Justin Trudeau’s Monday night speech in Toronto certainly has a lot of people talking, and it’s not just the trolls on Twitter! His attempt to reclaim “liberty” for the Liberals instead of the Conservatives, who like to talk a lot about freedom (particularly from taxes and big nanny state governments) is certainly going to cause a reaction, and did it ever. Jason Kenney, not surprisingly, was not a fan and railed about “politically correct Liberals” not thinking critically about Muslim women wearing niqabs. Michael Den Tandt sees the speech as trying to create a narrative framework for the Liberals going forward, and notes it gained from the timing of things like Chris Alexander conflating the hijab and the niqab, Jason Kenney’s Twitter Machine misadventures, or John Williamson’s racist statement about “whities” and brown people. (The NDP, conversely, are going on about how Trudeau can talk liberty when he plans to vote for C-51, which they see as a threat to liberty). Terry Milewski sees this as another shot fired in a nascent culture war about the niqab, and notes that just as Trudeau compared the current climate against Muslims with the anti-Semitism during the 1940s, while Stephen Blaney turned around and invoked the Holocaust to defend C-51. Aaron Wherry looks at the speech in contrast to the Federal Court ruling on the niqab in citizenship ceremonies, and the subsequent debates about religion and feminism that the Conservatives and Liberals are having.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
QP: On eggshells about friendly fire
Despite the fairly significant news that happened in Iraq over the weekend, none of the main leaders were present in the Commons for QP today, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to deliver a paean about the soldier killed by friendly fire, and asked for information about his death. Jason Kenney stood up to offer condolences, and said that there were three investigations ongoing. Leslie accused the government of hiding the nature of the mission, and asked how many troops were in a combat situation. Kenney repeated the condolences in French, and praised the advise and assist mission. Leslie asked about a debate and vote on a future mission extension, to which Kenney spoke about the importance of the mission against the “death cult” of ISIS. Carol Hughes asked about the crude oil derailment in Northern Ontario, to which Lisa Raitt assured her that Transport Canada was taking strong action. Hughes asked the same in French, and Raitt gave assurances that they were moving the DOT-111 cars out of the system, along with other measures. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, first giving condolences for the fallen soldier, and then asked about the CIBC job quality survey results. Pierre Poilievre stood up to announce that the 1.2 million net new jobs were of good quality and they were lowering taxes. Scott Brison asked the same again in English, got much the same response in English, and for a final round, Poilievre gave some route talking points about the Liberals raising taxes.
Roundup: The illogic of the fear campaign
It’s difficult not to question the logic behind the Conservatives using that supposed threat from al-Shebab against West Edmonton Mall as a party fundraiser/data mining tool, particularly as the blowback starts to affect everyone around it. It defies logic that they tell people to still go shopping there while simultaneously whipping up a panic that they’ll be next on a terrorist hit list – never mind that al-Shebab is pretty marginal as an organisation and has neither the resources nor the reach outside of East Africa, and that by the government whipping up the hysteria around a video by a marginal group like this one, they’re playing right into the terrorists’ game – fomenting terror, no matter what the Conservatives’ objectives are. Meanwhile, merchants suffer – oh, but the fragile economy! – and cheerleader teams are pulling out of the competition being held at said mall, ostensibly because their insurance companies are freaking out (never mind that the very act of cheerleading is more likely to result in death or dismemberment than a terrorist event). If you ask Tim Uppal about it – under whose name this went out – he gives you talking points about the threat of these groups, and as Paula Simons discovered, it’s just talking points rearranged in a different order than his fundraising appeal talking points. Well done there. It’s still too early to tell whether this will in fact blow back on them, but with other conservatives lining up to denounce the move, it’s hard to see how they can continue to justify it without causing even more damage.
Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design
An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.
Roundup: No, it’s not media apathy
The prime minister’s former director of communications writes that it’s perfectly natural that the government wants to create their own communications channels that bypass the media because We The Media are apparently “apathetic” to what the want to tell us. You will forgive me for saying, but I’m not sure there are words enough to express how big of a load of utter horseshit that this justification actually is. His definition of “apathy” is that the media won’t act as transcriptionists for their feel-good stories, which forces them to go around us. Fair enough – it’s not our jobs to retype your press releases and make you look good. But what is utterly galling is for him to turn around and declare that the media has a challenge function that’s important for democracy and that’s why they’re needed, when the very same government that he served is doing their level best to kneecap journalists from fulfilling that role. Whether it’s frustrating Access to Information laws, closing off all avenues of communication with ministers, not returning phone calls and delivering bland statements in lieu of answers to questions being asked, or simply dragging out responding to media requests until it’s well past deadline, it all amounts to choking off necessary information from the media because it fulfils its challenge function, and that challenge function makes the government look bad. When the media does write about the government’s use of their own distribution channels, it’s not because we’re sulking that we’re not the privileged distributors of information – it’s that we’re being denied the ability to do our jobs as we’re shut out of events, not allowed to ask questions at announcements, and that our independent photographers are not allowed to even capture those events and are instead being handed a staged photo to run instead that shows what the government wants us to see instead. That’s not giving us the space to perform our necessary challenge function – it’s trying to turn us into organs of propaganda. That he ignores those legitimate complaints and frames them as “sweating over” trivialities is part of what makes his whole construction utterly farcical.
