With the House back this week, we are likely to see debate resume on the new anti-terrorism bill – something that Peter MacKay was talking up over the weekend with regard to the alleged Halifax shooting plot, despite the assurances that the would-be shooters weren’t actually terrorists and were caught using existing tools. Through this, a former assistant director of CSIS says the tools are necessary because CSIS is built for the Cold War, and they really need these new tools to actively disrupt terrorist networks. Sure, that may be, but there remains the gaping flaw in terms of oversight, and another former CSIS agent spoke to the media, pointing out that without that oversight, we’ll see more cases where CSIS sanitizes their files before they hand them over to SIRC. As well, said agent warns that the provisions in the bill are likely to open up a whole area of secret jurisprudence which is alarming, and says that the Prime Minister making vaguely threatening statements like “tentacles of jihadism reaching us” could actually fan the flames and make things worse. So there’s that. Two professors who study national security laws weigh in on the bill, and while they see a few merits in it, they have a number of concerns and yes, the lack of oversight is one of the most alarming portions of it. And no, a judicial warrant is not a sufficient safeguard considering that we have documented cases where CSIS was found to have misled the very court it asked for a warrant from. That is a very big problem, and one that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on sometime later this year.
Tag Archives: Canadian Forces
Roundup: The Adams nomination
Day three of the Eve Adams floor crossing fallout, and once you wade through some of the sexist columns and tiresome Biblical references, a few things start to emerge. Adams had a very interesting interview on CP24 yesterday, and the host pressed her on a lot of issues and Adams seemed to have some coherent answers about changing her mind about income splitting when Flaherty came out with his objections, and that she was a loyal foot soldier for the Conservatives so their excuses about being happy to be rid of her are ringing hollow. She also said that she would be moving to riding she plans to run in, Eglington Lawrence, and that has already begun reaching out to the community there. The riding president says she’s welcome to run, but reminds everyone that it’s an open nomination. Trudeau told the media while in Winnipeg that he gave some reflection to accepting Adams into the fold, and said that it was Adams’ willingness to do the tough slog to win a difficult riding was what convinced him – and I think that’s borne out it in the fact that it’s going to be an open, contested nomination, and that Adams is going to have to do the hard work of convincing the grassroots members that she is the leopard who has changed her spots. And it’s going to be tough – here is one of the nomination candidates that she will be running against, and it’s going to be tough for her to beat someone of his credentials. I also believe that having Adams lose in a fair fight is part of Trudeau’s actual plan, where he gets the news value of her embarrassing the PM and then saying that the open nomination system worked. The fact that she was slotted into the riding’s nomination race without consultation seems to fit with that fact. But then again, what do I know?
Roundup: No thanks, FactsCan
A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.
Roundup: The problem with SIRC
Of the many hats that Bob Rae has worn over his long and storied careers in Canadian politics, one of them was as a member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee for a period of five years. Remember, this is the body that the government claims is providing oversight to CSIS, and that they’re “robust,” “doing a good job,” and “are the envy of the world.” No, seriously – they have said all of those things. Rae, meanwhile, notes that SIRC has limited resources for the size of the job they have, but more than that, they haven’t been paid attention to by the government itself. In other words, no matter what their reports say, and how scathing they are, the government’s response is pretty much to pat them on the head, say thanks, and ignore them. Issues like the limited mandate and compartmentalisation of what they’re supposed to be reviewing makes their jobs almost impossible to get a proper picture. The Privacy Commissioner has pointed out that the silos make their own job difficult to do because they can’t see what’s going on either. And then there are security agencies like CBSA – which gained a lost of powers post-9/11 – who have no independent oversight at all. But hey, any oversight is just “needless red tape” – also a phrase this government has used – and would somehow detract from trying to fight terrorists. All of this just adds to the fact that giving CSIS new powers without any additional oversight sounds like a more alarming proposition all the time.
Roundup: The Liberals say okay
It is not politically insignificant that the Liberals came out yesterday to say that they would support the new anti-terror bill, despite its flaws, but would work to try and get changes to it, in particular around the need for more oversight and to build in legislative reviews such as a sunset clause. In effect, it is a move that tries to blunt the Conservatives’ attack lines that the Liberals don’t support fighting terrorism (as some of their MPs still tried to peddle while making the rounds on the political talk shows last night). And if the Conservatives shoot down their amendments? Well, the Liberals plan to fix them once they form government (and parliamentary oversight is something the Liberals have been pushing for since they tried implementing it under the Paul Martin government, but the government was toppled and we all know what happened next). That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot to be concerned about with this bill, in particular that there is a broad expansion of powers with few limits, particularly that it doesn’t bar psychological harm. James Gordon writes how the strong language used to describe terrorists is letting them win, while Andrew Coyne wants a more reasoned debate on the bill rather than just lighting our hair on fire.
