What right have you lost.

[dre]

The latest polls that I've seen suggest 65-70% of Canadians support the fight against ISIS.........surely some on the "left" are onside then.

Yeah but 0% of Canadians that know anything about it.

Most Canadians just dont realize that this is still the 2002 Iraq war that we were smart enough to stay out of in the beginning. This is the same insurgency the US gave up fighting and cut checks to.

[dre]

Far too many....

Well we have been effected more by our governments idiotic reaction to terrorism and the failed GWOT which played right into the terrorists hands and increased the threat of terrorism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Paying off the Iraqi insurgents was a lot cheaper than paying off Canada...which wants a pipeline to Nebraska !!

[Bob Macadoo]

Far too many....

Who? Were you on the Hill....on a tour of HofC.....during the "rampage"? I was enjoying a turkey club....30sec on a news ticker for me. Now I'm affected with reactionary legislation.

[PrimeNumber]

Paying off the Iraqi insurgents was a lot cheaper than paying off Canada...which wants a pipeline to Nebraska !!

Yeah but we weren't trying to kill you for invading our country at the time.

Edited February 4, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Derek 2.0]

Well, maybe my teachers were delusional and nostalgic, I'm kinda going by the crap they taught me, and I mean the one's I had before they transferred me to Rochdale Elementary.

I think that they were...........a quote from the ages:

society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think that power must be stopped and I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures.

Some Canadians have a "fuddled" view of our collective history...........

[dre]

Paying off the Iraqi insurgents was a lot cheaper than paying off Canada...which wants a pipeline to Nebraska !!

Its not cheap because it didnt work, and now youre back there spending money you borrowed from the Chinese on keeping Iranians in control of Iraq

Edited February 4, 2015 by dre

[Moonlight Graham]

Always hilarious when people who claim to be opposed to big government support the expansion of the state to protect them from boogeymen.

Most modern conservatives aren't opposed to big government, only big government they don't approve of, like social spending programs, Crown corporations etc. Most seem to support big brother snooping into their business, foreign military adventures & military spending, and of course socially conservative legislation...and all the debt it takes to support it all. Lefties and righties finally have some common ground!

[Keepitsimple]

Well we have been effected more by our governments idiotic reaction to terrorism and the failed GWOT which played right into the terrorists hands and increased the threat of terrorism.

Don't be naïve - almost every Western country has been attacked or affected - Australia, UK, France, Belgium - and even Japan who have done nothing but good things for the Middle East. Wake up and give yourself a shake.

[Keepitsimple]

Who? Were you on the Hill....on a tour of HofC.....during the "rampage"? I was enjoying a turkey club....30sec on a news ticker for me. Now I'm affected with reactionary legislation.

That's a pretty simple, detached and narcissistic way of looking at things. Think of families, relatives and co-workers. Think of the massive number of Canadians who have been exposed to the reality that bad things can happen to good people - for no reason other than twisted ideology. We had brushes with the Toronto 18 and Air India but now a lot of Canadians see that we are in the same boat as other Western countries - whether we fight or not as Japan has found out.

[dre]

Don't be naïve - almost every Western country has been attacked or affected - Australia, UK, France, Belgium - and even Japan who have done nothing but good things for the Middle East. Wake up and give yourself a shake.

I never said the west hasnt been affected or attacked. I said our own governments have done MORE damage to us than "the terrorists". 5 Trillion dollars have been squandered on policies that have made the threat of terrorism GREATER. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

[WestCoastRunner]

How many of us have been affected by terrorism?

I'm not agreeing with the Harper approach to fight terrorism but I will say that many of us have been affected by terrorism.

For instance, a trial is starting very soon this spring regarding the couple who had placed pressure cooker bombs on the property of the legislative building on Canada Day in 2013. Thankfully they were not real (thanks to undercover agents). This could have killed hundreds of people gathered there. They called themselves 'al Qaida Canada'.

Edited February 4, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not agreeing with the Harper approach to fight terrorism but I will say that many of us have been affected by terrorism.

For instance, a trial is starting very soon this spring regarding the couple who had placed pressure cooker bombs on the property of the legislative building on Canada Day in 2013. Thankfully they were not real (thanks to undercover agents). This could have killed hundreds of people gathered there. They called themselves 'al Qaida Canada'.

The internet is fairly easy to mess with, it will morph around Harpers new law in a heartbeat, while you may have a cop at your door because of CSIS assumed something you typed online sounded like you MIGHT do something. Lets make sure we have the oversight needed to accompany such laws, which Harper has conveniently left out.

