C-51: Anti-terror bill to be tweaked as committee begins clause-by-clause review

After spending much of last week hearing expert witnesses expound on the pros and cons of the government's proposed new anti-terror laws, the House public safety committee begins clause-by-clause review of the bill this morning.

Although currently scheduled to run for four hours, the session may wrap up sooner, or — more likely — go longer, depending on the number of amendments put forward for consideration.

The government has already signalled that it intends to have Conservative MPs propose three changes — the most significant of which is removing the word 'lawful' from the section exempting protests from the new measures — while the New Democrats and Green Party have prepared their own motions, and Green Party Elizabeth May plans to bring forward 60 potential tweaks.

Meanwhile, Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien — who was not among the expert witnesses invited to share his thoughts on the anti-terror bill — will discuss "terrorist financing in Canada and abroad" with Finance committee members, who will also hear from various lawyers and academics – and, by video conference from Maryland, Anti-Money Laundering Association senior fellow Amit Kumar.

Elsewhere on the committee front:

• Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander takes questions on his bid to crack down on early and forced marriage, as well as polygamy amongst citizenship applicants, permanent residents and refugee claimants.
• Veterans members get briefed on "upcoming commemoration initiatives."
• The Procedure and House Affairs committee goes behind closed doors to discuss their ongoing review of the MPs' conflict of interest code.

Back in the Chamber, MPs will devote the day to discussing the government's efforts to make rail travel and transport "safe and accountable."

Later this evening, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will get his second — and likely final — opportunity to convince his Commons colleague to change the rules governing the secretive all-party Board of Internal Economy that oversees House administration and financing to require that it "open its meetings, with certain exceptions, to the public," and also updates the Access to Information Act.

After the debate wraps up, Trudeau will host a "question-and-answer session" for MPs on his proposal, which could go to a vote later this week.

Before that gets underway, however, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault will unveil a special report entitled "Striking the Right Balance for Transparency," which will offer recommendations to "modernize" the Access to Information Act.

Also on the Hill today:

• Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page teams up with Canadian Union of Public Employees president Paul Moist and the Canadian Health Coalition at the Centre Block press theatre, where the group will reiterate "the importance of the Health Accord in terms of the fiscal stability and sustainability of the health care system."
• New Democrat MPs Charlie Angus and Romeo Saganash join Kashechwan First Nation Chief Derek Stephen to point out the "sub-standard dike" that, according to a new report, presents an "intolerable risk" of flooding within the community.
• Canadian Vietnamese Association representatives explain their opposition to "hate-inducing and job-killing" Bill S-219, which would establish a Journey of Freedom Day to "mark the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the Vietnam War," which was introduced by Conservative Senator Thanh Hai Ngo — "a former supporter of the Saigon regime," according to the group — and is currently before the House heritage committee."
• The Parliamentary Budget Office is also set to release a new report that investigates how much the federal government spends on child care, and "who benefits" therefrom.

Outside the precinct: Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford "highlights recent measures" to support British Columbia's "energy and mineral potential" during a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Mobile readers: Follow the Parliament Hill ticker here.

For up to the minute dispatches from the precinct and beyond, keep your eye on the Parliament Hill Ticker:

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Anti-terror bill amendments suggest power of public pressure

Barring a last-minute scheduling change later this morning, the House public safety committee will kick off — and, most likely, wrap up — clause-by-clause review of the government's anti-terror bill.

And barring a last-minute legislative strategy change, Conservative committee members will arrive at that meeting with a handful of small, but not insignificant, proposed amendments, the details of which were helpfully provided to CBC News by a senior government official last week.

Among the changes the government is prepared to make:

• Removing the word "lawful" from the section listing exemptions to the new counterterror measures addressing protests
• Clarifying that CSIS agents, while newly empowered to "disrupt" potential threats, will not be able to make arrests.
• Establishing limits on inter-agency information sharing.
• Adjusting a provision that would have given the public safety minister the power to direct air carriers to do "anything" that, in his or her view, is "reasonably necessary" to prevent a terrorist act.

While it may be tempting for parliamentary power-boosters to pop the champagne at what could be seen as a textbook example of the committee system working as intended, such celebration might be premature.

As Green Party Leader Elizabeth May noted while presenting her proposed amendments on Monday, such changes are "encouraging," but she credits them to public pressure, not parliamentary due diligence.

"They didn't listen to witnesses," she said.

"They're watching the polls."

Tory members irrelevant?

The series of events that led to amendments for the bill would seem to back up her theory.

For one thing, the Conservatives actually on the committee — whose number includes Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney's parliamentary secretary, Roxanne James — appear to have either been playing their cards close to the chest during last week's hearings, or were all but irrelevant to the decision to amend the bill.

At no point during the 18 or so hours of testimony on the bill did even one of them publicly voice concerns over any of the provisions that they will now propose be tweaked in response to witness concerns.

In fact, in at least one case — removing the word "lawful" — multiple witnesses, including those who were largely supportive of the bill, had recommended exactly such a change, as they were worried that it could otherwise see protests involving peaceful non-violent disobedience captured under the new measures.

As First Nations lawyer, author and activist Pam Palmater explained during her appearance before the committee: "The second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful."

Several of those witnesses pointed out that, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Liberal government of the day had initially included a similar provision in its anti-terror package, but struck it from the text after the expert witnesses of the day expressed concerns over potential overreach.

In response, Conservative committee members did their best to get witnesses they clearly saw as sympathetic to the government position — current and former law enforcement and security experts — to try to debunk such claims with varying degrees of success.

Witnesses who raised red flags over the implications for privacy — another criticism expected to be addressed via amendment today — were greeted with similar skepticism.

Indeed, the federal privacy commissioner didn't even make the witness list.

The Tory committee members had been unwavering in their confidence that not even a comma in the bill needed changing. So it came as a shock to hear the government was prepared to rework some of the more problematic sections.

Major concerns unaddressed

Several major concerns have still not been addressed by the amendments to be put forward by the government, including a contentious provision to allow CSIS agents to seek judicial authority to breach the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while engaging in disruption activities, and a beefed-up no-fly-list policy that still leaves it to airline employees, not law enforcement, to inform passengers who have been deemed too dangerous to fly that they won't be getting on the plane as planned.

At the moment, it's not clear whether the Conservative contingent will also be advised to throw their majority support behind additional, opposition-backed amendments or vote to reject certain clauses entirely, which would also result in changes being made to the bill.

A similar parliamentary plot twist occurred last spring, when after weeks of doggedly defending every aspect of Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre's controversial bid to revamp Canada's election laws, Conservative committee members found themselves introducing amendments to address precisely the concerns they had dismissed as unfounded.

And while it is always encouraging to see a government respond to constructive criticism, it doesn't do much to bolster the belief that committees — and, by inference their members — are masters of their own destiny when you can see senior ministerial advisers pulling the strings behind the scenes.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Canada's anti-ISIS mission could launch airstrikes in Syria within days

Canadian fighter jets will soon be launching airstrikes in Syria now that the House of Commons has approved the federal government's plan to expand and extend its military mission in Iraq.​

Federal MPs voted 142-129 in favour of a motion extending the mission for up to a full year and authorizing bombing runs in Syria against targets belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

A senior government source told CBC News that Canada could begin airstrikes on Syrian targets within a day or two.

The original mission deployed six CF-18 fighter jets, one CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft. Some 600 aircrew and other personnel are currently deployed.

Up to 69 special forces advisers will also remain in the region to advise and assist Kurdish peshmerga forces in their efforts to beat back the advance of ISIS militants.

A CF-18 Hornet from Air Task Force-Iraq engages in nighttime air-to-air refuelling with a CC-150T Polaris during Canada's combat mission against ISIS. MPs will vote Monday on whether to extend the mission for a year and expand the mandate to authorize airstrikes in Syria. (Canadian Forces Combat Camera)

The Conservatives say military strikes in Syria are legally justified and necessary, and that Canada has a moral obligation to do its part to beat back the global threat of terrorism.

"While the coalition has succeeded in stopping ISIL's territorial spread, the global threat that ISIL poses remains," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement after the vote.

"In particular, we cannot stand on the sidelines while ISIL continues to promote terrorism in Canada as well as against our allies and partners, nor can we allow ISIL to have a safe haven in Syria," Harper said.

Neither the NDP nor the Liberals supported the original mission, nor its extension, arguing the government had not adequately made the case for going to war in the first place and in the six months since, haven't been honest with Canadians about it the mission's true scope.

