After very little media time at the G20 in Turkey, Prime Minister Trudeau held a press conference on the flight to the Philippines yesterday, taking every question, and generally being far more open than Harper ever was on an international trip. There were a number of messages – first, that while the plan remains to withdraw the CF-18s from combat in Iraq and Syria, we would be stepping up training on the ground beyond the 69 special operations trainers there currently, and the what that training might look like is still being determined. Second, he spoke about his forthcoming bilateral meeting with President Obama while at the APEC summit, and that there was a lot of climate discussion at the G20 that will continue right through to the Paris summit, with Canada looking to get on board with more robust discussions and pushing more recalcitrant countries to step up. Finally, when it comes to Syrian refugees, yet more assurances that security is not being compromised as part of the push to get the promised 25,000 here before the end of the year. As for that APEC summit, Stéphane Dion and Chrystia Freeland were there in advance of Trudeau talking trade and in particular the TPP, since that looks to be one of the dominant themes on the agenda there.
Tag Archives: Syria
Roundup: Refugee hysteria
The question of Syrian refugees in the aftermath of the Paris attacks has reached ridiculous proportions, as a number of American state governors declared that they were going to let ISIS win and terrorize them, by insisting that they didn’t want any Syrian refugees in their states. Because it’s the refugees that have been responsible for mass shootings in the States, right? Closer to home, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall decided he was going to be the one to try and crank up the concern trolling over refugees to eleven, saying that he wants the whole thing suspended because he thinks that security screening is being compromised in order to reach the “quota” and “deadline,” despite there being zero evidence to that effect, and the fact that in order for people to be registered refugees under the UNHCR, most of these kinds of background checks will already have been completed. Unfortunately, Wall is also cynically pandering to populist sentiment that has been stoked by the hysteria of what happened in Paris, in defiance of logic and fact. What is fortunate, however, is that pretty much every other province has disavowed this kind of nonsense and is ready to push ahead, with Quebec and Ontario ready to accept some 16,000 refugees, Rachel Notley being okay with the accelerated timeline, Greg Selinger saying that Manitobans are excited to welcome newcomers, and Christy Clark recognizing the urgency to bring refugees over. So it looks like Wall is the outlier on this one, but that’s not exactly a surprise, considering that critical thinking hasn’t been his strongest suit on a number of other files *cough*Senate reform*cough*.
https://twitter.com/saladinahmed/status/666337468132761600
Roundup: Concern trolling on bombers and refugees
In the wake of Friday’s attacks in Paris, and Trudeau’s trip to the G20 in Turkey, we seem to have been inundated with a whole lot of calls to carry on the bombing mission in Iraq and Syria, coupled with all manner of concern trolling from Conservative MPs and others to slow down on the refugee pledges for “security screening,” never mind that there have yet to be any verifiable links between the attackers and any actual refugees from the region. (Most of what we’ve heard has been about homegrown attackers, along with a couple of passports of dubious authenticity). Michael Petrou makes the case that keeping up the fight against ISIS with the bombing mission is evidence-based policy (plus has a video of Syrian refugees in France here), while Terry Milewski gives a look at what the mission has accomplished to date, and notes Canada’s participation in some recent victories in the region. Wesley Wark says that the aftermath of Paris shows that Canada needs to up its intelligence game. After sparring with Jason Kenney over the Twitter Machine, Paul Wells lays the smackdown on Conservatives doing backseat ministering without actually looking critically at their own policy – which is still being enacted in the region – while they second-guess what the voters decided pretty clearly on October 19th. (And it’s an amazing piece that you really must read).
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665639828235530240
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640401370374145
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640787040845824
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665640896562487296
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665641975610126336
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665642870829748224
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665643511606177794
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665645420547174400
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/665645614206619649
Roundup: A hedge on refugees?
It looks like the new Liberal government may be walking back a little on their first election promise, around the 25,000 Syrian refugees. Initially the promise was 25,000 government-assisted refugees with additional privately sponsored refugees on top of that figure. Yesterday, it sounded like the 25,000 will be a combination of the two based on comments by the minister, but Trudeau seemed to contradict that in his press conference while the minister’s spokesperson was hedging somewhere around the fact that there may be some privately sponsored among the 25,000 this year with more to come in 2016, but I’m not sure that the privately sponsored numbers will be that significant in the short timeframe that it would be too much of a difference for that 25,000 target. Meanwhile, it sounds like plans are being developed to fly a thousand Syrian refugees per day out of Aman, Jordan, while temporary lodgings are currently being worked out. No doubt we’ll hear more details in the coming days.