[Michael Hardner]

5 Trillion dollars have been squandered on policies that have made the threat of terrorism GREATER.

That's pretty hard to prove. America was a lot less interested in the ME before 9/11. You can make the argument that conflicts around resources in that region brought this about, but it seems to me that the world will come closer together anyway some day and as such, these conflicts are inevitable.

[GostHacked]

I'm not agreeing with the Harper approach to fight terrorism but I will say that many of us have been affected by terrorism.

For instance, a trial is starting very soon this spring regarding the couple who had placed pressure cooker bombs on the property of the legislative building on Canada Day in 2013. Thankfully they were not real (thanks to undercover agents). This could have killed hundreds of people gathered there. They called themselves 'al Qaida Canada'.

What do you mean 'thanks to undercover agents'?

[Black Dog]

That's a pretty simple, detached and narcissistic way of looking at things. Think of families, relatives and co-workers. Think of the massive number of Canadians who have been exposed to the reality that bad things can happen to good people - for no reason other than twisted ideology. We had brushes with the Toronto 18 and Air India but now a lot of Canadians see that we are in the same boat as other Western countries - whether we fight or not as Japan has found out.

Telling I have yet to see a single true blue Harperphile actually defend the legislation on its merits. Just fear-mongering nonsense.

[Keepitsimple]

Telling I have yet to see a single true blue Harperphile actually defend the legislation on its merits. Just fear-mongering nonsense.

If you'd take your blinders off, you'd realize that there are very few "True Blue Harperphiles" anywhere. He's not the type of guy you fall in love with. Grudgiung respect is a common theme and in the absence of any true alternative, the Devil you know can be the best choice. I happen to like the man and feel that on balance, he's run a relatively compentent government in very trying times but as I've mentioned before - if Marc Garneau had been chosen as Liberal leader, I'd be inclined to give the Liberals strong consideration. As for the legislation, there's no need to defend it - in general, it's right for the times....sad that we require it - but appropriate.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Black Dog]

If you'd take your blinders off, you'd realize that there are very few "True Blue Harperphiles" anywhere. He's not the type of guy you fall in love with. Grudgiung respect is a common theme and in the absence of any true alternative, the Devil you know can be the best choice. I happen to like the man and feel that on balance, he's run a relatively compentent government in very trying times but as I've mentioned before - if Marc Garneau had been chosen as Liberal leader, I'd be inclined to give the Liberals strong consideration. As for the legislation, there's no need to defend it - in general, it's right for the times....sad that we require it - but appropriate.

Based on what? Where's the need for new legislation? What evidence is there the current set of powers and oversight is insufficient for the task? If you can't answer those questions are simply falling in line out of a generalized fear of terror, you're not being a responsible citizen. Indeed, one could even suggest you have blinders on.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Black Dog

[Keepitsimple]

Based on what? Where's the need for new legislation? What evidence is there the current set of powers and oversight is insufficient for the task? If you can't answer those questions are simply falling in line out of a generalized fear of terror, you're not being a responsible citizen. Indeed, one could even suggest you have blinders on.

What would you have the government do? Have the RCMP and CSIS lay out all the investigations that got delayed - all the ones that they are currently tracking where they would like to be able to move quicker? Lay all that out in Parliament and the media? Share exactly how they go about their security strategies and investigations? Of course they can't do that! If you can't accept that then you are simply falling in line out of a generalized fear of government intrusion - you're not being a responsible citizen. This is mildly incremental legislation that can help keep Canadians safe and no one - absolutely no one - has given any examples of how it would impact the lives and rights of everyday, law-abiding citizens.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's pretty hard to prove. America was a lot less interested in the ME before 9/11. You can make the argument that conflicts around resources in that region brought this about, but it seems to me that the world will come closer together anyway some day and as such, these conflicts are inevitable.

Not true at all.....there was plenty of American interest in the ME before 9/11.

[Black Dog]

What would you have the government do? Have the RCMP and CSIS lay out all the investigations that got delayed - all the ones that they are currently tracking where they would like to be able to move quicker? Lay all that out in Parliament and the media? Share exactly how they go about their security strategies and investigations? Of course they can't do that!

I think any increase in powers should be accompanied by a commiserate increase in oversight. What that would look like exactly, I can't say, but that seems like an uncontroversial position to me, though not to the feds.

This is mildly incremental legislation that can help keep Canadians safe

Unproven.

and no one - absolutely no one - has given any examples of how it would impact the lives and rights of everyday, law-abiding citizens.

