Parliament In Review: October 6, 2011

On a personal note, October 6 saw the first question period that I'll be able to blog about after seeing in person - as well as the first time I've heard of question period leading with an event I've attended. But the more important development was the start of what looks to be an extended clash between the Cons looking to shut down debate on any issue whatsoever, and the opposition parties decrying the complete lack of democracy involved in passing massive changes with minimal discussion.

The Big Issue

The strongest challenge in principle to the reflexive stifling of debate came from Thomas Mulcair, who used the traditional Thursday question to ask just how little debate is enough:

The government is using the term “enough debate”. For the second time in two weeks, it is using a guillotine to cut off the normal work of parliament that we were elected by Canadians to do.

Bill C-13 was cut off after exactly three hours of debate. That is a budget bill. It is one of the primary reasons we get elected to the House and after only three hours of debate, it is cutting it off.

I would like, on behalf of all Canadians and the House, to understand when, in the opinion of the majority Conservatives, there has been enough debate.

Other opposition members raising strong criticisms of the Cons' habit of shutting down democratic discussion included Nathan Cullen, Wayne Easter, Pat Martin, Geoff Regan and Andre Bellavance. But as Pierre Dionne Labelle noted, there's no particular reason for surprise about the tactic given how accountability-averse the Cons have been from their first day in office.

Of course, the opposition isn't without some means to at least try to shame the Cons into more openness. And on that front, Claude Gravelle introduced two bills to provide specifically for the disclosure of information about foreign takeovers that the Cons have covered up.

Let's Talk About the Economy

The line of the day in the debate on the Cons' budget bill went to Pat Martin as to how somem investments provide more stimulus than others:

If the Conservatives want social benefit and social change from their spending and to put more money into circulation to stimulate the economy, the single most important thing they could do is to elevate all seniors out of poverty. For $700 million, for less than one-tenth essentially of the corporate tax cut, all seniors could have been at least lifted to the poverty line. Seniors do not squirrel that money away in an offshore tax haven. They spend it in the local economy and it gets re-spent four times before it finds its natural state of repose in some rich man's pocket.

As another theme worth watching, the NDP started to push back against the Cons' constant "why didn't you vote for our funding?" refrain by noting just how reckless the Cons have been in throwing around public money.

The debate over the refundability of tax credits also featured prominently once again, with Marc Garneau, Kevin Lamoureux, Tyrone Benskin and Raymond Cote all getting into the act. But the most telling intervention came from James Bezan, who helpfully instructed that since the tax credit already costs "a lot of money", we should make sure payments are directed toward those who don't need them.

Meanwhile, Dennis Bevington observed that corporate tax cuts are particularly inappropriate at the federal level since provinces may face pressure to compete with each other, while Matthew Kellway questioned their effectiveness at any level when they haven't apparently created jobs or stimulated investment as promised. Don Davies pointed out that conservatives have caused the largest deficits in Canadian history and would have caused a worse financial meltdown than we actually experienced in 2008 if they'd had the chance. Jamies Nicholls and Charmaine Borg both pointed out the value of the per-vote party funding being trashed by the Cons. Cote noted that loopholes in the Cons' job creation tax credit may result in it both rewarding shell games, and failing to fund actual jobs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach pointed out that the Cons are doing nothing to preserve and improve our public health care system. Robert Chisholm pointed out that infrastructure investments have long-term economic benefits as well as serving as short-term stimulus.

Finally, John Carmichael responded to Jasbir Sandhu's question about Canada's deteriorating balance-of-payment position and value-added development by suggesting they're worth celebrating. And Rodger Cuzner rightly claimed the fact we've had any stimulus at all over the past couple of years as a result of the cooperation of the opposition parties.

In Brief

Randall Garrison slammed the Cons for taking any opportunity to oppose same-sex unions by intervening in a case to deny benefits to a UK civil partnership. Megan Leslie pointed out that oil lobbyists have directly expressed their gratitude for the Cons' work in covering up oil sands emissions data, while Dennis Bevington questioned Canada's lack of involvement in a U.S.-approved release of oil into disputed areas of the Beaufort Sea. Tyrone Benskin lamented the Cons' utter refusal to deal with the need for social housing. Nycole Turmel pointed out Tony Clement's absence from the International Conference of Information Commissioners, and directly challenged Stephen Harper has to the role his office played in Clement's G8 scandal. And Mathieu Ravignat questioned both the remarkable $73 million price tag on the Minister of Justice's website, and the use of $10 million on press conferences when they have dedicated press rooms available in Ottawa.

On minority influence

John Ibbitson's report on the Cons' immigrant recruitment strategy is rightly getting plenty of attention this morning. But let's take a moment to point out the good news behind the Cons' attempts to manipulate the immigration system for their own gain.

First, there's the fact that even among the new immigrants who are seen as more receptive to socon values, there's reason to think that any party willing to defend progressive principles can compete for votes:

A survey of visible minorities and immigrants done by the Canadian Election Study shows both groups tend to be more conservative than the rest of Canada on bedrock Canadian issues. Both groups, for example, are more likely to say it should be possible to pay for medical treatment and that getting an abortion should be more difficult. Visible minorities, a category that’s 84 per cent immigrant, are more likely to support private hospitals, lower taxes and paying parents individually rather than funding daycare.

