The Commons: This government of powerless men

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 7:02 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Once more, Ralph Goodale stood and beseeched the Prime Minister to explain himself, at least as it pertains to the potential sale of Saskatchewan’s PotashCorp. To his credit, the Prime Minister stood and did just that. Which is to say, he rose and explained that he and his position were in this case entirely irrelevant.

“I can assure him,” Mr. Harper assured Mr. Goodale, “the Minister of Industry will make a decision according to a legal process.”

Unsatisfied, Mr. Goodale turned to the Minister of Agriculture, wondering if perhaps the honourable Gerry Ritz, the elected representative for a larger parcel of land in Saskatchewan, might have something to say about the matter. Mr. Ritz leaned forward as if willing to respond, but it was Tony Clement who stood, the Industry Minister so emboldened as to refer to himself in the third person.

“There is a process under the Investment Canada Act which leads to the assessment by the Minister of Industry of the net benefit to Canada test,” he said of himself. “That is what is being done and that will be delivered to the people of Canada in the due course of time.”

One will forgive Mr. Clement if he lingers for the fullness of this allotted time, if he revels in this newfound regard. For in this moment, Tweeting Tony is quite possibly the most powerful man in Ottawa. Continue…

The Commons: Agreeing to, but not with Omar Khadr

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. The challenge of the day would be this: could the government be compelled to agree to agree that it had agreed to an agreement to which it had officially signaled its agreeability.

Whatever the futility of the effort, it was first for Gilles Duceppe to attempt to break our impervious Foreign Affairs Minister. How, the Bloc leader wondered, with the public release of diplomatic notes detailing discussions between the Canadian and American administrations, could the Foreign Affairs Minister deny knowledge of negotiations meant to resolve the matter of Omar Khadr?

Lawrence Cannon was, of course, prepared for this and rose to repeat his carefully scripted words into the record. ”The government of Canada,” he said, “did not participate in negotiations regarding the sentence.”

This was a hair finely split. And surely Mr. Cannon should have been allowed a moment to bask in the dexterity of such a display. But before the galleries could shower the Minister with applause and bouquets, Mr. Duceppe was up to have another try. Oui ou non, he demanded: would the Minister authorize the return of Mr. Khadr to Canada after another year has been served stateside?

Over again to Mr. Cannon, this time not so much to pirouette as to pull an extrajudicially detained rabbit from his hat. Continue…

The deal that dare not speak its name

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 1, 2010 at 9:15 AM - 0 Comments

The final absurdity of the trial of Omar Khadr.

In Ottawa, the government continued to attempt to distance itself from Mr. Khadr’s early return. ”The matter remains between Omar Khadr and the U.S. government,” Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon’s spokeswoman Melissa Lantsman said.

But senior U.S. government officials, prosecutors and defence attorneys all say that Mr. Cannon has approved the deal and an exchange of diplomatic notes has confirmed the Canadian government will favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s repatriation bid in a year. The diplomatic notes make it explicitly clear that Ottawa has been involved. ”The Government of Canada therefore wishes to convey that, as requested by the United States, the Government of Canada is inclined to favourably consider Mr. Khadr’s application to be transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of his sentence, or such portion of the remainder of his sentence as the National Parole Board determines.”

The Star has posted the notes in question.

Hypothetical commitments

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM - 0 Comments

As referenced by John earlier, here is Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon’s exchange with reporters on the subject of child soldiers and Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Continue…

Cannon on what's real and what's hypothetical

By John Geddes - Thursday, October 28, 2010 at 12:14 PM - 0 Comments

At a news conference a few minutes ago, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon declined to answer direct questions about Canada’s position on child soldiers on the grounds that the questions were hypothetical. But Cannon did declare that Canada is imposing tough sanctions against North Korea by curtailing economic ties.

But doesn’t he have it backwards? Canada is, in fact, a signatory to the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, so the government’s stance on child soldiers—thrown into question, of course, by the Omar Khadr case—is a matter of real concern. Those economic links to North Korea, on the other hand,  are mostly hypothetical.

Calling out America, then taking it back

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 15, 2010 at 2:09 PM - 0 Comments

While the U.S. State Department was careful yesterday not to say who the United States voted for at the United Nations, the Foreign Affairs Minister is less diplomatic.

Cannon reiterated what several top government officials have disclosed already this week — that Canada had 135 written assurances of support and 15 verbal ones. ”The United States was among that group,” Cannon said from Brussels, where he was meeting his NATO counterparts.

