Site Search

Custom Search

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Gender discrimination OK with the Grits?

Ifind it curious how selective our new Liberal government in Ottawa is when it comes to discrimination. It is “simply unacceptable to discriminate against refugees who practise certain religions,” said the current federal minister of immigration, etc., John McCallum as reported by CBC News in December 2014. What a difference a year makes. Earlier this week, that same minister released a refugee resettlement plan that seems to discriminate based on gender.

Is gender-based discrimination somehow more acceptable than religious discrimination? Or is it simply that Liberal values are so flexible that they can accommodate whatever policy decision Liberals believe is expedient. I favour the latter explanation.

Last December, we learned the Conservative government was seeking to give priority in its Syrian refugee resettlement plan to refugees from Syria’s religious minorities. The Conservatives were, apparently, responding to reports of Yazidis, Assyrian Christians and other religious minorities being marked for extermination and women and children sold into sex slavery by Daesh (ISIL).

In other words, PM Harper and his government seemed to be responding to reports that, for this segment of those at-risk in Syria, it is not just a question of compassion, but rather it is a simple matter of life or death, for Daesh seems intent on destroying these groups—in effect, committing genocide. And while Daesh might be murdering individual Muslims, it is not trying to destroy the Islamic faith.

But that was unacceptable to Mr. McCallum and his party.

This element of the recently announced immigration plan is receiving some push-back from the opposition, and especially from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair is reported to have said in Ottawa on Monday:

We do not believe it is appropriate to make a vast generalization about a category of refugees and exclude them ahead of any processing because of who they are.

“That’s simply wrong.”

Time will tell, of course, just how the resettlement plan rolls out. Those cagey Grits are well known for leaking tidbits of draft policy to see how they are received in the media, and then trueing up the final version of their policy to suit public taste.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Government-funded political ads: Grits want in on the gravy train

Ioften hear people wonder about the kind of prime minister Justin Trudeau would make, and what a Liberal government led by him would look like. And, while I’m not much help on the Trudeau-as-PM part, I think I’m safe in pointing out that Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are as good an example as any of what a federal Liberal government would look like.

The Ontario and federal Liberal parties may be organizationally independent and have separate memberships, they are nevertheless pretty much the same when it comes to their core membership and internal movers and shakers. One needs only think back to the bonhomie and speech-making that we saw at both Mr. Trudeau’s and Ms. Wynne’s leadership conventions. For the most part, it was impossible to tell who were actual delegates and who were just observers.

The Grits attending those events all seemed to consider themselves “inside the tent.” Time and again, leaders of the federal Grits heaped praise on former premier Dalton McGuinty and his replacement, Kathleen Wynne.

Keeping this in mind, it is instructional to observe the Liberals in Ottawa railing against the Tory practice of using taxpayer money to fund partisan advertising such as Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre using taxpayer dollars to produce videos of himself promoting the universal child care benefit.

Senior Liberal MP Marc Garneau reportedly complained the videos show that the government has attained new heights of arrogance by  assuming Canadians are “too stupid” or “don’t care.”

Strong language indeed. And he’s probably right, or mostly so.

So what, I wonder, does Garneau and his Liberal colleagues make of what their political sisters are doing on this same file at the Ontario Legislature?

According to Ontario's auditor-general Bonnie Lysyk, Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Liberals want to strip away most of the province’s rules on partisan ads. Something the auditor says would undermine her office. Two weeks ago, Ms. Lysyk accused the Grits of trying to “gut” the provincial act governing advertising, and she issued a special report Tuesday.

Ms. Lysyk says changes proposed by the Grits open her office of Auditor-General to “mockery” as an independent officer of the legislature. So upset is she that Ms. Lysyk wants to be relieved of her duty to review government ads before they run.

Deputy premier Deb Matthews got her two cents worth on record. According to The Canadian Press report I saw:

Deputy premier Deb Matthews says the Liberals wanted to clarify the definition of partisanship in government ads, which she says will make the rules clearer.”

I winced when I read that one.

So I wouldn’t expect Ottawa’s government advertising practices to change much under Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, if what is going on at Queen’s Park is any indication of how the Grits operate when they have the hammer.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Teachers demand Premier Kathleen Wynne stands and delivers

Three Ontario school boards are asking the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide on the legality of high school teachers’ strikes. The Durham, Peel and Rainbow/Sudbury boards believe the strikes are not allowed under the current legislation because “central” rather than local issues are in dispute.

