Wednesday, caucus day, and everyone was present and ready to go. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking if the prime minister was planning an extension or expansion of the Iraq mission. Stephen Harper responded by first thanking the House for its support of the mission and then said that no decision had been made and he would let them know when it had. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same response. Mulcair then switched to the topic of the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Diane Finley, and wondered about Nigel Wright’s role in the affair. Harper responded that she used her discretion while acting in good faith, and would take the advice of the Commissioner going forward. Mulcair pressed, but got the same response that she acted in good faith. Mulcair tried to push on the quote about Nigel Wright being asked to “sort out” the issue, but Harper tried to distance himself. Justin Trudeau was up next, and wanted the Prime Minister to explain to the half-million Muslims in the country how he found their faith to be “anti-women.” Harper responded by reading condemnations from Jewish groups about elements in Trudeau’s speech on Monday. Trudeau pointed out that Harper used to oppose Sihk’s wearing turbans in the RCMP, and Trudeau responded by reading some Muslim groups defending the no-niqabs-in-citizenship-ceremonies position. Trudeau then moved to Jason Kenney’s misleading photos on Twitter, to which Kenney doubled down, insisting we were in Iraq to protect women and girls from ISIS. So, no apology then.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: The many reactions to Trudeau’s speech
Justin Trudeau’s Monday night speech in Toronto certainly has a lot of people talking, and it’s not just the trolls on Twitter! His attempt to reclaim “liberty” for the Liberals instead of the Conservatives, who like to talk a lot about freedom (particularly from taxes and big nanny state governments) is certainly going to cause a reaction, and did it ever. Jason Kenney, not surprisingly, was not a fan and railed about “politically correct Liberals” not thinking critically about Muslim women wearing niqabs. Michael Den Tandt sees the speech as trying to create a narrative framework for the Liberals going forward, and notes it gained from the timing of things like Chris Alexander conflating the hijab and the niqab, Jason Kenney’s Twitter Machine misadventures, or John Williamson’s racist statement about “whities” and brown people. (The NDP, conversely, are going on about how Trudeau can talk liberty when he plans to vote for C-51, which they see as a threat to liberty). Terry Milewski sees this as another shot fired in a nascent culture war about the niqab, and notes that just as Trudeau compared the current climate against Muslims with the anti-Semitism during the 1940s, while Stephen Blaney turned around and invoked the Holocaust to defend C-51. Aaron Wherry looks at the speech in contrast to the Federal Court ruling on the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, and the subsequent debates about religion and feminism that the Conservatives and Liberals are having.
QP: Questions on combat and friendly fire
Tuesday in the Commons, and all of the leaders were present, making it a question of whether everyone would be tiptoeing around the friendly fire question again. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking why Kurdish forces weren’t aware of the presence of Canadian troops on the front lines. Stephen Harper responded that it was not a combat situation but friendly fire, and that the spoke with the Iraqi prime minister about it, while investigations were ongoing. Mulcair pointed out that previous friendly fire deaths on a training mission were counted as combat deaths, and why not this incident. Harper noted that there are risks but they were not expecting to come under fire, and noted that it was better we fight them over there than over here. Mulcair tried to insist in a pair of questions why Canadian soldiers were on the front line, which wasn’t was voted on in Parliament, and Harper retorted that Parliament voted for it because it was the right thing to do. Mulcair repeated words that Harper said prior to the vote to prove his point, but Harper claimed there were “falsehoods” in that question and noted that the forces were acting according to their guidelines. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted some of Jason Kenney’s many Twitter gaffes of late — including when he tweeted about the death of Nathan Cirillo — and wondered if he had been repremanded. Harper insisted that Kenney had taken over a difficult portfolio, and was doing well. Trudeau retorted about the recent statements by Chris Alexander and John Williamson dividing Canadians when they should be dealing with the economy — and when would the budget be tabled. Harper noted that Trudeau was playing games of his own with division. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper went after him for pandering to the “anti-woman” culture that gives rise to the niqab.
