As Parliament debates a pair of bills on expanding the powers of CSIS, a case involving CSIS and foreign wiretaps was granted leave by the Supreme Court, meaning it’ll be heard sometime later this year. Why this is important is because it involves a Federal Court judge chastening CSIS for basically misleading the court into what they were going to do with a warrant they obtained, and if you’ve paid attention to what the Conservatives has been saying about their new anti-terror bill this past week, it’s been a lot of “we don’t need oversight because they’ll need judicial warrants!” Well, as this case shows, sometimes CSIS doesn’t tell these judges the truth when they go to get those warrants, so you see where the problem lies. Meanwhile, Terry Milewski shows us the times when SIRC didn’t really do their job when it comes to overseeing CSIS – just as the government insists that they’re “robust oversight.” Oh, and there were those times when CSIS wasn’t really honest with SIRC either. But by all means, let’s keep insisting that the status quo of a review committee is just fine instead of actual oversight. Nothing to see here, move along. And while the government continues to insist that oversight over intelligence agencies are “needless red tape,” Aaron Wherry reminds us that red tape is pretty much the role of Parliament, meant to constrain the powers of government.
Tag Archives: CSIS
QP: What about the Target liquidation sale?
A freezing Thursday in the Nation’s Capital, and the only major leader in the Chamber was Thomas Mulcair, as the Prime Minister apparently had better things to do, while Justin Trudeau was off in Calgary. Mulcair led things off by asking about the Target liquidation sale, and wondered what the government would do for those workers. Jason Kenney responded by saying that they were working on an accelerated EI process for those employees and touted their new and improved job bank. Mulcair then trolled for support for the opposition day motion on “creating jobs,” which James Moore outright rejected. Mulcair gave some meandering outrage about the government’s treatment of the premiers and wondered if it would be applied to the mayors meeting in town. Peter Braid responded by praising their “largest ever” infrastructure programme. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, and asked what CSIS would be allowed to do to “disrupt” terrorists under the new bill. Peter MacKay skirted the question and called it “comprehensive.” When she pressed, MacKay continued to give bland assurances. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, decrying the backloading of the Building Canada Fund. Braid insisted that they have spent three times the amount on infrastructure than the Liberals did when they were in government. Scott Brison called that false and gave more facts and figures about when those funds would be available. Braid continued to insist that the Fund was the best thing ever. Brison went harder in his final supplemental, to which Braid skirted an answer by praising the doubling of the gas tax.
QP: Arthur Porter, come on down!
A blustery winter day in Ottawa, and there were a few sour faces among the official opposition ranks following the Board of Internal Economy directive the previous evening. All of the leaders were in the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about more layoffs in Toronto. Stephen Harper said that it has to do with particular decisions of particular companies, but their Economic Action Plan™ has created more jobs than were lost. Mulcair insisted those new jobs were part time and precarious, then listed more retail layoffs. Harper retorted the NDP position was simply to raise taxes. Mulcair then moved to the issue of CSIS, and whether the thirty year-old SIRC has the tools to oversee the agency today. Harper insisted that the system was robust and had safeguards, but the solution was not to go after the police but the terrorists. “Arthur Porter, come on down,” Mulcair quipped and noted SIRC’s report saying that CSIS had misled them just last year. Harper said that the example shows that the system works. Mulcair gave a line about freedom and safety going hand-in-hand, and saying that Harper has been decisive about it. Harper insisted that the bill already enhances oversight. (Really? Where?) Justin Trudeau was up next, demanding income splitting be cut in favour of more investment in infrastructure. Harper insisted that they were already running the largest, longest infrastructure programme in history and that he recently announced more funding — and that the Liberals want to raise taxes. Trudeau pointed out the massive difference difference in funding over the last two years and that an April budget meant municipalities would miss construction season. Harper repeated his insistence that they were already spending record amounts and accused Trudeau of being bad at math. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer in French, with an added promise for a balanced budget and targeted tax breaks.
QP: Let’s keep repeating quotes!
