The politics of the niqab have slowly starting taking up a lot of oxygen on the election campaign, on a number of fronts. While people over the Twitter Machine tried to skew Harper’s “old stock Canadians” remark as some kind of racist or dog whistle politics (I’m not sure that interpretation makes sense given the context of what he was saying), the government has decided to crank their petulance around the attempted niqab ban up to eleven by declaring that they will ask the courts for a stay of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on the niqab-at-citizenship-ceremonies case, essentially to deny the woman in question the right to vote. It’s going to be tough for them to convince the courts that there is some imminent danger if they allow her to take the oath before October 19th, much less convince the Supreme Court of Canada to hear the case (and they almost certainly won’t, seeing as this is a fairly open-and-shut case of administrative law, where the minister overreached is authority to implement the ban). But while this pettiness digs in, the panic over the niqab has already begun to spread, with the Bloc launching an attack ad to warn that the NDP will mean pipelines and niqabs in Quebec, while an NDP candidate has stated that while Thomas Mulcair reopens the constitution to try and abolish the Senate (never going to happen), that he deal with the menace of niqabs at the same time. No, seriously. He added that he’s sure the party supports him on that, and as of posting time, the party has not repudiated the statement (much as they did not really repudiate it when Alexandre Boulerice made similar statements about banning niqabs earlier). Justin Trudeau, for his part, said he wouldn’t try to appeal the ban to the Supreme Court. So there’s that. Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey takes on the government’s attempted niqab ban, with her usual acid wit.
Tag Archives: Arctic
Roundup: Defining recession
While I fear this may becoming a quasi-economics blog over the course of the campaign, it’s numbers yet again in the national consciousness as we learn today whether or not we’re in a technical recession, though there’s a bunch of political dispute over what a recession means. Jason Kenney was on Power & Politics on Sunday trying to broaden the definition to say that it would need to be over a number of sectors rather than just the energy sector as we seem to be seeing in Canada, and while that may be a perfectly reasonable explanation if it was anyone else, it was however his own government who put the definition of two quarters of shrinking GDP into their “balanced budget” legislation just a couple of months ago. Oops. To that end, Rosemary Barton writes about deficit and recession politics on the campaign trail, while Mike Moffatt calculates the projected federal deficits for the next few years based on current economic indicators. And Stephen Gordon gives us some food for thought:
.. revenues to increase and/or expenditures to decrease. If so, you'd shift future income to finance current spending. /2
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 31, 2015
We want to shift current income to finance future spending, not the reverse. 4/4
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) August 31, 2015
Roundup: Tolerating Ray Novak’s deception
If there was one exchange on the campaign trail yesterday that speaks volumes for the way the current government is operating, particularly the lying about who knew about the cheque as opposed to Duffy himself repaying, it was between Hannah Thibedeau and Stephen Harper while in Hay River, and it goes thus: “You just mentioned in that answer a vast majority of staff believed that, but there were staff and very high profile staff that knew otherwise. For a few days, you have been evading that question about the deception done by many of your senior staff in the Duffy case including Mr. Ray Novak – he’s your current chief of staff, and he was told about Mr. Wright’s cheque in emails directly with Mr. Wright. So why have you tolerated Mr. Novak’s lying and even promoted him to current chief of staff who’s travelling with you right now?” Harper, predictably, rejected the premise of the question and insisted that only Wright and Duffy were responsible and they were being held accountable, which is clearly not the case. This was the party that rode into government on the white horse of accountability. It’s funny how that horse is nowhere to be seen these days.
Roundup: A curious recommendation
The Senate’s national security and defence committee released an interim report yesterday on countering the terrorist threat in Canada. The report made some 23 recommendations, many of them critical of what the government has and has not yet done, such as making it a criminal offence to be part of a terrorist organization, or having a “no-visit” list to keep known ideological radicals out of the country. The one that got the most attention on Power & Politics and subsequently the Twitter Machine was recommendation 9, which suggests the government “work with the provinces and the Muslim communities to investigate the options that are available for the training and certification of Imams in Canada.” And then they were off about how this was criminalizing speech and thought, and how it was likely to be a Charter issue, but actually reading the report itself, the preceding section noted the problems of amateur prison proselytizers, and that members of the Muslim community were concerned about foreign-trained imams spreading extremist ideology, and noted that certification is already the case in Europe. Not much further down in the report is a reputable Calgary imam talking about how extremist ideology is being protected on campuses under the guise of “academic freedom.” In this context, the recommendation doesn’t seem nearly as extreme as it was presented, but hey, it’s not like that context made it into some of the articles (not that surprising, unfortunately). This having been said, there remain problems with the report, which is why the Liberal senators dissented from the report, looking for more counselling, early intervention, study of the roots of radicalization, and more importantly resources for RCMP that the government seems reluctant to do. Is it perfect work? No. Is it better than we’d get from the Commons? Yes. It’s also still an interim report, and more work will be done on it in the next parliament, so perhaps things will improve with it before the final version is issued. In the meantime, it’s not a bad thing that senators are actually talking about this issue without relying solely on slogans.
