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.
Tag Archives: CSIS
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.
Roundup: Excuses for exit controls
Public Safety minister Stephen Blaney talked about how exit controls at Canada’s borders can help to prevent homegrown terrorists from leaving the country, or at last tracking them as they go. And great – except that this is just the latest in a series of justifications for exit controls. Previously it was for immigrants who were spending too much time out of the country to qualify for their permanent status, or refugee claimants who returned to their home countries for one reason or another, and before that it was for people on EI who end up going on holiday which means they must be frauds and this is how we crack down on them. It does seem to be reminiscent of the way that the government suddenly started using the need to combat cyberbullying as a way of justifying lawful access laws to get access to Canadians’ IP addresses and metadata.
QP: Four new members
The first day back in the Commons kicked off with the four MPs who won by-elections at the start of the summer — two new Liberals and two new Conservatives. When things got underway at last, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking, in both languages in the same slot, how many members of the Canadian Forces were being sent to Iraq. Harper gave a general figure of Air Force members flying in supplies, and “several dozen” members of the Special Forces for an advisory role. Mulcair asked — again in both languages — why there wasn’t a vote on the deployment. Harper reminded him that a government that has the confidence of the Chamber can deploy Forces, and this wasn’t a combat mission. Mulcair switched topic to working parents with poverty, to which Harper reminded him that labour markets were largely provincial responsibility and there was no need to reinstate a federal minimum wage to create two classes of workers. When Mulcair tried to press, Harper reminded him of all the great things they were doing for families. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and without visibly reading, asked about why the EI tax credit offers more incentives to fire workers than to hire them. Harper insisted he didn’t know what Trudeau was talking about, and when Trudeau spelled it out, Harper fell back to the “45 day work year” canard.
Obligatory note: Newly elected MPS aren't supposed to pretend to resist being dragged into the Chamber. That's just new speakers. #QP
— kady o'malley (@kady) September 15, 2014
Someone shouts "Where's yours, Tom?" #QP #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 15, 2014
Roundup: A new front bench dynamic
The House is back this week, though Harper is over in Europe. We will, however, see the first of the new line-up on the government’s front bench, with Joe Oliver taking Jim Flaherty’s place, and Greg Rickford filling in for Oliver. Add to that the NDP’s front-bench shake-up and we’ve got a new dynamic of Nathan Cullen versus Joe Oliver, which I can just imagine will be full of passive aggressive snark from Cullen and impatient grumpiness from Oliver, if previous interactions are anything to go by. It also sounds like we’ll see the budget implementation bill get tabled this week, so we’ll see if that is as crazily omnibus as their previous implementation bills have been of late.
Roundup: Sticking to the sidelines
A number of Quebec senators are also shying away from getting involved in the provincial election there, though some are saying that they will play whatever roles they can along the sidelines. The mayors of a number of smaller towns in the rest of Canada are alarmed that their local newspapers are owned by QMI, which in turn is owned by Pierre-Karl Péladeau, especially considering just how concentrated his ownership of that media is. Michael Den Tandt notes that Pauline Marois has been articulating Jacques Parizeau’s vision, where it was “money and the ethnic vote” that lost them the last referendum, and that Marois is sidelining those ethnic minorities with her values charter and trying to bring money on her side with Péladeau. Economist Stephen Gordon writes about the desirability of a monetary union with an independent Quebec, and how Quebec’s debt load would make it a risky proposition for them. Marois tried to insist that it would be “borderless” and would welcome Canadian tourists. No worries, see!