A selection of quotes from the Maclean's federal leaders' debate


mentalfloss
+1
#1
A selection of quotes from Thursday's federal leaders' debate:

"The other parties are proposing literally tens of billions of dollars of additional spending, permanent spending, to be financed by permanently higher tax rates and permanent deficits." Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
—-

"What we're seeing here tonight is that you're going to do everything you can to hang on to your job. I'm going to do everything I can to create jobs for average Canadians." NDP Leader Tom Mulcair to Harper.
—-

"I'm going to stop you from hiking taxes on those average workers." Harper to Mulcair.
—-

"Mr. Harper's plan simply isn't working, we know that. Incomes are flatlining and household debt is skyrocketing." Mulcair on the economy.
—-

"You have completely become disconnected from the reality that people are facing right across this country." Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to Harper.
—-

"His minimum-wage plan actually will only help less than one per cent of every Canadian who earns minimum wage, and that kind of false advertising is simply irresponsible." Trudeau on Mulcair's call for a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage.
—-

"Over 100,000 Canadians will get a raise. under Mr. Trudeau's plan, not a single Canadian will get a raise." Mulcair in response to Trudeau.
—-

"There is no public trust anymore. People don't trust this government to actually look out for our long-term interest." Trudeau on the environment.
—-

"We have a weak and shrinking economy and it's the wrong time for austerity measures." Green party Leader Elizabeth May.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/a-...bate-1.3182400

Challengers talk up their performances while Stephen Harper opts not to address reporters.

Mulcair, Trudeau and May say they achieved their goals in debate | Toronto Star
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#2
 
Locutus
+1
#3
"mithter Harper"

justins' non-thanking, cringey, fumbling school president speech was tres awkward. especially after he interrupted his friend Wells to add some more.

Kady O'Malley, Ottawa Citizen 8 hours ago Last up at the post-debate scrums — the order of which is, like virtually every other aspect of the proceedings, determined by draw — is Trudeau, who is asked first about his aggressive pursuit of Mulcair, then about youth engagement, and then why his closing remarks were so “terrible”. Man, tough crowd.


Katewerk ‏@katewerk

Mulcair was so creepy in the #macdebate that it's Twitter's first choice in autoprompt. https://twitter.com/search?q=mulcair%20creepy&src=tyah …


"just elect may as speaker of the house, it'll shut her up and she'll probably do a good job": the internet
 
mentalfloss
+1
#4
Trudeau was definitely disappointing.

He came off as a PR bot, whereas the rest of the candidates seemed human.

Canada election 2015: 5 things we learned from the 1st debate

1. Stephen Harper can be shaken

If Conservative Leader Stephen Harper needed to look prime ministerial and remind people why they elected him the last time around, he seemed to deliver a mostly steady performance. But not entirely.

Harper is generally unflappable in public but this debate showed a couple of cracks in his rhetorical shield: Harper can be shaken, even on questions about the economy.

The Conservatives want the election to be about economic management and national security, traditional strengths for the Conservatives. But in one exchange, Harper admitted the Canadian economy is on the verge of a recession after it shrank for five straight months. One more month, to close out two quarters, meets the definition of a recession.

​Harper also got flustered during the debate section on the Senate, telling the other leaders that Conservative senators vote as they're told by his office, rather than based on what the senators think of legislation.

Senators used to ‎vote less along partisan lines but have in recent years closely mirrored their colleagues in the House.

"We cannot force them to do anything... but we ask them to support the party's position," Harper said.

2. Fighting for the left

For NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, it would have been important to look stable enough to replace Harper, but different enough to appeal to voters wanting a change. And different enough from each other to look like the best choice for voters seeking a change in government.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper clashed over their political priorities in Thursday's debate. (Mark Blinch/Pool/Canadian Press)
Trudeau and Mulcair, who have different visions but are still competing for many of the same voters, spent almost as much time contrasting their policies with each other as they did contrasting them with Harper's.

