Yesterday it was revealed that Conservative MP Wai Young spoke at a church congregation to tell them that Harper was doing things in the same vein as Jesus, and used Bill C-51 as an example. Because Jesus was really concerned about giving inordinate powers to intelligence agencies without any kind of oversight, and about preventing terrorist attacks – oh, wait. No he wasn’t. While Young’s terrible theology sparked the usual ridicule over the Twitter Machine, it was her other statement that was perhaps most alarming, which was her claim that CSIS knew there was a bomb on the Air India flight 30 years ago, but were forbidden from sharing that information with the RCMP, and 400 people died as a result. Except no, none of that is true, they didn’t know and they could share information. Oops. Young later claimed that she “misspoke,” but that seems to be code amongst Conservative MPs for making stuff up. You know, like when that other Conservative backbencher apologised to the House for “misspeaking” when he claimed that he has directly witnessed people taking voter identification cards out of the recycling bin with the intention of casting fraudulent ballots. Turns out that one wasn’t true either. But hey, political fabulism is apparently okay so long as you apologise for “misspeaking” when you get caught. Truth and debating on the strength of your ideas doesn’t matter – no, you can just invent things out of whole cloth, repeat complete fabrications against your opponents (income splitting for seniors, anyone?) and say it often enough in the hopes that people will start believing it’s true (Hello, 2011 election). Why wouldn’t a backbencher like Young think it’s okay if this is the behaviour that she’s watching get rewarded by everyone else around her? It’s a sad indictment of the state of our political discourse.
Tag Archives: Nominations
Roundup: Not the safe space you’re looking for
Over in the National Post, Ashley Csanady found that the student council at the University of Waterloo has taken to abusing the concept of “safe spaces” to try and move their council meetings behind closed doors. Apparently student leaders have argued – with a straight face – that these closed-door meetings would foster a “safe environment, and less scrutiny results in better decision-making.” All of which is complete and utter nonsense because as political actors, they have obligations to transparency in order that they may be held to account. If they’re uncomfortable being challenged in public, then they shouldn’t run for office (which is an issue I have with people who run for office at any level of government, particularly federally – if you can’t so much as ask or answer a thirty-second question in QP without relying on a script and having your hand held, why are you there?) Now, there is a time and a place for closed-door meetings, and in camera discussions in grown-up politics, but it’s not all the time, and it’s not so that they can feel “safe.” Sometimes it takes a while to come up with suitable language when you’re putting together a report, and there is a case that some of the Board of Internal Economy’s decisions do happen better behind closed doors because some MPs can actually behave like adults when no one else is around, and I’m not sure it helps when they’re not using it as an excuse to play up the partisan drama for the cameras – again. (Also, BOIE deals with a lot of personnel issues that have legitimate privacy considerations). Yes, there has been an alarming trend in federal politics to move all considerations of committee business behind closed doors, likely because the Conservatives on the committee don’t want to be seen being irrationally partisan when they deny opposition motions, but they’re not using – or rather abusing – the notion of a safe space, or saying that they feel threatened by the exposure. Not wanting to look like jerks on TV is not a reason to meet in camera, and yet they do it anyway, and we the public should hold them to account for said behaviour. Hopefully the students at Waterloo will also see thought this charade, and vote this council out next year as well.
Roundup: Abusing the Senate for partisan ends
The parade of people looking aghast at that Senate committee interim report continued yesterday, much of it with the usual cartoonish depictions of the Senate as a whole, never mind that this was a small group of Conservatives that made the recommendations in an interim report, and the Liberals on the committee explicitly dissented from it. Yes, the proposal is problematic and no doubt there are many in the Muslim community who are sceptical because it’s not a monolithic religion. Even those who are supportive in theory, because of the problem of foreign-trained imams that are more likely to come from radicalised schools, are wary of the current government and its mechanisms for dealing with it, though it has also been noted that the government already issues work permits for these imams, so perhaps that is a tool they could better use now. The report did mention what happens in Europe, but the language is vague, and what does happen in many European countries is providing funding for imam-training schools, with the intention of helping them learn about the language and culture of the country they’re heading to. Could this be what they mean? Maybe, but it’s still an interim report, so we won’t know until maybe December, assuming that the next parliament is actually constituted by then. So what to make of it? John Ivison posits that the report reads like a Conservative election platform, and I don’t think he’s wrong. This government has not been above abusing the Senate for its own ends before, and it looks like they’re doing it again. And yes, you’re going to look aghast at the suggestion that the Senate is partisan, never mind that it is and always has been – it’s usually just less partisan because Senators don’t need to campaign for re-election. It’s also in a difficult period right now because the majority of the Conservatives in the Senate were appointed in a manner that stressed the Chamber’s ability to absorb them, and that in turn led the Conservative leadership therein to further abuse the chamber by going heavy on the whip. It is a problem that may not be solved until Harper is no longer the party leader and this group no longer feels beholden to him. Until then, we should be critical, but let’s keep said criticism in perspective. The institution itself is not to be faulted because it currently has some problematic appointments and a Prime Minister that is keen to abuse it.