(I)t’s not all tilting to the right. On most other issues in the survey, such as cutting welfare spending, opposing the death penalty, having troops in Afghanistan or spending more on defence, both immigrants and visible minority groups are to the left of the Canadian population.

What's particularly striking is that a number of the issues where the survey classifies visible minorities and immigrants as falling to the right of the general population are exactly the ones where the Cons most fear to tread. It may be worth seeing what the Cons are telling minority communities about privatizing health care, restricting abortion or revisiting same-sex marriage, but they certainly aren't prepared to take those policies to the general public - and can expect to be torn to shreds if they're trying to sell different messages to immigrant communities.

In contrast, issues like defence spending and military deployment have been front and centre thanks in large part to the Cons' being consistently on the wrong side of both Canadians as a whole, and the minority groups who have even stronger views than the general public. So there's plenty of room to tap into the values of new Canadians to oppose the Cons.

And that's just in the first generation of new arrivals, as Ibbitson notes that subsequent generations don't seem to be taking long to abandon any vestiges of social conservatism:

(T)here is one demographic shift that should keep Mr. Kenney awake at night. However economically and socially conservative new arrivals may be, their children are almost invariably more liberal.

Subir Mann, a 22-year-old student, came to Canada from The Punjab as a child. He says he supports same-sex marriage, even though his more traditional father has trouble with it.

“For me I think it’s important that gay people are considered equal,” he said. “Part of the reason I’m anti-Conservative is that they often mix religious issues with politics. That can be very dangerous.”

And though Helen Poon is giving serious thought to voting Conservative, her 12-year-old son, a proud cadet, has a very different view.

He came home from school one day urging her not to vote Conservative, Ms. Poon said.

So the Cons' much-hyped immigration strategy looks to be little more than a one-off effort with nothing but diminishing returns to follow. After all, the few social issues where they have any hope of persuading new arrivals to join their camp are exactly the ones where second-generation immigrants are joining the younger population at large on the other side.

Of course, the Cons could still do plenty of damage even with a single majority followed by a demographic turn against them . But there's no indication that the Cons are anywhere near achieving that despite their efforts to buy off new arrivals with public money - and there's ample reason for optimism that both new arrivals and their children will see their values better reflected in other parties.

Well said

Stephen Moore criticizes the anti-gay policies of both the federal Cons and the Sask Party, then puts it all in a bit of historical perspective:

A couple of years back, our family watched the excellent PBS documentary, Eyes on the Prize, the story of the US Civil Rights movement.

After seeing a clip of George "segregation forever" Wallace, my young daughter turned to me and said, "Dad, what's segregation?"

Trying to explain Wallace's logic, this father came up short.

That's not because racism and prejudice have become unthinkable here in Saskatchewan -- clearly they haven't.

I firmly believe, however, that one day, some future Regina father, perhaps after viewing a different video clip, will struggle to answer his child's question: "Dad, what's homophobia?"

Let's hurry that day along.

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board:

While half a world away gay citizens of India celebrated a historic high court ruling that denoted a vast advancement in their human rights, the Saskatchewan Party government was asking for a court's guidance on how to allow a group of public officials to discriminate against homosexuals.

Attorney General Don Morgan, himself a lawyer who owes the justice system more respect than to attempt to use it as a political cats-paw, announced Friday he's asking the Court of Appeal for an opinion on legislation that would allow marriage commissioners not to perform same-sex marriages if it's contrary to their religious beliefs.
...
It's difficult to imagine any other grounds for discrimination that the province's Justice Minister would seem worthy enough to seek a court reference.

Would the minister go to bat for a social conservative who objects, justified on grounds of "traditional values" or religion, to wed a mixed-race couple? How about a Hindu doctor who refuses to treat a person he believes to be of a lower caste?

The point is, in a secular society that goes to great lengths to separate people's personal religious beliefs from their performance of job duties in the public sphere, what Mr. Morgan is asking the court to do is reprehensible.

Another step toward equality

NDP MP Bill Siksay notes that while the Cons' (however half-hearted) attempt to turn back the clock on same-sex marriage in Canada failed last fall, the Cons were still doing their best to avoid recognizing similar marriages performed outside of Canada - that is, until today:

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley has informed the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration that her department’s interim policy on same sex marriage, which did not recognize legal marriages performed in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States for immigration purposes, has been annulled. Last December, on a motion proposed by Siksay, the Standing Committee had called on the government to take this action.

“This is another important victory towards full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians”, noted Siksay. “The failure of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to treat legal gay and lesbian marriages performed in jurisdictions outside Canada was clearly discriminatory.”

“Gay and lesbian couples legally married outside Canada will now be recognized as part of spousal, family class immigration sponsorship applications. This is good news for many gay and lesbian couples in Canada and for those who support the full equality of gay and lesbian Canadians,” concluded Siksay.

Of course, it's entirely likely that other similarly-discriminatory policies remain to be addressed. And the Cons can unfortunately be counted on to do as little as possible to remedy those policies without substantial pressure from other parties.

But it's still good news that even the Cons are no longer trying to defend discrimination based on foreign same-sex marriages. And today's success should only emphasize the fact that continued discrimination can indeed be eliminated if it receives enough attention.