Ladies and Gentlemen the "Conservative" Party of Canada:
Joan Crockatt, Member of Parliament for Calgary Centre, on behalf of the Honourable Dr. K. Kellie Leitch, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, today announced a new grant to improve workplace diversity and inclusion in the logistics, transportation and supply chain industry. Ms. Crockatt made the announcement at the Women in Supply Chain Distinguished Speaker Dinner Series in Calgary.
Under the Workplace Opportunities: Removing Barriers to Equity (WORBE) program, the Van Horne Institute will receive $125,000 for a project that will allow them to identify barriers, solutions and best practices of inclusive workplaces by engaging its academic and industry partners. Findings will enable the creation of a corporate change model for industry and academia, and a video promoting the value of inclusive workplaces.
Quebec is a distinct society, but not always in a good way:
In his remarks, Mr. Péladeau — the perceived front-runner in the PQ leadership race to be decided in May — said demographics are working against sovereignty.
“We won’t have 25 years ahead of us to realize sovereignty,” he said. “With demographics, with immigration, it’s clear we lose a riding each year. We would like to have better control but let’s not fool ourselves.”
He is, of course, completely and utterly correct. Quebec nationalism, as the Steyn has been saying for years now, is a dead letter because of demographic decline. The Quebecois, whose ancestors once bore famously large and resilient families, have been failing to reproduce themselves for nearly three generations now. Much the same story has been going on with their old adversaries the WASPs. But with one crucial exception: Integration.
English Canada has a remarkable ability to integrate immigrants into Canadian life. In a generation or two the Pole, the Ukrainian and the assorted Southern European is for all practical purposes a loyal Canadian. The ROC's civic nationalism allows us to absorb and integrate people from a wide variety of countries and backgrounds. The tribal nationalism of the Quebecois does the exact opposite. No matter how hard you try you will never be pure laine.
In a generation or two the Quebecois will be a minority in their own province. Long before that Quebec nationalism will be a dead letter. A new country needs a young demographic. It's the young that can afford to think long term. It's the young that are willing to take chances, stupid or otherwise. The greying cohort of Quebecois Boomers may want independence, but if it risks the purchasing power of their pensions they'll think otherwise.
PKP understands that whatever chance the nationalists have of obtaining independence is fast slipping from their grasp. Time is on the side of Canada and not on the side of our enemies.
A well-known First Nations activist and lawyer says she is being tracked by the federal government departments.
Pam Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer and professor at Ryerson University, told CTV’s Question Period that access-to-information documents show that she is being tracked by three federal government departments.
“I wrote an access to information request to CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), National Defence, the RCMP and Indian Affairs to determine whether or not they were following (or) surveilling me in any way and three out of the group all confirmed that they were,” she said.
Join the club. Virtually every Canadian is monitored by several different government departments at any given time. While I'm hardly delighted at the prospect, or reasonably assured that such scrutiny is either necessary or desirable, I'm also not terribly worried about it. How Orwellian a state do we have when it discloses, upon request, that it is monitoring you? If you press a bit further you can even find out how they are monitoring you. When you consider the routine civil rights abuses conducted by the RCMP and FBI during the Cold War this is sophomore hijinks by comparison.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair says his party would pull Canadian troops out of Iraq if elected, as the party does not think Canada should be involved in a U.S.-led war.
While the NDP has opposed the current Canadian mission in Iraq, Mulcair clarified the party's plans for the mission should it form government on CTV's Question Period.
"If they (the government) extend (the mission) for a year, despite our opposition to it, yes, when we form government on October 19, we would bring our troops back home," Mulcair said.
In particular, Mulcair took issue with the fact the mission against ISIS falls under U.S. leadership.
"When it is a UN mission, when it is a NATO mission, we are open to it. But here, this is an American-led mission," said Mulcair. "We think it's wrong for Canada to be involved."
So the nature of the mission is secondary to who's running it. Truth, justice and maintaining a modicum of stability in the world is but dust in the balance. What really matters to the Leader of the Official Opposition is if the Americans are calling the shots. A matter of men and not measures.
Mr Mulcair is, of course, being deeply disingenuous. If this was a NATO mission the Americans would still be running it, they would just be doing it in a somewhat more discrete manner. If the UN was in charge then nothing would happen, Russia would simply veto any substantive action. In the unlikely event that the Russians would be amendable then the UN's legendary bureaucracy - recall Rwanda - would render intervention either a dead letter or a debacle within weeks.
This is a nonsense policy and I suspect Mr Mulcair is only too well aware that it is. What explains this bit of Dipper subterfuge? There is an iron law of Canadian politics, especially on the Left:
When in doubt kick the Americans.
This has the advantage of throwing some red meat - or is that tofu? - to the Leftist base of the NDP and Liberal Party while having no real practical impact on bilateral relations. Americans find Canadian anti-Americanism to be something between annoying and cute. Like an adorable puppy yapping away at your heels. Tommy is playing to the endemic pacifism of the Left while still making the right statesmen like sounds about multilateralism.
