Night One: #cpc11 live blog

6:30 pm: I have my blogger/media pass, I've navigated my way through the brand new Ottawa convention centre, I've paid $33.90 for WiFi (you're welcome, dear readers) and I'm settled into the front row of the media section (at the waaaay back of the convention hall) for night one of Conservative Majoritypalooza 2011.

I'll be liveblogging the evening's festivities right here in this post, so keep refreshing for regular commentary, sarcastic and otherwise.

6:35 pm: The cover band in the hall is trying to get Conservative delegates out of the wine and cheese mixer and into the hall. They just played No Satisfaction; can't help but feel it was dedicated to the Liberal blogger at the pack of the hall...

Did I say cash bar? I didn't. But it is. $8 for wine, $7.25 for hard stuff, beer from $3.75 to $7.25 if you want the elitist imported stuff or a microbrew. There is, however, lots of free cheese and some very tasty kettle chips. I've become a big kettle chip fan over the last few months. It's really the only way to do chips, in my view.

6:40 pm: So what's on the program tonight? Apparently Stockwell Day will give the big speech tonight. I saw his wife Valerie earlier on her way into the hall. Senators anthem singer (and OPP constable, IIRC) Lyndon Slewidge will sing O'Canada. I hear Canucks anthem virtuosso Mark Donnley did the same deed for a Conservative campaign rally (news that really choked-up this Canucks fan, I tell you). The CPC seems to have a lock on our hockey anthem singers, although maybe the NDP has the Canadiens guy. Anyway, Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Jacques Demers, and MP Steve Blaney, will MC.

6:51 pm: The shindig was supposed to start 21 minutes ago, but people are still filing in. The PA is getting increasingly pissed off as he implores everyone to take a dammed seat, already. Actually he still sounds nauseatingly perky, but that just means he could break into profanity-laced rage at any moment. I'll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, in the halls the topics of debate seem to be one member one vote and the youth wing. James Moore, for one, didn't want to be seen within a country mile of a position on omov. Every system has its merits, he said. Debate is good. Now how can the Canucks manage to solve Tim Thomas?

OK, looks like we're starting.

6:56 PM: Lyndon Slewidge with a stirring rendition of O'Canada. I'm shocked not one member of media row (besides me) stood for O'Canada. You don't need to be neutral on that mes amis; it's the national anthem...

Meanwhile, apparently John "Canada's face to the world" Baird is the convention host. He's on stage now, and I think he gets $10 every time he says "strong, stable Conservative majority government." Someone owes him $50.

7:01 PM: It's the first political event in the new Ottawa Convention Centre (which is really very nice, but not as nice as Vancouver's -- the reclaimed pine beetle wood makes the difference) which Baird notes was made possible by a contribution from Canada's Economic Action Plan. Because if it was a gazebo is Muskoka, it would be funded from the border security fund.

7:06 PM: Baird is turning the stage over to Wallin and Blaney. Wallin jokes letting foreign affairs minister Baird out on the word stage without adult supervision could be dangerous. At least, I think she was joking. No, I'm sure she was joking. Fairly sure.

Wallin reminds crowd she covered Ottawa as a journalist (ed. opinion elite). Send money, they're infiltrating the caucus! No one boos, anyway, and then they cheer when she says they're going to finally kill the gun registry. They're going to really reform the Senate too, she says. Well, not really because they won't open the constitution to give the West proper representation, but they're going to pretend to be reforming it at least.

7:11 pm: Blaney says unlike some new Quebec MPs, he can find his riding on a map, and Wallinm adds he has a driver's license and is drinking age too. This is conservative humour typified: ill-intentioned cracks at others.

Demers and Duffy will be "floor reporters." Duffy is now introducing Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander, who defeated Liberal Mark Holland. After a few classy(less) shots at Holland, he makes a crack about "liberating Holland" again which, surely, can't be comparing the Liberals to the Nazis,c an it? Oh, wait, it was Mike Duffy, sure it could be.

7:18 PM: Demers is interviewing someone from Quebec who spends two minutes ripping on Jack Layton and the NDP. There's your new era of decorum, Jack.

7:20 PM: The Conservative Party president is speaking now; John Walsh. I hadn't heard his name before today. Apparently he doesn't regularly go on TV and say baffling things, keeps a low profile, and competently does his work behind the scenes. My, that's quite the concept...

7:26 PM: Hey, it's that campaign ad the CPC ripped off the Tim Pawlenty campaign. Actually, as a student of political communications I really like this ad. It's a nice piece of film-making.

Anyway, if you're drinking at home do a shot every time a speaker says "strong, stable..."

Walsh is now introducing Jason Kenney, minister for curry in a hurry.

7:29 PM: Kenney says the likes the sound of foreign affairs minister John Baird. Because he totally didn't want that job...

Kenney is taking us on a trip down revisionist history lane, when Liberals raised taxes (untrue, we cut taxes across the board) and slashing military spending (Reform wanted bigger DND cuts) and insulting our allies (like the UAE?).

