In a month, Canada’s Religious Freedom ambassador’s first three-year term will expire, as will his office’s budget. He’s been making the rounds, once again, to talk about how much value there is in his office in helping our diplomats understand the religious points of view that dominate certain other countries, and uses that as the justification for his office. In a piece by the Citizen, there are a few other voices who say that he’s been doing a good job, and that he’s been available and accessible to talk about certain foreign policy issues, which is all well and good, but there does remain a certain discomfort around the very existence of the office and its raison d’etre. Part of that has to do with the suspicion that this was an office designed like its American counterpart to essentially be an office of Christian proselytising around the world – and to a certain extent, the press releases we did see out of that office seemed to weigh in particular to countries where there was a Christian minority in some level of persecution. But what the Citizen article misses is a more existential problem that the office faces, which is that its very existence creates a problem of perception in terms of a hierarchy of rights. The previous government in many statements it made in the Commons and elsewhere seemed to point to freedom of religion being a more fundamental building block to other rights and freedoms, which is fairly anathema to human rights academia. Back when the office was created, I spoke to a number of scholars who were sceptical because it introduced the notion that there was a hierarchy of rights, when all rights should be treated equally, lest they get their own departments within Global Affairs, and the jockeying for status, position and funding would take over. It remains to be seen what Stéphane Dion and the Liberal government thinks of the Office and whether they will be inclined to keep it around, or possibly absorb it into some other department within Global Affairs, of if they are persuaded by the argument of the perceptions of hierarchy.
Tag Archives: Iran
QP: TFSA concerns
Tuesday’s QP followed on the announcement of the design phase of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women, and counter-programmed Mike Duffy’s testimony in his fraud trial, so plenty going on. When QP got underway, Rona Ambrose had her mini-lectern on her desk, and read a question about the reduced limit for Tax-Free Savings Accounts. Justin Trudeau, without script, noted the plans to help vulnerable seniors with things like an increase in the GIS. Ambrose switched to French, and wondered what else the government would do to get cash, such as eliminating TFSAs altogether. Trudeau snapped back that trying to intimidate seniors wouldn’t work. Ambrose quoted Bill Morneau’s company’s praise for the increased limits, but Trudeau responded that the Conservatives were out of touch with Canadians. Denis Lebel asked another question on TFSAs in French, to which Trudeau replied that they were making concrete actions to help seniors. Lebel switched to the new deficit figures, to which Trudeau said that they would continue to update the numbers as they became available. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and welcomed the establishment of the inquiry process, but wondered about the timeline for action. Trudeau responded that they were making sure that the inquiry was properly informed, which is what they were committed to doing. Mulcair then turned to the question of Trudeau’s definition of middle class if people under a certain threshold didn’t benefit from the tax cut. Trudeau reminded him that they were getting more help through the Canada Child Benefit. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same answer. For his final question, Mulcair demanded a clear answer on the home delivery. Trudeau reminded him that they had a moratorium in place, and they had a commitment to keep.
Roundup: Jean gets the Francophonie nod
Former Governor General Michaëlle Jean has been named the new secretary-general of La Francophonie at the summit in Senegal on Sunday. Jean is the first woman and the first person from North America to helm the organisation, which has largely been dominated by African states. Unlike the Commonwealth, La Francophonie is a more problematic international organisation, dedicated more to language and culture and as a result has some fairly questionable member states with even more troubling human rights records, and it is now an open question as to whether Jean will be able to do more to steer the organisation into a new and more positive direction. Jean has spoken about the need to strengthen economic action in the developing world, apparently owing to what some call the “Chrétien Doctrine,” that assisting poor countries develop their economies will also boost their human rights along the way. Stephen Harper, who had endorsed Jean’s bit and whose government backed much of the travel that Jean did while campaigning for the post, is hoping to use the boost of having a Canadian heading the organisation to help with his maternal and child health goals. In fact, Harper used the summit to urge action on ending forced and early marriages – though his own government’s legislation on that subject is hugely problematic. In fact, I would urge you to read the speech that Senator Mobina Jaffer gave in the Senate on the bill, which raises a number of red flags as to just how much of a problem the bill is in the broader context.
Roundup: Information sharing concerns
The Commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment has concerns that the information we share with our allies may be used improperly, and that they may not be properly protecting information about Canadians. Not coincidentally, there are serious concerns (paywall) that the American government won’t protect information on tax filings with those they deem “American persons” to comply with FATCA also aren’t going to be properly protected, and their Congress is already tabling laws that would ensure that said tax information on ostensible Canadians isn’t protected either. It underscores the dangers and uncertainties with information sharing – particularly when the Americans seem to feel that the rules that others abide by don’t apply to them.
