Roundup: Laying out their C-51 positions

Posted on by

Not that it was any surprise what they were, but the opposition parties laid out their explicit positions on the new anti-terror bill in advance of the start of debate yesterday – the NDP firmly opposed, the Liberals walking the line by listing the things they support in the bill and the things they don’t, and vowing to make it an election issue if the Conservatives don’t make the necessary amendments. But while it’s certainly within the right of the NDP, as official opposition, to call for the bill’s defeat, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, much of their messaging on it is a mess. At his press conference yesterday, Mulcair was simultaneously saying that they want the bill defeated writ large and voted down at second reading (agreement in principle), while saying that it needs more debate and amendments at committee, and then reiterating that it’s beyond saving, that there were no amendments that could make them live with it. From a procedural standpoint, that’s all over the map. And then there’s the conspiracy theory aspect, where Mulcair is going on about how a government could use CSIS to spy on their political adversaries under these broad definitions, and then to the Francophone media, he goes full-bore on re-fighting 1970, and it’s all October Crisis and the War Measures Act. That, of course, has to do with his Quebec voter base, which is polling its support for stronger anti-terror measures, discomfited by the terror-inspired hit-and-run last October, and probably the Charter of Values xenophobia around Muslims that is still an undercurrent. Suffice to say, the scattershot of arguments against make it hard to follow the plot. For her part, Elizabeth May is going full-on conspiracy theory, insisting the bill will turn CSIS into a “secret police” – err, except that they have no arrest powers, and then tried to say that such a bill would basically turn Rosa Parks into a terrorist in CSIS’ eyes. I’m not sure that’s helpful. Terry Glavin makes the point that while there are alarming things in the bill, hysteria doesn’t really help the debate. As for Peter MacKay, whose use of “cultural” causes with relation to the not-really-would-be-terror-attack in Halifax, when asked what he thought the definition of terrorism was, MacKay told reporters to “look it up.” He’s all class.

Good reads:

  • What’s that? The government’s vaunted new merged email system won’t be ready until next year despite the deadline being March 31 of this year? You don’t say!
  • Andrew MacDougall tells the approximate day-in-the-life of the Prime Minister’s Communications Director.
  • John Geddes tries to comprehend why Chris Alexander inserted the hijab into the niqab debate.
  • Laura Stone has lunch with retired General Andrew Leslie.
  • Paul Wells explores the complexities of Trudeau’s carbon pricing plans.

Odds and ends:

Dean Del Mastro’s bid to reopen his trial has been rebuffed, and heads now for sentencing.

The Conservatives may have been caught giving an improper contract to Harper’s former chief of staff.

Craig Scott is trying to get the unredacted Afghan detainee reports. Good luck with that.