7:34 PM: Kenney is saying "they" dont' think the CPC's majority victory is real, that it was a fluke. Who are they? The strawman in Jason's head. He looks like the scare crow from the Wizard of Oz. Anyway, he's going on and on attacking the Liberals saying they barely won seats thanks to vote splitting, and citing stat after stat on historical vote counts and margins. Because nothing stirs a crowd like random statistics!

7:37 PM: Now Kenney is ripping on the CBC. Now where's James Moore again... Big cheer for talking about the return of Tory Toronto. And a shot at the Toronto Star, the only endorsing major media organization that didn't endorse his party.

7:42 PM: Now he's moving from the Liberals to the NDP, whose orange crush was apparently no match for the blue wave. Apparently "downtown" Jack Layton doesn't share your values like "uptown" Stephen Harper does. Leaside is totally rural, you know.

7:47 PM: Kenney says every CPC MP won their nomination on their merits, no appointments. *cough* Rob Anders *cough*. He goes on that they're going to govern for a long time beause "conservative values are Canadian values." You may recall they used to rip on the Liberals saying "Liberal values are Canadian values" but that's totally different, you elitist loser.

You know, it's amazing how quickly these folks have come to think what is now will be forever, and will never change. They are so quickly becoming that which they have always (and still) despised.

7:54 PM: Stock Day gets a welcoming video montage. Keeping my fingers crossed or jet ski or Niagara Falls footage...

7:55 PM: No such luck. Anyway, Stock thought he'd just be here to do damage control after Kenney's speech, didn't realize it would be a tribute. Anyway, after thanking some folks Stock says now that he doesn't have to worry about a cabinet appointment, he has a few words for "Steve." But then his wife comes out on stage with a stop sign that says "we love Harper", in a Senate page reference.

8:02 PM: Stock tells whiny Liberal MPs those offices don't belong to them. Cheap shot, Barney, but whatevs. Now he's saying he's glad it's the media, and not his party, taking shots at young now NDP MPs. The crowd applauds. The same crowd that applauded Wallin and Blaney for taking shots at young NDP MPs. And I'm sure none of the delegates will see the contradiction, but I found it hard not to heckle (I'm trying to bring some decorum to media row).

8:10 PM: Anyway, a few silly partisan remarks aside, Stock's speech is fairly good. A call to his colleagues for decorum, for values, for respect, and to work to build the nation in their vision. The freedom of a former politician...

Stock is warning that the NDP takes one example of legitimate suffering and wrongly condemn the system. A tactic the Conservatives would totally never employ.

Now he's talking about global financial markets; I drifted off and thought Paul Martin was on the stage.

8:16 PM: Days talking about the G8/G20. He says we totally mispent all that money and misled Parliament, we were wrong and we're sorry.....no, just kissing. He's trumpeting a pledge to reduce debt and help women in developing countries that don't want abortions.

Now he's talking to the media and says with freedom comes responsibility; he wants them to improve their decorum too. And taking a page from his caucus, the media heckles him (not really). Now in urging the media not to attack politicians, he's attacking the media for personal attacks and attacking people's personal difficulties. Because those bastards should really be nicer.

8:21 PM: OK, Stock has gone off the rails. No personal attacks, so the Taliban-coddling Liberals should start supporting the troops for a change. Mmmm kay. And we'll just ignore the tens of millions his party spent demonizing Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. Seriously Stock, get your head out of your ass. I agree with your call for more civility, but you don't usher in a new era of civility by calling everyone you disagree with assholes and pretending your record is as clean as virgin snow. You've jumped the shark, dude.

8:27 PM: Now he's talking about Chinese innovations in steel production. No, really.

8:35 PM: OK, he's done. Peter MacKay is up now with a wooden box to thank Day. "Strong, stable, national..." drink!. He thinks Harper got the Jets back in Winnipeg, and is the latest speaker to doom the Canucks cup chances.

8:42 PM: MacKay is talking about how we're fighting so the people of Afghanistan can have costly, unnecessary elections that prevent Hamid Karzai from doing the important work of governing Afghanistan, because a sea of troubles laps at its shores.

In the wooden box is a Canadian flag that flew over the memorial at Kandahar air field by our task force commander in Afgianistan; tat's cool.

8:46 PM: Retired and defeated Conservative MPs coming to the stage to be recognized.

8:52 PM: And that's it. Delegates are off to drink in hospitality suites paid for by corporations like Visa Canada. And I may just do so too. Will try to post some video later. But for now, good night, and good luck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney -- too Conservative for the Catholic Church?

I like the tan jacket, Jason.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives positioning budget defeat as wedge issue in Jewish community

With all the attention lately around Jason Kenney's campaign to target the ethnic community making use of taxpayer resources, and Kenney's crowning as the "King of Multiculturalism" it's no surprise the Conservatives are positioning a possible defeat on the budget later this month (and the election that would result) as a wedge in the Jewish community.

The following e-mail from Georganne Burke has been circulating recently in the Jewish community. Burke, a long-time senior Conservative campaign official and former senior special assistant to Tony Clement, is now tour manager for Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak.

