As the hearings on C-51 resume, the government has come out swinging with what they consider to be a star witness – the sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent, who of course thinks that the bill is necessary. The problem, of course, is that she really has no credentials other than being victim of a tragedy, and if you ask me, the government is pretty unseemly in exploiting her grief to push legislation that actual experts are not convinced about. It’s not the first time they’ve used this tactic, and it hasn’t always worked – remember Amanda Todd’s mother, who wasn’t ready to hand over civil liberties to try and halt the spectre of cyber-bulling. Not that it stopped Stephen Blaney from touting Louise Vincent over and over again in QP yesterday, and he’s likely to repeat her praise for the bill today and going forward whenever criticism is levelled at the bill. Other witnesses yesterday included former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who wants more oversight in the bill, and at least one other small-c conservative commentator, who has her own doubts about the bill, in case you were wondering if all of the opposition was coming from the “loony left.” Elsewhere, Conservative MP Michael Chong is now adding his voice to those who want more oversight, while the National Firearms Association, who have expressed a great deal of scepticism over the bill, has pulled out from testifying.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: A desperate lawsuit
If you thought that the NDP’s sudden demand that the government refer the satellite offices case to the Supreme Court to rule on its justiciability immediately wasn’t a sign of desperation, the fact that those MPs being ordered to repay are now suing the Board of Internal Economy in Federal Court is even more so. Can one even sue a parliamentary board that one is a part of? In fact, it smacks of the kind of desperate tactic where you throw absolutely everything at the wall, no matter how implausible, and hope that something sticks. The suit demands that the $2.7 million in demanded repayments be set aside, calling the decision “unreasonable, arbitrary and incorrect.” Except it wasn’t the Board that made the findings – it was the Clerk of the Commons, and she has the paperwork to prove that the NDP misled her when they set up the scheme in the first place. It’s also curious that the NDP would go for this kind of process when discovery is going to be very difficult for them as they have to turn over all manner of documents as part of the process. Still, with time running out before their MPs start having their salaries garnisheed, I have to wonder how many more tactics we’ll see employed to try and delay things, at least until the election and then beyond.
Roundup: The unspoken morale problem
As the results of the Senate audit draw closer, and senators are complaining anonymously about the way in which it’s being handled by the Auditor General’s office (and those that they’ve subcontracted to), what has been missing from the reporting is the blow to morale that has taken place in the institution. The constant air of suspicion, the questioning of expenses that should be no problem (like stamps for Xmas cards being sent to the States, or as the article describes, single phone calls and sandwiches) has made not only for some unhappy senators and staff, but it’s sucked the life out of the place, and their focus on the grown-up policy work of parliament – which we should expect from the Commons but don’t end up getting – is being completely sidetracked by the way this audit is being handled, and the time that it is consuming. It’s also to the point of invasive, where one senator mentioned that she had been asked for her personal journals by auditors. And the problem has become that because of the actions of those couple of bad apples – Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau, and Harb – that all senators are under a cloud of suspicion and are unable to push back without it looking like they have something to hide, rather than the fact that there is a genuine feeling like they are being abused by auditors who don’t understand the role of the Senate. One does have to wonder if there won’t be any long-term damage to what is going on, especially as blame is being laid on the institution, and not on the person who made appointments without due diligence.
Roundup: Contradictions over a niqab policy
It’s definitely starting to look like there’s a either a rift forming in the NDP when it comes to their position on the niqab, or they’re saying one thing in English and another in French, trying to please both audiences in contradiction to the other. Alexandre Boulerice went on Quebec media to talk about the need to keep it out of the civil service, and that we need a national Bouchard-Taylor-esque commission to determine reasonable accommodation for religious minorities around the country – because that worked so well in Quebec, and apparently the rest of the country has the same insecurities around multiculturalism that we need to develop some kind of nonsense term like “interculturalism” to cover for assimilationist policies. Meanwhile, in English, MPs like Paul Dewar and Pat Martin are saying there’s no issue with the niqab and no party policy around it, and Thomas Mulcair has been dancing around the issue when asked directly, talking only about how the Federal Court judgement on the citizenship ceremony issue went to process – a ministerial decree – than the substance of the niqab issue. And if you thought that Boulerice was just freelancing that opinion, it was being tweeted out by the party’s official French Twitter Machine account, and give the degree to which communications are centralised in that party (possibly worse than the Conservative centralisation), it would seem to indicate that such a message has been officially sanctioned, and that the party looks to be trying to please different audiences in the country with contradictory messages. Meanwhile, The Canadian Press took their Baloney Meter™ to the Conservative claims around the niqab ban for citizenship ceremonies (spoiler: It’s full of baloney).
