to interview him in prison. It looks more and more like they are trying to protect the narrative about him that they have built up for political cover.
Roundup: Parsing the bribery charge
Mike Duffy says that he looks forward to his day in court, and wants it sooner rather than later. Considering that the court system is a little jammed, that may not happen sooner. In the aftermath of the charges, Kady O’Malley delves further into the reasons why Nigel Wright wasn’t charged with bribery even if Duffy was charged for accepting said bribe (hint: proving the intention of “corruptly” makes it a high bar for prosecutors), as well as the rules around sitting parliamentarians testifying before the courts. Stephen Maher looks at those charges relating to what Duffy was charging the Senate for partisan activity and wonders what the party knew about those expenses.
Roundup: New Bloc leader, almost the same as the old leader
The Bloc Québécois have chosen a new leader, Mario Beaulieu, who like their last leader, is not in caucus. And his rival, André Bellavance, who is a sitting MP, had the support of their three other MPs as well. No word if Beaulieu will try to get a seat before the next election in one way or another, or where he plans to run in the next election, which is kind of an important consideration. Beaulieu also wants to press hard on separatism, because sovereignty unites sovereigntists after all. Never mind that the loss of appetite for the topic helped to sink the PQ in the last federal election, he wants to press ahead with it. Already, Gilles Duceppe is mighty upset with Beaulieu’s comments about past leaders, and some high profile members, including some riding presidents, are already talking about tearing up their membership cards over Beaulieu’s comments and positions on certain issues. And we wonder why this constant idea of choosing leaders from outside of the caucus is of particular concern, and remains a bigger problem within parties than the narrative that these kinds of leaders bring in “new ideas.”