Month: February 2007

The NDP defence critic Dawn Black (left) has some crack researchers in her office who have learned,  through an Access to Information request, that Canada’s generals have been making plans for troops in Afghanistan through to 2011. Of course, the government has only approved keeping the troops there until 2009. The government has not yet made its plans known so far as keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan beyond 2009.

The NDP says these are the main points of the documents obtained by Black:

• It lays out troop and command rotation for Joint Task Force (JTF) Afghanistan.
• It covers the period August 2007 until May 2011.
• Our three largest regiments, the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), Petawawa-based Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR) and the Royal 22nd Regiment (R22R or Van Doos) based in Val Cartier, Quebec will all be rotated TWO more times before this plan ends.
• According to this document the PPCLI will be sent in May, 2008 and November 2009—on top of the two they have already served in Southern Afghanistan.
• RCR, who just finished a rotation, will deploy again in August 2008 and February 2010
• R22R, who just began its first rotation, will deploy again in February 2009 and August 2010.

Here’s the exchange on this subject from today’s Question Period between Black and Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor (right):

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has refused the NDP request to set a time for debate and a vote on whether or not to extend the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2009. Documents I have obtained through access to information show that the Chief of the Defence Staff is already way ahead of the government. The CDS has detailed plans going until 2011 for deployments.

Will the minister tell the members of the Canadian Forces and their families what General Hillier has planned for them?

*   *   *

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a number of times. The member is confusing the military internal plan which is based upon the Afghanistan compact and government direction. If she reads the plan in detail, she will notice that the military acknowledge that they are committed to the end of February 2009, however, they plan beyond those dates because the Afghan compact goes until 2011.

*   *   *

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, the government needs to come clean on this. Will the Royal Canadian Regiment be returned in February 2010? Will the PPCLI be returning in August 2009 for their third or fourth rotation? And will the Van Doos return for their third rotation in August 2010 as General Hillier's planning documents indicate?

It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?

*   *   *

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, the government has said that we are committed to the end of February 2009. No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009.

And here’s an exchange in the foyer of the House of Commons between some reporterss and Black:

Reporter: What do you make of these documents and what do you think of the government’s responses that this is just prudent planning?

Black: Well, if that was the case, it if was just prudent planning, that would be one thing. However, you know, this is a government that has — a country that signed a commitment to the Kyoto agreements that run until 2015 and there’s no planning going on there. The point is that in Parliament we’ve only had 48 hours of debate about this mission in Afghanistan. If we are extending it or if there are plans to consider extending it, that debate should happen within the House of Commons in a substantive way so that Canadians and military families and the Canadian Forces themselves understand what’s being talked about and what the potential is.

Reporter: And do you think government has signed us on for two more years?

Black: I think that the plans are in place. I think that what we need to see is civilian oversight. It is a very serious issue that deserves to have the highest level of debate in Canada and you know when the government agreed to a further two years till 2009 there was a cursory kind of debate around the question — 48 hours, a very quick probe without any real in-depth discussion and I think that if the government is planning on going till 2011 that they should be consulting with Canadians and with Parliament on that.

Reporter: What do you make of the minister’s answers to your questions?

Black: I think in fairness we have to agree that the Conservatives at least had a short debate, 48 hours, before they extended to 2009. If the plans are afoot to extend it till 2011 that deserves to have a very thorough, high level informed debate within Parliament before a decision is made.

O’Connor, as he does almost every day, left the Commons via a members-only exit and, as a result, avoided reporters who may have wished to ask him about this.

This morning, after Question Period in the House of Commons, former Finance Minister Ralph Goodale (left) scrummed. The questions here come from several reporters:

Reporter: The Prime Minister won't apologize. He says you owe Canadians an apology.

Goodale: Well, both the Conservatives and the NDP have obviously been politically motivated for very partisan reasons right from the very beginning on this file. Their interest has not been the proper functioning of capital markets. It has been to smear and insult and destroy the reputations of other people and the public will judge that, I'm sure. They will be able to see through a Prime Minister that simply simply cannot admit that he went over the top on this issue as well as continuing to run paid political ads that contain now what is obvious to everyone as a blatant falsehood and surely the integrity of a Prime Minister would demand that when he knows he is not telling the truth, he should come clean.