Senator Mitchell goes on the record for why the Liberals dissented from the committee report. #SenCA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/x9hZPn0YS6
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 9, 2015
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.
Roundup: The R-word
With all of this bad economic news coming out lately, the R-word has been bandied about – recession, or technical recession, in the event that we get two quarters of negative growth. After all, we had negative growth in the first quarter, and we’ve already had one US bank say that we’re headed for recession and a 77-cent dollar (note: This was misreported as a 70-cent dollar the day before yesterday). Oh, but don’t worry, Joe Oliver says – we won’t go into recession. His forecasters still show growth, and Harper insists that the oil patch is going to bounce back, while they send out MPs saying that certain sectors of the economy are going to do better with a lower dollar – except no, the manufacturing sector isn’t ramping up on a lower dollar this time because that burned them before, and they had already retooled a lot of their operations to service oil and gas demand rather than export demand. So there’s that. One also can’t help but be reminded of the 2008 election, when Harper insisted that if a recession was going to happen, it would have happened already, and hey, look at all of these great buying opportunities. And then the “Great Recession” happened (a ridiculous name considering that the recession in the early 80s was actually worse), and the government drove us into deficit with a badly planned stimulus programme. Now that the campaign has begun, all of the leaders are plugging their messages – Harper insisting that things are going to bounce back and hey, look over there – terrorists!; Mulcair talking about manufacturing jobs without saying how he’ll encourage them (that miniscule innovation tax credit isn’t going to cut it) while also falsely decrying that “all of our eggs” were in the resource basket (not even remotely true); while Trudeau is making points about the current way the government is treating the economy and environment in an oppositional framework when it needn’t be, and talking about ramping up infrastructure spending but also trying to be clever about how to do it without more deficit spending. We’ll know by September 1st if we’re really in a recession or not, but it could make for a long two months of campaigning on the economy in the meantime.
Roundup: Stampede politics
It’s Stampede time in Calgary, and all of the party leaders are headed out there to play the part. Curiously, all of them will be there at the same time rather than spacing their presence out a bit as they have in previous years, and both Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau are putting in appearances in the Stampede Parade. Speaking as a former Calgarian, Stampede is a peculiar kind of phenomenon – long-time Calgarians will try to flee the city for it because it’s so much insanity (much of it alcohol-induced. It’s no secret that post-Stampede you see a spike in sexually transmitted infections, and a baby boom nine months later). But because Calgary is one of those cities with a large in-migration population, it becomes this exercise in conformity, where people will shell out hundreds of dollars in order to get the right wardrobe to participate, and subject themselves to awful country music in order to fit in and show that they’re really Calgarians. It makes for a very interesting political contrast as well – last weekend you most of the party leaders in the Toronto Pride Parade, which is all about diversity and difference (and congratulations to the Conservatives for finally opting to participate this year); this weekend they’re at Stampede, which is about looking the part in order to fit in. Both are seen as necessary stops in order to show themselves off to those different political bases. That each leader gets judged on how well they can dress for Stampede is also an interesting exercise (and a far less forgiving one than the suits that they normally wear). It shows how strange the Canadian political landscape can be, and the summer barbecue circuit – particularly during an election campaign.
Roundup: Dominion Day wrap-up
For Dominion Day, none of the leaders said anything too egregious, even if the campaigning was in full swing.
