Tag Archives: Arctic

Roundup: AG highlights and denials

Posted on by

It was the Auditor General’s fall report yesterday, and as expected he gave a pretty damning indictment of the veterans mental health programme, citing that some 20 percent of veterans can wait over eight months for disability support. The government, naturally, found the one line in the report that made it sound like they were doing a good job overall and repeated it over and over again, as though that would make it true. Other gems included $15 million spent on a digital records storage system at Library and Archives, which was later scrapped with no documented rationale (the video clip is in response to my questions in the press conference), a lack of follow-up on the Nutrition North programme to ensure that the subsidies were being passed onto consumers, a lack of cooperation meaning RCMP aren’t getting data on Canadians who offend abroad, and there was a lack of adequate data to assess the auto bailouts from 2008. And then there was Julian Fantino (or likely the staffer monitoring his Twitter account, as I suspect his duotronic circuits can’t handle the feed) trying to get one over Mercedes Stephenson, who was having none of it.

Continue reading →

QP: On the defensive after the AG report

Posted on by

Mere hours after the government took a beating from the Auditor General on the issue of veterans mental health, it was going to a tough day. That said, Thomas Mulcair was absent, and Megan Leslie led off, asking about the wait times posted in the report and tying it veterans suicides and the lapsed funding. Stephen Harper responded by selectively quoting the report about timely access, which conflated the programmes being reported on. Leslie responded with a different quote, and why the PM has not made it a personal priority. Harper reiterated the good portion of the report. Leslie moved onto the topic of the Nutrition North chapter and the lack of tracking of food prices in the North. Harper insisted that the food basket figure for Northerners had dropped by six percent. Peter Julian asked about the chapter on Library and Archives and the boondoggle of a $15 million system, to which Shelly Glover largely blamed issue on the previous head of the agency. Julian changed topics to the CBC story on the privacy breach at CRA, to which Kerry-Lynne Findlay assured him that measures were being taken, including notifying the Privacy Commissioner. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and returned to the veterans chapter of the report, and that a number of those veterans have waited seven years to see if they can even qualify for benefits. Harper reiterated the selective good portion of the conclusion, and said that the department would implement the recommendations to improve. Trudeau brought up veterans suicides and lapsed funding. Harper insisted that the lapse was because there was not enough uptake from veterans. Trudeau brought up that veteran’s wife who was trying to get more assistance for mental health, to which Harper again reiterated the selective quotes in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Information Commissioner crisis

Posted on by

Troubling news out of the Information Commissioner’s office, as Suzanne Legault says that the office is nearly broke, thanks to an increasing workload of 30 percent more complaints this year, plus budget cutbacks (and it will be even worse next year as the budget has to absorb staff salary increases). It makes one wonder about the state of court cases that the Commissioner is pursuing in the name of access to certain documents, and what it means to accepting or dealing with new complaints in a timely manner, especially if they are stretched to the breaking point as it is. Tony Clement, not surprisingly, had no comment about any of this, even though as Treasury Board president, he is the one who is supposed to ensure that there is Access to Information compliance in the civil service, which would make her far easier.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Politicizing the suspensions

Posted on by

Talk of the two Liberal suspensions continues to swirl and take on a darker and more political tone as Thomas Mulcair accused Justin Trudeau of “re-victimising” the two accusers as they asked him not to go public and he didn’t inform them ahead of time that he would suspend his MPs. Trudeau noted that he didn’t reveal the gender or party of the alleged victims, and that he had a duty to act when confronted with the allegations, and one can certainly imagine the accusations that would be levelled against Trudeau if it became public knowledge that he knew of the incidents and didn’t take action. It is also not really a helpful suggestion from those like Megan Leslie to say that he could have disciplined his MPs quietly, which is part of the problem that his public suspensions are trying to address – that there shouldn’t be any tolerance for this kind of behaviour, and that it comes with consequences. I also don’t think there’s any small amount of irony in Leslie saying that it should have been done quietly, when that just feeds the “old boy’s club” mentality that she seems eager to undermine. We also have learnt that one of the incidents took place more than a year ago and another Liberal MP, Scott Simms, know of it but didn’t say anything at the request of the alleged victim, whom he described as a “dear friend.” CBC has six questions in the wake of what has gone on, which help frame what we know and don’t know. In the wake of Wednesday’s suspensions, Leslie talks about some of the more subtle forms of harassment that goes on – not so much aggressive as unwanted touching of hair or lower backs, while former staffers have also opened up about their experiences, including Jordan Owens. She made a very good point about the value of staffers being their discretion, which is true and necessary for the kind of work that is being done, and it makes the situation that much more complicated.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for the bill

Posted on by

Despite it being Monday, there were no major leaders in the Commons. It left Libby Davies to lead off, asking for an update on security at federal sites. Stephen Blaney reminded her that Hill security is the domain of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, but they were fully cooperating. Davies asked about the moratorium on armed forces personnel wearing uniforms in public, and Rob Nicholson said that he deferred to the judgement of the Chief of Defence Staff. Davies asked for assurances about full debate on any new security legislation, and Blaney promised that they would not overreact, but it was time to stop underreacting. Nycole Turmel picked up, asking about the National Post report that the legislation would criminalise certain Internet posts condoning terrorism, to which Blaney told her to wait for the bill to be tabled. Turmel wanted assurances that civil liberties would be protected, to which Blaney repeated his answer. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking for cooperation on drafting new security legislation and for detailed technical briefings on the bill. Blaney more or less agreed. LeBlanc wanted a timeline on the bill, but Blaney talked around an answer. LeBlanc pressed in French, but Blaney repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few more details about the Iraq mission

