Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Lawrence Cannon isn't much for dancing

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:09am - 30 Comments

In an interview with CTV this evening, the Foreign Affairs Minister was fairly dismissive of the Liberal proposal for a post-2011 mandate in Afghanistan and the Defence Minister’s reported “interest” in said proposal. The following is from the end of the conversation.

Tom Clark. Would training the Afghan army in a non-combat role be considered development aide?

Cannon. Well, you know, I’ve been prodded all around on that particular question. But Tom, I’m responding in the same manner. We are, I’m not going on a hypothetical that may be and perhaps and if this is done, no that’s not it. The position, the door is firmly closed. There’s nothing other than the resolution, not the resolution, I’m sorry, the motion that was adopted in the House of Commons.

Clark. Then why is Peter MacKay open to this idea?

Cannon. Well, Peter might be open to the idea, but this doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada is open to the idea.

Now, you could, conceivably, find a difference between interest and openness. But setting aside the question of a gap between the ministers, the conclusion of this exchange with Mr. Cannon is likely relevant.

Clark. So you’re saying, resolutely, no question about it, all Canadian boots off of Afghan soil by July of next year? Period, end of story, you’re not going to change your mind, you’re not open to any other ideas.

Cannon. That’s what the motion says and that’s the position of the government of Canada.

Clark. And that’s not about to change.

Cannon. That is correct.

Clark. It won’t change at all.

Cannon. That is correct.

Clark. Everybody out.

Cannon. That is correct. That’s what the motion says.

As noted, that’s not exactly what the motion says. Mr. Cannon did though also refer to the last Speech from the Throne, which included the following passage.

In Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces prepare for the end of the military mission in 2011 with the knowledge that – through great sacrifice and with great distinction – their efforts saved Kandahar province from falling back under Taliban control. After 2011, our effort in Afghanistan will focus on development and humanitarian aid.

Tags: 2011, Afghanistan, Kabul, Kandahar, lawrence cannon, Michael Ignatieff, Peter MacKay, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

hosertohoosier

This is why it is a good idea (politically) to have a defence minister from English Canada and a foreign minister from Quebec. You discuss an idea in a vague way, to see how it floats in different parts of the country. If its a dud, let Ignatieff own it; if its a win, you take the issue from him.

It isn't necessarily bad policy, either, when you consider that Canada's foreign policy goals must be weighed against national unity concerns. This is the classic Laurier-King model of muddled compromise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Is there some reason we are not to request a responsible, adult statement of a position to be debated and defended against other policy options? Especially (but by no means limited to) when we are sending our Canadian soldiers into harm's way to do our dirty work for us? How about if I said please?

Cats

Ignatieff could always put forward a new resolution in the HOC, on one of the Liberal opposition days.

If parliament really is supreme and we've rejected the american commander-in-chief model for one of parliament directing our soldiers then it seems there is just as much burden on Ignatieff to come up with a detailed proposal to be put to a vote.

Cats says let 'em vote! Does Iggy even have his own party behind him, or are the kitty claws out ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Cats…..you are right. Ignatieff could use his opposition day to introduce a motion but the government does not have an obligation to follow it. He would not get support for the motion if the Conservatives did not agree. The Bloc and the NDP wouldn't support it.

Harper does not need parliamentary approval to extend the mission. It is he who has said he would consult the other parties thereby establishing a precedent.

The fact is Cannon was emphatic because that is the government's position today. There is nothing that says the policy cannot be changed at any point in time.

The Afghan committee has a real role to play here. Call witnesses, discuss any new terms and conditions and if we believe it is in the best interest of the country then convince the government.

Its absolutely breathtaking that the media who has maligned the Afghan mission since Harper came to power with its constant attacks on how we are losing the war and it is not worth the blood and treasure and suddenly they are supportive of our staying.

Jenn_

I had that responsible, adult discussion with Ignatieff himself (among others) two weeks ago. But as you see from Cats above, "having a discussion" inevitably leads to "is his own party behind him?" And, because I haven't seen it enough in the media, Ignatieff is not talking about extending the combat mission, just so we're clear. It might involve military personnel, but behind the wire kind of idea.

But then, Liberals have adults in the party. Conservatives have . . . cats and other things.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

The Conservatives have adults as well, and it is indeed possible that there are some cats within the Liberal ranks. (However, being the responsible sort, Liberals would no doubt have their cats properly spayed before sending them out to litter blogs.)