You may remember Burke from December 2008 when, while working for Clement, she tried to block Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff from attending a menorah lighting ceremony at Toronto's Zareinu Educational Centre, insinuating Ignatieff's presence could endanger the school's federal funding.

Anyway, as the e-mail shows, Burke and the Conservatives are trying to turn a possible spring election into a wedge issue with Jewish voters:

Subject: An Election Issue for all Jewish Voters

There is a very strong likelihood that an election will be called in the next couple of weeks.

If this is the case there is a serious problem for all Jewish voters. The advanced polls, and several days on which people can vote fall on Passover.

As we all know, it is not just the holiday itself that is an issue, but the days leading up to it are extremely busy. In addition, many people cannot vote during Chol Ha'Moed Pesach.

I would ask that all of you contact the leaders of the opposition parties and ask them to consider the Jewish community when they force this election.

Jack Layton - Layton.J@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.caMichael Ignatieff - Ignatieff.M@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.caGilles Duceppe - Duceppe.G@
http://www.facebook.com/l/96a60F6xppoPQffcT79DB1fKVBQ/parl.gc.ca

The dates of the holiday are as follows:

Monday, Apr 18, Erev Pesach
Tues and Wed, Apr 19-20, Yom Tov
Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun, Apr 21-24, Chol Ha'Moed
Sat, Apr 23, Shabbat
Sun Apr 24, Yom Tov begins at sundown
Mon and Tues, Apr 25-26, Yom Tov

The days for advanced polls would be April 22, 23, 25.

In addition, the Yom Tov days would be inaccessible to most of us to vote.

Please contact the Opposition Leaders as soon as possible.

Now, should Jewish holidays be considered when considering election timing? Absolutely. While the nature of a minority government means the government could lose the confidence of the house at any time, if an election is triggered as much consideration as feasible should be given to accommodating religious and ethnic holidays.

Notice though that there's no call to contact Stephen Harper to urge him to work with opposition parties to avoid an election, making her agenda clear: it's really about pressuring the opposition parties into accepting whatever it is the Conservatives propose in their budget, and overlook the accumulating ethical and moral lapses of this government.

Here's what's really rich about Burke's e-mail, though. While Burke is trying to rally the community against the opposition parties on election timing, the fact is the Harper Conservatives called a 2008 election that fell on the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.

Yes, while a spring 2011 election on the dates outlined would be the result of a loss of confidence in the government on a matter of confidence (and Harper maintains some flexibility on election scheduling after a defeat), in 2008 Harper went to the government at timing of his own choosing not because of a lose of confidence, but because he saw an opportunity to increase his seat-count. He controlled the timing and he picked an election date that fell on a Jewish holiday. And by and large, the Jewish community gave him a pass.

Now Burke and the Conservatives are trying to make election timing a religious wedge, despite not considering it important enough to change their partisan calculations in the past. Just goes to show that in their ethnic outreach campaign, there's no low card the Conservatives won't play.

It's also worth nothing Easter Sunday is April 24th, and the 2008 election was over Thanksgiving.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative homosexual agenda redux

In our ongoing quest to determine just where the Conservative "moral compass" falls on issues of gay rights, in the past we've learned that they will fund pride parades, as long as the minister responsible isn't photographed with drag queens. And you keep it on the down-low.

Today, we get more insight into the Conservative gay ground rules in two stories that recently crossed my desk. This story is from Maclean's and reports on how Stephen Harper has become something of a gay-rights champion in Uganda. No, really. Read on:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose party refused to support same-sex marriage in Canada, is being hailed as a gay rights hero—in Uganda. “He’s a human rights activist,” said Brown Kiyimba. “Harper is a liberal guy,” added Emmanueil Turinawe. Both men are from Uganda’s gay community, which is under siege thanks to a bill that calls for life sentences for gays who “touch another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality,” and even the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” such as having sex while HIV-positive or being a “serial offender.” That bill, currently being debated in the Ugandan parliament, was introduced by government MP David Bahati and enjoys widespread support in a nation that already criminalizes homosexual acts. It also calls for the imprisonment of heterosexuals who fail to report gays, and the abolition of gay-rights organizations convicted of promoting homosexuality. And gay Ugandans don’t have to live in the nation to be affected by the proposed legislation, since it can apply to offences outside Uganda.

Until recently, the Prime Minister of Canada never registered on the radar of most gay Ugandans. But at last November’s Commonwealth conference in Trinidad and Tobago, Harper had a private meeting with Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni. He gave him his two cents’ worth on the anti-gay bill. Shortly after, the East African leader told BBC News, “The Prime Minister of Canada came to see me and what was he talking about? Gays.” For the first time, Museveni talked of the need for “extreme caution” about the bill because it had become a foreign affairs issue.

I don't say this often, but kudos to Harper. He drew a line in the sand I think most Canadians can agree on -- being gay shouldn't land you in jail for life -- and, it would seem, linked the passage of such draconian legislation to our continued foreign aid.* And it appears to have had some impact on the situation.

So I was all ready to write a rare laudatory post about our Hockey-Fan-in-Chief. And then I read this story about his Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney:

Canada's new citizenship study guide for immigrants makes no mention of gay rights -- because those sections were ordered removed by the citizenship minister.

