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.
Tag Archives: John Baird
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
Roundup: The Liberals say okay
It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.
The individual freedoms we enjoy and cherish as Canadians cannot exist without collective security. 1/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Bill C-51 can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will keep Cdns safe. As such, #LPC will support it. 2/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
There are gaps in this bill, specifically on oversight and mandatory reviews. #LPC will offer amendments to address these gaps. 3/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
When a gov’t asks its citizens to give up liberty, it is that gov’ts responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. 4/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are hopeful that #CPC is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights & our values. 5/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
The gov’t can accept that Canadians want greater oversight & accountability, or #LPC will offer that in our election platform. 6/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that by anyone. 7/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Roundup: Baird bows out
In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank John @Baird for his years of tireless devotion to Canada. http://t.co/P6Vg5HzKhm pic.twitter.com/FtAZmypv6y
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) February 3, 2015
Roundup: Baird on the way out
The big news is that John Baird is about to resign as minister, with the notion that he won’t run again in the next election for whatever reason, though it is suggested he feels the time is right to move over to the private sector, and the way things operate these days is that if you don’t wan to run again, then you’re no longer in cabinet. There hasn’t been any whispering of any scandal, and he doesn’t have a family to “spend more time with,” so the notion that he feels the time is right to make the transition to the private sector is certainly plausible. This after former Australian PM Kevin Rudd was just in town to try and recruit Baird to help him reform a number of UN agencies (though from what I’ve heard about Rudd, Baird not wanting to work with him may be completely understandable). I have no idea who Harper will name as the new foreign affairs minister in Baird’s place, though Jason Kenney is certainly a good possibility. (After all, there is a good tradition of leaders sticking their rivals in foreign affairs in order to keep them out of the country). In the interim, though, Ed Fast is taking the job on an interim basis, which makes sense as he has been doing the diplomatic work on the trade file. It certainly keeps things exciting. Paul Wells puts Baird’s time in Foreign Affairs into some context, which shows why this is a real loss for the government.
Sources have told @CBCNews Ed Fast will be named acting Foreign Affairs Minister in wake of John Baird departure: http://t.co/cCBr678Ysa
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) February 3, 2015
#JohnBaird asking me for career advice. Funny, I didn't think he was actually listening. pic.twitter.com/YhPHVGZMUK
— Ed the Sock (@EdtheSock) February 3, 2015
Roundup: Family-friendly has its consequences
It’s one of those kinds of piece that rolls around every few months, and Laura Payton has again taken a look at the toll to family life that an MP’s job takes, especially as several MPs have opted not to run again, citing that very reason. And that’s well and good, but the moment we get to talking about making Parliament more “family friendly,” we immediately start talking about things without acknowledging any of the very detrimental unintended consequences. Beyond better access to childcare on the Hill for MPs (as opposed to staffers), they immediately start talking about things like cancelling Friday sittings, electronic votes, and attending committees by video conference – all of which are actually terrible ideas. Losing Fridays would mean having to make up the time somewhere else, and since we’ve already cancelled evening sittings to make Parliament more “family friendly,” well, that’s out, and let’s face it – nobody wants to sit in July or August because Ottawa is pretty humid and gross – especially in some of those old stone buildings that aren’t very well air conditioned, never mind that MPs generally want to be on the barbecue circuit or spending time with said families now that their children are out of school. Electronic voting is also a bad idea because half of the point of Parliaments are the very important symbolism of having your representatives stand and be seen to be standing for what they believe in. An electronic tally may be more convenient, but it also damages the meaning of the act. The other reason why it’s terrible is because that’s one of the few times that MPs are all together in one place and can see each other and make contacts, whether that means cornering a minister about an issue that they need to have addressed, or simply building relationships. It’s the same with attending committee by video conference. You’re not forming those relationships either with fellow MPs, or with any of the witnesses appearing before you, and even while some witnesses to appear by video conference, that face-to-face contact and the conversations in the hallway afterward are all lost. Those are tremendously important. There are other ways for MPs to better schedule themselves, but already the parliamentary calendar has changed a lot to accommodate families and travel. The loss of evening sittings had a demonstrable impact on collegiality because MPs no longer ate dinner together. Losing more of that contact will have a crippling blow on the institution.
Roundup: Destroyed text messages
Access to Information emails have uncovered another decision that doesn’t pass the smell test – in this case, the Canada Revenue Agency directing Shared Services Canada to purge their archives of BlackBerry PINs and SMS text messages. The claim is that these are transitory communications that don’t have any business value, but that claim is utterly laughable. Of course business communications are being one PIN-to-PIN, and anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves. Sure, some of them may be “don’t’ forget to pick up milk on your way home,” but that doesn’t mean that the CRA shouldn’t still be collecting these communications and sorting out the ones with business value. Oh, but wait – that’s the point, isn’t it? Having a channel of communication that isn’t being picked up by ATIP requests, just like when managers declare, “We’re not taking any notes this meeting” – never mind that it’s in contravention to the government’s own rules around this kind of thing. The Information Commissioner has agreed to look into this case, and has previously warned that this information isn’t being collected in most departments, when all it takes to capture it is to flick a single switch on the servers. As a result, we’re going to find ourselves in a position where there is no paper trail for decisions taken by departments – in this case, CRA – and future governments and future generations will be left to puzzle what was going on. You know, the exact opposite of the point of records retention and archives. That Shared Services meekly went along with the directive is also suspect when they should have pushed back to defend the value of the corporate memory contained within those archives. In other words, a failure all around.
https://twitter.com/tinapittaway/status/547389195669757952
Roundup: Crowing over a very little
The NDP spent an inordinate amount of time crowing over social media yesterday about how they scored a “procedural coup” and “forced” a debate on the report of the special committee on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. The problem is that it’s not really true. Yes, they moved a concurrence motion during Routine Proceedings after QP on Friday, as is their right – but they didn’t surprise the government or catch them off-guard, as Romeo Saganash said during QP that they would be moving such a motion. Giving 20+ minutes notice is not “catching the government off-guard.” And when they forced a 30-minute vote and proceeded to this concurrence motion, the government voted with them and agreed to the debate, which again, puts the “forced” or “coup” narrative to the test. The report itself doesn’t recommend a national inquiry, seeing as it was a Conservative-dominated committee, and while the NDP wanted to highlight their dissenting report appended to it, it still gave the government side plenty of time to discuss their version of said report. So with these facts in mind, you will forgive me if I find the social media triumphalism a bit much.
Roundup: Ratifying the FIPA – everybody panic!
The big news is that Canada ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA) yesterday, after months of delays. Immediately the NDP freaked out, while Elizabeth May called it the worse day for Canadian Sovereignty since 1867 (never mind that Canada never actually got treaty-making powers devolved from the UK until the 1920s and control over foreign policy in the Statute of Westminster in 1931). Apparently ensuring fair treatment for Chinese companies in Canada, and perhaps more importantly Canadian companies in China – where the rule of law is not really the same as it is here – is a terrible, terrible blow to our sovereignty. Economist Stephen Gordon, however, is trying to remain the voice of reason:
There is a *huge* chasm b/w what foreign-investor protection agreements do and what excitable nationalists say they do.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
All that FIPAs do is ensure national treatment. Govts don`t get to jerk foreign investors around because they`re foreign.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
You want to regulate in the national interest, fine. Apply the same rules to foreign and domestic firms.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
Roundup: Leave it to Peter
Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.