Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a report on how Prime Minister Harper thinks he has reshaped Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/in-rare-moment-harper-gives-advice-to-conservative-parties/article20784184/#dashboard/follows/

Harper's rare advice for Republicans, conservative parties

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Bill Curry
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 25 2014

Stephen Harper is famously scripted. News conferences are rare and tightly controlled. His answers in Question Period are deliberately repetitive and often aimed at not saying anything interesting at all.

While columnists and “Conservative insiders” regularly opine on the Prime Minister’s political strategy, the Prime Minister himself avoids the kind of punditry that he once performed on television before becoming a party leader.

That’s why his annual September trip to New York, which only occasionally involves a visit to the United Nations, can be quite interesting. His visits tend to include one lengthy on-stage discussion in front of a friendly audience from the business and foreign affairs community. The Prime Minister clearly enjoys the opportunity to talk geo-politics and tends to be more candid than usual.

Wednesday’s appearance was no exception. Organized by the Canadian Association of New York and the Canadian Consulate General in New York, Mr. Harper chatted on stage for about an hour with Gerard Baker, editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Harper started off with a slideshow presentation on the Canadian economy and later fielded questions on Canada’s future involvement in Iraq. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair would later tell reporters in Ottawa that if the Prime Minister had something important to announce, he should have done so in Parliament.

Nonetheless, the Prime Minister’s answer to the last question of the session offered insight into how Mr. Harper views his political legacy. He suggested that U.S. Republicans could learn from Canadian Conservatives that the key to victory is a steady focus on winning over immigrant voters.

Mr. Harper was asked by Mr. Baker whether he has made Canada a more conservative country. Mr. Harper pointed to policies on crime and economics as signs that he had, but then stressed the importance of winning over minorities. The Prime Minister framed his remarks as advice to other conservative parties around the world, but his comments also point to what will be a major focus of all political parties over the coming pre-election year. Here is how the Prime Minister explained his strategy:

Harper: I think that we’ve moved and I think the country has moved with us. If I would just make one comment that might have some relevance here and perhaps to conservative parties in other parts of the Western world. What’s most interesting politically about our coming to office and staying in office, in fact growing our support while we’ve been in office over the past decade, has been that the growth of conservatism in Canada – our electoral support – has been largely, not exclusively, but largely by our penetration of immigrant voters, of so-called cultural communities. We were, 50 years ago, like many conservative parties in other parts of the world. We had a very small share of that vote. Today, we win most of those communities and we are the majority party in so-called cultural communities writ large. We are the majority party.

Baker: How did you do that? Because that’s a big lesson for the Republican Party here.

Harper: How we did that – and you know it obviously depends, all these groups are different – but how we did that was really, my colleague Jason Kenney phrased it this way: he said by turning people who were small ‘c’ conservatives into big ‘c’ conservatives. Fact of the matter is most of these people have conservative views. They come to Canada and I’m sure they come to the United States because they seek economic opportunity. They like the economic opportunity. They’re prepared to work hard and seize those economic opportunities. They have a very traditional hostility toward crime and criminal elements, toward the extremes of liberal social values. They’re family-oriented people. So we appeal to them on that basis but we began our appeal first by showing up, by making sure we’re present at their events, by making sure they have a home in our party. This is not something that happens overnight. It’s not just a matter of appealing to their minds with policy. You have to also make sure that you are in fact embracing them and making them a part of your political movement. So that’s been the big transformation of politics in our country. We now have in Canada the largest delegation of visible minority people in the Parliament of Canada in our history and most of them represent the Conservative Party of Canada. And this is a huge transformation. It’s why we’ve come to office and have stayed in office and it’s one of many reasons, including the country’s economic performance, that I believe after next year we will remain in office.

Bill Curry reports on finance in Ottawa.

Prime Minister Harper is certainly right about immigrant communities often being quite small c conservative but it is important for Conservatives to remember that many (I dare say most) immigrants do not share the values of the religious right. Some immigrants are offended by what they see as, at least, Sinophobia, if not overt racism amongst many social conservative Conservatives. The Prime Minister, himself, and some key ministers do well in East Asian neighbourhoods but some Conservative MPs, including some ministers, have difficulty there.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A hard core Conservative tweeter, Karla Sofen (@KSofen), compiled a list of M. Trudeau's strengths. She was being more than just a bit tongue in cheek but, it is, actually, a good and even fair list:

      Trudeau strength #1: Name recognition.  Lots of hard core communists, socialists and liberals in Canada will vote on that alone.