Newly disclosed documents show Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney asked that references to gay rights be deleted from the first draft version last June.

Department officials came back in August, asking that the sections be re-inserted, but to no avail.

The guide that was released with fanfare last November makes no reference to gay rights.

Actually, this information fits in well with what we've learned previously about the Conservative gay agenda: keep it on the down-low. Fund pride parades, but no photos. Lobby foreign leaders to against anti-gay legislation, but don't let potential citizens know of our own strides in support of gay rights.

Still, if the Conservatives want to remain in the closet, I'll respect their choice. With friends like these, I can't blame them.

* I did ask myself how, given my support of his gay rights to foreign aid linkage, how I'd react if he did a similar linkage with something I don't support, ie. banning abortion. I told myself I could live with the contradiction, because there are some issues we can all (mostly) agree on, and I think we shouldn't give aid to countries that put people in jail for life for being gay is one of them. Abortion is a much more contentious issue on which society is still divided, and so linkage would be inappropriate. Then I went to get a bagel.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney to imported poor children: Forced labour and abuse, so what!

You may have read that Britain is apologizing for shipping thousands of poor children off to the colonies in the 19th century, including Canada, where they often faced abuse and forced labour. You may have heard that, on behalf of Australia their Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had apologized for the abuse and conditions the children faced in his country.

How about Canada, which took even more of the poor children than Australia and also treated the children to abuse and labour? Yeah, not so much. It seems Jason Kenney doesn't see the need:

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says there's no need for Canada to apologize for abuse and exploitation suffered by thousands of poor children shipped here from Britain starting in the 19th century.

...

But he says there's limited public appetite for official government apologies for tragic events of the past and no demand for one in this particular case.

Really, Jason Kenney? Let's take this thing piece by piece. First of all, you say there's "limited public appetite for official government apologies for tragic events of the past" and so sorry abused poor kids, no apology for you?

That's rich coming from a minister in one of the most apology-happy governments since confederation. The Harper Conservatives have apologized for residential school abuse, for the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, for the Chinese Head Tax, the internment of Japanese-Canadians during WW II... All worthy and warranted apologies, to be sure, but it seems rich for this government to now to claim apology apathy.

Second, there's no demand for an apology, Jason? What does that mean? It seems the message is maybe Canada has done all kinds of bad things, but if no one is upset enough to lobby us about it then it's not worth apologizing over.

I'm sorry, Jason (opps, I apologized) but that's ridiculous. If something is wrong, then it's wrong. If something warrants an apology, then it warrants an apology. Lobbying or public pressure shouldn't be the deciding factor. All that should matter is if it was wrong, or not.

If you want some angry people with a group name though Jason, how's this:

Sidney Baker, 76, of Home Children Canada, said he also expects an apology from the Canadian government for the treatment of children who were scooped off streets in the U.K. and shipped to Canada between 1869 and 1939. ...

Baker said the victims and their families have never asked for compensation from the Canadian government - only an apology.

He said the group has been told that Ottawa has been working on an apology for some time.

Baker claimed that "between three and half and four million Canadians are descendants of the Home Children."

So there's demand that Minister Kenney insists "doesn't exist" even though the government told this group an apology was in the works. As I said though, public pressure aside, is an apology warranted here? Let's review:

Canadian Citizenship and Immigration says on its website that many of the children, most of whom ranged from eight to ten years of age, came from families of the urban poor who could not care for them properly.

CIC says most of the children were runaways or abandoned, but some were also orphans.

Children were generally sent to Canada without the knowledge or permission of their parents, a move made legal by the British Parliament.

Studies show that more than two-thirds were abused by their patrons in Canada, Home Children says.

According to CIC, it was only after the death of one of the home-children at an Ontario farm in 1895, that Canadians would learn about the British program.

George Everitt Green, a young agricultural labourer from England, died seven months after arriving in Canada, his body emaciated and covered with sores, visible scars of the cruel treatment the CIS says he received from his employer.

Other home children committed suicide in Canada between 1923 and 1924, which prompted an investigation by the British Parliament and led to Canada's Immigration Branch introducing a regulation in 1925 that prohibited charities from bringing children under 14 years of age to this country.

Yeah, sure Jason. No need to apologize for our nation's role in that dark chapter of our history.

For god's sake, do the right thing here. You can even "paraphrase" the Australian speech, if you want. If the Conservatives insist on hewing to Kenney's ignorant, embarrassing and demonstrably false line on this, the only lesson that can be taken is that the Harper government only apologizes when there's an identifiable voter group involved that they can woo.

So, sorry abused poor British kids.

Maybe you should get organized and move to key swing ridings and then Jason Kenney will care about you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney: The election speculation ate my homework

Expect this to become a common, oft-repeated refrain from the Harper Conservatives, however longer the NDP decides to keep their government alive: we'd do great things, but the election speculation ate our homework:

Important reforms to Canada's immigration system ranging from changes to refugee asylum to better regulation of immigration consultants are on hold because of the threat of an election, says Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Kenney made the comment to reporters as he announced the government will fast track immigration and visa applications for citizens of the Philippines impacted by this week's typhoon.

