Tag: thomas mulcair

CuriosityCat: Niqab: In defence of Thomas Mulcair

Thomas Mulcair: Man of Principle

Mr. Mulcair was asked a simple question, loaded with peril, and he answered it very clearly in the last debate on foreign affairs. His answer to the question whether he agreed with the federal court’s decision regarding the right of a woman to cover her face with a niqab was Yes.

Yes, a woman could do so if she wished for personal reasons or for religious reasons to cover her face during the ceremonial part of the citizenship ceremony.
No, she had no right to cover her face during the part of the citizen admission process (that precedes the ceremony) that requires a would-be citizen to identify herself or himself, to ensure that she or he is indeed the person seeking admission as a citizen of our country.
Mr. Mulcair’s answer was both reasonable, and moral. And consistent with the highest values of our society. He deserves credit, and our support, for taking the stand that he did when he answered that question.
The fact that he is now losing support in Quebec for his answer, is regrettable.
The issue of the niqab is a complicated, and little understood in Anglophone Canada. In the Rest of Canada, many jump to the conclusion that so many Canadians living in Quebec who do not wish to countenance the wearing of a niqab by a woman in any public office or during any interaction between a citizen and the state, do so out of racial prejudice.
This might be true of some, but it not true for many of those who object to the use of the niqab in such circumstances. Quebec has been wrestling with what is called the identity issue for years now. It is a spillover from the bitter discussions that have and are taking place in many member states of the European Union.
The issue is complex, because woven into it are several strands, some at variance with other strands, others supporting other strands.
One strand is racial animosity towards Muslims. If the opposition to the wearing of a niqab is based on such racial animosity, then those who hate that way are not displaying the core values of Canadian society. Our society is not founded on racial hate as a mainspring; nor do our laws have any such basis. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms rightfully sets its face against any such racial hatred as being a permissible driver of any action by any level of government with any citizen. To those who oppose the niqab because of such racial hatred, we – all Canadians, no matter where they might live – should say: Enough! Those are not Canadian values. And we support Mr. Mulcair against any attacks on these grounds.
Another strand is the fear of many people that their existence as a separate, identifiable cultural or ethnic group (be it German, Italian, British, French, in Europe; or Francophone in Quebec, descended primarily from French settlers so many years ago) is threatened if others who do not share those group values are allowed into the country, and prefer to practice a different set of values. The Canadian response to such fears has been the conscious choice of multicultural diversity, as a source of strength, as opposed to forced assimilation. And that has worked very well. It is a core Canadian value.
However, a variant of that strand of concern is the fear of a being swamped ‘in my own country.’ This is especially true of many people in Quebec, who see themselves as a small group, facing up to the huge mass of non-French people in north America. We understand such concern, and we support steps taken to preserve the cultural values, as long as those steps do not deprive other Canadians of their own core rights.
In the European Union the niqab has become a symbol of attempts to preserve a way of life, as in France. It has become a lightning rod, a symbol, used to represent several different strands. And it is very effective when used this way, because it is so identifiable.
There is nothing in the decision of the federal court on the wearing of a niqab during the ceremonial party of the citizenship admission process that threatens the swamping of anyone in Quebec. We should stand with Mr. Mulcair in supporting the federal court decision against those if that is their primary reason for opposition to it. It can in no way be described in and of itself as a tipping point, which will plunge Quebec into chaos and unwanted cultural change.
Another strand is the wish to preserve a core right that has taken decades to be recognized in Canada: the right of equality between men and women. This is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is a basic Canadian right. But to those who say that a woman who chooses to wear a niqab while celebrating her admission as a citizen of our country, is being prevented – by the very act of wearing the niqab – from being an equal to a man, we say No, we do not agree with you. We understand that some fear that women are forced to wear niqabs by men as public evidence of the inequality of women compared to men. If there is any force involved in this fashion, then the use of such force is contrary to basic Canadian values, and should be resisted. Physical force against such a woman’s person would be dealt with under our current Criminal Law. Social pressure, on the other hand, should be dealt with by other means, including those dealt with below.