The point of multilateralism, of organizations like NATO and the UN, should be to enhance the national interest of the member nations. We joined NATO back 1949 because it aided and abetted our interest in keeping western Europe free of communist domination. There is no intrinsic or ethereal value in being a member of NATO or any other similar organization. If NATO began to consistently pursue actions that were contrary to the fundamental interests of Canada then we should leave.
There is something deeper here than party politics. It's a basic philosophical error: Multilateralism becomes only so much intellectual day dreaming when divorced from national interests. A plaything for IR professors and graduate students, perhaps a hobby horse for bored diplomats in foreign postings. Multilateralism is a tool, not an end in and of itself. Beyond that it becomes meaningless.
The primary issue is what Canada needs, which is obviously subject to domestic democratic deliberation, not what a group of military bureaucrats in Belgium think is right and proper. The question to Thomas Mulcair is this one: Who runs Canada's foreign policy? Is it the government of Canada or a group of unelected and unaccountable foreigners?
The NDP is known for ostentatiously wrapping itself in the flag when dealing with America. Yet for some strange reason it has no problem with outsourcing our foreign policy to non-Americans. Apparently the NDP believes that no one in North America is really qualified to decide what is in the best interests of people living on the North American continent.
A round of public furor has centered on Toronto’s Ryerson University after two journalism students were barred from an on-campus meeting because they were not “racialized.”
First-year journalism students Julia Knope and Trevor Hewitt were attempting to attend a meeting hosted by the Racialised Students’ Collective when they were asked to leave by a group organizer.
“She asked them if they had been marginalized or racialized, and when they both responded ‘no,’ that’s when she said the meeting was only for those who felt they had been,” said Anne McNeilly, an associate professor at the Ryerson School of Journalism.
I feel deeply racialized every time my tax dollars are used to subsidized this sophomoric neo-racism.
A caller named Joseph said he thinks "that's wrong," and Miller said he agreed.
"You know, like frankly, if you, if you're not willing to show your face in a ceremony, that you're joining the best country in the world, then frankly …" Miller said, before the caller interrupted to say, "send ya back."
"Yeah," Miller said. "Frankly, if you don't like that or don't want to do that, stay the hell where you came from, is the way."
Miller went on to say that "I think most Canadians feel the same."
Yes we do.
Now let's spent a moment going back, way back, to that distant epoch known to history as the 1970s. During that barely recorded age, a mixture of myth and memory even in the minds of our finest scholars, the Portuguese were relatively new comers to our fair Dominion. Officially the first Lusophones arrived in 1953 and came in dribs and drabs over the next thirty years. There was a particular surge around 1974-1976. That was during Portugal's touch and go transition from fascist dictatorship to social democratic republic.
One of the big push factors was that, at least for a few months, it looked like the Reds might take over the whole of Portugal, or that a civil war might erupt. It's unlikely the Americans would have tolerated a member of NATO, and so strategically well placed a member at that, going over to the other side during the Cold War. That said we are talking about the Gerald Ford years. The Americans had abandoned the South Vietnamese to their fate at about the same time Red militias were training near Lisbon.
Those not terribly keen on becoming communists, my free market leaning father among them, decided to get out of Dodge. Canada let him in and the rest is history. Now how do you think dear old dad was greeted when he came here? Welcomed with open arms? Saluted as a valuable addition to Canadian society? Nope. He was either tactless ignored or greeted with "Go Back the Hell Where You Came From".
This was in fact the traditional greeting provided to new immigrants from the Irish famine to sometime in the mid-1980s. I suspect the Portuguese and the Pakistanis were the last groups to really get in the neck. Toronto legend has it that more than a few Pakistanis where shoved in front of subway trains back in the 1970s. I tend to take these stories with a grain of salt but, needless to say, the brown folks were not popular back then. The Portuguese being semi-white, and terribly useful when concrete needed to be poured, got a marginal pass.
Your humble correspondent is fond of many aspects of Canadian history. The casual endemic racism and ethnic bigotry of those long gone times are not fondly missed. The reason the phrase "go back the hell where you came from" has a certain emotional resonance is because for a very, very long time it was motivated by fear and bigotry of the lowest variety.
Larry Miller, MP, choose his words very poorly. Yet I don't believe, and until I'm provided with strong evidence to the contrary I won't believe, that Mr Miller was motivated by bigotry. The objection wasn't to the people or the country of origin, it was to the pernicious practice of the niqab. Like the majority of Canadians he finds these articles of clothing oppressive to women. We have spent centuries fighting to establish the equality of the individual in Canada. This is a throwback we neither want nor need.
A comparison is sometimes drawn between the niqab and the Sikh turban. It is a deeply absurd comparison. The latter is a statement of faith and the former a statement of oppression. The objection to the niqab is only very partially based on any lingering bigotry in Canadian society. It is the values such a mode of dress represents that Canadians find truly appalling. What Larry Miller was trying to say is that the values of oppression and legal inequality have no place in Canada. It is to those anti-Canadian values we say: Go Back The Hell Where You Came From.