Cannon's Fizzle Leaves Room for New Minister

Stephen Harper has tough choice to make

In the 2011 federal election, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon turned out to be a dud.

Which is unfortunate. While by no means perfect, Cannon was pretty good as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Among the highlights of his tenure was scaring Libyan President Muammar al-Ghadafi away from setting foot in Canada, then committing six CF-18 Hornets to enforcing the no-fly zone that is preventing Ghadfi from continuing to massacre unarmed protesters with fighter jets, as well as making it possible for amred rebels to run him out of Libya for good.

But the citizens of Pontiac were left with the task of deciding who their Member of Parliament would be. The decision they reached was not Lawrence Cannon, but rather Mathieu Ravignat, a former communist and one of the many largely-anonymous NDP candidates to win in Quebec.

This, of course, leaves Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a tough decision to make: he needs a new Minister of Foreigh Affairs. With the world in the state it's currently in, he'll need to choose very wisely.

The first impulse of many would be to assume that Harper will appoint the new Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander -- who knocked off Mark Holland last night -- to fill this role. While Alexander has no experience as a Parliamentarian and no experience as a Minister, he does have experience as Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan.

Even as a rookie, he's a real contender for the job.

But his lack of experience places a notable obstacle in his past. Being a Minister is often as much about whether the Minister can defend his actions in Question period as it is about what the Minister does.

If Harper decides to adopt discretion as the better part of valour and not appoint a rookie MP to such a crucial post, the question may wind up being not who will be Foreign Affairs Minister, but who will be Minister of National Defence.

Simply put, if Chris Alexander is not named Foreign Affairs Minister, it will almost certainly be Peter MacKay. Fortunately, Harper has two capable replacements to take MacKay's place.

Edmonton-Centre MP Laurie Hawn's defense of the F-35 deal has infuriated opponents of the purchase precisely because he soundly demonstrates the need for the jets, establishes the F-35 as the plane for Canada, and doesn't give undue attention to underqualified technical nay-sayers.

Vegreville-Wainright MP Leon Benoit is unquestionably a dark horse for the role. But he shouldn't be. As a Reform Party MP, Benoit served as National Defence Critic. At a time when the Chretien government was purchasing used and non-seaworthy submarines from Britain, Benoit was the man tasked with standing up for the Canadian Forces to a government determined to maintain them (or not) on the cheap.

In a perfect world, Lawrence Cannon would continue as Foreign Affairs Minister. But thanks to Mathiew Ravignat (in this instance), a perfect world it is not. Fortunately, Prime Minister Harper has some options to look to.

Medal of Honor: Digital Dilemma

With Medal of Honor set for release in less than two months, the most recent edition of the game is becoming more and more controversial -- and for good reason.

The game is set in the ongoing war in Afghanistan. More shockingly, the game's multi-player mode allows players to assume the role of the Taliban and fight NATO troops.

It's a provocative and challenging element of the game, and has naturally elicited some strong reactions from political leaders in countries currently involved in the war.

"The men and women of the Canadian Forces, our allies, aid workers, and innocent Afghans are being shot at, and sometimes killed, by the Taliban," fumed Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "This is reality. I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban. I'm sure most Canadians are uncomfortable and angry about this."

Britain's Minsiter of Defence, Liam Fox, took an even stronger stand; he wants the game banned, or at least boycotted.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands," Fox spat. "I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game.

"I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product," he concluded.

A certain level of disgust with Medal of Honor may well be warranted.

Call of Duty: Worlds at War has already taken the nearly-unprecedented step of allowing players to play as Nazi Germany during its multi-player mode. It goes without saying, however, that it's no longer the 1940s, and that Canada is no longer at war with Nazi Germany.

(Thanks to Canada and its World War II allies, Nazi Germany no longer exists.)

In an electronic medium that has already allowed players to play as the most evil regime of the 20th century, it was only a matter of time before they had the opportunity to fill the shoes of the some of the runners-up.

Banning or boycotting Medal of Honour isn't really the answer.

For one thing, if the game presents an honest depiction of the Taliban and its tactics, the game could remind those who play it of exactly what is currently being fought in Afghanistan: theocratic tyranny at its most savage.

A suitably honest depiction of the Taliban will make it difficult for even today's tuned-out generation of video gamers to turn a blind eye to their true nature.

It's worth repeating that in the storyline mode of gameplay, the Taliban will remain the villain. Left-wing peacenik fantasies don't translate very profitably into combat-oriented video games.

Playing as the Taliban in multi-player mode wouldn't symbolize any sympathy for the Taliban or its goals. And for the prospect of turning video gamers on to the resolute evil of the Taliban, it's well worth the perversity.

Worth Reiterating: Peter MacKay Made the Right Decision

Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative merger good for parties, good for Canada

In a letter written to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Marjaleena Repo reminds Canadians that, although the 2004 merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party -- forming the modern Conservative Party of Canada -- has long been old news, there are still those who remain preoccupied with it.

Apparently resenting the description of the Liberal Party/NDP attempt to form a coalition government -- also worth reiterating: a government that would have been irresponsibly mortgaged to the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- as a coup d'etat, Repo instead describes the CA-PC merger as the same:

"In discussing the possibility of a Liberal-New Democrats merger, frequent reference is made to the Alliance-PC Party 'merger' as the natural and logical one, unlike the projected one of the two opposition parties.

Those who participated in the 2003 Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign and its aftermath know well the so-called merger was simply a coup d'état."

Repo goes on to describe MacKay's decision to explore merging the two parties in conspiratorial terms:

"Leader-elect Peter MacKay ran as a 'non-merger candidate' and signed an agreement with David Orchard pledging not to pursue a merger with the Alliance and to respect the party's constitution that explicitly forbade a merger.

He did the very opposite and opened PC membership to a flood of Alliance members. These dual Alliance-PC members were able to overtake the much smaller PC membership and, in a manipulated teleconference vote, get the merger approved"

Repo may object too much. After all, Orchard and his anti-merger cabal only accounted for 25% of PC membership. A significant minority perhaps, but still a minority.

Conversely, when a vote was held on whether or not to accept the merger as proposed in 2003, the result was a landslide.

