Tuesday in a frigid Ottawa, and all of the leaders were present, ready to take on the day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the role of our forces in Iraq, and the their refusal to turn over figures to the PBO about the costs of the mission. Stephen Harper said that they gave the costs — $122 million — and that the NDP hated any money going to the mission. Mulcair asked again in French, got much the same answer, and for the second supplemental, Mulcair changed topics to the definitions of activities that CSIS could disrupt in the new anti-terror legislation. Harper said that Canadians felt these measures were necessary. Mulcair tried again in English, and Harper accused Mulcair of conspiracy theory and black helicopters. Mulcair changed topics yet again, asking about Harper’s comments about Radio-Canada employees hating conservative values. Harper said that he believed the majority of Quebeckers agreed with him, and that the Orange Wave was over. Justin Trudeau was up, and ramped up the language on the questions, accusing the PM of attacking the ethics of CBC/Radio-Canada, to which Harper gave a non sequitur about high taxes and lax terrorism laws. Trudeau turned to the measles epidemic, and wondered why the government was not running any ads on the benefits of vaccination. Harper insisted that the minister of health was clear on the benefits of vaccines, and that vaccines were great.
Tag Archives: Terrorism
QP: New BSE concerns
The benches were pretty empty in the Commons on Monday, and apparently more than a few MPs were snowed in at their local airports, and none of the leaders were present. That meant that David Christopherson led off for the NDP, gruffly worrying about the BSE case in Alberta. Gerry Ritz confirmed that it was found and that they were still investigating. Christopherson wondered about consumer confidence, to which Ritz repeated that they were working with the farm in question and they put money in the budget to advance beef trading, which the NDP opposed. Christopherson then moved onto the back-to-work legislation for CP Rail, and the safety issues around it. Jeff Watson responded with some bog standard talking points about rail safety. Nycole Turmel repeated the questions in French, and Watson repeated his answers in English. Stéphane Dion was up for the Liberals, asking about the infrastructure deficit and the comments made by Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, and would the government do something about it. Peter Braid gave his standard Building Canada Fund talking points in response. Dion pressed, and Braid repeated his talking points more forcefully. Dion was back up, noting the bulk of the investments were backloaded, but Braid insisted that they were better off than under the Liberals.
Roundup: It wasn’t terrorism, but support our anti-terror bill
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.
Roundup: Mandating bilingual tweets
The Official Languages Commissioner has decreed that cabinet ministers should tweet in both official languages, which seems like a fairly concerning decree when you look at how some of those ministers are using the Twitter Machine to engage in some actual dialogue with actual Canadians (and some journalists too) about issues, without it all being canned statements and talking points. The caveat to the Commissioner’s statement is that they must use both official languages when communicating “objectives, initiatives, decisions and measures taken or proposed by a ministry or the government.” In other words, those canned links to press releases. The thing is, those are already being tweeted out by the official department accounts, whereas the ministers tweeting – at least for the good ones – are more “personal” and less filtered. Those are where the value in Twitter lies, and if the objective is to simply turn ministerial Twitter accounts to official releases, then what’s the point? I think this may be an instance where the Commissioner needs to perhaps re-evaluate social media and the engagement that happens over it.
This is a triumph of Missing The Point. We can say goodbye to the incipient, yet salutory trend of ministers engaging directly w/ the public
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) February 12, 2015
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: 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: Baird bows out
In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank John @Baird for his years of tireless devotion to Canada. http://t.co/P6Vg5HzKhm pic.twitter.com/FtAZmypv6y
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) February 3, 2015
QP: Let’s keep repeating quotes!
With John Baird’s big resignation speech out of the way, and all of the leaders present in the Chamber, it had the makings of a more exciting day. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the job losses at Target and wondered where the budget was — odd, considering that Target’s closure has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Harper insisted that he put out a number of economic measures, and read a quote from the CFIB that called the NDP’s measures “dumb and anti-small business.” Mulcair read a competing quote where the head of the CFIB praised an NDP proposal, then asked the same question again. Harper, in turn, doubled down on his answer. Muclair read the same quote yet again, then gave an anecdote about being in a Legion Hall in Sudbury before demanding to see the budget again, giving Harper yet another option to repeat the “dumb and anti-small business quote.” Mulcair railed about all of the eggs being in the “extractive basket” — not remotely true mathematically — and Harper bashed on the NDP being high tax. Mulcair gave a convoluted question about corporations sitting on dead money before demanding help for the middle class and a budget. Harper listed off a number of actions he announced. Justin Trudeau was up next, and decried the problems of the middle class and wondered why the government was giving tax breaks to those who didn’t need them. Harper praised the help they were giving families including a tax cut. Trudeau noted the cuts to infrastructure investments, and said the government’s priorities were wrong when they wanted to help the wealthiest 15 percent of Canadians. Harper reiterated how great his policies were for families. Trudeau then changed topics and wondered about a statement that Peter MacKay once upon a time about the need for parliamentary oversight of national security. Harper insisted that SIRC was robust and functioned well.
Roundup: Baird on the way out
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.
Sources have told @CBCNews Ed Fast will be named acting Foreign Affairs Minister in wake of John Baird departure: http://t.co/cCBr678Ysa
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) February 3, 2015
#JohnBaird asking me for career advice. Funny, I didn't think he was actually listening. pic.twitter.com/YhPHVGZMUK
— Ed the Sock (@EdtheSock) February 3, 2015
Roundup: Odd dismissals of oversight
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.