Dealing With Canadian Problems, the Canadian Way

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 66) February 25, 2015

Canadians depend upon its elected politicians to guide them through the ups / downs of change, hopefully to the betterment of the citizenry.  And ooh how things have changed!!!

Canada, a Need to be Proactive on Energy

Last June the international price for oil was at $100 a barrel, today it is under $50 – reality check in Alberta’s oil sand’s sector: new developments and expansion of existing projects have become uneconomic - experts are predicting depressed oil prices for the next two, three years.  The Royal Dutch Shell PLC announced earlier this week that it was indefinitely postponing the 200,000 barrel a day Pierre River mine project north of Fort McMurray.  The conventional oil industry has also done its calculations and the news is not good for Alberta; a reality check, there are going to be delays, cancellations and a lot of belt tightening.  As pessimistic as things look for Alberta in the shorter term there is good reason for optimism, if only our national government and its politicians start thinking in terms of addressing the major obstacles facing the energy sector and that means a desperate need for a National Energy Strategy.  From my perspective, Alberta’s premier Jim Prentice is quite capable and can manage Alberta’s short term revenue shortfall, but it’s going to be a forward thinking prime minister who is going to get Canada out of a real energy mess. 

Canada: a Need for Security, Without Political Panic

Canadians have always been able to express disagreement and descent through the signing of petitions, walking in street marches or  waving banners at a pro (con) rally – it’s a constitutional right to protest.  What  is deemed unacceptable are the planned acts of insurrection, which by definition are overt revolts against a ruling authority.  Canada hasn’t seen a serious act of insurrection for about 45 years – the 1970 October Crisis – when the prime minister of Canada declared the War Measures Act and placed a military presence in the streets of Quebec to curb the FLQ, an extremist group of separatists.  In the past six months, threats by international extremist groups like ISIS and overt acts of insurrection causing the deaths of Canadian armed service personal has caused Prime Minister Harper’s government to introduce new anti-terrorism legislation measures which enhance the powers of Canada’s security agencies and at the very least, curb planned terrorism activity within Canada’s boarders and elsewhere.  Opposition to Bill C-51 is the expansive powers contained in the bill and the lack of parliamentary oversight.  While I agree with giving our security agencies the necessary resources and the authority to deal with the subversive acts and actions of those that want to do Canada harm, there are limits.  Mr. Harper has again shown that it is Harper Way or No Way and that is most unfortunate for the country because it’s not the Canadian Way. 

Dealing With Terrorism, the Harper Way

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 65) February 18, 1015

There is no doubt in my mind:  September 11, 2001 was the start of a new era in the war against international terrorism – a battle that has quickly spread into Canada and much of the democratic world. 

The 9 / 11 Experience and the Response

The 9 /11 tragedy involved 19 Muslim extremists and the hijacking of 4 commercial aircraft.  The terrorist group destroyed the twin towers of World Trade Center in New York, destroyed a portion of the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. and killed 2,977 persons on American soil.  In less than two months (October 26, 2001), George W. Bush signed into law, the USA PATRIOT Act – Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.  On May 26, 2011 President Obama signed into law a four year extension to three provisions of the PATRIOT Act that allowed for:  roving wiretaps; searches of business records; and the surveillance of “lone wolves” – individuals who are suspected of terrorist related activities and not necessarily linked to any terrorist group.  Understandably the major concern in the United States, regarding the powers of the PATRIOT Act is the potential limitations on American civil liberties.      

Canada’s Response to Terrorism

Prior to 9/11 Canada did not have any anti-terrorism laws – even the October, 1970 FLQ threat in Quebec was handled by the prime minister without additional legislative powers – he simply declared the War Measures Act to deal with the crisis.  The laws governing Canada were quickly changed after the 9 / 11 attacks in the United States and continue to change in Canada, to this day:  Canada’s Anti-terrorism Act (C-36) was passed by the Liberal government and given Royal Assent on December 18, 2001.  Bill C-36 mirrors the United States’ PATRIOT Act and includes:  preventative detention without warrant measures to stop an imminent terrorist act; added electronic surveillance measures; secret judicial hearings and stronger laws against hate crime and propaganda.  The major concern with Bill C-36 is the impact the bill might/will have on Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms as set out in the country’s constitution.  Since Bill C-36 a number of other laws have been passed into law to deal with the government’s anti-terrorism efforts:  May, 2004, Bill C-42 was passed; establish a no-fly list, and increased the government’s power to track / monitor private sector security measures.  March, 2012, C-10 allowed victims of terrorism to sue terrorists in Canadian courts for damages.  July, 2013, Bill S-7, was considered to be an up-date of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act and reinstated the lapsed laws regarding preventative arrests and investigative hearings to 2018.  June, 2014 Bill C-24 gives the government power to revoke Canadian citizenship from those claiming dual citizenship rights.  Bill C-13 will come into effect March, 2015.  Bill C-13 relates to telecom companies and using their tracking devices to support investigative action by government agencies.  Bill C-44 is currently being reviewed by parliamentary committee in the House of Commons and primarily deals with the 30 year old CSIS Act. – Canada’s spy agency legislation.  Bill-44 would clarify the role of CSIS when the agency monitors the activities of Canadians traveling in foreign countries.  The biggest concerns expressed by the country’s opposition parties relates to having reasonable sunset clauses attached to any legislative initiative – to guarantee regular and periodic review – and assure appropriate parliamentary oversight by trusted parliamentarians of every political stripe.     

