Tag Archives: Terrorism

Roundup: Strong feelings following defections

Posted on by

In the wake of fairly stunning defections in both the federal NDP and the Wildrose party in Alberta are leaving a lot of hurt, angry and shaken people in their wake. With Glenn Thibeault leaving the federal NDP, his old riding association president says she feels like their work has been diminished, and a number of Thibeault’s former caucus colleagues say they’re feeling “hurt” by the departure. Over in Alberta, the Wildrose Party’s president has stepped down and a past president stepped into his place for the time being, and they insist they’re not defeated. I’m sure it will be a question as to how they decide to move forward, and what kind of leadership process they put in place in order to try and staunch the haemorrhaging that they’re feeling at present. Someone suggested that it’s something that Rob Anders could take on seeing as he’s been defeated in his quest for federal re-nomination twice, but still insists he wants to get that small-c conservative message about lower taxes out there. Then again, Alberta may be getting too liberal for Anders, which is what he blamed his lost nominations on. For many federal Conservatives, it’s more of a feeling of relief, no longer having their voter base split provincially (though how long said unity lasts is a question). The most incredible reaction to date, however, was NDP MP Linda Duncan, whose riding is in Edmonton, when she said that people in the province may be so disgusted that they’ll consider the NDP instead. I think this reaction says it best:

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to protect bureaucrats

Posted on by

After the government unveiled their much ballyhooed price gap legislation, it remained to be seen if that would lead off QP, or if Julian Fantino would remain in the line of fire. Before things got started, however, the two new Conservative MPs from the recent by-elections, Jim Eglinski and Pat Perkins, took their seats. Thomas Mulcair had not yet returned from Paris, leaving Peter Julian to lead off, asking about the US Senate torture report, and how CSIS and the RCMP could use information obtained by torture. Harper insisted it had nothing to do with Canada. Julian moved onto the veterans file and demanded the resignation of Julian Fantino, to which Harper said that the NDP were more interested in protecting bureaucrats and cutting services. Nycole Turmel was up next, and asked about processing times for EI applications, and the decision to hire temporary workers to clear the backlog. Jason Kenney responded that they were dedicated to giving good levels of service, and thanked his parliamentary secretary for the report on processing. Turmel tied in the Social Security Tribunal and the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, calling Kenney incompetent, but Kenney repeated Harper’s line that the NDP is averse to efficiencies. Justin Trudeau was up next, and brought up the sacred obligation to veterans, wondering why the priority was a tax break for wealthy families instead of veterans. Harper insisted that they provide benefits to both families and veterans, and the current court case was against a previous Liberal programme. Trudeau listed a number of veterans programmes cut or underfunded by the government, to which Harper recited of list of programmes that he claimed the Liberals voted against before trotting out his line that they were trying to protect bureaucrats. Trudeau asked again in French, and Harper claimed that 100 of the jobs they eliminated existed solely to delay benefits payments. (Really?!)

Continue reading →

QP: Questions on back office cuts

Posted on by

The last Monday of the year, and it was a bitterly cold one in Ottawa. Like many a Monday, none of the leaders were there, and even Elizabeth May was gone, off to the climate summit in Lima, Peru. Megan Leslie led off, and asked about cuts to services at Veterans Affairs that were more than just “back office” cuts. Julian Fantino insisted that the story was false, and read about reducing bureaucratic expense. Leslie twice asked about the reduction in staff for rail safety, to which Jeff Watson insisted that the number of inspectors was up, as was the number of auditors. David Christopherson shouted the veterans cuts question again, got the same robotic answer from Fantino, before a hollered demand for resignation, earning another robotic recitation. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked about the government’s court arguments that there was no fundamental obligation to wounded veterans. Fantino robotically insisted that they were uploading services for veterans. Frank Valeriote listed off a litany of other cuts to veterans, but Fantino read a talking point about increases to front-line services. Valeriote asked a last question about VA managers getting bonuses in the light of cuts to services, but Fantino assured him that the decisions were always taken for the right reasons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: PBO declares the cupboard bare

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the Commons finance committee yesterday, and said that after the new sorta-income-splitting Family Tax Credit rollout that there won’t be any fiscal room for any further permanent tax cuts or spending measures. In other words, the cupboard is bare (and still reliant on further austerity to keep the budget in balance). Kevin Milligan gives a more detailed breakdown of what all of the family tax credits mean, while Stephen Gordon once again says what needs to be said, especially with what this means for the next election:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Del Mastro found guilty

Posted on by

Conservative-turned-Independent Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro has been found guilty, along with his official agent, of election overspending in 2008, and Del Mastro faces the possibility of three years in jail plus $6000 in fines. Del Mastro, obstinately, believes that the conviction is just the judge’s opinion, and that it’s not over, though there’s no indication on what grounds he would appeal. He told CBC that there’s more evidence of his innocence that wasn’t introduced at trial, but if he thinks he can introduce that at the appeal stage, well, good luck, because they almost never allow that. The question of his fate comes next, because there is some ambiguity as to whether he will be forced to vacate his seat and lose the ability to run in another election for five years – as stipulated by the Elections Act – or if they plan to wait until he is out of appeals, which could be a lengthy process. Del Mastro says he plans to be at work on Monday (sentencing isn’t until near the end of November), but the Government House Leader has recommended that the matter be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, where a determination could be made there. It appears that Del Mastro had been offered a plea deal earlier that would have had him pay a fine, probably enter into a compliance agreement, and have it be over with. Instead, he went to court, and had the judge call out his credibility, which is going to be very, very difficult to recover from. And while the former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, said that it would be in Del Mastro’s best interest to resign to minimise the damage, Del Mastro’s behaviour to date would seem to indicate someone who doesn’t know when to quit, and who will likely obstinately push this to the bitter end.

