Despite it being a Thursday, none of the major leaders were present in the Chamber for QP. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie kicked off by asking about radicalized Canadians who were not stopped before they left the country. Stephen Blaney said that there were 63 investigations underway covering over 100 individuals, and why didn’t the NDP support their anti-terrorism legislation. Leslie asked why they were relying on US intelligence for these radicals, but Blaney gave a non sequitur about supporting the mission in Iraq. Leslie turned to the Ebola crisis, to which Rona Ambrose assured her of all the ways in which Canada was contributing. Libby Davies carried on asking about the Ebola vaccine and reiterated the tale of the intellectual property concerns, but Ambrose assured her that the supply that was given to the WHO did not have those concerns and it was up to them to decide what to do with it. Davies quoted a WHO release stating that the commercializations of the vaccine was held by that U.S. company. Ambrose, somewhat exasperated, insisted that they were two completely different issues, and the intellectual property on the donated doses belonged to Canada. Ralph Goodale asked about the plans to stuff things like copyright changes into the budget bill. Kevin Sorenson insisted that Goodale wait until the bill was tabled. Goodale blasted the plans to change those copyright plans so that news clips can freely been used in political ads, calling it “expropriation without compensation.” Shelly Glover said she wouldn’t comment on rumours or speculation, but gave an excuse about networks censoring content. No, seriously. The round closed with Dominic LeBlanc giving the same question in French, and Glover repeating as well.
Tag Archives: Iraq
Roundup: Not an imminent threat
The heads of CSIS and the RCMP went to committee to say that while ISIS is not an imminent threat to Canada, we have to be vigilant about domestic terrorism threats. Well, sure. And then Stephen Blaney talked about arresting these people and throwing them behind bars, because you know, due process and stuff. Blaney also said that they won’t be implementing exit controls, because those belong to totalitarian countries – but they do share entry data with the Americans, which is a de facto exit control system because if one enters one country, they had to exit the other. But that’s not totalitarian. Incidentally, the government has also announced funding for a bunch of new studies on finding the root causes of domestic terrorism and radicalization. And here Pierre Poilievre assured us that the root cause of terrorism is terrorists.
QP: Ebola and Syria
It was curious how many empty seats there were in the Commons on a Wednesday, given that it’s caucus day, but all of the leaders were present, so it should at least be interesting. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about increasing aid to west Africa to deal with Ebola. Harper reminded him that Canada just dispatched a second mobile lab and more supplies were on the way. Mulcair asked about the experimental vaccine that was still not delivered, but Harper responded that they were waiting for the World Health Organisation to determine where it would be used. Mulcair insisted the delay was because of an intellectual property issue, and Harper assured him that he looked into it and was told that is not the reason it has been held up. Mulcair changed topics to Syria, going from Harper’s former denunciations of Assad to the caveat that he would permit bombing in the region if given permission by that government. Harper responded that this as a military operation but not going to war against any government in the region. Mulcair closed the round by asking where our fighter jets would be based in the Middle East, to which Harper told him that it wasn’t yet determined. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked if the government planned to offer more than the $10 million recently announced for the refugee crisis in Turkey. Harper gave bland assurances about aid being delivered, and said that they also needed to stem the flow, which meant stopping ISIS. Trudeau asked the same again in French, got the same answer, and asked about the the targets for resettled Syrian refugees not being met. Harper assured him that the minister had already answered that, and hit Trudeau once again, saying that stopping ISIS was more than a refugee response.
Roundup: Votes cast, commence the grumbling
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.
QP: Iraq vs Environment Commissioner
The Iraq debate continued through the morning, counting down to tonight’s vote, and once again broke for QP — this time with all of the leaders present. Thomas Mulcair led things off by asking about civilian casualties by air strikes in the Middle East, and now that would create new recruits for ISIS. Harper responded that ISIS was spreading like a cancer in the region and were a direct threat to Canada. Mulcair noted that ISIS was reverting to guerrilla tactics, to which Harper reiterated that they were a direct threat. Mulcair noted the lack of clear objectives in Iraq, for which Harper referred to the objectives when he spoke to the House — degrading ISIS’ capabilities. Mulcair changed topics to the Environment Commissioner’s report and the lack of progress on reducing GHG emissions. Harper responded that emissions reduced while there has been economic growth. Mulcair retorted with outrage about Harper facing his children and grandchildren. Harper insisted that they were working toward a binding protocol that would prevent developed countries shifting their emissions to developing ones. Justin Trudeau was up next, noting the refugee crises in Turkey and Jordan, and asked about the resources we were providing to aid them. Harper assured him that they were providing aid, and that a military action did not preclude a humanitarian response. After a round of the same again in French, Trudeau also asked about the Environment Commissioner’s damning report — switching between French and English. Harper retorted that the Liberals had one of the worst records in the world.
