Stephen Harper made his speech before the Knesset yesterday, and largely accused the “Stop Israel Apartheid” movement as being a new breed of more sophisticated anti-Semites. So there’s that. Ahmed Tibi, an Arab-Israeli MK and leader of the Arab Movement for Change party, heckled Harper’s speech and walked out, because he took exception to Harper’s characterisation of Israel as a democracy – considering that most of the Palestinians are disenfranchised – and that he feels that it is an apartheid state, contrary to Harper’s assertion. Michael Petrou live-blogged the speech – complete with drinking game – and made some quite apt observations about the reality of the situation in the region along the way. Petrou also dissected Tibi’s heckling criticism of Harper’s speech, and notes where Tibi gets things right and wrong. Meanwhile, Harper did announce an additional $66 million in aid for the Palestinian authority. And CBC has a full list of the delegation that Harper brought with him, while Liz Thompson finds that a large number of them are also Conservative donors.
Tag Archives: First Nations
Roundup: Enter the telecom spin
Wind Mobile dropping out of the wireless spectrum auction – because the murky rules around foreign investment restricts them from getting the capital they need – pretty much scuppers the government’s chances of getting a fourth national carrier in the system. But then came the spin – Mike Lake, the parliamentary secretary, went on Power & Politics to talk about the ten bidders in the auction – neglecting that seven of them are regional players – while touting the drop in prices in the industry. You know, the kinds of things that his government has been complaining about in ads they’re putting out. Meanwhile, NDP MP Jinny Simms declared that a fourth national carrier was needed for competition – except her party was vehemently opposed to Verizon coming into the marketplace. Well done, everyone.
Roundup: Dismal job numbers
There was some abysmal job numbers released yesterday, which sent the dollar plummeting, and a fresh round of wailing and gnashing of teeth from opposition MPs who demand a jobs strategy, which one imagines pretty much means new infrastructure programmes. Maclean’s Econowatch says that the numbers are showing that Flaherty’s wait-and-see approach to the economic recovery seems to be failing.
It appears that the government has already spent some $1.7 billion on the Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters, despite only a couple of training versions having thus far been delivered (but not actually accepted by the government because they’re not up to snuff). The price tag and the fact that the government decided to proceed with the process as is leads critics to believe the procurement has become “too big to fail.”
Roundup: No plan B
The country needs a new computer programme to deal with Employment Insurance claims, and Shared Services Canada and Employment and Social Developmemnt have until 2016 to do it – leaving almost no time to address any inevitable problems once they procure and install said new system, and more ominously, their presentation says, “there is no Plan B.” Missing that deadline means an escalation of costs, and I’m sure a whole host of other problems with the EI programme as a whole. But hey, it’s not like this government has ever had problems with procurements, and there has never been a boondoggle around new software before, right? Oh, wait…
Roundup: Trying to bury a helicopter announcement
Four-thirty on a Friday afternoon – the perfect time for a government press release that they want to bury. And lo and behold, on schedule comes the news that the government will be carrying on with the Sikorsky helicopter contract and begin decommissioning the Sea Kings next year. Err, except that those Sikorsky Cyclones won’t be fully operational until, oh, 2018 or so, and the current models that they expect our Forces to train on don’t have shielded electronics, meaning that a ship’s radar can knock them out. Oops. There was no explanation in the release as to how Sikorsky plans to get over this hurdle (as the shielding will add a lot more weight to the choppers), only that it would come at no extra cost – in fact, they already owe millions in late penalties for the ridiculous botched job that this whole procurement has already turned out to be. The best part of this drama, however? Diane Finley’s press secretary left the office immediately after sending the release, and nobody would give out his cell phone number, meaning that reporters couldn’t get a statement from the minister about this pretty big deal of a release. Because that’s the kind of professionalism we’ve come to expect from this government.
Roundup: Useless polls make populist noise
A CTV-commissioned poll shows that 69 percent of Canadians don’t think the Senate is useful. (Broken down, the numbers are 34 percent “strongly disagree” and 35 percent “somewhat disagree” with the statement of whether “The Senate of Canada performs a necessary and useful political function.”) The problem with that is that it goes back to the very same issue of asking people a question that they’re not taught anything about. Sure, people have heard about the Senate, but most of what they hear is either a) scandal; or b) distortion, largely arising from scandal as it affects a very small percentage of its membership. Most Canadians, if we’re honest, don’t really know the first thing about the Senate and what it does, and the media hasn’t done a stellar job in covering their good work either, which makes this kind of poll particularly fraught from the get-go. But hey, now we can use a big number to say that populist sentiment doesn’t agree with the constitutionally bound makeup of parliament! One has to wonder if the same kinds of numbers would arise if we asked whether people agreed that their pancreas serves a useful and necessary function in their bodies, or if we’d get the same kind of facile comment of “I don’t know what it does, therefore let’s just get rid of it” that this kind of ridiculous Senate polling results in.
Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.
Roundup: Strongly-worded letters toward progress
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo is optimistic and sees progress after sending a strongly worded letter to Aboriginal Affairs minister Bernard Valcourt over the proposed First Nations Education Act, and Valcourt has been willing to consult further in order to get the bill right. (Strongly-worded letters – so very Canadian). Atleo nevertheless wants education funding boosted in the next budget, before the bill passes, which has been one of the sticking points of their negotiations.
Roundup: Moore denies poverty comments
There was some amount of Twitter outrage yesterday after James Moore was asked about child poverty in a radio scrum, and he responded that he didn’t want to usurp the jurisdiction of the provinces, that Canada was at its wealthiest, and that as the government, it wasn’t his job “to feed his neighbour’s child.” And he’s more or less right about the aspect of jurisdiction, for better or worse, though one could argue about transfer payments and so on. But when Moore stated it was all taken out of context and the headline was wrong, the reporter posted the raw audio and what do you know, it’s all in there. Oops?
As the finance ministers get set to meet about the pension issue later today, Jim Flaherty sounds like he may be bringing his own proposal to the table, which is all about being “more targeted” and not “a bazooka.”
Roundup: MPs taking off for home
The House has risen for the break. MPs are going home after their caucus meetings this morning (well, except for the Liberals, who have their Xmas party later tonight). And it’s just as well, given how ridiculous things degenerated in QP yesterday.
The Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, was before the Commons Procedures and House Affairs committee yesterday to discuss the issue of Conservative MP James Bezan’s election filings being before the court, and whether he should be allowed to sit and vote in the Chamber until the matter has been dealt with. Things, however, apparently got a bit heated as Conservative MP Scott Reid criticised Mayrand for being “overly aggressive” and that it was inappropriate for him to notify the Speaker about Bezan’s dispute. Um, but if Bezan is in breach and sitting inappropriately, then the Speaker should know because the Act says that so long as the MP’s filings are not correct, he or she shouldn’t sit or vote as a member. Mayrand is doing his job, even if Reid doesn’t like it.