Roundup: Mulcair offers $15/day childcare
The NDP announced their national childcare plan, promising $15/day spaces across the country, with $5 billion over eight years intended to create 370,00 spaces by 2018-19, and one million spaces after the eight years, with the federal government paying 60 percent of the tab, the provinces 40 percent. The Liberals, of course, are pointing out that there would have been a similar programme a decade ago had the NDP not sided with the Conservatives to bring down the Martin government, as they had already done the hard part of negotiating deals with the provinces – something a hypothetical future NDP government would have to start over from scratch in a different fiscal reality. They also don’t think the maths work out in terms of per-space funds. The Conservatives are making doom sounds about the universal child benefit, which the NDP say they’re going to maintain, putting that much more of a hole in the fiscal picture. It’s not seen as a model that benefits all families, and there are better models of getting more women into the workforce using existing federal tax deductions that could be tweaked. Economist Stephen Gordon re-upped a previous post of his with regards to the problems with the Quebec model and how it tends to fail both vertical and horizontal equality tests, and also responds to some of the critics he’s heard from all yesterday.
My TL is full of people saying K-12 is free and universal, so why not daycare? Or post-secondary education? Here's why: (1/n)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 14, 2014
There is a public good argument for K-12: democracy benefits from a citizenry w basic literacy/numeracy and certain common knowledge (2/n)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 14, 2014
Outside of disadvantaged children, am unaware of any extra benefits daycare provides. (My reading of @kevinmilligan's point.) (3/n)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 14, 2014
PSE is specialised training, and gains largely captured by student. Public good argument is weak. (4/n)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 14, 2014
If you want to make daycare and/or PSE obligatory (WHY??) then you are free to use the K-12 analogy. Then make the case for it. (5/5)
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) October 14, 2014
Roundup: Contempt, tempers, and losing the plot
Thomas Mulcair’s snide exchange with the Speaker during yesterday’s QP continues to resonate around Ottawa, with reminders that Scheer doesn’t currently have the powers to police the content of answers (MPs would have to agree to give him those powers), and musings about this kind of contempt of parliament and remonstrations about how this is what makes people cynical. And the worst part? That even over the Twitter Machine, Paul Calandra continues to play the part. It has also been noted, and I fully agree, that by losing his temper and going after the Speaker, Mulcair made the story about himself rather than Calandra and his utter nonsense.
Media upset with me, gee what am I to do? Tell you what, I will stand up for Israel who are on the front lines fighting terror every day.
— Paul Calandra (@PaulCalandra) September 24, 2014
It's not up to Speaker Scheer to discipline poor answers, and you lose focus on govt stonewalling when you attack the Speaker. #QP
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 23, 2014
QP: Don’t question the Speaker
With Stephen Harper out of the Commons, likely prepping for his trip to the UN, the other leaders were present and accounted for. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking if a statement by James Bezan about the end date for the Iraq, but Paul Calandra ignored the question entirely and accused an NDP fundraiser of saying terrible things about Israel. Mulcair brought the point back to Iraq, while Calandra tried to hammer the fundraiser’s comments. When Calandra tried a third time, Mulcair challenged the Speaker’s neutrality for not shutting him down. Scheer, unimpressed, cut Mulcair’s last two questions and went directly to Justin Trudeau, who asked about job creation. Joe Oliver touted job internship programmes and so on, but didn’t offer much else. Trudeau moved onto Harper’s absence from the climate conference in New York. Colin Carrie dutifully got up to read some prepared statements, much as he did yesterday. Trudeau brought up action taken by premiers for carbon pricing, to which Carrie read another statement.
Roundup: An emergency debate, such as it was
The Commons had their “emergency debate” on the situation in Iraq last night, using debate loosely, of course. After all, “debate” these days tends to largely mean reading monotonous speeches into the record that were all pre-written and don’t actually debate what has already been said. The NDP hammered away at demanding a vote on deployment, never mind that military deployment is a Crown prerogative and thus not subject to a vote, and in fact, shouldn’t be because it launders the prerogative and the accountability. But if Mulcair wants to give Harper political cover so that he can, in the future, say that the Commons decided on the matter and that they are culpable when things go wrong because there was a vote, well, it makes it kind of awkward for the opposition, no? It’s part of Responsible Government – the Commons has given the government the authority to govern, and if they don’t like it, then they can withdraw confidence. Voting to “make decisions” is not actually their role – accountability is. The NDP were also childishly mocking the Liberals for largely not being there for the debate – except that they only got two speaking slots the whole night, which they used near the beginning, and as we’ve established that it’s not a real debate, it does seem fairly pointless to have a bunch of people there to simply endure repetitive prepared speeches – and make no mistake, they are repetitive – with no real ability to respond or add to what’s been said. But this is the state of our parliament these days.
QP: 69 pairs of boots on the ground
The second day of the fall sitting, and the Conservative Members’ Statements were beyond hysterical. Thomas Mulcair led off, and demanded to know how many Canadian Forces’ members were in Iraq. Harper responded that it was 69. Mulcair railed on about military deployments needing the approval of the House — undercutting his own accountability role given the practice of Crown Prerogatives. Harper reminded him that the current mission was not the same as the 2003 war. Mulcair changed topics, and asked if Harper would hide behind parliamentary privilege to avoid testifying at the Duffy trial. Harper suggested that Mulcair would be an expert witness on the misuse of public funds. Mulcair, after some hubbub, wondered why Harper didn’t fire anyone involved in the “bribery” of Duffy, but Harper hit back that Mulcair should probably fire himself. Mulcair changed topics again and mentioned a report on the Champlain Bridge that said that a toll would make traffic surge on other bridges instead. Harper reminded him that they were still in a contracting process. Justin Trudeau was up next, and returned to the problems with the EI tax credits which incentivize firing instead of hiring employees. Harper shot back with a couple of non-sequiturs about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and Trudeau musing about cancelling income splitting. Trudeau shot back with a different quote about the CFIB and called on him to give a break on premiums. Harper read a quote from the CFIB, and accused Trudeau of wanting to raise rates.