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.
Author Archives: Dale
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?
QP: Vaccines and air strikes
While word has it that Stephen Harper would make an announcement regarding a combat mission to Iraq tomorrow, neither Harper nor Justin Trudeau were present for QP. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking why the Ebola vaccine had not yet been shipped to West Africa, to which Eve Adams said that they were waiting on the World Health Organisation to coordinate the necessary logistics. Mulcair said that it was in a media report that the issue was actually one of intellectual property and not logistics. Adams reiterated that it was up to the WHO to coordinate logistics, while touting all of the other aid we’ve sent. Mulcair changed topics, and asked what date the Canadian personnel arrived in Iraq, and if it was September 27th as was reported. Rob Nicholson reiterated the number on the ground, the number allowable to be deployed, and that they come and go per needs on the ground. Mulcair insisted that Harper said it was the 15th and that he was being duplicitous. Nicholson dismissed this, and Mulcair launched into a diatribe about clear answers. Nicholson retorted that Mulcair was being duplicitous in suggesting he might ever approve of a deployment. Joyce Murray led for the Liberals, and decried the lack of transparency to parliament regarding the mission. Nicholson insisted that there has been a debate and an appearance before committee, and noted that the Liberals did not bring deployments to Parliament. Murray pointed out the sum by which the Defence budget had been cut, and not increased, and wondered how they could trust the government’s statements. Nicholson hit back with a bog standard “decade of darkness” retort. Dominic LeBlanc closed off the round by asking the same again in French, to which Nicholson insisted that the Liberal position was all over the place.
Roundup: Countdown to an announcement
Word has it that on Friday, Stephen Harper will announce our combat role in the fight against ISIS in Iraq. It also sounds like two of our refuelling jets are being readied for the mission. That will mean that Parliament will become seized with the debate and eventual vote (never mind that it’s a trap) early next week. There’s also no indication where he’ll make that announcement, but it’s unlikely to be in the Commons, because, well, it’s a Friday and Harper never, ever darkens the door of the Commons on a Friday (let alone makes a major announcement there, but that’s another story). Andrew Coyne gives his thoughts on a deployment here. That said, I think this talk about decisions to put soldiers into harm’s way needing some kind of special consent and the knowledge that our parliamentarians have our soldiers’ backs is a bit overblown, while pressing for a vote can simply curtail debate and damage accountability.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337138770083840
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/517337562860359680
QP: “The PM’s war in Iraq”
It was the last day we were going to see all of the party leaders in the Chamber this week, so the hope was for a repeat of yesterday’s performance, but the chest-thumping over Iraq during Members’ Statements didn’t raise any hopes. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about Ebola precautions being taken in Canada. Stephen Harper assured him that there were no cases in Canada, and that the Public Health Agency has been seized with the matter and is ready in the event that a case does reach here. Mulcair changed topics and asked how many soldiers were on the ground in Iraq, to which Harper said that it was 26 as of today, with a maximum of 69 authorised. Mulcair groused about how many times he had to ask for that figure, to which Harper said that the number was fluctuated, but there was a maximum number. Mulcair asked if there were Canadian troops on the ground in Syria, to which Harper said no, and after that, Mulcair launched into a length diatribe about an open-ended mission with no end in sight, to which Harper insisted that there were no American troops in Iraq when this situation began, and it was a serious situation. Justin Trudeau declared that Harper had not yet made the case for a combat mission, and asked how many troops were supposed to be on the ground at the end of the 30-day mission on Saturday. Harper pretended not to hear what the question was, and instead gave a speech about the gravity of the threat that ISIS poses. Trudeau tried again in French and got much the same again. Trudeau pointed out the secrecy and evasiveness, and Harper said that they were making a decision, before hitting back at the Liberal position.
Roundup: Standing Orders remain unamended
It’s not a big surprise, but the NDP’s motion on amending the Standing Orders to ensure that the relevancy rules include Question Period didn’t pass, but three Conservative MPs – Michael Chong, James Rajotte and Brian Storseth – did vote in favour of it, so read into that what you will. Kady O’Malley, meanwhile, provides three suggestions for how the Speaker could clean up QP, though I am unsure about them. In the first case, there are nominations to consider, especially if we want them to be open. In the second, I do have concerns about the theatricality of it, and in the third, the constant jockeying for future votes could become a continual distraction to the business at hand, and given that the position also has to do with the management of the broader precinct, not to mention diplomatic and ceremonial roles. I’m not sure how the possibility a constant revolving door every couple of years helps matters.
