Nancy Ruth's Panel Extras - September

To round off our bonus questions, here are those from Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, as well as excerpts from our extended conversation.

Q: What was your highlight for the last session?

A: The Auditor General has committed to doing an  audit of gender-based analysis of some federal departments in May, so for me that was the highlight of the last session.

Q: How are things with the Defence and Security Committee? You’d been doing work with the Human Rights committee, so how is it moving to this one?

A: I did ask what kind of internal change has happened since the Michelle Douglas case [from 1992] in terms of homophobia and monitoring and measuring that, and I’ve never had an answer. I did ask General Natynczyk, just days before he became king, why since they recruited at the Dome Stadium with helicopters and tanks and stuff, why we didn’t recruit at the Pride Parade in Toronto, and he didn’t know the answer to that and lo and behold they all turned out, and some people say they were just gorgeous and cute as hell. But there was no talk within the queer community in terms of what is the implication of having a military and Canada being at war—it was just the superficial ‘oh, isn’t he good looking?’ But I have seen the military’s report on their recruitment that day—they ran out of pamphlets by four o’clock in the afternoon and they were open until eleven. There was a huge number of people, and they ended up with thousand and thousands of names, and they had about two hundred and fifty recruitment possibilities.

Q: What was the low point of the last session for you?

A: The low point to all sessions for me is when we get into playing party politics and stupid little bickering and delays just because we’re playing games—it drives me crazy. It drives every woman crazy—it’s not the way women do business. You’ve got a job to do, you do it and then you go home. They don’t threaten to keep you there another week or whatever. I hate that stuff—that kind of political process just drives me up the wall, and every June and every December it’s the same. Once you get close to wanting to leave for your break, all the games start about a month before.

[Further to the Panel question]:

I have always wondered how it would impact Afghanis when they see that we legitimise [queer] soldiers—I don’t know the answer to it, but it’s something I’ve questioned. It would be interesting to ask, but I don’t know how you’d ever get an answer, if you asked the local Kandahar tribal ruler, what kind of answer would you get?

I also understand that there’s a woman officer in Afghanistan who is responsible for implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 which deals with women’s peace and security, so it’s her job to push that agenda in the external relations, outside the wire, so it’s probably good. So to guess what kind of impact it is to have GLBT troops would only be totally speculative. I’ve heard stories of other NATO troops coming to our and Australian chaplains where they’re afraid to go to their own.

I was on a naval frigate at the end of June, and one of the corridors I went down I saw a rainbow bow stuck on a file cabinet, so I inquired later and asked if there are many homosexuals on board? And this was in the one-up from the Ordinary Seaman’s level of dining rooms, and the answer in this great conviviality was “Oh, no, we gave him that because he’s so anti-queer, and that’s a joke.” But there was no further discussion of the issue. I can tell you, of the four days I spent on that naval frigate, I did not come out. I did not raise the issue—I was in enough trouble with whatever feelings I had after one of the big anti-aircraft guns went off, and someone said ‘What was that like for you, Senator?’ and I said ‘Well, I’m on a boat with 250 other people who have committed to going off to war and killing people—that’s new for me.’ And then I was not seen as sympathetic to the military. I’m not anti-, but it’s difficult for me. I wish nation states didn’t have these, didn’t have to solve problems through this business. So I was not going to ask queer questions except for the one time that I asked it at that level, and I don’t think I would have believed anything. Senior officers would have said anything because it was a big propaganda thing for them—they had Bob Rae and Alexa McDonough travelling back on the same boat to Halifax that I and [another senator] came up on.

On recruitment:

What I know of the recruitment in the military is that they recruit something like 6500 a year, and Canada’s having a hard time training these folks because all the people who train them, the staff sergeants are all off in Afghanistan. So that’s an issue—how do we stay at war and expand our military? But I also know that the number of people who are leaving the forces, through attrition of either they’ve come to their time, or they’re leaving for family life, is 5500, and it’s only a net gain of a thousand. That’s pretty horrific. Queers without children might be a very good group to recruit from, because the attrition, a lot of it is related to family from what I hear. Except for those who’ve done their twenty years’ service, or whatever.

Siksay's Panel Extras - September

Further to this month's edition of Outlooks' Queer Parliamentary Panel, here are NDP MP Bill Siksay's bonus questions.  Mr. Siksay was the one panel member in town when I was working on the piece, which allowed us a sit-down interview.  He was far less optimistic about how things were going in Ottawa at the time.

Q: What were your highlights from the last session?

