Tag Archives: SIRC

Roundup: More security, no more oversight

Posted on by

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.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/561220364957933569

Continue reading →

QP: Childcare spaces across governments past

Posted on by

The day after the by-election, but the Commons was on the more subdued side. All three major leaders were present today, and Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about failed childcare plans from previous governments, and wondered how many spaces the current government delivered. Stephen Harper noted that NDP plans would benefit a mere ten percent of Canadians, while the measures his government announced would benefit all families with children. Mulcair poked about the government giving money for the rich, while Harper accused him of looking to take money away from families. Mulcair wondered why Harper was borrowing money to pay for the tax cuts he announced, but Harper continued to insist that their plans would put money in the pockets of “real working Canadians.” Mulcair veered into money being “stolen” from the EI fund, but Harper retorted that the EI would raise EI premiums. For his final question, Mulcair asked if the government would agree with their proposals for dealing with harassment on the Hill. Harper responded that their government has policies in place and would be happy to share them with the Board of Internal Economy. Justin Trudeau rose to ask if the government would support on his bill on increasing transparency. Harper retorted that it was rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency given that they voted against all kinds of bills that claimed to be about transparency (but most really weren’t). Trudeau asked about the government’s commitment to GHG reductions for the Copenhagen targets, to which Harper said it was rich for the Liberals to talk about emissions when they went up under their government. When Trudeau brought up the deal between the U.S. and China on emissions, Harper bashed back about the lack of Liberal action on Kyoto targets.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Two suspensions and a resignation

Posted on by

Two Liberal MPs – Scott Armstrong and Massimo Pacetti – were suspended from caucus yesterday following complaints of harassment by two NDP MPs. Thus kicked off a firestorm of calls for independent investigations, bringing in the Speaker, and yes, political gamesmanship. There was, of course, a time when this kind of thing would be handled by the whips and party leaders behind closed doors, but in light of the Jian Gomeshi allegations and the conversation the nation is having about sexual harassment more broadly, Justin Trudeau felt he had no choice but to suspend the members pending an investigation, so that justice was seen to be done. But the fact that he didn’t inform the unnamed accusers – who had brought the matter to his attention in the first place – that he was doing this is suddenly bringing up accusations that he “re-victimised them,” as opposed to leaving him open to accusation that he did nothing when he was made aware of the allegations. The details of all of what happened remain sketchy, and the NDP are even more opaque on what happened and won’t confirm the details that the Liberal whip has revealed, and even the allegations are mostly couched in terms of “personal misconduct,” which both suspended MPs deny, Pacetti going so far as to say that he still don’t know what it is he’s being accused of. Aaron Wherry has collected the various letters and statements that were put out from the Liberal Whip, the Speaker, Thomas Mulcair, Trudeau, and the two suspended MPs. Chantal Hébert recalls the kinds of harassment that was on open display when she first arrived on the Hill in the late 70s. The Ottawa Citizen editorial board says that this story, now part of that conversation about sexual harassment an assault in this country, will hopefully start to bring about change. Similarly, Canadian Business discusses the need to stop treating sensitivity training with mocking, but rather as a way to shift reporting away from the victims alone and putting more onus on bystanders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Income splitting – sort of

Posted on by

As expected, Stephen Harper announced a scaled back version of his income splitting proposal, but structured as a tax credit and not actual income splitting, paired it with a number of other measures like increasing the universal child benefit payments, and childcare tax credits so as to try to blunt the criticisms that income splitting mostly benefits the most wealthy of families and doesn’t benefit those who need it most – single parent families and those of lower incomes. Jennifer Robson takes the proposal apart, and notes the real winners are lawyers and tax professionals. Economist Stephen Gordon adds a few notes, which need to be said.

Continue reading →

QP: Waiting on income splitting

Posted on by

Despite it being only Thursday, most leaders were absent from the Chamber today, Harper off in Vaughan to deliver his income splitting announcement, and Justin Trudeau campaigning for the by-election in Whitby. Thomas Mulcair did show up, and started off bringing up the request from three esteemed former Justices who warned against knee-jerk legislation after last week’s attacks. Stephen Blaney assured him that the new CSIS was balanced. Mulcair didn’t want this to be a partisan issue and wanted a multi-party committee to study the issue (never mind that all Commons committees are multi-party), to which Blaney said that all parties were being offered technical briefings. Mulcair brought up Stockwell Day’s endorsement of the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee for national security, but Blaney said that SIRC was robust enough. Mulcair sniped about Deborah Grey’s interim leadership of SIRC, before turning to the issue of income splitting. Kevin Sorenson told him to stay tuned for the announcement, and proclaimed that income splitting was good policy. Mulcair and Sorensen took another round at it, before Scott Brison led for the Liberals, recalling Jim Flaherty’s opposition to income splitting. Sorenson quoted an old Brison line about how income splitting was a good thing. Brison quipped that he said a lot of stupid things when he was a Conservative, and the House roared. Sorenson repeated the praise for the plan, before Emmanuel Dubourg asked about the plan in French, Sorenson not varying the substance of his response.

Continue reading →

QP: Give CSIS a hand

Posted on by

Caucus day, and all of the leaders were finally in the Chamber. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking for an update on last week’s events and what new measures were being taken to protect Canadian Forces members at home. Stephen Harper said that investigations were underway, and that he had nothing to add to their public statements. Mulcair noted the concerns of privacy commissioners, both federal and provincial, on new security laws. Harper said that they were interested in the views of various players in issues, and that they didn’t think there was a contradiction between safety and rights. Mulcair noted the need for civilian oversight and the two vacant chairs at SIRC. Harper assured him that things were great at SIRC, and we need to thank CSIS for their hard work protecting Canadians. Mulcair asked about funding cuts to security agencies, to which Harper said that they have adequate resources, then repeated in English the need to thank CSIS for their dedication to the protection of Canadians. Mulcair noted their differences in debating whether the attack was terrorism, but said that they wanted to work together to keep Canadians safe. Harper kept on with the praise for security agencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and asked about the need for a parliamentary oversight for national security agencies. Harper insisted that the current system works and “we will continue moving forward.” Trudeau pressed again for the need in French, to which Harper repeated his answer in English and got in a dig that police weren’t automatically a threat to Canadians’ rights. Trudeau noted the recommendations for oversight from the Arar Inquiry, wondering when the government would finally act on those recommendations. Harper insisted that they had acted, and repeated that CSIS works hard.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A funeral felt by the nation

Posted on by

In Hamilton, the three party leaders attended the funeral of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Prime Minister speaking and addressing Cirillo’s son. The city and large numbers of first responders turned out for the funeral, and lined the streets of the procession. The Queen also sent her condolences as the regiment’s Colonel-in-Chief.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was in town yesterday, where he paid tribute to Corporal Cirillo, before he and Baird spoke about last week’s shootings as terrorism, and he and Harper met to discuss topics such as Russia, Ukraine, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Michael Petrou breaks down the meaning of the visit here.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for the bill

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leave it to Peter

Posted on by

Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.

Continue reading →