However, the federal court case did not revolve around this issue; it dealt with the wish of a woman to wear  her niqab in part of the admission process. That is as far as it goes. And that is what Mr. Mulcair agreed with.
Justin Trudeau forcefully stated his view: that just as the state has no right to tell a woman what to wear, so too the state has no right to tell a woman what not to wear. If those who are opposing Mr. Mulcair are doing so because they believe that any level of government in Canada (city, provincial or federal) should legislate against the wearing of a niqab in any interaction between a citizen and that government, including but not limited to the ceremonial part of the citizenship process, because this reduces a woman’s equality with men, then we have a wider issue.
I side with Justin Trudeau in his argument about the limits on the rights of any level of government in Canada to force a woman to wear clothing acceptable to those who run that government.
However, to those who feel strongly that disapproval should be voiced by citizens against the wearing of a niqab by a woman, because they believe it is a symbol of the oppression of women, then I say: By all means. Protest, debate, write letters to the editors of newspapers, hold meetings. Exercise your lawful rights to discuss any topic you wish to; that is your right under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But do so without expecting the state to step in and legislate the opposite unless our basic rules of law require it (such as witnesses in criminal cases, where there are conflicting values at stake; admission as a citizen where identification is necessary at some stage).
Yet another strand in this complex fabric is the desire of many to have the state be a secular one, rather than a religious one. If they see the wearing of a niqab as being a visible symbol of the interference of a religion with the secular nature of Canada, and therefore want to ban it through legislation to prevent the intrusion of religion into the secular nature of the Canadian state, then the answer to them is rightfully No.
No, the state does not have the right to ban a niqab simply because of fears of the secular nature of the state being undermined by such an act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets limits on the rights of the state to interfere with the rights of citizens, including religion. There are other means apart from banning the use of niqabs to address the secularism issue. We encourage others to pursue those lawful methods (discussion, example, education, etc.).
That brings us to the despicable behaviour of those who would use the niqab issue as akin to tossing a dead cat on a table during a discussion, in an attempt to change the channel on discussions being held during our long election campaign. 
To focus on the niqab issue with the primary purpose of stirring up racial or religious hatred, in an effort to shore up support for a political party that wishes to become the government of this country, is disgusting. As voters, we should expect and demand of anyone wishing to become prime minister of this country a standard of moral behaviour that does not stoop to such immorality.
Just as there are limits in the freedom of speech rights of a person to the crying of Fire! in a crowded cinema, so too are there limits to how low a politician should be able to stoop in order to set one Canadian against another, or one group of Canadians against other groups, just to gain power. Anyone who does that, for those purposes, should be treated with contempt, and rejected.
Mr. Mulcair, you are an honourable man, and a good representative of the voters in your  riding. You have displayed very high standards of morality in your public dealings at various levels of government, and you are leader of a party that has high moral principles. Your position on the federal court niqab decision is an honourable one, fully in accord with core Canadian values.
I and many others, salute you for the stand you have taken.
And I can assure you that you and your party will have a very significant role to play after the October 19 election, no matter the result of the vote tally. We will, as Canadians, be looking to you to maintain your high moral standards, and to help remedy the debasement of our political values that we have seen take place over these past few years.
During the Friday debate, I recommend that your persist in your defence of your principled position on the federal court niqab decision, and call out all those who would use such issues to divide Canadian from Canadian, for base purposes. We will be sending your good wishes during that part of the debate.
Continue reading

