• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

Eye In The Sky said:
Article Link

Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment
Ah, what's good for the (Team Blue) goose doesn't seem to be quite good enough for the (Team Red) gander  :tsktsk:

Meanwhile, other reads of what Sajjan & others have  said (or didn't say) ...
... The minister was asked repeatedly whether the eventual mission would be voted on by MPs from all parties in the House, but he did not answer the question directly ...
(source)
... International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau told The Huffington Post Quebec this week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make the final call about a future mission with his ministers, not members of Parliament.

"The decision will be taken at the cabinet committee," Bibeau said in an interview Tuesday.

She did suggest, however, that there could still be a debate in the House of Commons ...
(source)
Sorry, Team Red - if you insisted on some level of parliamentary participation with other missions, hard not to look hypocritical if you don't allow at least some level of participation for your own deployments.
 
There has been some message adjustment in the last 24 hours.
Sajjan wavers on Commons vote
Defence Minister says Liberals won’t seek parliamentary support on peace missions, then backtracks

Steven Chase
The Globe and Mail
09 Sep 16

The federal government is refusing to commit to a parliamentary vote on troop deployments for what it promises will be a return to a major peacekeeping role for Canada – one or more missions that could hold significant peril for soldiers in an era in which stabilizing conflict zones has grown more dangerous.

The government shifted message on this matter within a matter of hours on Thursday. Early in the day, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told The Globe and Mail that the Liberals would not put the matter to a vote in the House of Commons.

The government is currently considering options for a major new peacekeeping deployment and Mr. Sajjan said in a taped interview that the government had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations.

Asked twice whether there would be parliamentary votes on peacekeeping deployments, he replied: “No. We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible on this.”

But later in the day, after questions from journalists on a teleconference, Mr. Sajjan declined to answer whether MPs would be asked to vote on peacekeeping deployment.

Instead, he said the cabinet will determine how things will proceed. “Once we have that discussion, a process will be decided on,” he said.

His office later said the government was not ruling out a parliamentary vote.

In the Globe interview, Mr. Sajjan said Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.

“The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”

Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.

He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.

The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper hold votes in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions.

The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but it has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.

Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.

The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline.

“Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”

He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.

The Liberals have come under fire this year for limiting debate on legislation on medically assisted dying.

NDP foreign affairs critic Hélène Laverdière called on the Liberals to hold a vote on any peacekeeping deployment. “For a government that wants to consult on every issue, I do not understand why they wouldn’t consult Parliament when it comes to combat or peacekeeping missions.”

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.

Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said he is not a fan of parliamentary votes on military missions partly because there are no clear rules on when they are necessary.

“In Canada, the practice is effectively to vote when the executive thinks it’s in its political interest to do so. Is that the best approach?” He said the Commons could make “take note” debates on deployments mandatory.
 

If the Liberals want to keep their cake and eat it too, I suggest that they make it a budget bill.  The government is right (as were previous governments) that the executive does not need to ask permission of the legislative to deploy the military.  But, Parliament does have the right to approve the budget.  So make a special appropriation to fund this mission without cutting into defence baseline funding.  Parliament gets its debate and vote on what money to spend, and the government gets to claim that it retained its prerogative to deploy the military or not.
 
Yep!

Them's the same people that claimed that PM Harper did not have legitimacy because he got a majority government without getting a majority of the casted votes - so if they were elected, FPTP would be changed. Then get elected to a majority government with a smaller percentage of the casted votes - but now it is legitimate for them to change the only way Canadians have voted (FPTP) for the (almost) last 150 years without going back to see first if an actual majority of Canadian want that change.

Democracy, and its boundaries, is a highly flexible concept in that government's mind, rather elastic where it favours their point of view - and notwithstanding contradiction with their past own selves.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:

The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.

Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.

Oh! And Lew Mackenzie had absolutely nothing to do with the whole affair. The Somalia inquiry basically found him to have some responsibility for the Airborne's leadership problem, but that was on the sole basis of superior command responsibility (they were in his Army command) which, at some point included oversight of the Airborne regiment, in which he had never served per se.

I never said I was perfect, just good looking (and humble:) )
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Yep!

Them's the same people that claimed that PM Harper did not have legitimacy because he got a majority government without getting a majority of the casted votes - so if they were elected, FPTP would be changed. Then get elected to a majority government with a smaller percentage of the casted votes - but now it is legitimate for them to change the only way Canadians have voted (FPTP) for the (almost) last 150 years without going back to see first if an actual majority of Canadian want that change.

Democracy, and its boundaries, is a highly flexible concept in that government's mind, rather elastic where it favours their point of view - and notwithstanding contradiction with their past own selves.

