I'm in a room where Conservative members are debating policy resolutions around immigration (also, defence and democratic reform.) Will be offering a few updates. This meeting will decide which resolutions go forward to the main floor tomorrow.
The first one to come up is this, on irregular border crossings. For all the vigour around immigration, this policy basically doesn't call for Ottawa to do anything that different than what is currently being done. 
Another one. Michelle Rempel gets up to say, yup, this is basically party policy. A member goes to the mic to contend that changing the language in the Safe Third Country Agreement really ain't gonna change much. (FYI, underlined text is the modification.)
Another delegate gets up to point out that the UN Declaration of Human Rights permits people to cross borders if they're legitimately fleeing persecution, even if it's illegally. Rempel points out that the Geneva Convention specifically allows for the STCA. Wonkery!
This is, as I'm sure is coming across, not quite the fire-breathing populist rah-rah that you might expect. There is no warning of XTREME MULTICULTURALISM [shreds guitar, does kickflip]
Next one. The goal here is to fasttracking work permits to let people get on the job as soon as they come here. Rempel is sortakinda against it ("it's slightly imprecise") but she says it's generally ok.
Now for this bonkers policy. Karen Vecchio (who is an MP) is up, pointing out that this is nonsense. Explains how hard it can be to lose your job because you're transgender. "This is about compassion and kindness," she says. Not supporting it. Gets applause.
Now some young guy, up, says "Conservatives on campus are under constant threat from the leftists and academics." He's all for it.
Some older gentleman: "Do we really want to campaign as the party who is going to take away the rights of a vulnerable minority?"
Some older gentleman: "Do we really want to campaign as the party who is going to take away the rights of a vulnerable minority?"
On the crazy anti-trans motion, I see about a dozen in favour. And way, way more against. (Will have the vote total in a minute.)
Now a debate about whether a Conservative government would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel *and* move the Canadian embassy there. (Erin O'Toole, foreign affairs critic, points out this is *kind of* party policy already, which endorses a consulate in West Jerusalem.)
The anti-trans/"free speech" resolution was defeated, for: 22%, against: 78%.
Oh this is a super cool policy. Would create a free-trade, free-movement zone between Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. (Everyone seems super cool with it, so it'll probably pass?)
Oh actually, there's some disagreement. Worry is that it's too hard to implement.
(Also, to remind everyone, just because something passes here doesn't mean it's party policy. Needs to go to a plenary vote tomorrow.)
(Also, to remind everyone, just because something passes here doesn't mean it's party policy. Needs to go to a plenary vote tomorrow.)
This resolution, on official bilingualism for Supreme Court justices, was mistranslated.
English says they must speak/read/write either English or French.
French says they must speak/read/write both.
Oh the irony.
English says they must speak/read/write either English or French.
French says they must speak/read/write both.
Oh the irony.
Now a resolution demanding Ottawa recognize its covenant with veterans. MPs and members up, railing on how Trudeau broke it.
In fact, it was a Conservative government who first used the argument in court that the covenant was not, in fact, legally binding. Trudeau continued it.
In fact, it was a Conservative government who first used the argument in court that the covenant was not, in fact, legally binding. Trudeau continued it.
That one bugs me. No party has kept its word to veterans. More background here: globalnews.ca/news/4010965/r…
Now this resolution which is [long whistle] a doozy.
"In my opinion, we're taking a sledgehammer to this issue," says one delegate.
MP Alice Wong was in favour of the resolution, seemingly on the basis that there's birth tourism?
MP Alice Wong was in favour of the resolution, seemingly on the basis that there's birth tourism?
Pro: Guy wants citizenship by lineage to protect the Canadian identity.
Con: "There is not a stampede at the border"
Pro: A former cop with a convoluted story about someone who stole(?) birth certificates?
Con: "There is not a stampede at the border"
Pro: A former cop with a convoluted story about someone who stole(?) birth certificates?
Pro: "We need to look out against those looking to come to Canada to use and abuse our country."
Looks like this resolution is gonna pass. Hooboy.
Looks like this resolution is gonna pass. Hooboy.
And now a pro-free speech resolution that has nothing to do with slagging transgender people or yanking university funding because they're not free speechy enough. So that's nice.
The policy workshop has voted to send a resolution on ending birthright, or "jus soli," citizenship.
For: 180 (82%)
Against: 39 (18%)
Just to be clear, we have stats on this. The idea that birth tourism is a widespread problem is wrongwrongwrong.
For: 180 (82%)
Against: 39 (18%)
Just to be clear, we have stats on this. The idea that birth tourism is a widespread problem is wrongwrongwrong.
In other words, 0.08% of births per year involved a mother who lived outside Canada. And it follows that some of those are probably odd situations (i.e. Canadian citizens who are living abroad but who gave birth in Canada.) There is scant evidence birth tourism is common.
The birthright policy will come to a vote tomorrow. Stay tuned.
