This content is restricted to subscribers

This content is only available to our subscribers!
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterBecome a subscriber today!
RegisterThis content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
This content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Who will speak for Canada?
That is a question you have probably heard before. Every few years, it gets asked in Canada.
It’s a fair question, to ask what sort of country we are. What kind of nation we aspire to be.
A country is more than some lines on a map. It is more than a piece of fabric with some design on it. It is more than that.
During a pandemic, as with everything else, it is difficult to get people to ponder the meaning of nationhood. With thousands dead, and many thousands more seriously ill, debates about constitutions – never popular at the best of times – are unwanted.
Canada‘s Prime Minister, and Québec’s Premier, are counting on that. They are counting on the fact that you are likely distracted and disinterested in Québec’s Bill 96.
But you should be. Running some 100 pages, Bill 96 claims to be an effort to further protect the French language in Quebec. In reality, it is a bill that will reduce Québec’s English-speaking minority to the status of serfs.
And it will gut Canada‘s constitution, and the notion that no person – and no province – is more important then the rest.
That is why Bill 96 must be stopped. It will constitutionalize the notion that Quebec is better than the other provinces – and that anyone who lives there, and does not speak French, is a lesser being.
Government officials breaking into your cell phone, to see if you are using English. Government officials taking control of computers at work, to assess whether enough French is being used.
Government officials refusing to give services to those who do not speak French – and tearing up contracts if the grammar or syntax is wrong.
Justin Trudeau is fine with all of that. Francoise Legault, formerly a proud separatist, wants all of that. Should we then shrug, and let that happen? Should we – as some have said to me – help Quebec pack?
The last time Quebec made a serious bid for independence, I was a chief of staff in the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien. It was 1995. It looked like we could lose the referendum on making Quebec a separate country.
We asked one of our deputy ministers what that would mean. As he cried, he told us that the separatists planned to seize every federal building in Quebec, arguing that their tax dollars had paid for them. They were going to immediately establish armed border crossings into Quebec.
They were going to take control of the St. Lawrence seaway, upon which our country‘s economy depends. And they were going to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that the country of Canada no longer existed. They were likely to win, in what would be the high court’s final decision. Chaos would ensue.
Bill 96 puts us on the road that will almost certainly end with that. If we go along with it, the separatists will never be satisfied – and demand yet more. If we refuse, they will screech that they are humiliated and demand yet more.
That is the Pandora’s box that Legault and Trudeau have now opened. Already, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney – formerly a federalist – is applauding Quebec’s move, and promising to emulate it.
As TS Eliot wrote, and as no less than Justin Trudeau‘s father agreed, sometimes things do not end with a bang. Sometimes, they end with a whimper.
We cannot, we must not, let Canada as we know it end with a whimper.
We are more than squiggles on a map. We are more than a flag. We are more than what Trudeau and Legault and Kenny would reduce us to. Aren’t we?
We live in difficult times, yes. We face many other challenges, yes. We don’t need this, yes.
But when your country is at risk, it is fair to ask:
Who will speak for it?
Kinsella was special assistant to Jean Chretien.
Photo Credit: CBC News
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
Become a subscriber today!
RegisterBecome a subscriber today!
RegisterThis content is restricted to subscribers
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
What does it take for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government of goof-offs to learn anything?
How is it that after weeks of committee hearings, terrible headlines, and shocking revelations, where the public learned how the country’s top general was accused of sexual impropriety and misconduct, taught the so-called brain trust in the Prime Minister’s Office absolutely nothing?
At the end of last week Maj.-Gen. Dany Fortin was abruptly removed from his job heading the federal vaccine response. It turns out he’s under investigation for — wait for this one — allegations of sexual misconduct.
A general, under investigation for sexual misconduct, my how very novel.
Bad enough that yet another decorated and endlessly promoted member of our armed forces is accused of, well we’re not exactly sure what he’s been accused of, other than it’s sexual, but anyway bad enough he’s accused of something. But it’s made all the worse because the prime minister has known about it for weeks.
