NDP , Harper's safety not worth the price to send over amoured car

[cybercoma]

it is the only point, quality of Indian vs canadian armored cars is the issue....that's the only justification

No. It really isn't.

[login]

It's not the individual that's eating up so many millions of dollars, but protection of the person holding that position regardless of the person.

Who cares if the PM is killed there are plenty of crooks to fill his shoes.

Fact is yes it matters that millions are being wasted on protecting someone period. Send him to some Island where people don't want to kill him, the expenditures are nonsense. If the man is so democratically popular why is it people want to kill him?

Fact is, the PM really doesn't matter, and it is only corruption that has made the post "executive" it ain't suppose to be, it is an adminsitrative post. If all the corruption and Americanizations were washed from the Canadian system the PM would be little more than an overseer of government.

it is the legislatures job to make law. Itis the PM's job to manage the minsitries. That's it.

If people stopped supporting political corruption then this discussion would be over.

Bottom line Governor in Council is cabinet to a large extent, headed by the PM, and it is a corruption for them to prescribe security details for themselves. Keeping the peace for all members of society equally so should be self evident for peace officers, if there is a breach or likely breach the police should be able to respond independently, they should not be ordered by the pm to gaurd the pm, that ain't the law.

If the PM needs security it should be budgetted into the PMO's office not the RCMP, and it should be done through a budget in the legislature, not through a order in council bs. It is abuse and akin to embezzlment by appropriating personal benefits from public office.

PMO general security should have nothing to do with the RCMP.

The level of the security detail and expense just are not warranted.

The closest the PM has been to danger is his front yard being lit on fire with lighter fluid. He's probably been more at risk crashing weddings in Ottawa than in India.

Edited November 13, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

it is the only point, quality of Indian vs canadian armored cars is the issue....that's the only justification for turning down Indian armored cars, if it can be shown Indian cars were inferior then the cost for transporting cars to India can be justified...if not then it was an excessive expense done for vanity...

And said quality is many magnitudes greater with the Canadian cars (That offer a level of protection from IEDs) than the Indian cars (That don’t).

[cybercoma]

Who cares if the PM is killed there are plenty of crooks to fill his shoes.

With that, there's really no point in reading the rest of your post. What a completely irrational and asinine thing to say.

[wyly]

more of a target.... doubtful.....

I think going on CSIS and the RCMP's intel is probably better for the PM than the assumptions of someone on MLW.

hmm that fantastic intel that got maher arar thrown into a syrian prison for a year, csis is a mickey mouse organization and neither they or the rcmp hasn't any operatives working in Pakistani terror cells...

[cybercoma]

hmm that fantastic intel that got maher arar thrown into a syrian prison for a year, csis is a mickey mouse organization and neither they or the rcmp hasn't any operatives working in Pakistani terror cells...

Ok, so instead of relying on CSIS and the RCMP, the government should rely on web bloggers and keyboard warriors on forums?

[wyly]

No, I don't claim to know the specs, but the specs are greater than an up-armoured Humvee, hence why they're built on a 5-ton truck chassis.......And like ballistic protection, Mine/IED protection is relative…..a Humvee is less protected than a MRAP, and MRAP is less protected then a MBT……….As to Obama’s versus Harper’s, they were both manufactured by the same company, with Harper’s offering the same level of protection as that of GWB…..Obama’s is clearly an improvement on that desgin, but both are IED protected……..unlike the cars listed from your link.

the company (Streit) that built harpers car uses the same international standards(1 to 7) as the Mercedes offered by India, level 7 which is what India offered...

[login]

With that, there's really no point in reading the rest of your post. What a completely irrational and asinine thing to say.

I'd pay $5 to protect my neighbour before paying $5 to protect the PM. Maybe I don't want to pay $2 per year so the PM doesn't get killed or kidnapped. I don't find that irrational.

It's the PM not my child.

He makes enough to pay for a bodygaurd if he wants one or two, he shouldn't be abusing his position in Governor in Council to take funds to pay for his security detail. That is embezzlement.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Embezzlement

You can't claim appropriating 50 million a year for a private security detail for yourself isn't a conflict of interest and abuse of taxpayer dollars..

If he is at such risk why doesn't he just get a riot suit and wear that day in day out. He could probably get a mecha built for less than the cost of his security detail.

Yeah cause that business look is more valuable that someones life.

That is total bs wasted dollars for image gtfo.

Edited November 13, 2012 by login

[bleeding heart]

He makes enough to pay for a bodygaurd if he wants one or two, he shouldn't be abusing his position in Governor in Council to take funds to pay for his security detail. That is embezzlement.

No, it's not embezzlement.