"Had MacKay abided by the agreement he signed, far from leaving the 2003 leadership convention with no choice but to cave in to the Alliance, the PC party would have carried on the rejuvenation and revitalization process that saw its caucus grow with byelection wins.

The thousands of Orchard supporters and those who had supported MacKay as a no-merger candidate, would have contributed to the regrowth.

Indeed, it is quite possible the PC party would have done well in the 2004 election, when Canadians were eagerly looking for an alternative to the Adscam-stained Liberals."

As it turned out, both Orchard and Repo -- who, herself could never be mistaken as an impartial observer, as she served as senior political advisor to Orchard -- instead joined the Adscam-stained Liberals.

In other words, at the end of the day, there was little to no difference between Orchard and the Liberals at all. There was, however, strong similarities and common conservative causes between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance.

MacKay wisely recognized this, and recognized the folly of keeping the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties divided, despite the common philosophical bonds between the two parties -- all in the name of David Orchard's political vanity.

There was not one logical reason to do this. In fact, it would have actually run counter to Peter MacKay's responsibilities as the leader of the PCs: that is, to do what is best for his party.

Perhaps Repo considers her speculation on what could have happened to be pertinent cause to re-think the merger. But the results of what actually happened -- with the Conservative Party of Canada forming the government within two years of the merger -- speaks for itself.

Certainly, some former Progressive Conservative stalwarts abandoned the party after the merger -- but they did this by choice. Some did it out of sheer opportunism (Belinda Stronach, who crossed the floor to become a cabinet minister). Others did it out of being unable to set aside their differences with the former Canadian Alliance and work with who they deemed to be the "wrong" conservatives -- whom many of them contemptuously deemed "Hats and Horses" conservatives.

Marjaleena Repo, for her own part, has gone on to be a contributor to Global Research -- a haven for far left conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 truthers. Orchard himself has also contributed to this dubious think tank.

It's just as fair to speculate that the Liberal Party would have continued to govern Canada had the CPC merger never taken place. And while the Liberals wish they could treat the Sponsorship Scandal as an isolated incident, it's worth mentioning that when a decision regarding the taxation of income trusts was leaked to investors in 2005, the Liberals simply declined to investigate.

In the end, the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodaale, was cleared of any wrongdoing. A civil servant working in the Finance Department was eventually charged and convicted. Wrongdoing had taken place, and the Liberals simply declined to investigate. Their approach to matters of corruption was, as such, wholly unacceptable from a party expecting to continue governing.

In other words, the stakes for Canada were very high. Peter MacKay recognized this very early, and did not only what was best for his party, but was best for his country. He did what David Orchard simply would not.

At the end of the story, history will speak very favourably about Peter MacKay's decision -- and less-than-favourably of David Orchard and his ideological vanity, if it speaks about Orchard at all.

Calling All Internationalists

NATO chief wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan

With the 2011 date for withdrawal of Canada's forces in Afghanistan approaching, the newly-elected Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has called on Canada to continue its mission in the war-torn country.

"Of course I'm not going to interfere with domestic politics in individual allied nations, but seen from an alliance point of view, I would strongly regret if that became the final outcome of the Canadian considerations," said Rasmussen. "At the end of the day it is a question of our own security -- we cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for terrorists -- and I also think it is in Canada's interest to ensure a peaceful and stable Afghanistan."

As has become the general policy when Canadian forces are called upon to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has already rebuked Rasmussen's appeal.

"However, our government is abiding by the motion passed in Parliament in 2008. That is: our combat forces will leave by 2011. We're staying the course," Cannon announced.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay has previously responded to suggestions that US President Barack Obama would like Canadian forces to remain in Afghanistan past 2011 as his own country prepares to commit additional troops to the crucial mission.

While it is true that Parliament decided in 2008 to end the Afghanistan mission in 2011, the persistent call from international leaders for Canada to stay committed to the combat mission very much does present a dilemma for Canadian foreign policy -- particularly in the minds of those who favour multi-lateralism.

The Afghanistan mission has long posed a challenge to NATO in regards to its ability to function effectively as an internationalist institution -- wherein various countries pool their political, economic, strategic and military capabilities in order to act constructively in regards to global challenges.

While Canada has long carried a disproportionate burden in Afghanistan. While other NATO countries have loafed by refusing to commit their troops to the combat mission against the Taliban, Canada has paid in blood and treasure for its commitment to international security.

But by the same token, Canada retreating from the field of battle at a time at which its troops may be needed most doesn't solve this particular problem. If anything, it likely makes it worse.

If the rest of NATO is prepared to match Canada's commitment to Afghanistan moving forward, the right thing to do may be to stay.

Parliament should, at the very least, reexamine its commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 based on the international appeals for our forces to stay. Not even taking the time to reexamine our commitment to the mission could represent a fatal blow to internationalism as a central tenet of Canadian foreign policy.

The Pipe Dream is (Almost) Over for Lizzie May

Green leader concedes she can't win in Central Nova

In competing with former Liberal party leader Stephane Dion for the title of Canadian politics' greatest flip-flopper, Elizabeth May might finally have found the edge.

The leader of Canada's Green party has recently advised that she probably won't run against Conservative party deputy leader Peter MacKay in the next election. Despite previously stating she'd never run anywhere but Central Nova, May seems ready to move on to what she imagines may be greener pastures (pun intended).

It isn't as if it's any great shock. Not only has May already long been looking for another riding to run in, she had previously run in a by-election in London, Ontario.

It makes her insistence that she'd never, ever, eeeeeeever run anywhere other than Central Nova seem rather meaningless.

"I’m never running anywhere but Central Nova," May had insisted. "This is where I live and where I will always run."

Of course, this general meaninglessness is nothing new for Elizabeth May. The famed Red-Green coalition that May hatched with then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion wasn't based on any great principle. It was based on meaningless partisanship.

Certainly, May publicly espoused a desire to run against MacKay based on his party's environmental record. But considering that she was forming an alliance with a party and a leader with a worse environmental record than the Conservative party, it was impossible to take her seriously.

Even her claims to pretext were utterly meaningless.

Even May's decision to finally get (somewhat) realistic and look for a more potentially-fruitful riding to run in reflects her previous meaningless insistence that she's her party's greatest asset.