"I have been working on a number of important files, including better regulation of immigration consultants, improvements to the nanny program, the live-in caretaker program and ... reform of the asylum system," he said. "All of those things have been put on hold, indefinite hold, because of the constant election threats."

Umm, why Jason? The Conservatives have been governing with a minority for nearly four years now. Minorities mean the constant threat of elections. But that doesn't mean you stop governing, and it doesn't mean you can't get things done. And it hasn't stopped the Harper Conservatives from doing plenty of other things.

So it's pretty silly for Kenney to be blaming election speculation for putting any plans for immigration reform on hold. It tends to give more credence to my earlier speculation about his desire to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. If he trying to worsen the situation to build a case for unpopular reforms?

No doubt this will be fed into their next "parliament isn't working so we need a majority to do stuff" narrative, notwithstanding the fact that on this issue they haven't really tried to do it yet anyways.

Fact is, I agree reforms are needed, although I'm sure Jason and I will disagree on the details. But rather than blaming election speculation, rather than playing political games, Kenney should just put his proposals on the table and have a debate with parliament and with Canadians on the best-way forward.

A real debate on important issues? Probably too much to hope for.

P.S. Still waiting for Kenney's thoughts on his colleagues bashing the idea of pension support for senior citizen immigrants.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And suddenly Jason Kenney goes quiet

The Conservatives are jumping all over a little private members bill introduced recently by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. It's similar to a bill quietly introduced by former Liberal MP in the last parliament, that won support from the BQ and NDP before dying on the order paper when the Harper Conservatives forced the last election. It's a bill that deals with pension benefits for immigrant seniors:

The minority Conservative government is in full opposition mode over a Liberal MP's private member's bill that would allow immigrant seniors to qualify for Old Age Security after spending only three years in the country.

Of course, as is their practice, the Conservatives are actively spreading fear and misinformation about the proposal. Diane Finley (she who spread propaganda that inflated the cost of the Liberal EI reform proposal by several billion dollars) is up top her own tricks again, telling people the proposal would confer full benefits on immigrant seniors after three years, when that's just not true:

Under her proposal, Dhalla said, immigrant seniors who have lived in the country for three years would qualify only for partial OAS benefits of $38.77 a month — nowhere near the maximum payment of $516.96 a month collected by native or foreign-born residents who have lived here for 40 years.

So, Conservatives spread misinformation and distort the truth, nothing new there.

But what is interesting is that, as the Conservatives "quietly rub their hands in glee", as Finley hits the media to distort the facts once again, and as the Conservatives paint images of entitled immigrants feeding at the public through as red meat for their base, we're not hearing a word from Jason Kenney.

Yes, Jason Kenney, the Conservative immigration minister, he who has made it his mission (and a fairly successful one, at that) to make Conservative inroads with immigrant communities. Kenney, who was never misses a cultural or immigrant-related event.

Where is Jason Kenney on this issue, as Finley goes to town on the truth and his Conservative colleauges stoke-up the anger over the notion of givign immigrant seniors even minimal pension benefits? Why isn't Kenney joining in the Conservative chorus denouncing Dhalla's proposal?

One wonders what Jason's new friends have to say about his old friends.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney goes after NDP this morning on the Rutherford Show

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe Jason Kenney is manufacturing an immigration crisis

Sorry Jason Kenney, but it appears I wasn’t alone in my tin-foil hat wearing when it comes to the suggestion your government may be trying to manufacture a crisis in the immigration system to push through a dramatic overhaul of the system.

From an interesting article in Embassy Mag, here’s former IRB chairman Peter Showler, rebutting Kenney’s contention that the Conservative dithering on filling vacant IRB slots was NOT a major contributor to the current immigration backlog:

Just four years ago however, Mr. Showler points out that the IRB had an inventory of approximately 21,000 claims, with a capacity to decide 25,000 claims annually. But because the government has failed to reappoint experienced members and fill vacancies left by departed members, the IRB is now saddled with a backlog that exceeds 65,000 claims.

And here’s Audrey Macklin, an associate professor at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, going even further and stating it even more clearly:

"[The government] manufactured the backlog," Ms. Macklin said. "You have a situation where the government took a system that was functioning, broke it, blamed asylum seekers for breaking it, and is now using that as an excuse to dismantle the entire system. There's something pernicious about that, and disingenuous at best."

And piling-on, the Mexican government contends it was the very fact that the system was becoming so backlogged and claims delayed due to the IRB vacancies THAT CAUSED the spike in Mexican immigration claims:

Without enough members, the processing time has slowed—something the Mexican government points to as the root cause of the multiplying number of cases from Mexico in recent years. In 2008, more than 9,400 Mexicans filed refugee claims in Canada, making it the number one source country for refugee claims.

"Organizations have taken advantage of Canadian response times to assess refugee claims, where excessive delays have become appealing in the filing of illegitimate cases," the Mexican government said in a statement on July 13.