With John Baird’s big resignation speech out of the way, and all of the leaders present in the Chamber, it had the makings of a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the job losses at Target and wondered where the budget was — odd, considering that Target’s closure has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Harper insisted that he put out a number of economic measures, and read a quote from the CFIB that called the NDP’s measures “dumb and anti-small business.” Mulcair read a competing quote where the head of the CFIB praised an NDP proposal, then asked the same question again. Harper, in turn, doubled down on his answer. Muclair read the same quote yet again, then gave an anecdote about being in a Legion Hall in Sudbury before demanding to see the budget again, giving Harper yet another option to repeat the “dumb and anti-small business quote.” Mulcair railed about all of the eggs being in the “extractive basket” — not remotely true mathematically — and Harper bashed on the NDP being high tax. Mulcair gave a convoluted question about corporations sitting on dead money before demanding help for the middle class and a budget. Harper listed off a number of actions he announced. Justin Trudeau was up next, and decried the problems of the middle class and wondered why the government was giving tax breaks to those who didn’t need them. Harper praised the help they were giving families including a tax cut. Trudeau noted the cuts to infrastructure investments, and said the government’s priorities were wrong when they wanted to help the wealthiest 15 percent of Canadians. Harper reiterated how great his policies were for families. Trudeau then changed topics and wondered about a statement that Peter MacKay once upon a time about the need for parliamentary oversight of national security. Harper insisted that SIRC was robust and functioned well.
QP: Decrying the finance minister’s insults
A blustery Monday in Ottawa, and only one major leader was present in the Commons. Thomas Mulcair led off, decrying the insulting way in which the Finance Minister treated the premiers and the Prime Minister’s lack of attendance at their meeting. Paul Calandra stood up to give a bog standard talking point about how the PM meets with the premiers on a regular basis, so that was getting things off to a good start. Mulcair pushed about the PM shunning those meetings, but Calandra repeated his answer. Mulcair demanded to know why Harper sent out the finance minister to insult the premiers, and again, Calandra repeated the praising talking points about the relationship with the provinces. Rosane Doré Lefebvre was up next, asking about the lack of increased oversight for CSIS if they are to be given new powers. Stephen Blaney insisted that all activities will be under the review of SIRC, which is independent. Mulcair got back up and demanded to know why the minister considered oversight and the protection of rights “red tape.” Blaney continued to insist that SIRC would do the job. Ralph Goodale got up for the Liberals, and wanted the government to redirect the funds for income splitting and direct it to infrastructure instead. Jason Kenny insisted that theirs was the better plan, and how the Liberals just wanted to raise taxes. Goodale then turned back to the question of oversight for national security, and how Canada was the only Five Eyes country without parliamentary (or congressional) oversight, not Blaney was undeterred, praising their new appointments. Dominic LeBlanc followed up in French, and Blaney tried to claim that our system was the envy of the world.
Roundup: More security, no more oversight
The new anti-terrorism bill was unveiled today, but in the government’s singularly dickish fashion – sending journalists to a lock-up off the Hill where they couldn’t even see the bill for the first hour, while Harper made the announcement in a pre-campaign stop in a suburb of Toronto. While the bill would largely expand the powers of CSIS greatly, it lowers the legal thresholds for preventative arrest and peace bones, criminalising the “promotion” of terrorism, allowing CSIS to “disrupt” would-be terror activities, removing terrorist materials from the web, sealing court proceedings, and overhauling the national no-fly list. Oddly enough, nobody would say how any of these measures could have prevented the October 22nd shooting in Ottawa. What it doesn’t do is provide any new or additional oversight to the agency, unlike all of our allies (but hey, they finally filled one of the empty seats on SIRC yesterday, but it’s still not up to full strength and there’s no permanent chair. Yay oversight!). It’s a strange kind of obstinacy, and only serves to make it like the government has something to hide. And then of course there are the concerns from civil liberties groups and the Privacy Commissioner, which goes to the breadth of activities and again the lack of proper civilian oversight. Tyler Dawson writes that the need to criminalise that “promotion” of terrorism is an admission of being afraid of these terrorists.
Canada's privacy commissioner weighs in on anti-terror bill; takes aim at oversight. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/BSq6cR18RQ
— Dylan Robertson (@withfilesfrom) January 30, 2015
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/561220364957933569
Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing
With the premiers in town for a Council of the Federation meeting, Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to have a sit-down with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and amidst the chiding of the PM for not deigning to make an appearance, one of the things they talked about was carbon pricing. Trudeau is walking a particularly fine line when it comes to the role of the federal government and the provinces in combating climate change, and this is nowhere illustrated better than in the way that different media organisations wrote up the comments. CBC focused on the fact that Trudeau thinks the federal government should leave it up to the provinces, but still have a role to play. The Canadian Press, meanwhile, wrote it up as the federal government needing to take a leadership role, and that the absence of that has forced the provinces to go it alone. Now, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it does point to the ways in which attempts to have nuanced policy can lead to misinterpretation and trouble, and it also becomes apparent that Trudeau will need to come out with a much more clarified position as to just what kind of leadership role he thinks that the federal government needs to play on the file while still letting the provinces do their own thing. Open federalism is a real thing, but there will need to be some kind of clarity as to roles, expectations, and of course the important question of who is paying for what, that will need to form part of that discussion going forward.