QP: Plenty of questions and answers about Iraq
A day after a relatively decent QP (emphasis on relatively), it was hoped that MPs could keep it up, this time with all of the leaders present. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about the Ebola crisis in West Africa and asked about sending DART. Harper responded that he has spoken with the Director General of the WHO and that we are sending more aid but DART is not the right tool. Mulcair asked about the possibility of sending additional forces to Iraq, to which Harper said that they were still examining next steps and that a vote would be held if it was a combat mission (caution — it’s a trap!) Mulcair wondered if those air strikes could include Syria, and Harper didn’t want to speculate. Mulcair wanted to know when the Iraq plans would be tabled for debate, but Harper wouldn’t give a timeline other than “the next few days.” Mulcair closed by asking for a report on the activities of our forces on the first 30 days of deployment. Harper said that no one should doubt the impact of our forces, but didn’t provide an answer. Justin Trudeau asked about what support we have offered the Americans in Iraq and about our current objectives. Harper repeated that they were contemplating next steps, and that the actions in the region were necessary and noble. Trudeau asked about the accomplishments of the first 30 days and if CF-18s were specifically requested. Harper said that the people in northern Iraq were facing genocide and that it was important work — but didn’t answer the question. When Trudeau wanted more debate on the mission, Harper said that they should put partisanship aside.
QP: Baird delivers relevant answers
The day was already off to a shaky start, where Peter Van Loan spent the NDP’s supply date motion on amending the Standing Orders to have the relevancy rules apply to QP, by arguing that QP shouldn’t be a one-way street and that the NDP should answer the questions they pose back to them. It really was mystifying. No major leader was present in the Commons for QP, where Megan Leslie asked about plans to send CF-18s to Iraq to conduct airstrikes. John Baird said that they were dealing with humanitarian operations over there, but no further decisions had been taken. Leslie demanded a vote on increasing participation, to which Baird insisted that they would hold one on a combat mission. (Wait — it’s a trap!) Hélène Laverdière picked up the same questions I’m French, and asked how many of the planned 69 special forces were on the ground. Baird said that he would get back to her on the number, and reiterated the threat posed by ISIS. Leslie got back up for the final question, and trawled for support for the supply day motion, to which Van Loan assured her that our Parliament has the most accountable Question Period in the world, and that the government should be able to pose questions too. And then my head exploded. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and cited media leaks on extending the Iraq deployment, and wanted more details on the parameters that cabinet was considering. Baird replied that cabinet had not yet weighed in on it. Joyce Murray asked about the time period that they were considering for an extended deployment. Baird spoke with exaggerated slowness to insist that no decision had not yet been made.
Roundup: Excuses for exit controls
Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.
Roundup: Calandra’s tearful apology
It was rather stunning, and certainly unexpected, when Paul Calandra got up after Question Period and choked back tears as he apologised for his behaviour on Tuesday, and offered direct apologies to both Mulcair and the House as a whole. He also insisted that the answers were his, and not the “kids in short pants” – even though he later said that he was given the information on that former NDP staffer by a member of the PMO. That said, the fact that he also equivocated, refused to promise to never do it again, and tried to rationalize it as being angry by that NDP fundraiser’s Facebook rant, really took away from the sincerity of the tears and the moment itself. It certainly does raise the question about what changed between now and Tuesday – especially after he doubled down on Wednesday (which led to the Paul Dewar facepalm meme that hit the Internet all day Thursday). I will say that it’s an awfully big coincidence that he suddenly got tearful and apologised on the very same morning that Stephen Harper got back to town after being away since the initial incident happened. Sure, Calandra was pilloried and publicly shamed by the media and the pundit class, but it’s not for the first time either. Paul Wells gives his take on the dynamics at play, while Andrew Coyne takes particular issue with Calandra’s equivocating during the apology, and how it continues to make a mockery of parliament.