Cannon made that remark only in French, during a short teleconference with journalists in which he took only three questions. Cannon immediately backtracked from the statement when asked a follow-up question. ”Let me clarify that: I don’t want to indicate that we did or did not get support from the United States. I want to make that clear,” the minister stated. ”I don’t want to go into who supported . . . during the course of that vote. I’ll leave it to the individual countries to indicate their position, vis-a-vis that given that it is a secret vote.”

Lawrence Cannon: consistent

By Paul Wells - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 7:38 PM - 0 Comments

“Several ambassadors who emerged from the vote made no mention of Ignatieff’s remarks; one had never even heard of him.

“Instead, African ambassadors, in particular, pointed to a series of Canadian stances on issues ranging from African debt relief to the Conservative government cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and accusing it of having terrorist links.

“‘In my discussions with African ambassadors … that issue has not been brought to my attention, nor have the other issues been brought to my attention,’ Cannon said when asked about those concerns.”

link

The blame game (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 3:10 PM - 0 Comments

The Harper government cites its own principles and Mr. Ignatieff’s massive global influence for today’s vote result.

“I do not in any way see this as a repudiation of Canada’s foreign policy,” he said. “The principles underlying our foreign policy, such as freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, were the basis of all our decisions. ”Some would even say that because of our attachment to those values that we lost a seat on the council. If that’s case, then so be it.”

The blame game

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 1:08 PM - 0 Comments

Canada has failed in its bid for a seat around the UN security council table.

For those keen fans of finger-pointing, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon is due to address reporters in New York at 1:15pm (viewable here). The Prime Minister’s Office has summoned Ottawa bureau chiefs for a briefing at 2pm. NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar will speak with reporters in the House foyer at 2:30pm. And the Liberals have called a news conference with Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and Scott Brison for 3:30pm in the National Press Theatre.

All is war

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM - 0 Comments

The government takes its campaign against the Liberal leader to the international community.

“We’re getting close to the vote and they are clearly feeling the heat. The speech was designed to cover their backs so, if they don’t win, they can blame Ignatieff,” one person who had been in the room told Reuters on Thursday.

What options?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 1:59 PM - 0 Comments

Whatever the Foreign Affairs Minister said a month and a half ago in response to what the Defence Minister said then, here is what Defence Minister says now.

Yesterday, MacKay acknowledged that Canada is under pressure to extend. “There’s no question there’s a strong desire to have Canadians continue,” he said. “It’s something we’ve done extremely well. It’s appreciated and noticed by our allies.”

In terms of any extension, he said, “we’re examining all the options.”

If we’re cutting useless things in Ottawa

By Paul Wells - Friday, July 23, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Finally, the serious business of tearing down the Canadian federal state has begun.

The opening shots in these great battles are always so nondescript. Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow. And in much the same way, the business of cramming the mighty oak of overgrown government back into an acorn starts with a little hedge trimming. And so it is the long-form census questionnaire that forms the first beachhead of the Harper government’s assault on big government.

Continue…

Lawrence Cannon isn't much for dancing

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 12:09 AM - 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.

Continue…

The Commons: A day like any other

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 8:35 PM - 40 Comments

The Scene. As Bob Rae began the first question of the last Question Period before this third session of the 40th Parliament pauses for the summer, a respectful silence took hold.

The subject matter was this morning’s release of the final report from the inquiry into the Air India bombing. Mr. Rae commended the government and the inquiry’s commissioner. The Prime Minister stood and added his thanks to Justice Major. Mr. Rae probed for specific details of the government’s expected response, Mr. Harper offered assurances. The two danced quite delicately on the edge of combativeness, this adversarial system at its most sensitive.

Not until the Speaker called on the polarizing member for Ajax-Pickering, the Liberal Mark Holland, did the noise return to the chamber, government members groaning and moaning as Mr. Holland abruptly and loudly changed topics. Continue…

The Commons: Lawrence Cannon explains everything

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM - 47 Comments

The Scene. This is surely not the worst of times, but it is perhaps nearly the dumbest. For sure, this is a time of witless woe.

We have no doubt been sliding for some time, but when we got to Guergis we should have realized we had taken a wrong turn, crossed some threshold. Now here we are, stuck in this place with this fake lake and a phoney merger and a theoretical coalition. The threats are only ever exaggerated, the questions are facetious, the crises are manufactured. There is flailing and wailing, faux outrage and bad acting, adult human beings reduced to live-action press releases or made to demonstrate like the characters of professional wrestling. Hearsay leads the news. Bad jokes carry the day. Everyone claims patriotism. Everyone is accused of treason. All seemingly see intellectual dishonesty as the path to power. Few looking on seem to find anything here to believe in.