So did his defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, who was apparently told at the same time as Trudeau.
As Trudeau tells it, it would be inappropriate for him — or Sajjan — to know the details of the investigation. We don’t even know what kind of investigation is going on. Military police? Human resources paper pushing? RCMP?
What ever it is, the “Gosh, I couldn’t know details about it, that might interfere with the investigation” bit is an easy way to remove himself and his minister from having any responsibility for what is going on right beneath their noses.
A weird thing that comes up in some of the stories about Fortin. Anonymous government sources are sure to point out that whatever the allegations are it predates the military’s failed attempt at getting rid of harassment, operation honour. Started in 2015, it’s now a thing they’re no longer doing. Obviously the job was done? Too hard? Never really tried?
Anyway, the reason the sources are pushing this line, I think, are to some how make it like it’s out of the government’s hands. How could anything have been done, after all, if the misconduct happened before they even bothered to try stopping this sort of thing. But it’s damning in its own way. Misconduct is so rife that one could be forgiven for thinking it’s a requirement to rise through the ranks.
It’s worth emphasizing just how much of the top brass has been implicated in their own individual misconduct cases, care of CBC:
Jonathan Vance got to retire as chief of the defence staff before it came to light his apparent misdeeds. Then the guy that replaced him, Adm. Art McDonald, had to step out of the job because it turned out he too was facing sexual misconduct allegations. Last week the head of military personnel Vice-Adm. Hayden Edmundson had his status upgraded to permanently out of that job after sexual assault allegations surfaced against him. Lt.-Gen. Christopher Coates has retired after it became public he had an affair with a U.S. defence department staffer. The former special operations chief, Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe, had to be put on leave for writing a letter of support for a solider convicted of sexual assault. And finally — for the half a second or so — Lt.-Col. Raphaël Guay had to be temporarily removed as commander of the military intelligence school.
This is an organization where soon they’re going to have to hand out medals and ribbons to the senior commanders who haven’t been accused of some sort of misconduct just so they can be identified when they’re out in public.
The willingness for Trudeau to pass this off as something he shouldn’t be diving too deeply on, for fear of interfering in individual allegations of misconduct and somehow tainting them, is a sign this is just a problem he’s not interested in fixing.
Removing himself from the line of responsibility, in the name of protecting some secret investigation process — so secret we aren’t even told who is investigating — isn’t about protecting justice, it’s about protecting himself.
That’s why Fortin could stay on one of the most important jobs of the moment weeks after Trudeau was aware he might have committed some sort of misconduct.
The incuriosity of everyone in the government, from the prime minister on down, is a sign of leadership not only uninterested in fixing the obviously deep problems within the Canadian Forces, but uninterested in even knowing there are problems.
It has turned into a communications problem for the government, so they are treating it as such. Like everything else they do, they’re led by their desire to find the right PR line to feed the public.
It’s a farcical way to run a government, but that’s the Trudeau era for you.
Justin Trudeau didn’t want to be prime minister to do things, or to solve problems. He wanted to be prime minster to be prime minister. He hasn’t learned a lesson because he has no interest in actually doing the job. He’s just there to embody the job.
He’s been prime minster for six years now, and he might end up having it for six more.
Makes you wonder what the point of it all is.
Photo Credit: CBC News
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
There appears no end in sight to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza.
Despite the death of at least 213 Gazans, 61 of whom were children, and the wounding of 1,500 others (along with 12 Israelis, including two children), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains undeterred in his campaign of violence against the Palestinians.
Dismissing calls from many in the international community, pleading for an immediate ceasefire, the ever-belligerent Netanyahu has doubled down on Israel’s “natural right of self-defense” and pledged “full force” against Gaza.
The repercussions of Netanyahu’s destructive aggression cannot be understated.
By continuing Israel’s immoral (not to mention completely disproportionate) onslaught on Gaza, Netanyahu is escalating the cycle of violence that has plagued the middle east for decades.