The School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014, also known as Bill 122, sets out a two-tiered bargaining system for Ontario’s education sector, whereby the most costly items like class size and salary are bargained over “centrally” between the provincial government, the association of school boards and the provincial unions. So-called “local” issues such as performance appraisals and grievance procedures are negotiated between individual school boards and union districts.

The new legislation was passed by the Ontario Legislature on April 8, 2014 so is quite new to both teachers’ unions and school boards.

Durham teachers went on strike April 20 followed by those in Rainbow/Sudbury two weeks ago and then those in Peel just last week. I’ve also seen reports that six more boards will be targeted in the coming weeks by the public high school teachers’ union. Moreover, other unions are reportedly growing frustrated at the bargaining table and could follow suit.

Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government and its immediate predecessors under former Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty are generally seen as “education friendly” and have been about as generous to teachers as any government I’ve seen in Ontario going back to the 1960s. Despite this, we seem headed for a summer and fall of labour chaos in our education sector.

Teachers’ unions are insatiable. And the more the government gives in to their demands, the more demanding they become. The many concessions made by the McGuinty and Wynne governments in the past have been taken as weakness and emboldened union leaders.

Furthermore, teachers’ unions gave millions of dollars and hundreds of volunteer hours last year to help elect a Liberal government. Now they are looking for a return on that investment and they are more likely than not to get one.

There is little doubt in my mind that the teachers will dump their support for the Grits unless Premier Wynne and her education minister, Liz Sandals, cave in and meet substantially all of the unions’ demands. If the government does stand firm, we can expect to see the rapacious unions turn away from the Grits en masse and throw their considerable financial and human-resource support to Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats in the 2018 election.

The government is, of course, in a bind. They have squandered billions on eHealth, ORNGE and the power plants and managed the 2008 financial crisis and following recession poorly. Not surprisingly, therefore, they now find themselves with a stubborn structural budget deficit and rating agencies threatening to downgrade the considerable provincial debt. And any downgrade in the province’s debt will almost certainly be costly and will itself add to the deficit.

In the 2012–13 school year, we saw teacher walkouts and work-to-rule campaigns that some describe as “labour chaos.” Not withstanding those trying days, I suspect that, if Premier Wynne and Ms. Sandals stand firm, we haven’t seen anything like what we can expect in the upcoming months.

By so eagerly accepting the largesse of the unions in the past couple of general elections and several by-elections, Ontario Liberals have sown the wind and must now reap the whirlwind of teachers’ buyer-remorse.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Too much Gotcha!, too much spin, not enough substance to our political debates

There are times when I wonder if I got the Class Clown instead of Member of Parliament when I voted in the last general election. Seeing some of the antics of the members of the House during Tuesday’s Question Period is one of those times.

Yes, the Liberal leader Justin Trudeau did put his foot in his mouth and, I suppose, deserved to be mocked by the Conservatives. But, really, why can’t we ever seem to deal with substantive issues in a straight forward unambiguous manner? Why do we always seem to be playing “gotcha!” with each word or phrase uttered by our politicians.

Benefiting every single family isn’t what is fair,” is what Trudeau said, in part. He continued to say, “What is fair is giving help to those who need it the most,” giving context to his opening line and providing the “real” meaning of his words.

Readers are probably wondering why I as a Conservative would seem to be defending Justin Trudeau of all people. I deliberately chose this example to make my point about “Gotcha politics” so I would not be so easily dismissed as giving just another partisan rant.

Mr. Trudeau obviously chose a clumsy way to make his point on Tuesday, and his opening line was sure to bring, at the very least, a smile to the face of even the most rabid Grit and some sort of pithy retort from the government side of the House. Was it, however, too much to also expect a response that rebutted the substance of what he said?

Canadians want to know what their political leaders plan to do on their behalf and their leaders’ views on issues are important for them to know—at least, that’s what I believe. It is difficult, however, for us to get this information if it comes to us in out-of-context, chopped up sound bites or through the filter of media or political party spin machines.

The point Mr. Trudeau was trying to make, I think, is that it’s more important to target help to those who need it most rather than give help universally. And isn’t this a reasonable point and one worthy of debate? What we get, though, are headlines stressing his unfortunate use of words, “Benefiting Every Single Family Isn’t What Is Fair,” and no debate on the substance of his remarks.

Now some will say, that’s Mr. Trudeau’s fault—after all, he chose the words he used. But who loses here is more important to me: it is ordinary Canadians who lose. We get to smile at the Liberal leader’s expense, but we are no further ahead in knowing why he disagrees with the principle of universality in this case or why Prime Minister Stephen Harper supports that important principle.