      Trudeau strength #2: Good looks.  Canada loaded with vacuous people who will vote on that strength alone.

      Trudeau strength #3:  Killer instinct.  He'll do what it takes to win and that means anything.  No restrictions means he can be Zelig.

      Trudeau strength #4: 100% media support.  He won't face criticism or scrutiny.  A candidate with free unlimited positive media powerful.

      Trudeau strength #5: Quality of Mercy.  This one is a real strength.  He beat Brazeau but refused to humiliate him even when he could have.

      Trudeau strength #6: Common touch.  He's a lot like typical Canadian.  Every college student holds same views on all issues.  So does he. When all your views are common or platitudes
      no one can disagree with, most people won't be opponents.

 

[s2184]

Anyone reads CBC (CBC.CA) comments? Unofficial Election campaign 2015 is carried out right there?  ;D

 

[stealthylizard]

I can't read CBC.ca commentary without something at hand to control my blood pressure. #cdnpoli on twitter is almost as bad.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And now even uber-Liberal partisan Warren Kinsella chimes in, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/25/trudeaus-sun-ban-isnt-news----or-democratic?token=3996dc234754fc106da5cdba51d6369a

Trudeau's Sun ban isn't news -- or democratic

BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY

FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2014

Forget about Justin Trudeau and Ezra Levant. Difficult, we know, but try.

Reflect, instead, on David Akin.

David Akin is a journalist, a real one. Unlike Ezra (or Yours Truly), David is not a purveyor of infotainment. He is a real reporter, one who chases facts, and I would not be surprised if he has actual ink running through his veins.

David has worked as a journalist at the Hamilton Spectator, the National Post, the Globe and Mail, Canwest and CTV News. At CTV, he won a Gemini Award for his work. At the Globe, he was a National Newspaper Award finalist.

David presently works at the Sun News Network, where he covers elections on his Battleground show. I can tell you, without qualification, that he is one of the most respected journalists on Parliament Hill.

And Justin Trudeau won’t talk to him.

Not because Ezra Levant called Trudeau’s parents names on his TV show last week. After Ezra did that, Trudeau announced that he would not be talking to anyone associated with the Sun News Network.

No, Justin Trudeau hadn’t been talking to David Akin for long, long before that. Simply because he was associated with Sun.

I know this because, last Christmas, Sun execs asked me to interview Trudeau on-air. I’d been a special assistant to Jean Chretien, I’d run as a Liberal, and I wasn’t Ezra Levant. So I called up Trudeau’s most senior adviser, who I’ve known for years.

The senior adviser laughed. Not a chance, he said. Why, I asked. “Because,” he said, “Ezra Levant put my name on a list of the most dangerous people in Canada.”

I tried to point out that being called “dangerous” by Ezra Levant is the highest compliment a Liberal could receive. I argued that I’d run all the questions by them in advance. To no avail.

No interview, I was told. No access to a (possible) future prime minister by the (actual) largest newspaper chain in Canada.

I told David Akin about all this. He shrugged. “Don’t feel bad,” he said. “Trudeau won’t ever talk to me, either.”

Real journalists are never afraid to correct the record. So, let’s do so: Justin Trudeau refusing to talk to anyone associated with Sun News – a diktat that will soon be embraced by every Liberal seeking to curry favour with him, just watch – isn’t news. He’s been refusing to do so for a long time.

Which brings us to this week, when Justin Trudeau formalized his Sun ban.

“We have raised this issue with the appropriate people at Quebecor Inc., the owners and operators of Sun News Network, and have asked that they consider an appropriate response. Until the company resolves the matter, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, will continue to not engage with Sun Media,’’ said a Liberal Party spokesman.

Lots of journalists thereafter jumped into the fray. Their commentary can be summarized thusly: One, Ezra Levant is a “clown” (as one Globe writer put it). Two, even if Ezra is a clown, Justin Trudeau is wrong to stop talking to real journalists like David Akin.