And so here today was a spectacle for this era, the Foreign Affairs Minister rising in the House of Commons to explain at length the government’s choice of wallpaper. Continue…

The Commons: Sound and fury signifying a lack of anything

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 5:56 PM - 19 Comments

The Scene. He seemed from the outset to be slightly smirking. With his first opportunity, the Prime Minister invoked the Olympics. When that failed to dissuade the opposition side, he raised his voice and began speaking forcefully about unrelated matters. The well-coached extras who fill the government backbenches sprang to their feet to roar their support.

For another day, the opposition persisted in asking about novelties—the fake lake, the gazebos, the antique boat—and pursuing the premise that behind it all was nothingness. Lacking explanation for their specific expenditures, the government responded with volume. Where yesterday the government was chastened, today it was defiant. The day would be won or lost according to the decibel count. In short order it was a contest of which side could more readily leap up to applaud. Continue…

The Commons: ‘Building costs for the water feature are $57,000′

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 6:55 PM - 78 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff was quick to define the terms of this afternoon’s debate, referencing “ce faux lac” with his first available sentence. After the Prime Minister had shrugged a response—Mr. Harper perhaps aiming for non-chalance, but seeming rather to be barely awake—Mr. Ignatieff moved to expand the complaint.

“Mr. Speaker, what do fake lakes, gazebos and boats that do not float have to do with security?” he wondered aloud, shaking a loose fist at the government side. “The issue is not just the waste of money, it is that the summit promises to deliver so little on climate change, on women’s rights, on jobs and growth. This summit looks like a billion dollar speed bump on the road to the real summit which will be in Korea at the end of this year. How can the Prime Minister justify this expense for so little possible result?”

The Prime Minister nearly sighed his response. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “this is a historic change of position for the Liberal party to be against a multi-lateral process such as this.”

In and of itself, this was maybe not much in the way of retort, but worse, it did not rhyme—a quality that would seem to explain why this fake lake has come, in a few days, to have surpassed so many other less rhythmically monikered matters of public policy. Continue…

The Commons: Struggling to swim in their own reflecting pool

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM - 191 Comments

The Scene. After Jack Layton had finished haranguing the Conservative side, swiping his right hand dismissively and projecting across the chamber his outrage at the latest revelation of government expenditure, John Baird was compelled to defend his team and here the platitudes runneth over. But as the Transport Minister waxed proudly about Canada’s status as a “major player” and “world leader,” his face seemed to give the game away—the makings of a slight smirk breaking ever so slightly and ever so briefly.

Alas, for even his generation’s most formidable obfuscater, it is perhaps becoming near impossible to keep a straight sneer in the face of such stuff.

Where once there was merely a billion-dollar security bill over which to trade accusations of failure, the meetings of the G8 and G20 in Ontario this month are now being discussed in terms of the antique steamship and the remote gazebo and the faraway toilets. And to those novelties, you can now add an indoor lake—sorry, “reflecting pool“—in downtown Toronto.  Continue…

It ain't over till it's over

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 8:38 PM - 39 Comments

Five months after a federal court ruling on so-called in-and-out campaign financing, it turns out an unpublicized portion of the judgment imperils the political careers of three cabinet ministers. And the commissioner of elections has apparently referred the matter to the office of the public prosecutor to consider criminal charges.

… in a little-noticed detail, he also found that one of the two candidates should have paid — but did not — an equal share of the full market value of regional advertising buys. Rather, the amount charged appeared to have been “purely arbitrary,” based on what the candidate could afford without exceeding his spending limit.

In documents supporting its motion to stay Martineau’s ruling, Elections Canada applies the equal share dictum to all 65 candidates involved in the regional media buys. The agency finds up to 10 of them would have exceeded their spending limits, including Cannon by $7,618, Verner by $13,304, Paradis by $10,188 and Bernier by $20,138.

In its appeal, the party suggests Martineau’s ruling violates freedom of speech guarantees in the Charter of Rights because it “effectively limits a candidate’s ability to run ads if other ridings in the same (regional advertising) pool are unable to contribute to the same level financially.”

The full federal court ruling in its entirety is here. This particularly issue would seem to be raised at paragraph 235.