My Perspective

Overall, I agree with the measures put in place to counter the growing threat of international (and domestic) terrorism – and the need for appropriate oversight and periodic review.  I also agree with the need to have a unified, Canadian front when doing battle with a scourge that hasn’t been seen since World War II.  Unfortunately Prime Minister Harper’s government has politicized the effort to fight terrorism and it has become the Harper Way or you’re not Canadian.  Already the Harper government has run into difficulty and is now re-defining terrorism as an act that is only  “culturally motivated” – when will this dangerous heresy end? 

The Canadian Way, Not the Harper Way

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 64) February 11, 2015

The news flowing out of Ottawa in the past week or so has got the country’s political pundits speculating about three or four very confusing, if not contradictory developments.  Has the resignation of John Baird seriously damaged Harper’s Conservative brand?  Has Eve Adams’ floor crossing helped or hindered Justin Trudeau and the Liberal brand?  Has the latest cabinet shuffle shown Mr. Harper to be attacking or has he just run out of ideas? Will Canada ever get a Canada-Europe Trade Agreement?

John Baird’s Resignation

Last week, the big political news was the abrupt and surprising resignation of John Baird as Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister – he also announced that he wouldn’t run for office in the next federal election.  Deemed to be one of Prime Minister Harper’s closest and most capable ministers, John Baird was interviewed just after his resignation by Peter Mansbridge of the CBC.  In the interview Mr. Baird explained that he didn’t want to be guided by ideology but by values – the comment tells me that Mr. Baird is not in total agreement with the singular, Harper ideology.  In the same interview Baird indicated that he was not comfortable with the current level of partisanship in the House of Commons and that’s coming from a man who has shown that he can be very partisan – it tells me, Mr. Baird is not in agreement with the Harper Way when it comes to doing business in the House of Commons and the use of the Harper “majority” to show contempt for the British parliamentary system and its traditions.  As to other possible reasons for John Baird leaving Harper’s Cabinet; like a lucrative position in the private sector or head of some international agency like the World Health Organization, I think it might happen but unlikely to be the major reason.  In my view, politics is deeply engrained in Mr. Baird’s DNA, his reason(s) for leaving are very personal and I think Canadians will see him re-emerge after the next federal election.  As to the impact Baird’s leaving parliament is going to have on the Harper Way and the next election, none!  One qualification; Mr. Baird leaving parliament could end up re-enforcing Harper’s ties to his Reform base.

Eve Adams Crosses the Floor

On Monday a strange, if not bizarre event occurred on parliament hill that took just about everybody by surprise:  Conservative MP, Eve Adams gave up her Conservative posting as parliamentary secretary to the minister of health to join Justin Trudeau’s Liberal caucus.  Mr. Trudeau welcomed Adams claiming that the Liberal Party is an inclusive party and welcomes people of different political stripes to his Liberal team.  Eve Adams will still have to be nominated under the Liberal banner, a strange juxtaposition if I’ve ever seen one.  A phone-in poll undertaken by the CBC on the floor crossing indicates that the public is split on Eve Adams’ move to the Liberals.  There is a major twist to the Eve Adams’ drama; her partner is Dimitri Soudas.  Mr. Soudas was a very close, senior associate of Stephen Harper, until he was fired about a year ago for meddling in an Eve Adams bid for a Conservative nomination.   My view, as to the impact of the Eve Adams move is questionable but it does show that Justin Trudeau is willing to fight dirty.  If it doesn’t work out then the Liberal Party machine will have had a few months of strategic advice from a couple of former Conservatives who know how to fight in the trenches.