Roundup: No ideological obstruction
There’s the Senate bat-signal again. Conservative Senate leader Claude Carignan says that his caucus won’t abuse their majority in the Senate to thwart Liberal legislation that comes forward, to which I say “Um, yeah. Of course.” Because wouldn’t you know it, Senators have a job to do, and they know it. Of course, I’ve never bought into the conspiracy theory that Conservative senators would be the puppets of Harper, trying to influence things beyond the political grave, or even the theory that they would be extra dickish just because they were Harper appointees. Then again, most people seem to forget that senators of any stripe suddenly get a lot more independent when the PM who appointed them is no longer in office, and they get really, really independent once leadership races kick off. So far we’re at the first of those two, and with the Conservatives as a whole allegedly experimenting with a less command-and-control style of leadership, we may see the yoke they unduly placed over their Senate caucus lifted. Mind you, we’re still waiting for a signal to see what Trudeau will do in terms of both the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government. Without a Leader, they might as well just cancel Senate Question Period, which would be a loss because it’s quite instructive for how QP in the Commons should be run. Some senators have floated the idea of just having Senate QP be about asking questions to committee chairs (which, incidentally, they already can do), but it’s not a good idea because those committee chairs aren’t going to have a lot to say about issues of the day, they won’t have access to briefing materials, and they aren’t conduits by which the government can be held to account, which is the whole point of QP – not asking details about committee work. But seriously – can we please stop worrying about fantastical hysteria about what the Senate is going to do? 99 percent of it is based on false assumptions and ignorance of the chamber, and it’s so, so tiresome. They have jobs to do. Let them.
Roundup: Mandate letters a good step
Within a few days, we’re going to see another first on the federal scene – the mandate letter sent to every cabinet minister are going to be made public. We’ve seen this in a few provinces before, but not federally, and when Trudeau talks about this being a step in open, transparent and accountable government, he’s right. These letters, personalised to each minister, lay out responsibilities and expectations, and perhaps even timelines, when it comes to what they have on their plate. So why make them public? Because it’s a way of showing what was expected of them so that they can be held to account based on those particular metrics. It also gives the civil service an idea of where the government is going so that they can tailor their efforts accordingly. It does set the more open and transparent tone that Trudeau has been looking to set for his government, and changes the kinds of black boxes that we’re normally used to seeing. Not that there aren’t reasons for some of those closed-doors – cabinet meetings in particular, the caucus room as well – because there do need to be spaces for closed-door discussions in order for consensus to be achieved or for positions to be hashed out without fear of the press making a big deal about divisions that may or may not exist. But even with cabinet secrecy being a good and important thing, I’m having a hard time seeing how mandate letters could be justified under that rubric. It’s not about the discussion leading up to a decision – it’s about setting the government’s direction, and that is something that should generally be out in the open. It’s a move we should applaud, and hopefully it will continue to be an indication of the direction this government is taking in terms of its commitment to actual transparency.
Roundup: New Senate appointment process isn’t rocket science
Apparently what is going on in the Senate is proving a little too confusing for some of the nation’s more obtuse pundits, so here’s a few points of explanation. John Ibbitson penned a column expressing optimism about the proposed new system of Senate appointments, and yet threw in a number of bizarre concerns that made me wonder. For one, it’s hard to see how they would all come “from Bay Street” when there is a set number of regional seats apportioned. His notion that they should come from “Main Street and the street” is also fairly mystifying because the Senate should be a place for eminent, accomplished Canadians. The House of Commons is for just that – the common people. The Senate has served best when it is a place where people who have achieved excellence can find a new way to contribute to public life in a way that they would not otherwise because they would not think to seek elected office – people like Romeo Dallaire or Kelvin Ogilvie. Ibbitson is also astoundingly obtuse when he calls Senate Liberals “Independents,” and figures that all new senators under this system would also be Independents, when neither statement is correct. Senate Liberals are still Liberals – they just don’t sit in caucus with the Liberals in the Commons so as to give them greater independence, and nowhere was it said that any senator chosen by an arm’s length process had to be an Independent when they could simply choose which caucus to sit in of their own accord. There is nothing wrong with that because there is nothing wrong with parties or with partisanship. Yes, the kind of hyper-partisan tribalism we’ve seen in recent years is a problem, but that’s a function of message control and discipline rather than the actual role and function of partisanship, and the two parties who relied heavily on message control and discipline were dealt blows in the last election, giving pause to those who believe in that kind of system. The Senate has generally always been a less partisan place because they’re not scoring points for re-election, which is half the point. None of this is rocket science, but you wouldn’t know it judging from some of the commentary we’re seeing.
