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.
Tag Archives: Environment
QP: National security and painting a bridge
Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.
Roundup: Laying out their C-51 positions
Not that it was any surprise what they were, but the opposition parties laid out their explicit positions on the new anti-terror bill in advance of the start of debate yesterday – the NDP firmly opposed, the Liberals walking the line by listing the things they support in the bill and the things they don’t, and vowing to make it an election issue if the Conservatives don’t make the necessary amendments. But while it’s certainly within the right of the NDP, as official opposition, to call for the bill’s defeat, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, much of their messaging on it is a mess. At his press conference yesterday, Mulcair was simultaneously saying that they want the bill defeated writ large and voted down at second reading (agreement in principle), while saying that it needs more debate and amendments at committee, and then reiterating that it’s beyond saving, that there were no amendments that could make them live with it. From a procedural standpoint, that’s all over the map. And then there’s the conspiracy theory aspect, where Mulcair is going on about how a government could use CSIS to spy on their political adversaries under these broad definitions, and then to the Francophone media, he goes full-bore on re-fighting 1970, and it’s all October Crisis and the War Measures Act. That, of course, has to do with his Quebec voter base, which is polling its support for stronger anti-terror measures, discomfited by the terror-inspired hit-and-run last October, and probably the Charter of Values xenophobia around Muslims that is still an undercurrent. Suffice to say, the scattershot of arguments against make it hard to follow the plot. For her part, Elizabeth May is going full-on conspiracy theory, insisting the bill will turn CSIS into a “secret police” – err, except that they have no arrest powers, and then tried to say that such a bill would basically turn Rosa Parks into a terrorist in CSIS’ eyes. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Terry Glavin makes the point that while there are alarming things in the bill, hysteria doesn’t really help the debate. As for Peter MacKay, whose use of “cultural” causes with relation to the not-really-would-be-terror-attack in Halifax, when asked what he thought the definition of terrorism was, MacKay told reporters to “look it up.” He’s all class.
Roundup: Chris Alexander’s niqab nonsense
In a mind-boggling moment of specious logic and dog-whistle politics as its worst, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander asserted that people who defend women wearing the niqab are inherently defending violence against women. No, seriously. I’m not even sure where to begin, from the patriarchal assertions that deny women agency to make their own choices about what they wear, to the completely false moral equivalence between the two, all while trying to score political points on the xenophobic attitudes of a portion of the population that feels uncomfortable by the Other that confronts them (or as in the case of the vast majority of the country, something that doesn’t actually confront them but they’ve seen on television and are weirded out by). More than anything, it’s exceedingly odd that this is a government that likes to get up on any high horse it finds and trumpets the fact that it champions freedom of religion around the globe. Look, we even created a special ambassador for the post, and pretty much overturned the doctrine that there shouldn’t be a hierarchy of rights, and yet here we are privileging religion above other rights in our foreign policy. And yet, the moment these women choose to demonstrate their religious observance by wearing the niqab, this government freaks out and says no, that’s terribly, you can’t do it at these times and places. And yes, I know that the niqab is really more of a cultural observance than a religious one, but many of these women believe it to be religious, so unless we want to go full colonial on them, perhaps the government – and Alexander in particular – needs to rethink the logic of their position before they make any more boneheaded pronouncements.
Roundup: The Adams nomination
Day three of the Eve Adams floor crossing fallout, and once you wade through some of the sexist columns and tiresome Biblical references, a few things start to emerge. Adams had a very interesting interview on CP24 yesterday, and the host pressed her on a lot of issues and Adams seemed to have some coherent answers about changing her mind about income splitting when Flaherty came out with his objections, and that she was a loyal foot soldier for the Conservatives so their excuses about being happy to be rid of her are ringing hollow. She also said that she would be moving to riding she plans to run in, Eglington Lawrence, and that has already begun reaching out to the community there. The riding president says she’s welcome to run, but reminds everyone that it’s an open nomination. Trudeau told the media while in Winnipeg that he gave some reflection to accepting Adams into the fold, and said that it was Adams’ willingness to do the tough slog to win a difficult riding was what convinced him – and I think that’s borne out it in the fact that it’s going to be an open, contested nomination, and that Adams is going to have to do the hard work of convincing the grassroots members that she is the leopard who has changed her spots. And it’s going to be tough – here is one of the nomination candidates that she will be running against, and it’s going to be tough for her to beat someone of his credentials. I also believe that having Adams lose in a fair fight is part of Trudeau’s actual plan, where he gets the news value of her embarrassing the PM and then saying that the open nomination system worked. The fact that she was slotted into the riding’s nomination race without consultation seems to fit with that fact. But then again, what do I know?
Roundup: Supreme Court okays assisted dying
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 9-0 that struck down laws around doctor-assisted dying in this country, so long as the person is a competent adult with a condition that they have no hope of recovering from, be it terminal or an acute disability. As well, it’s worth noting that while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the minority in the 1993 Sue Rodriguez case, she led a unanimous court this time. The ruling is welcomed by those who live with pain and who know that it will only get worse, as well as by Conservative MP Stephen Fletcher, who has been fighting for these changes in parliament. The head of the Canadian Medical Association wants there to be a process to set the rules around this new right. Emmett Macfarlane parses the decision and shows how it paves the way for governments, which have been too politically paralysed to deal with these kinds of issues. Carissima Mathen says the ruling not only shows the ways in which laws evolve, but that it’s a call to action for governments – and explains the ruling on Power Play. Jonathan Kay writes about the perversity of the current law, where the assisted suicide that was legal was to starve oneself in a cruel manner. Andrew Coyne fears this is a first step to some kind of death-on-demand system.
