Opposition parties vote down extending controversial anti-terror measures

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
By Joan Bryden
OTTAWA (CP) - Opposition parties joined forces Tuesday to vote down the extension of two controversial anti-terrorism measures, ending an acrimonious political battle rife with accusations of dirty politics.
But the debate over national security vs. civil liberties is sure to continue into the next election campaign. A Conservative government motion seeking to extend the security measures for three years was defeated by a vote of 159 to 124. Most Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs voted against extending the provisions, which expire automatically Thursday without parliamentary approval to renew them.
The measures empower authorities to detain suspected terrorists without charge and to compel individuals with knowledge of terrorist activity to testify before a judge.
The Conservatives say the provisions are needed to keep the country safe from terrorists, but critics say they go too far and infringe on civil liberties.
The vote marked a victory for Liberal Leader Stephane Dion who had ordered his MPs not to support the government.
Only one Liberal - Tom Wappel - voted with the government, while about a dozen others were absent. Former justice minister Irwin Cotler, who supports extending the provisions, was present but didn't vote.
The measures were introduced by the previous Liberal government as part of its response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
The Liberals and Conservatives have been trading barbs for over a week on the issue. The partisan sniping heated up again Tuesday over a Conservative MP's accusation that Dion has caved in to "extremists" in his caucus by opposing the measures.
Liberals demanded an apology from Ottawa MP Pierre Poilievre for telling a radio interviewer that Dion's caucus includes MPs who want to legalize the anti-Israeli terrorist group Hezbollah and shut down the investigation into the 1985 Air India bombing.
"We know there is an extremist element in the Liberal party generally that has been very vocal in opposing measures that are designed to combat terrorism," Poilievre said, according to a transcript of the interview.
"And it would seem that Mr. Dion has collapsed under the pressure from those groups."
Liberal MP Omar Alghabra called Poilievre's comments "outrageous, slanderous" and demanded an apology.
"This is the pattern that this government, this Conservative government, is following in choosing to go to the lowest level of politics that they can find to smear people just to make a political point," he said.
Colleague Navdeep Bains, who was singled out for attack by the Tories last week, said the Liberal party is seeking legal advice about possibly suing Poilievre.
The Tories countered with a raft of quotes from Dion and other Liberals accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of being captive to a radical right-wing American agenda.
Last week, Harper appeared to suggest the Liberals are opposed to renewing the anti-terrorism measures because they're trying to protect Bains' father-in-law from having to testify in the continuing Air India investigation.
In the Commons on Tuesday, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Harper's determination to take "the low road" is eroding the trust necessary to conduct comprehensive reform of Canada's anti-terrorism laws.
Harper shot back that it's the Liberals' "flip-flop" on security measures they introduced that erodes public trust.
He noted that the families of Canadians killed in the 9-11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre made a last-ditch, emotional appeal Tuesday for support of the measures and begged MPs to not to play partisan games with the issue.
Neither of the provisions due to expire Thursday has ever been used. However, the RCMP has been planning to use the investigative hearing provision to compel 15 individuals to testify about their knowledge of Canada's worst terrorist attack - the 1985 downing of Air India Flight 182, which claimed 329 mainly Canadian lives.
The Mounties did attempt to use the provision once in the past but its constitutionality was challenged by the wife of Inderjit Singh Reyat, the only person ever convicted in the Air India bombing. The provision was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Dion rejected "outrageous" Tory charges that he's soft on terrorism. He said he's determined to fight terrorism but the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions aren't necessary in that battle.
"These two provisions especially have done nothing to fight against terrorism, have not been helpful and have continued to create some risk for civil liberties," he said.
But Maureen Basnicki, whose husband was killed in the 9-11 attacks, urged Liberal MPs to defy their leader.
"When Canadian lives are at stake, we expect all MPs to vote with their conscience and not with their party."
Flanked by her daughter and Cindy Barkway, whose husband also died in the World Trade Centre, Basnicki said the 9-11 families couldn't "stand on the sidelines any longer and watch opposition parties play politics" with the anti-terrorism measures.
She said the measures are crucial tools that "allow law-enforcement officials to prevent terrorism from turning people like you into victims like us."
Basnicki said MPs must strike a balance between protecting Canadians' security and their civil liberties.
"We're here to remind you what happens when we get that balance wrong."


Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
If we start tossing civil liberties out the window...then the "terrorists" really HAVE won.

Throwing people in jail without explaining why they are there, without trial, without disclosure...that's not something that should be accepted in Canada.

You are WAY off base. The items struck down are there to enhance Canada's security and all this talk of "Controversial" is just BS. The fact is that these 2 items have NEVER been used, since being brought in 5 years ago.
The Liberals brought these laws in and in fact the liberals who are on the security commitee reveiewing these laws wanted a 5 Year extension, but it the Conservatives decided on asking for a 3 year extension.
Mr Dion, the man who couldn't (or didn't want to) get it done on the environment when he was Minister, has basically run roughshod over his other MP's today getting them to flip-flop like he has done.
 
Last edited:

snfu73

disturber of the peace
I don't care WHO brought it in. I didn't like the crap then...I don't like it now. Why does this have to be a liberal vs conservative thing? I support neither party. I do support the ideals of innocent until proven guilty, justice, fairness and human dignity and rights.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin [/FONT]

Way to go Dion.:thumbright:

The Grits didn't do much under Graham, I guess it's a rude awakening for the New Conservative Party to realize they really are a minority government.

Harper's been having so much fun acting like King Steven I this must leave a bitter taste in his mouth. The first of many to come, it's really going to hurt when he gets voted out of power. Yah...
 
