Tag Archives: Terrorism

Roundup: Eight whole meetings

Posted on by

With the C-51 now before the Commons public safety committee, various kinds of shenanigans were played there, the NDP essentially launching a filibuster throughout the day in order to get more time to hear from witnesses, and they did get more time – about eight days, instead of three. They had proposed some 25 hearings, which included over a constituency week so that they could still meet the same deadline the government proposed, but they didn’t bite. It was also suggested that this may have been the government’s plan the whole time – give them a few more days and they’ll seem reasonable. Perhaps, but that didn’t seem to be the case if you listened to the Conservatives on the committee, who seemed to think that talk about rights was somehow an unreasonable thing. Online, people claiming to be from Anonymous are hoping an online campaign will force the government to back down on the bill, the way the government responded to backlash over Vic Toews’ lawful access bill, but I’m not sure they’ll have the same success, especially as the government is fairly confident that they can get the public to go along with the bill by holding the threat of terrorism over them – especially as new stories of people heading over to fight with ISIS become almost daily news at this point. The NDP tried to get in on the online campaign game and tried to get #StandWithRosane to trend – meaning their deputy critic Rosane Doré Lefebvre, leading the filibuster effort. Not surprisingly, it didn’t trend, for fairly obvious reasons, which makes one think that the NDP still hasn’t quite cracked the social media campaign that the election will supposedly be about. Perhaps we can call it a “hashtag fail,” as it were.

Continue reading →

QP: A Multi-Pronged Action Plan™!

Posted on by

Despite it being a Thursday, the leaders of the two main opposition parties were absent for no apparently reason. Way to show up and do your job guys — especially because the Prime Minister was in attendance. Megan Leslie led off asking about the powers listed in C-51, to which Harper boasted about our existing strong oversight, and accused the NDP of attacking our intelligence agencies. Leslie noted that it has been four years since better oversight was promised and not delivered, but Harper largely repeated his answer. Leslie turned to the topic of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and calling a national inquiry, to which Harper touted their “multi-pronged Action Plan™.” Romeo Saganash asked the same again, to which Kellie Leitch responded about the actions they’re taken, and then Saganash noted that C-51 was unconstitutional because it affects the rights of First Nations to protest. Stephen Blaney stated that peaceful dissent was allowed, and they needed to tackle terrorism. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and noted the poor job market. Harper stood up to insist that their Action Plan™ gets results. Ralph Goodale gave it another go in English, insisting that the government has been a failure when it comes to jobs, to which Harper touted their job creation record. Goodale listed off more damning statements about the job market, but Harper insisted that the vast majority of jobs created were full-time, good paying and in the private sector, while Goodale’s budgets were followed by police investigations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Review or oversight?

Posted on by

With C-51 now before committee, and the process of hashing out hearing schedules and witness lists begun, the debate continues over its merits. The story about the young Edmonton who went to support ISIS and CSIS didn’t stop her – because they’re not empowered to disrupt – is adding fuel to the fire, while it’s also bringing out a lot of conspiracy theories that are way out there, like ones that state that the terrorism angle is just a smokescreen so that the government can go after environmentalists and First Nations who oppose their resource development projects. (For the record, I have a really hard time seeing that, especially when you start intimating that it’s at the behest of corporations). The question of oversight remains top of mind, particularly as the Liberals are making that the hill they want to die on – or at least fight an election over – to which Philippe Lagassé writes a very interesting piece about the nature of parliamentary oversight committees in comparable Westminster democracies. In particular, these committees and the one that the Liberals have proposed here in Canada is not actually oversight either – it’s a review committee, like SIRC, only broader because it would review all national security agencies as a whole rather than in silos as what little oversight or review mechanisms to do currently (an four years later, talk about better integrating oversight remains just that). More importantly, however, Lagassé notes that opposition parties need to be very careful about how much oversight that they demand parliamentarians have because involving them too much can make them complicit in decisions that they should be holding the government to account for, and by swearing in a group of MPs to secrecy to see the materials, it effectively silences them because they can’t talk about what they know, and it can take such material out of sight and out of mind – as what happened with the Afghan detainee documents. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have more parliamentary review of national security, but we need to be cognisant of its aims and limits.

Continue reading →

QP: National security and painting a bridge 

Posted on by

Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hurry or not

Posted on by

It’s a curious thing, this notion of political expediency. When it comes to the issue of national security changes, for which you would think the government would want to take the time to get it right considering not only the Charter implications, but also the potential for major embarrassment to a government should things go wrong *cough*Maher Arar*cough* there should be an impetus for some due diligence. Instead, we’re getting word that they want to limit committee study to three days, because gods forbid that they might have to schedule a few extra committee meetings or sit into July to ensure that things happen. Meanwhile, on an issue such as doctor-assisted dying, where there is a ticking clock looming over them, the government instead prefers to push it off to the next parliament, insisting there’s “plenty of time” and don’t worry, they’re “consulting with Canadians” on the subject, which gives one the sense that they’re going to put pretty much as much effort as they did into the recent prostitution law, which is to say that it was a fairly sham process designed to give them a result that they could use to justify a solution that is unlikely to pass a second Charter challenge. Oh, and because they’ll be in a time crunch when they do get around to presenting a bill, it would allow them to insist that they need to use time allocation to ram though a bill without a lot of actual consultation with experts (assuming that the Conservatives form government again). This method of issues management makes no sense, but they apparently are under the impression that it works for them.