Roundup: The other CSIS bill gets scrutiny
The Senate heard a lot of testimony yesterday regarding Bill C-44 – the other bill to boost CSIS’ powers, in case you’d forgotten about it. Those new powers include being able to operate abroad and break laws in other countries, which might be a bit of a problem, and raises a bunch of questions when it comes to how you oversee those kinds of operations, particularly given the limitations that SIRC faces when they can only visit one CSIS foreign posting per year to look into their operations. There was also testimony from Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director at CSIS, who described the internal processes of conducting investigations and getting warrants, painting a pretty robust system of high bars to proceed with investigations or operations – but again, we have to take his word for it, because we no longer have the in-house oversight of the Inspector General’s office, and SIRC does an annual review. SIRC, incidentally, said they have enough resources to do the job they’re supposed for now, but if they’re going to need to take on new responsibilities such as overseeing a far more robust and empowered CSIS, well, they’ll also need more money, which this government seems pretty unwilling to give. Curiously, the deputy minister of Public Safety said that the Auditor General also provides oversight of CSIS operations, which is pretty wrong – he looks at value-for-money, which is not the kind of oversight that CSIS requires.
QP: On eggshells about friendly fire
Despite the fairly significant news that happened in Iraq over the weekend, none of the main leaders were present in the Commons for QP today, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to deliver a paean about the soldier killed by friendly fire, and asked for information about his death. Jason Kenney stood up to offer condolences, and said that there were three investigations ongoing. Leslie accused the government of hiding the nature of the mission, and asked how many troops were in a combat situation. Kenney repeated the condolences in French, and praised the advise and assist mission. Leslie asked about a debate and vote on a future mission extension, to which Kenney spoke about the importance of the mission against the “death cult” of ISIS. Carol Hughes asked about the crude oil derailment in Northern Ontario, to which Lisa Raitt assured her that Transport Canada was taking strong action. Hughes asked the same in French, and Raitt gave assurances that they were moving the DOT-111 cars out of the system, along with other measures. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, first giving condolences for the fallen soldier, and then asked about the CIBC job quality survey results. Pierre Poilievre stood up to announce that the 1.2 million net new jobs were of good quality and they were lowering taxes. Scott Brison asked the same again in English, got much the same response in English, and for a final round, Poilievre gave some route talking points about the Liberals raising taxes.
Roundup: Friendly fire death
With news of a death by friendly fire in Iraq, one can pretty much imagine how this is going to become the fodder of QP over the coming days – much of it likely to be condemnation about a mission where these special operations forces were never supposed to be near the front lines in the first place, and a government that will be urging patience for the outcome of the investigations into just what happened that night when our troops came under fire. To add insult, the Kurdish forces took to their local media to blame the Canadians for the incident, but there are already dissenting reports, saying that their version doesn’t fit with the facts on the ground, including the maxim that “special forces don’t freelance” – hence why the government will be urging calm until an investigation happens. Just don’t hold your breath when it comes to requests not to politicise this death, because we’ve already crossed that line.
Roundup: What the video tells us
We finally got our look at the Ottawa shooter video yesterday, minus some 18 seconds that the RCMP deemed too sensitive with relation to their investigation. Through the less than a minute, we learnt a few things – he was lucid, he gave motives about our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he wanted to attack soldiers in Canada so as to show that we weren’t safe, and that we should get out of countries trying to re-establish religious laws. Okay. As a very smart person on my Twitter feed said, “terrorist boilerplate.” The fact that the autopsy showed none of the usual intoxicants in his system also shows that he wasn’t doing this out of some drug-addled episode, and there seemed to be little indication that he was having a mental health episode either. It really does dismantle some of the hedging about his motivations and does cement it as a terrorism incident – or at the very least, a terrorism-inspired incident. That said, when you pull it apart a little, the fact that what he did say was such boilerplate that you pretty much could go down a checklist as he said them speaks to the whole improvised nature of what went down, and even if he was under the influence of someone else, none of this had the hallmarks of being a well orchestrated or financed incident. More to the point, the RCMP commissioner noted in his comments during the scrums that he really didn’t want this released until after they concluded their investigation, but that he was pretty much forced into it by PCO, which leads to questions about the government trying to orchestrate its timing so as to build the narrative about why C-51 is so necessary and needs to be rammed through the process. Remind everyone that terrorism at home is a clear and present threat, and hope that people will go along with whatever the government offer as a solution, even if it’s not the best one.
