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.

Good reads:

• As the cabinet meets in New Brunswick, we’re hearing that they are “considering” picking up additional infrastructure cost shares.
• Also to be discussed at the retreat: terrorism, and the possibility of lifting the sanctions on Iran.
• And after the cabinet retreat is over? Trudeau and several ministers will head immediately to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum.
• Rona Ambrose is going on a national tour this week.
• Justin Trudeau made a number of diplomatic appointments over the weekend, including a new ambassador to the United States, and a consul general in Miami.
• Once again, there are questions about uncosted Liberal spending promises.
• Maryam Monsef says she remains open-minded about which form of electoral reform the consultative process will settle on.
• The Senate voted to reinstate Pamela Wallin’s pension, likely because of the lack of due process she received around her suspension.
• Economist Trevor Tombe challenges the received wisdom of infrastructure spending as economic stimulus.
• Paul Wells makes the case for Thomas Mulcair to stay put, but hears from many NDP MPs who want him to leave.

Odds and ends:

Disclosure records show that Thomas Mulcair has four mortgages, but is currently living out of an Ottawa hotel.

Here are a number of reasons why Kevin O’Leary couldn’t run a Trump-like campaign in Canada.

Omar Khadr is learning to downhill ski, and taking courses to become an emergency medical technician.