Continue reading →

QP: Engaging at all levels

Posted on by

Tuesday in the Commons, and all of the leaders were present. Apparently Mondays don’t count. Thomas Mulcair led off asking about Mohamed Fahmy and demanded that the Prime Minister contact the Egyptian President directly. Stephen Harper responded by saying that they have raised it at all levels, including his own, and that they would continue to press the case. Mulcair said that it wasn’t a clear answer, and asked it again. Harper repeated the substance of his answer, and and dead his disappointment in the lack of progress. Mulcair moved onto C-51, to which Harper dismissed the criticisms as “ridiculous.” Mulcair then asked if Harper felt that SIRC was adequate oversight when even SIRC’s members indicated otherwise. Harper expressed dismay that Mulcair compared Canada’s human rights record to Egypt’s, and read a passage about judicial authorization — nothing to do with the question. Mulcair then changed topics to ask about a backbencher’s musing about using the Notwithstanding Clause on the doctor-assisted dying issue. Harper said he respects the decision of the courts, and was listening to Canadians. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered if they would support their supply day motion on creating a special committee to study the issue. Harper said that it was a delicate issue and threw it to the Commons justice committee to study it if they wish. Trudeau noted the time crunch, to which Harper repeated that it was a non-partisan issue and repeated his previous answer. Trudeau noted that Harper hadn’t actually answered on the Notwithstanding Clause question, and asked again — not that he got a different answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Eco-terrorists and auto support

Posted on by

Monday being the new Friday in QP, there were no major leaders in the Chamber to start off the week — Mulcair in Halifax, Trudeau in the 905, and Harper, well, elsewhere. That left Peter Julian to lead off, demanding oversight over national security agencies, and Stephen Blaney to respond by insisted that freedoms would not be curtailed and invited them to support it. Julian pointed out contradictions in government messaging, to which Blaney noted that Parliament itself came under attack. Julian worried that any protests could be considered “Eco-terrorism,” which Blaney insisted he read the bill instead. Peggy Nash then asked about possible plans to steel GM shares at a loss to balance the budget, to which Andrew Saxton read a statement about the “decisive action” taken during the recession. Nash asserted that the government didn’t really care about the auto sector, to which James Moore gave an impassioned refutation. Dominic LeBlanc was up for the Liberals, and lamented the government’s lack of action on the middle class, for which Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals just want to raise taxes. Ralph Goodale gave more of the same in English, Poilievre repeated his answer, and when Goodale listed the many ills of the government’s budgeting, Poilievre fell back on the usual “your leader thinks budgets balance themselves.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Eminent Canadians push back

Posted on by

The anti-terror legislation again dominated the headlines yesterday, starting with a letter that four former Prime Ministers – Turner, Clark, Chrétien and Martin – along with 18 other eminent Canadians including five former Supreme Court justices, penned in the Globe and Mail about the need for better oversight of our national security agencies. You know, like the Martin government was trying to pass in 2004 before the Conservatives and NDP brought them down (and which Peter MacKay blatantly misconstrued in QP). What’s more baffling is that the government, by way of Jason Kenney, is now arguing that the bill doesn’t need more oversight because it gives more power to the courts to provide it. (Funnily enough, this is the same party who likes to moan about judicial activism). The problem with judicial oversight is that it also isn’t really oversight, and we have actual demonstrated cases where CSIS didn’t tell the truth when they went to the courts for a warrant. One of those cases is now waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court, because CSIS failed in their duty of candour. This is not a minor detail, but rather a gaping hole in the government’s argument. Oversight is a very important and necessary component, and it makes no sense that the government can keep ignoring it because it’s going to come around and bite them in the ass if they don’t get a handle on it, particularly when the bad things that happen come to light, and they always do, and we’ll have another Maher Arar-type situation.

Continue reading →

QP: Questions on counter-radicalization

Posted on by

Despite it being only a Thursday, attendance in the Commons was already on its way down — Stephen Harper was off in BC, and Justin Trudeau in Toronto. Thomas Mulcair was still present, and led off by asking about the US summit on countering extremism, and wondered where this government’s support for counter-radicalism was, and gave a swipe that the government was anti-Muslim while he was at it. Peter MacKay gave some outrage and said that C-51 was giving tools to prevent terrorism. Mulcair wanted examples on disruption in the bill, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was incorrect in his characterisation. Mulcair wondered if the bill would give CSIS the power to investigate environmental groups or First Nations, to which MacKay insisted that Mulcair was simply fear-mongering as the bill specifically prohibits lawful dissent or advocacy. Mulcair changed topics and demanded expadited hearings for EI claimants at the Social Security Tribunal. Pierre Poilievre agreed that the backlog was unacceptable, and noted that his predecessor put in a plan to eliminate the backlog by summer. Mulcair said that was nonsense and decried the number of “Conservative buddies” being appointed to the tribunal, which Poilievre refuted. Dominic LeBlanc led off for the Liberals, denouncing the economic uncertainty of a delayed budget. Andrew Saxton stood up to read some standard talking points about how great the government was doing. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, got the same answer.

Continue reading →

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.

Continue reading →