Facing Autism in New Brunswick: Wow! Federal NDP Replies to My Inquiry This Morning Re Negotiations to Include ABA for Autism under Medicare


I confess I was surprised  to get a same day response this evening from the federal NDP to my question this morning addressed to party leader Thomas Mulcair.  The federal NDP committed to continuing the efforts which they have in fact made over the years in Parliament towards creation of an EFFECTIVE national autism strategy.   
To Canada’s  federal NDP and leader Thomas Mulcair I say thank you.
8:20 PM (9 minutes ago)


to me

Dear Mr. Doherty:


Thank you for providing such a helpful summary of your discussions with us on this important issue.

New Democrats have a proven record of working with the autism activist community toward increasing awareness and supports for those living with autism spectrum disorders. NDP MPs have, over many years, proposed bills and motions in Parliament toward the creation of an effective national autism strategy. We are committed to continuing that effort as government.

The success of any national autism strategy that includes medically recognized treatments such as Applied Behavioural Analysis and Intensive Behavioural Intervention, depends on the commitment and involvement of provincial and territorial, as well as federal governments. At the moment, for lack of federal leadership, the levels of support vary widely across the country.

Over the past decade, the Harper government has consciously chosen to abandon its leadership role in Canada’s health system and has turned its back on the federal-provincial-territorial cooperation necessary to maintain and improve our public system – including measures to better address autism needs. Stephen Harper has not only refused to renew the national health accord but has unilaterally cut billions of dollars from future provincial/territorial health transfers.

Under Tom Mulcair, an NDP government will live up to its national leadership role and move quickly to re-establish a collaborative working relationship with provincial and territorial governments. A New Democratic autism strategy would be forged within this renewed negotiation and would establish, with provincial and territorial cooperation, access to treatment across Canada.


Canada’s New Democrats | Le NPD du Canada
Ready for change | Ensemble pour le changement
Continue reading

Alberta Politics: Russian boots on Syrian ground create new reality for Canadian leaders, whether they discuss it or not

PHOTOS: Russian President Vladimir Putin – creating new realities for Canadian leaders to talk about … or not. Below: The three Canadian debating amigos, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. As the three principal contenders for the job of running the country

Continue reading

Pushed to the Left and Loving It: How Thomas Mulcair Made Clap Trap a Human Right

Pick a debate, any debate, and Thomas Mulcair will find a way to bring up the “fact” that he reduced GHG emissions every year that he was the environment minister in Quebec, and that he was responsible for putting a clean environment as a right into Quebec’s charter.

Of course, he will also say that he did not  promote the sale of bulk water, despite video evidence.  That video got the most re-tweets during last night’s French language leaders debate.

However, that lie is pretty tame, compared to his other whoppers.  Let’s compare:

Did GHG Emissions really go Down Under His Stewardship?

In the 2012-13 Quebec government budget report, there is a section Quebec and Climate Change: A Greener Environment. As part of this they produce a graph.

Thomas Mulcair was Quebec Environment minister from 2003 to early 2006, but never drafted a Green Plan until 2004, and never actually acted on anything, favourable to the environment.  So his policies (?) had no impact on reducing GHG,  but in fact, one in particular, caused a spike.

This was the result of the TransCanada Energy’s combined cycle gas turbine in Becancour, a project he approved in 2004. The generating station was Quebec’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in 2007.  (Wikipedia)

When Mulcair put his stamp of approval on the project, he had to break the rules established by his own government, since it would not meet the necessary requirements.

According to Mr. Paul-Yannick Laquerre, deputy chief of staff to Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair, the regulations would not apply to the project of Bécancour. Me Laquerre argued that the Régie de l’énergie approved the draft Bécancour on August 23, several months before the adoption of the Regulation …

It was eventually scrapped and Hydro Quebec was forced to pay the company 250 million dollars just to get rid of it. 
So in fact, Thomas Mulcair did not reduce GHG, but increased it.  

The Promotion of Sustainable Development

When Yves Séguin resigned as minister of finance in 2005, Thomas Mulcair had hoped to take his place. However, Jean Charest chose someone else.  Mulcair went into one of his famous sulks (see political cartoon above), but did a sulk cause Charest to expand Mulcair’s ministry to include sustainable development and parks, which put him in charge of construction projects?  Not a promotion, but certainly more power.

This meant that in spite of the announcement that he would finally present a  long awaited “Green Plan”, environmentalists were sceptical, and they were right to be, since they soon learned that it was not so much a plan for the environment, as a way of getting around environmental concerns, to aid the construction industry.

In 2012, the Research Quebec Group of Ecologists (RQGE), published a 250 page report for their thirtieth anniversary, in which they detailed their experiences with Thomas Mulcair, during some of their darkest days.

These are some of the things they revealed about his tenure in the Charest government.