Harper’s Mini-Cabinet Shuffle

With the resignation of John Baird, the Prime Minister rearranged his political chess board on Monday:  Jason Kenney moves from employment and social development to defence; Rob Nicholson moves from defence to foreign affairs; and Pierre Poilievre moves to employment and social development (and retains his responsibilities as Minister of State for Democratic Reform).  As to whether this shuffle of responsibilities is good for the country is still open to question?  My thoughts:  Kenney is a good choice for the defence ministry but he is going to run into a battle with the prime minister who likes the exposure when it comes to war and terrorism.  Nicholson is questionable for the foreign affairs ministry (he doesn’t speak French) but he will be under the thumb of the prime minister and won’t hog the spotlight.  Putting Pierre Poilievre into the employment and social development portfolio is an extremely bad choice – he has already screwed up the democratic reform file, a responsibility that he will keep.  To put Poilievre into the portfolio that deals with unions and the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, it’s going to be a disaster for the Conservatives.

Harper Meets with Angela Merkel

German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Prime Minister Harper for about an hour or so on Monday evening – the purpose, to update the prime minister on her diplomatic efforts in solving the eastern Ukraine crisis.  In the news conference afterwards it became clear from the Prime Minister’s comments that he remains hawkish (as does US President Obama) on Russia’s incursion on what is deemed to be sovereign Ukrainian territories.  As to other matters brought up at the news conference, it was clear that the Canada, Europe trade agreement is still being negotiated and not a done deal and that’s got to be a major irritation to the prime minister who wants the deal signed prior to an election – the prime minister has already announced that it is a done deal two or three times. 

Harper Takes Political Advantage of Terrorism

Whispering in the Wind (WITW 63) February 4, 2015

Being able to criticize and express disagreement is a critical component of Canada’s democratic system – a system that must be carefully protected and nurtured if Canada is to remain a civil, democratic society.  At the same time there are individuals and groups in Canada that advocate and promote: hate, insurrection and terrorism.  Prime Minister Harper in his wisdom has decided to deal with the realities of terrorism by implementing a two pronged anti-terrorism strategy.  As his strategy unfolds (and it is still unfolding) the political consequences are going to be huge.  I’ve already come to one conclusion and I hope I’m wrong:  In the effort to squash terrorism, entrenched freedoms will be restricted and offering legitimate criticism / disagreement will only be offered after thoughtful hesitation.      

Canada’s at War with ISIS

Last October Prime Minister Stephen Harper received approval from his “majority” government to join a consortium of nations and conduct airstrikes against ISIS militants in Iraq.  The six month air mission includes 10 aircraft and six hundred support personnel.  The Canadian mission also includes 69 “special forces” personnel that were dispatched to advise Iraq’s military and not be put in a position where they might face direct fire by ISIS militants.  Things have not gone as planned.  Reports from Iraq indicate that the airstrikes have had limited success, but it is the activities of the “special forces” group that is creating unnecessary havoc amongst Ottawa’s parliamentarians and the prime minister – all to the embarrassment of Canada’s Armed Forces.  From my perspective the review of the mission’s achievements in April will unfortunately focus on the logistics and tactics of the Armed Force rather than the future involvement of Canada in the fight against ISIS militants.  My advice to the prime minister:  leave it up to the generals to fight the battles in Iraq and pay more attention to gaining a trustful, working relationship with your political opponents in Ottawa.

Home Grown Terrorism in Canada

The Anti-Terrorism Act announced by Mr. Harper in Toronto last week is the prime minister’s response to last October’s murders of two uniformed soldiers in Quebec and Ottawa.  Canadians were clearly outraged by these two acts of home grown terrorism and are now anxious, if not fearing that more terrorist acts are being planned.  Analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act is starting to trickle out from lawyers and scholars with two major concerns already on the table.  First, the negative impact this anti-terrorism legislation is going to have on civil liberties?  One legal expert indicated that biased propaganda can be interpreted to incite people to act unlawfully in a terrorist act?  Second, a good number of politicians and political pundits are expressing major concerns regarding the new, sweeping powers given to Canada’s spy agency and not having sufficient parliamentary oversight in the expanded role of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).  My advice to the prime minister:  the Anti-Terrorism Act is very serious legislation that requires the support from all political perspectives – treat the proposed legislation as an opportunity to develop trust amongst political opponents – otherwise the view will be that Prime Minister Harper has developed a “new” Canada, the Harper Police State.