QP: Avoiding the questions on contradictions
Unlike yesterday, it was all leaders on deck in the Commons, which would hopefully make it a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about ground forces targeting for air strikes in Iraq and how it is a combat role. Harper, in his first appearance of 2015, accused the NDP of not supporting the mission and noted his support for the mission — not actually an answer. Mulcair insisted that Harper misled the public — earning him a caution from the Speaker — and Harper insisted that the troops were executing the mission that they were given and good for them for shooting back. Mulcair gave a retort about the truth, then pivoted to the question of when they would see a budget. Harper stuck to the point about Canadians seeing need to fight ISIS. Mulcair noted his speech about plans to help the manufacturing sector, to which Harper praised his own plan for balanced budgets and low taxes, in contrast to the higher taxes the NDP would impose. Mulcair then accused the government of not responding when the Bank of Canada was in their decision to lower interest rates. Harper explained to him that the Bank of Canada’s policies are announced quarterly, while budgets are annual, not every month. Justin Trudeau was up next, and spelled out the government’s contradictions when it comes to “advise and assist” and “accompany” when it comes to the Iraq mission. Harper didn’t offer clarity, but battered the Liberals on their lack of support for the mission and praising the troops for firing back. Trudeau didn’t press, but switched to the size of the hole in the budget based on lower oil prices. Harper insisted that they would balance the budget, and even the PBO agreed. Trudeau wondered then why, if nothing had changed, why they would delay the budget. Harper insisted their plan was working, but again didn’t answer the question.
Roundup: A surprising defection
The NDP have lost another MP, but this time the defection is very surprising. Sudbury MP Glenn Thibeault has decided to leave federal politics and run for the provincial Liberals in that riding. Thibeault said that it was a long decision making process, and that he felt the Liberals’ plans for the region were something he felt strongly about, but then he hinted to CBC Sudbury that he was not seeing eye-to-eye with the federal NDP, and that’s when the warning lights go off – especially because Thibeault was caucus chair until a couple of weeks ago. He wouldn’t elaborate on that fact when later asked about it on Power & Politics, but it is still a big klaxon that all is not as it seems in the NDP caucus. Remember this is the caucus that is always united and solidarity in all things. When cracks form below the surface, it’s always a bit of interesting Kremlinology, and while clues may be hard to come by as to what the divisions are, the fact that they are present does add more grains of salt to the constant assurances that the party has never been more united – a phrase they trot out every time they lose another MP.
Roundup: Buttressing the Fantino problem
You may think that Julian Fantino’s days in cabinet are numbered. Tone deaf to his file and to the particular needs of veterans, for a government that has tried to make the military a point of pride, Fantino has pretty much been a robotic disaster on par with the reprogrammed Robot from the Lost in Space reboot film. But don’t think that will be enough to convince Stephen Harper to decide it’s time to shuffle the cabinet and oust Fantino. No – that would be a sign that he made a mistake, and of weakness, and well, that simply couldn’t be done. Instead, there has been a great deal of shuffling of the deck chairs – moving retired General Walt Natynczyk to head the department as Deputy Minister, and now the PMO’s director of media relations, Stephen Lecce, has been reassigned as Fantino’s chief of staff – at least on an interim basis. In other words, everything is being done to buttress Fantino from the outside, but short of completely reinstalling his duotronic databanks with a new personality matrix, I’m not sure that it will help. I will add that Leona Aglukkaq’s decision to spend Question Period yesterday reading a newspaper while serious questions were being asked about the food crisis in her own riding were being asked was also not good optics, but as of yet, there are no calls for her resignation, not that it would have any success either, as she is too much of a needed symbol in the cabinet for Harper to let her go for any reason short of leaving briefing binders within reach of the associates of biker gangs.