1. In 2004, Mulcair announced massive cuts to environmental programs and to groups receiving funding for reseach and public awareness. (p. 220)

2. After meeting with minister Mulcair, whose attitude was less than cordial, environmentalist knew that they would have a different relationship with this government. One that would be more combative in nature. (p146) When the Ministry of Environment became the Ministry of Sustainable Development, and Parks; they noted that “sustainable development” was a new code phrase for skirting environmental protection. RQGE sent out a newsletter warning that with the drastic funding cuts and new policies that put industry first, their very existence was in jeopardy. (p152)

3.  RQGE harshly criticized the “contempt Mulcair displayed” to environmental groups. “In a statement published in winter 2005, and with the support of Advisory Committee of independent community action which at that moment was ” about 4000 action groups in the Community in Quebec, and called for “the immediate restoration of financing programs that would enable groups to fulfill their mission of defending the rights of the environment.” (p159)

4. … “environmentalists and community networks denounce the forced closure of several citizens groups fighting the environment, consequence of the abolition by the Minister Mulcair of all their funding programs”. This was done so that he could replace their work with “partner companies” [public private partnerships] ” They now knew why Mulcair appointed William Cosgrove,  (p157) “Chairman of the World Council water and a champion of private and PPP  and asked how Mulcair could “claim to focus his choices and actions towards a sustainable development when appointing a fervent defender of private interests at the head of a provincial organization.” (p166)

5.  They also speak of Mulcair’s arrogance:  “… he stubbornly refused to meet anyone” and , “The attitude of the Minister Mulcair is unacceptable, even contemptuous, against groups whose survival is threatened by abolishing funding programs ”  According to the Director of RQGE Ronald O’Narey, “The minister openly displays his prejudice favourable to the groups that are working directly and measurably in the field and appears biased against groups who issue opinions and comments on everything that contradict his”. (p160)

6.  They determined that Mulcair’s Green Plan was “a facade that hid the true intentions of the government” where economic interests would outweigh environmental concerns. (p. 220)

7.  When groups began to openly criticize Mulcair they were “… threatened with a SLAPP, and since many were now “completely penniless, since the cuts of Mulcair”, they would not be able to defend themselves.

Mulcair did not disappoint the construction industry though:

Finally the new Ministry of Sustainable Development under Thomas Mulcair, is off to a terrible start. I received an email from the transportation department last week, Informing me that a projected bridge linking Laval and Montreal at 25 Highway, was part of the government’s Plan for sustainable development. This bridge, will sacrifice 2,000 acres of farm land to urban sprawl in Laval, allow 150,000 more cars to enter Montreal each day and funnel off government funds that are desperately needed for public transport.  Sustainable development is anything but objective… (Charest’s sinking ship: After only two years in power, the Liberals are going down, Arthur Sandborn, The Montreal Gazette, April 13, 2005)

The bridge that Mulcair approved was dubbed “Mulcair’s Bridge” and Highway 25, was a  PPP project. This money was supposed to be earmarked for a commuter service.


Does this sound like a record to be proud of?  We hear Mulcair mention “sustainable development” many times, but let’s not be fooled.  Just as “choice” means private, in conservative speak, this means locking arms with the construction industry, and destroying all environmental protections that get in their way.

Oh, and That Human Rights Thingy

Another claim made by Mulcair is that he entrenched the right to a clean environment into Quebec’s charter of rights and freedoms, but it was a sham.  It reads “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law.”

 It doesn’t say that laws must protect the right to live in a healthful environment, only that governments must enact their own environmental laws.  They could have none at all and still respect the charter.

Is Mulcair a pathological liar?  Perhaps.  But fortunately, there is a cure for that.  Let him retire on October 20.  This country cannot afford another anti-environment prime minister.

Continue reading

somecanuckchick dot com: These are the types of NDP candidates Thomas Mulcair stands behind…

These are the types of NDP candidates Thomas Mulcair stands behind… Intolerance Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie Alexandre Boulerice says the NDP is against the niqab! [VIDEO, en français!] Mégantic—L’Érable Jean-François Delisle says the NDP should reopen Constitution to deal with the niqab. FYI Jean-François Delisle has backed off his initial statement that

Continue reading

Pushed to the Left and Loving It: The NDP’s Obsession With Justin Trudeau Could be Their Undoing

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”  – Franklin D Roosevelt

Just hours before the Globe and Mail debates on the economy, a story surfaced suggesting that Justin Trudeau was in trouble in Papineau.  It started out as “may be” but then quickly changed to “is”‘ as the results of a poll were released.