You are asking the wrong question. The question any responsible citizen should ask in the face of expanded state powers is "why is this needed?" not "what harm will this do?" as the consequences of these types of things are often unintended and unforeseeable.

[Big Guy]

To Keepitsimple - CSIS was created in 1984. Basically, the foreign intelligence section of the RCMP was amputated into an autonomous agency. Since that time, the RCMP and CSIS have had a poor relationship. The government of the time gave very limited power to CSIS so subsequently, the oversight was allocated to a committee (appointed by the government) that met only once in a while when the government thought warranted.

Last year federal judges accused CSIS of lack of cooperation and "lack of forthcoming" (read LYING) in its dealings. The head of that oversight agency is currently in a Panamanian court looking for extradition to Canada. This is "oversight"?

CSIS has been given the power to "act" and "disrupt" (read charge in with guns blazing) in dealing with suspected terrorists. The RCMP has made so many errors recently that the government is creating a more stringent oversight for them.

Are you comfortable with the existing oversight of CSIS?

I am not. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Or "when fools are put in a position of power, fools corrupt power." Either way these folks need parliamentary supervision. Overview by elected - not appointed - individuals. We need an all-party committee, sworn to secrecy, to keep these CSIS folks working within their mandate.

[Keepitsimple]

To Keepitsimple - CSIS was created in 1984. Basically, the foreign intelligence section of the RCMP was amputated into an autonomous agency. Since that time, the RCMP and CSIS have had a poor relationship. The government of the time gave very limited power to CSIS so subsequently, the oversight was allocated to a committee (appointed by the government) that met only once in a while when the government thought warranted.

Last year federal judges accused CSIS of lack of cooperation and "lack of forthcoming" (read LYING) in its dealings. The head of that oversight agency is currently in a Panamanian court looking for extradition to Canada. This is "oversight"?

CSIS has been given the power to "act" and "disrupt" (read charge in with guns blazing) in dealing with suspected terrorists. The RCMP has made so many errors recently that the government is creating a more stringent oversight for them.

Are you comfortable with the existing oversight of CSIS?

I am not. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Or "when fools are put in a position of power, fools corrupt power." Either way these folks need parliamentary supervision. Overview by elected - not appointed - individuals. We need an all-party committee, sworn to secrecy, to keep these CSIS folks working within their mandate.

Critics are all over the map - but seem to retreat to the "more oversight is needed" when they can't express their concerns in a rational, meaningful way.....but to answer your question. I agree that there should be better oversight and I'm hoping the committee process will start to build on that concern. I'd like to see a hybrid model of oversight that combined appointments along with MP representation - three appointments on overlapping 5 year terms to ensure continuity - along with 3 MPs - one each from the major parties - all sworn to secrecy of course.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

What would you have the government do? Have the RCMP and CSIS lay out all the investigations that got delayed - all the ones that they are currently tracking where they would like to be able to move quicker? Lay all that out in Parliament and the media? Share exactly how they go about their security strategies and investigations? Of course they can't do that! If you can't accept that then you are simply falling in line out of a generalized fear of government intrusion - you're not being a responsible citizen. This is mildly incremental legislation that can help keep Canadians safe and no one - absolutely no one - has given any examples of how it would impact the lives and rights of everyday, law-abiding citizens.

I'd have the government stop implementing foreign policies that cause terrorism. This legislation, like terrorism, are the impacts of those polices.

The impact in our lives is living with the fear of seeing a steady incremental increase of police and state power. Another impact is the polarization, division and anger this is causing ordinary Canadians to feel towards one another - maybe that'll be a good thing if it causes us to re-evaluate the wisdom of following the rest of the Coalition down the garden path, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe after the next ISIS or the one after that the impact will finally register.

By that time though I expect I'll have been thrown into jail or disappeared for the crime of dissing the state.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd have the government stop implementing foreign policies that cause terrorism. This legislation, like terrorism, are the impacts of those polices.

The impact in our lives is living with the fear of seeing a steady incremental increase of police and state power. Another impact is the polarization, division and anger this is causing ordinary Canadians to feel towards one another - maybe that'll be a good thing if it causes us to re-evaluate the wisdom of following the rest of the Coalition down the garden path, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe after the next ISIS or the one after that the impact will finally register.

By that time though I expect I'll have been thrown into jail or disappeared for the crime of dissing the state.

Sure - let anyone go off to Syria to chop off heads and have them return and do the same to us. Our laws and police never foresaw what is taking place in the world today. We have to adapt - and I see nothing at all that infringes on my rights and freedoms. Nothing. But that's just me.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Keepitsimple