Tag Archives: Syria

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: 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 →

QP: Eco-terrorists and auto support

Posted on by

Monday being the new Friday in QP, there were no major leaders in the Chamber to start off the week — Mulcair in Halifax, Trudeau in the 905, and Harper, well, elsewhere. That left Peter Julian to lead off, demanding oversight over national security agencies, and Stephen Blaney to respond by insisted that freedoms would not be curtailed and invited them to support it. Julian pointed out contradictions in government messaging, to which Blaney noted that Parliament itself came under attack. Julian worried that any protests could be considered “Eco-terrorism,” which Blaney insisted he read the bill instead. Peggy Nash then asked about possible plans to steel GM shares at a loss to balance the budget, to which Andrew Saxton read a statement about the “decisive action” taken during the recession. Nash asserted that the government didn’t really care about the auto sector, to which James Moore gave an impassioned refutation. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and lamented the government’s lack of action on the middle class, for which Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals just want to raise taxes. Ralph Goodale gave more of the same in English, Poilievre repeated his answer, and when Goodale listed the many ills of the government’s budgeting, Poilievre fell back on the usual “your leader thinks budgets balance themselves.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expanding spending limits

Posted on by

Shortly before Joe Oliver put a stake in the constant early election speculation by announcing an April budget, Pundit’s Guide posted a particularly adept analysis of measures in the Fair Elections Act that demonstrate that while there is a fixed election date and a minimum length for campaigns, there is no maximum length, meaning that the writs could drop earlier than six weeks before the election. What is new is that it would mean that the spending limits would be higher, because the new law allows the limit to stretch, whereas it used to be fixed, no matter if the campaign was six weeks or eight. Higher spending limits mean more for certain parties, more flush with cash than others, can spend on advertising and so on, and overall be used to both financially exhaust some parties, or to really backload their ad spending into the last two or three weeks and carpet bomb things in a very American fashion. She also noted that the federal Conservatives have no interest in stepping on a likely spring election in Alberta and the Ontario PC leadership contest. (See her on Power Play here). It’s certainly food for thought, and gives us one more thing to look at, to guess as to when the writs will drop for the October election rather than this pointless speculation about a spring election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Support for Charlie Hebdo

Posted on by

In the wake of the deaths at French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday, we saw an outpouring of support from Canadian officials yesterday. Stephen Harper drew parallels to the attacks that happened here and in Sydney, Australia, in his statement, while Thomas Mulcair took the National Press Theatre to make his own statement, which also had the added symbolism of speaking to journalists in our own space after members of our profession were just gunned down. Justin Trudeau tweeted his support, but as he was flying off to the Arctic, wasn’t available for the media, and Marc Garneau was out in his stead. Editorial cartoonists around the world mourned the loss of their compatriots. Some of the better reaction pieces include Ishmael Daro, Colby Cosh, Scott Gilmore, Aisha Sherazi, Andrew Coyne, Matthew Fisher, and Terry Glavin.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: 200 or 2000 Syrians?

Posted on by

It was a late Monday evening sitting, part of the final push to get things though before breaking for the Christmas holiday. Once again, Routine Proceedings sped through to get to Question Period, so much so that it caught the lead Senator for the day off-guard, as she was conversing with a Senator on the other side of the Chamber.

Once she rushed back to her desk, Senator Jaffer asked about the low numbers of Syrian refugees that have been brought to Canada. Senator Carignan, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, insisted that Canada has offered protected to all kinds of Syrians. Jaffer asked about the fact that only 200 have come over, but Carignan insisted that it was closer to 2000 — 1900 to date. Jaffer disputed that figure, before noting that she was recently in Turkey to visit the camps there, and wondered what more Canada was doing, but before Carignan had a chance to reply, they had to break to ring the bells for a scheduled vote.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another unhappy premier

Posted on by

He still won’t meet with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, dropping by Toronto for a meeting with new mayor John Tory on Thursday instead, and yesterday, Stephen Harper met with Paul Davis, the new premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That meeting, however, did not go happily as the premier is accusing the PM of changing the rules unilaterally regarding their agreed-upon compensation for fish processing losses under the EU trade agreement in such a way that the province will never see those funds. So, still trying to win the province over, I see. Meanwhile, PostMedia imagines how the conversation between Harper and Wynne will go when it eventually does happen, and Paul Wells has some thoughts on the affair as well:

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599417958629376

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599850051620864

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600261449936896

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600752879763456

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to protect bureaucrats

Posted on by

After the government unveiled their much ballyhooed price gap legislation, it remained to be seen if that would lead off QP, or if Julian Fantino would remain in the line of fire. Before things got started, however, the two new Conservative MPs from the recent by-elections, Jim Eglinski and Pat Perkins, took their seats. Thomas Mulcair had not yet returned from Paris, leaving Peter Julian to lead off, asking about the US Senate torture report, and how CSIS and the RCMP could use information obtained by torture. Harper insisted it had nothing to do with Canada. Julian moved onto the veterans file and demanded the resignation of Julian Fantino, to which Harper said that the NDP were more interested in protecting bureaucrats and cutting services. Nycole Turmel was up next, and asked about processing times for EI applications, and the decision to hire temporary workers to clear the backlog. Jason Kenney responded that they were dedicated to giving good levels of service, and thanked his parliamentary secretary for the report on processing. Turmel tied in the Social Security Tribunal and the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, calling Kenney incompetent, but Kenney repeated Harper’s line that the NDP is averse to efficiencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the sacred obligation to veterans, wondering why the priority was a tax break for wealthy families instead of veterans. Harper insisted that they provide benefits to both families and veterans, and the current court case was against a previous Liberal programme. Trudeau listed a number of veterans programmes cut or underfunded by the government, to which Harper recited of list of programmes that he claimed the Liberals voted against before trotting out his line that they were trying to protect bureaucrats. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper claimed that 100 of the jobs they eliminated existed solely to delay benefits payments. (Really?!)

Continue reading →