Tuesday in the Commons, and all of the leaders were present, making it a question of whether everyone would be tiptoeing around the friendly fire question again. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking why Kurdish forces weren’t aware of the presence of Canadian troops on the front lines. Stephen Harper responded that it was not a combat situation but friendly fire, and that the spoke with the Iraqi prime minister about it, while investigations were ongoing. Mulcair pointed out that previous friendly fire deaths on a training mission were counted as combat deaths, and why not this incident. Harper noted that there are risks but they were not expecting to come under fire, and noted that it was better we fight them over there than over here. Mulcair tried to insist in a pair of questions why Canadian soldiers were on the front line, which wasn’t was voted on in Parliament, and Harper retorted that Parliament voted for it because it was the right thing to do. Mulcair repeated words that Harper said prior to the vote to prove his point, but Harper claimed there were “falsehoods” in that question and noted that the forces were acting according to their guidelines. Justin Trudeau was up next, and noted some of Jason Kenney’s many Twitter gaffes of late — including when he tweeted about the death of Nathan Cirillo — and wondered if he had been repremanded. Harper insisted that Kenney had taken over a difficult portfolio, and was doing well. Trudeau retorted about the recent statements by Chris Alexander and John Williamson dividing Canadians when they should be dealing with the economy — and when would the budget be tabled. Harper noted that Trudeau was playing games of his own with division. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and Harper went after him for pandering to the “anti-woman” culture that gives rise to the niqab.
Tag Archives: Iraq
Roundup: The other CSIS bill gets scrutiny
The Senate heard a lot of testimony yesterday regarding Bill C-44 – the other bill to boost CSIS’ powers, in case you’d forgotten about it. Those new powers include being able to operate abroad and break laws in other countries, which might be a bit of a problem, and raises a bunch of questions when it comes to how you oversee those kinds of operations, particularly given the limitations that SIRC faces when they can only visit one CSIS foreign posting per year to look into their operations. There was also testimony from Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director at CSIS, who described the internal processes of conducting investigations and getting warrants, painting a pretty robust system of high bars to proceed with investigations or operations – but again, we have to take his word for it, because we no longer have the in-house oversight of the Inspector General’s office, and SIRC does an annual review. SIRC, incidentally, said they have enough resources to do the job they’re supposed for now, but if they’re going to need to take on new responsibilities such as overseeing a far more robust and empowered CSIS, well, they’ll also need more money, which this government seems pretty unwilling to give. Curiously, the deputy minister of Public Safety said that the Auditor General also provides oversight of CSIS operations, which is pretty wrong – he looks at value-for-money, which is not the kind of oversight that CSIS requires.
QP: On eggshells about friendly fire
Despite the fairly significant news that happened in Iraq over the weekend, none of the main leaders were present in the Commons for QP today, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to deliver a paean about the soldier killed by friendly fire, and asked for information about his death. Jason Kenney stood up to offer condolences, and said that there were three investigations ongoing. Leslie accused the government of hiding the nature of the mission, and asked how many troops were in a combat situation. Kenney repeated the condolences in French, and praised the advise and assist mission. Leslie asked about a debate and vote on a future mission extension, to which Kenney spoke about the importance of the mission against the “death cult” of ISIS. Carol Hughes asked about the crude oil derailment in Northern Ontario, to which Lisa Raitt assured her that Transport Canada was taking strong action. Hughes asked the same in French, and Raitt gave assurances that they were moving the DOT-111 cars out of the system, along with other measures. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, first giving condolences for the fallen soldier, and then asked about the CIBC job quality survey results. Pierre Poilievre stood up to announce that the 1.2 million net new jobs were of good quality and they were lowering taxes. Scott Brison asked the same again in English, got much the same response in English, and for a final round, Poilievre gave some route talking points about the Liberals raising taxes.
Roundup: Friendly fire death
With news of a death by friendly fire in Iraq, one can pretty much imagine how this is going to become the fodder of QP over the coming days – much of it likely to be condemnation about a mission where these special operations forces were never supposed to be near the front lines in the first place, and a government that will be urging patience for the outcome of the investigations into just what happened that night when our troops came under fire. To add insult, the Kurdish forces took to their local media to blame the Canadians for the incident, but there are already dissenting reports, saying that their version doesn’t fit with the facts on the ground, including the maxim that “special forces don’t freelance” – hence why the government will be urging calm until an investigation happens. Just don’t hold your breath when it comes to requests not to politicise this death, because we’ve already crossed that line.
Roundup: Gearing up the political advertising
As we move closer to an election, there is going to be a lot of talk about political ads. An awful lot of talk. One of those talks is going to be about third-party advertising, and how much we’ll see because the federal spending limits are low as to render them fairly marginal, not that it’s stopped groups like Unifor or the National Citizens Coalition from grousing that the limits are too small for them to be of any good. Curiously, Stephen Harper used to be against these kinds of limits but he’s been in power for nine years and has done nothing about it, but you’ll have to guess as to why he’s had such a change of heart. Another thing we’ll see more of are social media ads which are cheap to produce and distribute, and can be used to refine and retool until they are considered “ready” to go for a major national buy – assuming that they don’t already get “earned” attention from news outlets without them having to actually pay for them to get wide distribution. Of course, we can look forward to being bombarded by ads outside of the writ period over the summer, so we should all be thoroughly sick of it by the time the election rolls around in October.
