Beyond The Commons

 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

'The government has to be free to act'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, November 12, 2010 10:31am - 36 Comments

The Prime Minister doesn’t think a vote in Parliament is necessary to move forward with a training mission in Afghanistan.

“My position is if you’re going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament,” he said. “But when we’re talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own …  I’m not resistant to having debates on that matter in the House of Commons. But I do think when it comes to decisions such as this, the government has to be free to act.”

The Liberal foreign affairs critic doesn’t necessarily disagree with him.

Tags: , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • gottabesaid

    Perhaps the sharper folks on this board can answer this question: is it always up to the discretion of the PM whether matters like this are debated in the House? Are there rules on what must be debated and what can just be OK'd by the executive?

    • SamDavies

      Am curious about this myself. My memory is foggy with regards to the power of the executive and military matters, and what the obligations to parliament are…

    • alfanerd

      Yes there are rules – the Executive only has power that has been legislated in the House. There are many laws which empower the Executive to do all sorts of things, including I believe, going to war. I may be wrong though, declaring war may simply be a prerogative of the Executive. For example, when Paul Martin moved the Canadian army from Kabul to Kandahar, there was no vote in the HoC.

      • DanielBlouin

        Declaration of war has always been a prerogative of the Crown. In the First World War, Canada (still a Dominion) entered into the war when Britain did. But in the Second World War, Parliament pased a motion declaring war, then sent it to King George VI for Assent.

        But this is the only time Canada has ever issued a formal declaration of war, despite having sent troops to Korea and any number of international operations, several of which involved contact. Furthermore, deployment of the CF, even internationally, is done quite regularly without a motion being passed in the House – there was no motion to send the CF to assist in Haiti, or more recently in Newfoundland, or on counter-piracy deployments around the Horn of Africa. This doesn't mean I think Parliament can't debate the issue or that it shouldn't debate the issue – it just means that it's been done before, and "going to war" is somethign of a nebulous concept these days.

  • PolJunkie

    If the Prime Minister wants to assume sole responsibility for the prolongation of our engagement, I say let him. If he insists on being the ONLY PERSON to be held accountable to Canadians for this decision, please… by all means…

    • SamDavies

      That angle crossed my mind as well. Should things go bad with this plan, does this not make him vulnerable? I'm curious as to the logistics behind this…

      • Mike T.

        No, because Canadians are not supposed to follow Harper's statements through to their logical conclusions. And if circumstances change, he will merely say something different.

      • PolJunkie

        I just think that this last one is dumb. He went through the trouble of recruiting an all-to-willing John Manley so as to corner the Libs into supporting his move to prolonge our engagement and inoculate himself in the following election. The media gladly played along because the ultimate victim of that scheme was hapless-not-a-leader Stephane Dion.

        Now that this war is even more unpopular (if the polls are to be believed) he decides to go at it alone and allows himself to be quoted as saying that this should be HIS SOLE decision?

        • SamDavies

          Only time will tell if it plays out as dumb. To some degree, I almost respect him for taking a stance, considering my expectations are really that low.

        • practical mom

          I think the almost universal reports that a training mission was acceptable to Canadians helped to convince our Prime Minister to forgo a vote in Parliament. Now he is solely responsible for what appears to be a fairly popular decision. Likely the PMO is very sure that this training mission is widely supported.

          • PolJunkie

            Yeah… so sure that Harper hid from the press and behind Soudas when the announcement first came out. Please…

          • practical mom

            He wasn't at all sure then so he made no comment. Now that he has made a public statement I think it likely that he is sure of broad acceptance. If he wasn't, there would have continued to be no comment.

          • burlivespipe

            What wasn't sure — the idea to recommit or that it was a palatable option for the Canadian public? All past action suggests this PM chose to hide until the dresser/savant and polls agreed that it looks like a good idea and that the danger was past. Another 'gutsy' move by our gutty pm…

          • practical mom

            That is exactly the point I was trying to make, although I seem to have missed completely. The only reason the PM has spoken out is that it must be now clear to him that there is support for a training mission, at least among those whose support he deems important. He wasn't sure of public opinion at first and so said nothing.

            I'm not sure this will correct the misunderstanding of my previous comments.

          • Jan

            Whose support does he think is important?

  • Peter Rabid

    It hardly matters if there is a vote or not. Harper never intended to bring them home in 2011.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Honestly, why does Harper gotta be such a d.ck about everything? That might be what irritates me the most about him.

    • SamDavies

      I'm not sure I believe he's being a d.ck here. I guess what is at sake here is what powers we are willing to give to our executive branch. The reality is, you just can't have parliament vote on everything, as this really delays things. Furthermore, by taking this stance, as has been mentioned, accountability comes into play. Should things blow up with the decision, Canadians will know who it was that opted to make this decision, and can punish him at the polls.

      One just need to look back at PM Mackenzie King, and the zillions of times he squeaked away from doing anything important by uttering "Parliament Will Decide"…

      • Claudia Lemire

        Agreed !!

      • Peter Rabid

        No, he's a d.ck.

        • SamDavies

          Lol. I'm not a fan of him, nor of the war – I simply think he is within his right to use executive powers in that fashion.

  • SamDavies

    Well – like I said, "almost" respect him! ;)

  • SamDavies

    For those interested, please check out: http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/11/ten-points-when…

    I link this not so much for Kinsella's take on things, but for one of the comments made on the post by a Canadian Infantry Master Corporal, who raises some very good points.

    • kcm

      "6. To drive in the final nail in democracy’s proverbial coffin, the Prime Minister emasculates his Minister of Defence, and sends out his press secretary to tell the rest of us that we’ll be at war for a few more years. On political info-tainment shows."

      I don't agree too often with Kinsella, but i like this, if only because i don't know who i have less regard for : Soudas or Mackay.

      • MostlyCivil

        On the plus side, if this keeps up, maybe the process server will finally find Dimitri.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          He's RIGHT THERE ON T.V. for Pete's sake!!!

          Like I said elsewhere, we need to get better bailiffs.

          • Jan

            I'm beginning to think he's computer generated.

  • Mike T.

    It's Ok this time in these circumstances.

    But next time the western world is deciding whether to join in another stupid war, the guy who still thinks invading Iraq was a boffo idea isn't going to be giving anybody else a say, either.

  • ChrisWPG

    All Hail King Harper….

  • PolJunkie

    And that's what it will boil down to, isn't it? Nevermind the fact that Ignatieff wanted this extension, the story now will be that Harper, once again, bypassed the people on yet another important decision.

  • John W.

    Of course, the way this whole issue has been handled is political; so how does it divide the Liberals, corner the Liberals, disarm the Liberals, help destroy the Liberals, lure the Liberals into a trap, expose the Liberals to ridicule etc. etc.. So what's the angle this time?

  • Jan

    Harper's narcissism has taken over. It undermines the best of strategies. He should have let Soudas continue to handle it – he had managed to create the impression that the opposition was in on the decision.

  • John W.

    It looks like the NDP get handed the anti Afghan war torch, leaving the Libs fighting off an assault from the left, weakening Libs, strengthening NDP, splitting the opposition vote more evenly, and helping the Cons.

  • John W.

    Travers is dealing with the issue in today's (Sat) Star.

  • SamDavies

    I suspect there will not be much of a story on this angle, especially since Rae has agreed. I guess we'll see how far the NDP or BQ try to go with it…

  • Claudia Lemire

    The NDP already had something to say..
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

Previous

Next

From Macleans