Look, a debate on whether costs are too high--or not--is perfectly reasonable. (I'm an agnostic on the subject, personally.) But that the PM is entitled to a tax-funded Security detail is not something with which too many people are going to disagree...much less get exercised about.

The reason he needs security is specifically and only because of the position to which Canadians elected him. So security is part of the deal, and is totally reasonable.

Edited November 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[login]

No, it's not embezzlement.

Look, a debate on whether costs are too high--or not--is perfectly reasonable. (I'm an agnostic on the subject, personally.) But that the PM is entitled to a tax-funded Security detail is not something with which too many people are going to disagree...much less get exercised about.

The reason he needs security is specifically and only because of the position to which Canadians elected him. So security is part of the deal, and is totally reasonable.

I think that that debate should not be left to de facto partisan beleifs on a trumped up identity of the PM to mirror the Southern political system.

The fact is, it ain't law, and it is abuse of powers of the GIC for Cabinet to request security where it isn't required for reasons of image.

It ain't about security it is about misalignment of personal self importance and cultural conception of what a governing authority beyond any external force acting to upset the scripted program desires.

From what I've read about this stuff it is just nonsense selfish program spending in what is essentially just dumping tax payer dollars down the toilet.

Its not about how much its about the fact that it is being used for selfish non governmental purposes at the tax payers expense.

It is for the very reason that creation of a powerful centralized authority is not in the interest of Canadian society, and it is for that reason that the corruption of the office of PM needs to be held to the law rather than partisan political corruption that exists.

MP's shouldn't require security details nor should any other federal employee exept where there is an issue of breach of the peace.

While I would not say it would be inapproprirate for there to be monitoring of federal buildings etc.. the level exercised and the sheer abuse and invasion creates a sureal identity for an office that doesn't deserve and canadians shouldn't accept.

Security on National Security grounds should be the military not the police. The police are about civil order, the military is about acts of war. In this part I don't think the PM deserves mlitary security because they arn't the head of state. It is that simple. While the federal building housing foreign dignitaries if so would be in the national interst to defend.

The idea of the PM as head of state or an executive power is just an ongoing treason.

We should all just take a moment exhale deflate the position and save ourselves tens of million of dollars.

It is disgusting to think the position holds anything more than partisan political authority, it is disgusting to think the state would bow to partisan authority or give privelege to an individual at the expense of the whole where it is not on humanitarian grounds.

Edited November 13, 2012 by login

[Topaz]

I'm just going to ask the question why did Harper use the next country he visited THEIR armour car and not India's?

[Guest Derek L]

the company (Streit) that built harpers car uses the same international standards(1 to 7) as the Mercedes offered by India, level 7 which is what India offered...

On the cars offered from it's website offered to public and private concerns............Notice no mention of the specifics used on the Prime Minister limo?

[g_bambino]

secrets that can be found on any armored car manufacturer's website, if you want even you can custom build and price armored cars online there is nothing secret about it......

There's nothing secret about what can be ordered, but what was ordered for Canada's state cars is secret.

[g_bambino]

g_bambino, I get that the Governor General is the de juris leader of our country, as viceroy to Her Majesty the Queen; however, Harper is the public face of our government home and abroad. He's the one making the deals and he's the one in the media backing Israel. If anyone knows anything about our government, they would know Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. I doubt very many people know David Johnston is our Governor General. I bet almost half of Canadians have no idea who the Governor General is.

If someone's hell-bent on sending a message to Canada via violent attack, I'm pretty certain they'd know who the governor general is and consider him or her a target should he or she visit their country.

Regardless, I was speaking directly to smallc's point about the information security a Canadian state car provides; the governor general is privy to sensitive state information and very likely discusses it with his secretary, aides, and/or accompanying minister(s) when on a state visit. Yet, he doesn't need the information security of a Canadian state car when abroad. Ditto for other ministers when they make visits to other countries. So, the "Indian cars could be bugged" theory doesn't seem to hold too much water.

[ed.: +]

Edited November 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

it is the legislatures job to make law.

Governor in Council is cabinet to a large extent, headed by the PM, and it is a corruption for them to prescribe security details for themselves.

It is the law, made by the legislature, that allows the Governor in Council to direct the use of the RCMP as security for certain important figures.

If the PM needs security it should be budgetted into the PMO's office not the RCMP, and it should be done through a budget in the legislature

The budget for the PMO is not extra to the national budget passed by parliament.

The fact is, it ain't law

Orders in Council are laws.

[it] is abuse of powers of the GIC for Cabinet to request security where it isn't required for reasons of image.