Roundup: Closure and privilege
It was wholly depressing the way in which the whole matter was rushed through. After the imposition of closure – not time allocation but actual closure – the government rammed through their motion to put all Hill security under the auspices of the RCMP without any safeguards to protect parliamentary privilege. After all, the RCMP reports to the government, and Parliament is there to hold government to account and therefore has privileges to protect that – the ability to have their own security being a part of that. Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger tried to amend the government’s motion to make it explicit that the Speakers of both chambers were the ultimate authorities, and the government said good idea – and then voted against it. And so it got pushed through, privilege be damned, with minimal debate and no committee study or expert testimony. The Senate, however, is putting up more of a fight, and the Liberals in that chamber have raised the privilege issue, and the Speaker there thinks there is merit to their concerns, and has suspended debate until he can rule on it. And this Speaker, incidentally, is far more aware of the issues of privilege and the role of Parliament and the Senate than his Commons counterpart seems to be, and he could very well rule the proposal out of order. One hopes so, and once again it seems that our hopes rest on the Senate doing its job, because the Commons isn’t doing theirs.
I don't know about you all, but I'm actually not willing to predict how Senator Nolin will rule. Senate speakers are tricky.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 17, 2015
QP: Telling the truth about the costs in Iraq
Tuesday in a frigid Ottawa, and all of the leaders were present, ready to take on the day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the role of our forces in Iraq, and the their refusal to turn over figures to the PBO about the costs of the mission. Stephen Harper said that they gave the costs — $122 million — and that the NDP hated any money going to the mission. Mulcair asked again in French, got much the same answer, and for the second supplemental, Mulcair changed topics to the definitions of activities that CSIS could disrupt in the new anti-terror legislation. Harper said that Canadians felt these measures were necessary. Mulcair tried again in English, and Harper accused Mulcair of conspiracy theory and black helicopters. Mulcair changed topics yet again, asking about Harper’s comments about Radio-Canada employees hating conservative values. Harper said that he believed the majority of Quebeckers agreed with him, and that the Orange Wave was over. Justin Trudeau was up, and ramped up the language on the questions, accusing the PM of attacking the ethics of CBC/Radio-Canada, to which Harper gave a non sequitur about high taxes and lax terrorism laws. Trudeau turned to the measles epidemic, and wondered why the government was not running any ads on the benefits of vaccination. Harper insisted that the minister of health was clear on the benefits of vaccines, and that vaccines were great.
Roundup: Narrowly avoiding back-to-work bill
It was only the flow of routine proceedings that kept the back-to-work legislation for CP Rail from being tabled yesterday, as the Teamsters ended their strike and announced that they would enter into arbitration with CP. In fact, the government has already put the procedural wheels in motion to limit debate on said legislation to a mere three-and-a-half hours for all stages, but the strike ended a mere half-hour before the actual bill was due to be tabled. So there’s that. I was curious to see how the government was going to get around the whole Supreme Court ruling on the right to strike, but alas, it didn’t see the light of day. This all being said, there were questions being put to the NDP about whether the rail should be considered an essential service because of the way that they have monopolies – particularly in the prairie provinces – but they refused to answer, instead giving yet another paean to workers’ rights. It would be nice if the debate could acknowledge that this is complicated rather than just yelling “fragile economy!” and “workers rights!” at one another the whole time.
Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing
With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.
Roundup: Cheap outrage and bad design
An op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen caught my eye yesterday, which talked about the reason why we get so much bad architecture here in the Nation’s Capital. Much of the government’s real estate is controlled by the department of Public Works, and there is a legitimate fear that anytime there’s good design, they’ll be criticised for spending money. And this is where I get both sad and angry (or “sangry,” as one fellow journo has dubbed). We have developed a culture of cheap outrage in this country, thanks to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and media outlets keen on cashing in on the cheap headlines that a high dollar figure out of context will generate. One of the worst offenders was Greg Weston, formerly of Sun News and later CBC (since retired from journalism). Anytime money was spent, well, he’d be all over how awful it was. New “temporary” committee rooms for Parliamentarians that have *gasp!* wood panelling! Millions of dollars! We can’t have that! (Never mind that “temporary” means something on the order of 20 years). The renovations to the West Block which includes the glassed-in courtyard that will house the temporary House of Commons? Millions of dollars! Outrageous! (Never mind that that same glassed-in courtyard will find new life as committee rooms after the Commons moves back to the Centre Block). Apparently it’s terrible if parliamentarians are not made to sit in portables during renovations, or that the context of those high dollar figures is something akin to them being halfway reasonable considering what has to go into that kind of work. How much do you expect a glass roof in keeping with the neo-Gothic architecture is supposed to cost anyway? It’s the same with the government selling off diplomatic residences and insisting that our ambassadors serve Ritz crackers and ginger ale at functions. Gods forbid that we actually put on a good face for stakeholders or visiting dignitaries, or even other Canadians to show a hint of prestige, that this is the national capital. No, anything that even hints at costing money must be treated as heresy. It’s sad that we perpetuate this mindset, and not reserve the outrage for legitimate boondoggles and wastes of money. No, instead we make it so that nobody can have nice things, and we all suffer as a result.