"The decision has been made that, for the next campaign, electing the leader is the top priority," May wrote to supporters. "I have agreed to run where the party decides the potential Green support is the strongest."

Even that May, as Green party leader, would decide that getting her elected is her party's top priority, is in itself utterly meaningless.

In the end, it isn't likely to manage much. Elizabeth May's dream of finding a riding in Canada where she can be elected is little more than a pipe dream. Nowhere in Canada is May likely to find a plurality of citizens willing to vote for a fringe political leader who so often insults the intelligence of Canadians.

It's simply a shame that the Green party -- an organization that very well could find a place of value within Canadian politics -- remains, and seemingly will remain, stuck with such a valueless and meaningless leader.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Calgary Grit - You May Be Seated

Mark Taylor - "There is Only One True Option"

Canada Shifts Course on Piracy

But will Michael Byers finally be happy about it?

Speaking on a controversy dealing with Canadian handling of pirates captured off the coast of Somalia, Defense Minister Peter MacKay has announced that Canada is in negotiations with Kenya to secure an agreement that would allow Canadian sailors to turn captured pirates over to a tribunal in Kenya for trial.

Previously, Canada had been disarming captured pirates before releasing them.

Questions had been raised over how seriously Canadian forces take piracy in that region. MacKay stated in unequivocal terms how seriously Canada takes this.

"Let's be clear — this is financial terrorism," MacKay announced. "This is not unlike acts of terrorism that we see in other parts of the world, whether it be kidnappings, whether it be issues related to fanaticism and extremism in places like Afghanistan."

One would wonder how Michael Byers would react to this news. Byers had previously denounced the government policy on piracy as "ludicrous".

"Its ludicrous for the Harper government to claim that it can't arrest and prosecute pirates,” Byers said. “Canada has a legal obligation under the United Nations and international law to bring pirates to justice.”

“The more interesting question is whether we have the authority to release,” Byers insisted.

But one may think back to Byers' stance on another issue -- the alleged torture of Taliban militants by Afghan authorities -- and realize that Byers' attitude toward this issue is actually rather hazardous.

Byers had denounced Canadian troops turning prisoners of war over to Afghan authorities as illegal in the wake of allegations that some of them had been tortured (the Al Qaeda training manual instructs captives to falsely claim they had been tortured, but that's another matter).

One would wonder how Byers would react if Canadian sailors turned captured pirates over to Kenyan authorities who tortured them. Kenya, like Afghanistan, has a history of torturing prisoners.

In fact, negotiating a deal with Kenya similar to the one negotiated with Afghanistan in the wake of torture allegations is actually the right thing to do.

Canadian officials should retain access to any prisoners turned over to any other state so we may ensure that they aren't being tortured. While some claims of torture will naturally lack credibility -- those of aforementioned Taliban or Al Qaeda militants -- they all must be investigated fully. Canada cannot allow itself to be willingly complicit in torture.

However Byers would have reacted to the torture of Somalian pirates by Kenyan officials, one would have to imagine that he wouldn't have reacted favourably. Moreover, one can assume he would have blamed the Harper government for that torture.

Fortunately for Byers, nothing of the like has come to pass. Considering that it's been his stance that Canada must seek the prosecution of captured pirates, he would have been complicit in that torture.

No Canadian in Brussels

Anders Fogh Rasmussen will be political head of NATO

If political opponents ever attempt to use his failure to win the office of NATO Secretary General against him, at least Peter MacKay can continue to insist that he was never pursuing the job to begin with.

Today current Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer announced that Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen will be his replacement.

The die was officially cast for MacKay yesterday, when Turkey retracted its objection to Rasmussen.

"I look very much forward to continuing the good job done by Secretary-General Scheffer in the transformation of NATO to manage the new challenges of the 21st century," Fogh announced.

MacKay is the second Canadian to come close to winning the job in recent history. Former Liberal deputy Prime Minister John Manley also came awfully close.

And while it is unfortunate that, once again, Canada's ambitions to lead in NATO was thwarted by mere European parochialism -- even after the offer of an important key structural compromise by US Vice President Joe Biden -- NATO's new leadership should be well-poised to move the alliance forward, both in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

There will be other times, and other offices for Peter MacKay. Some day, almost certainly, Prime Minister of Canada.

If anything, MacKay's failed bid for the NATO leadership has left him free to pursue the agenda that MacKay himself insisted came first -- his duties in Canada.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Can of Contemplation - "NATO Sticks With Old Europe"

MacKay's NATO Bid Not Over Yet?

Secretary General speculation continues

Despite Peter MacKay's numerous insistences that he isn't seeking the job, speculation about the Defense Minister's near-frontrunner status in the campaign continues.

Even putting his repeated announcements that he isn't pursuing the job aside, MacKay's chances of winning seemed dim after Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister of Denmark, was rejected by Turkey.

Turkey has reportedly decided to back MacKay.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, the strongest candidate aside from MacKay, also dropped out of the race recently.

Like Sikorski, however, MacKay's potential ascension to the office of Secretary General may be complicated by recent antagonisms with Russia.

All of this continues to rely on whether or not MacKay is seeking the office at all. MacKay may simply wait for other candidates to draw criticism from their potential rivals. Then again, at this point, only MacKay himself really knows.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Jeff Jedras - "Turkey and Poland: We'll Take Peter MacKay to Block

Well Done, Peter

MacKay elicits apology from Fox News personality

If there's anything everyone knows about Fox News personalities, it's that they know how to keep things classy.

When they aren't berating their guests and cutting off their microphones, they tend to indulge themselves in the kinds of shit shows seen on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye recently, wherein Gutfeld and his guests mocked the Canadiam armed forces.

While Canadians mourned the loss of another four soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Gutfeld and his guests took to poking fun at the idea that the Canadian forces may need to take an operation sabbatical from the region.

"Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them," Gutfeld said. "Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."

North of the border, no one has found Gutfeld and his ignorant cohorts funny. And rightfully so.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay answered the call on behalf of all Canadians when he publicly demanded an apology from Gutfeld.

