Aglukkaq dispatched to important arctic conference
With the government in need of a new Minister of Foreign Affairs since Lawrence Cannon suffered a defeat in the 2011 election.
No decision seems to have been made as to who will adopt that particular role. Former Afghan ambassador Chris Alexander is downplaying speculation that has him bound for the job.
Considering the government's assignment of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq to attend the upcoming Arctic Council summit in Greenland. The summit will make some important decisions for the future of the Arctic Council, inlcuding the role of non-Arctic countries within that council.
Aglukkaq will presumably be working closely with bureaucrats from the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to guide her at the summit. But some so-called "foreign affairs experts" -- namely UBC professor Michael Byers -- are already counting her down.
"It is a big time," Byers declared, but has seemingly jumped to conclusions about Alukkaq's ability to represent Canada at the conference. "She will be out of her depth."
"It's not perfect," Byers admitted. "But in the circumstances, it's not the worst choice."
He noted that, as Inuit, Aglukkaq is at least a sound "symbolic" representative at the conference.
But counting Aglukkaq down is entirely premature. She's proven to be an excellent Minister of Health, and an excellent advocate for Inuit in Ottawa. Given the right advice, and provided the proper guidance, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Aglukkaq will represent Canada any less than admirably at the Arctic Council Summit.
Byers -- who is a former NDP candidate, and is now watching his party flirt with contention for government -- would likely imagine himself as Canada's representative at the Arctic Council Summit, as Foreign Affairs Minister of an NDP government.
Which tempts one to chalk Michael Byers' attitude up to professional jealousy.
After all, if Leona Aglukkaq does her job at the Summit as splendidly as those familiar with her performance to date expect, she just may end up with the Minister of Foreign Affairs job Michael Byers so clearly and deeply covets.
Showing posts with label Leona Aglukkaq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leona Aglukkaq. Show all posts
Monday, May 09, 2011
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Strange Puzzle of Conservative Anti-Aboriginal Bias
Conservatives launch new Aboriginal Caucus
Reality dealt the notion of an anti-Aboriginal bias within the Conservative party a savage kick to the nads recently, as the party unveiled its Aboriginal Caucus.
The caucus is made up of four aboriginal MPs -- Rob Clarke, Rod Bruinooge, Leona Aglukkaq and Shelly Glover -- and Senators Gerry St Germain and Patrick Brazeau.
By contrast, the Liberal party has three aboriginal Senators and a single aboriginal MP. The NDP has a single aboriginal senator.
Yet with many people in Canada insisting that the Conservative party has an anti-aborginal bias -- as embodied by the comments and academic work of MP Pierre Poilevre and strategist Tom Flanagan -- the fact that the Conservative party has the largest aboriginal caucus out of any party in Canada. Yet that particular dilemma, as are so many in Canada, is purely political.
In reality, this matter seems to revolve almost entirely around a difference in opinion regarding to how aboriginal issues in Canada are best dealt with -- a difference in opinion cleaved by a massive ideological divide.
On one side of this ideological divide are entrenched political figures within aboriginal bands and organizations who relish the political clientelism that has been promoted by the Liberal party and NDP for decades. To these people -- and those who support them -- the very notion of transforming aboriginal politics is utterly offensive, even clientelism has proven to be an abject failure.
Thousands upon thousands of aboriginal people in Canada continue to live in poverty despite the billions of dollars spent trying to solve this problem.
When individuals such as Flanagan, Poilievre or Frances Widdowson dare speak out about this fact they are often accused of uttering "hurtful" remarks about aboriginal Canadians -- if not outright hate speech.
But the fact that the Conservative party has succeeded in not only admitting to Parliament, but in actually electing more aboriginal parliamentarians than their allegedly more "sympathetic" political counterparts should give pause to many Canadians when they stop to ponder which party is truly looking for answers to the problems that have plagued Canada's aboriginals for so many decades.
It certainly isn't the political parties who have benefited politically by pandering to organizations who sputter with outrage if the Prime Minister meets with the "wrong" aboriginal groups that don't support the old system of poverty-perpetuating clientelism.
That the Conservative party has the largest caucus of aboriginal representatives should give these people pause as well. It probably won't, but it should.
