Peter MacKay’s highs and lows on marijuana

The other day, federal justice minister Peter MacKay told reporters he’s “completely fine” with medical marijuana:

“Having it regulated, having it made legally available to Nova Scotians — I’m completely fine with that as long as it’s in compliance with Health Canada and they have met the approvals. I don't think there's any denying that medical marijuana is a great source of comfort and treatment for Canadians.”

Hopefully the CBC will put a disclaimer on the story that no one under the age of 18 should read MacKay’s comments on marijuana, because he’s made clear before that only adults should be exposed to such opinions.

“Now I could see Justin Trudeau coming before an assembly like ours, or going before a police convention, or going before a group of even college students. But to discuss this subject matter in front of children, some of them preteens, about his proposal to legalize marijuana, I find just appalling”

But then again, MacKay may be open to softening Canada’s pot laws.

“That doesn't mean decriminalizing or legalizing, but it does mean giving police options, for example, to issue fines in addition to any other sanctions, or as a substitute for other sanctions. These are things that we are willing to look at in the new year, but there's been no decision taken."

Of course, he also thinks marijuana is an evil demon weed.

“Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Ford, who have admitted to using drugs while in office … do not set a very high standard or example for the country. It sets a very poor example. There’s no question about it.”

Not to mention against the law.

"It is currently against the law to smoke dope"

So, to sum up: using marijuana is against the law and those that use it set a bad example and even discussing the issue around people under the age of majority is near-treason, but we may soften the laws that govern it and using it medically is completely fine and helpful.

Related reading: More hypocrisy on marijuana from the biker gang-supporting Conservatives

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More hypocrisy on marijuana from the biker gang-supporting Conservatives

Yesterday, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau spoke with and answered questions from students at a high school in Brandon, Manitoba. One of the students asked him his position on marijuana, and he answered.

No transcript is available, but here's how Brandon Sun reporter Jillian Anderson, who was there, describes it:

Austin said Trudeau started by saying that marijuana was dangerous for young people, because their minds are still developing, but that he believes regulating pot will make it safer for children.

This is consistent with what Trudeau has been saying on this issue all along: we need to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people, and the best way to do that is with government regulation and control through legalization. Today, with criminalization, it's so easy for kids to get their hands on it my high school had a separate designated smoking area for marijuana. (Sidebar: it was at the bottom of a chip trail, and at afternoon announcements we'd often be warned a bear had been spotted near the chip trail. I felt safe to ignore these warnings).

 This isn't the best argument for legalization, however. The best argument is that marijuana is safer than alcohol, that the billions spent criminalizing the activity is a dismal failure, that criminalizing otherwise law-abiding Canadians for a recreational activity is wrong, that criminalization diverts police resources from more important areas, that criminalization forces Canadians to deal with criminals also selling far more harmful things, that legalization would allow for quality control and safety, and, most of all, that marijuana is the major cash crop for criminal biker gangs and fuels violence and other crime.

But back to Trudeau in Manitoba. He was asked a question by young adults actually showing some interest in the political process. He answered honestly, stating his position and delivering a firm condemnation of drug use by young people. Sounds good, right? Enter Sheriff Peter MacKay:

"He's directly delivering a message to children now that recreational drug use is okay," the statement reads. "These drugs are illegal because of the dangerous effects they have on users and on society. We need to protect our children, not introduce them to harm."

The Conservatives also issued a fundraising e-mail claiming that Trudeau is pushing pot on kids. Thing is, what MacKay is claiming is exactly the opposite of what independent observers there say he actually said: that young people should stay away from drugs. As Ed Broadbent once out it so eloquently: they lie. They pay people to lie.

Trudeau fired back with a statement of his own last night:

“A remarkable thing happened yesterday when I answered a question from a student from the Sioux Valley High School. The students in the room applauded a politician with a message to stay off drugs, and that the current system is not doing enough to keep it out of the hands of kids. That the Conservatives would put out a statement condemning the courage shown by those students is shameful. Peter MacKay should retract his statement.”

Indeed. Which part of what Trudeau did does MacKay condemn, exactly. The part where he respected a high school student enough to give him a serious answer to a serious question, the part where he told them not to do drugs, or the part where the students applauded a politician delivering a stay off drugs message?

The Prime Minister's Office even weighed in:

@jeffjedras @adamgoldenberg Did the parents of those young kids know that Trudeau promoted marijuana legalisation in front of their kids?
— Alykhan Velshi (@avelshi) November 14, 2013

Which brings us to the hypocrisy. Late last night this September article from the Frontenac News surfaced. It reported that not only does Conservative MP Scott Reid support the legalization of marijuana, he explained his position at length at a school. To students, who were young people and everything:

When it came to his turn, Scott Reid bounded down to sit with those in favour of full legalization.
He then took the stage and asked the students to name two things that Barack Obama, George Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton have in common.
“They have all been US presidents, and they have all admitted to smoking marijuana, and they all oppose legalizing marijuana,” Reid said. “I’ve never smoked marijuana, or cigarettes, but I favour legalization.”
Reid went further, saying that drug policies in North America are illogical, wrongheaded, and inconsistent.
“Let’s talk about gateway drugs and dangerous drugs,” Reid added. “The most significant gateway drug is cigarettes, and the drug that does the most damage is alcohol, and they are both legal, and should be in my view.”
He pointed out that an attempt was made to make alcohol illegal, “and it was a disaster.”
On this issue, Scott Reid differed from not only the majority of the students in the room, but with his own Conservative Party as well, which he pointed out has toughened the penalty for possession of marijuana.
“I was the only one in my party who voted against that legislation,” he said.