It’s almost like a chicken and the egg situation: is the system backlogged because there’s more Mexicans, or are there more Mexicans because the system is backlogged?

It’s increasingly clear to me, however, that the Conservatives, at the very least, have deliberately worsened this situation we’re now in. What they intend to do with their manufactured crisis, I suppose, we’ll have to wait and see.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada's immigration system: Problems, yes, but what's the fix?

I can't say I've ever closely looked at the ins-and-outs of Canada's immigration system. I have a few broad ideas of what I think it should be: open, but within reason. Welcome to those with skills and education we need that are looking to make a contribution and build a better life. Welcome to those fleeing genuine persecution and strife. Priority for family reunification. And better recognition of foreign credentialing.

But really, I think like most Canadians by birth I have little to no idea how the system actually works, beyond vague ideas and the exaggerations proffered by those on either extreme of the debates.

I bring this up, of course, because of the decision this week by citizenship and immigration minister Jason Kenney to add two countries to the list of those that we require visas from to visit Canada: the Czech Republic and Mexico. It's a significant decision, one which has generated strong reaction in all three countries and one with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Kenney's argument essentially boils down to this: the immigration system is hopelessly backlogged, immigration applications from these two countries have spiked in recent years, they make up the bulk of the application pool, and the bulk of the applications are rejected as ineligible. But it costs time and money to process them, and meanwhile other, more worthy applications are greatly delayed. Instituting visas will help to weed out the false applicants, and make the system work more quickly for genuine applicants.

In isolation, I can agree with that. If two countries are disproportionately clogging the system, that's an issue we should deal with. But I'm not convinced a visa requirement is necessarily the way to do it. Are there other options? I honestly don't know. Maybe there's not. But requiring visas has a range of spin off impacts, so its a question to consider carefully, balancing the pros and cons.

And on the wider problem of the immigration backlog, I agree again that something needs to be done to fix the system. But the system wouldn't be so badly backlogged if Kenney and his successors, Diane Finley and Monte Solberg, hadn't continually dithered so badly over the years on appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The chronic under-staffing of the IRB has been a major contributor to the backlog in the system.

That's what sparked my tweet this morning that led to my Twitter exchange with Kenney, when I pondered whether Kenney was attempting to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. My thinking being, let's say the Conservatives want to made substantial, philosophical changes to the immigration system. They need to build public support. There may be some systemic issues with the system, but not enough to build a mood for change. But let IRB vacancies build to create a chronic backlog and hey, the system's broke, we've got to do something! Then throw in some visa fireworks, and the mood for change becomes strong.

Conspiracy theorish? Perhaps, but it's not really that far fetched. And it worked for John Snobelen. Well, at least until he talked about it. What I'm more concerned about though is just what change they might have in mind. So far, Kenney has been vague on the details. But when I think back to the comments from the Conservatives on dual citizens, or the rescue of citizens from Lebanon, I worry.

While we wait for though, some thoughts on the Czech Republic and Mexico.

Czech Republic

Yes, there's been a spike in immigration applications from the Czech Republic. But is there a valid reason for it? The answer would seem to be quite possibly yes, with the reports of an increasingly hostile persecution by some elements in Czech society of their Roma population. Humanitarian immigration has always been a fundamental part of our immigration system, and so we do have a moral obligation if there is genuine persecution.

But at the same time, we're one country and we can't handle the entire population. And that can't be the answer alone anyways. The Czech government has a responsibility to its citizens, and if they're abdicating it we have an obligation to speak-up. And where is the European Union here? Why aren't they acting on the Roma issue? When I read about the EU threatening retaliatory measures against Canada for the visas I want to say hey, bite me EU, why don't you address the root cause here: Roma persecution in the Czech Republic.

So, I'm conflicted. I'm tempted to say let them all in, but we can't handle those numbers and at the same time, it's like we're letting the EU and the Czechs abdicate their responsibilities and just dump it on us.

And then there's the likely retaliatory measures requiring visas are likely to bring, from trade sanctions to requiring visas for Canadians to lost tourism revenue. I think just slapping visas seems like an inadequate solution. We need to find a way to weed the genuine immigration claimants from the fakers, accept those fleeing genuine persecution, and at the same time pressure the EU and the Czechs to act so the climate improves and the exodus ends.

The Harper government seems unwilling to go down this road though. The official Canadian line seems to minimize the Roma claims, and some more extreme Conservative commenters outright mock them. Instead, we seem determined to just turn a blind eye and slam the door shut, and that's reprehensible.

And usually wouldn't be tolerated by most Canadians, were there not a crisis being manufactured...

Mexico

The Roma issue has been ongoing for some time, but Mexico's inclusion caught me and, I think many causal observers, by surprise. They're our NAFTA partner. A popular vacation destination. When we hear about Mexican immigration problems its usually in the US where its a right-wing hot-button. And while they're building border fences, even they haven't considered visas.

