Tag Archives: Syria

QP: What about those Syrian refugees?

Posted on by

Despite it only being Thursday, and with the debate on the Iraq going on throughout the day, it was perhaps strange for none of the major leaders to be present. Sadly, it’s no longer surprising. That meant that Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, to which she asked about the inaction on asylum requests from Iraq and Syria. Chris Alexander insisted that they have hosted the largest number of resettled refugees from Iraq and Syria. Leslie pointed that the government only met their 2013 promises for Syrian refugees, and wanted the plans to ensure that the current promises will be kept on time. Alexander responded with bluster about goals having been fulfilled and promises made. Leslie asked why the mission extension motion doesn’t have any new money for refugees, but Alexander’s bluster in response increased in volume and exasperation. Jack Harris was up next, and noted that the government has admitted that the mission will likely take years, and that the one-year extension was only a first step. Jason Kenney insisted that the terms of the motion were clear based on the current number of forces deployed. When Harris asked about the legal justifications given, Rob Nicholson raised Iraq asking for international help. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, asking about the huge job cuts at CBC. Rick Dykstra responded that CBC was responsible for their own operations, and to put on programming that people want to watch. Ralph Goodale noted that the Alberta and Saskatchewan were able to table budgets despite oil price uncertainty, and wondered when the federal government would do. Andrew Saxton responded with some pro forma talking points about the low-tax agenda. When pressed, Saxton read praise for the government’s plans.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/581160408360173568

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some questionable justifications

Posted on by

Yesterday, Jason Kenney went on a charm offensive to lay out the legal position on extending our bombing raids into Syria, most notably saying that we have authority under Article 51 of the UN Charter, with Iraq asking us to help them defend their borders while the Syrian government is unwilling or unable to. It’s pretty thin ice under international law, but if the Americans are doing it, apparently that’s good enough for this government. More dubious was Kenney saying that we’re acting in the “spirit of” Responsibility to Protect, to which Trudeau later made the point that one of the tenets of R2P is that you don’t make the situation worse, which could be the outcome if our bombing ISIS in Syria ends up solidifying Assad/ And what about Syrian air defences? Do we not need to coordinate with them so as to not get shot down? Kenney says there’s no ground radar in that part of the country, and that ISIS doesn’t have weapons capable enough of taking down our fighter jets. Kenney also made the claim that only the smart bombs that Canada and the US posses in the alliance are capable of doing the job, but experts are disputing that fact, pointing out that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also have the capability. In other words, this sounds like Kenney embellishing the truth again, which puts the veracity of his other statements into question as well. As for Harper, he started joking that we didn’t have to worry about ISIS’ lawyers taking us to court, when the bigger concern is actually other world leaders. You know, like Putin, for whom we are accusing of breaking international law for annexing the Crimea. Oh, wait a twisted little world it is.

Continue reading →

QP: Questioning the legal basis for Syria

Posted on by

After a morning of marathon press conferences about the motion on extending the Iraq mission, all of the leaders were present and ready to go as QP got underway. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the legal basis for bombing in Syria, and the two different ones given. Stephen Harper insisted that it was clear that we were operating under the same basis as our allies were. Mulcair wondered if we got a formal request from the Iraqi government to that effect, but Harper just repeated his answer. Mulcair then wondered if Harper had written to the Secretary Genral of the UN about the justification, and Harper responded that the chances of ISIS’ lawyers raising a case were negligible. Mulcair called the response “idiocy,” and the Chamber erupted, and he was cautioned by the Speaker. Mulcair switched topics and asked about an apology in the Commons for the Komogata Maru incident. Harper insisted that they had already addressed it, before returning to the previous answer to batter Mulcair about his ideas of what constitutes the national interst of Canada. Mulcair quipped about Harper thinking himself above international law, before he asked about the plight of that Saudi blogger. Harper responded that he had already expressed his desire to see that blogger freed, before he returned to the topic of taking a strong stand against ISIS. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the language in the motion about taking on ISIS affiliates in other countries. Harper insisted they were not. Trudeau repeated it in French, got much the same answer, and for his last question, Trudeau asked about weak job growth and job losses. Harper insisted that the fall of oil prices was all the more reason to stick to their economic action plan.

Continue reading →

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 →