Roundup: Stability versus change
As Stephen Harper made his big annual Stampede speech to the party faithful over the weekend, a couple of familiar themes emerged – security and stability, versus a shambolic European-style economic calamity and open season by “jihadist terrorists.” Because there’s nothing like cartoonish hyperbole to get people all excited, or a slogan like “choose security over risk.” The problem would seem to be that Harper might not have been paying too much attention to his own record, or the expert opinion on what he has done. You know, like pretending that the economy is going just fine, thanks, and that oil prices are going to rebound sooner than later. Or the expert commentary from his own security agencies who said that all of the new powers that they were given weren’t actually necessary or able to stop lone-wolf attacks like we saw in October, nor does he give them the resources they’re asking for, but rather letting them just reassign all of their people from combating organised crime to fighting terrorism instead. How is that working out for everyone? All of which to say is that it makes the case for four more years of the same to be one where people should be asking him some tougher questions – that is, assuming that he’ll take questions from the media, and that they won’t waste their questions asking about hockey. Again. Of course, the competing visions are “good competent public administration” and “Real Change™,” so we’ll see which message takes hold among the public imagination, but changing up governments every decade or so is a good and necessary thing in our political system, which makes the case for another mandate to be tougher to ask for and probably drives the cartoonish hyperbole. Will people buy it remains the question.
QP: Senate reform questions from the past
Even thought it was Thursday, half of the desks in the House of Commons were empty, and not one leader was present. Even the Speaker was absent, if that tells you anything. Peter Julian led off pointing to Brian Mulroney’s comments on Senate reform, apparently forgetting the years of drama that led up to the Supreme Court reference on the matter. Paul Calandra reminded him of said reference, and there was another round of the same in English, where Calandra more forcefully reminded him of a thing called the Consititution. Julian tried to wedge in a Duffy reference, at which point Paul Calandra brought up the NDP satellite offices. Niki Aston then got up to demand a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women, and Kellie Leitch gave her standard reply of the action they are taking. Ashton demanded action by the government on First Nations files, to which Mark Strahl read a statement about action the government took with residential school survivors. Carolyn Bennett was up for the Liberals, and wanted a commitment to acting on all of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, to which Strahl gave the talking points about thanking the TRC for their work. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same in French, got the same answer in English. To close the round, Dubourg asked about the slow GDP growth, at which points Pierre Poilievre got up to decry supposed Liberal tax increases.
"Last I checked, I am female myself," Kellie Leitch says. Um, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 4, 2015
QP: CPP consultations and fictitious allegations
Even though the king and queen of the Netherlands were visiting, all of the leaders actually showed up for QP for a change. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for the declaration of Mike Duffy’s residence. Stephen Harper responded that Duffy’s actions were before the courts. Mulcair threatened that if Harper didn’t answer now, he would at the debates, and then demanded that the full Duffy audit be released. Mulcair gave some vaguely coherent muttering about the PMO covering up the cover-up in the Senate, to which Harper reminded them that the NDP faces their own repayment problem for their satellite offices. Mulcair moved onto the retirement age, demanding it be lowered to 65 (not that it actually changed — just OAS), to which Harper listed off their other measures for seniors. Mulcair closed with a quote from Jim Flaherty regarding CPP, to which Harper insisted the NDP would raise taxes on seniors. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered why the government made their CPP announcement with no consultation by the provinces. Harper said that their record of supporting voluntary options was clear, while the Liberals would raise taxes. Trudeau reminded Harper of his record of statements on breaking up the CPP. Harper said that was false, and touted the options they created to help Canadians save. When Trudeau insisted that experts agreed with them, Harper said that Trudeau’s experts were imaginary, and that Trudeau would show leadership in raising taxes.
QP: Assistance for Nepal
As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.
Roundup: Not expecting many budget surprises
It’s Budget Day – err, I mean Economic Action Plan 2015™ Day, and all of the big stuff has pretty much leaked already – because apparently there are no penalties for this kind of thing anymore when that it used to be a serious issue that was investigated by the RCMP. Suffice to say, Joe Oliver promises it’ll be balanced (and got some New Balance shoes as the most dad joke of Budget Day gimmicks ever), and we hear there will be things like some more money for security agencies, and more compassionate caregiver leave (but that’s coming out of the EI fund, which is already artificially high and being used to pay down the deficit), and they keep hinting about raising the limit on TFSA, and finally giving that adult fitness tax credit. And then there’s the fact that the government has been putting out all kinds of advertising to ensure that people don’t forget to sign up for the new child benefits – after all, they want to ensure that they’re in people’s bank accounts before the election so that they can warn that those awful Liberals (and NDP) will take them away. So there’s that. I guess I’ll see you after the lock-up with the rest of the details.
The comms genius in Oliver's office who thought "New Balance" was clever should probably rethink some life choices. pic.twitter.com/KozgCIQ7I6
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 20, 2015
QP: Wait for tomorrow’s budget
The first day back from the Easter break, and the day before the budget, and attendance was pretty depressed, and none of the major leaders were present. Megan Leslie led off, demanding the government table a budget that helps families. Kevin Sorensen said she’d have to wait for tomorrow to get the details, but they were going to fulfil their provinces including tax breaks for families. Leslie insisted regular Canadians would face cuts, but Sorenson was not deterred from his good news talking points. Leslie then changed topics to the constitutionality of Mike Duffy’s Senate appointment, to which Paul Calandra reminded the NDP of their satellite offices and demanded they repay them. Peter Julian repeated the question in French, got much the same response, and for his final question, Peter Julian decried cuts to marine safety as demonstrated by the fuel leak in English Bay. Lisa Raitt responded by commending the Coast Guard on their actions, and reminded them that the ship transiting Canadian waters who is solely responsible for their pollution. Scott Brison led for the Liberals, decrying the planned balanced budget legislation, and asked the government to make the law retroactive to repay the five percent penalty for the years that we weren’t in recession. Sorenson praised balanced budgets, and didn’t take Brison’s bait. Brison then decried the doubling of the TFSA limit as helping only the wealthy, and Sorenson responded with some non sequitur past quote of Brison. Brison wanted more help for students instead of advertising (Poilievre: You would raise taxes on students).