The Commons: A great show of strength

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 6:21 PM - 72 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister was, just yesterday, lamenting the tawdriness of this place. ”I’ve been very clear with the Canadian people our number one focus week in and week out remains the economy. When we sit down as a caucus or when we sit down in cabinet, that’s 80 percent of our discussion,” he recounted to a group of young people. “Everything else that often gets so much attention from your former media colleagues, Mike, these are sideshows. The economy is what matters and it’s got to be what matters everywhere and it’s got to be what matters at these meetings in June.”

That the Prime Minister was, at that very moment, participating in an actual sideshow is an irony that seems to have gone uncommented upon by Senator Mike Duffy, the former journalist assigned to host this little infomercial on Parliament Hill. “Prime Minister,” Mr. Duffy is recorded to have assured, “we’ll be watching with great interest.”

Continue…

'A person's right to choose is what is at the heart of this bill'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 11:44 AM - 21 Comments

Francine Lalonde’s private member’s bill on assisted suicide—previously discussed here—received its final hour of debate Tuesday evening and was then defeated last night by a count of 230-57. Lalonde was basically asking, at this point, for her bill to be sent to committee for further study and amendment.

Steven Fletcher, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who has written about his feelings on this issue and Lalonde’s bill, abstained. She did though draw the support of two cabinet ministers—Lawrence Cannon and Josee Verner—and several Liberal and NDP members.

Ottawa has little help in store for stranded Canadian travellers

By Katie Engelhart - Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 6:49 PM - 23 Comments

A news release from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT), to which Maclean’s was granted advanced access, suggests Canadians stranded in Europe by the volcanic ash cloud shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for government help. While DFAIT vows it is “working flat-out to assist Canadians in this situation,” so far, the department’s response has been modest.

DFAIT recommends, “that travelers work with their airline or travel agent to discuss alternative travel arrangements.” In addition, it advises Canadians to consult the department’s website to learn more about available consular services. (As of 5 p.m on Tuesday evening, the site warned Canadians to expect furthers delays, and asked they continue to checking back for “regular updates.”)

So far, about 500 Canadians have made contact with embassies and high commissions in Europe to ask for help, and over 240 calls have been fielded by DFAIT’s operations centre in Ottawa. “It’s really not a lot,” a DFAIT official told Maclean’s on Tuesday. “It seems a lot of people are managing this on their own.”

They may have little choice in the matter. DFAIT’s response thus far has been limited. It has “extended consular hours” at its European embassies. It is also “providing local information, facilitating with transfer of funds, assisting with communications, [and] helping to ensure that Canadians have access to medical care or assistance when required.” But there is no sign that an evacuation plan is being considered.

“Does the government have any contingency plan whatsoever to assist these Canadians in difficult times, or are they just supposed to, as it were, fend for themselves?” Liberal MP Dan McTeague wondered during Tuesday’s Question Period. The government response’s, delivered by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, was that “Canadian officials are closely monitoring the ash cloud.”

Some speculated that the Canadian government might be moved to act after it was announced that Britain was using Navy ships to evacuate its stranded soldiers and civilians. European travel has been at a standstill since Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted last Wednesday, spewing clouds of ash and chunks of ice the size of houses—and leaving an estimated 750,000 stranded across Europe.

However Cannon offered little more than condolences on Tuesday. “Clearly we sympathize with all the travelers who have been inconvenienced by this volcanic eruption,” he said. “As you know, it is a natural phenomenon that nobody could have been predicted.”

"How to End the War in Afghanistan"

By John Geddes - Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 9:09 PM - 22 Comments

An ongoing frustration for any Canadians trying to understand our country’s involvement in Afghanistan is the failure of the government to frame the mission seriously. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hasn’t delivered what could be considered a major speech on this war and its related foreign policy and development-assistance challenges.

We get only anodyne stuff, like the most recent speech from Harper that I can find which was devoted to this pressing subject. It was way back on May 7,  2009, when he visited Kandahar and used an address to the troops to tout Canada’s work fixing an irrigation system, building schools and vaccinating kids against polio. Not exactly challenging geopolitical insights.

Continue…

This just in: nothing has changed

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM - 4 Comments

At least since the Defence Minister and Prime Minister’s press secretary mused last October about some amount of soldiers remaining in Afghanistan, the government has been fairly steadfast in its stance that no soldiers will remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

Asked about the matter, a few days after his press secretary’s comments, the Prime Minister promised a “civilian, development, humanitarian mission.” In January, he said “we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy.” Last week, in regards to the military mission, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said “in 2011, we will no longer be there.”

Last night’s reaction to Ms. Clinton’s remarks and this morning’s official response should perhaps not come then as any surprise.