I agree with Reid. He's certainly a Conservative, but his position is eminently logical, and is the one that should be taken by any liberatian-minded conservative that considers the issue honestly and logically. And I don't think he did anything wrong by speaking honestly to the students on the issue. He did the very right thing.

However, if MacKay and the PMO are not just bloviating fools trying to exploit Manitoba students for political and monetary gain, surely they will condemn Reid's remarks too. I'd suggest a fundraising e-mail asking for $5 to help them fight members of their own caucus.

Or they could apologize, and perhaps start treating younger Canadians not as background props for Stephen Harper press conferences, but as young citizens with opinions and views that should be engaged in the political process, and treated with respect.

Come to think of it, they should really start treating older Canadians that way too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ministerial responsibility is dead; Peter MacKay hides behind the troops (again)

It was shocking and troubling news when it broke two days ago: the federal government (it's only called the Harper Government when it's doing positive things) announced it would be ending the danger pay allowance for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

The baffling news from a government supposedly all about the troops (unlike those other commie parties) provoked an immediately negative response, including from comedian and troop supporter (having made several trips to Afghanistan), Rick Mercer:

Harper govt cutting danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan. bit.ly/16O5q1J - its safe now apparently.
— Rick Mercer (@rickmercer) April 9, 2013

Mercer also noted that, while the Harper Government may think things are safe in Afghanistan, the Harper government apparently disagrees:

This bone-headed decision now being a very public relations (not to mention moral) problem, now the Harper Government begins a game of political hot potato. Where does the responsibility reside? If you think the Prime Minister's Office takes responsibility for the actions of the Harper government, think again:

The Harper government has ordered the Department of National Defence to reconsider a plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ah, so now they're the Harper government again. And this totally isn't their fault; or, at least, not the PMO branch of the Harper government. So, no responsibility from the Prime Minister. How about the Defence Minister; Peter?

Staff in Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said bureaucrats, not politicians, took the initiative to reduce soldiers’ hazard pay.
...
The decision was made by a hardship pay review committee whose members include a Canadian Armed Forces general-rank officer, a representative of the RCMP, and bureaucrats from Treasury Board and National Defence.
...
The Defence Minister has no power to interfere in the decision, officials said.

So, apparently it's not MacKay's responsibility. He's just the Minister of National Defence, after all. And it's not Harper's responsibility, he's just the Prime Minister. No, when the going gets tough, they hide behind the troops.

It's not a new phenomenon for the Harper government:

Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.

It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.

Perhaps they need a little danger pay at NDHQ as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

James Moore should give Peter MacKay history lessons

Late last year, as the federal government launched plans to celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, Heritage Minister James Moore was heard to lament the fact that Canada's high schools are doing a very poor job of teaching students about history.

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who announced Tuesday that Ottawa is plowing nearly $30-million into the 1812-1814 conflict’s bicentennial, says he wants to sharpen efforts to teach Canada about its past. 

“In only four of Canada’s 10 provinces are students required to take history before they graduate from high school,” he said. “I think that’s a sadly low number so I want to work on improving that.”

While Moore is rather outside his area of responsibility, education being a provincial responsibility, he was absolutely correct. He needn't go outside the federal sphere to start rectifying the problem though, as it seems there's actually a candidate for remedial courses around the cabinet table.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has been getting attention for what some are calling his novel reworking of the War of 1812 — one where the French were apparently fighting side-by-side with the British in battling the American invaders. 

There is only one problem with that, say those who attended MacKay’s speech at the French embassy in Ottawa last week. The French supported the Americans in the War of 1812.

Then they can move on to geography...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Peter MacKay hears the word plane and walks briskly up the stairs

I was in Ottawa earlier this week and spent some time on Parliament Hill with a media pass, attending a few question periods, a few scrums, and a meeting of the ethics committee. Over the next few days I'll share a few observations and stories from those events, as well as thoughts on the current level of political debate and social media's place on the hill.

In the interim though, here's a brief clip from the foyer outside the House of Commons after question period, where reporters were waiting hoping to ask defence minister Peter MacKay a question about alleged body parts killer Luka Magnotta, who at that time was in the air back to Canada from Germany on a military plane.

As you can see, MacKay didn't seem keen on talking. Maybe he just heard the word "plane" and bolted?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

MacKay, Conservatives should wear F-35 boondoggle

The auditor general's report Tuesday on the mismanagement by DND and the government of the F-35 is drawing major attention, and rightly so. But the fact is these revelations have largely been known for some time and all these objections raised previously -- the Conservatives simply elected to ignore them.

I've blogged at length on the F-35 issue in recent years, and raised many of the same concerns, so I won't repeat them at length here.

July 17, 2010: The Conservative $16 billion fighter jet boondoggle
July 30, 2010: The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people
October 14, 2010: Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?
October 19, 2010: All of a sudden we all need the same jet?
January 19, 2011: Shocking fighter jet interoperability! With the Russians!
March 21, 2011: The inter-operable allied air coalition in Libya
March 16, 2012: This is an opportunity to reset the fighter jet procurement process

Basically, the Conservatives continually ignored the warning signs emerging from the U.S. and elsewhere about the viability of the F-35 program. Moreover, while this may end up being the right jet for us, by bypassing a needs assessment they went into this blindly, and by bypassing a competitive tender process they made it impossible for us to get the best possible deal.

