Rescuing Hostages in Iraq

Those of us who remember the Iranian Embassy seige in London in 1981 will recall that the Special Air Service assault on that building was the beginning of that Regiment's media honeymoon. The next year, the SAS carried out daring and dangerous raids in South Georgia and the Falklands which gave an impression (at least to teenagers like me) that Britain had the most innovative and dangerous military in the world.

When I was sixteen years old, I wrote to the British Ministry of Defence and asked how to join the British Army. The Ministry wrote me an indulgent letter which regretted that a fifth-generation Canadian was not really eligible to enlist under Britain's immigration laws. In a fit of petulance, I wrote to Her Majesty the Queen for special permission. To my utter amazement (now as much as then), I received a second letter from the Ministry of Defence granting me special permission to enlist. By one of those quirks of history, I elected to attend university instead and now find myself litigating in the Ontario Courts rather than patrolling the streets of Basra.

The SAS is perhaps the most proficient military unit in the world when it comes to specialized operations requiring skill, audacity, and thorough preparation. It is run on a shoe-string budget and this perhaps distinguishes it from its American equivalents. Where in the United States Army money is no object, in the British Army soldiers often wear hand-me-down uniforms and purchase cold and wet weather clothing on the private market. The British have concentrated on developing the skills and efficiency of the individual soldier. The Americans have concentrated on arming the individual soldier to the teeth.

Canada' Joint Task Force Two is deliberately more obscure than its British or American equivalents. The Canadian government simply refuses to comment on its composition, training, equipment or operations. We believe that it was established with the active cooperation of the SAS. We believe that the Canadian military made a deliberate choice to emulate the British example rather than the American. We believe that JTF-2 has demonstrated a high level of military skill on operations in Afghanistan and the Balkans which is admired by our allies. However, unless you are the Minister of Defence or a member of the Unit, you do not know much about it. It is probably better that way. I expect that the SAS admires JTF-2's obscurity.

Nevertheless, as much as JTF-2 is worthy of admiration and deserves to be supported, its presence in Iraq is troubling. Canada's official position on the invasion of Iraq is one of neutrality. Canada attracted opprobrium in conservative circles in the United States for not backing the war in Iraq. This raised hackles in Canada, whose military had been very active and effective in Afghanistan and particularly since Canada's only fatal military casualties in that country were at the hands of the United States Air Force. Nonetheless, the Government of Canada stuck to its guns and refused to be cowed into participating in the Coalition of the Willing.

This has apparently changed. My good wife, who always displays a sense of pragmatism and common sense which frequently eludes her husband, has pointed out that Canada's military should have been involved in a military operation intended to rescue Canadian civilians held hostage by terrorists. I concur that there is a certain equitable logic to this approach.

Nevertheless, it has appeared to me that one of the reasons why Canada has such a good reputation among people in the Muslim world and, for that matter, much of the rest of the world, is that Canada has pursued high-minded neutrality in international affairs since the mid-1960s, when our Prime Minister Lester Pearson managed to referee a solution to the Suez Crisis at the United Nations. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for that, but Pearson always felt that the prize belonged to Canada, not to him alone. Subsequently, UN peacekeepers were awarded the prize, and Canada has undertaken a lot of operations over the years in support of the UN, so I suppose you could say Canada has won the Prize twice.

It may be difficult to keep a low profile from terrorists if you are the United States, but Canada can do this and it is a perfectly sensible strategy. We have not had a significant terrorist incident since the bombing of an Air India airliner in 1984. There is a reason we do not attract terrorists' antipathy - we do not give them a reason to dislike us. Indeed, we have tried quite diligently to give them reasons to like us.

Which is why I admire JTF-2 and its capabilities. And I hope that it returns to Canada soon.

Hiemstra v. Hiemstra at the Supreme Court of Canada

Now some of you may know that I am a lawyer. This means that I pay a lot of money to various people for the privilege of sitting in my office and taking telephone calls from people who hate lawyers. It is a great job.

Sometimes, when I need a distraction, I read about the recent cases which are finding their way through our justice system. One of the more interesting ones right now is called Hiemstra, and it is one of three similar cases which were argued before the Supreme Court of Canada on 14 February. Hiemstra has to do with child support, which you may know is money that one parent pays to the other parent after they have separated to provide for the financial support of their children. Almost always, the money is paid to the parent with whom the children live by the parent with whom the children do not live. The lion's share of the time, this means that the husband is paying money to the wife.

Now I do not know about you, but I have noticed that it is anathema for men to pay money to their ex-wives. Apparently, all these ex-husbands believe that it is being spent on heroin or Italian purses or other expensive addictions. Instead, it is usually being spent on the most expensive addiction of all, children. As a father of two children, I can speak from experience on how much it costs to keep my kids in shoes, clothes and hockey equipment. It is the secret that they never tell you about in sex education class in high school. All that being said, you would think that a father would be proud to do his duty and pay his child support each month so that little Donnie and Connie have a roof over their heads, decent food, clothing, and the opportunity to live a little before they grow up and go off to work in the salt mines.

Unfortunately, if you thought this you would often be wrong. There are an awful lot of hard-working and honest men out there who dutifully pay their child support. Some of them even pay more than they should. However, in many cases Daddy often does not pay his fair share of child support. He often fails to tell Mommy that he got a handsome raise last year and should be paying more child support than he already is. Sometimes, he does not even pay the child support everybody knows he is supposed to be paying. Right now, in Ontario, the agency which handles collection of this money says that over a billion dollars in support is owed that this agency is having a hard time collecting. Imagine that. A billion dollars.

Anyway, in Alberta the provincial Court of Appeal recently decided that child support payors who fail to inform their ex-spouses about increases in their incomes shall now be required to make the difference up to child support recipients, even if this amounts to a windfall for the recipient. In other words, if I paid child support of $800.00 per month for five years when I should have been paying $1,000.00 per month, I now owe $200.00 per month for sixty months (or $12,000.00 to those who are still counting) to the recipient. Ouch.

In Ontario, the provincial Court of Appeal has always prevaricated about doing what the Alberta Court of Appeal did. It left the option open, but generally said that support payors did not have to catch up what they should have paid. Because two provincial courts of appeal disagreed with each other, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the appeal. And that is why Ottawa was full of earnest family lawyers on Valentine's Day.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided to take some time to consider its decision (it almost always does, and for perfectly good reasons I am not going to elaborate upon). I will let you know in due course whether Mr. Hiemstra ends up a happy man or Mrs. Hiemstra ends up a happy woman. Either way, you know the old adage. You can please some of the people some of the time, and other people some of the time, but if you are a lawyer no one you ever meet or speak to is happy.