Then, as in now, the overwhelming victims are Palestinian children. As Israeli bombs fall relentlessly down from the skies above, far too many young Palestinians will have their lives cut short. And even those that do survive will have their innocence forever tainted by the carnage they were forced to witness and endure.
Not that Netanyahu could give a dam.
As long as the Israeli government’s most prominent backer, the United States, maintains its duplicitous support- by blocking UN Security Council attempts calling for an immediate ceasefire, and by providing billions in no-strings attached military aid – they are unlikely to prematurely end their deadly air strikes.
In Canada, our influence in the middle east is far less consequential than our American neighbours, though no less complicit.
In response to the crisis, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and foreign affairs minister, Marc Garneau, issued the usual round meaningless statements, full of government jargon, all while offering nothing to end the bloodshed.
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole was even worse.
With his entirely pro-Israeli statement (in which he makes no mention of the immense suffering endured by the Palestinian people) O’Toole demonstrated again that the Conservatives are even more ill-suited than the Liberals to advocate for justice in the middle east.
After all, the Conservatives are a party that still endorse, in full Trumpian fashion, the relocation of the Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They, like their Republican compatriots to the south, are both blinded by their unconditional support for Israel’s intolerant and repressive government, and to the principles of international justice.
In fact, the only major political leader who has displayed even an ounce of integrity on the issue was the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh.
During a press conference last week, and later in Question Period, Singh demanded that the governing Liberals suspend their arms sales to Israel. Singh wisely noted that “…by arming one side of the conflict” the federal government “is undermining the peace process and it is supporting illegal occupation.”
Not only is this an entirely reasonable proposal, but it is also an incredibly necessary one to limit Canada’s culpability for the violence and systemic oppression incurred upon the Palestinians by the Israeli government.
Of course, that is not the opinion held by the “esteemed” thinkers in the editorial newsroom of the National Post, who went on the offensive against Singh.
According to them, because Canada’s military arms sales to Israel is limited ($13.7 million worth in 2019) and because Canada has had “longtime friendly relations” with Israel, Singh’s proposal is both absurd and yet another example of misguided equivocation between a fellow democracy (Israel) and a terrorist cell (Hamas).
Views like this must be countered, as this is a shockingly simplistic take on the situation; one that fails to recognize that the violence unleashed by an internationally recognized, democratic country such as Israel, is no more morally acceptable than the violence unleashed by the militant Hamas.
Nor does it consider, as wiser minds have (like United States Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) that even if it was more morally acceptable, Israel is still anything but an egalitarian, rule of law democracy, as “apartheid states aren’t democracies”
But this is the reality of Israel.
After years of systematically oppressing millions of Palestinians and denying them even their most basic human rights, it is little wonder that Israel has been credibly charged by the Human Rights Watch for committing “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.” With indictments like these, it is credible to argue that Israel should not even be considered a “flawed democracy.”
As such, any arms sales to Israel under the current circumstances is utterly unacceptable. As argued by both Singh and Human Rights Watch, continued arms sales from some of the world’s wealthiest do nothing but enable the Israeli government to continue its human rights abuses against the Palestinians.
By stating as much, Singh has faced a barrage of ridicule and admonishment for his lonely stance amongst Canada’s political elites.
He need not fret though.
His position is a noble one that would do more to bring about peace in the middle east than anything either of his two main political rivals are proposing.
Photo Credit: CBC News
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.
If you listen to the Conservatives, there is nothing that Justin Trudeau personally isn’t responsible or liable for that ills this country. Usually these days, they are trying to paint him as being solely responsible for the third wave of the pandemic because somehow didn’t procure enough vaccines in January and February (never mind scarcity, production ramp-up or supply chain issues), as though the premiers west of New Brunswick engaging in half-measures, re-opening too soon and not imposing more restrictions soon enough was not the actual cause of said third wave. In the past, they have insisted that Trudeau somehow controls the world price of oil when it comes to how it has affected the oil patch in Alberta (when they didn’t blame Rachel Notley). And now, they are trying to make him personally liable for sexual misconduct in the military.