"It's crass, it's insensitive, it's in fact disgusting given the timing where Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes here at CFB Trenton," MacKay fumed. "There should be an apology -- to the families in particular, and to the Canadian Forces and to Canada generally -- given the sacrifice and the commitment that we've demonstrated in Afghanistan."

"What could anybody with common sense say about his kind of trash? It's ignorant, it's inappropriate, it's insulting," added Conservative strategist Geoff Norquay. "It's insulting to the 116 Canadian troops who have given their lives and paid the supreme sacrifice while we've been in Afghanistan."

Gutfeld has responded by issuing a less-than-heartfelt apology.

"I realize that my words may have been misunderstood," he wrote in a statement. "It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. Red Eye is a satirical take on the news, in which all topics are addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner."

This follows an earlier twitter in which Gutfeld mused "My apologies to the Canadian military, they probably could at least beat the Belgians."

Gutfeld's apology has gotten a lukewarm response from some Canadians.

"I think it's very nice and all that they did apologize. It just goes to show you that they were just a bit reckless, I guess," said Jim Davis, the father of slain soldier Corporal Paul Davis, and a man who has worked tirelessly to help drum up support for the mission.

"It's a very solemn moment," Davis said of the arrival of Canada's most recent fallen. "When you look at the seriousness of that moment, and you look at the foolishness of those comedians, well, what a difference."

"It was total ignorance, poor taste and wasn't funny at all," Davis said about the comments themselves.

Getting an apology -- even a rather disengenuous one -- out of a Fox News personality is no short order. Canadians should feel at least some measure of satisfaction, although it's only a matter of time until some other idiot at Fox opens their mouth and says something stupid again.

Rumours, Interrupted

MacKay not planning to run for NATO Secretary General

If speculation that Defense Minister Peter MacKay was gunning for the soon to be elected position of NATO Secretary General were based merely on rumours, MacKay seemed intent to lay them to rest this week.

"Rumours are just that," MacKay insists. "I have a tremendous amount of work on my plate right now as Canada’s defence minister."

"I’m focused on my role as minister of defence in Canada and building our capacity, which is something that we’ve worked very hard at."

"We have a 20-year predictable Canada-first defence strategy that is going to replace all of our core capabilities and grow the size of our infrastructure and improve upon our operational capacity. All of these things are very live files," MacKay explained.

"We have a tremendous number of procurements complete but more of them in the pipeline. That’s my focus right now, and obviously getting the equipment into our theatre of operations and protecting our men and women in uniform as they carry out their important work in Afghanistan."

MacKay has continued to be as good as his word, announcing $40 million in upgrades to military facilities in Alberta.

The results of MacKay's work have also become evident on the ground in Afghanistan, as Canadian forces conducted a helicopter-borne assault conducted with Canadian helicopters -- a historical first.

MacKay's insistence that he isn't campaigning to be NATO's new Secretary General may seem to defy other recent comments made on the matter.

Then again, it's important to remember that former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley has also been rumoured as a potential candidate of the job. While direct speculation about Manley seeking the job has been scant, it's important to remember that he's come close before. Manley narrowly lost out to current Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in 2004.

And while MacKay is passing on a tremendous opportunity -- both to further establish himself as a future Conservative leader and Prime Minister and to solidify his party's internationalist credentials -- Manley would also represent Canada with distinction as NATO Secretary General.

Then again in politics it's remarkable how quickly things dismissed as mere rumours can blossom into reality. Politicians as savvy as MacKay has proven to be rarely turn down opportunities on the magnitude of the one that currently seems to have presented itself.

Quid Pro Quo On a Global Scale

Compromise could pave the way for MacKay

With the election of the replacement for NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoof Scheffer slowly approaching, a breakthrough that would allow Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay to win the job seems to be on the horizon.

“I don't think that traditions, in the sense of geography, should be a restriction on any position with NATO,” MacKay has recently said.

An unofficial NATO tradition is that a European will hold the office of Secretary General, while American commanders will maintain control of various military commands throughout the alliance.

American Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly offered a compromise to European leaders that may finally put this tradition to rest. Under Biden's compromise French commanders would assume control of several NATO commands in exchange for MacKay being elected Secretary General.

The likelihood that Biden's offer could be accepted is enhanced by the lack of a consensus amongst Europeans about which European candidate should be elected.

Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski appears to be the strongest of the European candidates, but agitation between himself and Russia may undermine his candidacy.

Then again and by the same token, MacKay's recent verbal joust with Russia over bomber flights near Canadian airspace may make his own candidacy more questionable, considering that NATO is currently trying to strengthen its relationship with Russia.

MacKay has never lobbied Biden for his support. “I've never had a discussion with Vice-President Biden about this,” MacKay explained. “What I can tell you is that there is growing appreciation and I would even go so far as to say renewed respect for the role that Canada plays in NATO, not just in Afghanistan, but the fact that we have been an active participant and a founding nation for NATO in its 60 year history.”

Not to mention the direct leadership role Canada took in the creation of NATO.

With Biden's support -- knowing that Barack Obama isn't that far removed -- MacKay's candidacy for the job is far from a done deal, but it's become solidly within the realm of possibility.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

James C Morton - "Peter MacKay as Secretary-General of NATO?"

Chucker Canuck - "Lefties: Here's a Chance to Show Europe Some Love"

Chris Tindal - "Sit Tight, Elizabeth"

Sizing Up the Competition

Peter MacKay faces formidable competition for the office of NATO Secretary General

If one considers history alone, Peter MacKay's chances of being elected as NATO's next Secretary General are very slim.

As some have previously noted, an unwritten agreement between the United States and European states guarantees European countries control over the Secretary General's office as long as the supreme military commander remains an American.

But even with such an unwritten policy in place it should be expected that whomever winds up winning the job should be capable of performing it.

As it stands, there are currently four other candidates for the job.

Poland has nominated its Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, for the job. Sikorski studied Politics, Economics and Philosophy at Oxford and covered the 1980s Afghanistan and Angola for the British Press.

Sikorski also served as Poland's Defence Minister between 2005 and 2007 before he resigned in order to become Foreign Minister. Sikorski also held a number of deputy minister portfolios throughout the 1990s.

