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

[g_bambino]

Like this:

No, not quite.

[Guest Derek L]

No, not quite.

Why not? The fellow in the glasses is the head of the protective detail and will have either a Sig P226 or a S&W 5906 under his jacket……..As will the rest of the detail around the PM, to say nothing of their HKs or Carbines in their armoured vehicles………..

[login]

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.

that doesn't mean it isn't a corruption or abuse

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

It is a seperate bill. With flaherty's budgets every aspect of the country would be in the budget

Orders in Council are laws.

no they arn't they are regulations/

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.: +]

well it is hardly effectual

Edited November 13, 2012 by login

[login]

Order in council (OIC) - A legal instrument made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority or, less frequently, the royal prerogative. All orders in council are made on the recommendation of the responsible Minister of the Crown and take legal effect only when signed by the Governor General. (Décret du Conseil)

Now who asked for the security to be obscene and ineffectual?

[WWWTT]

There was obviously a reason that they felt secure cars were needed in this case.

You "obviously" have a great amount of blind faith in the RCMP

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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

How can you make this comment when you don't know what the CSIS or the RCMP info is???

It is you that is making the assumptions!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The specs don't matter. They're completely beside the point.

?????

WWWTT

[wyly]

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.

the PM should have security but the $700K difference using our cars vs the Indians cars, that isn't petty, Bev Oda lost her job for a much much much less...

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)?

that's what i want to know, and if there really are security secrets I'm fine the government revealing the reasons for the extra expense to the opposition behind closed doors , I just want to know they were justified and not an ego trip for the PM...

[Smallc]

the PM should have security but the $700K difference using our cars vs the Indians cars, that isn't petty,

No, and so there was obviously a good reason.

[cybercoma]

Especially considering we're talking about the CPC whose base is adamant about austerity. It doesn't make sense that they would just do it for optics. Besides, how many people are really paying attention Harper's visit to Bollywood in that way anyway? It seems like an awful lot of money to look more presidential than its worth. Why wouldn't he do it somewhere more visible? I just can't get my head around these arguments and believe me... if I can criticize Harper, I will.

[wyly]

Especially considering we're talking about the CPC whose base is adamant about austerity. It doesn't make sense that they would just do it for optics. Besides, how many people are really paying attention Harper's visit to Bollywood in that way anyway? It seems like an awful lot of money to look more presidential than its worth. Why wouldn't he do it somewhere more visible? I just can't get my head around these arguments and believe me... if I can criticize Harper, I will.

harper/cpc play to the right wing base, and that means military/strength/presidential optics...it doesn't matter that the rest of us aren't impressed it not intended for those who don't vote for him...

[PIK]

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.

So true cy to have the PM wife' s come to the rescue, is pretty embarressing. But just reading the posts here ,it makes you think people do not want him protected ,they want hin dead. And that is so uncanadian that to has made me wonder if our great country has changed so much she is doomed like the rest of the world. Edited November 14, 2012 by PIK

[g_bambino]

Why not?

Because I specifically said black-suited men with sunglasses jogging alongside Harper's armoured limo. Those RCMP guys, like the one in your photo, are around every minister, viceroy, and royal, which doesn't help with the presidential look for the prime minister.

[g_bambino]

that doesn't mean it isn't a corruption or abuse

I didn't say it isn't anything. You said the legislature makes laws and the Cabinet was engaging in "corruption" by assigning RCMP security details to its members, to which I responded by saying the legislature made a law that allowed the Governor-in-Council to direct the use of RCMP members domestically and abroad. Ergo, an Order-in-Council setting up security for the governor general, prime minister, and other ministers of the Crown is not an example of, as you said "corruption".

It is a seperate bill.

No, it is not. And, even if it were, it would still have to be approved by parliament.

no they arn't...

Yes, they are:

The term "order-in-council" refers to any submission to the Queen's (or King's) Privy Council for Canada... that gains legislative authority through the governor general's approval [emphasis mine].

How Orders in Council Work

Order-in-council, at the federal level, is an order of the Governor General by and with the advice and consent of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada... About a third are legislative, forming part of the law and enforceable by the courts. Most legislative orders are made under authority expressly conferred by Act of Parliament.

