While a gas leak evacuated buildings a couple of blocks from the Hill, QP got underway undaunted. Rona Ambrose led off, immediately boarding the sanctimony train with regards to the Harjit Sajjan apology, and Justin Trudeau reiterated that he continued to have full confidence in his Minister. Ambrose demanded Sajjan’s ouster, and Trudeau reiterated that he was proud of Sajjan, and listed numerous accomplishments. Ambrose demanded to know if Trudeau knew of Sajjan saying this in 2015, but Trudeau got around it. Ambrose ladled on some more sanctimony before demanding his ouster yet again, but Trudeau praised Sajjan’s contributions again. Ambrose then accused the government of not supporting the military, but Trudeau was unmoved. Thomas Mulcair was up next, decrying that there was no inquiry into the Afghan detainees issue. Trudeau said that Sajjan spoke with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and she closed the file. Mulcair reiterated, saying that it wasn’t the question, but Trudeau repeated that the file was closed. Mulcair tried to sort out whether Sajjan knew nothing on that file or if he was an architect of Op Medusa, and Trudeau reiterated praise for Sajjan. Mulcair then moved onto the Parliamentary Budget Officer, accusing Trudeau of attacking him, and Trudeau disputed that, insisted they gave him more resources and more independence.
Round two, and Denis Lebel worried about softwood lumber (Carr: We are persuaded that we can find a solution), and returned to the Sajjan issue (Sajjan: I am honoured to serve our men and women in uniform), James Bezan and Pierre Paul-Hus demanded Sajjan’s resignation (Sajjan: ibid). Hélène Laverdière and Randall Garrison demanded a public inquiry into Afghan detainees (Sajjan: I have spoken to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner). John Brassard, Alupa Clarke and Candice Bergen returned to demanding Sajjan’s resignation (Sajjan: I will always highlight the great work of the Canadian Forces). Tracey Ramsey worried that the government walked away from softwood talks and were secretly reopening TPP (Champagne: It’s not a secret and we want to be front and centre with modern, principled trade in the Asia Pacific), and Karine Trudel worried about softwood lumber (Carr: We have been working with provincial counterparts to come up with a plan).
Round three saw questions on Stéphane Dion’s dual appointment, the medical assistance in dying working group, an investigation into Home Capital Group, mortgage rules, changes to the Standing Orders, flooding in Quebec, the United Nations vis-à-vis Israel, Supply Management, and softwood lumber.
And now your daily Supply Management question. Because not a single #QP can go by without one.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 2, 2017
Overall, it was only a slightly better day than yesterday, where there was a little less yelling and denunciations from the opposition benches on the Sajjan issue, but the unctuous sanctimony was no less choking than it was previously. That the NDP are trying to capitalize on this with issue by reopening the Afghan detainee issue is a very difficult stretch to make, and it comes across as grasping in order to pile on. I will reiterate that it was good that Sajjan wasn’t reading a prepared script once again, and it was probably a good thing that he started to move past the self-flagellation and started to talk more about his job. I will add that I’m still uncomfortable with the way the Conservatives are framing the Sajjan issue, and when they get their MPs who are former serving members of the Canadian Forces to heap shame on top of their sanctimony, it’s really undermining the civil-military line that we should be paying a lot of attention to. That they have latched onto this “stolen valour” tag is also fairly disturbing because it’s claiming military lingo to try and bolster their position, and further make this civil-military blurring a problem.
https://twitter.com/JODYMITIC/status/859201498248564736
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Sherry Romanado for a black suit with a white collared shirt, and to Doug Eyolfson for a dark grey suit with a light blue shirt and a purple tie and pocket square. Style citations go out to Tony Clement for a light grey suit with a pink shirt with red and blue stripes with a navy and red tie, and to Diane Lebouthillier for a white collared shirt with red and blue stripes and a white knit vest. Special mention goes out to Mark Holland for a burgundy suit with a white shirt and black spotted tie.
So, I’d like to know when the last time was that any party was able to appoint a Defense Minister who actually *had* experience in defense. I’m not suggesting that this minister is somehow orders of magnitude better at the job than previous ministers, and I’m certainly not making the case for diversity reasons. I’m just saying this is an uncommon opportunity for there to be an interlocutor between the CAF and Cabinet, who understands the contingencies and practices of both. That is a rare commodity. And when you acquire a rare commodity, you make the best use of it that you can. If Minister Sajjan was manifestly inept, or not held in any esteem by members of the Forces, that would be one thing. But we have a special circumstance here, and I think it in the best interests of the country that we make wise use of it, rather than run roughshod over it for partisan purposes. If there is something to fix in Minister Sajjan’s conduct, fix it and let him get on with the job. I hasten to remind folks that the country would have to accept another Defense MInister for the next two and a half years, were Sajjan to be forced out of Cabinet. If people think there is someone better-suited to the task, waiting in the wings, fine. But regardless of party, the country deserves to have the most qualified person in the position, so unless anyone has a better suggestion for the next two and a half years, put the sanctimony back in the desk drawer, correct what needs correcting, and let the man get on with the job.
If the Conservative Party gets elected in 2019, then I suppose Erin O’Toole can have his shot at the post. But until then, let’s milk the added value of an honest-to-goodness member of the CAF as minister while we can.
Andrew Leslie.
The Conservatives appointed retired general Gordon O’Connor to the position from 2006-07, at the height of the Afghan mission, and there were a lot of questionable decisions made around Cold War-era tactics and equipment that he favoured that the defence community questioned (hence why we got all of those old Leopard tanks). So it does happen, but it creates a number of problematic expectations on the side of the Forces as to whose “side” the minister is going to be on, and I think we need to have a better conversation about blurring the lines around civil-military relations and the expectations about civilian control.
Agreed. I was thinking in terms of how underinformed about the operational realities MPs can be, sometimes. And that it would be of benefit to have someone in the saddle who has more knowledge (and recent knowledge) in that area. On the other hand, your point is well-taken about whose “side” such a minister should be on, or whether they ought to even BE on a “side”, for the purposes of optimal functioning of any government.
The CBC is not much better on this matter, today Anna maria Tremonti had an ex-soldier on her show denouncing Sajjan. At the end of the interview she tells listener that Bruce Moncur is involved with the NDP. Tremonti managed to turn the interview into an attack MND by using the NDP plant. This is why I no longer listen to the CBC.