Reporter: So what will you do about that?

Goodale: I haven't considered all of my options at this stage. Obviously that is a matter for further deliberations. I know that there is a process in relation to the advertising industry that can be pursued. What should happen though is just without further administrative or legal proceedings, the government should simply do the right thing.

Reporter: But is suing an option?

Goodale: I haven't really thought that through.

Reporter: How has this investigation affected you personally? 

Goodale: Well, it has been a very tough year. It has been a year of a lot of pressure and besmirching of reputation, a lot of insinuation and falsehood in a context where you really weren't at liberty to defend yourself. It is pretty tough, but you know, I realize that in political life, there is rough and tumble. The rules are not always fair, the behavior at least is not always fair, but I think by any decent independent standard, the abuse peaked in this instance went way beyond anything that anybody could consider as normal or reasonable.

Reporter: Did you lose sleep over it?

Goodale: Oh yes.

Reporter: Are you satisfied with the controls over the finance department to make sure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again, that is, of course,  if the charges are, in fact, true?

Goodale: Well, I think your point about making it clear that these are at this stage allegations is a very important point. I will not comment in any detail upon the circumstances because quite frankly it is a matter that is now formally and officially before a court proceeding. The department of finance officials though that I have had the privilege to work with over the last couple of years are people of the highest order of integrity. They work very hard at doing their job and doing it properly. They take the responsibility seriously. The department will no doubt be examining their procedures in light of these circumstances, but I think any detailed comment as to exactly what may have transpired and exactly what ought to transpire in the future will have to wait another time when there are not specific court proceedings pending.

Reporter: Have you talked to Paul Martin about this?

Goodale: Mr. Martin and I have had a conversation in the last 24 hours, yes.

Reporter: What did he say?

Goodale: He obviously regrets the circumstances, both political and personal just as much as I do and he believes very strongly that setting aside the legal issues, he believes very strongly with me that both the NDP and the Conservatives and to a certain extent the Bloc engaged in personally abusive behavior here that should not, even in the toughest hurly-burly of political life, should not have a place in how our system functions. 

Reporter: Do you think you could have won that last election then, had it not been for income trusts?

Goodale: I think you probably have to ask people who are more in charge of the national campaign, but I think there is no doubt that it had a very profound influence. In my own riding, the influence was a backlash in my favor. The controversy at the end of the day actually helped to win us more votes, more workers, more signs, more volunteers, more money. So in a very back-handed kind of way, it actually made it easier to win because local voters really rallied to my cause, but at the national level, the impact was undoubtedly negative.

Reporter: The Prime Minister said today you should never have said there is nothing going on in your department, that is what you said publicly and you should never have said that.

Goodale: Right from the very beginning, I said that if there were any legal authority, any proper investigative body that thought this matter needed investigation, that they had the full power and authority to conduct that investigation whether that be the police or the security commission or whatever, they had all of that full independent authority and they should exercise that authority and that my department and me and my staff would cooperate 100% and that is exactly what happened and I made that commitment very early in this whole process. Thank you.

The income trust investigation is over, the RCMP says. And the Mounties have nothing to say about any leaks. But they do say that a top Finance Department official — Serge Nadeau — used confidential information for his own personal financial gain. Nadeau, who was suspended without pay today from his position as director general of the tax policy branch within Finance Canada, is charged with criminal breach of trust.

Here’s the documents you’ll want to review:

The RCMP Press Release announcing the end of the investigation.

The NDP calls on former Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale to apologize:

“The Liberals insisted nothing was amiss with Income Trusts, we now know that the RCMP have a different view,” said Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the NDP MP who filed the complaint with the RCMP that got the investigative ball rolling. “Mr. Goodale owes me and everyday Canadians an apology. He repeatedly claimed there was no reason for an investigation. He was wrong. He claimed that I and the NDP were motivated merely by politics. He was wrong. We were motivated by public interest, as the minister should have been. I am proud of the role I and my party played in this investigation.”

Goodale issues his press statement. (We’ll have more here from his scrum later)