Continue reading →

QP: Waiting on income splitting

Posted on by

Despite it being only Thursday, most leaders were absent from the Chamber today, Harper off in Vaughan to deliver his income splitting announcement, and Justin Trudeau campaigning for the by-election in Whitby. Thomas Mulcair did show up, and started off bringing up the request from three esteemed former Justices who warned against knee-jerk legislation after last week’s attacks. Stephen Blaney assured him that the new CSIS was balanced. Mulcair didn’t want this to be a partisan issue and wanted a multi-party committee to study the issue (never mind that all Commons committees are multi-party), to which Blaney said that all parties were being offered technical briefings. Mulcair brought up Stockwell Day’s endorsement of the creation of a parliamentary oversight committee for national security, but Blaney said that SIRC was robust enough. Mulcair sniped about Deborah Grey’s interim leadership of SIRC, before turning to the issue of income splitting. Kevin Sorenson told him to stay tuned for the announcement, and proclaimed that income splitting was good policy. Mulcair and Sorensen took another round at it, before Scott Brison led for the Liberals, recalling Jim Flaherty’s opposition to income splitting. Sorenson quoted an old Brison line about how income splitting was a good thing. Brison quipped that he said a lot of stupid things when he was a Conservative, and the House roared. Sorenson repeated the praise for the plan, before Emmanuel Dubourg asked about the plan in French, Sorenson not varying the substance of his response.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Oversight versus good enough

Posted on by

Divisions are forming in the Commons about what happened with last week’s attack, with the Liberals now accepting that the shooter was a terrorist as that is what the RCMP have concluded, while the NDP are steadfastly refusing that label, saying that there’s not enough evidence to use it (contrary to what the RCMP Commissioner has said). But before anyone thinks that this is a signal that the Liberals are going to simply follow any anti-terror legislation that the government brings down, it’s important to note that they have also been the sharpest critics on the lack of civilian oversight mechanisms and the need for parliamentary oversight for national security agencies, as have long been recommended by a number of sources. Harper dismissed those calls and said the current oversight is enough (never mind that his government reduced oversight already by eliminating the post of Inspector General at CSIS a couple of years ago), while privacy commissioners around the country sounded the alarm. Of course, in the debate over whether the shooter was a terrorist or mentally ill, there are probably elements of both present, as the Ottawa Citizen editorial points out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Powers to spite the Supreme Court

Posted on by

The government’s new CSIS bill got tabled yesterday, but because it was due to be tabled before the attacks happened last week, there is really nothing in there that responds to those attacks, and doesn’t include any of the previously reported measures like criminalizing the promotion of terrorism online. Instead, what it does is extend source protection and warrant provisions to help them conduct investigations when suspects go overseas. These provisions are largely in response to Supreme Court rulings that said that CSIS sources don’t have the same kind of blanket protections that police sources do. I’m also not sure about the provision for a warrant to investigate outside of the country, given that, well, it’s not the jurisdiction of our courts, so we would need some kind of agreements to operate in those countries I would think. The bill is also designed to help facilitate information sharing between our Five Eyes partners, but there are no corresponding accountability mechanisms, because the government insists that the current oversight from SIRC is “robust” and good enough. Never mind that SIRC faced significant delays in getting needed information from CSIS during their investigations, and that they misled SIRC in the course of another investigation. But hey, the oversight is “robust” and all.

Continue reading →

QP: Wait for the bill

Posted on by

Despite it being Monday, there were no major leaders in the Commons. It left Libby Davies to lead off, asking for an update on security at federal sites. Stephen Blaney reminded her that Hill security is the domain of the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, but they were fully cooperating. Davies asked about the moratorium on armed forces personnel wearing uniforms in public, and Rob Nicholson said that he deferred to the judgement of the Chief of Defence Staff. Davies asked for assurances about full debate on any new security legislation, and Blaney promised that they would not overreact, but it was time to stop underreacting. Nycole Turmel picked up, asking about the National Post report that the legislation would criminalise certain Internet posts condoning terrorism, to which Blaney told her to wait for the bill to be tabled. Turmel wanted assurances that civil liberties would be protected, to which Blaney repeated his answer. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking for cooperation on drafting new security legislation and for detailed technical briefings on the bill. Blaney more or less agreed. LeBlanc wanted a timeline on the bill, but Blaney talked around an answer. LeBlanc pressed in French, but Blaney repeated his answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tours resume, security under review

Posted on by

Parliament Hill’s return to normal continues apace, with public tours resuming today. House of Commons and Senate security forces are also now looking at ways to better cooperate and merge some operations, but will remain separate administrations answering to each chamber’s Speaker. (This is because in the event of a physical confrontation between members of either chamber, Senators don’t want their own security answering to the Commons Speaker, leaving them vulnerable). Speaker Scheer on the Commons side has ordered a major security review, and will also be part of the OPP review of Wednesday’s incident, something RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has asked for.

Continue reading →