We all have a role to play to better our country. What will yours be? #CanadaDay http://t.co/KXH6vGqUo0 pic.twitter.com/vRWlny5a4x
— Governor General of Canada (@GGCanada) July 1, 2015
Canada is more confident, more prosperous, more united than ever. The best country in the world! pic.twitter.com/CdHt0fn9ti
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) July 1, 2015
Enjoying annual #CanadaDay celebrations in Toronto’s beautiful High Park w/ @PeggyNashNDP. #TO #YYZ pic.twitter.com/JUsPZLaNST
— Tom Mulcair (@ThomasMulcair) July 1, 2015
Great turnout for the Port Credit #CanadaDay Parade! // Grande foule à la parade de la #FêteduCanada de Port Credit! pic.twitter.com/TgbJuwH26S
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) July 1, 2015
Lucky me. #SaanichGulfIslands is such a beautiful riding. Travelling fm Sidney to next #CanadaDay2015 event! #gpc pic.twitter.com/heX17oPQAD
— Elizabeth May (@ElizabethMay) July 1, 2015
https://twitter.com/thedukeofyork/status/616255907765309442
The #CFSnowbirds soar over Parliament Hill on #CanadaDay – Ambassador Kevin Vickers joins team for flight. #RCAF pic.twitter.com/6WJCkOWMFM
— Royal Canadian Air Force (@RCAF_ARC) July 2, 2015
Roundup: Rise of the Potemkin bills
It is likely the final sitting week of the House of Commons this week, and they can’t go home soon enough. With the whole sorry affair now running on fumes, and all parties reduced to reading their platforms’ press releases instead of doing any actual work, it’s for the best – really. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Conservatives from introducing a raft of new bills, and making zero headway on them – like the way they insisted on a standalone bill for the Universal Childcare Benefit, and haven’t done anything with it, even though they rammed through their omnibus budget implementation bill, where you think such a provision would actually be relevant. Of course, it’s all political. Some of it is about laying markers for the campaign and things they want to do in the next parliament. Some of it is about checking off items from the Speech From the Throne (like the genetic privacy bill, which is terrible and completely useless, by the way). And then there are a number of tough-on-crime bills that are just hanging there that they’ll try to claim the opposition stalled and dragged their feet on – never mind that it’s the government that sets the agenda, and they’ve not only not brought them forward but wasted a bunch of time on things like concurrence debates on months old committee reports (like the sham of a Health Committee report on the “dangers of marijuana”) when they could have been passing any of these “urgent” bills that they had to table in the dying days. But since they’re not serious about moving forward on any number of these bills, it looks like the anticipated workload in the Senate to tie off things before they too rise for the summer is going to be less than expected, and hopefully that means taking down a few of the more objectionable private members bills (like Michael Chong’s toxic Reform Act) with them when they go. Just remember that if they start to claim that they just couldn’t get this stuff through that it’s all a big charade and they need to be called out on it.
Roundup: Who’s a racist?
In the fading lights of the 41st Parliament, the Liberals have been trying to get back to the process of painting the government like a bunch of intolerant rednecks, first with Judy Sgro’s question on Wednesday tying in the rise in hate crime statistics against Muslims to government rhetoric (for which the Conservatives got right offended), and then again yesterday when John McCallum tied in that issue to statements that Chris Alexander had made about people with their faces covered taking the citizenship oath and talk of terrorists. But when McCallum hammered Alexander on his comments – and clearly they were complete non sequiturs – Alexander responded by reaching into history and invoking Mackenzie King’s more racists immigration policies and called the Liberals the Racist Party. No, seriously. And when asked for clarification in a walking scrum after QP, Alexander insisted his party was blameless for policies before then, and accused said journalists of being partisans. (Remember when Chris Alexander was the talented golden child who was supposed to be so smart? Yeah, not so much). Paul Wells, upon hearing this, took to the blog machine and completely schooled Alexander on how wrong he really is, because it was totally off base. That said, this kind of cheap points-scoring just highlights the way things are starting to go off the rails, and I think it’s fair that the fixed election date is certainly responsible for part of this. Normally I’d be all in favour of MPs sticking around to pass a couple of more bills before they head off for the summer, but by this point the Commons has thoroughly proven itself to be incapable of being grown-ups any longer. Time to send them home.