Sometimes it would be nice to hear that the Prime Minister cares about what we think, and not what Libya or Iran or North Korea thinks.
[Update: Another excellent example of what was said, and what should have been said, at canadiancomment.]
From the National Post today:
"We stress that all our actions against terrorism shall be conducted while observing international legal norms concerning human rights and refugees' rights, as well as the norms of international humanitarian law," the two men [PM Paul Martin and Russian President Vladimir Putin] said in a joint statement issued after their meeting at the Kremlin.Hey, what would you pay to hear a Canadian Prime Minister say this at a news conference? Imagine, if you will:
"We stress that all our actions against terrorism shall be conducted while observing Canadian legal norms concerning human rights and refugees' rights, as well as mindful of our responsibility to the Canadian Parliament and our obligations as outlined in the highest law of the land, the Canadian Constitution," PM Paul Martin said in a joint statement issued after their meeting at the Kremlin.Yeah, a Canadian Prime Minister who thinks his job is to oversee the legislation and execution of Canadian laws, and not worry about what Libya and Sudan and Syria and Russia and Iran and mainland China and North Korea and all the other august members of the United Nations think, and is certainly unwilling to give these members a veto under the guise of worrying about so-called "norms of international humanitarian law".
Canada's submarine catches fire at sea, and the blame game begins.
From the Globe and Mail today:
[Mr. Hoon's] comments reflected the view of Royal Navy officials, who have said privately that they have enough information about the fire to be sure that it was the result of accident, error or incompetence.God forbid we compound a naval disaster with a political one. What a mess. I'm willing to bet the sailors will be blamed. And it may well be true. Ojibwa and Okanagan were paid off (Navy-speak for retired) in 1998, and Onondaga in 2000, so our submariners haven't been at sea as a crew** in a boat for 4 years! So Canada thought pulling ships and crews out of mothballs was a good idea.This placed Canadian officials in a difficult position: They could either deny British assertions and say they had bought defective submarines -- which would be diplomatically and politically disastrous -- or they could agree that the submarines were sound, implicitly shifting the blame onto Canadian sailors.
Looks like we got bad boats (either by design or as a result of being in mothballs), and our guys, as hard as they try, aren't up to the task to run them - especially if in their condition, these boats are a real challenge to keep afloat (or not afloat - they are submarines, after all). And we've spent $750 million to let everyone know that the Canadian Navy is a threat to Canadians only.
But since this is only a defense matter, I can be certain that the minority government will not fall because of it. Neither the NDP nor the BQ think Canada needs a military (the former because of left-wing idealogical reasons, the latter because they don't believe Canada is really a country), so they won't vote the government down over this.
They'll wait until something important comes up, like a suggestion that people be allowed to pay for their own MRI scans.
** Maybe short trips as exchange officers on American and British boats, but I dare say that doesn't count.