Me? Well, I do infotainment, like Ezra does. But I think that Trudeau had no reason -- none -- to ignore Sun folks before now. It made him look petulant and thin-skinned.

Now, however, he has all the excuse he needs to ignore us. (Oh, and if someone called my mom that name? I’d beat them until they had to eat dinner through a straw.)

This one looks bad on everyone: Trudeau, for never speaking to a great reporter like David Akin; and Levant, for making it harder for a guy like David Akin to do his job.

Because – and this isn’t infotainment, folks, it’s fact – if reporters like David Akin can’t do their job, democracy itself suffers.

So, Ezra Levant isn't the raison d'être for M. Trudeau's boycott of Sun Media, he's just a convenent excuse for M. Trudeau to ignore a media chain which opposes him. One wishes, but doubts, that the rest of the Canadian media had even a tiny shred of professional standards and would boycott Justin Trudeau in return ... but, hey, the rest of the media either just enjoys the show (and the profits from 'full' column inches) or hates Stephen Harper more than it values ethics.

 

[ModlrMike]

You are aware that you used media and ethics in the same passage?

 

[Edward Campbell]

You are aware that you used media and ethics in the same passage?

Yes, and without a    too. There are some, probably many, ethical journalists. Warren Kinsella, a commentator, part of the infotainment business, names David Akin (a member here at Army.ca) and I agree. I know at least one or two others: journalists who want a good, juicy story, of course, but who fact check and double check to make sure they have it right. There are also ethical commentators, they have distinct points of view, sometimes, even often, distinctly political points of view, but they try to present their commentary with accuracy.

Ezra Levant is not a journalist; he's an entertainer, he plays a role on TV, that of the bombastic buffoon.

M. Trudeau is a lightweight who is afraid to deal with tough questions about important issues from real journalists.

 

[a_majoor]

Changing channels on the Young Dauphin for a moment: cracking down on the "Canadians of Convienience" racket. This should play well to the Conservative "base", and perhaps some portion of immigrants who have made the effort to come here and become Canadians. I wonder how it will play to other segments of the population, and more particularly, how the other parties will react?:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/09/27/For-Arab-immigrants-a-Canadian-passport-and-a-GCC-job-may-no-longer-mix-.html

For Arab immigrants, a Canadian passport and a GCC job may no longer mix

By Mourad Haroutunian | Special to Al Arabiya News | Toronto
Saturday, 27 September 2014
Gone are the days when you could benefit from Canada and the Gulf at the same time.

Nima and her husband—a Jordanian couple with two children—arrived in Ontario last year with an unequivocal goal after staying nearly ten years in Qatar: To grab Canadian citizenship within three years and go back to the oil-rich Gulf region to stack up tax-free dollars. But now that Canada has stretched the time frame required to become a Canadian citizen to four years, in addition to obliging prospective citizens to commit to living in the country, Nima’s longtime dream seems to be evaporating.

“We really don’t know what to do; everything has been ruined,” Nima says, referring to the new, partially implemented law.

She tells that her husband, who is still working in Qatar, does not want to quit his job, fearing he won’t find a decent salary in Canada’s competitive job market. Her frustration deepens when she remembers that years back they could have chosen to immigrate to Sweden, yet they preferred Canada because of faster processing times.

The ultimate wish of typical professional from economically poor and politically unstable Arab countries is to obtain the maximum benefits from both the developed West (a passport) and the thriving new economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (a job), while offsetting the disadvantages—the high cost of living in the West and the absence of naturalization in the GCC nations.


Minister Alexander welcomes new Canadians at a special citizenship ceremony in Calgary (CIC)

“The days when Arab immigrants come for a two- or three-week stay while seeking Canadian passports just to ask their Saudi or Kuwaiti employer to hike their salaries are over,” says Sheref Sabawy, a Canadian-Egyptian activist and Federal Liberal nomination candidate for the Mississauga-Erin Mills electoral district, who recently moderated two symposiums for Arab immigrants confused about the potential new changes.