Roundup: Deployment debate continues
As the debate on the Iraq combat deployment carries on, with the vote set for later tonight, there are already questions as to just how effective air strikes can actually be given that ISIS has already taken lessons to heart about scattering in advance of a raid and reforming after the planes leave. In other words, could that really be the right use of forces. The government made a bit of a show of also adding another $10 million in aid yesterday, including for victims of sexual violence, which the NDP had specifically asked for – but the NDP responded that it’s not really enough to do anything, and then moved an amendment to the government motion to forbid combat and impose strict time limits. (Aaron Wherry recaps the debate here). Liberal advisor and potential candidate, former lieutenant general Andrew Leslie, made the case that an armed non-combat relief mission was a better use of resources because it wouldn’t divide our attention and resources the way doing both combat and aid would, while Roland Paris later noted on P&P that Canada didn’t necessarily need to participate in combat operations, but simply needed to be part of the coalition to help give political cover and legitimacy to the US-led operation. Hillary Clinton, during her speech in Ottawa yesterday, said that military intervention against ISIS was critical – but also not enough to really stop them. Andrew Coyne writes that there is no safe moral ground in this particular fight.
QP: A break from the Iraq debate
With the debate on the Iraq deployment underway, QP was a break in the proceedings. Stephen Harper, however, was elsewhere, as was Justin Trudeau, who was off watching the Hillary Clinton speech down the road instead. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. Kellie Leitch responded that they were already taking action rather than waiting for more reports. Mulcair changed topics and demanded to know why Canadian Forces personnel were being deployed to Iraq before a vote had been held. Rob Nicholson listed some of the forces they would be sending over. Mulcair decried the fact that the government would give tacit support to the Assad regime by getting permission before any air strikes in Syrian territory. Nicholson responded about the threat of ISIS in the region. Mulcair pressed and wondered about the Americans lowering their standards for certainty with air bombardment, giving Nicholson the opportunity to badger him about their support for taking down ISIS. Marc Garneau led for the Liberals, and asked about the humanitarian crises in Turkey and Jordan given the flood of refugees they have accepted, to which Christian Paradis assured him that Canada was sending millions of dollars in aid to those regions. Garneau returned to the question of air strikes within Syrian borders and under what conditions they would negotiate with Assad. Nicholson said that currently they would only make strikes in Iraq, and if that changed Syria might be included.
Roundup: Seized with the Iraq debate
The Commons will be seized today with debating the Iraq combat deployment, which will culminate in a confidence vote (which has been phrased in such a way that it’s confidence in the government after they have made the decision, as opposed to a vote to authorize deployment, which would make for fuzzy lines of accountability going forward – and yes, there is a big difference). The issue of civilian casualties being a likelihood given the air strikes is likely to come up, as it is in the States. Rob Nicholson is also refusing to say whether or not there will be an extension, which is all well and good from the point of nobody being able to tell the future, but given that ISIS is already adapting to the threat of air strikes means that our ability to contribute will likely soon be a fairly moot point. Also, the piece led to this interesting exchange.
@rolandparis you make more sense than Nicholson even if we disagree about creepiness. Being vague about renewal is typical Harper crap
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Why do you assume the gov't knows the answer to that question? Surely it depends on how the operation goes.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell the war is unlikely to be over in six months, so they can be clearer about assessing than suggest over in six months
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Yes, but the nature of the mission that will be optimal for Canada after 6 mos is not clear.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell I am. It surprised by an initial six month mandate but the spin seems wrong to me, as if a renewal would not be likely
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
Roundup: Announcing a combat mission
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.
Roundup: Whipping out our CF-18s
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?