This sampling suggested that Trudeau’s NDP opponent, Anne Legace Dowson (shown above), was 11 points ahead, worrisome if it were true, but it wasn’t.  Turns out that it was the NDP who commissioned the poll of 375 people, and that 86% of those they contacted, were NDP supporters.

We can certainly understand the party’s deception, but why would the media go along?

Canada’s polling industry is now worried that this fraudulent survey, that garnered such sensational headlines, will further damage their reputation.  It was clearly used to throw Justin Trudeau off his game.  His anger did show through, and at times he appeared frantic, that evening, but was still able to get his points across, and the Globe and Mail gave him the win for the best economic vision.

What was supposed to drive voters away from the Liberal Party, and to the NDP, backfired, and they may have lost support from both pollsters and the press, who are less than thrilled that they were dragged down with them.

So Who is This “Star” Candidate?

In 2008, Anne Legace Dowson was introduced to the voting public, by way of a spread published in a Quebec newspaper.  In it she compared herself to Barack Obama, and according to the paper, everyone thought of her as “the Oprah of Quebec”.

However, one letter to the editor, questioned this, given that they had never even heard of her “until the media pumped her up”.

I was born and bred in Montreal and consider myself pretty well up to date on who’s who in this city…. but I’ve never heard of this Anne Lagace Dowson until yesterday. That was the day the Montreal Gazette wrote a huge half page story about her nomination.  

Today’s supper time local news on ALL the networks had wide coverage of her……it seems like they are trying to make her into the winner before the by-election date has even been set.  

She has a radio show on the local CBC station. I think that explains why I’ve never heard of her.  CBC english radio usually pulls in between 4 and 8 percent of the english speaking audience….in other words between 92 and 96% of anglo Montrealers NEVER listen to it..!!!!

Legace Dowson was running against Marc Garneau in Westmount, and with the media hype, the prediction was a tight Liberal/NDP race.  However, although outspending Garneau, the results were much different than anticipated.

She didn’t compete in 2011, instead focusing on local politics.  In 2014 she ran for the seat of commissioner for the English school board.  It was an important election, since the very existence of school boards was on the line.  The minister of education made it clear, that if there wasn’t more voter interest, he would pull the plug on them.

Legace Dowson led a team of ten, against her opponent’s ten, representing the wards in the school board district.  She only managed success in two of the ten, one after a recount, by a handful of votes.  She claimed that there was election tampering, though her arguments were weak.

In fact, one of her people actually misrepresented themselves, to obtain voter information, and the police had to be called.  It was crazy.  The unnecessary drama and feeble campaigning, that garnered just 20% support, hardly makes her a star.  At least not in any galaxy I know of.

Given this desperate attempt to make her look better than she is, and more popular than she is; we can only conclude that the NDP are aware of this.  If she can’t even come close in a school board election …..

On the bright side. Quebecor knows who she is.  That’s something I guess.

Justin Trudeau Forges Tight Alliances

While both the Conservatives and NDP have been relentlessly attacking Trudeau, a strange phenomenon has occurred.  Instead of Thomas Mulcair presenting himself as an alternative to Harper, he now appears to be an ally.

Both are committed to balanced budgets, as unrealistic as that is, and both are now committed to the F-35s, simply because Trudeau has promised to scrap them.  This puts him with progressives, who also want the procurement stopped, as do many members of the Canadian military, including General Leslie.

Yes, the NDP will argue that Mulcair only wants a better bidding process, but the headlines of Mulcair and Harper opposing Trudeau’s stance, make the two appear as comrades in arms.  Not what either of them want, though it will not harm Harper as much as Mulcair.

In trying so hard to discredit the Liberal leader, the NDP have failed to give the voting public a reason to support them.  Their platform is weak and financial plan seriously flawed.  They produced a nice glossy folder with nothing in it, but gobblygook.

They had hoped to ride the  C-51 bus to Election Day, but the wheels fell off.  Hope they at least turned off the engine.

Trudeau’s strategy, once thought dangerous, has proven to be brilliant.  He has set himself apart from Harper and Mulcair, by claiming that deficits are Ok, F-35s aren’t and high income earners should pay more taxes, so that everyone else can pay less.

He is being judged by the enemies he has made, as Roosevelt opined, and those enemies are looking more like a united front, than competition against each other for the prime minister’s job.

So who’s “not ready” now?

Continue reading