Between 2002 and 2005 Sikorski was a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was also executive director of the New Atlantic Initiative, an organization committed to revitalizing relations between the Atlantic democracies.

Sikorski strongly supports both close relations between Poland the United States, as well as Poland's role within the European Union. Foremost among his goals is the modernization of the Polish military.

Radoslaw Sikorski is clearly a strong candidate for Secretary General. But he does face one serious hurdle.

Sikorski is the man who signed the Missile Defense treaty with the United States. As a result, Sikorski's election as Secretary General could jeopardize efforts to rebuild NATO's currently-fractious relationship with Russia.

Considering Russia's quite natural opposition to the Missile Defense Shield -- not only should such a countermeasure be unnecessary against a country that is technically still an American ally, but it also does risk upsetting the delicate balance of power established between the two countries over long and arduous non-proliferation negotiations.

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passi is also considred a strong candidate to become NATO Secretary General.

Passi's bid to become Secretary General was seemingly overshadowed by Irina Bakova's campaign to head UNESCO.

Passi achieved prominence in 1990 when he drafted a bill calling for Bulgaria to quit the Warsaw Pact and join NATO. He also drafted the bill that culminated with Bulgaria joining the EU.

Former British Defense Minister Des Browne has also been suggested as a candidate.

Browne has solid diplomatic credentials within Britain, having served on the Northern Ireland Select Committee in 1997.

However, Browne also faced a great deal of criticism when he allowed British soldiers taken prisoner by Iran in 2007 to publish their stories.

Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister Jonas Gaer Stoere has also been proposed as a candidate. Stoere studied law at Harvard before serving as the Norwegian ambassador to the United Nations office in Geneva.

He has also served as the Executive Director of the World Health Organization and the Secretary General of the Norwegian Red Cross.

Along with MacKay, these individuals -- Stoere, Browne, Passi and Sikorski -- seem to be the front-runners for the role of Secretary General.

For their own part, the Americans aren't endorsing any of the candidates, instead merely naming the criterea by which they think a Secretary General would be successful.

"What's important from my standpoint is simply that we have somebody who has the broadest possible support across the alliance and frankly somebody who has the executive experience to run a very large and complex organisation," said US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Sikorski is almost certainly MacKay's most formidable rival for this job. Unfortuantely, he also has one key shortcoming: he already has a tenuous history with at least one country in which NATO would like to forge strong diplomatic ties. Sikorski as General Secretary would be a definite liability toward that end.

MacKay is as strong a candidate as Sikorski, and he doesn't have the same history with Russia.

Peter MacKay's bid to become the Secretary General of NATO may be more favourable than he's otherwise been credited.

The Case for a Canadian

Time is past due for a Canadian to be NATO Secretary General

When the next Secretary General of NATO is elected, there remains an opportunity that this office will be filled by a Canadian.

Defense Minister Peter MacKay is considered by many to be a strong candidate for the job.

Of course, things aren't nearly so simple as MacKay's qualifications.

In all of NATO's history, there has never been a Canadian Secretary General. Nor, for that matter, has there ever been an American Secretary General.

Every Secretary General in NATO history has been a European. For most of NATO's history there was actually a very good reason for this. NATO was formed with the purpose of defending the western bloc against the Soviet Union.

Any war fought against the Soviet Union would inevitably have been fought on European soil. No one could be better trusted to direct such a war in Europe's best interests than someone who is themselves a European.

Even in the immediate post-Soviet era NATO's primary theatre of operations remained European due to the ethnic conflicts which periodically broke out in Eastern Europe.

But now NATO's primary theatre of operations is no longer Europe. Now, NATO is most active in Afghanistan, a war in which Canada has played the disproportionately largest role.

According to Allan Pellerin, a retired long-time NATO officer, NATO has an unwritten rule that the Secretary General would remain European.

"There’s no written rule per se, but when NATO was formed what was agreed was that in order to provide a balance between America’s power and Europe, the senior military commander would be an American and the secretary general was always a European. And that does not change," Pellerin explains.

There are also rumours -- which some attribute to an unnamed European candidate's attempts to discredit MacKay -- that his campaign has been ill-conceived and clumsy.

But even if MacKay himself is unlikely to ascend to Secretary General, there is another Canadian reported to be in the running: former Liberal Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister John Manley.

In the previous Secretary General contest Manley was endorsed by Lord Robertson, the previous Secretary General.

This wasn't enough to overtune tradition in 2003, nor was the leading role Canada's been taking in Afghanistan.

The thing about unwritten rules is that because they're unwritten they're subject to change.

The time for a Canadian to become Secretary General of NATO is long past due.

Pakistan: Obama's Biggest Challenge

Pakistan poses a dilemma for Barack Obama's Afghanistan focus

As Barack Obama prepares to take office tomorrow, he must be aware that there is a great deal of work ahead of him.

A significant portion of that work will be related to his new focus on Afghanistan and, by extension, matters pertaining to Pakistan.

Taliban fighters and other insurgents have used a largely-uncontrolled border between the two countries to operate out of bases in Pakistan. Obama has already announced that he would allow American forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan. But there are far more important matters related to Pakistan to be dealt with.

Clearly, part of Obama's approach to Pakistan will have to deal with nuclear weapons.

Of all the (officially) democratic countries in the world right now, Pakistan may be most vulnerable to takeover by Islamic militants. Allowing such individuals to get their hands on nuclear weapons is by any account a nightmare scenario, especially considering reports that Al Qaeda has attempted to acquire submarines within the past six years.

Neil Joeck of Livermore Laboratories has suggested that Obama may institute a policy requiring the reduction of American nuclear weapons to 1,000 units. But in order to deal with the threat that Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpile, Obama would have to negotiate a peace treaty between Pakistan and India that deals decisively not only with mutual nuclear disarmament, but also building a sturdy and just peace between the two countries.

According to Joeck, Pakistan maintains their nuclear stockpiles as a deterrent not only against India mounting a nuclear attack against Pakistan, but also in order to deter a conventional attack.

Considering that Pakistan has moved troops out of its north western region in response to recent tensions between the two countries, the war in Afghanistan would reap an obvious dividend from peace between the two countries.