The AG's report puts much responsibility at the feet of DND, and rightly so. They wanted the F-35, period, and they did their best to ensure that's what would happen. And the AG's role is to audit departments, not assign political blame. But the blame absolutely must be put at the feet of Defence Minister Peter MacKay and this Conservative government.

Of course bureaucrats are going to try to get their way, and of course the military is going to try to get shiny new toys. It's the job of the minister and the government to provide adult supervision, to weigh the priorities of DND against those of other departments, to put their wish list in the larger context, and balance likes with needs and what's necessary to get the job done. And it's not like this government is in the business of blindly following the advice of the bureaucracy: if that was the case, Munir Sheikh would still be running Statistics Canada.

No, DND and the Conservatives were willing partners here. DND wanted the coolest jet, and the government wanted to be seen as pro-military and take the opportunity to use it as a wedge by labelling any people that raised legitimate concerns anti-military. Which is ironic, with the "support the troops" government now hiding behind DND in the wake of the AG's report.

This whole boondoggle could have been avoided if the government had ever, for five minutes, just stopped demonizing critics and instead listened to and considered their criticisms. The government will act now with the AG tipping its hand. It already has (it received a draft copy some time ago) by signalling it may finally allow a more competitive process, and admitting that, prior to past statements, there's no firm contractual commitment to buy the F-35.

But years will be wasted beginning a process that should have begun years ago, and we'll keep flying CF-18s longer than we would be if the government had put the right process in place from the start. They've wasted time and money on a process they knew was flawed by putting politics ahead of policy, and they've mismanaged what will be the biggest procurement contract in Canadian history. That alone should cost Peter Mackay his job.

There was a time when it would have, but ministerial responsibility is dead in this country. Instead, ministers hide behind  bureaucrats and armed forces members to mask their own incompetence. The true north strong and free, indeed.

P.S. Just to counter one Conservative talking point before it comes to the comments: The previous Liberal government never committed to buying the F-35. It invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program to make development contracts available to the Canadian aerospace industry, and contracts were awarded to Canadian businesses far exceeding that investment. This was an industrial development program only. It developed a prototype, the F-35, based on American specifications and needs. The program included no commitment to purchase the plane that would be developed. The plan was always to develop a list of Canada's needs for a next-generation fighter jet and invite bids through a competitive tender process. It was the Conservatives that decided to forego a competitive tender and buy the F-35s without a full needs assessment or consideration of alternatives.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cons keep leadership system Finley says wide-open to abuse

In an convention that was seriously lacking in news (which is the way the Conservatives wanted it, incidentally) the one bit of drama was the battle (which seems to happen at each of their conventions) to re-write the rules for selecting Stephen Harper's successor.

When the Alliance and PCs merged, PC leader Peter MacKay insisted on an equal-riding system instead of the Alliance's pure one member, one vote where ridings with large membership bases (primarily in Alberta) would overwhelm smaller ridings in the rest of the country, giving candidates no incentive to campaign nationally. At his insistence they adopted a system of riding equality, where each riding gets 100 points regardless of membership, and so candidates need to gain support accross the country.

Some of the old Alliance folks have been trying to change the system for years, arguing it's unfair to large membership ridings (a vote in a small riding is worth more than one in a large riding), and it discourages all ridings from recruiting since they're capped at 100 points no matter how many members they have.

At this convention Ontario MP Scott Reid, generally seen as a proxy for future leadership candidate Jason Kenney (who would draw support from populous Ontario and Alberta ridings) put forward an amendment for what he called a compromise position: 100 point minimum, but if you sign up more that 100 members you could increase your points, to a maximum of 400 points. So there would be some incentive to sign up new members, but smaller ridings wouldn't be completely overwhelmed. Senator Don Plett lays out their argument here to delegates at a pre-vote hospitality suite:

On the other side is MacKay and a lot of old Tories, who see such a change abandoning one of the core principles on which the party was founded, and as a move that would stop the Conservatives from being the truly national party they seek to be.

The debate played out quite dramatically on the constitutional plenary floor, following some procedural wrangling. Usually amendments make it to the floor via workshops but the Reid motion was soundly defeated in workshop Friday. He managed to get it to the floor by a petition drive, which the MacKay side tried unsuccessfully to get ruled out of order.

Once debate proceeded, with Reid kicking off the for and MacKay the against, many of the speakers were high profile caucus and cabinet members. Michael Chong and Peter Kent sided with MacKay, while Doug Finley (who ran Harper's successful leadership campaign under the 100 point system) sided with Reid, describing the current system as wide-open to rampant abuse. And he's not entirely wrong; before she crossed the floor Belinda Stronach ran against Harper (and Tony Clement) in that leadership race, and became competitive by sending paid organizers into defunct Quebec ridings and taking them over for 100 points each.

In the end, delegates rejected the Reid motion so soundly by a show of hands the chairs didn't even bother going to an electronic vote. Interestingly, they also rejected an amendment from the MacKay side to enshrine riding equality in the party's core principles, which they argue would make future motion's like Reid's out of order. An interesting bit of balance.