Here the hit for us is likely to be tourism-related. I know lots of Canadians venture south and, frankly, Mexico needs the dollars so I don't see them slapping a retaliatory visa requirement on Canadians (except our diplomats, perhaps). But apparently many Mexicans vacation and study in Canada, its a large industry, and with the tourism sector already hurting because of the down economy, the visa requirement is going to cost the industry at a time it can ill afford to be taking any hits.

And its not just the visa requirement, which on some grounds you can make an argument for. But you need to have the infrastructure in place to process and issue visas without making it a huge pain in the ass for people. I read somewhere than the only place in Mexico to get a visa is in Mexico City at the Canadian embassy, and people were camping-out outside to get them. That's crazy, and most people won't suffer through that. But with the cutbacks the Conservatives have made to the foreign affairs budget over the years, its not surprising.

Wrapping-up

While I can understand the arguments for why visas may be necessary, even if I don't agree with all of them, the fact is this is just addressing the symptoms, and its not going to fix the issues in the end. We should be looking at why people are trying to flee these two countries in abnormal countries in the first place. And we should be looking at how we can reform the immigration system to better handle and process claimants, so we don't have to throw these kinds of walls up.

In today's modern world, walls aren't the answer anymore.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Twittering on immigration with Jason Kenney

Over the course of the day I've exchanged a few tweets back and forth with Conservative immigration Minister Jason Kenney on Twitter, on the topic of his recent announcement of visa requirements for visitors from the Czech Republic and Mexico.

I'll have more to say in length about this decision, the myriad consequences, and what it may mean for our immigration system, at a later point, when I have the time to compose a lengthier commentary.

But for now, I did want to share by Twitter exchange with Kenney for those of you not on Twitter, and say that while I naturally disagree with him on many things, I give Jason credit for embracing the medium and using it to engage those of other viewpoints. It's good to see.

P.S. I'm pretty jazzed about the tin-foil hat comment. That's going on the "Praise for A BCer in Toronto" greatest hits board, for sure.

Me: Have a feeling @minjk is channeling John Snobelen by manufacturing a crisis in immigration system. ? is, what will he do with it? #cdnpoli

Kenney: @BCerInToronto Take off the tin foil hat.No "crisis," but serious, longstanding problem: taking 2+yrs to finalize refugee claims isn't good

Me: @MinJK I agree changes needed, although not sure what they should be. But the still unfilled IRB positions are only worsening the situation.

Kenney: @BCerInToronto Fair point. I've made 33 appointments & 10 re-appointments to the IRB. Its now @ nearly 85% occupancy, and will soon be @ 95%

Kenney: @BCerInToronto But even if the IRB was operating @ full occupancy for the past 3 years, there would still be a huge backlog.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe Jason Kenney and his aide should testify?

Some troubling reports emerging from this morning's Ruby Dhalla/nanny parliamentary committee hearings surrounding Conservative minister Jason Kenney and his communications aide, Alykhan Velshi.

Kenney, you'll recall, insists he knew nothing about the nanny's allegations about Dhalla in advance, and insists he has no desire to politicize this affair. That hasn't stopped Kenney and Velshi, of course, from trying to do just that.

Take this report this morning from Toronto Star reporter Susan Delacourt:

At the immigration committee this morning, I was a bit surprised to see the Immigration Minister's assistant, Alykhan Velshi, handing out some documents to reporters. It was three pages, stapled together -- excerpts from this material, available on The Star's website. The title: "Was Ruby Dhalla involved in the hiring of the caregivers?"

What surprised me most was the active participation of the minister's office in a committee hearing. Perhaps I'm naive, but I believed Mr. Kenney when he said he wasn't allowed to get personally involved in any immigration case. That sure looked like personal involvement to me

Why was Velshi even at this hearing? Kenney wasn't testifying. Does he just randomly hang-out at committee meetings, passing out material to reporters regarding matters his boss supposedly doesn't want to politicize? Was he there at Kenney's behest, or was he freelancing?

Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry also noted the incident:

In the audience sat half a dozen reporters, a smattering of spectators and one aide to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

(snip)

The aide from Kenney’s office had been handing around a bit of amateur handwriting analysis based on various documents related to the case.

Of course, this isn't the first time Velshi has been feeding paperwork to the press to spin this story in a Conservative-friendly way. Just as news of the allegations broke, supposedly totally surprising Kenney and his Conservative cohorts (although, as Impolitical notes, Jason has answered questions about his prior knowledge very carefully), Velshi was johnny on the spot with stacks of on-topic material to feed a hungry press corps:

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said he couldn't comment on specific allegations nor would he deign to "politicize the complaints process."

But his assistant, Alykhan Velshi, later circulated to reporters a press release from the Independent Workers Association that called on Ontario's attorney general to investigate Dhalla.

Oh yeah, about that whole not politicizing this thing...

“This is a Liberal cover-up..." said Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

OK then, great work Alykhan.

And speaking of Kenney, BigCityLib raises some interesting questions about just how Kenney can be claiming to have had no prior knowledge of the nanny's allegations when he had a lenghtly meeting with Pura Velasco, organizer of Caregiver Support Services and a chief advocate for the Dhalla nannies, before the story broke in the Star.

