The government’s new CSIS bill got tabled yesterday, but because it was due to be tabled before the attacks happened last week, there is really nothing in there that responds to those attacks, and doesn’t include any of the previously reported measures like criminalizing the promotion of terrorism online. Instead, what it does is extend source protection and warrant provisions to help them conduct investigations when suspects go overseas. These provisions are largely in response to Supreme Court rulings that said that CSIS sources don’t have the same kind of blanket protections that police sources do. I’m also not sure about the provision for a warrant to investigate outside of the country, given that, well, it’s not the jurisdiction of our courts, so we would need some kind of agreements to operate in those countries I would think. The bill is also designed to help facilitate information sharing between our Five Eyes partners, but there are no corresponding accountability mechanisms, because the government insists that the current oversight from SIRC is “robust” and good enough. Never mind that SIRC faced significant delays in getting needed information from CSIS during their investigations, and that they misled SIRC in the course of another investigation. But hey, the oversight is “robust” and all.
Tag Archives: CSIS
QP: Wait for the bill
Despite it being Monday, there were no major leaders in the Commons. It left Libby Davies to lead off, asking for an update on security at federal sites. Stephen Blaney reminded her that Hill security is the domain of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, but they were fully cooperating. Davies asked about the moratorium on armed forces personnel wearing uniforms in public, and Rob Nicholson said that he deferred to the judgement of the Chief of Defence Staff. Davies asked for assurances about full debate on any new security legislation, and Blaney promised that they would not overreact, but it was time to stop underreacting. Nycole Turmel picked up, asking about the National Post report that the legislation would criminalise certain Internet posts condoning terrorism, to which Blaney told her to wait for the bill to be tabled. Turmel wanted assurances that civil liberties would be protected, to which Blaney repeated his answer. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking for cooperation on drafting new security legislation and for detailed technical briefings on the bill. Blaney more or less agreed. LeBlanc wanted a timeline on the bill, but Blaney talked around an answer. LeBlanc pressed in French, but Blaney repeated his answer.
Roundup: Returning to normal, cautiously
Things are slowly returning to normal here in the Nation’s Capital. After an impromptu ceremony with Harper and the Chief of Defence Staff at the War Memorial, ceremonial guards again keep vigil over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. And later in the evening, the Hill once again opened to the public, with tours to resume on Monday. The police presence remains higher, but we are going about our business without hysteria. Corporal Cirillo’s body returned to Hamilton by way of the Highway of Heroes, where Canadians turned out in droves to line the overpasses to pay their respects as the convoy passed. Later in the evening, the RedBlacks game in Ottawa featured Harper and General Lawson in a ceremony to honour the two fallen soldiers this week. (And true to form, the RedBlacks lost again).
QP: Updates, softballs, and dodges
After yesterday’s events, and the statements and hugs on the floor of the Commons earlier this morning, things were settling back into their routine on the Hill. All of the leaders were present for QP, and most of the benches full, partisan members’ statements were eschewed in favour of tributes to soldiers and police, and of course, the Sergeant-At-Arms. Thomas Mulcair led things off by asking for an update about the events yesterday and about security measures for the public at large. Harper said that he was briefed and they are looking at options to increase the powers to surveil and to detain terror suspects. Mulcair asked for a public information session on the event to clarify any questions, to which Harper said that he understood that police would hold some kind of briefing later in the day. Mulcair asked about any measures being taken for those specific cases for those who have had their passports revoked, but Harper insisted that it was not confirmed that yesterday’s shooter had his passport revoked, and that there were those out there who wish to do Canadians harm. Mulcair asked for reassurance that Parliament would remain open to the public — not that it’s his decision. Harper noted that there have been incidents in the past but they wanted to remain in the same principle as before. For his final question, Mulcair wanted it noted that even if people disagree on how safety measures are achieved that they hold the same goals — not actually asking a question. Harper took the opportunity to opine on Canada’s record of unbroken democratic governance. Justin Trudeau was up next, and and brought up Paulson’s statement about the 90 individual on watch lists, and if he could update them on how many there are now. Harper said that he didn’t think the number had changed radically and that it was more of a question for security agencies. Trudeau asked about the passport revocation issue, and asked what actions were being made to arrest those trying to leave the country to commit terror. Harper noted that active investigations were underway, and that they remained concerned about the threat. Trudeau asked again in English, and got much the same response.