I think Finley will come to regret those words if he's still around when a race to replace Harper does eventually happen. But in the interim, here's MacKay reacting to the day's events:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Don Plett rips into Peter MacKay on one member, one vote

As promised, here's some video of a speech Conservative Senator and former party president Don Plett gave at a hospitality suite Thursday night sponsored by MP Scott Reid, who is leading the movement to do reform the system of riding weighting for leadership voting that the party adopted when it was formed through the merer of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

Former PC leader Peter MacKay had been leading the charge against Reid's proposal, and when Plett refers to a letter that's been circulating, he's referring to MacKay...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Ruskies are coming! Conservative talking-points for stupid people

It's amusing to see the Conservatives attempt to spin the routine intercept of ageing Russian turbo-prop bombers by our young-by-comparison CF-18 jets as proof we need to drop $16 billion without tender or a needs analysis to buy F-35s. Because in fact, when you think about it, these intercepts prove a number of cheaper alternatives may do the job just fine.

The intercepts do show we need a fighter capability. That's not really in doubt though, at least not by anyone likely to be governing any time soon, so let's accept that as a given and move on.

First of all, the fact is these intercepts are routine, and have been ably met by our boys in blue with our current CF-18 force. If the Russians were flying circles around us, flying over Glace Bay with impunity while we were able to do nothing but shake our fists at them, maybe the Conservatives would have a point that we need super-expensive stealth fighters to stop them.

But no, the CF-18 did just fine, thanks. Now, we are going to have to replace them. They're approaching end-of-life in the medium term. The incidents the Conservatives trumpet though illustrate that, having met the threat with current-generation technology, any number of next-generation alternatives cheaper to the F-35 could easily meet this same threat: the revamped F/A-18 SuperHornet, for example (The US Navy is buying them). Or the Eurofighter Typhoon (being bought by the Royal Air Force). Or even the next generation of the F-15, the Silent Eagle, a plane purpose-built for this sort of air superiority mission. All would do this mission, and all would do it cheaper than the F-35.

Contrary to the Conservative talking-points, MacKay and company have actually underscored the Liberal position by creating this drama: the F-35 may well be over-qualified to meet our primary threats, we should do a proper competitive analysis to ensure we're finding the right plane to do the job, and we should put it to public tender to make sure we're getting it at the right price.

And by the by, something that hasn't gotten enough notice: the government hasn't signed a contract yet to buy the F-35s, and won't for a few years. Seems that dog and pony show a few weeks ago was just about getting MacKay's picture taken in a fake jet, and doing some PR for the Pentagon. Which means, the next government can put this thing to a proper tendering process without any penalties or problems.

P.S. I found this very amusing, in a death of my profession sort of way:

The TU-95 bomber, known as the Bear, is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and may have been loaded with warheads on this trip. One military analyst tells QMI Agency the Russians have been known to fly with nukes on board just to flex their muscle and prove to the world they are still a powerful country.

Yes, nukes! They might have had nukes! Build a bombshelter in the basement of your condo, Chad and Buffy! We have no information that they did have nukes, but we won't let that stop us from speculating baselessly, because that's what good journalism is all about.

Also, the Bear might have had a cargo of angry, rabid bears. Or cute, cuddly kittens. Or, NUKES! We. Just. Don't. Know.

Fox News North. We speculate, you decide.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's Top Ten Cabinet Duds

So, apparently Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet tomorrow. And hopefully apologize to New Zealand on Greg Thompson's behalf, before they cut off our sheep supply.

And by the by, I'm willing to fly business/first class to New Zealand and can be at Rideau Hall for the morning, if anyone at the PMO is reading this. If you fly me Air Canada, you can even book it in economy and I'll use a certificate to upgrade. See, I'm saving the taxpayers money already!

And if the PMO is reading, hopefully the reports that tomorrow’s minor cabinet shuffle will reward incompetence by retaining ministers who have failed miserably in their portfolios are untrue. But alas, Stephen Harper seems content to keep a tight rein on the Conservative agenda and stick to a course that lacks any vision for Canada’s future.

If Harper was willing to start clearing out the deadwood however, here are ten ministers he'd be well advised to shuffle off into the sunset:

1. Lisa Raitt

Her greatest hits: Botching Canada’s medical isotope supply; her insensitive “cancer is sexy” comment caught on tape; leaving a top secret briefing binder at a TV station and then forcing her young ministerial aide to take the fall for it; signing off on thousands of dollars of questionable expenses as President and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) and then, once in federal cabinet, organizing a partisan fundraiser out of the TPA offices. She now faces no less than three investigations – by the Ethics, Privacy and Lobbying Commissioners.

2. Peter Mackay

Ever since becoming a reality TV star, Mr. Mackay’s ratings have plummeted – first for attacking sympathetic civil servants who speak the truth, and then for using the Canadian Forces as a shield for all political criticism.

3-5. Jim Flaherty
Tony Clement
and John Baird

In a move that should terrify investors, Mr. Harper is leaving his Harris-era cohort of front-bench ministers intact.

John Baird has little more to show for his infrastructure spending spree than delayed projects and underwhelming job creation.

Jim Flaherty is responsible for a record $56 billion deficit.

And Tony Clement shrunk his side of the balance sheet after giving away Nortel’s made-in-Canada technology.

Mike Harris would no doubt be proud of what his children hath wrought.

6. Jim Prentice

The onetime cabinet superstar has lost all independent willpower. Charged with the impossible task of trying to communicate the government’s excuses for inaction on the environment, he became the laughing stock of the world in Copenhagen.

7. Gerry Ritz

Combining his cavalier attitude with a dangerous mismanagement style, Minister Ritz felt it was funny to make jokes while Canadians were dying of listeriosis.

8. Jay Hill

Conservative MPs use Mr. Hill’s Parliamentary "disruption" manual as a guide on how to dismantle important committee work. Mr. Hill’s Afghanistan committee no-show technique wasn’t even good enough for Mr. Harper, who took it a step further and canceled Parliament altogether.