“Canada is fed up with passport-holding citizens whose relation with the country is nothing but a piece of paper,” says Sabawy. He cites a 2006 incident where Prime Minister Stephen Harper ordered an air bridge to transport thousands of Lebanese holding Canadian passports who were stranded at the Canadian embassy in Beirut due to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. “Months later, the government found out that 90 percent of those citizens went back to Lebanon once the war ended,” he remembers.


Minister Alexander welcomes new Canadians at a special citizenship ceremony in Calgary (CIC)

Right now, in order to apply for Canadian citizenship, a person must be physically present in Canada for 1,095 days during the four years immediately preceding his or her application date. However, if the rest of Bill C-24—the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act—comes into force; permanent residents will have to stay in Canada for at least 1,460 days, including 183 days a year, during the six years before applying for Canadian citizenship.

Kerry Molitor, a Toronto-based immigration consultant with 12 years of experience, believes that newcomers see citizenship as the final step toward permanently belonging to Canadian society. She points to the Conservative government’s “heavy-handed approach” to immigration. “I hope that the remainder of Bill C-24 is thoroughly examined by all political parties before reaching the final stage of approval,” she says.

Bill C-24, introduced in February by Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, also increases fines for residency fraud—where immigrants falsely claim to be residing in Canada to retain their status and qualify for citizenship—to C$100,000 from C$1,000. Those seeking citizenship also have to file Canadian income tax, and the law has tripled the cost of applying for citizenship to $300.

But Mohammed, a new Canadian citizen of Palestinian descent, argues that getting a Canadian job is much more important than citizenship. “You need a job in order to live here,” says the Mississauga resident, who stresses that foreign- and Canadian-born citizens look for jobs overseas.

With over 30 years of experience, the 55-year-old engineer has yet to get a job in his field since settling in Canada four years ago, but he categorically rejects the idea of assuming a survival job, such as delivering pizza.

Canada’s labor market has weakened over the past year, leaning towards part-time-job creation and restraining income growth in the world’s 11th largest economy. The market shed 11,000 jobs in August, while the unemployment rate stood at 7 percent, Statistics Canada reports. In 2011, the unemployment rate among recent immigrants was 13.4 percent, compared to 6.3 percent for Canadian-born workers.

The government has also imposed tougher language requirements and knowledge-of-Canada standards in its endeavour to make citizenship a privilege, not a right. Thus, those aged 14 to 65 have to pass the language and knowledge test. Currently, only applicants between 18 and 54 must do so.

So, just imagine immigrants who are in their early 50s and do not speak English well, counting down to turning 54 and applying for citizenship to promptly enjoy the privileges of holding a first-world nation passport. But suddenly, they are required to stay till age 65 if they insist on getting a passport while waiving the language proficiency condition.

That is the shock an elderly couple from Luxor, Egypt, experienced when news of the new citizenship law unfolded. The woman, now 52, needs to wait 13 more years to waiver the language requirement, instead of merely 2 years according to the outgoing law, while her 60-year-old husband needs to stay 5 more years.

The couple, who prefers to stay anonymous because they feel embarrassed, came to Canada five years ago via the investor immigration program. The woman asserts she has long tried to learn English, but she has difficulties remembering at this late age. “I can’t speak English, but I can understand it,” she says.

The couple was among hundreds of anxious Canadian-Arab newcomers who flocked to the Coptic community center in Mississauga last month to get answers from two Liberal MPs.

“What I saw here was [...] a massive desire for information and clarification, which I had not seen elsewhere,” MP John McCallum, of the Markham-Unionville riding, says in remarks to Al Arabiya News. “They are very concerned about the delays in their immigration and citizenship process.”

McCallum and his colleague, MP John McKay of the Scarborough-Guildwood riding, focused on attacking the Conservative government for proposing to expand powers to revoke citizenship, but stopped short of criticizing the new residency requirement—newcomers’ major complaint.

The Liberal MPs argued that the new changes create two classes of citizens: First-class citizens, who have only Canadian citizenship, which can’t be revoked, and second-class citizens, the dual citizens, whose Canadian citizenship is vulnerable to revocation.

“Our starting proposition is: A citizen is a citizen is a citizen, whether you are naturalized or born here,” Mckay says. “The revocation of citizenship for naturalized persons should only be done on the basis of a judicial intervention, not an administrative intervention, because a judicial intervention at least has the privileges and the rights of a court system.”