A very large shopping list of promises in their platform.  All agreed in detail by the public when the public voted the Liberals into power.  No further need for votes.

One man.  One vote.  One time.  >:D
 
Awwwwww, Chris, you're being critical of the current Government.  This threads going to be locked too now.  ;)
 
It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.

And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.  All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.


Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.
 
Jarnhamar said:
It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.

And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.  All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.


Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.

Yah, but what about a rainbow coloured gender-neutral Tishirt?  [:D
 
Jarnhamar said:
It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.

And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.  All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.


Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.
Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?
 
Altair said:
Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?

Coherent foreign and defense policy should decide where we're going to dip our toes. Soldiers have just as much one person one vote as anyone else. Biggest problem is, mission is not being debated in the Commons, as demanded previously by these very same Liberals. Yes, the motion will pass to deploy as they have a majority. However, it allows proper debate and firmer details dragged out of the government instead of the piecemeal crap we've been fed thus far.

There has been 0 justification provided for us to deploy to Africa other than "Security Council Seat".
 
PuckChaser said:
Coherent foreign and defense policy should decide where we're going to dip our toes. Soldiers have just as much one person one vote as anyone else. Biggest problem is, mission is not being debated in the Commons, as demanded previously by these very same Liberals. Yes, the motion will pass to deploy as they have a majority. However, it allows proper debate and firmer details dragged out of the government instead of the piecemeal crap we've been fed thus far.

There has been 0 justification provided for us to deploy to Africa other than "Security Council Seat".
I agree, it should be debated in the Commons. I'm actually pretty sure it will be, this government has backtracked in the face of public opposition in the past and I am pretty sure they will on this one.

As for security Council seat, I dare you to bring up where one Liberal has used that as a justification for this mission. Is it common knowledge?  Sure. Have the Liberals ever once used it as a reason? No.

What they have said is they want to be more engaged with the UN and one of their election promises was to go back to UN peacekeeping. Sure, be pissed about the mission. Don't make stuff up.
 
Altair said:
Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?

Moving the goal posts eh?
It's a hell of a lot easier voting to send soldiers to war zone Africa when it's not your guts on the line-not sure how to simplify my statement more for you.


The mali army
https://www.funker530.com/clown-army-of-mali-techniques-analyzed/
 
Altair said:
As for security Council seat, I dare you to bring up where one Liberal has used that as a justification for this mission. Is it common knowledge?  Sure. Have the Liberals ever once used it as a reason? No.

What they have said is they want to be more engaged with the UN and one of their election promises was to go back to UN peacekeeping. Sure, be pissed about the mission. Don't make stuff up.

I'm sorry you can't read between the lines. Canada has been engaged with the UN for the last 20 years, we're not "back". The issue is, the previous government wouldn't compromise on principles, so we lost the votes of the third world dictators who didn't like that when we ran for the last seat and voted against us. If we drop a bunch of peacekeepers somewhere, and court Iran's vote by removing sanctions from a country who consistently threatens to wipe Israel off the map, maybe we can totally get that seat.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
"Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.

Will there be a possibility of,

Fighting child soldiers?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/104732.0

As if there is not enough mayhem going on already in our cities, BLM would have a field day with that.

Based on past experience, an estimate from government "brain specialists" about the number of potential PTSD claims might be of interest.

daftandbarmy said:
I never said I was perfect, just good looking (and humble:) )

What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left. < Just kidding.  :)

 
Altair said:
Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?

Say what?

Should soldiers (and sailors and airmen) not be allowed to express displeasure at being used as pawns in pursuit of somebody's personal  vanity project, à la some mediaeval king?

Is expectation of a clear, coherent, logical, justifiable reason for being placed in danger so outlandish?

I get it - you're hot and horny to go anywhere, for anything, anytime, for any reason. Those who have lost/discarded their deployment virginity, however, tend to look at such things a little more critically.

Like many here, and as I said upthread, I've been to too many funerals, most for people that I knew and served with, and have seen too many grieving, shattered families. There had better be a ****ing valid reason for this.

If a valid reason magically appears - and I am not optimistic - I will cautiously back a deployment, but not until then.

And nobody said anything about "soldiers (and sailors and airmen) decid(ing) where they go and when".
 
Altair said:
Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?

No.  In a mercenary army (sorry, all-volunteer) army like ours, the soldiers get to decide if the game is worth the candle.  They can withdraw their services.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Moving the goal posts eh?
It's a hell of a lot easier voting to send soldiers to war zone Africa when it's not your guts on the line-not sure how to simplify my statement more for you.


The mali army
https://www.funker530.com/clown-army-of-mali-techniques-analyzed/
Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.

What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.
 
Back
Top