A clear obstacle to such a peace accord is the matter of Kashmir. Tariq Amin-Kahn notes that there are few means by which a just peace could be achieved between India and Pakistan without resolving that controversy to the satisfaction of both countries.

Pakistan could not accept Indian hegemony in Kashmir.

One obvious short-term solution is for India and Pakistan to negotiate an agreement of mutual demobilization from Kashmir.

Amin-Kahn and The Real News' Paul Jay seem to look to Obama to negotiate such an agreement between India and Pakistan. But as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, Canada is actually much better positioned to help barter such a deal.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay have ruminated about negotiating a deal involving the sharing of terrorism-related military intelligence between the two countries. Negotiating a mutual demobilization from Kashmir would be an ambitious but worthwhile project for Canada's diplomats to pursue.

The idea should not be for Canadian diplomats to replace an effort by American diplomats to negotiate such a settlement, but rather to work as a partner with Barack Obama in an initiative modelled after the mission diplomacy that has successfully negotiated agreements such as the landmine ban.

The work involved would be arduous, but in the end rewarding. That is more than enough reason for the Canadian government to be a leading partner in helping Barack Obama tackle his biggest challenge.

The Need to Know

India, Pakistan need to share intelligence

With the Mumbai attacks clearly dragging India into the War on Terror, cooperation between all of those participating in the war on terror is as important as ever before.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay has a special message for India: share your intelligence, particularly as it pertains to the activities of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Eastern Pakistan.

"We'd like to know the extent of their intelligence about Taliban and Al Qaeda activities inside Pakistan," MacKay recently announced, and noted that India now clearly shares this concern. "They [India] are clearly concerned that their own country is vulnerable. We have Canadians on the ground in Afghanistan that have encountered a very determined insurgency."

MacKay noted that India is poised to collect and share such intelligence due to its "proximity to Pakistan, which we know is still very much the home of much of the insurgency inside Afghanistan, and a place where al-Qaeda are making their mark."

This comes as Nalin Surie, India's Secretary of External Affairs, met with MacKay and other Canadian officials to discuss the Mumbai attacks.

India suspects Lashkar-i-Taiba for orchestrating the attacks. Lashikar-i-Taiba is a group that demands the withdrawal of Indian security forces from Kashmir and Jammu. They wish to establish an Islamic caliphate in the two regions.

MacKay noted that India's cultural familiarity with the increasingly tumultuous South Asian region could prove to be incredibly valuable.

"The Indians grasp better than we ever could the tribal nature of Afghanistan, and how that factors into the fighting, some of the allegiances ... in Kandahar, the Pashtun people in particular," he noted.

India would prove to be a pivotal ally in helping secure the region. However, a tripartite security arrangement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India faces challenges deeper than simply getting all three to the table. The challenges also involve establishing an agreement regarding the policing of the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan -- one rendered more difficult considering the disputed nature of that border.

"Quite frankly, that's going to be an enormous diplomatic challenge, given the tribal nature of that area and the fact that neither side recognizes the Durand Line as the actual geographic border," MacKay said.

While tremendously challenging, that particular issue is merely another reason why the security situation in Southern Asia offers an opportunity for Canadian-styled mission diplomacy to yield positive results in establishing a workable security arrangement in the region.

Clearly, firmly establishing a formal border and a policing arrangement for that border is one important feature of that agreement. Intelligence sharing, both between the immediate partners of such an agreement and with NATO, is another.

Helping negotiate such an agreement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India should be considered a top priority of Canada's Defense and Foreign Affairs deparment.

Stop the Double Talk on Afghanistan

Government needs to make up its mind on Afghanistan, then tell the Canadian people

If one were to believe the election-time and immediate post-election talk of the governing Conservative party, Canada will be withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

If one were to believe the party, not even the election of the pro-Afghan war Barack Obama as American president won't change that.

Yet in the immediate wake of a conference between the defense ministers of NATO countries engaged in Afghanistan, Peter MacKay seems to be humming a distinctly different tune on the conflict.

"There are many ways in which we can make contributions beyond 2011," MacKay recently mused. "What we've said is the current combat mission, the current configuration, will end in 2011. That's a firm date, confirmed by Parliament and respectful of Parliament."

Which would actually be the right decision. With Canadian aid agencies expected to remain active in Afghanistan after 2011, a Canadian military presence is Afghanistan to ensure their safety and security is nothing more than the responsible thing to do -- and nothing less would be acceptable.

But Canadians have a right now what these "many ways in which [Canada] can make contributions" are.

MacKay is also looking toward other initiatives as alternatives to the combat mission in Khandahar. "After 2011, I suspect, and I don't want to speculate, there's always going to be a call for Canada to participate where we're needed, when we're needed," MacKay suggested. "We've never shied away from that. We've always stepped up."

Which is all well and good -- but Canadians also have a right to know what other missions the government is considering. Whether it involves an aggressive peacemaking/peacekeeping mission such as that required in Darfur or more Chretien-era "mission diplomacy", Canadians have the right to know.

Under normal circumstances, there would be very little cause for concern. Under most circumstances the Canadian government has chosen its foreign engagements very responsibly -- the lack of an intervention during the Rwandan genocide being a particular exception.

With the government seemingly wavering on the Afghanistan mission -- wavering between an irresponsible disengagement and a responsible reengagement -- many Canadians may be forgiven for suspecting that there is more afoot than simply double talk on the Afghan war -- and they have the right to know what that is.

Peter MacKay and the government needs to come clean.

MacKay Expects Obama to Bolster Afghanistan Mission

Could the Canadian position on Afghanistan soften if it does?

When one considers the emerging phenomenon of "Conservatives for Obama", Peter MacKay's presence among this intriguing clique should be considered far short of surprising.

On numerous issues, MacKay has proven to be among the most progressive of his former Progresive Conservative colleagues.

Defense Minister MacKay is the most recent Conservative to greet Barack Obama's election to the Presidency with a great deal of optimism. In MacKay's specific case, he's optimistic that Obama's election will lead to a breakthrough in Afghanistan.