Order in Council

[g_bambino]

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.

The FLQ certainly targeted the governor general back in the day. Regardless, I don't see bungled security as an automatic justification for more security, or, specifically, more flashy security.

[cybercoma]

The FLQ certainly targeted the governor general back in the day. Regardless, I don't see bungled security as an automatic justification for more security, or, specifically, more flashy security.

You're right about the FLQ, but it was a different crisis. Mistaken idea that the Canada is ruled by the British Crown and the demand for French sovereignty. It makes sense in that context.

I don't get the "flashy" security claim here. It's not as though he bought new armoured vehicles. Is his Caddy ridin' spinnaz? The fact is that it's his own vehicles. For whatever reason, the RCMP must have felt more secure using our own vehicles for whatever reasons.

I agree that it's concerning that the PM is becoming more presidential. However, I'm not sure that the bit about security is entirely part of that process. Frankly, I believe it's more likely that new security technologies since 9/11 and possibly increased or more serious threats to the Prime Minister (not particularly Harper) have in some ways made this necessary.

I just don't understand criticizing too much security for the PM. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the consolidation of power in the PMO and the worrisome trend towards Prime Ministers being, as Jeffrey Simpson called Chrétien, friendly dictators. However, I think that's another discussion that is being piggy-backed onto the reality of what happened here.

[login]

I just don't understand criticizing too much security for the PM. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the consolidation of power in the PMO and the worrisome trend towards Prime Ministers being, as Jeffrey Simpson called Chrétien, friendly dictators. However, I think that's another discussion that is being piggy-backed onto the reality of what happened here.

Because its a waste of money. or more importantly resources.

If it was his own money I would have no complaint but it is tax dollars when the governmen tis performing horribly wracking up the biggest debt in Canadian history.

They don't need nor deserve tax payer funds for their personal security - especially if a foreign state is willing to pay.

Strategically Stephen harper is just some guy. Canada can loose a PM with little loss to national defence.

In that respect its not worth the expense. If he wants security he should pay for it.

The RCMP should not be used as private security outside of Canada.

The guy makes over $300,000/year plus gets a free house, free car, free flights, and is a millionaire when he retires.

He can pay for his own freaken security. Fact is though... if people wanted to kill him he'd be dead if they were serious.

Some chump earning less than the low income mark shouldn't be paying a five cent peice for the PM's personal security detail out of country. Fact is he shouldn't even be going out of country to secure "agreements" Canada already has ambassadors to do that.

Personally on a national politics basis,I couldn't careless if the PM was offed.

Giving executive power to a partisan person is what makes Canada a dunglike country.

http://classicvalueinvestors.com/i/2010/06/warren-buffetts-security-does-40-per-hour-deliver-adequate-protection/

Edited November 15, 2012 by login

[g_bambino]

I agree that it's concerning that the PM is becoming more presidential. However, I'm not sure that the bit about security is entirely part of that process.

And I'm not sure it's not. There is a discernable trend to the gradual "presidentialisation" of the prime minister and this fits right into it; bringing your own armoured Cadillac limo and SUV along on foreign visits is a habit of the US president and is thus an image Canadians are very familiar with. I'm not discounting outright the possibility that there were legitimate security reasons behind this decision to bring the cars along; but, at the same time, I am acknowledging that there are suspicious aspects to the explanation offered in addition to the aforementioned transformation of image.

[g_bambino]

They don't need nor deserve tax payer funds for their personal security - especially if a foreign state is willing to pay.

In that respect its not worth the expense. If he wants security he should pay for it.

The RCMP should not be used as private security outside of Canada.

It is universal (as far as I know) for governments to pay for the security of their leaders, even when abroad. Host countries fork out for some security costs associated with visits by foreign dignitaries; but the visiting dignitary's personal protection comes mainly from security brought along from his or her own country, regardless of how personally wealthy that digntary may possibly be. They are acting in the service of the state; therefore the state pays.

Giving executive power to a partisan person is what makes Canada a dunglike country.

Well, that's not so bad when considered contextually; executive power is exercised by partisan persons in all countries.

[PIK]

Because its a waste of money. or more importantly resources.