Roundup: An office to serve non-existent MPs
The NDP are trying to open yet another Hill branch office, but this time in Saskatchewan – where they don’t have any MPs. In other words, trying to claim that it’s for parliamentary work is utter bunk. And “outreach officer” is not a Hill staffer position, by the way. When they claim that they need to be in touch with all Canadians, that’s not the job of Hill staffers – that’s the role of the local riding associations. Their associations are supposed to be the interlocutors between the local communities and the parliamentary party and caucus, a model that is ever weakening in the age of instamembers for leadership votes, and power centralized in leaders’ offices. That the NDP are trying to knock down those barriers between party work and Hill work is another worrying trend about the level of centralization that they are employing.
QP: False accusations abound
With the by-elections on, and Harper out of the House, it looked like it was going to be Thomas Mulcair versus Paul Calandra — a particularly debased bit of political theatre that serves nobody’s interests. As well, it was Deputy Speaker Comartin in the chair today and not Scheer, so it would remain to be seen if anything would be different. Mulcair led off by reading a question around the admission by the PM’s communications director that there was a cover-up in the PMO and likely criminality that took place. Paul Calandra rejected the premise of the question, and insisted that the PM had nothing to do with it. Mulcair demanded that everyone who had a hand in the event be fired, but Calandra insisted that they were cooperating with authorities. Mulcair wondered why Gerstein remained in caucus if he was involved in improperly attempting to influence the audit — but Calandra reminded him that the RCMP were only investigating Duffy and Wright. Mulcair closed the round by wondering about the “good to go” order being after he told Duffy to repay, but Clanadra insisted that Duffy was still trying to justify his inappropriate expenses in the interim. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, wondering how long Harper put up with the cover-up in his office, but Calandra assured him that the Prime Minister immediately ordered cooperation with investigators. McGuinty also tried to ask about the “good to go” discrepancy, not that Calandra’s answer changed. For the final question of the round, McGuinty wondered when the government would share all of the documents in its possession, but Calandra simply repeated that the PM ordered cooperation with investigators.
Roundup: Four by-elections today
At long last, it’s finally by-election day today! Hooray! Toronto Centre has been the centre of a debate on income inequality, while Brandon-Souris, a long-time Conservative stronghold, is being seen as a barometer of the Senate scandals, compounded by alleged shenanigans in the nomination race, which may be driving voters over to the Liberals. Susan Delacourt notices that Bob Rae sent out a letter to Liberal supporters that employed the language of shame-based get-out-the-vote campaigns, talking about names being on voter lists, which NDP MP Craig Scott accused of being coercive, though it has been a proven effective technique where it has been applied. Michael Den Tandt looks at the by-election narratives, and notes the ways in which both the Conservatives and NDP are doing Trudeau’s work, handing him lay-ups, and allowing him to straddle the centre. (He’s wrong that this is Trudeau’s first electoral test – that was in Labrador). Paul Wells is grumpy about the whole thing – and I can’t blame him.
Roundup: Bringing back the euthanasia debate
Before his death by a brain tumour, famous Canadian microbiologist Dr. Donald Low recorded a video making a plea for assisted suicide laws in this country, but feared that we still don’t have the political maturity to handle such a conversation. The video was released yesterday to great play in the media, for what it was worth. Sadly, I fear Low was right after the last attempt at such a debate in Parliament, and it’s one of those issues that MPs are too afraid to touch and will inevitably fob off on the Supreme Court to give them a push before they do anything with it. Only one Conservative MP, Steven Fletcher – a quadriplegic – seems to want to have that discussion, and supports the notion, given his particular perspective.
Roundup: A petulant response to a critical report
In the wake of the that leaked report on the viability of the Sikorsky helicopter project, the government is now making big threatening noises about cancelling the whole thing – because that’s helpful, given that the report’s recommendations are largely about redrafting the structure of the contract in order to make the phase-in of new technology more gradual as part of a development project rather than continuing to treat the choppers as “off-the-shelf,” which they weren’t after this government’s civilian oversight allowed the military to go on a shopping spree of add-ons. Because otherwise, what – they’ll magically be able to find suitable choppers with those very same specifications from another vendor that can be delivered in a short enough time frame to replace the Sea Kings, even though the Sikorsky ones are already now being delivered for training purposes (albeit will with some software and other issues being worked out), and which won’t cost us a tonne more money? This threat makes sense in what reality?
Roundup: Taking the fall for Duffy
It’s a curious case of loyalty in action. Mike Duffy’s former assistant is trying to take the blame for his claiming per diems when the Senate wasn’t sitting because apparently expense claims are hard! Oh, except the claims don’t all fall within the time that she worked within his office, and she is a veteran of several other offices, and should have known what was okay to claim and what wasn’t. And she would almost certainly have been the person who booked the travel, so she should have known where he was at when the claims were made. More importantly, Duffy signed off on all of it, and he is ultimately responsible. It’s a valiant effort, but one that is wholly undeserved. Here’s a list of what he was trying to claim, and the new spending rules adopted by the Chamber, and the question has been asked why Senate finance officials didn’t cross-check his claims with the audit once it was done, while Conservatives in the Senate tried to rush to call it case closed. Marjorie LeBreton calls the abuse of expenses a “betrayal” of the Senate, and she’s right.