Keepitsimple Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Interesting column in The Star this morning - definitely worth a read in the context of Canada's proposed legislation: Parliamentary oversight not likely to rein in Canadas spies: Walkom Opposition MPs say parliamentary oversight will solve terror law problems. They are too optimistic. ............................................................. Among Canadian politicians, the debate over a sweeping new anti-terror bill has focused on parliamentary oversight. Both New Democrat and Liberal MPs say Bill C-51 should be amended to let a committee of parliamentarians, sworn to secrecy, monitor Canadas intelligence agencies. They note that other countries, such as Britain and the U.S., do this. Implicit in their argument is an assumption that legislative oversight deters powerful security services from engaging in illegal or improper activities. But does it? The evidence is not heartening. ............................................................. Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper opposes setting up a parliamentary oversight committee to monitor the countrys spooks. He says it wont do much good. For reasons other than those he may want to admit, the prime minister is probably right. Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/04/parliamentary-oversight-not-likely-to-rein-in-canadas-spies-walkom.html Edited February 5, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Black Dog Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 Sounds like an argument for better oversight, not none at all. Also, if civilian oversight is ineffective because of the power of the security services themselves, then that`s certainly a caution against giving them *more* power Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 5, 2015 Author Report Posted February 5, 2015 Sounds like an argument for better oversight, not none at all. Also, if civilian oversight is ineffective because of the power of the security services themselves, then that`s certainly a caution against giving them *more* power I think the point might be that we can't just make flippant remarks - like "other countries do it". There's a lot of work that would have to be done to strike the right oversight "balance". I think it's worth making the effort but it would take time. Lives could be at stake if operational matters were leaked. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 Keepitsimple - Are you implying that members of an all party oversight committee, sworn to secrecy, cannot be trusted to avoid "leaks" to national security matters? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted February 5, 2015 Author Report Posted February 5, 2015 Keepitsimple - Are you implying that members of an all party oversight committee, sworn to secrecy, cannot be trusted to avoid "leaks" to national security matters? By "leaks" I didn't mean intentional leaks - but the more people who know of operational matters - strategies and processes, the more opportunities there are for bits of information to be acquired through who-knows-what means. That's why in the operational spy world, not everyone has the whole picture.....and that's the key question - covered quite well in the article - how much is the oversight body "allowed" to know"? Anyway, we could easily devolve into conspiracies and James Bond type theories but I think you get my drift. I'd rather you just read the article and make comments on that. Quote Back to Basics
Topaz Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 Harper doesn't want it because HE can't control the results. There no reason why Canada shouldn't so government agencies don't go over the line that is allowed under our laws. We could have former, senators, lawyers, judges, even speakers to make up the committee. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 5, 2015 Author Report Posted February 5, 2015 Harper doesn't want it because HE can't control the results. There no reason why Canada shouldn't so government agencies don't go over the line that is allowed under our laws. We could have former, senators, lawyers, judges, even speakers to make up the committee. Read the article so you know that it's not just a simple matter of rattling off committee members....and then perhaps comment on the challenges that are presented. Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 If the Harper government is making changes giving more power to the PMO and less oversight to law enforcement than it is making a grave error. This government will not last forever. The next government (probably Liberal) will inherit that power and the Conservatives will pay the price. Harper will no longer be in power but his party will be subjected to the will of the Liberals. Every government, from Trudeau to Harper, has been gathering more and more power in the PMO. I do not really care who is in power if there is not a system in place for accountability and oversight. This is not a partisan issue but one of the structure of power. I do not agree with the direction in which we are going. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
dre Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 Secret government agencies with limited oversight are a DANGER to people in a democracy. They dont make people safer. I think the governments security apparatus should only be allowed temporary operational secrecy. Sure, they can keep the details of an ongoing operation or investigation classified. But there should be a sunset clause, and once the operation is over all the information should be fully disclosed. And the trend is for government to classify more and more stuff... Look at the US for example where theres so much classified data that hundreds of thousands of contractors need access to it, just to manage it all. It leaks like a sieve to the tune of millions of documents per year. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted February 5, 2015 Report Posted February 5, 2015 Sounds like an argument for better oversight, not none at all. I agree. No matter if this new legislation is passed or not, CSIS, CSEC, RCMP etc. have top secret surveillance powers that the average citizen, MP, or public servant does not have nor is able to oversee because of practical security concerns. Therefore, our government needs oversight in these programs more than any other. There's a ton of BS that occurs in a great many of our regular gov departments not even exposed by media or audits etc., so I can only imagine the abuse that occurs within classified programs. We need very strong whistle blower protection laws and bipartisan and non-partisan oversight mechanisms. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 The OP rings more like a celebration of the futility of oversight due to an apparent general lack of principles and principled people. Outstanding contribution Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.