"It's fair to say the road out of Iraq leads through that, shall we say, that arc of instability; it will go through Afghanistan with specific concentration, we hope, on Kandahar province," MacKay announced. "I suspect one of his first orders of business, with his new secretary of state and defence, will be to knock on some doors and make some very direct appeals for other NATO countries and perhaps even non-NATO countries to step into the breach and share the burden."

Which, of course, will benefit Canadian forces in Afghanistan in the short term. In the long term, however, Canadian troops aren't expected to be in Afghanistan at all, with the Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled for 2011.

But if Obama's election shores up additional international support for the mission, it could soften Canadian commitment to that withdrawal date, should Obama help public opinion turn in favour of the mission.

That is, if incidents such as the recent acid-throwing episode doesn't contribute to such an upturn.

MacKay seems wary of this possibility. "Targeting innocent children who want nothing more than to be able to go to school and get an education - it's pure intimidation of the most medieval kind," MacKay said.

"I hope that it will also cause our allies to step up our efforts," he added. "As if we needed further example of just how insidious and how deranged these people are when it comes to the level of violence to which they will stoop."

Obama -- and his incoming administration -- seem to understand the hefty cost that Canada has paid in Afghanistan.

"There have been a number of very public statements from senior Democrats, including president-elect Obama, that there is enormous respect and recognition that Canada has done a great deal, perhaps even more than some expected," MacKay noted.

MacKay insisted his government remains committed to the 2011 withdrawal date.

But if Obama manages to drum up additional support for the Afghanistan war, it may simply not do for Canada -- a country that so often boasts of an Internationalist foreign policy -- to abandon its role in Afghanistan.

Peter MacKay will meet with the Defense Ministers of the eight NATO countries who are currently engaged in Khandahar. While the Obama administration is still planning its transition and will not present at the summit, current Secretary of Defense Minister Robert Gates will be present.

One can't help but wonder what kind of pressure will be placed on Canada at that meeting.

The time will be ripe for Canada to leave when the job in Afghanistan is done. Hopefully, Obama's renewed commitment will accomplish this goal by 2011. But if it doesn't, it may be necessary for Canadians to stay, if only to honour Barack Obama's renewed commitment.

What Lies Ahead for Elizabeth May?

May's Central Nova -- and continuing leadership -- prospects looking dim

With balloting in the 2008 federal election to begin in mere days, Elizabeth May has to be looking at her decision to gamble in running against Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay with some regret.

The most recent polls taken in Central Nova find Peter MacKay comfortably sitting on 39% of the vote in the riding. May, sweeping up some portion of Liberal voters, is currently contesting second place in the riding with the NDP. Louise Lorefice, the NDP candidate, narrowly trails May, 19 to 22 per cent.

With many observers thinking the 2008 election just may turn out to be the year that the Green party breaks through and wins some seats in Canada's parliament -- the convenient defection of former Liberal MP Blair Wilson to the Greens doesn't count -- one has to wonder what this might do to May's leadership prospects.

After all, the general convention in Canadian politics is that a party leader must hold a seat in parliament. And while some leaders -- such as Preston Manning and Lucien Bouchard -- have, in the recent past, rejected this convention, May might not find herself in the comfortable position that Manning and Bouchard found themselves in.

When Manning and Bouchard declined to seek election as their party's representative in parliament -- in favour of Deborah Grey and current Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, respectively -- they had their party firmly behind them in that decision.

Of course, there does remain one important distinction between the two situations: Duceppe and Grey won their seats in by-elections. And while Manning himself did survive one general election defeat -- at the hands of Joe Clark -- as leader of the Reform party, a different internal dynamic tends to apply after a party wins its first seat in a by-election.

May herself has already proven herself unable to grasp the differences in these dynamics. For example, she continues to refer to her agreement with Stephane Dion as "leader's courtesy", despite the fact that leader's courtesy has never actually been exercised during a general election. This is a tradition generally reserved for by-elections in which a newly-selected party leader seeks entrance into the House of Commons in place of a previously-elected compatriot.

If Elizabeth May's facetious "leader's courtesy" gambit in Central Nova fails to pay off, she may find the chickens discontented over her decision coming home to roost.

More interestingly yet, if May does find her leadership of the Green party terminated over the gamble, a successive Green party leader may find their way into the house to be quite perilous, even if the Green party manages to elect a member.

After all, one has to imagine that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton may not be so eager to exercise the "leader's courtesy" that May declined to extend -- or even offer -- to them.

After all in politics, as in life, turnabout is fair play.

Whatever lies ahead for Elizabeth May, it would seem that being seated as the newly elected MP from Central Nova -- and maritime giant killer -- is not it.

Canadian Leaders Courting the Next Presidential Gold Medallion

Candidates square off over who best supports Canadian Judaism, Israel, and who can best handle Iran

As the 2008 federal election campaign grinds on, it's inevitable that various candidates will make their pitch to various ethnic and religious voting blocs.

In some cases, that could serve to backfire.

But for Liberal Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler, his recent efforts have been little more than going back to the well from which he has so often drank.

Cotler has recently been involved with a petition to have Iranian president Mahmould Ahmadinejad charged with "inciting genocide".

Speaking at the conference against state-sponsored genocide in Washington organized as a prelude to Ahmadinejad's recent address to the UN, Cotler insisted "The crime of incitement to genocide has already been committed. Iran has paved the way to genocide, and genocide has already begun in [the sense of] incitement."

Cotler insisted that the charges alone could go a long way toward legitimizing Ahmandinejad. “The very process of initiating these remedies will embolden the progressive forces in Iran," he announced.

Cotler also aptly pointed out that those who incite genocide are as bad as those who actually commit it. “[Ahmadinejad] should be treated with the opprobrium of a genocidaire,” he concluded.

Some may be eager to dismiss Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Judaism to be empty partisan pandering. But to suggest so they would have to know very little about Cotler's past.

The genocide petition against Ahmadinejad isn't merely a flavour of the week gambit for Cotler. He has proven his dedication to preventing genocide and prosecuting those who commit it throughout his entire legal career, both before and after entering his politics.

His book Justice Delayed remains the landmark work on Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada.

The plentiful political capital that Cotler enjoys in Canada's Jewish community has been richly and rightly earned.