May Farouk, who publishes the Arabic-language blog “Canada Bel Araby” (Canada in Arabic) with 250,000 monthly followers, says that ever since Bill C-24 surfaced, her readers can’t digest the fact that Canada is enacting a law to make their dream of citizenship harder to achieve and easier to lose.

“I got the impression that [the readers] are in denial, unable to admit that Canada has changed,” she explains.


Last Update: Saturday, 27 September 2014 KSA 20:24 - GMT 17:24

 

[Edward Campbell]

Caution, this is a bit of a rant ...

As I have said elsewhere, M. Trudeau, quite cynically, plans to use what he is sure (and I agree) will be Canadians' general dissatisfaction, in 2015, with our contributions, however modest, to the war against IS**. His comments about the CF-18s, comparing the actions to boys measuring penis length, etc, are just plain insulting to the men and women in the RCAF and he owes them, and all Canadians, an apology.

I want to repeat two words: cynically and insulting; they completely sum up M. Trudeau's position.

That being said, I suspect that Prime Minister Harper is joining an ill-conceived, aimless, badly led mission which will do nothing of any use and may, very likely will, backfire ~ law of unintended consequences, and all that. I don't know how to do whatever needs doing to IS**, because, obviously, I don't know what we should be doing. It's OK that I don't know, but someone, maybe someone in President Obama's entourage, ought to know, but my guess is that they don't know, either.

M. Trudeau could have, should have tried to make that point. Mr Mulcair did try, sort of, but he, M. Trudeau, chose the easy, partisan route instead: cynicism and cheap shot insults. Many, many, many Canadians are going to vote for M. Trudeau and, if enough of them do, we will, once again, get the "leadership" we deserve: cynical and insulting.

 

[Rifleman62]

Do you think that if the Middle East was Christen vice Muslim, that there would be all this slaughter, rape, refuges, etc?

And yet Christians are vilified in the Western World (especially in politics), and Obama will not even use the words Muslim Terrorists, and says IS** are not Muslims.

Obama is destroying the US and and world peace, bit by bit. And Cdns want Obama North?

 

[a_majoor]

While I don't personally agree with the idea of Canada sending troops or equipment to directly confront ISIS (they should be the targets of Iranian blood and treasure, not ours), Prime Minister Harper must try to make the "least worst choice" where there are so many conflicting variables.

While the US is aimlessly thrashing around, we cannot sit aside and refuse to help, because there may be dire economic and diplomatic consequences downstream because of that. While many Canadians are Granola eaters, they are rightly horrified by the rise of barbarism in the Middle East and demand we "do something". Other Canadians want to put their heads in the sand. The Prime Minister also has to balance his overriding political goal of reelection in 2015 on an balanced budget with the extra expenditures needed to prosecute a war.

And that is without looking at the other war in Ukraine, unknown goings on in the DPRK, aggressive Chinese posturing in the South China Sea, Ebola......

The Young Dauphin's cynical and insulting actions are partially a result of his (very limited) world view, and I suspect that as the hard choices that *we* as Canadians become more and more clear, the extent that he is out of his depth and unable to function at this level will come into very sharp focus. He certainly will continue to suffer gravely from Foot in Mouth disease, and at some point even his media enablers and apologists will no longer be able to cover or ignore this. If the Young Dauphin can't even deal with the Sun Media chain, it is difficult to imagine what will happen when he encounters Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping.

Frankly, from a "tactical" perspective, the Prime Minister should start showcasing Mr Mulcair during question period and whenever else is appropriate (personally answering the Opposition leaders questions, making reference to Mr Mulcair in news releases, maybe even publicly inviting Mr Mulcair to to a private meeting to discuss the war issue) in order to highlight the choices Canadians have when thinking about a leader.

 

[ModlrMike]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer in other words.

 

[Old Sweat]

Let's reflect upon the effect PET had upon Justin as he developed his personality and attitudes. Pierre Trudeau distrusted the United States and tried to draw Canada closer to other powers, including the USSR and its satellite, Cuba. Remember the Uncle Fidel crack from, I think, his brother.

