National
Here’s what MP Leona Alleslev said in the House of Commons as she crossed the floor to join the Official Opposition
Statement in the House of Commons – September 17, 2018
LEONA ALLESLEV · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
When I became an officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force, I swore an oath to give my life for Queen and Country – to serve and defend Canada, and the values for which it stands.
A country, its sovereignty, and values are fragile. Vigilance in defending our nation’s freedom, and service to country, is who I am at my core.
When I left the military, I hung up my uniform, but I never “unswore” my oath. And now I serve Canadians by representing the people of Aurora-Oak Ridges-Richmond Hill as their Member of Parliament.
I am deeply concerned for the future of our country. After 3 years of hope and hard work, I find myself asking:
“Am I doing everything I can to serve my country and work for real change for Canadians?”
Canadians expect – and deserve – nothing less. The citizens of my riding, and all Canadians, need a government that delivers foundational change for the things that matter.
The world has changed dramatically in the last three years. We find ourselves in a time of unprecedented global instability. We are seeing fundamental shifts in the global economy, while trade relationships, international agreements, and defence structures are under threat. Canada faces a perfect storm of serious challenges at home and abroad.
Here at home, we see large amounts of capital investment leaving Canada while tax structures, federal infrastructure problems and politics prevent us from getting goods to market, deter companies from expanding and undermine our competitiveness. For the first time in many years, Canadians don’t believe that tomorrow will be better than today and that their children’s future will be than theirs.
This is not a strong economy.
Beyond our borders, our position remains vastly diminished. Our foreign policy is disconnected from our trade relationships and our ability to deliver on our defence commitments is undermined by politics.
And on the world stage Canada has yet to rise to the occasion. The world has changed, and Canada must change with it. We don’t have the luxury of time.
We must recognize that foreign policy, trade, defence, and our economy all depend on each other and can’t be viewed separately.
As a former Air Force Officer, a global business consultant at IBM, an aircraft manufacturing manager at Bombardier, and a small business owner. I understand the role and impact of government actions on Canada’s economy.
To have a strong economy and a strong country we need strong Federal leadership to rebuild our nation’s foundations; tax reform, employment reform, federal infrastructure, a comprehensive foreign policy, and a modernized military to reassure our allies and defend Canada’s interests at home and abroad.
Our parliamentary system consists of political parties. However, political parties are only made up of the people who are in them at the time and must also be judged by what the country needs at the time. Today, we find ourselves at a tipping point in our country’s history.
It’s my duty to stand and be counted. Our country is at risk. My attempts to raise my concerns with this government were met with silence.
The government must be challenged openly and publicly. But for me to publicly criticize the government as a Liberal, would undermine the government and, according to my code of conduct, be dishonourable.
After careful and deliberate consideration, I must withdraw from the government benches to take my seat among the ranks of my Conservative colleagues and join Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition whose role it is to challenge and hold the government to account.
Le gouvernement doit être défié ouvertement et publiquement. Mais, pour moi, critiquer le gouvernement comme libérale, minerait le gouvernement, et serait un déshonneur selon mon code de conduite.
Après une réflexion délibérée et attentive, je dois quitter les banquettes du gouvernement, pour prendre place parmi mes collègues conservateurs et joindre la Loyale Opposition de Sa Majesté dont le rôle est de contester et demander des comptes au gouvernement.
The Leader of Her Majesty’s opposition is committed to delivering foundational changes to strengthen Canada’s economy, and a comprehensive foreign and defence policy that ensures our global competitiveness and security.
I look forward to working with my Conservative colleagues who are unafraid to do the real work to tackle the priorities of our time.
To my Liberal colleagues, I want to thank them for the opportunity to work with them and for their friendship. But my oath is to country, not party, and my sacred obligation is to serve my
constituents. I look forward to working with my Liberal colleagues, across the aisle, to shape the future of the country for all Canadians.
To my constituents, I want to re-assure them that I am the same person today that they elected on October 19, 2015. I believe in a strong, ethical Federal Government that unites us as Canadians. To achieve what they demand of me, I must change political parties.
I must do what is right, not what is easy.
I ask the citizens of Aurora Oak Ridges Richmond Hill to continue to hold me to account as I serve them and work as part of a new team focused on the fundamental challenges facing our riding and our nation.
And to all Canadians across this country – I say:
Challenge your Member of Parliament.
Demand that they work for you to strengthen our country’s foundations, foreign policy and global security.
Do not accept the status quo.
This is a time in our nation’s history where we must act with urgency. We must all, have the courage to do what is right not what is easy.
Our country is at stake.
Thank you.
Leona
Leona Alleslev, M.P.
armed forces
Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Morgan Murphy
With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.
It is a start.
But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.
Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.
The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.
In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.
Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.
What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics
The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.
Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”
Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.
How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”
Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.
Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
Business
For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’
From the Fraser Institute
By Ben Eisen
In case you haven’t heard, Chrystia Freeland resigned from cabinet on Monday. Reportedly, the straw that broke the camel’s back was Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan to send all Canadians earning up to $150,000 a onetime $250 tax “rebate.” In her resignation letter, Freeland seemingly took aim at this ill-advised waste of money by noting “costly political gimmicks.” She could not have been more right, as my colleagues and I have written here, here and elsewhere.
Indeed, Freeland was right to excoriate the government for a onetime rebate cheque that would do nothing to help Canada’s long-term economic growth prospects, but her reasoning was curious given her record in office. She wrote that such gimmicks were unwise because Canada must keep its “fiscal powder dry” given the possibility of trade disputes with the United States.
Again, to a large extent Freeland’s logic is sound. Emergencies come up from time to time, and governments should be particularly frugal with public dollars during non-emergency periods so money is available when hard times come.
For example, the federal government’s generally restrained approach to spending during the 1990s and 2000s was an important reason Canada went into the pandemic with its books in better shape than most other countries. This is an example of how keeping “fiscal powder dry” can help a government be ready when emergencies strike.
However, much of the sentiment in Freeland’s resignation letter does not match her record as finance minister.
Of course, during the pandemic and its immediate aftermath, it’s understandable that the federal government ran large deficits. However, several years have now past and the Trudeau government has run large continuous deficits. This year, the government forecasts a $48.3 billion deficit, which is larger than the $40 billion target the government had previously set.
A finance minister committed to keeping Canada’s fiscal powder dry would have pushed for balanced budgets so Ottawa could start shrinking the massive debt burden accumulated during COVID. Instead, deficits persisted and debt has continued to climb. As a result, federal debt may spike beyond levels reached during the pandemic if another emergency strikes.
Minister Freeland’s reported decision to oppose the planned $250 onetime tax rebates is commendable. But we should be cautious not to rewrite history. Despite Freeland’s stated desire to keep Canada’s “fiscal powder dry,” this was not the story of her tenure as finance minister. Instead, the story is one of continuous deficits and growing debt, which have hurt Canada’s capacity to withstand the next fiscal emergency whenever it does arrive.
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending
-
National2 days ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Shoot Down The Drones!
-
Business1 day ago
Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis
-
Daily Caller16 hours ago
Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’
-
Business8 hours ago
For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’