The individual freedoms we enjoy and cherish as Canadians cannot exist without collective security. 1/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
Bill C-51 can be improved, but on the whole, it does include measures that will keep Cdns safe. As such, #LPC will support it. 2/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
There are gaps in this bill, specifically on oversight and mandatory reviews. #LPC will offer amendments to address these gaps. 3/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
When a gov’t asks its citizens to give up liberty, it is that gov’ts responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. 4/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are hopeful that #CPC is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights & our values. 5/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
The gov’t can accept that Canadians want greater oversight & accountability, or #LPC will offer that in our election platform. 6/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the rule of law. We will not be intimidated into changing that by anyone. 7/7
— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 4, 2015
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: Economic bluster
The mood of the moment on the Hill is economic bluster in the light of falling oil prices and a delayed budget – not that there wasn’t some bluster around the Iraq mission to go around either. The NDP announced early on that they want an immediate fiscal update, the subject of today’s opposition day motion – along with the demand to create a budget that suits their particular terms, naturally. The government, however, spent the day playing as if nothing is really wrong. Sure, they’ve lost some manoeuvring room, but they insisted that they will a) balance the budget, b) deliver on all of their promises, and c) not make any more cuts, though one presumes that means any more cuts on top of the continued austerity programme that their whole “surplus” was built on. They can’t really explain how this will happen, other than to use the $3 billion contingency fund, to which Oliver has started talking about how it’s there to be spent and it’ll just go on the bottom line (i.e. national debt payments) otherwise. I will make the additional observations that the NDP were trying to roll the Target layoffs into their lamentations of economic doom and demands for a “jobs programme,” the Liberals were more focused on getting the actual figures for the hole in the budget that the drop in oil prices created and pointed out that Oliver has the information and wasn’t sharing it. It was a noticeable distinction.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804485556781058
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804578800357376
QP: Dusting off the cobwebs
The first Question Period of 2015 took place on a cold day in the Nation’s Capital, with more than a few empty desks still dotting the chamber as MPs make their way back. The PM was absent, at that RCMP funeral in St. Albert, Alberta, but the rest of the leaders were present, which has become unusual for a Monday. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the our Special Forces painting targets for the bombing mission in Iraq. Rob Nicholson insisted that they were doing what was stated — advising and assisting. Mulcair noted that this was ruled out by the Chief of Defence Staff back in September, but Nicholson offered some bafflegab about shooting back when fired upon. Mulcair insisted that they never should have been put in harm’s way in the first place, but Immediately changed topics to demand the budget that will reflect falling oil prices. Joe Oliver insisted that other projections were more generous than the ones the government made, and that they would honour their promises to the provinces and families while balancing the budget. For his final question, Mulcair gave the demonstrably false “all of our eggs in the oil basket” meme, threw in the job losses from Target, and demanded a jobs plan. Oliver repeated the substance of his answer. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking about the government’s wrong projections about the price of oil and wondered what kind of a hole that put in the budget. Oliver said there was an adjustment of $2.5 billion, and they would base budget projections on private sector economists’. Trudeau insisted that Oliver was not sharing the figure that his officials gave him, and asked him whether they would use the contingency fund to balance the budget, based on contradictory statements. Oliver repeated his line about private sector economists, and then accused Trudeau of talking down the manufacturing sector. Trudeau then changed to the issue of Special Forces on front lines, to which Nicholson said that they need to be with Iraqi forces to assist and train them.
Roundup: Voting attendance matters (Part II)
Following up on their report about MPs being absent from votes, the Ottawa Citizen tries to delve into the issue of just what happens to MPs who don’t show up. Usually, as these things go, the whips handle it and do so quietly. And if MPs don’t like what the whips have to tell them, then they have the option of walking – as it seems that Sana Hassainia did from the NDP. And as the numbers bear out, independent MPs with little incentive from party whips to show up, may just as well not. And that’s fine, really – if their constituents look at their voting records and see a whole lot of blanks, well, then they have a pretty good idea about what their MPs take to be a priority. What gets me is that the piece quotes the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation as saying that hey, MPs have plenty of jobs, and sometimes they’re more important than just standing up and sitting down. Except no – that’s one of the most important parts of being an MP, standing up for what they believe in, and being seen to do so, and being on the record for doing so. Voting is how things are decided in a democracy like ours, so when the people we send to make those decisions don’t bother to show up, well, it kinds of defeats the purpose. Despite the fantasy notions that people have about all the varied things an MP’s job is supposed to entail, it pretty much breaks down to holding the government to account, and the mechanism by which that happens is votes. It’s not rocket science. Making excuses for why MPs aren’t doing that job by voting – or having a good reason for why they’re not there to do so – doesn’t help the health of our system.