Yet not all of Canada's leaders have supported Cotler's advocacy on behalf of Israel. Liberal leader Stephane Dion recently accused former Foreign Affairs miniser (now Minister of Defense) Peter MacKay of obstructing Cotler's efforts.

"The [Liberal party] has supported Irwin’s initiative to hold President Ahmadinejad to account before the UN Security Council or a duly constituted international tribunal for the crime of genocidal incitement as required by the 1948 genocide convention," Dion told a Jewish audience in Winnipeg. “I do not understand why Conservative MPs have attempted to block Irwin’s motion in support of this initiative that he brought forward at Parliament’s human rights subcommittee,”

"Peter MacKay, then the foreign minister, rejected this initiative as a worthless gesture because [he said] it probably won’t work," Dion continued. "I don’t know how he came to that determination, but when it comes to international law, I think I’ll trust Irwin Cotler’s opinion over Peter MacKay’s."

Of course, MacKay actually has a point to this end. The UN has never been known for its sympathies toward Israel, and has often been hijacked by various Middle Eastern regimes for denouncing Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Ironically, they've historically often done this while these very regimes treat Palestinians -- and other minorities within their domain, including Jews -- no better, and often worse.

For his own part, Cotler credits Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- a fellow recipient recipient of B'Nai Brith's Presidential Gold Medal -- for his supportive words, but suggests he has yet to act on them. “The Prime Minister has done excellent work in his statements with regard to Israel, but words are not as important as deeds,” Cotler recently told an all-party discussion panel.

Which is fair enough. While Harper has made his support of Israel widely and well known, one could hardly mistake them for action.

Yet the same is the case with Cotler's most recent initiative. Without any means to ensure that Mahmoud Ahmaedinejad appears before the International Criminal Court to face charges, Cotler's petition is, itself, little more than empty words.

Andrea Paine, the Conservative candidate in Lac St Louis, defended the government's rejection of Cotler's petition as being in line with Israel's stance on the matter.

“We were not sure what the position of the Israeli government actually would be. We were also concerned that if the bill passed, the pro-Palestinians would spin that into a victory for themselves,” she insisted. “We were being cautious and waiting to follow Israel’s lead.”

Israel, however, for its own part, supports the push to file charges against Ahmadinejad.

Also on the discussion panel was NDP Outremont MP Thomas Mulcair, who insisted that his party doesn't harbour elements hostile to Israel.

“Some do have slightly different takes on issues, but what is important is the position we take at the end of the day as a party, and I am extremely comfortable defending them today,” Mulcair insisted.

Certainly, they clearly do. Perhaps it's better left up to individuals to judge whether or not those positions are anti-Israel or not.

One thing is for certain: while virtually any issue related to Israel is bound to be controversy, Canada cannot strive to be a leader on the global stage while shying away from sticky topics -- particularly one so central to international relations as that of Israel.

It's on that note that it's actually quite comforting to see Israel treated as an issue in the 2008 federal election. At the very least, it makes the proceedings of this federal election a little less insular than they otherwise would tend to be.

In the end, the prize will be not merely a shiny bauble from B'Nai Brith, but Canada's relevance, credibility and leadership on the world stage.

Toronto Star Caught Red-Tongued

Liar, liar...

With the Toronto Star clearly behind Stephane Dion's Liberal party to the extent of distorting reality, it was only a matter of time until they tried to help Dion's erstwhile party leader, Elizabeth May (since she's writing his policies and all) win her uphill battle against Conservative deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay.

Which they did yesterday when they dug up a story about a $16,400 bill for feeding some Passport Canada staff in March 2007. The author of the story, Dean Beeby, claimed that MacKay had "bent the rules" in order to approve the expenditure. But, as it turned out, some Toronto Star readers were kind enough to write in and reveal that the only one doing any bending was Beeby -- and he was bending the truth.

First off, we have Stephen J Leich of Mississauga, Ontario:

"I have been in private sector management for a number of years and I find the tone of this article to be unnecessarily antagonistic.

The total cost quoted in the headline looks like a big number and another example of government waste. Once you read the article, however, you can see that the amount spent comes to $42 per employee, over three weekends.

Most companies think nothing of providing lunches to employees working extra time for necessary projects; in fact, it is usually considered good employee relations. These Passport Canada staffers were dealing with a huge workload, caused by factors outside their control. If providing this minor amount per employee made it more palatable to them to put in this extra effort, I fail to see where it can be considered any sort of problem. Yes, it's unfortunate that the total was so high, and perhaps the deputy minister should have realized that this would be the case before the $5,000 limit was exceeded, but it appears he took steps to rectify the situation.

I know a number of people who were caught up in that backlog of passport applications, and I can't help but feel that this is not an unreasonable cost to minimize the impact on so many Canadians."

Ouch!

One would think that Beeby must have had a hard time explaining that one to his editor. (This is the Toronto Star we're talking about here, so probably not. -ed.)

But it's entirely possible, as some Liberal partisans will likely rush to insist, that Stephen J Leich is merely a Tory hack reacting on behalf of the party.

Fortunately, Toronto's Geoff Rytell pitched in:

"Breaking news: Peter MacKay bent government rules in giving the nod to $16,800 for passport officials' lunches. The facts, unfortunately, don't support the claim. The regulations say that civil servants can be fed at taxpayer expense if they're working overtime. If the cost is more than $5,000, the appropriate minister must approve. MacKay was solicited. He approved. The rules were followed. Assuming that the bureaucrats in question did not imbibe several bottles of Bollinger, where's the story? I, too, am anxious to show Stephen Harper the door but not at the cost of the truth."

Ouch.

That one must have been a little bit harder to take.

But in the end, this entire episode is considerably less than unsurprising. After all, this is the Toronto Star -- where publishing stories inflating mundane government business into manufactured scandals in the name of hurting the Conservative party is just another day on the job.

One would almost expect some kind of retraction of the obvious mistruths. But, then again (once again), this is the Toronto Star, where journalistic integrity isn't only something they talk about -- it's also something they discard.

At the very least, it's very kind of the Star to come out and actually say what they think of civil servants: they shouldn't be rewarded when they do more than what Canadians expect of them. Apparently, even a working lunch is too much to ask for the suddenly-converted fiscal tightwads at the Star.