Roundup: Talking over criticism
We saw more testimony on C-51 yesterday, pretty much all of it scathing in one way or another – not that the Conservatives on the committee were really open to hearing such criticism, and went so far as to mischaracterise some of the comments on the evening political shows, and talking over those witnesses while in committee to attempt to make their points for them. One of the witnesses yesterday was AFN national chief Perry Bellegarde, who wants the bill withdrawn for not having consulted with First Nations, because he sees it as an assault on their rights, saying that they have been labelled as terrorists for standing up for their rights and lands. (I can’t recall this government ever having done that, for the record, and I think his argument is a bit of a stretch, but maybe that’s just me). A former head of SIRC – and former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister at that – called the bill a constitutional mess, which is a pretty good indication that the criticism on the bill is coming from all sides – not just the environmentalists and civil libertarians. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have blocked the Privacy Commissioner from appearing at committee, but they insist that he was “consulted” on the bill. The problem there is that he didn’t see the bill before it was tabled, which is really tough to call it consultation since he couldn’t see the language of what he was supposed to be consulted on. John Geddes profiles the two law professors who have taken the lead in pointing out the many flaws in the bill, who also appeared yesterday.
QP: Don’t question, just support C-51
Because Thursday is the new Friday, none of the major leaders were in the Commons, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about Turkish reports that a Canadian helped those three British teens cross into Syria. Stephen Blaney wouldn’t comment, but invited her to support Bill C-51 instead. Leslie tried again in English, and got much the same answer. Nycole Turmel then asked about the extension of the mission in Iraq, to which Jason Kenney insisted that they hadn’t made a decision, but when they do, a motion will be tabled. Turmel and Leslie then wondered when a budget would be tabled, to which Kevin Sorenson decried Liberal and NDP tax increases. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, detailing the history of racist comments by John Williamson, and demanded that he be kicked out of caucus. Pierre Poilievre stood up to say that Williamson apologised, and that Justin Trudeau should apologise for his comments about the Holocaust (which, it bears noting, he didn’t actually mention). After another go around of the same, McCallum pressed one last time, and this time Tim Uppal repeated the very same talking points.
Roundup: A poor excuse for a culture war
Apparently we’re calling it a “culture war” now, this little fracas going on about the niqab and the Prime Minister decreeing what a woman can and cannot where, and when they can and cannot wear it. Face-coverings, for example – bad at citizenship ceremonies where a woman’s identity has already been determined and she’s completed all of the steps for citizenship, but okay in the civil service (or so says Tony Clement). Both of the opposition leaders are trying to press the narrative that Harper is “fostering intolerance” with his particular decrees, along with the way that he has singled out Muslims with references to mosques in his statements on countering terrorism. The NDP and the Conservatives are trying to cast Trudeau’s speech on Monday as over the top, and accusing him of bringing up the Holocaust when he in fact didn’t – only the immigration policy at the time as it dealt with Jews, and that was as an example of places that the country has failed in the past. For his part, Harper insists that the “overwhelming majority” of Canadians agree with him about niqabs – except that’s the thing about minorities, and why we shouldn’t subject them to the whims of the majority. It’s one of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy, as Harper should well know. Trudeau also tried to play his own rhetorical games, saying that Harper accused the Muslim faith of being anti-woman, when he was referring to the culture that insists that women wear niqabs. (Harper, incidentally, doesn’t seem to be pressing Saudi Arabia, where this cultural practice originates, on their misogyny). So really, everyone is playing political games here, and that’s as surprising as finding out that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Paul Wells notes, however, that it’s the first time in that the Liberals have given a Liberal argument in years – since the last three leaders, in fact. So while we are getting some discussion on an issue like this, I’m not convinced that this really qualifies as “culture war” territory, at least not like we’re seeing south of the border.
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: 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.