The problem with Conservative adults, is that as hoser above demonstrates they tend towards the Ian Brodie School of responsible governance.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

It might involve military personnel, but behind the wire kind of idea.

I can't say that this idea impresses me a whole lot. Let's send our fighters over there to help out, but heavens to betsy we wouldn't want any fighting going on. This is more or less what so many of our NATO ~~wimps~~ allies are up to already, and it's made a godawful mess of the alliance and of the coalition efforts over there. I can't imagine that the coalition needs any more non-soldier soldiers right now.

But, please, do carry on the adult discussion of what Canada's next step for Afghanistan might look like. Face-saving and borderline-contradictory trial balloons on low-audience cable news channels are indefensible. C'mon, elected people, make a bloody decision, defend the position as you negotiate among the parties in this minority Parliament, and then tell us Canadians what you have come up with. Give US something to discuss and debate like adults. But, then, I guess that's why I will never be in government…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Isn't it Ignatiefff's recent habit of not having his party behind him (e.g. abortion, immigration) that leads to questions about whether his party is behind him? And, didn't we have a debate on Afghanistan, based on a thorough report from a former Liberal Cabinet Minister? It's not like the existing motion dropped from the heavens. Why keep the Canadian military there in any capacity other than protecting Canadian diplomat and aid workers/

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Uh, not having a couple of MPs behind him on a certain specific issue is not the same as his party isn't behind him. But let us continue to stifle any debate within the parties and instead have the leader make pronouncements his party is forbidden to argue about, and indeed must loudly and vociferously support–leaving any personal thought out of the equation.

And to answer your question, a reason to keep the Canadian military there is because we have given our word to a great many Afghanis that if they turned away from the Taliban we would help them make a more secure society for themselves. Not only is our word meaningless under your scenario, we have now done the great service of having those who trusted in us physically targeted by the Taliban as the first to the slaughter when we are gone.

You know, these are real human beings we are talking about. It's easy to forget that, but some MPs at any rate, keep it in mind.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Well, when not having the MPs on-side costs you the vote or rips up an apparent agreement, it's a bit different from an intra-caucus debate, but let's not debate Mr. Ignatieff's grasp on the Liberal party.

This is very moving stuff about our promise to the Afghan people. But we went into Afghanistan in pursuit of Al-Quaeda. NATO's current strategy isn't working – the Taliban are resurgent and Karzai and ISAF are unpopular. And there are other partners in NATO who could take a turn on military duty. It sounds like Mr. Iganatieff is relying on the emotional rhetoric that led him to support the Iraq war. Or he's bringing the McChrystal strategy to Canada – he does have strong links to American "military interventionists". The problem here is that McChrystal's strategy doesn't seem to be working: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=60BF5… />

I think Biden and Layton's suggestion for a much more focused mission in Afghanistan makes a lot of sense.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Hey, that's (partly) what I said! But it wasn't Ignatieff who brought up the very moving stuff. Still, it is relevant in that we did give our word to these individuals and once they've put themselves out there, it really is callous to just abandon them to their fate. That said, you're right that Canada isn't NATO and we've certainly fulfilled our fair share. What I think might be a good solution is if we maintain the villages we've cleared out of Taliban (which will require a military presence) but not have the Canadian forces clear out any more.

Because we are not the only NATO forces with an end date and it is painfully clear that if the number of NATO personnel dwindle down past any realistic force, those that remain will have the choice made for them and get out. And it is beyond idiotic to think that Karzai (currently) could keep the Taliban from regaining power, or that once in power, the Taliban wouldn't open the doors to Al-Quae-who-the-hell-cares-how-its-spelled-da with open arms. Which is, of course, why we went in there in the first place.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

The Taliban is fragmented on its support for Al-Quaeda. It would be possible to nurture those Taliban elements that are willing to cut ties with A-Q and bring them into goernment regionally and nationally. Karzai is unpopular and his administration is corrupt. It's unrealistic to keep him in place. There will need to be a change of government, probably to one which is more critical of the West. The strategy is, over the long-term, to develop Afghanistan and, in the near-term, to make it difficult for A-Q to operate there. We can do that without excluding the Taliban from government and without committing Canadian forces to active combat, or military training.

