Tag Archives: Iraq

Roundup: Cases and questions on Iraq

Posted on by

Stephen Harper gave his big speech about extending the Iraq mission into Syria yesterday morning, and not unsurprisingly, the opposition parties were not in favour of the motion, though they have slightly different reasons for it. The NDP, not surprisingly, reject the whole mission outright and went so far as to basically call Harper an ally of Bashar al-Assad, while the Liberals focused on principles they laid out not being met, and their past objections about the mission not being suitable for Canadian non-combat capabilities. There was also the difference of the NDP promising to pull our forces out right away if they form government, whereas the Liberals said that they wouldn’t because we’ve made commitments to our allies and they would ensure that we at least see those through. As for the legal justification, the Conservatives offered a couple of different ones during the day, which doesn’t help with the clarity. Here’s the statement Elizabeth May would have said if she hadn’t been denied permission to speak by the jackasses in the backbenches. Paul Wells parses the speeches a little more, and pays particular attention to Trudeau and his attempt to stay consistent. Michael Petrou gives some perspective sauce as someone who’s been in the region an on the front lines. Stephen Saideman has questions and comments about the motion, and David Pugliese tries to answer a few of the basic questions people may have. Philippe Lagassé examines the motion from the lens of a political convention (still likely designed to launder the decision) as opposed to an attempt to build a constitutional one.

Continue reading →

QP: On bombing Syria

Posted on by

About four hours after Harper addressed the Commons about extending the Iraq mission, everyone gatherer again, all leaders present and full benches behind them. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the October statements that bombing in Syria would only happen with the permission of that government, and asked what changed. Harper responded that ISIS was taking refuge in Syria, and that we were following the lead of our allies in bombing across that border. Mulcair asked about the change in statements on painting targets, but Harper insisted that the government would act about the threat of ISIS. Muclair asked about how many new soldiers would be added, to which Harper insisted that those would not change. Mulcair asked for an exit strategy, and Harper responded by being “clear” about the threat that ISIS poses to Canada and the world. Mulcair wondered how Harper could still claim it wasn’t a combat mission, and Harper responded by wondering how the NDP could not support the mission. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the planning horizon for the combat role. Harper responded that the motion was for up to twelve months, and that they would continue to evaluate the situation. Trudeau wondered if our Special Forces would be operating in Syria, to which Harper assured him that the motion was only for them to continue training in Northern Iraq. Trudeau then wondered how Canada would communicate with the Assad regime to ensure that our fighters would not be targeted by Syrian air defences. Harper insisted that our allies were already doing it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Witnesses of dubious expertise

Posted on by

As the hearings on C-51 resume, the government has come out swinging with what they consider to be a star witness – the sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent, who of course thinks that the bill is necessary. The problem, of course, is that she really has no credentials other than being victim of a tragedy, and if you ask me, the government is pretty unseemly in exploiting her grief to push legislation that actual experts are not convinced about. It’s not the first time they’ve used this tactic, and it hasn’t always worked – remember Amanda Todd’s mother, who wasn’t ready to hand over civil liberties to try and halt the spectre of cyber-bulling. Not that it stopped Stephen Blaney from touting Louise Vincent over and over again in QP yesterday, and he’s likely to repeat her praise for the bill today and going forward whenever criticism is levelled at the bill. Other witnesses yesterday included former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, who wants more oversight in the bill, and at least one other small-c conservative commentator, who has her own doubts about the bill, in case you were wondering if all of the opposition was coming from the “loony left.” Elsewhere, Conservative MP Michael Chong is now adding his voice to those who want more oversight, while the National Firearms Association, who have expressed a great deal of scepticism over the bill, has pulled out from testifying.

Continue reading →

QP: OMG Jihadi Terrorists!

Posted on by

Monday after a break week, and attendance was pretty scare, particularly among the leaders. In Mulcair’s stead, David Christopherson shouted a denunciation of Bill C-51. In response, Stephen Blaney calmly explained that terrorists were targeted by the bill, not lawful protesters. Christopherson shouted about the Canadian Bar Association opposing the bill, to which Peter MacKay assured him that they were listening to experts, and touted the provisions for judicial warrants in the bill. Christopherson then changed topics, and shouted a question of when the Iraq mission extension motion would be tabled. Jason Kenney said that a motion would be tabled “soon,” and then denounced ISIS. Nycole Turmel asked the same again in French, got the same answer in French, and for her final question, Turmel noted the opposition of the government of Quebec to C-51. Blaney responded that he had already met with his counterparts. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and noted the weak job numbers and wondered where the plan for permanent job creation was. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the only job plan the Liberals had was to raise taxes. Ralph Goodale asked about the cuts to infrastructure funds, but Candice Bergen gave a non sequitur response about family tax cuts. Goodale demanded more money for Build Canada, to which Poilievre repeated his red herring about higher Liberal taxes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rushing through the bill…again

Posted on by

With the clock ticking down to the end of the current parliament, the government is going to start lighting a fire to getting C-51 passed over the next two weeks, before the Easter break. That means accelerating the committee hearings to largely stuff them in the next week, with lots of witnesses in single sittings and little time to hear from each of them. It’s not a surprise that the government would use this particular tactic again to ram though contentious legislation, as they’ve done repeatedly, because they apparently have little capacity or desire to actually do the due diligence that they’re supposed to when it comes to these kinds of bills. Not surprisingly, there’s going to be plenty of opposition to large parts of the bill, and some of those who do support parts of the bill are at least concerned that there’s not enough study of the ramifications, or that there is enough needed oversight. But will the government make changes? Unlikely. Adding their voices to the opposition to the bill over the weekend was the Canadian Bar Association.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Awaiting the Iraq debate, redux