NDP amendments fail

The New Democrats had sought to amend the motion to remove Canadians from combat and refocus all the government's efforts on humanitarian work. Their amendments failed to pass.

The Conservatives say the plan to allow Canadian fighter jets to bomb ISIS targets within Syria would not be to prop up Assad. Islamic State fighters are using the eastern part of that country as a base and cannot be allowed to do so, they argue.

The opposition has argued that Canada lacks the legal basis to expand air strikes into Syria without that country's express consent, something the Conservatives had said last year they would seek before expanding the mission.

The government's premise that those strikes are legal because they are in Canada's self-defence does not hold water, the opposition says — an argument supported by the fact no other Western nation besides the U.S. is involved there.

"This is a serious ethical problem for Canada. Dismissing it betrays the government's lack of knowledge about a region that could suck Canada into decades of conflict," said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair during the debate Monday.

"The prime minister tells Canadians that we can either bomb Iraq and Syria, or sit on the sidelines. That's a false choice."

Irwin Cotler abstains from vote

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, well-respected by all MPs on matters of international law and human rights, had said he would abstain from the vote in part because of the government's Syrian approach.

"In October, I was unable to support the government's motion because of the Prime Minister's statement that Canada would give a veto to the criminal Assad regime," he said in a statement.

"I remain unable to support the government in this matter because its proposed expansion of Canada's mission continues to allow Assad to assault Syrian civilians with impunity."

Former Liberal MP Scott Andrews, now sitting as an Independent following his expulsion from caucus over allegations of sexual harassment, broke ranks with his former party and voted with the Conservatives in favour.

The extended timeline for the mission is in part so that a renewal wouldn't come during this fall's federal election.

Should they form government, the NDP have said they'd immediately pull Canada out of the bombing campaign, and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said he would do the same.

The Liberals, would, however, increase the number of soldiers sent to train Iraqis to fight ISIS.

But with no clear end goal for the bombing mission, Trudeau said Monday, it's not one his party can support.

"Will our involvement in this mission end next March, or was the foreign affairs minister being more truthful when he explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, saying that we are in this for the longer term," Trudeau said.

"We cannot allow rhetorical appeals to moral clarity to disguise the absence of a plan."

Among other things, Trudeau called for a massive expansion of Canada's resettlement program for refugees from the conflict and for more Canadian soldiers to be involved in training Iraqi forces.

There was no obligation for Parliament to vote on the mission before it began, but the Harper government has made it a practice to hold a vote prior to military deployments.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Working for Canada in a dangerous place? Here's your extra tax bill

Civil servants representing Canada in the world's most dangerous places are being hit by a personal income tax hike, a possibly unintended consequence of the 2012 budget that senior government officials are struggling to reverse.​

Changes that took hold in 2013 began treating group sickness or accident insurance plans — including accidental death and dismemberment policies for travel in war zones — as a taxable benefit.

Government employees assigned to high-risk travel are angry about paying hundreds or even thousands in extra taxes, just for the privilege of doing their jobs.

'Trips to these locations are no holidays.'—​ Chrystiane Roy, union spokeswoman

"The civil service is full of brave people with a strong sense of duty," said Scott Gilmore, a former foreign service officer who left to start his own non-governmental organization. "Some simply cannot afford to do something like that."

Because standard accident or life insurance policies may be void in conflict zones, a diplomat, immigration officer or humanitarian aid worker often needs extra coverage on certain assignments.

The cost varies, depending on the number of insured employees, the region, the nature of the work and the mode of transportation.

CBC News obtained stories from individuals serving in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia who crunched the numbers on the tax slips they received this year and worked out how much their assignments cost them in extra income taxes:

• Three days' travel to a country where Canada has no embassy: $240.​

• Five months serving in a mission later evacuated due to a deteriorating security situation: Almost $900.

• Occasional travel to another "high priority" country without a Canadian embassy, where the security situation is "extremely precarious": $700.

• Posting to a country with sporadic violence and civil war: $1,500.   

And diplomats assigned to evacuate Canadian citizens from a dangerous region were first sent without knowing if they had adequate insurance, then were taxed on it.

Managers at Foreign Affairs report an extra $600 tax hit for their group policy.

'Fairness' nets taxman extra $105M

Documents released to CBC News under the Access to Information Act show tax policy experts from the finance department met with foreign affairs officials to "hear their concerns." Legal counsel was also present. Most of the notes are redacted.

Talking points from Finance explain the goal was fairness: all employment benefits — private, public or not-for-profit sector, in-cash or in-kind — are to be included in an employee's income to ensure people with comparable incomes pay comparable taxes.

Across all sectors, making group sickness or accident insurance plans a taxable benefit is expected to net the federal government an additional $105 million annually by 2016-17, according to a document tabled in the House of Commons in late January.

But the punitive effect on the government's key people abroad was not anticipated or well explained. Confusion over the change is evident in the documents.

CBC News made a detailed inquiry about the issue to both departments. David Barnabe, a finance spokesman, replied only that the department "does not comment or speculate on possible policy actions, or discuss what might be under consideration."

"Further to the response you received from Finance, [Foreign Affairs] does not comment on ongoing discussions," Nicolas Doire, a department spokesman, wrote the next day.

Concerns 'falling on deaf ears'

Chrystiane Roy, a spokeswoman for the union that represents foreign service officers, said members were both offended and caught off-guard by the tax hit.

"Trips to these locations are no holidays. They are deemed essential by the employer and could hardly be described as a benefit," she wrote to CBC. "No government should resolve its budget issues on the back of the safety and security of its employees." 

Some of her members found out about their extra taxes after accepting a posting or returning from a trip. Meetings to resolve the issue "seem to be falling on deaf ears," Roy said.

'One day the government will pay dearly.'— Ferry de Kerckhove, former diplomat

Collective bargaining now underway can't address the concerns. A change to tax law can only be fixed with another change to tax law — an exemption or change of interpretation.

An amendment to the Income Tax Act could quietly appear in a budget implementation bill later this spring. But if the Harper government really wanted to fix it in a hurry, cabinet ministers could change it with an order-in-council.

"In order to get the best people you have to treat them fairly," said ex-diplomat Gilmore. "The people who manage people are not the same people who manage money," he said.

"There's a huge disconnect between Treasury Board and Foreign Affairs," he said. 

'Diplomats don't sit in Vienna'​

In some ways, Gilmore said, things have improved in the decade since he left. 

When he volunteered to evacuate Canadians from East Timor, he was sent with no extra insurance and no hostile environment training. When he realized he'd landed in the middle of a shooting war, he borrowed body armour from a departing CNN crew.

Military deployments in Afghanistan, and more recently in northern Iraq, have been twinned with foreign aid announcements — requiring both boots and briefcases on the ground.

"Diplomats don't sit in Vienna anymore," Gilmore said.

Afghanistan offers a sad, cautionary tale about insuring for worst-case scenarios.

When diplomat Glyn Berry was killed by a car bomb in 2006, he did not have this extra insurance. His family negotiated a one-off settlement with the federal government to compensate for what his dependants might have received.

Ex-ambassador Ferry de Kerckhove, who was Berry's boss in Pakistan, said the late diplomat begged to go.

But the mentality in the foreign service is changing, de Kerckhove believes, and nickel-and-diming won't go over well with younger generations.

"The way the department is going is very sad," he says. "It's been deliberately emasculated, and one day the government will pay dearly."

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Watchdog to report on 'modernizing' access to information system

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's private member's bill to expand transparency up later today

By Kady O'Malley, CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2015 9:08 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 9:43 AM ET

Canada's federal information watchdog is poised to share her vision of a 21st-century access regime.

In a report to be tabled in the House of Commons this morning, Suzanne Legault will lay out her recommendations on how to "modernize" the existing Access to Information Act to "strike the right balance for transparency."

The commissioner's report comes just hours before Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will get his second — and likely final — opportunity to convince his Commons colleagues to back his private member's bid to update the Act to require the department to release data in "machine-readable format."

If adopted, Trudeau's proposal would also shift the onus when it comes to the government's compliance with requests: requiring that "access prevails" in cases where there is uncertainty whether an exception applies to a requested record. His proposal would give the commissioner the power to issue compliance orders.

The bill would also change the rules that govern the secretive all-party committee responsible for overseeing MP expenses and House administration costs to require its meetings, which are currently held behind closed doors, to be open to the public, albeit with "certain exceptions."

After the debate wraps up in the Commons this evening, Trudeau will host a "question-and-answer session" for MPs on his bill, which could go to a vote later this week.

During the first round of debate last November, Conservative MP Dan Albas indicated that the government would not support it, which means it will be defeated unless Conservative backbenchers break rank with cabinet to side with the opposition.

Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

Submission Policy

Note: The CBC does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that comments are moderated and published according to our submission guidelines.

Stay Connected with CBC News

Latest Politics News Headlines

The House

• Canada's end game in Iraq, Syria Mar. 28, 2015 2:01 PM This week on The House, with MPs set to vote next week on the extension and expansion of Canada's mission to fight ISIS, we ask Defence Minister Jason Kenney what our long-term objectives are. We also ask former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May for their take.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Brace yourself, Canada, for the moral maze that is Syria: Brian Stewart

In all of Canada's long military history, we've likely never known less about a territory we are about to attack than the Syria we're going bomb from on high.  

We're not alone in that ignorance as virtually no one today can figure out the full scale of the explosive, antagonist-rich tinderbox and moral disaster zone that is present day Syria.

Certainly not the U.S., nor the few Arab countries that will be our sole allies in bombing the ISIS operations there.

Our normal Western allies in these kinds of operations, including the British, French, Dutch, Danes and Australians, fear Syria is an impenetrable maze of horrors and want nothing to do with such attacks.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron tried to lead his country into bombing Syria in 2013, the U.K. Parliament acted as if he'd lost his marbles. A free vote of MPs roared a resounding "no way."

To put it squarely, there is a democratic and Western world consensus — minus only the U.S. and Canada — that feels military attacks on Syria are far too risky for military, political, legal and, yes, even moral reasons.

The moral objections may seem surprising at first, for surely there is "moral clarity," as Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson puts it, in attacking the murderous ISIS regime almost anywhere you find them.

The problem, however, is that it is not at all clear that Canadian attacks inside Syria won't make a chaotic situation even more deadly for innocent civilians.

For example, many argue that Western airstrikes would only help and embolden the Assad dictatorship, whose crimes against humanity probably surpass even ISIS itself.

Exacerbate local wars

The other, less acknowledged risk of Western intervention is that bombing ISIS targets in eastern Syria might encourage the spread of other groups involved in the fighting, in the process igniting more regional blood-feuds.

Given we know so little about what we are getting into, we might see both results — a strengthened Assad plus more local wars — without guaranteeing the eradication of ISIS.

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is shown here during the filming of a BBC interview in February in which he said third parties were keeping him informed about the U.S. air strikes in Syria. (REUTERS)

As Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, warned Western nations recently, outside intervention might well only exacerbate local wars while making the interveners (in this case us) even more the focus of Islamic jihadists.

What's more, it is dodging the issue to think that Canada's contribution will be small, and relatively inconsequential.

Canada's airstrikes will have an impact. A half dozen CF-18 aircraft dropping packs of 500-pound bombs in successive waves will not be mere pin-pricks.

The U.S. values Canadian expertise in modern bombing, and looks to us to step up the pace of the offensive, as we did over Kosovo and, more recently, Libya.

But the moral dilemma is that while we will use the latest precision bombs we cannot be precise about the aftermath on the ground.

We will kill ISIS members, yes. But which militia groups will move in? Will civilians be saved, or just threatened, abused, even massacred again?

Rebel madness

What we do know about the Syrian civil war is that some of the groups fighting Assad and/or ISIS are almost as bad when it comes to atrocities.

Rights organizations have been warning for years of growing crimes against humanity by certain opposition militia, crimes that include torture, use of child soldiers and mass killings.

"We've seen a race to the bottom in Syria with rebel groups mimicking the ruthlessness of government forces with devastating consequences for civilians," says Nadim Houry, a deputy director of Human Rights Watch in the Middle East.

Yes, many opposition groups are worthy of support.

But it's important to remember that the so-called "National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces" is united in name only.

On the ground, there's an anarchy of hundreds of competing militias — the BBC has estimated there are up to 1,000 of them — who have failed to coalesce under one command because of bitter rivalries.

One of the most experienced observers of this catastrophic war, Stephen Starr, author of Revolt in Syria: Eyewitness to the Uprising, doubts unity will come anytime soon, as these fragmented rebel formations are ruled by narrow ambitions.

"Each local commander wanted to be boss, to take on and defeat Assad by himself," Starr wrote recently. "Instead the rebels have been torn apart by jihadist groups."

Dodgy detente

Civil wars are notoriously conducive to war crimes, as we saw during the 15-year Lebanese civil war (1975-90) next door where all factions, including Muslims and Christians, were guilty of extreme horrors.

Let's remember, too, that when the U.S. Marines tried to intervene in Lebanon that ignited whole new rounds of unpredictable fighting, even a Syrian invasion.

In this case, Canada's planned extension of the ISIS campaign into Syria is almost certainly only taking place under some sort of unspoken deal between the U.S.-led coalition and the profoundly offensive Assad regime — an understanding that is likely endorsed by the regime's key war-backers, Russia and Iran, as useful to Assad's survival.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the air strikes in Syria are legal as they are in defence of Iraq and that anyway ISIS is unlikely to sue. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists there is no "explicit" agreement with Assad in place, but that is a meaningless argument in this context.

Syria's Russian-supplied air defences are much degraded but still potentially dangerous.

As neither the U.S. nor Canada wants to have to attack these air and missile defences, it's quite clear that some go-ahead to bomb has been obtained, even if it is just to avoid needless incidents.

What we are talking about is really a kind of dodgy detente that will permit Canada to bomb Syrian territory, and this is just one part of the moral maze we are now about to enter. We may be lost inside for quite some time. 

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Federal government's new payment would give seriously injured soldiers up to $70k

New Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole has introduced several new benefits this month

CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2015 2:54 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 29, 2015 6:07 PM ET

CBC News has learned the Conservative government will announce legislation Monday that will create a new payment worth up to $70,000 for soldiers who have been seriously injured in the service of their country. 

The new benefit will apply only to the most seriously wounded soldiers, but will also be applied retroactively.

This change is yet another action taken by the government in recent weeks to improve the suite of benefits available to Canadian veterans.

New Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole, who took over from Julian Fantino in January, has travelled the country promising veteran amputees they won't have to verify lost limbs, expanding benefits for reservists and grants for "informal caregivers" of injured veterans to hire help.

However, neither the new award nor any of the other changes address the key complaint of veterans: the loss of monthly pensions as a benefit for all wounded vets under the New Veterans Charter introduced in 2006.

The official government notice paper dated Friday said O'Toole will announce "An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act."

Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.

Submission Policy

Note: The CBC does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that CBC has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that comments are moderated and published according to our submission guidelines.

Stay Connected with CBC News

Latest Politics News Headlines

The House

• Canada's end game in Iraq, Syria Mar. 28, 2015 2:01 PM This week on The House, with MPs set to vote next week on the extension and expansion of Canada's mission to fight ISIS, we ask Defence Minister Jason Kenney what our long-term objectives are. We also ask former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May for their take.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Glenn Stannard, watchdog who slammed military police, calls it quits

Glenn Stannard, the military watchdog who authored a stinging report into the suicide of a Canadian soldier, has stepped down.

He retired last week after serving roughly five years as head of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Stannard delayed his retirement to complete the commission's inquiry into the 2008 hanging death of Canadian Army Cpl. Stuart Langridge.

His final report, issued earlier this month, delivered a sharp rebuke to the military and its handling of the investigation into the corporal's death. Stannard determined military police botched three investigations through a series of what he called "unacceptable errors."

An entire bookshelf in Stannard's office in downtown Ottawa is filled with documents from that inquiry. Sitting behind his desk on Friday, his last day on the job, Stannard reflected on the Langridge case and why he decided to see it through to the end before leaving his job for good.

"It was a matter that I had committed to finish," he said.

"Obviously, not to do it would be a failure on my part."

Before joining the Military Police Complaints Commission, Stannard served with the Windsor Police Service for nearly four decades, including eight years as chief. One of the criticisms he levelled at military police investigators in the Langridge case is that they lacked the experience necessary to carry out a thorough inquiry into a sudden death.

In his report, Stannard recommended the military allow civilian police to lead investigations into fatalities within the military, at least until military investigators could acquire the experience and expertise to do it on their own. It's still an issue for Stannard as he leaves his role as commission chair.

"Military police don't have the same opportunities for the breadth of experience on the bases that maybe some of the civilian police have," Stannard said.

"Civilian police may have more opportunity to deal with more serious crime, more opportunity to deal with volumes of crime versus what happens on the bases."

In the Langridge case, the complaints commission was highly critical of military police and the Canadian Forces provost marshal, Col. Rob Delaney, for rejecting many of the commission's recommendations. Delaney at first tried to block the release of its official response to the report altogether. Stannard said he was able to meet with Delaney during his final week on the job to discuss his concerns. The results of the meeting, though, were inconclusive.

"The provost marshal has provided me with — I don't know whether you want to call it assurances — but he's provided me the comments that he is looking at the recommendations," Stannard said.

While the inquiry into the death of Langridge was the last major investigation on Stannard's watch, it is not the only high profile case he has overseen.

Stannard also led an inquiry into military police involvement in the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan. That inquiry looked at whether military investigators should have done more to prevent possible torture of those prisoners at the hands of Afghan authorities. Stannard's final report found investigators acted appropriately. But it slammed the federal government for attempting to delay or block key evidence in the case.   

As he retires, Stannard is underlining the importance of independent watchdog agencies like the one he led; a pertinent issue as parliament debates Bill C-51, the government's anti-terror legislation. Stannard says oversight is always vital. He disagrees, however, with some critics of the bill who have called for Members of Parliament to watch over Canada's security agencies, saying that role should be kept free of politics.

Stannard said he is returning to his hometown of Windsor, Ont., for his retirement.

The Military Police Complaints Commission has named Michel Seguin, a former member of the RCMP, as its new interim chair.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

National Firearms Association ignoring questions about C-51, members complain

The National Firearms Association is deleting questions posted to its Facebook page about why it pulled out of a committee looking at the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, and some members are complaining.

On Monday a lawyer for the gun owners' group had been scheduled to appear on a panel regarding concerns about Bill C-51. 

Legal experts have raised a number of concerns about the bill's scope, the lack of oversight, and possible threats to privacy regarding clauses to allow information-sharing between government departments.

After a number of witnesses supportive of the bill agreed it needed amendments, the government decided to propose changes to C-51.

The cancellation came as gun owners grow increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress by Bill C-42, changes to the Firearms Act that the government refers to as its "common sense" firearms bill.

Open Media, which was to share its time with the National Firearms Association​, distributed a press release ahead of the cancellation that said the two groups were appearing together "to ensure that the concerns of firearms owners about the legislation can be heard."

'No compromise'

Media reports about the cancellation led some members of the gun owners' group to question the reason behind it. That in turn led, according to posts on Facebook, to the firearms association deleting posts that were critical or questioned the decision.

The Facebook page is closed to non-members, but screen captures of the conversation were provided to CBC News.

"So my posts asking why the NFA pulled out of the C-51 debate [keep] getting taken down," one member complained.

"So why is it I spent $400 in fees and donations that I could have used to feed my self and put gas in my car, to an organization that is not transparent to the paying members?"

Another pointed to the organization's "no compromise" motto.

"No compromise. Even when it comes to [answering] its paying members," he wrote.

Directors taking association to court

Sheldon Clare, the president of the National Firearms Association​, didn't respond to a request for comment about the Facebook page, nor did he respond to a request for comment about the committee cancellation.

Neither Solomon Friedman, the organization's lawyer, nor Blair Hagen, the group's spokesman, responded to a request for comment.

The tensions may be exacerbated because of a lawsuit among leaders within the organization.

Earlier this month, several members of the group's executive filed a claim in Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench seeking access to the organization's records, among other remedies.

Five of the National Firearms Association directors claim the group hasn't provided audited financial records to its members since 2010 and isn't keeping minutes of its meetings. They also say Clare has made "unfounded" statements about two of them.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

MPs to vote on motion to support extension of ISIS mission tonight

The House of Commons is expected to vote tonight on the Conservative government's proposal to extend its military campaign in Iraq for up to one year and authorize airstrikes in Syria.

Up to 69 special forces advisers will also remain in the region to advise and assist Kurdish peshmerga forces in their efforts to beat back the advance of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Debate on the motion began last Thursday and continues today. Here is a look at some of the themes of the debate so far:

On national security:

The Conservatives partially framed the need for military strikes against ISIS targets as necessary to protect Canadians, given the potential for ISIS ideology to radicalize people in this country.

"Saying that Canada should only have a humanitarian aid role in the international effort to contain [ISIS] is akin to saying that it is not in our nation's interest to prevent assault before it happens, rather to stand by and watch it occur and be satisfied in providing food, shelter and victim support services only after the crime has been committed," said Conservative MP Michelle Rempel.

Some New Democrats maintain there's no proof that ISIS is in fact a domestic threat.

All the threats to Canada have come via the Internet, said the NDP's Alex Atamenko.

"If that is the case, do we realistically believe that these messages will stop as we continue to bomb the hell out of this region?" he asked.

"I submit that they will increase, and ISIS will recruit more deranged individuals to its cause."

On expanding the mission into Syria:

When the government first signed on to the U.S.-led coalition to defeat ISIS, it ruled out airstrikes in Syria on the grounds that it would first need the explicit consent of that country's government and its leader, Bashar Assad.

The Conservatives have changed their thinking on that proposition.

"We have seen, as [ISIS] has been degraded within Iraq, that they have been moving heavy equipment and personnel into Syria, and they cannot or should not be given a free ride just because we disagree with the government in Syria," said Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May argued there are clear consequences of that choice.

"We do not want to admit that if we are successful in Syria, we will have made Bashar al-Assad secure by removing a dreadful force that also happens to be against him," she said.

On ISIS brutality:

Human rights groups and the United Nations have accused ISIS of carrying out war crimes and human rights violations and talk of those crimes found its way into the debate.

The Conservatives argue airstrikes are necessary to prevent everything from the sexual slavery of children to mass murder. Tory MP Cathy McLeod referred to ISIS as a "genocidal death cult" — a line also popular with Defence Minister Jason Kenney — while her colleague Kellie Leitch said they represent "all that is evil in the world."

Conservative MP Mark Astral said ISIS "wears its heinous crimes as badges of honour and broadcasts its barbarism widely in order to try to win depraved individuals over to its jihadist terrorist cause."

But bombing militants is not the solution, New Democrats argue.

"We need to support the development of social infrastructure, supporting the communities themselves, and that means addressing the structural inequalities underpinning the violence in order to eliminate the possibility of more extremism arising," said NDP MP Mylene Freeman.

On humanitarian support:

The Conservatives say they do not view the solutions to the conflict in military terms alone, but insist that security must come first.

"The military components allow for the aid to flow to more areas and allow for more accountability and security," said Conservative associate defence minister Julian Fantino, who used to be in charge of Canada's aid portfolio.

"That, of course, is what aid workers need. We cannot help these people in need with this threat looming over their heads."

The opposition, however, say it is humanitarian support that must be prioritized.

"We must do more to help vulnerable refugee families, because it is a Canadian value, and so that these families' soldiers can confidently fight [ISIS]," said Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

GreenPAC hopes to put environmental champions on federal ballot

A new political action committee has been formed to match political donors interested in environmental issues with candidates from all political parties willing to champion the same cause. (CBC)

It's not often you see a celebration about the environment these days.

But at Toronto's Green Living Show, along with the electric cars and organic carrots, a launch party was held Friday for a new way to support political candidates in the next federal election.

"We want to get a critical mass of environment champions elected to government," said Aaron Freeman, founder and president of GreenPAC.

It's a political action committee dedicated to selecting environmentally friendly candidates from the political parties. 

GreenPac hopes to match those candidates with donors who will support the campaigns directly.

How? GreenPAC will choose a list of environmental leaders from among political candidates across the country in the next election. 

Then it will link those candidates with people on its list of pledged donors, matching the interest of each as closely as possible.

'We're the Lavalife of environmental politics.'— Aaron Freeman, president of GreenPAC

"We're the Lavalife of environmental politics," jokes Freeman, who has held roles as an environmentalist, law professor and adviser to former Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty.

"GreenPAC is trying to take the broad support that exists for environmental issues and focus it on a few leaders that we can get elected to make a difference." 

Ballot decisions rarely about environment

The idea springs from what Freeman calls a growing "frustration" that all the talk about the environment never really plays a role in federal voting patterns. 

Aaron Freeman (left), seen here with NDP MP Andrew Cash at Friday's launch party, is the founder and president of GreenPAC. (CBC)

​Research shows that fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians put the environment first when it comes to casting their ballot.

"It's because there's never a second choice on the ballot," said Freeman.

The new political action committee will provide supporters with a list of candidates from across the country. So even if there's no one in their riding that's pro-environment, they have the option of donating to someone who is. 

"I think if we elected three or four environmental champions in this election, that would be tremendous," said Freeman, who believes that even a small number of dedicated MPs can make a difference. 

American tactic

Political action committees, or PACs, are common in the U.S. They're used to funnel financial support to single-issue causes, such as boosting the number of female candidates. They also fund partisan attack ads.

They're less common in Canada because of the strict limits on political donations.

GreenPAC has adapted its design from the American model and promises to be non-partisan, picking candidates from all parties. 

But NDP MP Andrew Cash, who came to the GreenPAC launch, is skeptical that's possible with the current political climate.

"We have a government currently that has a very specific, in a sense, pro-fossil fuel agenda," he said. "So I will be very interested to see if they find some Conservative members that they can endorse." 

(CBC)

​

Social media levels the playing field

Pollster and communications adviser Bruce Anderson said it may take time for a green political action committee to catch on.

But Anderson, who heads Anderson Insight, thinks social media is changing the political landscape in a way that could make environmental PACs more accessible to voters. 

Pollster Bruce Anderson says GreenPAC could work if it directs voters to candidates with moderate environmental views. (CBC News)

"The digital age has levelled the playing field for these kinds of things to happen that don't require lots of money to be spent,"  said Anderson. 

"So I think it's too early to tell whether this one will work, but not too early to say there will be more like it in the months and years to come." 

GreenPAC is hoping to attract 10,000 supporters in the next few months, getting ready for what many predict could be an election where the environment has a much bigger profile.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Commons renovates to squeeze in 30 more MPs after fall election

In politics, voters often want nothing more than to throw the bums out. But in Ottawa these days, the question being asked is how to squeeze even more bums into the seats in the House of Commons.

The number of ridings represented on Parliament Hill will grow in the next election. Under the government's Fair Representation Act, introduced in 2011, the House will expand by 30 seats.

Federal bureaucrats have been scratching their heads since the legislation passed, trying to draw up plans to fit 338 MPs into a chamber that now fits just 308. When Parliament is dissolved in the coming election, those plans will finally be put into action.

Nancy Chahwan, assistant deputy minister at the Department of Public Works, dropped some hints this week.

"We will be ready," Chahwan said during an appearance before a Commons Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.  

"We have been working for a good period of time with the House of Commons to design additional seats."

House of Commons to install theater seating for new MPs1:52

Chahwan revealed that the two back rows of seats on both sides of the Commons will be replaced with what she calls "theatre seating." 

As the name suggests, these seats will fold up to save space. There will also be more of them to cram in 30 more MPs.

Newly released photos from Public Works Canada show the new seats will be designed to blend in with the older ones. The department expects the new seats to be installed by the fall of 2015, in time for the next Parliament.

The project is expected to cost $2.75 million. Public Works says that includes the design, manufacture and installation of the new seats as well as the cost of wiring up the microphones and earpieces at MPs' desks for translation and communications.

'Can't stack us up like cordwood'

New Democrat MP Pat Martin, who is a trained carpenter, said he likes the design of the new seats. Martin is chair of the government operations and estimates committee. This week was the first time he had heard any details about the plan to rip out the back two rows of the Commons, he said.

"They can't stack us up like cordwood," he said after looking at photos of the new seats.

"Thirty more MPs are going to arrive.… come hell or high water. So, I have to admit they've come up with a pretty creative solution."

In the fall of 2015, 30 new MPs will enter the House of Commons forcing a new, tighter seating arrangement. (Public Works Canada)

Martin questions the cost of the project, however. 

"It does seem a staggering amount of money to buy a bit of office furniture," he said.

Martin also sees some potential drawbacks. In the current setup, most MPs sit two-by-two. With the new design, some members in the back rows of the Commons will be relegated to that place every air traveller tries to avoid — the middle seat.

Plus-size MPs test new seats

The new folding chairs are designed to at least be comfortable, even if a MP has to shimmy past colleagues to take a phone call or answer the call of nature. To that end, when the seats were first unveiled, five MPs who are of larger stature were invited to try them out. 

"We called ourselves the Big Five," said Conservative MP Joe Preston, who was part of that trial run.

These are prototypes of new seating that will be featured in the House of Commons after the 2015 elections brings 30 new MPs. (Public Works)

Preston declined to identify his four plus-sized seatmates, but said they could all sit together in a single row of the new seats.  

"These seats were incredibly good," he said.

No matter how comfortable, MPs won't be sitting in the new chairs very long. Centre Block on Parliament Hill, which is home to both the House of Commons and the Senate, is set for a major multiyear renovation that's scheduled to begin in 2018.

The plan is for the Commons to move to a temporary home in West Block while the work is being done. Public Works says it has not been determined yet whether the new theatre-style seats will be a permanent fixture in the Commons or if they'll be torn out and replaced with something else.  

The overall cost of refurbishing Parliament now stands at roughly $3 billion.

In their appearance before the Commons committee this week, Public Works officials assured the panel of sometimes skeptical MPs that the project is running on time and on budget.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Iraq, Syria need to 'take responsibility for their own security' post-ISIS

Canada's defence minister says whatever happens in Iraq and Syria once the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS, is defeated will be up to local populations, not Canada.

"At the end of the day, the Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for their own security," Jason Kenney told CBC Radio's The House. "And the same is true in Syria. We Canadians are not in a position to go and to try to create a model democracy in Syria."

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid out his plan to expand Canada's existing mission in both scope and length, saying he wants support for an air mission against ISIS which would include strikes on targets inside Syria. 

Kenney told host Evan Solomon that the government's preference is to "develop a truce in the Syrian civil war" that will eventually lead to a responsible government that respected human rights, different faiths and diversity.

Even if he doesn't want Canada to be too closely involved in the future of the region beyond humanitarian aid, the defence minister argues Canada had to intervene when it did. 

"The alternative if the allied countries had not begun to take action against ISIL both in Iraq and eastern Syria, what we would have today is an organization in control probably of most of Iraq and roughly half of Syria with its own energy revenues. With its own economy. With its own pseudo-state. Imagine the destructive power of a so-called caliphate like this," Kenney said.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney argues that once ISIS is defeated, Canada will not in a position to create a model democracy in the region currently occupied by the organization. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The leader of the Green Party cautions that not worrying about what comes next could have devastating consequences.

Elizabeth May told The House that what's happened to Libya post-intervention shows that military actions can have unintended consequences.

"I believe we made matters worse in Libya," May told host Evan Solomon. "We run a very high degree of risk of making things worse by emboldening ISIS, by creating greater recruits to ISIS," May said.

The Green Party leader also said that targeting ISIS may end up helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and further destabilize the region.

CBC Radio's The House airs Saturdays on CBC Radio One at 9 a.m. and on SiriusXM Ch. 169.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

John Baird, ex-foreign affairs minister, to advise Barrick Gold

Former foreign affairs minister John Baird has a new job as an adviser to global mining giant Barrick Gold, the corporation has confirmed.

In its annual report, the company listed Baird and former U.S. lawmaker Newt Gingrich as members of its international advisory board.

Barrick Gold says the group is made up of 10 external advisers who meet about once a year to provide advice to the board of directors and management on geopolitical and strategic matters.

The corporation also says individual members of the board can weigh in throughout the year, as needed.

Barrick Gold, which has its international headquarters in Toronto, has interests in nearly 15 countries around the world, including major corporations in the U.S. 

In a surprise move in February, Baird announced he was leaving Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet.

The 45-year-old subsequently resigned as the MP for Ottawa-West Nepean on March 16.

As foreign affairs minister, Baird was responsible for handling challenging diplomatic issues such as the crisis in Ukraine, Canada's mission against ISIS and the case of jailed Canadian-Egyptian journalist Mohamed Fahmy.

Baird, who was replaced as minister by Rob Nicholson, has spent much of his adult life in the political arena.

He was first elected as an MP in 2006 after spending a decade at the Ontario provincial legislature where he served in the cabinet of former Ontario premier Mike Harris.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

How ISIS is different from al-Qaeda

According to the Government of Canada (and indeed, most Western politicians), the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria represents a dramatic escalation of the terror threat to Western countries.

So it may seem odd to read the following passage in ISIS's official English-language publication Dabiq, looking back on the years immediately after 9/11:

"Europe was struck by attacks that killed multitudes more of kuffar [disbelievers] than those killed in the recent Paris attacks. The 2004 Madrid operation and the 2005 London operation together killed more than 200 crusaders and injured more than 2000."

Indeed, the Paris attacks in January were by far the most lethal jihadi terror attack on the West in the decade since the 7/7 attacks in London. And yet the Madrid bombings killed more than 10 times as many people. (Moreover, the Charlie Hebdo attack was not even as ISIS operation, but the work of an older nemesis: al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.)

ISIS has begun minting its own currency of gold, silver and copper dinars, as it tries to develop the trappings of a real state. (ISIS)

​Dabiq goes on to ask:

"So why was the reaction to the recent attacks much greater than that of any previous attack? It is the international atmosphere of terror generated by the presence of the Islamic khilafah [caliphate] … It is the lively words contained in the khilafah's call."

In other words, fewer Westerners are being killed, but ISIS's hype – its "lively words" – maximizes the psychological effect of the smaller operations that take place today, which typically leave one or two dead, such as the soldiers attacked on a London street, or in St.Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., and on Parliament Hill. And the civilian attacks in cafés in Copenhagen and Sydney.

In some respects, ISIS is merely treading a path laid down by its parent organization al-Qaeda, from which it split a year ago.

It was al-Qaeda that developed the technique of dressing hostages in orange jumpsuits and beheading them on video. Westerners like Daniel Pearl and Ken Bigley suffered that fate long before anyone had had heard of ISIS.

So why has ISIS failed to inspire more and bigger attacks in the West?

ISIS limited by its ideology

The answer lies partly in the apocalyptic ideology of the movement.

ISIS believes that its future is already determined by prophesy. It is pre-ordained that ISIS will face and defeat the "crusader" forces on a plain near the Syrian farming village of Dabiq (hence the magazine's name.) 

Some time after, the "Dajjal" [the anti-Christ] will appear. The forces of the caliphate will be reduced to a mere 5,000 men. There will be a final battle at the gates of Rum, commonly held to be Istanbul. At that point Issa ibn-Maryam, known to Christians as Jesus, will descend from heaven and kill Dajjal with a spear, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat and heralding the end of the world.

While al-Qaeda prefers to operate in the shadows, ISIS ideology requires it to act like a national government. (ISIS)

The group also believes that for all of this to unfold as planned, it is necessary to re-establish the Muslim caliphate abolished by Ataturk in 1923.

That means that unlike al-Qaeda, a shape-shifting clandestine insurgency that operated around the world, ISIS must control and govern real territory.

The main service an aspiring jihadi can render to the Islamic State, therefore, is not to stage attacks far away in the West, but to come to the caliphate and join its army.

What's asked of Western Muslims

Dabiq explains the position of ISIS leadership to its readers:

"The first priority is to perform hijrah [pilgrimage] from wherever you are to the Islamic State ... Rush to the shade of the Islamic State with your parents, siblings, spouses, and children.

"Second, if you cannot perform hijrah for whatever extraordinary reason, then try in your location to organize bay'at [pledges of allegiance]) to the khalifah Ibrahim. Publicize them as much as possible … Try to record these bay'at and then distribute them through all forms of media including the internet."

Curiously, the article does not ask Muslims in the West to stage attacks. In some later pronouncements ISIS has called for attacks, but only in cases where it is impossible to travel.

Jihadis leaving the West

There is no doubt that the announcement of the Islamic State has caused excitement in jihadi circles (though less noticed, it also caused division.) That excitement led to an unprecendented migration of jihadi-minded individuals.

ISIS has become like a vortex, sucking jihadis away from their home countries and into the maelstrom of Syria. Many are dying there, some within days. Others burn their passports or surrender them to the organization. Return to the West, far from being encouraged, is seen as a personal and religious failure.

Dabiq encourages its Western Muslim readers to make public pledges of loyalty to the Islamic State. (Dabiq)

With their departure, these jihadis lose the ability to stage attacks in the West. Where previously Western countries may have been unable to arrest them due to lack of evidence, they can now be targeted for death by Western bombs. And if they do attempt to return, they can be imprisoned for having joined ISIS.

To be clear, the spread of ISIS is a tragedy for the people of Syria and Iraq, particularly those who belong to minorities targeted for extermination under the group's ideology. The group continues to commit sickening atrocities against people under its rule.

But here in the West, politicians have failed to explain how the ISIS phenomenon is more dangerous than al-Qaeda, with its calculated efforts to insinuate agents into Western countries and its ambitious mass-casualty attacks.

The hype of ISIS — that stream of "lively words" — depends on an echo chamber in the West, made up of politicians and media who find it convenient to play up ISIS's claim that it is an existential threat to Western civilization. That feeds into its propaganda that it is a uniquely powerful force capable of bringing on the end of the world.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Iraq, Syria need to 'take responsibility for their own security' post-ISIS

Canada's defence minister says whatever happens in Iraq and Syria once the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS, is defeated will be up to local populations, not Canada.

"At the end of the day, the Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for their own security," Jason Kenney told CBC Radio's The House. "And the same is true in Syria. We Canadians are not in a position to go and to try to create a model democracy in Syria."

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid out his plan to expand Canada's existing mission in both scope and length, saying he wants support for an air mission against ISIS which would include strikes on targets inside Syria. 

Kenney told host Evan Solomon that the government's preference is to "develop a truce in the Syrian civil war" that will eventually lead to a responsible government that respected human rights, different faiths and diversity.

Even if he doesn't want Canada to be too closely involved in the future of the region beyond humanitarian aid, the defence minister argues Canada had to intervene when it did. 

"The alternative if the allied countries had not begun to take action against ISIL both in Iraq and eastern Syria, what we would have today is an organization in control probably of most of Iraq and roughly half of Syria with its own energy revenues. With its own economy. With its own pseudo-state. Imagine the destructive power of a so-called caliphate like this," Kenney said.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney argues that once ISIS is defeated, Canada will not in a position to create a model democracy in the region currently occupied by the organization. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The leader of the Green Party cautions that not worrying about what comes next could have devastating consequences.

Elizabeth May told The House that what's happened to Libya post-intervention shows that military actions can have unintended consequences.

"I believe we made matters worse in Libya," May told host Evan Solomon. "We run a very high degree of risk of making things worse by emboldening ISIS, by creating greater recruits to ISIS," May said.

The Green Party leader also said that targeting ISIS may end up helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and further destabilize the region.

CBC Radio's The House airs Saturdays on CBC Radio One at 9 a.m. and on SiriusXM Ch. 169.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Bill to delay statutory release for repeat violent offenders

A former public safety official says the Conservative government's new bill to delay when repeat violent offenders at the federal level may be eligible for statutory release from prison will "make the system actually much worse and will not improve public safety."

The government quietly introduced C-56, the Statutory Release Reform Act, on Friday in House of Commons.

Repeat violent offenders, under the amended laws, would only be eligible for statutory release six months before the end of their sentence, from current legislation that allows them to be released two-thirds of the way into their sentence. 

The government bill amends both the Corrections Act and the Conditional Release Act. The bill also applies to repeat Canadians who commit offences and are detained in foreign states under the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

Repeat violent offenders belong to a group that actually needs the most support in reintegration, according to Mary Campbell, former director general of corrections policy at Public Safety Canada.

"They are the more difficult group and so what are we doing? We're giving them a shorter period of reintegration. We're giving them less help through this bill and that makes no sense whatsoever," she said.

"You might want to do more specialized preparation for their release or different kind of supervision, but to give them less support and less time under supervision just seems contrary to the best public safety."

Victims' rights over criminals

Currently, most offenders are eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence. 

Inmates are eligible for statutory release after completing two-thirds of their sentence if they haven't already been released on parole, according to the Parole Board of Canada. Offenders are released from prison but still bound by certain conditions and limitations. 

'Why don't you do something more targeted and meaningful for the people who truly are at-risk?'- Mary Campbell, former director general at Public Safety Canada

Offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences aren't eligible for statutory release. Offenders are supervised by Corrections Canada and are returned to prison if officers believe they present a risk to the public. Statutory release is different from day parole and full parole.

"The government has determined that this is the wrong approach when it comes to repeat violent offenders," according to a statement released by Public Safety on Friday. The proposed measures "reflect the government of Canada's ongoing commitment to keep our streets and communities safe while ensuring that the rights of victims are placed over those of criminals."

Campbell disagrees.

"We know from research that it's better to put people out under conditions and supervision than to release them cold. So that's kind of the reason for the release," said Campbell. She said it's not an automatic release, but a presumptive one. 

"You can be kept in custody until the end of your sentence, but that's the worst way to release someone."

1.5% recommit violent crimes

Data from Public Safety Canada shows that between 2012 and 2013,  7.1 per cent of statutory releases ended with a nonviolent crime and only 1.5 per cent ended with a violent crime. That second figure has gone down from 2.5 per cent in 2008-2009. 

Campbell said the new bill targets that 1.5 per cent of people who recommit violent crimes. She added that data compiled on them shows they are predominantly young, male criminals who commit robberies.

"If you know that much about your target group, why are you changing the whole law for a whole lot of people that don't meet that profile, that don't have those needs? Why don't you do something more targeted and meaningful for the people who truly are at-risk?"

A spokesman for Public Safety Canada said the department would not be able to respond to CBC News' query by Friday's deadline.

The NDP's public safety critics were also not available to comment on the bill. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper first announced the government would be introducing new legislation in mid-February. It follows through on a commitment by the Conservatives made in the 2013 throne speech.

Given the limited sitting days before an expected fall federal election, the legislation may be hard-pressed to pass through all stages in the House of Commons and Senate without unanimous support from all parties.

CBC is not responsible for 3rd party content

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

GreenPAC hopes to put environmental champions on federal ballot

A new political action committee has been formed to match political donors interested in environmental issues with candidates from all political parties willing to champion the same cause. (CBC)

It's not often you see a celebration about the environment these days.

But at Toronto's Green Living Show, along with the electric cars and organic carrots, a launch party was held Friday for a new way to support political candidates in the next federal election.

"We want to get a critical mass of environment champions elected to government," said Aaron Freeman, founder and president of GreenPAC.

It's a political action committee dedicated to selecting environmentally friendly candidates from the political parties. 

GreenPac hopes to match those candidates with donors who will support the campaigns directly.

How? GreenPAC will choose a list of environmental leaders from among political candidates across the country in the next election. 

Then it will link those candidates with people on its list of pledged donors, matching the interest of each as closely as possible.

'We're the Lavalife of environmental politics.'— Aaron Freeman, president of GreenPAC

"We're the Lavalife of environmental politics," jokes Freeman, who has held roles as an environmentalist, law professor and adviser to former Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty.

"GreenPAC is trying to take the broad support that exists for environmental issues and focus it on a few leaders that we can get elected to make a difference." 

Ballot decisions rarely about environment

The idea springs from what Freeman calls a growing "frustration" that all the talk about the environment never really plays a role in federal voting patterns. 

Aaron Freeman (left), seen here with NDP MP Andrew Cash at Friday's launch party, is the founder and president of GreenPAC. (CBC)

​Research shows that fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians put the environment first when it comes to casting their ballot.

"It's because there's never a second choice on the ballot," said Freeman.

The new political action committee will provide supporters with a list of candidates from across the country. So even if there's no one in their riding that's pro-environment, they have the option of donating to someone who is. 

"I think if we elected three or four environmental champions in this election, that would be tremendous," said Freeman, who believes that even a small number of dedicated MPs can make a difference. 

American tactic

Political action committees, or PACs, are common in the U.S. They're used to funnel financial support to single-issue causes, such as boosting the number of female candidates. They also fund partisan attack ads.

They're less common in Canada because of the strict limits on political donations.

GreenPAC has adapted its design from the American model and promises to be non-partisan, picking candidates from all parties. 

But NDP MP Andrew Cash, who came to the GreenPAC launch, is skeptical that's possible with the current political climate.

"We have a government currently that has a very specific, in a sense, pro-fossil fuel agenda," he said. "So I will be very interested to see if they find some Conservative members that they can endorse." 

(CBC)

​

Social media levels the playing field

Pollster and communications adviser Bruce Anderson said it may take time for a green political action committee to catch on.

But Anderson, who heads Anderson Insight, thinks social media is changing the political landscape in a way that could make environmental PACs more accessible to voters. 

Pollster Bruce Anderson says GreenPAC could work if it directs voters to candidates with moderate environmental views. (CBC News)

"The digital age has levelled the playing field for these kinds of things to happen that don't require lots of money to be spent,"  said Anderson. 

"So I think it's too early to tell whether this one will work, but not too early to say there will be more like it in the months and years to come." 

GreenPAC is hoping to attract 10,000 supporters in the next few months, getting ready for what many predict could be an election where the environment has a much bigger profile.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Stephen Harper 'dumb' to say niqab is anti-women, Charles Taylor says

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is "dumb" to say that wearing a niqab is anti-women, according to Charles Taylor, one of the men behind Quebec's landmark Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation.

"How dumb do you have to be to not see that a remark like that in the present context [of heightened tension around the issue of Islamic terrorism] is inflaming," Taylor said in an interview on CBC News Network's Power and Politics. 

"Now he's trying to row away from it but I wonder if he's trying to raise his vote in Quebec because his polls did go up there after that [remark]."

Taylor was referring to a comment made by the Prime Minister on March 10 during question period when he said the niqab, a face covering worn by some Muslim women, is "rooted in a culture that is anti-women." 

"You have to be very careful that you don't stigmatize Islam in general. The prime minister is playing along with an unfortunate tendency, an Islamophobic tendency, in North America as a whole. That is a direct danger to our security and it's terrible for our society," Taylor said. 

The prime minister is taking a page out of the Parti Québécois playbook by banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies, Taylor added. That party, under the leadership of former premier Pauline Marois, tried to enact a so-called secular values charter, which would have banned religious symbols in the public service. 

Marois lost to Liberal Philippe Couillard in the 2014 Quebec general election. 

Taylor, a well-known political philosopher, and a federalist, and Gérard Bouchard, a sovereigntist historian, co-authored their reasonable accommodation report in 2008. The report was drafted after months of testimony from immigrants and Franco-Quebecers alike. 

In the report, Taylor stressed that Quebecers need to demonstrate an "openness and generosity of spirit" for minorities. The report also recommended, among other things, that students who wish to wear religious symbols in class, such as the hijab, kippah or turban, should be able to do so. 

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

John Baird, ex-foreign affairs minister, to advise Barrick Gold

Former foreign affairs minister John Baird has a new job as an adviser to global mining giant Barrick Gold, the corporation has confirmed.

In its annual report, the company listed Baird and former U.S. lawmaker Newt Gingrich as members of its international advisory board.

Barrick Gold says the group is made up of 10 external advisers who meet about once a year to provide advice to the board of directors and management on geopolitical and strategic matters.

The corporation also says individual members of the board can weigh in throughout the year, as needed.

Barrick Gold, which has its international headquarters in Toronto, has interests in nearly 15 countries around the world, including major corporations in the U.S. 

In a surprise move in February, Baird announced he was leaving Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet.

The 45-year-old subsequently resigned as the MP for Ottawa-West Nepean on March 16.

As foreign affairs minister, Baird was responsible for handling challenging diplomatic issues such as the crisis in Ukraine, Canada's mission against ISIS and the case of jailed Canadian-Egyptian journalist Mohamed Fahmy.

Baird, who was replaced as minister by Rob Nicholson, has spent much of his adult life in the political arena.

He was first elected as an MP in 2006 after spending a decade at the Ontario provincial legislature where he served in the cabinet of former Ontario premier Mike Harris.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Royal baby law comes into effect across the Commonwealth

Good news, current and future royal princesses: as of today, your spot in the line of succession will no longer be bumped back by the birth of a baby brother.

You're also free to marry a Roman Catholic without forfeiting your right to take the Throne, but you still can't convert to Catholicism yourself and expect to keep your status as an eligible heir.

The new succession rules came into effect across the Commonwealth on Thursday after Australia became the final realm to sign on.

"I am delighted today that Canada is joining the Realms of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines in bringing legislation into force that gives assent to changes to the rules governing the line of succession," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a written statement.

"The changes, which will put an end to the practice of placing male children before their elder sisters in the line of succession and which will remove legal provisions that heirs marrying Roman Catholics would be ineligible to succeed to the Throne, are very much in keeping with the values that Canadians cherish."

The new rules will not affect baby George's status as third in line for the Throne. (John Stillwell/Getty)

The move to update the ancient edict laying out who can and cannot succeed to the Throne was sparked by the news that Prince William and Kate were expecting their first child, the sex of which was unknown at the time.

Under the previous rules, had George turned out to be a Georgina, she could theoretically have lost her right to rule to a younger male sibling. 

While Canada formally assented to the change with the passage of its own bill in 2013, the question of whether the federal government had the power to do so without consulting the provinces is still before the courts.

The federal government moved unilaterally, with then-heritage minister James Moore telling reporters it didn't need to consult because no province proactively expressed its disapproval with changing the rules. But a few spoke up after the fact about a process they didn't appreciate.

The law is being challenged in Quebec Superior Court by a group of legal scholars and constitutional experts. That case is expected to be heard later this year — and the outcome of that case could have repercussions far beyond Canada's borders, as the assent of all Commonwealth Realms was required for the new rules to be adopted.

University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé predicts that, should the court concur with the Quebec scholars challenging the law, and conclude that the assent had no effect on succession in Canada, the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

"If the [Supreme Court] also finds that the assent had no effect, I suspect the U.K. will decide to keep the changes and let us come into line over time," he told CBC News.

"Given the international stakes, there will be enormous pressure on the courts to find that assenting is sufficient," Lagassé says.

But if the court does ultimately side with the government, "they'll need to figure out a way to deal with what would happen to the office of the Queen in Canada if the U.K. abandoned the monarchy," he notes.

 

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Expat voters' rights battle costs Harper government $1.3M so far

A legal battle to prevent Canadians abroad from voting in elections has cost the federal government $1.3 million so far, CBC News has learned.

The figures are revealed in an answer to a written question from Liberal MP and democratic reform critic Scott Simms.

The government also confirms in its answer that it has paid $10,000 in legal fees for the respondents in the case.

A decision by the Ontario Superior Court last spring said preventing Canadian citizens who've been living abroad for more than five years from voting was unconstitutional.

The government argued at the time that it was important to limit voting to citizens who resided in the country to ensure they had a connection with the country's affairs.

Government 'not persuasive'

Ontario Supreme Court Justice Michael Penny wrote, "The [government] essentially argues that allowing non-residents to vote is unfair to resident Canadians because resident Canadians live here and are, on a day-to-day basis, subject to Canada's laws and live with the consequences of Parliament's decisions."

Penny found the government's argument was not "persuasive."

Simms said the government's pricey challenge of the ruling is "bizarre" given there is no evidence of widespread abuse.

"Citizenship is not something you check out of when you leave," says Simms.

Appeal may cost even more

The legal challenge was started by two Canadians living in the United States who said they had no opportunity for employment in this country, but still wanted the chance to vote while living abroad.

The case is awaiting a decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal, meaning more legal costs may come.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Shaun O'Brien, said she is "disappointed the government is choosing to defend this policy."

The government is also moving to tighten the rules for Canadians who want to vote while overseas.

Legislation currently at second reading proposes to require Canadians living abroad to provide proof of citizenship as well as their most recent Canadian address in order to receive a ballot.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

If Jim Prentice can roll out his budget, why can’t Joe Oliver?

No province in the Confederation is more affected by oil's plunge than Alberta, by any measure you choose, ​

Yet Alberta proceeded with its budget plan as scheduled.

Premier Jim Prentice says this budget not only deals with sinking oil prices, but is "transformative" for the province.

Last week, Saskatchewan moved ahead with its budget, acknowledging a $661-million hit from the decline in oil revenues.

That represents almost five per cent of the province's expected overall revenues.

Banks not waiting either

Canada's major banks — upon whom finance ministers have relied for fiscal projections for years — are also not waiting any longer to prognosticate.

Each of the Big Five has posted its fiscal projections for the coming year in the last few weeks.

'Very strange – it really is.'— Duane Bratt, Mount Royal University, on the delayed federal budget

The average of the banks' 2015 GDP forecasts is in the neighbourhood of two per cent — which is down from the federal government's assumption of 2.6 per cent in last November's fiscal and economic update.

By contrast, last January federal Finance Minister Joe Oliver announced he wouldn't present a budget "earlier than April," because of "market instability."

Could be even later

A few weeks later he noted the budget could come "after April," as well.            

The expectation in Ottawa is that if the government tables the budget in April, it would be in the last week — but it could also be in the first week of May.

"Very strange — it really is," is how Duane Bratt sums it up.

He's the chair of the department of policy studies at Mount Royal University.

"The bigger question is why is the federal government delaying [the budget], not the question of why Alberta is going now — which is the regular part of the budget cycle."

Alberta on schedule

Alberta's budget has come down the middle of the usual window over the last decade — which has seen them tabled anywhere from early February to the latter half of March.

Outside of periods interrupted by elections, no budget has been tabled in Ottawa in the same time frame later than March 29.

In 2009, citing the chaos of the global economic crisis, the government boasted of tabling "the earliest budget in history," when it brought down that year's spending plan on Jan. 29.

Since the last budget, the Department of Finance has ushered in not only a new minister, but also a chief of staff to the minister, a new deputy minister and an associate deputy minister, all of which has affected the writing of a budget.

Items that may have been crossed off the agenda with a knowing sigh or nod now likely require more discussion and explanation as the new players get up to speed.

Election timing

There's also no denying that politics is playing into this — Oliver and his boss, Stephen Harper, are set to go to the polls this October.

Prentice is widely expected to plunge his province into an election much sooner than that.

"Prentice wants to run the election on this budget," says Bratt, "So you need to present the budget; then call the election."

He points out that while Prentice is facing an opposition in utter disarray, Harper finds himself in a more competitive race.

"Therefore [the federal Conservatives] need to carefully craft the budget to declare a surplus," says Bratt.

​'Peekaboo'

On Thursday, the federal Liberals asked when the government would stop playing "peekaboo" with Canadians and table a spending plan.

Parliamentary secretary for finance Andrew Saxton responded for the government.

"We know full well we are in a fragile global economy and, of course, this country has been impacted by the dramatic fall in oil prices — that is even more reason to stick to our government's plan that has generated nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession," Saxton told the House of Commons.

There was no hint as to why 2009's global financial turmoil required quick action, while this latest instability needs a slow, cautious approach.

Nor an explanation as to why Prentice is able to roll out his budget and Oliver cannot.

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Bill C-51: NDP to outline plan to scrap 'dangerous provisions'

A day after the House public safety committee wrapped up witness hearings on the government's proposed anti-terror legislation, the New Democrats will unveil their proposal to revamp the bill this morning.

According to the advisory put out by the party, the amendments — which will be presented by NDP public safety critics Randall Garrison and Rosane Doré Lefebvre, would "delete the most dangerous provisions … and address shortcomings in the legislation."

The committee is scheduled to begin clause-by-clause review of the bill next week.

Earlier this week, New Democratic Party house leader Peter Julian served notice that the NDP may attempt to seek  approval of the House to expand the bill, which would be necessary to make any substantive changes to the text.

Liberal public safety critic Wayne Easter and rights and freedoms critic Irwin Cotler released their party's proposed amendments on Thursday.

Liberals to propose more oversight

Earlier this month, critics of the proposed anti-terror bill held cross-country protests as part of a national day of action. (Philippe Morin/CBC)

Among their key recommendations:

• Increased oversight, including setting up a joint parliamentary committee to monitor the activities of Canadian intelligence agencies, including CSIS and CSEC.
• Explicitly exempting "advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression" from being targeted under the new provisions.
• Limiting the power of CSIS to request judicial authorization for measures that could contravene Charter rights.
• Sunset clauses that would automatically repeal several provisions of the bill unless renewed after three years, which would also be the timeline for a mandatory statutory review of the legislation as a whole.

"We bring these amendments forward in good faith to improve the bill and to find the balance between national securities, civil liberties and freedom of expression," Easter told reporters.

"If the government is not willing to allow Parliament to work as it should, then we will be placing these amendments in our election platform this fall."

Cotler pointed out that in 2001, he publicly questioned elements of the post-9/11 anti-terror bill put forward by his own party, which was in government at the time.

"I rose in the House on Oct. 16 — and I know Hansard is not a bestseller, but you can find it there, and I said I had 10 civil libertarian objections to my government's own legislation at the time," he recalled.

Broadbent slams Liberal position

"I mention that, because it shows the robust debate within the government, leaving aside what the opposition may have recommended."

The government has not yet indicated whether it will support — or propose — any changes to the bill.

The Liberals voted to support the bill at second reading, and are expected to do the same when it goes to a final vote next month — with or without amendment.

That's drawn the ire of the New Democrats, most recently the party's former leader, Ed Broadbent.

Speaking at the Progress Summit in Ottawa on Friday morning, he recalled that he had "worked hard with Pierre Trudeau between 1980 and 1982 to create what is possibly the best Charter of Rights in the world."

"I never thought I'd see the day his party would back away from its defence," he said.

"C-51 is flawed. C-51 is dangerous. C-51 must be defeated by Parliament."

21.16 | 0 komentar | Read More