I assume you mean "where it is required for reasons of image." If that is the case, yes, it would be an abuse of power. However, it's not yet been determined that the increased security for the prime minister is purely superficial (though, it certainly is easy to see it as such).

[ed.: +]

Edited November 13, 2012 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

I think that that debate should not be left to de facto partisan beleifs on a trumped up identity of the PM to mirror the Southern political system.

This isn't a partisan debate. It's about security for the position of PM, regardless of who holds it.

Also, the "trumped-up identity of the PM" is a fact of him being the democratic head of the cabinet (read: government), as appointed by the Crown. When our government creates policies and makes announcements, he is seen as the guy in charge. He's the one making pro-Israel statements and is also the one going around the world making trade agreements. When you think of the leader of Australia, you think of the Prime Minister, not their Governor General, regardless of the fact that the GG is the actual head of state.

[g_bambino]

Also, the "trumped-up identity of the PM" is a fact of him being the democratic head of the cabinet (read: government), as appointed by the Crown. When our government creates policies and makes announcements, he is seen as the guy in charge. He's the one making pro-Israel statements and is also the one going around the world making trade agreements.

But, you have to admit, the security detail around the prime minister has been increasing and increasing over the past - oh, I don't know - couple of decades. It really is getting quite US-presidential. Will we soon have black-suited men with sunglasses and earpieces running alongside Harper's car as it cruises through Ottawa?

[cybercoma]

If someone's hell-bent on sending a message to Canada via violent attack, I'm pretty certain they'd know who the governor general is and consider him or her a target should he or she visit their country.

Regardless, I was speaking directly to smallc's point about the information security a Canadian state car provides; the governor general is privy to sensitive state information and very likely discusses it with his secretary, aides, and/or accompanying minister(s) when on a state visit. Yet, he doesn't need the information security of a Canadian state car when abroad. Ditto for other ministers when they make visits to other countries. So, the "Indian cars could be bugged" theory doesn't seem to hold too much water.

[ed.: +]

But who knows why? Presumably the same agency is making the decisions about their security as well. Maybe there have been specific threats made to Stephen Harper and he needed the additional protection. Maybe there were other security concerns particular to the context of this visit, such as the information that Smallc was talking about. Who knows? I don't expect them to make risks to the Prime Minister public, in order to ensure the PM's safety. I trust that the right decision was made because that's all I can do. I also think bickering over sending our own vehicles to India is petty bickering.

Let's say for argument sake that it was the PMO that decided to send these over to give the illusion of Stephen Harper being more important than he actually is. That would be asinine and deserve criticism, of course. However, is it such a debacle that it commands this kind of outrage (see: login's nonsense above)?

[PIK]

Maher arar is a scam. He looked like he was on vacation when he got back here. Now when you look at the simpson guy that was actually tortured , he looked it when he was released. I wonder how much of the 10m ended up in the wrong hands.

Edited November 13, 2012 by PIK

[PIK]

But who knows why? Presumably the same agency is making the decisions about their security as well. Maybe there have been specific threats made to Stephen Harper and he needed the additional protection. Maybe there were other security concerns particular to the context of this visit, such as the information that Smallc was talking about. Who knows? I don't expect them to make risks to the Prime Minister public, in order to ensure the PM's safety. I trust that the right decision was made because that's all I can do. I also think bickering over sending our own vehicles to India is petty bickering.

Let's say for argument sake that it was the PMO that decided to send these over to give the illusion of Stephen Harper being more important than he actually is. That would be asinine and deserve criticism, of course. However, is it such a debacle that it commands this kind of outrage (see: login's nonsense above)?

And canada is the only one on the alqada hit list that has not been hit. Makes me wonder why, to much of a safe house to attack us. Edited November 13, 2012 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

But, you have to admit, the security detail around the prime minister has been increasing and increasing over the past - oh, I don't know - couple of decades. It really is getting quite US-presidential. Will we soon have black-suited men with sunglasses and earpieces running alongside Harper's car as it cruises through Ottawa?

Like this:

[cybercoma]

But, you have to admit, the security detail around the prime minister has been increasing and increasing over the past - oh, I don't know - couple of decades. It really is getting quite US-presidential. Will we soon have black-suited men with sunglasses and earpieces running alongside Harper's car as it cruises through Ottawa?

Quite possibly. Security threats have probably also been increasing. I mean Chrétien's security was so lax that André Dallaire was able to wave at security cameras with a knife in his hand for 20 minutes, throwing stones at the property, before finally smashing a window and breaking into 24 Sussex Dr. Now that is the kind of debacle I don't ever want to hear about again. Note that Dallaire, a Canadian citizen, didn't target the Governor General.