Posted on by

As we prepare to debate the extension of the Iraq mission, our Forces say that the ban on entering Syria hasn’t really been a problem, since our allies can do it on their own terms. Given that Canada has no authorisation under international law to enter Syria without permission – something we are justifiably loathe to get give that it would be coming from Bashar al-Assad, the dictator there – it makes it hard for our government to come up with a convincing enough case to take the war there, especially when the Americans have their own particular means by which they can enter that country. Much of that debate will be framed in such a way as to trap the Liberals, the government hoping that they can cast them as being soft on terror by not wanting to pursue ISIS there, lest the Liberals expose their left flank to the NDP supporters who are much more pacifistic. It will be a debate full of rhetoric on the government side which will make ISIS look bigger and more dangerous than it is – and while they have done some awful things, they’re pretty tiny on the scale of history in the region (and given the way this government makes ISIS look like a bigger threat than they probably are in reality, does that count as promoting terrorism?) The flipside of the debate will be the humanitarian side, which Rob Nicholson has been touting after his visit to the region. The problem there is that unless we have clearly stated objectives on that front, we risk becoming tangled up in problems that may leave us worse off in the long run, just as we wound up making a hash of things in Afghanistan despite the best of intentions. But can MPs really handle a nuanced debate like this so close to an election call? I have my doubts.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freezing out the ambassador

Posted on by

It’s a very curious tale that didn’t seem to get much attention yesterday, but the Globe and Mail had a very interesting and lengthy dissection of the relationship between the Canadian government and the US ambassador to Canada, and it’s not good. It’s also one of those cases where it’s hard to assign blame, because so much of what’s terrible seems to be coming from both sides. First Obama took nine months to announce a replacement, which was seen as a snub, and then when Bruce Heyman was appointed and arrived in Canada, he basically said he couldn’t help with any of the big files – Keystone XL and the new Detroit-Windsor bridge – and wanted us to bend on other files like intellectual property. Oh, and he told a crowd at his first big outing that we need to pretty much get over Keystone XL. So the Canadian government froze him out – Harper won’t meet with him, nor will the cabinet, and since Harper still meets with Obama at international summits, and John Baird had a good relationship with John Kerry, it was all well and good to go around Heyman, who in turn started going around the federal government and has been focusing on premiers instead. It’s all perfectly dysfunctional, and perhaps a sign of the dysfunction at the top, and problems in the world’s biggest trading relationship.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A desperate lawsuit

Posted on by

If you thought that the NDP’s sudden demand that the government refer the satellite offices case to the Supreme Court to rule on its justiciability immediately wasn’t a sign of desperation, the fact that those MPs being ordered to repay are now suing the Board of Internal Economy in Federal Court is even more so. Can one even sue a parliamentary board that one is a part of? In fact, it smacks of the kind of desperate tactic where you throw absolutely everything at the wall, no matter how implausible, and hope that something sticks. The suit demands that the $2.7 million in demanded repayments be set aside, calling the decision “unreasonable, arbitrary and incorrect.” Except it wasn’t the Board that made the findings – it was the Clerk of the Commons, and she has the paperwork to prove that the NDP misled her when they set up the scheme in the first place. It’s also curious that the NDP would go for this kind of process when discovery is going to be very difficult for them as they have to turn over all manner of documents as part of the process. Still, with time running out before their MPs start having their salaries garnisheed, I have to wonder how many more tactics we’ll see employed to try and delay things, at least until the election and then beyond.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Talking over criticism

Posted on by

We saw more testimony on C-51 yesterday, pretty much all of it scathing in one way or another – not that the Conservatives on the committee were really open to hearing such criticism, and went so far as to mischaracterise some of the comments on the evening political shows, and talking over those witnesses while in committee to attempt to make their points for them. One of the witnesses yesterday was AFN national chief Perry Bellegarde, who wants the bill withdrawn for not having consulted with First Nations, because he sees it as an assault on their rights, saying that they have been labelled as terrorists for standing up for their rights and lands. (I can’t recall this government ever having done that, for the record, and I think his argument is a bit of a stretch, but maybe that’s just me). A former head of SIRC – and former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister at that – called the bill a constitutional mess, which is a pretty good indication that the criticism on the bill is coming from all sides – not just the environmentalists and civil libertarians. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have blocked the Privacy Commissioner from appearing at committee, but they insist that he was “consulted” on the bill. The problem there is that he didn’t see the bill before it was tabled, which is really tough to call it consultation since he couldn’t see the language of what he was supposed to be consulted on. John Geddes profiles the two law professors who have taken the lead in pointing out the many flaws in the bill, who also appeared yesterday.

Continue reading →

QP: The Wright connection

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and everyone was present and ready to go. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking if the prime minister was planning an extension or expansion of the Iraq mission. Stephen Harper responded by first thanking the House for its support of the mission and then said that no decision had been made and he would let them know when it had. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same response. Mulcair then switched to the topic of the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Diane Finley, and wondered about Nigel Wright’s role in the affair. Harper responded that she used her discretion while acting in good faith, and would take the advice of the Commissioner going forward. Mulcair pressed, but got the same response that she acted in good faith. Mulcair tried to push on the quote about Nigel Wright being asked to “sort out” the issue, but Harper tried to distance himself. Justin Trudeau was up next, and wanted the Prime Minister to explain to the half-million Muslims in the country how he found their faith to be “anti-women.” Harper responded by reading condemnations from Jewish groups about elements in Trudeau’s speech on Monday. Trudeau pointed out that Harper used to oppose Sihk’s wearing turbans in the RCMP, and Trudeau responded by reading some Muslim groups defending the no-niqabs-in-citizenship-ceremonies position. Trudeau then moved to Jason Kenney’s misleading photos on Twitter, to which Kenney doubled down, insisting we were in Iraq to protect women and girls from ISIS. So, no apology then.

Continue reading →