It is possible he is "programmed" not in the Manchurian Candidate way, but by growing up in an environment that had a certain focus on life, so that he cannot fathom taking up arms in a coaliiton led by the US. It would take an awful lot of real exposure to the realities to even shift his mindset a brain cell or two.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you could go back farther than that Old Sweat.  His father was disinclined to pick up arms for any cause..... Motorcycles and German helmets.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think you could go back farther than that Old Sweat.  His father was disinclined to pick up arms for any cause..... Motorcycles and German helmets.

I think that, in fairness and despite my great distaste for PET and all his doing, that he came to regret this, sincerely. My sense is, however, that he never lost his Quebecois xenophobia, a result of his education and his flirtations with Abbé Groulx and others, but, while in graduate school in Europe he fixed on the notion that nationalism, all sorts of nationalism, including Quebecois nationalism, was the root cause of the 20th century's manifest problems. I believe that his dislike or mistrust of the Canadian military was based on the nation that it was a 'tool' of British nationalism. He also saw American nationalism at (some) of its worst in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

 

[Old Sweat]

Getting back to JT, there are a few possible explanations for the position he has taken. These include a crafty strategic positioning to take advantage of the national revulsion when the mission goes sour; liberal naivety with its tendency to blame the ills of the world on the west (remember his looking for the root causes line he reverts to on occasion); a belief that Canadian forces should only do peacekeeping, which in turn increases Canada's influence in the world; simplemindedness; or a genuine desire to be liked and thus a tendency to avoid doing anything offensive, except to Conservatives.

I suspect it could be a combination of two or more of the above, especially the first, second and last.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree, fully, with Old Sweat's analysis and here, reproduced under there Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is Andrew Coyne's analysis of M. Trudeau's position, which he describes, being charitable, as "discreditable:"

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Coyne+Liberal+Leader+Justin+Trudeau+stance+against+Canadian/10260825/story.html

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s stance against Canadian combat mission in Iraq is discreditable

ANDREW COYNE, POSTMEDIA NEWS

10.03.2014

So we are agreed. ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, call them what you will, is a genocidal menace; a metastasizing cancer rapidly spreading across much of the Middle East; a terrorist proto-state with the resources and the capacity to wage open-field war, to take and hold territory, and to project influence beyond it; a threat to neighbouring populations, to the stability of the region, and, through the jihadists it attracts and sends abroad, to countries half a world away — including, by its own declared intent, our own. No one seriously disputes any of this.

So we are all agreed. Now: What are we going to do about it? As of today we know. The Conservative government will send six fighter jets, two surveillance craft and a refuelling plane, to supplement the 69 special forces personnel it has already committed, whose operations will be restricted to those countries that have expressly permitted them to enter, namely Iraq, and whose mission will be limited to six months. That is as much as the government dares. It is probably as much as we are capable of.

And the NDP? And the Liberals? Nothing. Or to be more precise, nothing. No, I’m sorry, it’s true. Humanitarian aid, refugee tents, blankets, even the NDP leader’s call to help “the people of Iraq and Syria to build the political, institutional and security capabilities they need to oppose these threats themselves” — these are all perfectly lovely things. They will no doubt prove helpful in addressing other problems, or in the long run. But they are of no use whatever in addressing the immediate objective, which is to stop the spread of Islamic State, and the slaughter that inevitably follows.

The prime minister’s statement in the House of Commons was notably clear on this point. He did not promise that the international air campaign in which Canada will participate would eradicate or even defeat Islamic State. There will be no surrender ceremony, no victory parades. The objective for the moment is simply containment — as the prime minister put it, “to significantly degrade the capabilities of ISIL … to either engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open … (to) halt ISIL’s spread in the region and greatly reduce its capacity to launch terrorist attacks outside the region.”

Nothing in this prevents us from also providing humanitarian assistance, taking in refugees, or helping in other ways. So the question is not, why is the government choosing a combat role over a humanitarian one? It is: Why does the opposition rule out any combat role, even so carefully circumscribed a one as the prime minister has proposed?

We know why the NDP is opposed. It has consistently opposed any Canadian participation in any military action since the Second World War. Tom Mulcair’s speech to the Commons was a feast of red herrings, irrelevant historical anecdotes and pointed mentions of “the U.S.,” but what it boiled down to was: We say this is war and we say the hell with it.