Our aid is not going to save as many people in Afghanistan as it could if it were spent in a less corrupt country. The truth is a staggering number of people will die horrific deaths for terrible reasons today. Canada should try to save as many of them as possible – and that probably means spending less time and money in Afghanistan right now. I'd be happy to have our government help resettle in Canada any Afghans who've endangered their lives working with us.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I believe that reason is FPTP, riding style democracy in a country with more than two alternatives.
hosertohoosier

Yes, there is a good reason: national unity. English Canada and Quebec have opposite views on foreign policy, making any commitment of troops the source of a potential rift. It absolutely makes sense to start with a muddle so one can sound out how much opposition there is in either region.

Consider Chretien's Iraq war decision. Chretien didn't simply make a bold statement and leave it at that. Rather, he had some people making it appear that Canada might get involved, just to see how that would go over. Even then he arrived at a policy that was a perfect muddle – Canada would support the war, if it was sanctioned by the UN (which, of course, it wouldn't be).

Alternately, you can look at the contrast between the conscription debate in the First and Second World War. Borden was a forthright man committed to a robust participation in the war. He implemented conscription and essentially killed his party's chances in Quebec forever, while generating a serious English-French grievance. King also implemented conscription but he was careful about it. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth, so as to gauge public opinion. While he implemented conscription, he had also signaled to the electorate that he didn't really want to do so – at least not as much as the Conservatives. His party continued to win in Quebec.

http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Is Tom Clark too dense to ask the obvious question, What if there were a new motion agreed upon by the House?
Anon 001

Publicly stating that the Defence Minister is freelancing seems rather odd.

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

Cutloose! Footloose! Everybody gets cut loose!
Out There

I've often wondered whether the Reform wing of the Conservative party sees the PC wing of the party as a threat to be neutralized. If anyone is ever likely to be dissatisfied with Harper's leadership to the point of suggesting a replacement, this hypothetical someone is most likely to be from the former PC camp.

As the former head of the PC party, MacKay still carries some clout. If the PCs are seen as a threat, anything that makes MacKay look bad will keep the Reform base more securely in control.

This hypothesis may have no basis in fact – for all I know, the former Reformers and former PCs co-exist in peace and harmony. But I have always wondered.

Anon

Lawrence Cannon would almost certainly fall into the PC camp.

Wascally Wabbit

Funny really – that this dialogue is unfolding against the background of McCrystal hauled over the coals – and the current US strategy to start winding down their Afghan forces in July 2011…
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I can never keep Cannon and MacKay straight – which one is Tweedledee and which is Tweedledum?

I can't believe these empty suits hold such critical portfolios.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I don't think either of them are tweedledee..

Of course, neither of them is a tweedle either.
Patchouli

I think they're known as Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Or Tweedledum and Tweedlearen'tIhandsome?

Lord Kitchener's Own

Does our government still hold Cabinet meetings?

I know they don't announce the time and location of said meetings anymore, but I'm beginning to wonder if they even have them. Perhaps it's a strategy to appeal to as broad a swath of the public as possible. Don't like the answer a Minister of the Crown gives you? Ask another Minister. It works well with their other new strategy of always having policy that's 48 hours fresh too (which is why I also expect that by tomorrow, Cannon will be be saying that he's open to discussions, and MacKay will be insisting that we'll never do anything that's not written down explicitly in the motion that's already been passed).
Anonymous

It's also interesting that the Throne Speech speaks of Kandahar as having been saved from Taliban control, when General McChrystal, less than two weeks ago, said it would be months before that would be established: "Military operations to secure control of Kandahar, the Taliban heartland in southern Afghanistan, will be slower and take longer than first planned, the commander of US and Nato forces in the country has warned."

Kandahar has routinely been referred to as a Taliban "stronghold" and "heartland"–Karzai has only visited the city twice in recent years–in the press, and yet the Throne Speech says it has beeen "saved"–past tense.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Well it was. Note that the Throne Speech doesn't say how long it was saved for.

Lord Kitchener's Own

It was a great ten minutes though.

Amateur Hour

Neither MacKay nor Cannon are well acquainted with honesty, consistency or logic.

Sadly, they are the main points of contact for our allies.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Clark. It won’t change at all.

Cannon. That is correct.

Clark. Everybody out.

Cannon. That is correct. That’s what the motion says.

Reminds me of the exchange at about 2:30 of this clip:
[youtube T_8suUe1i5I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_8suUe1i5I youtube]
Oliver

We said we'd clean up Afghanistan so I'm all in favour of doing what we said we would. Besides Afghanistan is no Iraq, it actually makes sense to be involved in the region.