A: There’s a couple of things around GLBTT issues, certainly with Tom Lukiwski’s comments was a serious incident in the last Parliament, even if it was something that happened seventeen years ago, I don’t think the government really handled it very well. He appropriately apologised and quickly but there needed to be some follow-up to show that those opinions weren’t the basic beliefs of Lukiwski or the Conservative caucus, and to see some GLBT-positive action on their part, and we’ve never seen that. So that was a dramatic moment and that’s still outstanding. I was disappointed that we haven’t had a chance yet to debate the bill to include gender identity and expression in the Human Rights Act, but I did table another private members bill to add provisions for protecting trans folks in the criminal code so it can be into consideration as a hate crime at the time of sentencing, and hopefully we’ll have a chance to debate those. And if we get to a new Parliament, I’ll make it into one bill and deal with it all at once. The whole question around Bill C-10 and the film and video tax credit has implications for the queer community. Certainly Conservatives are wont to complaint about film and video that reflects our community, so I think that whenever you have a provision that’s as broad and open as the personal interpretation and preference of a minister, around approvals of a tax credit, there could easily be problem, so that was a really important one.

Q: In terms of what you’ve been working on generally, what was your highlight?

A: I did some important work around CBC, and certainly changes to CBC Radio Two and the CBC Radio Orchestra which is an important local issue, and for getting that out and they haven’t reversed that policy but it got some attention. I did some ongoing work on security certificates, and issues that I’ve been involved with again wasn’t a victory but we’ve raised profile around concerns of how Canada is using security certificates and some of the fundamental injustices of the process including the new process where they’re appointing these ‘special advocates’ to help represent these people.

Q: Lowest of the session for you?

A: There are so many low points, but I think in a way the low point is that we’re still here. Despite all of the problems that opposition members have identified with the government, in terms of disappointing directions or problematic direction that they’re still in power. And despite the protestations of the Liberal Party that they don’t agree with any number of specific measures, they disagree vehemently with some of them, there were no confidence votes. I think that we could have gone to an election before, so the fact that we’re still here is an overall disappointment.

Brison's Panel Extras - September

To accompany this month's edition of Outlooks' Queer Parliamentary Panel, I asked each panellist a few extra questions to set the mood.  First up is Liberal MP Scott Brison.

Q: What were the highlights from the last session for you?

A: There’s two things. One—I co-chair the Liberal Party of Canada’s platform committee with Bob Rae, so the last session I spent a lot of time working on policy and platform issues, particularly focusing on the Green Shift. The highlight of the last session from my perspective was seeing the successful launch, seeing Stéphane Dion move forward with the Green Shift. I was very pleased to see a political leader put forward a bold idea and create a national debate—that’s the way politics ought to work.
Also, as industry critic, I was very involved with the whole discussion of the whole MacDonald Dettwiler (MDA) and the proposed takeover by the Americans, and ultimately played a role in building pressure in Canada against it. That was certainly a highlight as well. From an opposition perspective, it was the Liberal Party that kept pressure on the Conservatives to come clean both on the Chuck Cadman affair and the Elections Canada affair, and I think we did a good job on that. I think it’s very important, but the politics that I find most exciting are where you’re involved in the development of new ideas and new thinking, and that’s why seeing Stéphane Dion move forward with the Green Shift is the kind of politics that I enjoy very much, where it’s not just focused on scandal, but you’re focused on an idea that’s important to the country and the future of the country.

Q: I know he mentioned you specifically in helping to change his mind [about a carbon tax], so that must have been pretty gratifying.

A: It’s not gratifying in that sense. I’m very proud of what he’s doing and proud to be part of his team, and I’m looking forward to him becoming Prime Minister because I think that he’ll be a very courageous, and strong, and principled and effective Prime Minister.

Q: Any particular low points in the last session for you?

A: I thought the attack on Navdeep Bains by the government and the Prime Minister was very low. I was really hoping that we could have a constructive debate on the environment, a serious debate about a serious issue, and I was very disappointed in the Prime Minister’s response. The Green Shift proposal has received a positive response from bank executives like the Toronto Dominion Bank Chief Economist, Don Drummond; positive response from economists and tax experts like Jack Mintz; positive response from environmentalists like David Suzuki, and the Prime Minister insults the intelligence of Canadians when he responds to a serious plan by calling it ‘insane,’ or when he takes the goon squad of the Conservative youth, people who are employed by the government, who work in minister’s offices and putting them in silly t-shirts with talking oil spots—it’s really an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. I’m disappointed in what he does to Canadian politics, because Canadians realise now that they can’t expect anything near statesmanship from this guy. But beyond that, he is a Prime Minister who is really bad for politics and for how Canadians view politics and politicians. I think particularly for young people he represents the very worst image that a politician can put forward.

