The first major issue was discussed in an earlier blog and had to do with the sale of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. While hardly consistent with much-touted Liberal values, we were initially told that the government had no choice in the matter, since they had inherited a “done deal” entered into by the departed Harper government. We later found out, however, that export permits covering more than 70% of the contract were subsequently signed by Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion.
Mean Spirited Approach re Victims and Vets
More recently, the Liberals have displayed a rather mean-spirited approach that they had once quite properly condemned in the Conservatives. More than 300 claims for compensation to which Canadians are entitled because they became infected by tainted blood before 1986 or after 1990 have gone unpaid because the money set aside for that purpose is all gone. There is an estimated surplus of $240 million in a different fund created for those infected between 1986 and 1990 and it might seem logical to allocate a portion of these funds to settle the 300 outstanding claims (which are estimated to total $60 million). Instead, the Liberal government has not only declined to exercise this option but is going to court to argue that any unused funds should be returned to federal coffers.
Given how critical the Liberals were about the Conservative (mis)treatment of veterans, it is quite surprising to discover that they now agree with an argument advanced (and then abandoned) by the Conservative government that Canada owes no special duty of care to those injured in the line of duty. They have relaunched the court case on this matter that had been put hold by the Conservatives in the face of an avalanche of criticism, much of it from the Liberal party. While the Liberals had voted in favour of a House of Commons motion in May 2015 that Ottawa is “obligated” to “provide equitable financial compensation” to injured and deceased vets, the government’s position now is that such a motion doesn’t have the force of law and cannot bind a federal government.
Arms Sales Again, Maybe
Our final example once again involves Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion and the matter of arms sales to dictatorial regimes. In this case, the Minister made a decision with respect to export permits governing the shipment of Canadian-made military goods to Thailand. But the government won’t say whether he approved or blocked these exports, claiming that the release of such information would harm the commercial interests of the company or companies involved. For a government committed to greater openness and transparency, it is shocking to be told that Canadians have no right to know whether we are selling arms to dictatorships.
Return to Obfuscation
Also of concern is the government resorting to bafflegab and meaningless platitudes as a way of responding to controversial matters. In response to the criticism of the government’s reactivation of the Conservative legal challenge involving Vets, the Prime Minister’s response was “we are proud that we are working very hard to restore the kinds of services and the kinds of respect that veterans have earned through their incredible service to our country, to its values and, indeed, to the world." While reporting that information on the export permits to Thailand could not be disclosed, the Director of Communications for Minister Dion stated that “we’re actively working towards introducing greater transparency and rigour into our system going forward.”
I remain a supporter of the Liberal government but it would do well to remember that it was elected in large part because Canadians were fed up with the practices of the Conservative government. Emulating those practices through insensitivity to victims, secrecy, and meaningless messaging is not a wise course for the Liberals to follow.