Posted on by

The Chief of Defence Staff offered a Friday afternoon briefing to give a few more details on the mission in Iraq, which he openly acknowledges will likely take longer than six months, and could mean that our special forces advising Iraqi troops on the ground could come under fire from ISIS militants, and that the danger of IEDs is always present. It also sounds like the mission could become something akin to an Afghanistan-style combat training one, which, you guessed it, the NDP would oppose because slippery slope, mission creep, etcetera. Jean Chrétien took to the op-ed pages to back Justin Trudeau’s position that our military role would be marginal and that we should spend more resources on a humanitarian mission instead, conveniently forgetting that it never happened under his own watch.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088036725547010

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088463617593344

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/523088686691659776

Continue reading →

Roundup: Votes cast, commence the grumbling

Posted on by

As expected, the confidence vote on the government as it ordered a combat deployment to Iraq went ahead last night and passed with little trouble, and not without a great deal more political posturing on all sides. I’m not going to say we’re going to war, because that gives ISIS too much credit, but it does escalate Canada’s role in the region, though we’ll see how long any airstrikes will be effective for. The NDP are grumbling particularly about the door being opened to combat in Syria, while Liberal MP Irwin Cotler put out a release to state his reason for abstaining from the vote, which was eloquently stated when it comes to needing to engage in some form of combat against ISIS, but not agreeing with the way this government has gone about it. In the region, Matthew Fisher notes the logistical challenges that will mean it may not be until the end of the month before our CF-18s can begin making any airstrikes. Terry Milewski notes the divisions among those opposed to the combat mission, including former Liberal voices that want it to go ahead, while Michael Den Tandt looks at the way in which the Liberals were squeezed in this debate. Paul Wells goes back to the archives to find the ways in which the Liberals handled Iraq deployments in the past, and finds the curious ways in which history repeats itself.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Announcing a combat mission

Posted on by

Much ink and many pixels are being spilt over this Iraq announcement yesterday, and I’m not a foreign affairs person, so I’ll leave most of that analysis to people who are. Harper has announced that we’ll be sending six CF-18s, one refuelling jet, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and that the up-to-69 special forces military advisors will remain on the ground for another six months, and that they are not to engage in combat operations. The air strikes would only be in Iraqi territory unless the Syrian government authorized strikes in their territory as well, which is unlikely (and who wants to be seen to be supporting the Assad regime?) He also worded his motion that he’s presented to the House in such a way that it’s not authorizing the deployment, but that it support the decision to send those forces. (This part is important because it’s less of a trap when it comes to accountability). In response, Thomas Mulcair gave a categorical no, while the Liberals said they can’t support this motion – key distinction there – but they don’t think that the PM has made the proper case for why air strikes are the best tool when we could probably contribute more in other areas, and while Harper says that it’s not an either/or proposition, it could easily be pointed out that the government really lowballed the figures for the Libya mission until the final totals came in, and that those other areas would suffer if we put more eggs into the air strikes basket. Calling our CF-18s aging and casting doubt on their capabilities probably wasn’t the smartest move, however, and insisting that we can do more in a non-combat role does give the impression that the Liberals are becoming pacifistic and shirkers of the heavy lifting that needs to be done. Elizabeth May also made some good points about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, which we have in spades in this situation. David Pugliese gives a Q&A on what the proposed mission entails. Robert Fisher talks about the positive response from the region. Steve Saideman parses the politics of it all, reminding us that this is the land of lousy policy alternatives.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Whipping out our CF-18s

Posted on by

While making a speech at the Canada 2020 conference about how Stephen Harper hasn’t yet made a case for a combat mission in Iraq, and about the various other options that Canada has at its disposal to aid in the conflict, Justin Trudeau made a dick joke about “trying to whip out our CF-18s to show them how big they are.” And suddenly the scolds were out in full force, going on about it being juvenile and an insult to the troops, and how dare he not be a statesman on this eve of war (as though 26 Special Forces personnel and the likely deployment of a six-pack of fighters were a thousand ships sailing for Troy). Apparently everybody needs to talk in platitudes that have the consistency of pabulum, and he can’t make a point about being quick to take some options at the potential cost of others (though I will add that Canada is part of military alliances, we have the capability to deploy forces and the fiscal means to do so, artificial budget austerity aside, so not doing some heavy lifting would make us look like shirkers in the eyes of said allies). And hey, the fact that he says his mind isn’t made up and that he’s looking to be convinced is probably a good thing because he’s not briefed on the matter, he’s not a member of the Privy Council, and is in no position to come up with a war plan based on no information. Even one former Canadian Forces general says that we shouldn’t be giving out all of this information in public, and he might even have a point there too. But oh, dick joke. Scold, scold. Or maybe we can all grow up and stop getting apoplectic the moment somebody says something slightly off-colour. Maybe?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Countdown to an announcement

Posted on by

Word has it that on Friday, Stephen Harper will announce our combat role in the fight against ISIS in Iraq. It also sounds like two of our refuelling jets are being readied for the mission. That will mean that Parliament will become seized with the debate and eventual vote (never mind that it’s a trap) early next week. There’s also no indication where he’ll make that announcement, but it’s unlikely to be in the Commons, because, well, it’s a Friday and Harper never, ever darkens the door of the Commons on a Friday (let alone makes a major announcement there, but that’s another story). Andrew Coyne gives his thoughts on a deployment here. That said, I think this talk about decisions to put soldiers into harm’s way needing some kind of special consent and the knowledge that our parliamentarians have our soldiers’ backs is a bit overblown, while pressing for a vote can simply curtail debate and damage accountability.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337138770083840

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337562860359680

Continue reading →