9. Helena Guergis

After nearly two years of promising an ‘Action Plan’ to advance women’s equality, we wish that Minister Guergis had achieved nothing. Instead, she has stood silently in the background while her cabinet colleagues chipped away at women’s equality rights – whether through cuts at Status of Women, the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program or attacks on pay equity – leading to a growing gender gap under her government.

10. Stephen Harper

Our Prime Minister has shuttered our dearest democratic institution for the second time in a year so he can stage daily Potemkin village photo ops. He followed up his tirades against delayed government legislation by killing 36 of his own bills, and blew up his Senate reform agenda by appointing more cronies in one year than any Prime Minister in history.

But if Stephen is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, perhaps it would be best if the captain went down with the ship...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper gang: MacKay went rogue attacking Colvin

If there's one thing Stephen Harper won't do it's admit defeat or that he's wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary, but the spin being put out by his people on the Afghan torture issue is telling:

However, it is understood that two Conservatives who have been the subject of much shuffle speculation will not be moving. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, will keep his job, despite being heavily criticized for his role in the Afghan detainee issue.

Senior Conservatives said Mr. MacKay was guilty of "freelancing" when he attacked the credibility of public servant Richard Colvin over his testimony on the detainee issue before a parliamentary committee last fall. Still, moving the Defence Minister would be an admission of defeat by a government that maintains it has done nothing wrong on the file.

Yes, MacKay came up with his attack line on Colvin all on his own. And every Conservative spokesthingy and pundit that took to the airwaves parroting his attack-line on Colvin, that was purely coincidental, and the PMO knew nothing at all about that because the Harper team tends to be rather hands-off when it comes to communicating the message, and usually just lets its ministers and surogates go out there and say whatever.

Riiiight.

Don't worry Peter, you'll keep your job for now because it would embarrass the boss to punt you now. But I'd be updating the CV, because once the heat dies down...

The same insider suggested more likely candidates to be shuffled include Lisa Raitt, the Natural Resources Minister, who has been at the centre of a series of controversies after leaving a secret document in a TV newsroom and being caught on tape calling the isotope shortage "sexy."

I give you until the fall, at best.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper uses our troops as a human shield

It’s not a new low for the Stephen Harper Conservatives, but rather a continuation of their import of the worst of the tactics of the U.S. Republican Right. The “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric, the labeling of opponents as “Taliban sympathizers” or “un-Canadian” or “against the troops.” Basically, smear and appeals to patriotism substituting for policy and debate.

Over the weekend, however, Harper took his cheap political hectoring to a new low. Speaking about a Canadian Navy vessel, using serving sailors as political props for his photo-op, Harper launched into a baseless partisan attack against his political opponents, who have had the temerity to raise questions about his government’s handling of reports of torture of Afghan detainees:

"Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you."

This was an attack unbecoming of a Prime Minister of Canada, and to do so aboard a naval vessel with our sailors as background is doubly disgusting. But it has been all too common a tactic by Harper, by Peter MacKay, by Conservative pundits and the Blogging Tory keyboard commandos: when under attack for their political decisions, hide behind the military and smear your opponents.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, once and for all, although it really shouldn’t be necessary: absolutely no one here is attacking or making allegations about our military members. Harper is slinging bullshit. The torture scandal is entirely political. This is about what members of the Harper government knew about allegations of tortured Afghan detainees, who knew it, when they knew it, and what action they took and why. Absolutely no one is questioning the decisions or activities of our men and women on the ground, in uniform. Just the Harper administration in Ottawa.

Indeed, if our troops have been put in a compromised situation here, if they may have turned over detainees who went on to face torture in Afghan prisons, then that is the fault of the politicians and civil servants in the Conservative government that ignored the warnings of Richard Colvin and others. It is the Conservatives that would have failed the troops, and that’s one reason why the opposition wants to get to the bottom of this mess.

But instead of investigating this, instead of looking for answers, or even admitting mistakes may have been made by his government, Harper and his ilk are inventing fictitious attacks against the troops. For Harper, the military is a convenient human shield. He can hide behind them and lob grenades at his political opponents, labeling any return fire as unpatriotic attacks on our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

It’s disgusting and unprincipled, and Harper, the Conservatives, and all good Canadians, should be ashamed of his behaviour. Our military deserves better than to be used as a human shield by a Prime Minister unable to fight his own battles.

Related reading:

Scott Tribe: Harper causes me to post twice on a Sunday - very rare
Jane Taber: Using the troops as props

UPDATE: Scott Taylor, a veteran and experienced investigative reporter on military matters with strong ties to the rank and file, rips into Peter MacKay:

Initially, MacKay charged that by retelling "Taliban lies" Colvin has essentially been fuelling enemies’ propaganda machine. When that tactic failed to score a hit, MacKay wrapped himself in the flag, curled up in the fetal position and pleaded for everyone to "stop attacking his soldiers." This is an emotionally charged issue for many of those who are justly proud of the service of our Canadian Forces, and MacKay claiming that Colvin is somehow attacking our military will immediately invoke their ire.

Although the manoeuvre was dramatically played out by MacKay, the fact is that no one engaged in this debate has alleged wrongdoing on the part of any of our troops.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter Kent, Brian Mulroney and conspiracy theories

What is it with Conservative cabinet ministers named Peter? Peter Mackay is re-fighting the Cold War by himself, and now Peter Kent is hot on the trail of a dastardly conspiracy: someone (probably Liberals) have created a phony Brian Mulroney tribute event and is using it to create schisms in the Conservative party. Why, they even tricked Jean Charest into chairing it!