I don't think the Christian Medical and Dental Society understands the #SCC ruling was about terminal conditions. pic.twitter.com/14yyIoTdnw
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 6, 2015
It's great that you're committed to healing patients, but these are patients that can't be healed. That's the point. #SCC
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 6, 2015
https://twitter.com/heathermallick/status/563782441681584131
https://twitter.com/kylekirkup/status/563720759080910848
QP: Let’s keep repeating quotes!
With John Baird’s big resignation speech out of the way, and all of the leaders present in the Chamber, it had the makings of a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the job losses at Target and wondered where the budget was — odd, considering that Target’s closure has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Harper insisted that he put out a number of economic measures, and read a quote from the CFIB that called the NDP’s measures “dumb and anti-small business.” Mulcair read a competing quote where the head of the CFIB praised an NDP proposal, then asked the same question again. Harper, in turn, doubled down on his answer. Muclair read the same quote yet again, then gave an anecdote about being in a Legion Hall in Sudbury before demanding to see the budget again, giving Harper yet another option to repeat the “dumb and anti-small business quote.” Mulcair railed about all of the eggs being in the “extractive basket” — not remotely true mathematically — and Harper bashed on the NDP being high tax. Mulcair gave a convoluted question about corporations sitting on dead money before demanding help for the middle class and a budget. Harper listed off a number of actions he announced. Justin Trudeau was up next, and decried the problems of the middle class and wondered why the government was giving tax breaks to those who didn’t need them. Harper praised the help they were giving families including a tax cut. Trudeau noted the cuts to infrastructure investments, and said the government’s priorities were wrong when they wanted to help the wealthiest 15 percent of Canadians. Harper reiterated how great his policies were for families. Trudeau then changed topics and wondered about a statement that Peter MacKay once upon a time about the need for parliamentary oversight of national security. Harper insisted that SIRC was robust and functioned well.
QP: Decrying the finance minister’s insults
A blustery Monday in Ottawa, and only one major leader was present in the Commons. Thomas Mulcair led off, decrying the insulting way in which the Finance Minister treated the premiers and the Prime Minister’s lack of attendance at their meeting. Paul Calandra stood up to give a bog standard talking point about how the PM meets with the premiers on a regular basis, so that was getting things off to a good start. Mulcair pushed about the PM shunning those meetings, but Calandra repeated his answer. Mulcair demanded to know why Harper sent out the finance minister to insult the premiers, and again, Calandra repeated the praising talking points about the relationship with the provinces. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, asking about the lack of increased oversight for CSIS if they are to be given new powers. Stephen Blaney insisted that all activities will be under the review of SIRC, which is independent. Mulcair got back up and demanded to know why the minister considered oversight and the protection of rights “red tape.” Blaney continued to insist that SIRC would do the job. Ralph Goodale got up for the Liberals, and wanted the government to redirect the funds for income splitting and direct it to infrastructure instead. Jason Kenny insisted that theirs was the better plan, and how the Liberals just wanted to raise taxes. Goodale then turned back to the question of oversight for national security, and how Canada was the only Five Eyes country without parliamentary (or congressional) oversight, not Blaney was undeterred, praising their new appointments. Dominic LeBlanc followed up in French, and Blaney tried to claim that our system was the envy of the world.
Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing
With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.
QP: Dusting off the cobwebs
The first Question Period of 2015 took place on a cold day in the Nation’s Capital, with more than a few empty desks still dotting the chamber as MPs make their way back. The PM was absent, at that RCMP funeral in St. Albert, Alberta, but the rest of the leaders were present, which has become unusual for a Monday. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the our Special Forces painting targets for the bombing mission in Iraq. Rob Nicholson insisted that they were doing what was stated — advising and assisting. Mulcair noted that this was ruled out by the Chief of Defence Staff back in September, but Nicholson offered some bafflegab about shooting back when fired upon. Mulcair insisted that they never should have been put in harm’s way in the first place, but Immediately changed topics to demand the budget that will reflect falling oil prices. Joe Oliver insisted that other projections were more generous than the ones the government made, and that they would honour their promises to the provinces and families while balancing the budget. For his final question, Mulcair gave the demonstrably false “all of our eggs in the oil basket” meme, threw in the job losses from Target, and demanded a jobs plan. Oliver repeated the substance of his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the government’s wrong projections about the price of oil and wondered what kind of a hole that put in the budget. Oliver said there was an adjustment of $2.5 billion, and they would base budget projections on private sector economists’. Trudeau insisted that Oliver was not sharing the figure that his officials gave him, and asked him whether they would use the contingency fund to balance the budget, based on contradictory statements. Oliver repeated his line about private sector economists, and then accused Trudeau of talking down the manufacturing sector. Trudeau then changed to the issue of Special Forces on front lines, to which Nicholson said that they need to be with Iraqi forces to assist and train them.