Of course, outside of politics, but still kind of tied to politics, I’m nearing the first anniversary of my marriage on August 18th of last year. In eleven years of public life—my first election was June 2, 1997—I’ve seen a lot of changes and advancements in rights in the last twelve years, and who could have predicted in the eleven years since I was first elected what great advances we’ve seen in Canadian human rights, particularly around gays and lesbians but not exclusively. In politics, quite frequently, you’ll hear people saying that the longer they’re in politics, the more they lose faith in humanity. I’ve found the opposite to be the case, and I’ve found that my faith in humanity has been fortified significantly, largely because I’ve learned that with Canadians, and my own constituents in Kings-Hants, is that if you give them the opportunity to be progressive and to be open minded that they will rise to the occasion. I feel there’s a real responsibility in politics to appeal to people’s better angels, where Stephen Harper consistently tries to bring out the worst in people and try to appeal to their dark side. I think that Canadians are looking for positive leadership that enables them to rise to the occasion, and that’s just a matter of faith in people, and faith in Canadians, and when you expect them to be progressive, by and large they’ll rise to the occasion and that’s what I’ve seen in my political career.

[Further to the Panel question]:

Senator Barry Goldwater in the US, who once ran for President, was the dean of American conservatism, and he was considered a very right-of-centre guy, but he was kind of a libertarian who believed in free people and free markets. I always like the quote that he came up with when Bill Clinton was president and they had the debate about gays in the military, and at the time Clinton came up with the compromise position, which wasn’t really a great position—“Don’t ask, don’t tell” which was really kind of goofy—but anyway, Goldwater came out with a statement saying “It doesn’t matter whether you are straight, it only matters if you can shoot straight.” I thought that was pretty good.

Outlooks' Queer Parliamentary Panel - September

In this month's Outlooks, we're launching a new regular feature--our Queer Parliamentary Panel, where we ask a question to gay or lesbian MPs and Senators of the three major national parties.  The panel consists of MP Scott Brison for the Liberals, MP Bill Siksay for the NDP and Senator Nancy Ruth for the Conservatives.  I've met and interviewed all three at some point in the past, and I was happy that they all agreed to participate in this panel on an ongoing basis.  We'll be asking a new question every month or two, and helping to engage the Canadian GLBT community politically the way that a national magazine should.

This month's question was in large part inspired by the work I did on the article relating to the diminishing presence of homophobia in the Canadian Forces earlier in the summer.  Being as Senator Ruth is on the Senate Security and National Defence committee, she provided a lot of added insight into the issue which I plan to build upon as I look to revisit the issue in a future article somewhere down the line.

The panel can be seen online at the Outlooks website here, or you can download the full issue in .pdf format here.  (The piece is on page 14).

Sensitive Documents - Citizen Special

I have an op-ed piece in today's Ottawa Citizen titled "Why We Find Sensitive Documents Abandoned on Street Corners," which is about the case of Environment Canada documents turning up on a street corner last week and being turned over to the CBC.  Having spent time working in the bureaucracy in records management, some of those records sensitive, I have a fair bit of insight into this kind of an issue, so I was quick to find a home for this piece.  Never having written an op-ed for the Citizen before, it was a bit of a gamble as they seemed to prefer the submission to be done on spec, meaning that I would write it and there is no guarantee they'd buy it.  Fortunately, the deputy editorial pages editor liked what he saw, and picked it up.

The op-ed can be found in today's Citizen on page A15, or online here.

Sneak Peak - October's Outlooks

Today I interviewed both an actor and a writer for my piece in the October issue of Outlooks.  I was quite looking forward to this as I really enjoyed the show in its first season, and I was not only happy to hear that they're coming back for a second season, but knew that I had to get an interview with them once I found out.  In fact, the actor in question called me during a break in shooting today.  I'm still waiting to hear back from another of the writers to round out the piece, but I'm happy that it all went forward without a hitch.

(By the way, the actor might also just make the cover that month, which would be very cool.)

Upgrade!

After many years of using my trusty tape recorder (actually, this is my second identical model), I finally took the plunge and upgraded to a digital model this weekend. The last straw was in trying to transcribe interviews for my last article, using a brand new tape, when I had audio bleeding in from the second side into the first, making a portion of the interview unintelligible.  (Fortunately, that interview was winding down and I didn't really lose anything in the bleed before it carried on to the next interview). That, and while it was great for doing phone interviews, doing them in person meant that the noise of the motor was becoming more intrusive on the tape as time went on.  So it was time to go.

I'm still playing with the new digital one, but so far so good. I know I should have been on this particular bandwagon for a while now, but I'm rarely, if ever, an "early adopter" of new technology, and I hadn't been too thrilled with the quality of the digital sound until recently. That my old computer couldn't have handled the files was another consideration, but that problem has since been solved. I'm quite looking forward to really trying out this new recorder in the days and weeks ahead.