If it was his own money I would have no complaint but it is tax dollars when the governmen tis performing horribly wracking up the biggest debt in Canadian history.

They don't need nor deserve tax payer funds for their personal security - especially if a foreign state is willing to pay.

Strategically Stephen harper is just some guy. Canada can loose a PM with little loss to national defence.

In that respect its not worth the expense. If he wants security he should pay for it.

The RCMP should not be used as private security outside of Canada.

The guy makes over $300,000/year plus gets a free house, free car, free flights, and is a millionaire when he retires.

He can pay for his own freaken security. Fact is though... if people wanted to kill him he'd be dead if they were serious.

Some chump earning less than the low income mark shouldn't be paying a five cent peice for the PM's personal security detail out of country. Fact is he shouldn't even be going out of country to secure "agreements" Canada already has ambassadors to do that.

Personally on a national politics basis,I couldn't careless if the PM was offed.

Giving executive power to a partisan person is what makes Canada a dunglike country.

http://classicvaluei...ate-protection/

I hope the RCMP are reading this. It is people of your ilk that is ruining this country. Unbelievable that you would read comments like this on a canadian message board. Some very sick people out there. And If I get a warning or banned because of this post, I will proudly take it. Edited November 15, 2012 by PIK

[Topaz]

I think if the PM was offered security by a country and he refuses it with no good reason, then it should be picked up to the PM political party as they did at times for Mulroney.

[Smallc]

I think if the PM was offered security by a country and he refuses it with no good reason,

But we have no reason to believe that what you're saying happened, since the RCMP, and not the PMO makes security decisions.

[login]

It is universal (as far as I know) for governments to pay for the security of their leaders, even when abroad.

So what. Its the PM not the leader. He assembles a government, not the state.

Host countries fork out for some security costs associated with visits by foreign dignitaries; but the visiting dignitary's personal protection comes mainly from security brought along from his or her own country

So hang out with a world leader. What the heck is he there for anyway, Canada has ambassadors for that stuff who get paid quite well to be there. Sounds more like someone wants a vacation on the taxpayers buck.

regardless of how personally wealthy that digntary may possibly be. They are acting in the service of the state; therefore the state pays.

Well that is just irresponsible to the tax payer. Wasting peoples money even if it is the norm doesn't mean austerity should fall on the people and the poor while some nuffigntatty lives it large protected by people cause he is unpopular.

Well, that's not so bad when considered contextually; executive power is exercised by partisan persons in all countries.

the PM ain't the executive, that is the Queen and the Queen ain't suppose to be partisan.

None the less the point is, it is a waste of money let him get kidnapped or shot if it comes to that. Save the 50 million to pay down the debt idiots have racked up over the last century. You need to reduce the deficit by 26 billion there is somewhere to start. The pension savings alone will wipe out the cost of an election.

Now I'm not saying off him, I'm saying, if between him getting offed and paying 50 million a year to protect him, it wouldn't be a great personal lost knowing I save 2$ a year with the first scenario.

Edited November 17, 2012 by login

[login]

I hope the RCMP are reading this. It is people of your ilk that is ruining this country. Unbelievable that you would read comments like this on a canadian message board. Some very sick people out there. And If I get a warning or banned because of this post, I will proudly take it.

Dude, do you have a statue in your room or something? Its like someone who is part of a union praying to Buzz Hargrove.

Its unfortunate when people are killed, but it happens every day. If he could be killed why send him there to begin with. Him not being there because of security concerns while there is an ambassador in India already who could make an apperance for much less money, just makes sense.

What don't you get about the fact it is a waste of money to go to the level of expense there is to protect one guy who has next to no importance in a national security context. The only way he would be is throgh corruption of what the office is suppose to entail.

Fact is, he is just a politican. Politicians should pay for their own security.

Stop wasting the publics money. Less people to be pissed off in that scenario.

Edited November 17, 2012 by login

[wyly]

I don't deny a need for security, I question whether the PM needed the extra security he had justified the extra cost...

I do agree he didn't need to go to India these trade deals are done well before the PM gets there these overseas excursions are merely photo-ops for the home audience, an effort to look " presidential"..