Only a minor opportunity lost, I suppose. But it does seem unfortunate for our democracy that grown-ups in public office do not seem to be able to carry on a substantive debate without every word and phrase being parsed and scrutinized to see if it can be used in a less flattering, more misleading way or worse, be completely taken out of context.

Hyper-partisanship and animus seem to motivate too much of what passes as politics in our country, and there is fault on all sides, including the news media which seem to have an insatiable appetite for controversial sound bites and misstatements, even when unintentional.

This is not healthy for our democracy.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Elizabeth May uses profanity in bizarre press gallery dinner speech and covers up with inane excuses

Speaking at the annual press gallery dinner on Saturday night, the Green Party leader Elizabeth May gave what was described in the Hamilton Spectator as “a rambling, profanity-laced speech.” And after what witnesses described as a “bizarre and awkward” performance, an unsteady Ms.May, the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, had to be led from the podium by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, before Ms. May could embarrass herself further.

Speeches by senior politicians at this annual shindig are intended to be non-partisan, light-hearted and somewhat self-deprecating with usually a joke or two at the expense of media members. Ms. May, however, reportedly went on at length in speech not at all in the spirit of the event and capped it off by using her cell phone to play the theme song from the old TV show, Welcome back Kotter. Then, just as Raitt tried to usher her off the stage, Ms. May yelled into the microphone that Omar Khadr has “more class than the whole fucking cabinet.”

Since then Elizabeth May has used virtually every lame excuse in the book to justify her behaviour to the media.

“My funny speech wasn’t funny … I apologize that I made an attempt to be funny and edgy. …and it didn't work,” are a couple of quotes I got from Toronto media. She also claimed: she was just getting over the flu; she had put in a 21-hour workday on Friday. She mentioned she’d been taking the cold medicine Nyquil but then said, “I’m not one of those people who wants to use the ‘I was on cough medicine’ excuse.” Yet she is, apparently, one of those people.

But my favourite excuse is this one. Ms. May acknowledged she drank wine before taking the stage, but insisted she wasn’t drunk: “I didn’t have a lot of wine, but it may have hit me harder than I thought it would.” Hmm …

All this is so typical of Elizabeth May who, as many of you readers know only too well, has a penchant for hyperbolic comments, which she later disavows or for which she makes excuses.

Speaking at a town hall in Nanaimo, B.C. on April 13, 2014, the Green Party leader called the PMO “a $10-million-a-year partisan operation filled with ruthless, cutthroat psychopaths.” May claimed later she made the comments “in jest,” according to a Metro article.

In the early days of Stephen Harper’s government, Ms. May made a nasty reference to history judging the prime minister “more culpable than Neville Chamberlain.” She later tried to justify her words by claiming she was quoting someone else.

Then there was the 2007 interview on TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin during which Elizabeth May called Canadians “stupid.” Later she blamed her tendency to talk too fast and a faulty microphone for her words.

And when Ms. May responded on her blog to accusations that she had called Canadians stupid, she wrote: “I reviewed all this on TVO with Steve Paikan [sic] more recently and he confirmed that no one in the room thought I had said Canadians are stupid.” But TVO’s director of corporate communications quickly rebutted that and wrote a letter to the Green Party setting the record straight by saying “that at no point … did Steve Paikin express such a personal opinion,” and asking that May’s “blog posting be corrected.” So, apparently, truth is not Ms. May’s long suit.

Aside from what seems an inability to control her tongue, Elizabeth May is a hypocrite. She has spoken out often about breaches of decorum in the House of Commons, even small ones, yet she calls PMO staff “ruthless, cutthroat psychopaths,” and uses the “F” word to insult the entire cabinet. Even if she cannot respect the individual members of cabinet, she should, at least, be able to respect the offices they hold. She is after all an MP and party leader.

Moreover, Elizabeth May is a coward because, having made several intemperate remarks over the years, she resorts to obfuscation, claiming her comments were in jest or misunderstood, or implies they were caused by over-work, cold medicine or perhaps a bit too much wine. Someone worthy of the office of party leader would simply take ownership for her gaffes and apologize without the mealy mouthed excuses.

Ms. May’s political judgement appears often to be clouded by animus towards Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government. An animosity which seems to transcend mere political partisanship to a more visceral level that, to this observer at least, looks a lot like malice and spite.

I get the impression that, as a single-issue zealot, Ms. May will malign anyone who has a marked disagreement with the aims of her international Green movement. Her “truth” is the only one with any relevance. And anyone who does not wholeheartedly embrace her belief system becomes a target for her derision.

Inexplicably, though, Ms. May seems to have become a darling of the Toronto media establishment and gets far more attention paid to her views and causes than she deserves.