Junior Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Kent declined to offer a clear answer. "It's a mischievous invitation created by others. That's not a real celebration," said Mr. Kent and when asked why he characterized it as "mischievous," he said, "because it's not a real event. It's a confected bit of political mischief."

Gee, Brian Mulroney is going to be so bummed when he shows up at the ballroom and discovers that there's no one there but Jean Charest, Ashton Kutcher and a camera crew from Punked!. But we can't fool our junior foreign affairs minister, Peter Kent.

And don't get me started on Peter Van Loan.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter MacKay still playing "whose is bigger" with the Soviets, err, Russians

Our defence minister, Peter MacKay, must be an aficionado of Cold War-era movies and Tom Clancy novels, because he still seems keen on playing a game of "whose is bigger?" with the Soviet Union, er, with the Russians:

Federal Defence Minister Peter MacKay has issued a decidedly cool response to the Russian military's planned paratroop drop at the North Pole next spring, suggesting Canadian fighter jets would scramble to "meet" any Russian aircraft "approaching" Canada's airspace. "We're going to protect our sovereign territory," MacKay said Friday in Halifax, a day after a Russian embassy representative tried to play down the parachute mission as a "solely symbolic" event aimed at celebrating the 60th anniversary of a Cold War achievement by two Soviet scientists.

I wonder if Peter is aware of the major Arctic military exercise his own department is planning, some details of which began to be revealed last week:

...but media will “likely” have to leave before the meeting ends to transfer to HMCS Toronto to take part in Operation Nanook, an Arctic sovereignty mission...

A reporter asks for more information on Operation Nanook, and is told that there will be a full briefing by Defence at some point before the trip takes place; Peter MacKay will be there, as will some media who are covering the operation in its entirety — again, betting not ITQ — which means there may be some limits for photo ops – one pool, not two.

I'm sure Peter would love if the Russian defence minister held a presser to insist they'll defend their sovereign territory, and maybe channel Kruschev with a little "we will crush you" rhetoric. Then Peter can invite him to Geneva for talks, and then they can invite Superman to throw all their missiles into the sun.

But it's possible though the Russian defence minister has better things to do than shamelessly pander to a domestic audience with empty saber rattling and statements of the obvious, particularly given neither countries' "sovereign territory" is likely to be impacted by either exercise.

Of course, Peter MacKay is no stranger to the Wag the Dog technique.

Good to know Peter will be on the front-line in person for Operation Nanook, hopefully with a C-7 in hand, defending our sovereigty from those dastardly Russians. I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter MacKay's moral compass goes haywire

Paging Stephen Harper's moral compass repair team: your assistance is needed in Peter MacKay's office as his moral compass appears to be malfunctioning:

Defence Minister and former Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay says Brian Mulroney should not only be treated with respect, but also "lauded" for his accomplishments as prime minister.

"As Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week, he's a man who should be respected, and in fact, in my view, lauded for the contributions that he made during his time in public life," MacKay said of Mulroney in a joint interview this week with Canwest News Service and Global National.

"He brought to our country free trade, (and) an acid-rain treaty. In fact, during his tenure, Canada led the world in the fight to end apartheid in South Africa. So he has a number of very notable accomplishments, (including) two back-to-back majority governments. Mr. Mulroney is a man who gave a great deal of himself to this country and Canada is better for his efforts."

Gee, Ignatieff didn't do any lauding, he just talked about respecting the office. According to Harper, that meant his moral compass was going haywire. But Peter here is out and out lauding -- that has to be one messed-up moral compass. Up is down, left is right. Peter needs help.

But seriously, what happens next will be interesting. If Harper doesn't smack MacKay down he looks weak. But he may be too weak to smack him down. Either way, it's clear Harper's grip on his party is slipping. MacKay is out and out defying the boss-man.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper lies and the Conservatives leak

As the latest chapter unfolds in the Brian Mulroney-Stephen Harper saga, we learn that when Stephen Harper said just a few days ago he had know idea about that whole 'is Murloney a party member or not thing' he may have been being less than truthful with Canadians. Or, to be blunt, according to an anonymous Conservative source, he may have been lying:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, from overseas, was aware of and agreed with plans to leak stories that would distance him and the current party leadership from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, the Star has learned.

A Conservative party source speaking on background said Harper was in contact with his chief of staff, Guy Giorno, and communications director Kory Teneycke, the officials behind the idea, while he was in Europe last week.

Such dishonesty is hardly out of character. We've seen it too many times before. Like during the 2006 election, when he insisted there was no deal to pay-off Alan Ridell. The Conservatives later admitted otherwise when he sued them for non-payment. And that's just one example. So I'm not surprised.

But the deck of cards is beginning to collapse for the Harper Conservatives, it does seem. We also got this story yesterday:

A senior cabinet minister has pleaded with the president of the Conservative party to make peace with former prime minister Brian Mulroney -- and been rebuffed.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay called the party boss last week and asked him to issue a public statement clarifying whether, as a former two-term prime minister, Mulroney could be a Conservative member for life.

To me, what they're arguing about is secondary. What I find more interesting is the unraveling of the iron control that Harper has maintained over his caucus and his party to date. We see Conservatives leaking to the Star to directly contradict Harper's claim of non-involvement/non-knowledge of the Mulroney membership leaks. That's a direct shot at the bow, not over a policy issue but over Harper's integrity and honestly, and it comes from within his own party. That's very significant.