The meeting with Kenney was a day after Velasco and one of the Dhalla caregivers told their story to Ontario provincial ministers Peter Fonseca and Kathleen Wynne, and was part of a roundtable on caregiver issues.

Velasco is in the pink scarf, next to Jason Kenney. You'll also recognize junior Conservative minister Peter Kent.


Here's another shot from the meeting.


I find it a tad hard to believe that, given the events of the previous day, and given the topic of this meeting, the shocking Dhalla allegations weren't raised and brought to Kenney's attention, or at least to the attention of one of his aides.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael should stop talking about the coalition, and Maclean's should get a clue

A couple of related coalition thoughts this morning. First, I’d like to comment on Michael Ignatieff’s comments in Montreal this weekend:

"I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them," Ignatieff said.

"There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me."

The power sharing deal between the Liberals and New Democrats, with support from the Bloc Quebecois, was not undemocratic, Ignatieff told the crowd of some 150 Montrealers gathered in a downtown theatre, but it would nonetheless have given Canadians the feeling that the parties had "in some sense or another stolen power."

For one thing, Michael, why are you even talking about this at this point? And in Quebec, of all places, where the coalition was rather popular. It makes no sense for us to be talking about this at this point, there’s no upside.

If it was a question, pivot back to how it forced the Conservatives to make major concessions and we’re now focused on continuing to ensure this government takes the economic crisis seriously, and brings Canadians the help they need. And then segue nicely into employment insurance.

In other words, stay on message.

But if you are going to talk about this, or not deflect the question, then for Pete’s sake why are you playing-up the false Conservative narrative about its legitimacy? If you are going to go down this road, it should be to attack the false Conservative propaganda, playing West against East, English against French, as the true cause of the divisiveness around the issue.

I’m not saying the decision to leave the coalition behind after the budget wasn’t the right decision. It was. But that doesn’t make the coalition any less legitimate. And who knows what the future may hold. Helping the Conservatives discredit the very idea of parliamentary coalitions isn’t in Liberal interests.

And then there’s Maclean’s. I’m a few issues behind in my dead tree issue reading again, and on the weekend I read this editorial from the May 11th issue praising, of all people, Jason Kenney, for his righteous crusade to raise civic literacy.

Jason seems to only be concerned with the civic literacy of new Canadians, while Maclean’s wants the campaign to go population-wide. In principal, I’m find with that. But here’s where Maclean’s lost credibility with me. In the middle of their love-letter to Jason Kenney, the Maclean’s editors offer this:

Nor do we understand how our government works. The various parliamentary and constitutional issues raised by the Dion coalition last December caused mass confusion, with many Canadians mistaking normal political gamesmanship for an attempted coup.

Indeed. And who exactly raised that confusion? Who fanned the fires of division, who spread misinformation about our parliamentary system, who raised the rhetoric by falsely calling the coalition an attempted coup? That’s right Maclean’s, it was your BFF Jason Kenney and his Conservative colleagues.

Kenney and Co. breathlessly and maliciously spread misinformation about the workings of our civic institutions, dramatically setting-back the civic literacy you insist he’s just the man to advance, exploiting the civic illiteracy of rank and file Canadians for narrow political ends.

Sorry, Maclean’s. You need another hero.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives will welcome Gitmo prisoners, just not the Canadian one

I read today that the Conservative point-person for building inroads into Canada's ethnic communities, immigration minister Jason Kenney, is considering accepting several prisoners being held by the U.S. at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to be resettled in Canada:

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is looking at the possibility of accepting several Chinese Muslims being held at Guantanamo Bay, without setting a precedent for several other detainees at the U.S. military camp who would like to settle in Canada.

Among other things, Kenney is contemplating whether to issue special ministerial permits for three ethnic Uyghurs who have applied to settle in Canada with the backing of Canadian sponsors, Canwest News Service has learned.

The rarely used ``temporary residence permits,'' which are valid for up to three years, would allow the detainees to bypass the backlogged refugee process.

Human-rights activists say Kenney, who meets regularly with members of Canada's Uyghur community, seems to be sympathetic to the 17 who remain imprisoned in Cuba despite being cleared of posing a terrorist threat to the United States.

I think this is a very positive development. I hope the government follows through.

But while he's looking at helping Gitmo prisoners bypass the immigration process and settle in Canada, perhaps Kenney might heed the pleas of folks like Bob Rae and groups like Amnesty International and see what he can do for the CANADIAN CITIZEN, Omar Khadr, who is also stuck in Gitmo and whom the government has shown little interest in helping. Bring him home and let the Canadian justice system deal with the charges against him.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe a poll told them to start listening to polls

Remember how Deceivin’ Steven is always saying he doesn’t listen to, or make his decisions, based on polls? I guess that’s what he has Jason Kenney for. To listen to polls so he doesn’t have to:

A spokesman for Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, defended the move. He noted that a public opinion poll showed a strong majority of Canadians - 79 per cent - favoured the flying of the Red Ensign at Vimy for the April commemoration ceremony.

I was wondering why he kept Kenney around. Hey Jason, while you're at it why don’t you give this poll a read:

The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers