Tag Archives: Terrorism

Roundup: Baird on the way out

Posted on by

The big news is that John Baird is about to resign as minister, with the notion that he won’t run again in the next election for whatever reason, though it is suggested he feels the time is right to move over to the private sector, and the way things operate these days is that if you don’t wan to run again, then you’re no longer in cabinet. There hasn’t been any whispering of any scandal, and he doesn’t have a family to “spend more time with,” so the notion that he feels the time is right to make the transition to the private sector is certainly plausible. This after former Australian PM Kevin Rudd was just in town to try and recruit Baird to help him reform a number of UN agencies (though from what I’ve heard about Rudd, Baird not wanting to work with him may be completely understandable). I have no idea who Harper will name as the new foreign affairs minister in Baird’s place, though Jason Kenney is certainly a good possibility. (After all, there is a good tradition of leaders sticking their rivals in foreign affairs in order to keep them out of the country). In the interim, though, Ed Fast is taking the job on an interim basis, which makes sense as he has been doing the diplomatic work on the trade file. It certainly keeps things exciting. Paul Wells puts Baird’s time in Foreign Affairs into some context, which shows why this is a real loss for the government.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Odd dismissals of oversight

Posted on by

We’ve had the weekend to look over the new anti-terrorism bill, and it’s not really winning a lot of praise, other than being noted for changing the election narrative from one of economic stability to national security. The fuzziness around what constitutes “terrorist propaganda” that they want the powers to scrub from the Internet (and good luck with that task) is certainly one of the issues that will need to be examined in further detail. The mother of a Calgary man who went over to fight for ISIS, and later died doing so, says that it’s not enough to just take away passports – the government needs to offer some kind of de-radicalisation programmes to go along with the new powers. In fact, one thing the new powers desperately need are more oversight mechanisms and bodies for CSIS and others, but according to the government, that’s just “needless red tape.” No, seriously. SIRC is not effective oversight, and no, Canada is not so different from other countries that we don’t need these mechanisms. But hey, apparently we’re special for not having this kind of oversight, but I don’t think it’s something we should be patting ourselves on the back for.

Continue reading →

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 →

Roundup: Open federalism vs carbon pricing

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A look at the weeks ahead

Posted on by

Parliament is back today, and to set the stage, Stephen Harper delivered a speech to supporters in Ottawa to announce that he would balance the budget, deliver new anti-terror legislation by Friday, and generally set the pre-election stage that this sitting is going to consist of. Because if there’s anything Canadians are really looking forward to, it’s a nine-month-long campaign. Meanwhile, can someone please point out to me where exactly a Liberal government dramatically hiked taxes, as Harper claimed? Because I’m drawing a blank on that one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, it’s not media apathy

Posted on by

The prime minister’s former director of communications writes that it’s perfectly natural that the government wants to create their own communications channels that bypass the media because We The Media are apparently “apathetic” to what the want to tell us. You will forgive me for saying, but I’m not sure there are words enough to express how big of a load of utter horseshit that this justification actually is. His definition of “apathy” is that the media won’t act as transcriptionists for their feel-good stories, which forces them to go around us. Fair enough – it’s not our jobs to retype your press releases and make you look good. But what is utterly galling is for him to turn around and declare that the media has a challenge function that’s important for democracy and that’s why they’re needed, when the very same government that he served is doing their level best to kneecap journalists from fulfilling that role. Whether it’s frustrating Access to Information laws, closing off all avenues of communication with ministers, not returning phone calls and delivering bland statements in lieu of answers to questions being asked, or simply dragging out responding to media requests until it’s well past deadline, it all amounts to choking off necessary information from the media because it fulfils its challenge function, and that challenge function makes the government look bad. When the media does write about the government’s use of their own distribution channels, it’s not because we’re sulking that we’re not the privileged distributors of information – it’s that we’re being denied the ability to do our jobs as we’re shut out of events, not allowed to ask questions at announcements, and that our independent photographers are not allowed to even capture those events and are instead being handed a staged photo to run instead that shows what the government wants us to see instead. That’s not giving us the space to perform our necessary challenge function – it’s trying to turn us into organs of propaganda. That he ignores those legitimate complaints and frames them as “sweating over” trivialities is part of what makes his whole construction utterly farcical.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rate cut, dollar drop

Posted on by

In a move that surprised pretty much everyone yesterday, the Bank of Canada lowered their already rock bottom prime interest rate to 0.75 percent as a means of dealing with the effect of falling oil prices on our economy, and in response, the dollar dropped even further. Bank Governor Stephen Poloz said that the upsides of lower oil prices could have positives, but as the economic forecast was also downgraded, he said that it could delay recovery by at least a year. Opposition reaction to the rate cut was that it showed the government was mismanaging the economy, but Justin Trudeau also wouldn’t say if he would run deficits, nor would Thomas Mulcair indicate how he would pay for his childcare promises. Andrew Coyne is not bothered by the falling dollar, saying we’ll adjust, though as I watch my purchasing power evaporate before my eyes at the iTunes store, I can’t say I’m too happy about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refuting Jason Kenney

Posted on by

In an interesting turn of events, an unnamed senior government official was talking to The Canadian Press yesterday to refute statements that Jason Kenney had made over the weekend about the upcoming budget – more to the point, that there were more cuts on the way, and that indeed the $3 billion contingency reserve wouldn’t be used to balance the books. It’s curious for a number of reasons – that Kenney would apparently be freelancing and undercutting Joe Oliver (not that Oliver has done himself any favours with some of the answers he’s given the past few days), that these officials would go to these lengths to refute Kenney, and that they’re claiming there are no further cuts because we all know that any “surplus” the government was counting on came from a continued austerity programme, so the fact that they’re saying there won’t be further cuts is a bit hard to take – even if it’s technically that there are no cuts on top of those they have already planned. One wonders if it’s a signal as to current dividing lines in the caucus (and cabinet) around Kenney and his leadership ambitions, and any positioning that he’s engaging in before the election, so that if it doesn’t go well and Harper resigns afterward, that Kenney finds himself ready to swoop in. But like I said – it’s just speculation, which odd stories like this tend to generate. Funny that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Family-friendly has its consequences

Posted on by

It’s one of those kinds of piece that rolls around every few months, and Laura Payton has again taken a look at the toll to family life that an MP’s job takes, especially as several MPs have opted not to run again, citing that very reason. And that’s well and good, but the moment we get to talking about making Parliament more “family friendly,” we immediately start talking about things without acknowledging any of the very detrimental unintended consequences. Beyond better access to childcare on the Hill for MPs (as opposed to staffers), they immediately start talking about things like cancelling Friday sittings, electronic votes, and attending committees by video conference – all of which are actually terrible ideas. Losing Fridays would mean having to make up the time somewhere else, and since we’ve already cancelled evening sittings to make Parliament more “family friendly,” well, that’s out, and let’s face it – nobody wants to sit in July or August because Ottawa is pretty humid and gross – especially in some of those old stone buildings that aren’t very well air conditioned, never mind that MPs generally want to be on the barbecue circuit or spending time with said families now that their children are out of school. Electronic voting is also a bad idea because half of the point of Parliaments are the very important symbolism of having your representatives stand and be seen to be standing for what they believe in. An electronic tally may be more convenient, but it also damages the meaning of the act. The other reason why it’s terrible is because that’s one of the few times that MPs are all together in one place and can see each other and make contacts, whether that means cornering a minister about an issue that they need to have addressed, or simply building relationships. It’s the same with attending committee by video conference. You’re not forming those relationships either with fellow MPs, or with any of the witnesses appearing before you, and even while some witnesses to appear by video conference, that face-to-face contact and the conversations in the hallway afterward are all lost. Those are tremendously important. There are other ways for MPs to better schedule themselves, but already the parliamentary calendar has changed a lot to accommodate families and travel. The loss of evening sittings had a demonstrable impact on collegiality because MPs no longer ate dinner together. Losing more of that contact will have a crippling blow on the institution.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Expanding spending limits

Posted on by

Shortly before Joe Oliver put a stake in the constant early election speculation by announcing an April budget, Pundit’s Guide posted a particularly adept analysis of measures in the Fair Elections Act that demonstrate that while there is a fixed election date and a minimum length for campaigns, there is no maximum length, meaning that the writs could drop earlier than six weeks before the election. What is new is that it would mean that the spending limits would be higher, because the new law allows the limit to stretch, whereas it used to be fixed, no matter if the campaign was six weeks or eight. Higher spending limits mean more for certain parties, more flush with cash than others, can spend on advertising and so on, and overall be used to both financially exhaust some parties, or to really backload their ad spending into the last two or three weeks and carpet bomb things in a very American fashion. She also noted that the federal Conservatives have no interest in stepping on a likely spring election in Alberta and the Ontario PC leadership contest. (See her on Power Play here). It’s certainly food for thought, and gives us one more thing to look at, to guess as to when the writs will drop for the October election rather than this pointless speculation about a spring election.

Continue reading →