“Women in the military have lost hope,” Conservative MP Leona Alleslev declared in Question Period last week. “Some have lost their career, others have tragically accepted there will be no justice. Service to country is an honourable profession. My father served, I served, and I would be incredibly proud if my daughter wanted to as well, but under the Prime Minister, if she chose a military career I would be worried for her safety.”
The implication that Trudeau is responsible for the statue of sexual misconduct in the military is risible, and yet the Conservatives are trying to make this narrative stick. On Monday, Erin O’Toole tried to pin Trudeau personally on the removal of Major-General Dany Fortin from the head of the federal vaccine distribution task force when an investigation into a past allegation of sexual misconduct was started.
“It is clear that Justin Trudeau’s failure to take action on sexual misconduct in the military is having serious consequences not only for our brave men and women in uniform, but all Canadians,” O’Toole said in a release. “Now we fear his inaction will affect our country’s vaccine rollout, which is already behind other countries.”
Our vaccine rollout is among the highest in the world after a slower start, but Fortin’s deputy, Brigadier-General Krista Brodie was announced as Fortin’s replacement hours after O’Toole’s release went out. Nevertheless, trying to pin the systemic issue of misconduct in the military solely on Trudeau is hard to take seriously, precisely because this is a systemic and endemic issue. It has existed long before this government came to power, and previous governments did precious little to address the problem, including Stephen Harper’s.
True, they did commission the Deschamps Report after a damning report in Maclean’s made it clear that nothing had been done over decades when incidents of sexual harassment and assault were brought to light, but once they engaged the former Supreme Court justice, they didn’t do much, citing the need to wait for the report, and once it was delivered, had the better part of six months to start implementing its recommendations and didn’t make much in the way of progress. And when they replaced the massively tone-deaf General Tom Lawson as Chief of Defence Staff with General Jonathan Vance, they certainly didn’t do a thorough job in investigating the rumours around previous inappropriate relationships – and there are now conflicting reports as to just who they asked to do the investigating.
This isn’t to say that Trudeau’s government, and Harjit Sajjan in particular couldn’t have done more, because they absolutely could have. They could have better vetted Admiral Art McDonald before appointing him as the new Chief of Defence Staff to replace Vance, as well as ensured much better vetting lower down the ranks, as evidenced by the choice for the head of personnel, who was also quickly forced to step aside for allegations of past sexual misconduct. And more importantly, they could have done the hard work of insisting on the recommendations of the Deschamps Report being implemented, and pushing the recalcitrant military leadership to take those actions, but they did not. This is one of the reasons why it’s clear that Sajjan needs to fall on his sword – his inability to provide that leadership, combined with his deep incuriosity about the status of the investigation into the latest round of Vance allegations – given that, as minister, he is responsible to Parliament for the Canadian Forces and its leadership – have ensured that he has lost the moral authority to remain in his position.
Clearly, more could have been done, but even if Trudeau and Sajjan had been more diligent, I’m not sure that the whole problem of the highly sexualized culture of the military would have been sufficiently changed in those six years, and that more allegations wouldn’t still be coming out the woodwork even now. Part of the reason why, as some like former Army officer and current professor Leah West have noted, is that there still isn’t enough of an impetus within the rank and file of the military to make those changes, and if there is to be lasting change, it has to come from within. But this is something else that Trudeau and Sajjan should have been working to address – to know why there was such resistance to the Deschamps Report before they hired yet another former Supreme Court justice to produce yet another report for them.
Change is hard. Systemic change is even harder. That the Conservatives are pretending these kinds of changes could have happened already if Trudeau had merely exerted enough willpower is not only a poor attempt at scoring cheap points, it undermines the severity of the work that is necessary if there is going to be actual reform to the institution. There are serious challenges ahead for this government and future ones when it comes to applying enough pressure when it comes to civilian oversight, and sustaining that pressure, so that we see the change happen. But this game of trying to personally implicate Trudeau merely underscores that the Conservatives are not serious about this problem, or any of the other problems they blame him for.
Photo Credit: CBC News
The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.