I mean think about it. The Governor General is not a political decision-maker. The Governor General is a non-political, and for the most part, rubber stamp. Any decision that the GG makes that goes against the democratically elected institutions, would create a constitutional crisis, right? So the decision-making practically (I mean in practice) to the Prime Minister and Parliament. So, it's not wrong for nutters to see the PM as the head guy in charge of government. As the head of cabinet, he really is.

[Guest Derek L]

If someone's hell-bent on sending a message to Canada via violent attack, I'm pretty certain they'd know who the governor general is and consider him or her a target should he or she visit their country.

Regardless, I was speaking directly to smallc's point about the information security a Canadian state car provides; the governor general is privy to sensitive state information and very likely discusses it with his secretary, aides, and/or accompanying minister(s) when on a state visit. Yet, he doesn't need the information security of a Canadian state car when abroad. Ditto for other ministers when they make visits to other countries. So, the "Indian cars could be bugged" theory doesn't seem to hold too much water.

[ed.: +]

But who knows why? Presumably the same agency is making the decisions about their security as well. Maybe there have been specific threats made to Stephen Harper and he needed the additional protection. Maybe there were other security concerns particular to the context of this visit, such as the information that Smallc was talking about. Who knows? I don't expect them to make risks to the Prime Minister public, in order to ensure the PM's safety. I trust that the right decision was made because that's all I can do. I also think bickering over sending our own vehicles to India is petty bickering.

Let's say for argument sake that it was the PMO that decided to send these over to give the illusion of Stephen Harper being more important than he actually is. That would be asinine and deserve criticism, of course. However, is it such a debacle that it commands this kind of outrage (see: login's nonsense above)?

Exactly and if we look back a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/10/31/halloween-prime-minister-sussex.html

The Harpers welcomed throngs of costumed trick-or-treaters on Wednesday at their pumpkin-lined home at 24 Sussex Drive, doling out Halloween goodie bags and posing for pictures with the children.

But plastic weapons had to be left behind and security personnel requested that the children pass through a metal detector. One angel removed the halo from her head for inspection before proceeding to meet with a good-natured Harper.

[cybercoma]

The Halloween debacle seemed a bit insane at the time, but obviously security is very concerned about Harper's safety recently. I mean, why wouldn't they be either? He's an incredibly polarizing figure, even here. People that love him, really love him. People that hate him, really hate him. Brigette DePape smuggled that Stop Harper sign in for the Speech from the Throne. When in our history has that ever happened? She's very lucky that she wasn't charged with inciting violence against Stephen Harper because there are crazies out there that could have taken that to mean Assassinate Harper. Moreover, you have protesters, whom a lot of the time I mostly agree with, that have taken Guy Fawkes as their symbol. This wasn't something past Prime Ministers were dealing with. Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up British Parliament and assassinate the King. Since a majority of Canadians do not see the Queen as our legitimate head of state (even though she is), this leads them to see Stephen Harper as our de facto head of state.

Anyway, who knows what information security has. I'm just pointing out very public things that suggest there are greater security concerns for our Prime Minister today than there has been in the past. The stuff that we don't hear about is probably the most concerning.

[Guest Derek L]

The Halloween debacle seemed a bit insane at the time, but obviously security is very concerned about Harper's safety recently. I mean, why wouldn't they be either? He's an incredibly polarizing figure, even here. People that love him, really love him. People that hate him, really hate him. Brigette DePape smuggled that Stop Harper sign in for the Speech from the Throne. When in our history has that ever happened? She's very lucky that she wasn't charged with inciting violence against Stephen Harper because there are crazies out there that could have taken that to mean Assassinate Harper. Moreover, you have protesters, whom a lot of the time I mostly agree with, that have taken Guy Fawkes as their symbol. This wasn't something past Prime Ministers were dealing with. Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up British Parliament and assassinate the King. Since a majority of Canadians do not see the Queen as our legitimate head of state (even though she is), this leads them to see Stephen Harper as our de facto head of state.

Anyway, who knows what information security has. I'm just pointing out very public things that suggest there are greater security concerns for our Prime Minister today than there has been in the past. The stuff that we don't hear about is probably the most concerning.

Perhaps the threats have increased as of late, but threats in general against our organs of Government have been real, be they from nutbars or terrorists, since the October Crisis……….The FLQ, the Quebec National Assembly shooting in the early 80s, the multiple attempts/incidents against Prime Minister Chrétien, the recent terror plot in Ontario and the shooting at the PQ rally a few months back etc…………And as you said these are the ones we know about………….At the end of the day Canadians can’t expect “good Government” if the Government is threatened………..

As to the Guy Fawkes masks……..well perhaps that’s a demonstration of how our education system is failing us……..It didn’t end to well for him.