Last edited:

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
I don't care WHO brought it in. I didn't like the crap then...I don't like it now. Why does this have to be a liberal vs conservative thing? I support neither party. I do support the ideals of innocent until proven guilty, justice, fairness and human dignity and rights.

Why don't you concentrate your ideals on things that have actually been abused? These laws have never been used, but were there to protect Canada's security by giving law enforcement powers to act on any possible agressor.
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin [/FONT]

Way to go Dion.:thumbright:

The Grits didn't do much under Graham, I guess it's a rude awakening for the New Conservative Party to realize they really are a minority government.

Harper's been having so much fun acting like King Steven I this must leave a bitter taste in his mouth. The first of many to come, it's really going to hurt when he gets voted out of power. Yah...

Way to Go Dion indeed....no action on the Envioronment as minister and U turning on issues he voted for in the past....Some future leader of a country he would make!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well today we saw how partisan Canadian politics are. Dion tried to play a strong leader by not backing down, Harper if he were sincere could have been meeting with the parties beforehand to actually make concessions. All this for the good of the Canadian public....
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
Well today we saw how partisan Canadian politics are. Dion tried to play a strong leader by not backing down, Harper if he were sincere could have been meeting with the parties beforehand to actually make concessions. All this for the good of the Canadian public....

Actually Stockwell Day today was on record as saying that the Conservatives had offered a concession of suggesting an extension of 6 months while the laws could then be reviewed.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Did they vote on a 6 month extension? That would be sensible. What would be more sensible is if they had anticipated this before the bill came up for renewal.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Well done stephane. I will sleep better knowing my rights are protected. Sure the police cannot hold someone for 72 hours who they suspect bought those explosives to blow up a bus full of commuters. And now we don't have to worry about those nasty right-wing bushies actually holding someone and keeping them in jail until they tell where they hid the box of RPG's. I feel a lot safer,because we know with Canada's appalling record of human right abuses that it happens all the time.Right,that is why everyone wants to immigrate here.The fools,if it wasn't Stephane and his crew,those nasty neo-cons would throw everyone into the hoosegow like they have been for the last 5 years. Of course,stephane never cut a deal with Bains. Let's review the facts,Bains moves his support to Dion, Dion orders his troops,I mean caucus, to vote down the laws or he will drive them out of the party,the laws get tossed,Bain's father-in-law is off the hook and does not have to testify about his role in the deadliest(by far) terrorist attack in Canada's history. Yup.I will sleep better with Dion looking out for me.Of course there was no deal,I know because the liberals say so.And Belinda was never bribed with a cabinet position because the liberals say so.And Martin and Dion and Chretien and every other politician in Quebec knew nothing about adscam because they say so. Sweet dreams Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: westmanguy

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The time for compromise isn't the day before a vote. Just like you don't tell a professor one day before the mid-term that you have a meeting to attend. It's been on the sched for a while, Harper knows how to play politics, much better than Dion does. He makes his party look better by waiting til the last minute to offer the olive branch. Dion is no better for his part, I'd like to see more free votes. But he is right that the bill has some questionable content. It's not the legitimate criminals that are hurt by this legislation, it is the possibility for more Arar's and the multi-million dollar suits they get for the crimes committed against them.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don't care WHO brought it in. I didn't like the crap then...I don't like it now. Why does this have to be a liberal vs conservative thing? I support neither party. I do support the ideals of innocent until proven guilty, justice, fairness and human dignity and rights.

I agree with you, because the people they eventually get arround to picking up for a prison vacation will be us.:wave:
 

westmanguy

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,651
18
38
wallyj, 100% agree.

Civil liberties cannot infringe on our safety.

It is the responsibility of government to take precautions to protect me from attacks.

I feel real safe under Dion.

72 hours incarsirate without reason.. wow, what a tragedy! Oh, and it would barely ever happen unless it was needed, Canada is not the type of nation to abuse that like the USA.

Dion makes me feel real safe tonight!
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
Did they vote on a 6 month extension? That would be sensible. What would be more sensible is if they had anticipated this before the bill came up for renewal.

No there was no vote on that, but I do agree with you that it would have been sensible, but Dion holding a big stick to his MP's is not the way to run the country's security. The Committee that has watch over these types of laws had Liberals on it and they wanted a 5 year extension....things like security should be a free vote in Commons, not directed by the leader of a political party. MP's are to represent the wishes of their voters and besides it raises to many flags of concern like the one wallyj raises.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I think we can do better, and remove some of the questionable parts. Harper can put his money where his mouth is. Table a bill based on the recommendations of the committee and maybe tweak it a bit to make sure liberties aren't trampled. He's running a minority government, and there are obviously Liberals who want to have tough terror bills, so make one. This one was a hasty response to 9/11.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Why don't you concentrate your ideals on things that have actually been abused? These laws have never been used, but were there to protect Canada's security by giving law enforcement powers to act on any possible agressor.
The fact that they exist and CAN be used is worriesome. That's like saying there is a giant maneating monster in the backyard, but don't worry, it hasn't eaten anyone yet.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Dion is doing his job as opposition leader, stop whining about it.

Harpers' been acting like he's not accountable to anyone, but the reality of being leader of a minority government is starting to set in. I hope he shows as much dignity as the man he made so much fun of when it's his turn to step down as PM.
 

Fingertrouble

Electoral Member
Nov 8, 2006
150
1
18
55
Calgary
I think we can do better, and remove some of the questionable parts. Harper can put his money where his mouth is. Table a bill based on the recommendations of the committee and maybe tweak it a bit to make sure liberties aren't trampled. He's running a minority government, and there are obviously Liberals who want to have tough terror bills, so make one. This one was a hasty response to 9/11.

I agree...I think a lot was done in haste after 9/11 and I don't blame governments for that, but they should have imposed a time frame for review and amendment of the laws if required.