We see Conservatives leaking news of MacKay's meeting with Don Plett. How many people do you think had knowledge of that meeting, and motivation to leak it? It's a small list, and it was a deliberate decision.

We've seen the first un-authorized leaks from a Conservative caucus meeting in recent memory, when the story first broke and Harper was off in Europe, detailing the disagreement within the party and seeking to make clear at least some caucus members were deeply upset with the Mulroney broadside.

And leaks aside, in the rarest of rarities under the Harper regime, we've seen caucus members, even cabinet ministers, willing to go on the record contradicting Harper's party line, people like Mackay and Jean-Pierre Blackburn.

Beyond a possible fracturing of the fragile detente between Conservatives and Progressive Conservatives, which may well be papered over in the end, what does this all tell us? It tells us the CPC's days of rigid discipline and message control are over. Long story short: the Conservatives aren't scared of Harper anymore.

For years, Harper has road this bucking bronco of a Conservative Party, keeping the divergent factions united by keeping them focused on one goal: majority government. And to get there, they'd have to compromise. They'd have to stay focused. And they'd have to be disciplined. Stick with me, Harper's message was, follow my lead and I'll lead you to the promised land.

But after two minorities, a series of the comprises that come with governing, and other decisions that have served to anger just about every piece of his coalition, the promise is wearing thin. There's a growing feeling Harper has taken him as far as he can, and therefore, his means of control is evaporating.

There was a time when any minor note of discord in Conservative ranks would be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Just ask Garth Turner, Bill Casey and Michael Chong, to name a few. There was a time when the dissent we're seeing now wouldn't have been tolerated for a second. But we're seeing both leaks and on the record discord, and no action yet from an increasingly impotent PMO.

To bring it back to Mulroney, say what you will about Brian but until the day he resigned, despite all the scandal, despite all the negative press, despite the dismal polling, Mulroney maintained the respect and absolute loyalty and devotion of his caucus. And he didn't do it through fear and brute force either.

I guess it's a lesson he never shared with Stephen.

Related Reading: Canada's Debate, Liberal Arts and Minds, BigCityLib Strikes Back, Impolitical.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Turkey and Poland: We'll take Peter MacKay to block

Much like his on again, off again political career, the bold dream of Peter MacKay becoming NATO chief MAY be somewhat back on again, if these reports are to be believed:

A senior Turkish legislator says his country does not back Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO's next secretary general.

Suat Kiniklioglu, a top foreign policy official in Turkey's government, says Ankara favours Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay for the role, even though MacKay has said he prefers to keep his current job.

Fogh Rasmussen is seen as the front-runner to replace Jaap de Hoop Scheffer as NATO secretary general when his term ends at the end of July.

But Turkey, a NATO member, objects to Fogh Rasmussen because of the 2006 Prophet cartoon crisis, his reported opposition to Turkey's EU membership and his stance on Kurdish rebels.

And this report, via Wells:

According to press reports, Poland is to join Turkey in opposing the candidature of the Dane, Anders Fogh Rasmussen for the post of NATO secretary-general. Warsaw will instead back the Canadian defence minister Peter MacKay for the post, it is being speculated.

Poland says they’re backing the MacKay and want to block the Dane because the Canadian is “young, super-intelligent, dynamic and resourceful” (have they met our Peter?) but Turkey is making it clear they don’t want Rasmussen because, among a number of reasons, of his strident support of the right of the Danish newspapers to publish the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad:

"It is unacceptable that NATO be headed by an individual who has in the past rudely disrespected our values and religious beliefs," Kiniklioglu said in reference to Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that sparked Muslim protests worldwide.

Fogh Rasmussen defended freedom of speech amid the protests.

It’s still a long shot, but I’m rooting for Peter MacKay to get the job now more than ever, if only to see the reaction from Conservatives as they try to balance their pride in Peter’s success, Canada's back, yada yada, with the fact he only got the job because Rasmussen strongly supported publishing the Danish cartoons and was therefore deemed an unacceptable NATO boss.

I particularly look forward to Ezra’s commentary.
_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter MacKay, our face to the world?

While I still really don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance on Kandahar of Peter MacKay being tapped as the next NATO chieftain, with US VP Joe Biden supposedly stumping for him I suppose I need to take it at least semi-seriously.

While I really don’t think it should be Peter MacKay, I do think there’s no reason why a Canadian shouldn’t be given due consideration and no reason why there couldn’t be a Canadian in the NATO post.

The commonly-held view is that a Canadian could never hold the top NATO post, for reasons of geography. The NATO military head is usually a US general and so the NATO civilian head must be a European. So fairness supposedly dictates, and so the tradition has been.

That’s all well and good, but what about Canada? Why, for reasons of geography, should Canada be excluded from playing a leading role in NATO, an organization that we have made a major commitment to since its founding? We had a substantial military presence in France and Germany during the Cold War (and by the way US, we left when it was over) committed to NATO. We’ve been a strong contributor to NATO missions over the years. Most notably, the current Afghan mission, where we’re punching substantially above our weight with the largest commitment after the US and the UK.

So, absolutely, a Canadian should be considered a serious contender for the NATO role. To exclude us for reasons of politics and geography is insulting and unacceptable.