But the Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has taken a rather different position — or rather positions. When the idea of an international military campaign against Islamic State was first proposed last month, he spoke in favour of Canadian participation; now he is against it, having spent the intervening weeks saying he was undecided. Fair enough. Positions evolve. Only he still is not opposed to military intervention in principle: only to Canada taking part in it. And he has not begun to explain why.

There are any number of reasons one might question the wisdom of military intervention, at least as currently envisaged. Perhaps you doubt the efficacy of air strikes — though they are intended mostly to buy time until ground forces can be assembled from within the region, and though they have already succeeded in keeping Islamic State from taking, for example, the Mosul dam. Maybe you worry it will simply encourage more jihadis to enlist — though nothing has proven more potent recruiting material for Islamic State and other such groups than the promise of victory.

Likewise there are valid questions to be asked about the risks of indirectly propping up the vicious Bashar Assad regime in Syria, the costs in civilian lives, the dangers of being sucked into still deeper interventions, and so on. Maybe all of the governments from all of the countries that have agreed to take part in the mission, and all of the political parties, of every ideological hue, that have supported it, have it wrong. Maybe they and all of their military advisers have failed to take into account objections that seem so obvious to posters on Twitter. Maybe there is some other way of stopping Islamic State’s advance that no one has yet proposed.

But that is not the position the Liberal leader is taking. Go ahead and put your own forces at risk, is his message to our allies. We’ll be over here making coffee.

The closest he has come to justifying this utterly discreditable position is to suggest that in fact, the best contribution we could make to the fight was to stay out of it: that a strictly non-combat role was, as it were, our comparative advantage. I cannot imagine our allies are likely to see it that way. When it comes to sharing the burden of military intervention, the sacrifice that counts lies in the willingness to take casualties. As the prime minister put it, “being a free rider means you are not taken seriously.”

This is not the position that previous Liberal leaders have taken. I’m happy to debate the Iraq war again, and Jean Chretien’s decision at that time, but the situations are not remotely comparable — which is why so many critics of the 2003 campaign, France among them, are on board for this one. And in any case, Chretien did put our troops into Afghanistan: far more of them, and at far greater risk. If the Liberal party cannot support this Canadian mission — small in scale, time-limited, in concert with the international community and at the invitation of the sovereign state in question — what mission would it ever support?

M. Trudeau's position is, indeed, "discreditable," it is cynical, partisan politics at its worst ~ and it is likely to succeed. We are very likely to get the leadership, cynical and discreditable 'leadership,' that we deserve in 2015.

 

[Remius]

Getting back to JT, there are a few possible explanations for the position he has taken. These include a crafty strategic positioning to take advantage of the national revulsion when the mission goes sour; liberal naivety with its tendency to blame the ills of the world on the west (remember his looking for the root causes line he reverts to on occasion); a belief that Canadian forces should only do peacekeeping, which in turn increases Canada's influence in the world; simplemindedness; or a genuine desire to be liked and thus a tendency to avoid doing anything offensive, except to Conservatives.

I suspect it could be a combination of two or more of the above, especially the first, second and last.

I would add to that list.  He isn't courting conservatives.  He is courting that centrist target, disaffected NDPers and fence sitting Liberals that could vote either conservative or NDP.  He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.

 

[PuckChaser]

He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.

Even Quebec was polling with support to air strikes against ISIS. Canada was at ~64% support, Quebec was ~53% from the Ipsos-Reid poll here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/

I think JT is going to be on the losing end of this one, every town massacre, every journalist/humanitarian worker killed, makes their stance weaker and weaker. The only thing propping him up is the lefty media, and even they've started to focus more on the NDP vs Tories, as they came out against right from the start.

 

[Old Sweat]

I would add to that list.  He isn't courting conservatives.  He is courting that centrist target, disaffected NDPers and fence sitting Liberals that could vote either conservative or NDP.  He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.

Your comment re Quebec is certainly moot, and one that I had considered. It perhaps is a case of keeping an eye on the Quebec seats held by the NDP and the seeming demise of the BQ. It is interesting that the Liberal premier of Quebec supports the mission and has a child in the CAF.