Roundup: Assisted dying heating up
The issue of doctor-assisted dying is heating up the closer we get to Trudeau and cabinet being sworn in, seeing as there’s a looming February deadline on the horizon. Trudeau signalled that he plans to ask the Supreme Court for an extension to their decision to strike the existing laws down, but that too poses its own challenges. The federal government had initially asked the Court for eighteen months, and they gave them twelve, at which point the government sat on it for several months before creating what looked to be a stacked advisory committee to study the issue. That committee is also in the crosshairs, as advocacy groups say that it should be abolished because of its stacked nature. The chair of said committee said that its members’ former positions against assisted dying are no longer relevant because the Court has ruled and they now have to come up with a system that will work to protect the vulnerable while enabling those Canadians who wish to die with dignity to do so on their own terms. It certainly couldn’t hurt Trudeau to let them report and see what they have to say, and then choose to accept or disregard it at that time. The very fact that he’s now forming government should also be a signal that he expects this consultative process to be something other that the one the government engaged in around the prostitution question, in that he is not expecting them to give one response in particular but to have a more thoughtful result in the end. I guess we’ll see. Meanwhile, advocates of religious communities came out against assisted dying again, insisting instead on more resources for palliative care, as though they were mutually exclusive, never mind that the Supreme Court has also made a clear ruling. (And one would think that if they allowed people who wanted to die on their own terms rather to do so, it would free up those resources that were otherwise needlessly prolonging their suffering that could be applied to palliative care, but maybe I’m wrong on that one).
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/659187808322605056
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/658299297897824256
Roundup: Another reboot report
Yesterday saw the release of yet another expert report bemoaning all of our democratic woes, and proposed a handful of would-be solutions – or would be, if they actually bothered to correctly diagnose the problems they bemoaned. This time, it was the Public Policy Forum, and they have a pretty eminent list of people who compiled the piece. The problem was, while enumerating their grievances with our parliamentary system, they didn’t look at causes, and hence plan to treat symptoms rather than causes. “Restore cabinet governance” you say? Great! But no look at why the centralisation got more pronounced and how to fix the underlying reasons why. While their solutions regarding the public service and ministerial staffers are all well and good, their discussions around the committee system in the Commons stuck in my craw a bit. According to the report, we have too many committees, which is absurd considering that some of the busier committees don’t have the time to actually study a lot of bills with a reasonable number of witnesses getting reasonable turns to answer questions. So give them more work? Hmm. They want the whole Commons to vote on committee chairs instead of the committees themselves, like with the Speaker, but neglect to mention that this has bred its own particular set of problems in the UK, where this is the norm, where those chairs are becoming problematic personalities who have become somewhat untouchable when they start breaking rules. Their particular suggestions that committees not be bound by the parliamentary calendar is also a bit specious considering that they already have the power to meet when Parliament isn’t sitting, but those MPs tend to see the value in being in their constituencies during said periods when the House isn’t sitting. Give them more resources and staff? Certainly – they could do that tomorrow if they wanted, but it’s not because there are too many committees to do it adequately. And despite all of these suggestions, not one of them touches the underlying problem that the vast majority of MPs get elected without knowing what exactly their job is or how to do it, and what their responsibilities are once they get a committee assignment. But does this report once talk about better educating and equipping MPs themselves? Nope. So while it’s a valiant effort, perhaps they need to actually look at the forest for the trees.
Roundup: May already has a job
In the wake of Monday’s election results, a number of people have been trying to circulate a few petitions calling on Justin Trudeau to appoint Elizabeth May as environment minster. It’s so ridiculous I barely know where to begin. First of all, why would she cross the floor? There is no need for a coalition government, and for her to abandon the Green Party to join the Liberals would be a bit of a repudiation of what she stands for. It also demonstrates a lack of awareness of what it means to be in a cabinet, which means solidarity with the government’s decisions as a whole. If you don’t agree with all of the cabinet’s decisions, you resign, because cabinet solidarity is part of our system of government. With her many strident positions on various policy files, it’s hard, if not impossible, to see May agreeing with the Liberal positions on so many files. Most of all, this call demonstrates a complete inability for people to appreciate the role that the opposition plays in our system of government. It’s vital, because it holds the government to account – and why wouldn’t you want May to be holding the government to account over their environmental policies? Why would it be a lesser job for her to be doing the holding to account? In the romantic notion that people have that everything should somehow be done by consensus, they don’t appreciate that there is a role for accountability when there is disagreement. It doesn’t need to be nasty – which is unfortunately where we’ve wound up in recent years because of the kinds of culture that has been allowed to breed in parliament – but it can be principled and fair, and certainly May is providing that kind of opposition. Trudeau is making other inroads, such as inviting her and other opposition members to the Paris climate summit – former practice that Harper abandoned when he decided that only his ministers should be allowed to attend these kinds of things. Can May play a role in the system? Absolutely, and she does? That doesn’t mean that she needs to be given a seat at the cabinet table. That’s just ridiculous.