That said, Peter MacKay? I’d like to think we could do better. His record as defence minister hardly inspires faith in his competence for the position, which will require the incumbent to deal with some major challenges, such as getting more support for the Afghan mission, NATO expansion in EasternEurope, and an annoyed Russia.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Does this have anything to do with the Albanian situation?

In the past, I’ve generally been complementary of the Conservative government’s communications strategies, and particularly their ability to drive the agenda and distract attention away from their weak points. Complementary in a professional sense; it’s still all totally evil and what not.

Trying to reignite the Cold War though to divert attention from the economy? That's just lame, and reeks of lack of imagination. The macho chest-thumping this week from Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper last week was just embarrassing:

Peter MacKay wouldn't say whether he thought the Feb. 18 flight of the two TU-95 Bears, long-range Russian bombers, was designed to create mischief for a Canadian security system already stressed by the presidential visit. But he said the response of Canadian pilots operating under the command of NORAD sent a clear message to Moscow.

"I'm not going to stand here and accuse the Russians of deliberately doing this during the presidential visit, but it was a strong coincidence which we met with the presence ... of F-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business and send a strong signal that they should back off and stay out of our airspace," he told reporters.

In Moscow, an unnamed government official called MacKay's statement a "farce" and said the Russian government was reacting to Canada's objections with "astonishment," news agency RIA-Novosti reported.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Saskatoon that the incident was a real cause for concern that will not intimidate Canada.

"This government has responded every time the Russians have done that. We will continue to respond. We will defend our airspace."

First of all, the fact that we apparently can’t tell the difference between the turbo-prop TU-95 Bear and the TU-160 Blackjack, a jet bomber, is rather concerning. Yes, they’re both big airplanes, but that’s where the similarities end. They look nothing alike.

Secondly, for those who pay attention to such things, these sorts of flights are routine. They were commonplace up until the fall of the Soviet Union, when they did stop for a time. Under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, however, such flights began again some years ago. The Russians routinely test our air defences, and those of many other neighboring countries. So do the Americans. If we had long-range strategic bombers, I’m sure we would to. It’s what militaries do.

Norad spokesperson Michael Kucharek said it is not atypical to see Russian aircraft engaging in training exercises so close to Canadian airspace.

"This has happened quite often, this is a pattern that we generally see through Russian exercises of this type," he told CTV Newsnet on Friday afternoon.

He estimated that Norad had seen Russian fighters undertaking similar training exercises at least 20 times "over the course of the last couple of years."

Such incidents are commonplace, and are regularly reported on by the media -- usually as little brief items deep in the paper, receiving little notice. Which is why it’s disappointing the media played along with Harper and MacKay to blow this thing up to Defcon-2 to distract attention from other things.

Because I think there’s a few more important stories we should be paying attention to right now. Like the $3 billion slush fund the Conservatives have created for themselves, which they’re insisting have no oversight, accountability, or checks and balances. Or the fact they underestimated the cost of the Afghan War by at least $3.3 billion, and released an estimate that is as much as $7 billion shy of that of their own independent parliamentary budget officer.

Let’s not let Harper and MacKay distract us from the real issues, and their very real failings managing this country and this economy, with fearful tales of the red menance and Cold War rhetoric.

And if the media do want to do some international reporting, I suggest they get serious and look at WHY Russia re-started these sorts of flights under Putin, and the larger trend of how Russia, fueled by oil and energy revenues, is seeking to re-assert its dominance in its former satellite states and on the larger global stage. Mark MacKinnon’s The New Cold War would be a good primer.

However, I’ve seen little interest in such an analytical analysis of what such overflights mean in the larger global picture. Instead, this all just brings another sort of picture to mind…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Psst! The Conservatives say the Afghan mission will cost $11.3 billion

I know the government has nothing to do with the order in which news clippings appear in my inbox, but the order of these three clippings does seem fittingly apropos:


Now which of these stories do you think the government wants to downplay? If you guessed the one sandwiched between the two big-ticket spending announcements, then you would get a gold watch if we hadn't had our budget cut, so you'll have to settle for a kudos instead.

Because hey, what better time to release your first full accounting of the cost of the Afghan war, and that you were $3.3 billion off on your earlier estimate, then a day you're also announcing flashy new anti-crime legislation in GangLand(TM) BC, investing millions in Vancouver-area rapid transit, and creating an emergency $3 billion fund for stimulus?

Here's the story they'd rather you not read above the fold on the front page tomorrow, or hear about in the first segment of the news tonight:

Ottawa pegs direct cost of Afghan mission at $11.3 billion
(Afghan-Cda-Cost)
Source: The Canadian Press
Feb 26, 2009 13:33

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan _ The federal government has quietly revealed the direct cost of Canada's 10-year involvement in Afghanistan _ an estimated $11.3 billion.

It's the first complete fiscal accounting of the mission, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper had previously suggested would cost about $8 billion by the time it ends in 2011.

The figures include estimates for the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency, Corrections Canada and the RCMP.

The incremental cost estimate does not include post-2011 disability and health care costs for soldiers wounded in battle or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress.

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

The new federal numbers suggest almost 80 per cent of the price tag _ $9 billion _ will be for military operations and hardware.

Oh, and perhaps the defence committee (or public accounts?) could summon Peter MacKay and Kevin Page and ask them about this:

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

You'll recall, of course, that was a report the Conservatives would much rather you hadn't seen during the campaign.

So why is the Conservatives' estimate so much lower than the estimate prepared by the independent parliamentary budget officer, a position they themselves created?

Inquiring minds, etc.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers