Canadian Politics from Canada's Centre
Support The Throne Speech: 300 Million Reasons
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
There are 300 million reasons - highly important reasons to Canadian citizens - for which the Official Opposition should not vote against the Speech from the Throne.
The 2006 general election cost taxpayers between $250 million and $300 million dollars. This, only a year and a few months after the 2004 elections. And we're to have elections again??? We're to spend another QUARTER of a BILLION dollars? So that we can have another minority Conservative government and shuffle some seats around?
There are $300 million reasons for Stephane Dion and his Liberals, Gilles Duceppe (use your amendment to get something for the environment, but don't be a fool and go for Kyoto) and the Bloc, and Jack Layton and the NDP to support the Speech from the Throne. The Throne Speech being defeated would bring us from the Kingdom of England to, as Camus might put it, le Royaume de l'Absurde.
If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.
Here are some related articles:
Stephane Dion
Liberals Create Renewal Commissions
China to Emit 470 Million Tonnes of Greenhouse Gases
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian politics, Conservative Party of Canada, Liberal Party of Canada, NDP, the environment.Go back homeLabels: elections, tax, taxes, taxpayers, Throne Speech
CSIS memo on Islamic radicalization in Canada
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
I recently stumbled on a declassified CSIS memo online about Islamic Radicalization in Canada. I found it to be very nuanced, academic-style. It was interesting to gain a glimpse of how our government and CSIS "thinks", by reading this initially-classified document, addressed to the Prime Minister. Our friends south of the border have been lucky enough to have online access to HUGE amounts of declassified government documents, especially ones from the CIA, for years now.
The link to the CSIS memo is:
http://www.mooselim.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/pm_brief_new.pdfI could be wrong on this, but credit belongs to the National Post who got this memo declassified through an Access to Information request.
If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian national security, terrorism.
Go back home
Labels: national security, terrorism
40 Terrorist Organizations in Canada
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
Do you know how many terrorist organizations and individuals are currently on Canada's terrorist list?
40 of them. Enjoy the reading!
If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.
Here are some related articles:
Canadian National Security and Immigration
French Apathy Towards Iran; Basij
Mohammed the "Moderate" Abbas
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian national security, terrorism.Go back home
Canadian National Security and Immigration
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
Irwin Cotler's approach to Canadian national security and immigration is expressed beautifully in a
news release on his site. In the debate over two clauses of the Anti-Terrorism Act, Cotler kept a cool head and showed that the security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Of particular interest is Cotler's commentary on immigration, in light of a recent speech by David Harris, formerly of CSIS. CSIS is Canada's intelligence agency, and it is part of Canada's national security apparatus aimed at fighting terror.
Here's what Cotler had to say:
"All this now assumes a particular importance because this debate on the extension of these two provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act is not the end of the story, but only the beginning. For what is needed now is an informed -- and principled -- parliamentary debate and review, particularly in light of recent events. The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously invalidated provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that denied persons named in security certificates a right to a fair hearing -- the right to know and be able to rebut the information against them. The court has suspended the impugned provisions for a year pending parliamentary review.
"But the unsatisfactory Hobson's choice in the security certificate regime still remains -- the deportation to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture or prolonged detention with all that implies. Parliament needs to legislate middle-ranged, and principled options."
To understand where security certificates come from, you need to understand Canadian demographics. Canadians do not have enough babies for the population to grow, so Canada relies on immigration for population growth. According to Harris, the former CSIS section director, Canada absorbs over a quarter of a million immigrants a year. The problem this poses to our security services is that screening 250,000 people's histories is not feasible with the resources that are available to them.
To compensate, we rely on security certificates, which allow our national security apparatus to detain without charges those immigrants that are deemed threatening to Canadian national security.
While I don't have Harris' words verbatim at my disposal, I do have notes from his speech that paraphrase what he was saying. His point on immigration follows. (Note that at another point, Harris expressly said he didn't think that a bigger police/military/security apparatus was the [best?] solution to the problem. Here are my notes:
Q: Didn’t address how to tackle terrorism...
A: We need to figure out what we’re about. How we achieved as a civilization, one of the most progressive living environments and economically privileged that our world has known. Gets into pluralism, respect for others opinions. Also, encouraging self-confidence in the West. To say [criticism can go - filling in from memory here] so-far, and no further.
Interconnected with immigration and refugee situation. Done very well by “artistry”[?] of immigration. But we can no longer manage the way we are going, based on numbers. Need to bring them in line with our ability to screen people.
Exposure to the other has civilized all of us.
So what do you think? Let's hear your ideas and solutions on balancing national security with a
If you want to read more/follow our coverage of the intersection of national security and immigration, consider our free newsletter.
Here are some related articles:
Are Extremists Logical? Can we negotiate?
September 11th 2006 Tribute
Bernard Lewis, Middle East scholar
The State of National Security in Canadian Politics
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories immigration, Canadian national security, terrorismLiberal Party of Canada, Canadian politics.Go back homeLabels: Canadian politics, immigration, Liberal Party of Canada, national security, terrorism
Boisclair's Constitutional Dyslexia
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
Andre Boisclair just
doesn't understand our Constitution. The man reads things the way he wants to see them, in a sort of Constitutional dyslexia, if you will. The PQ leader makes a ridiculous argument that in the event of a referendum favourable to separatism, Quebec's territorial integrity would not be compromised. Basing an argument on the Constitution cuts both ways...
According to article 43 of our Constitution, the boundaries of a province could not be modified except in accordance with the that province's legislature. Well and good in normal circumstances, but when Mr. Boisclair tries to apply this to the situation that would exist post-Yes-referendum, his argument falls apart.
By turning Quebec into a separate country, Canada's Constitution would no longer apply. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether article 43 requires provincial consent to a change in borders, because that article would not be applicable.
Second, even if somehow the Constitution could be found to apply, separatism violates its fundamental purpose. That purpose is the federation of the provinces into a single polity. When courts interpret a law (and if Boisclair is arguing for 43, then there would obviously be a Constitutional reference for the Supreme Court of Canada to decide), they consider the legislator's intention, as for example in the famous Oakes test. Clearly, the SCC would not rule in favour of a violation of the fundamental aim of the Constitution.
Third, one part of the Constitution can't be used to argue against another part. So even if interpreting the aim of the Constitution was disregarded, the aim could be considered as a part of the Constitution. Thus, article 43 would be working in opposition to another part of the Constitution, and could not be relied upon. I'll edit this once I find the case where the SCC stated this principle.
If you want to read more/follow our coverage of Canadian politics, consider our free newsletter.
Here are some related articles:
Senate Reform and the Constitution
Canadian Constitution Quiz
Let's all do the Charter
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Canadian politics, Provincial politics, Quebec politics, Canadian national security,separatism.Go back homeLabels: Constitution, Parti Quebecois, Quebec politics, separatism
Al-Qaeda: Kyoto Friend or Foe
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
While we're on foreign affairs (see post below:
Rethinking Foreign Aid), what's al-Qaeda's position on Kyoto? ChuckerCanuck says that al-Qaeda missed Dion's memo on Kyoto:
"
Its frustrating that Al-Qaida didn't get the memo from Liberal party headquarters: the whole terrorist business was so 5 years ago, its time to sunset all the silly paranoid stuff and move on to other business, like global warming. Actually, maybe they did get that memo and their call to attack our oil industry is only to help us meet our Kyoto commitments.
"
Chuck's being sarcastic, but the post ends up making a good point: How do the "Liberals [...] argue that the tools they crafted after 9/11 are now suddenly useless?" (Couldn't they be useful the environment from massive oil fires?)
If you want to follow our coverage of foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.
This article and related articles are archived in the topical categories Liberal Party of Canada, Canada's foreign affairs, Canadian national security, terrorism, the environment.Go back home
ReThinking Foreign Aid
Save this online in Del.icio.us. [
?]
Blogroll partner Xavier Dube of
Keep Right has an interesting post up called
Three Strikes for Foreign Aid. While Xavier makes a good critique of foreign aid's (FA) problems - mainly that most FA dollars don't work to alleviate poverty and instead go to enrich dictators and despots - I have to disagree with his conclusions. I was writing a comment and decided instead that it would make for interesting reading for Centrerion readers. Here's my reply to Keep Right's author.
Ironically, Xavier, you oppose the "blanket solution" of foreign aid yet support a blanket solution of capitalism and globalization. While you're right that those two forces have worked in some places, they've been miserable failures elsewhere.
Consider the case of Bolivia, where the water system was privatized with disastrous consequences. That's part of what got an extremist coca grower like Evo Morales elected. Capitalism with little government intervention.
Craig Kielburger, founder of Save the Children recently spoke at a conference I was attending. He cited this story of a Kenyan village where this child had to walk miles to fetch water, then carry it back in heavy containers - a real burden if ever there was one. Yet his village had a well! Some western company had made a deal with the government that they'd have exclusive access to the water in the region so they could grow flowers (for export to the West). So the government capped the well. Here you have investment and jobs created for kenyans. But it was clearly not a conscionable solution - une solution equitable, as we say in French.
So while I agree with you that lots of aid dollars do get wasted on despots, and I also agree that we should focus on economic development rather than charity, I draw a different conclusion from you. We shouldn't just "end" foreign aid.
Foreign aid needs to be carried out in a smarter manner, with a focus on encouraging local entrepreneurship and SMEs/PMEs. Making the businesses responsible to the communities in which they exist and to their employees (employee stock ownership plans might be particularly useful) will help not only the founders escape from poverty, but will also help the community. "Let me help you help yourself," in other words. Note: I can't claim the idea as my own, it really comes from a book I just finished called Small Giants, about financially succesful companies that are also helping their communities prosper.
If you want to read more on foreign affairs, consider our free newsletter.
This article and related articles are archived in the categories Canada's foreign affairs and economics.Go back home