Reality dealt the notion of an anti-Aboriginal bias within the Conservative party a savage kick to the nads recently, as the party unveiled its Aboriginal Caucus.
The caucus is made up of four aboriginal MPs -- Rob Clarke, Rod Bruinooge, Leona Aglukkaq and Shelly Glover -- and Senators Gerry St Germain and Patrick Brazeau.
By contrast, the Liberal party has three aboriginal Senators and a single aboriginal MP. The NDP has a single aboriginal senator.
Yet with many people in Canada insisting that the Conservative party has an anti-aborginal bias -- as embodied by the comments and academic work of MP Pierre Poilevre and strategist Tom Flanagan -- the fact that the Conservative party has the largest aboriginal caucus out of any party in Canada. Yet that particular dilemma, as are so many in Canada, is purely political.
In reality, this matter seems to revolve almost entirely around a difference in opinion regarding to how aboriginal issues in Canada are best dealt with -- a difference in opinion cleaved by a massive ideological divide.
On one side of this ideological divide are entrenched political figures within aboriginal bands and organizations who relish the political clientelism that has been promoted by the Liberal party and NDP for decades. To these people -- and those who support them -- the very notion of transforming aboriginal politics is utterly offensive, even clientelism has proven to be an abject failure.
Thousands upon thousands of aboriginal people in Canada continue to live in poverty despite the billions of dollars spent trying to solve this problem.
When individuals such as Flanagan, Poilievre or Frances Widdowson dare speak out about this fact they are often accused of uttering "hurtful" remarks about aboriginal Canadians -- if not outright hate speech.
But the fact that the Conservative party has succeeded in not only admitting to Parliament, but in actually electing more aboriginal parliamentarians than their allegedly more "sympathetic" political counterparts should give pause to many Canadians when they stop to ponder which party is truly looking for answers to the problems that have plagued Canada's aboriginals for so many decades.
It certainly isn't the political parties who have benefited politically by pandering to organizations who sputter with outrage if the Prime Minister meets with the "wrong" aboriginal groups that don't support the old system of poverty-perpetuating clientelism.
That the Conservative party has the largest caucus of aboriginal representatives should give these people pause as well. It probably won't, but it should.
Friday, June 12, 2009
A Fair Language Policy for All Canadians
...From the North down
When Preston Manning's Reform party broke through in Western Canada during the 1993 federal election, many other Canadian political leaders -- notably, the leadership of the Liberal, New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties -- quickly moved to condemn the party as a threat to Canadian unity.
Many mused that the party may have been an even greater threat to Canadian unity than the Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois -- ironically on the eve of a 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum that would nearly tear Canada to shreds.
Oddly enough, one of the fronts on which the Reform party was attacked was that of language policy. Opponents of the party insisted that the party would introduce regressive language policies, and overturn official bilingualism.
This, in one sense, was true. Preston Manning was prepared to overturn official bilingualism.
But Manning also had a far more progressive alternative in mind. Manning had promoted a Fair Language Policy, in which government services would be delivered not merely in French or English, but in any language appropriate, where appropriate.
Manning noted that many communities in Alberta and Saskatchewan still had significant Ukrainian-speaking communities, and questioned why government services in those communities should be obligated to deliver services in French, but not in Ukrainian. Manning noted that there were many such under-served language groups across Canada.
These groups range from Chinese- or Japanese-speaking Canadians in Vancouver to Farsi-speaking Canadians in Montreal. Manning firmly insisted that all of these communities should be able to be served in their first language.
With the recent passage of Nunavut's Official Languages Act, it seems that Manning's fair language policy is a good idea whose time has finally come.
In order for the act -- which will establish five Inuit languages, primarily Inuktitut and Innuinaqtun, as official languages in Nunavut -- to take effect in Nunavut, it must pass through Parliament.
Upon its introduction by Conservative MP Leona Aglukkaq, the House of Commons quickly passed the legislation. Now, the Senate may refer the bill to its legal and constitutional affairs committee for some scrutiny.