Roundup: The illogic of the fear campaign
It’s difficult not to question the logic behind the Conservatives using that supposed threat from al-Shebab against West Edmonton Mall as a party fundraiser/data mining tool, particularly as the blowback starts to affect everyone around it. It defies logic that they tell people to still go shopping there while simultaneously whipping up a panic that they’ll be next on a terrorist hit list – never mind that al-Shebab is pretty marginal as an organisation and has neither the resources nor the reach outside of East Africa, and that by the government whipping up the hysteria around a video by a marginal group like this one, they’re playing right into the terrorists’ game – fomenting terror, no matter what the Conservatives’ objectives are. Meanwhile, merchants suffer – oh, but the fragile economy! – and cheerleader teams are pulling out of the competition being held at said mall, ostensibly because their insurance companies are freaking out (never mind that the very act of cheerleading is more likely to result in death or dismemberment than a terrorist event). If you ask Tim Uppal about it – under whose name this went out – he gives you talking points about the threat of these groups, and as Paula Simons discovered, it’s just talking points rearranged in a different order than his fundraising appeal talking points. Well done there. It’s still too early to tell whether this will in fact blow back on them, but with other conservatives lining up to denounce the move, it’s hard to see how they can continue to justify it without causing even more damage.
Roundup: Life means life
Because the Harper government can’t keep the good people of Canada too scared, he made a big show about announcing yet another piece of tough-on-crime legislation. One that is completely unnecessary given existing laws in place – one which will give cabinet the authority to permanently deny parole from certain murderers, as though there was any chance that the Clifford Olsons or Paul Bernardos of the world would ever walk the streets again – but the government certainly wants you to think that they could given all those liberal judges and such. Never mind that the recidivism rate for most inmates given full parole is about three percent. Never mind that it has pretty much no chance of surviving a Charter challenge in the courts. Never mind that it sets up the odd dichotomy where this government believes that parliamentarians can’t be trusted with national security but can instead be trusted with denying someone parole permanently. Never mind the impact on the rule of law. No, this government needs people to think that they’re going to be tough on crime, and damn the actual consequences. So here we are. Andrew Coyne eviscerates the bill with his usual aplomb here.
Subject line: "Murderers in your neighbourhood." Someone send counsellors to #CPC HQ. #cdnpoli #ffs pic.twitter.com/QOhS95NQXY
— Susan (@susandelacourt) March 5, 2015
Roundup: Deciding on a witness list
We have our preliminary witness list for the C-51 hearings, and lo and behold, none of those four former prime ministers who signed that open letter are on it – and it’s just as well, because if there’s one thing the country doesn’t need, it’s former prime ministers to be arm-chair governing and telling people what to do. Yes, they raised concerns, which is fine, but bringing them to a Commons committee would be little more than an exercise in opposition MPs trying to get them to say how awful the current government is, while the governing party MPs would be doing their best to discount those former prime ministers because of previous scandals, etcetera, etcetera. The only real purpose in having them testify would be for the media circus value, which I’m not sure helps anyone in this situation, and would probably detract from the seriousness of the issues at hand. The same goes for former Supreme Court justices, despite the fact that Justices Arbour and Major are possibilities on the list, though you could maybe convince me about Justice O’Connor – a former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario – to talk about his conclusions from the Arar inquiry, which haven’t yet been addressed. Arar himself is also on the list, as are some former members of SIRC and a few different activists who have concerns of their own, which does the balance the list out so that it’s not just security experts but also those who have civil society concerns. It should be interesting nevertheless, but hopefully they won’t all be crammed onto overstuffed panels where nobody really gets a chance to speak – though that does seem to be the way things go these days.