Roundup: Raising the spectre of domestic terror
It was an odd event yesterday – a Conservative MP asking the PM during Question Period to respond to “unconfirmed reports” to a domestic terrorism link to a hit-and-run case in Quebec involving two members of the Canadian Forces, where the suspect was shot and later died. It was only hours later that the RCMP released a brief statement that the suspect was known to them, and that he may have been radicalised. It’s still early days in the investigation, but one wonders if it’s perhaps too soon to suddenly believe we have ISIS cells operating in Canada, and that this wasn’t an isolated incident where one individual who, by all accounts, was a recent convert for whatever reason, and decided to act on the vague ISIS threats that were made public in media reports. I guess time will tell, but expect the government to start using this incident as justification for greater counter-terror legislation. At the same time as this story was breaking, the Director of Operations of CSIS was at a Senate committee, saying that they do the best they can with prioritizing their investigations, but can’t cover every base because of budget limitations. Duly noted.
Roundup: Stoking fears to mute criticism
Critics of the government fear that they will use threat of ISIS to mute any criticisms about expanding CSIS’ powers while also not increasing any oversight, transparency or accountability for it or other national security agencies. The government claims that any such measures would be “duplicative,” which is risible.
Roundup: Warnings about changes to the CSIS Act
Stephen Blaney has confirmed that the government will table a bill next week to enhance CSIS’ powers to better combat terrorism, in order to enhance cooperation with our Five Eyes allies, and to enhance the anonymity for CSIS informants. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that those sources already have adequate protections, and the fact that the lawyer for Mohamed Harkat warns that the inability to cross-examine this kind of testimony is dangerous. Former Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier also warns that rushing into these kinds of changes could have longer-term human rights consequences. But terrorists!
Roundup: Not an imminent threat
The heads of CSIS and the RCMP went to committee to say that while ISIS is not an imminent threat to Canada, we have to be vigilant about domestic terrorism threats. Well, sure. And then Stephen Blaney talked about arresting these people and throwing them behind bars, because you know, due process and stuff. Blaney also said that they won’t be implementing exit controls, because those belong to totalitarian countries – but they do share entry data with the Americans, which is a de facto exit control system because if one enters one country, they had to exit the other. But that’s not totalitarian. Incidentally, the government has also announced funding for a bunch of new studies on finding the root causes of domestic terrorism and radicalization. And here Pierre Poilievre assured us that the root cause of terrorism is terrorists.
QP: “The PM’s war in Iraq”
It was the last day we were going to see all of the party leaders in the Chamber this week, so the hope was for a repeat of yesterday’s performance, but the chest-thumping over Iraq during Members’ Statements didn’t raise any hopes. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about Ebola precautions being taken in Canada. Stephen Harper assured him that there were no cases in Canada, and that the Public Health Agency has been seized with the matter and is ready in the event that a case does reach here. Mulcair changed topics and asked how many soldiers were on the ground in Iraq, to which Harper said that it was 26 as of today, with a maximum of 69 authorised. Mulcair groused about how many times he had to ask for that figure, to which Harper said that the number was fluctuated, but there was a maximum number. Mulcair asked if there were Canadian troops on the ground in Syria, to which Harper said no, and after that, Mulcair launched into a length diatribe about an open-ended mission with no end in sight, to which Harper insisted that there were no American troops in Iraq when this situation began, and it was a serious situation. Justin Trudeau declared that Harper had not yet made the case for a combat mission, and asked how many troops were supposed to be on the ground at the end of the 30-day mission on Saturday. Harper pretended not to hear what the question was, and instead gave a speech about the gravity of the threat that ISIS poses. Trudeau tried again in French and got much the same again. Trudeau pointed out the secrecy and evasiveness, and Harper said that they were making a decision, before hitting back at the Liberal position.
QP: Baird delivers relevant answers
The day was already off to a shaky start, where Peter Van Loan spent the NDP’s supply date motion on amending the Standing Orders to have the relevancy rules apply to QP, by arguing that QP shouldn’t be a one-way street and that the NDP should answer the questions they pose back to them. It really was mystifying. No major leader was present in the Commons for QP, where Megan Leslie asked about plans to send CF-18s to Iraq to conduct airstrikes. John Baird said that they were dealing with humanitarian operations over there, but no further decisions had been taken. Leslie demanded a vote on increasing participation, to which Baird insisted that they would hold one on a combat mission. (Wait — it’s a trap!) Hélène Laverdière picked up the same questions I’m French, and asked how many of the planned 69 special forces were on the ground. Baird said that he would get back to her on the number, and reiterated the threat posed by ISIS. Leslie got back up for the final question, and trawled for support for the supply day motion, to which Van Loan assured her that our Parliament has the most accountable Question Period in the world, and that the government should be able to pose questions too. And then my head exploded. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, and cited media leaks on extending the Iraq deployment, and wanted more details on the parameters that cabinet was considering. Baird replied that cabinet had not yet weighed in on it. Joyce Murray asked about the time period that they were considering for an extended deployment. Baird spoke with exaggerated slowness to insist that no decision had not yet been made.