"We are as much concerned for the other aboriginal languages, to help them to have the tools and the books and teaching materials needed to promote the use of aboriginal language by aboriginal people," noted Liberal senator Serge Joyal. "That's why we want to make sure that we know what we are voting on, and it is our role and duty by the constitution to review that kind of legislation. But we want to do it expeditiously so that nobody is waiting, you know, being frustrated that it's not happening."
Joyal noted that some scrutiny is necessary to find out how the act will impact federal agencies providing services in Nunavut.
"I believe that if this chamber has an abiding principle, it is that we do not consent lightly and without examination to the diminution, however slight, of minority languages because that precedent can come back to haunt us, our children or our grandchildren. I do not want to go there," added fellow Grit Senator Joan Fraser.
Whether or not the Liberal party's Senate caucus is going to attempt to block the bill remains yet to be seen. While there was no partisan divide on the issue in the House of Commons, many Conservative Senators -- such as Hugh Segal and Gerald Comeau -- seem to think the act is ready to be passed in Parliament.
When this act finally does pass -- provided that Michael Ignatieff exerts some control over his Senate caucus -- it will have been a very long time coming. It could prove to be the first step in reinforcing official bilingualism -- itself a satisfactory first step in terms of language policy -- with a policy that will provide a Fair Language Policy for all Canadians.
When Preston Manning's Reform party broke through in Western Canada during the 1993 federal election, many other Canadian political leaders -- notably, the leadership of the Liberal, New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties -- quickly moved to condemn the party as a threat to Canadian unity.
Many mused that the party may have been an even greater threat to Canadian unity than the Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois -- ironically on the eve of a 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum that would nearly tear Canada to shreds.
Oddly enough, one of the fronts on which the Reform party was attacked was that of language policy. Opponents of the party insisted that the party would introduce regressive language policies, and overturn official bilingualism.
This, in one sense, was true. Preston Manning was prepared to overturn official bilingualism.
But Manning also had a far more progressive alternative in mind. Manning had promoted a Fair Language Policy, in which government services would be delivered not merely in French or English, but in any language appropriate, where appropriate.
Manning noted that many communities in Alberta and Saskatchewan still had significant Ukrainian-speaking communities, and questioned why government services in those communities should be obligated to deliver services in French, but not in Ukrainian. Manning noted that there were many such under-served language groups across Canada.
These groups range from Chinese- or Japanese-speaking Canadians in Vancouver to Farsi-speaking Canadians in Montreal. Manning firmly insisted that all of these communities should be able to be served in their first language.
With the recent passage of Nunavut's Official Languages Act, it seems that Manning's fair language policy is a good idea whose time has finally come.
In order for the act -- which will establish five Inuit languages, primarily Inuktitut and Innuinaqtun, as official languages in Nunavut -- to take effect in Nunavut, it must pass through Parliament.
Upon its introduction by Conservative MP Leona Aglukkaq, the House of Commons quickly passed the legislation. Now, the Senate may refer the bill to its legal and constitutional affairs committee for some scrutiny.
"We are as much concerned for the other aboriginal languages, to help them to have the tools and the books and teaching materials needed to promote the use of aboriginal language by aboriginal people," noted Liberal senator Serge Joyal. "That's why we want to make sure that we know what we are voting on, and it is our role and duty by the constitution to review that kind of legislation. But we want to do it expeditiously so that nobody is waiting, you know, being frustrated that it's not happening."
Joyal noted that some scrutiny is necessary to find out how the act will impact federal agencies providing services in Nunavut.
"I believe that if this chamber has an abiding principle, it is that we do not consent lightly and without examination to the diminution, however slight, of minority languages because that precedent can come back to haunt us, our children or our grandchildren. I do not want to go there," added fellow Grit Senator Joan Fraser.
Whether or not the Liberal party's Senate caucus is going to attempt to block the bill remains yet to be seen. While there was no partisan divide on the issue in the House of Commons, many Conservative Senators -- such as Hugh Segal and Gerald Comeau -- seem to think the act is ready to be passed in Parliament.
When this act finally does pass -- provided that Michael Ignatieff exerts some control over his Senate caucus -- it will have been a very long time coming. It could prove to be the first step in reinforcing official bilingualism -- itself a satisfactory first step in terms of language policy -- with a policy that will provide a Fair Language Policy for all Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)