It led to some notable exchanges, particularly on pipelines when Harper could stand back and watch Trudeau and Mulcair discuss who had the most confusing positions and which leader had said one thing in French and a different thing in English.

3. May held her own

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's task was to make sure she made an impression during the debate rather than letting the other leaders leave her out, and to remind people the party isn't a one-issue organization.

May avoided being sidelined and brought some important context on issues she's been vocal about — including C-51, which gave more power to Canada's spy agency, CSIS, and the environment.

In particular, she made clear that Mulcair hasn't taken a position on a Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion in Vancouver, forcing him into a series of non-answers during the debate on energy and the environment.

4. Trudeau got in his jabs

Expectations might have been lowest for Trudeau going into the debate, despite his rival's assertion to the contrary. But with his party in third, there was a lot to gain with a strong performance.

While he had some feisty exchanges with Harper, Trudeau also seemed nervous at times and stumbled badly in his closing, sounding stiff and rehearsed before going over his time.

That said, he probably had the most memorable exchange of the evening with Mulcair in the debate over Quebec sovereignty. Mulcair, whose NDP would let Quebec separate from Canada in the case of a clear 50 per cent plus one vote in favour, was pushing Trudeau for his own number.

"You're not answering...you haven't answered," Mulcair pressed.

"You want a number? I'll give you a number. My number is nine," Trudeau said, referring to a Supreme Court decision which he says contradicts Mulcair's policy.

5. Mulcair strong on the offensive

On the offensive, Mulcair was strong against Harper and Trudeau, forcing Harper into admitting Canada is very nearly in a recession, and generally keeping his opponents on their guard.

Mulcair's built a reputation as a tough questioner in the House, but the party has spent a lot of time softening his image, emphasizing his role as a father, son and brother, and putting him in photo ops with animals.

In Thursday's debate, this seemed to manifest itself through a continuous smile on his face. In the end though, forced smile or not, Mulcair's experience in the House served him in the more heated exchanges as he tried to pick at Harper's record and plug his own plans.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/ca...aug7-1.3182332
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Trudeau was definitely disappointing.

He came off as a PR bot, whereas the rest of the candidates seemed human.

Canada election 2015: 5 things we learned from the 1st debate

1. Stephen Harper can be shaken

If Conservative Leader Stephen Harper needed to look prime ministerial and remind people why they elected him the last time around, he seemed to deliver a mostly steady performance. But not entirely.

Harper is generally unflappable in public but this debate showed a couple of cracks in his rhetorical shield: Harper can be shaken, even on questions about the economy.

The Conservatives want the election to be about economic management and national security, traditional strengths for the Conservatives. But in one exchange, Harper admitted the Canadian economy is on the verge of a recession after it shrank for five straight months. One more month, to close out two quarters, meets the definition of a recession.

​Harper also got flustered during the debate section on the Senate, telling the other leaders that Conservative senators vote as they're told by his office, rather than based on what the senators think of legislation.

Senators used to ‎vote less along partisan lines but have in recent years closely mirrored their colleagues in the House.

"We cannot force them to do anything... but we ask them to support the party's position," Harper said.

2. Fighting for the left

For NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, it would have been important to look stable enough to replace Harper, but different enough to appeal to voters wanting a change. And different enough from each other to look like the best choice for voters seeking a change in government.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper clashed over their political priorities in Thursday's debate. (Mark Blinch/Pool/Canadian Press)
Trudeau and Mulcair, who have different visions but are still competing for many of the same voters, spent almost as much time contrasting their policies with each other as they did contrasting them with Harper's.

It led to some notable exchanges, particularly on pipelines when Harper could stand back and watch Trudeau and Mulcair discuss who had the most confusing positions and which leader had said one thing in French and a different thing in English.

3. May held her own

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's task was to make sure she made an impression during the debate rather than letting the other leaders leave her out, and to remind people the party isn't a one-issue organization.

May avoided being sidelined and brought some important context on issues she's been vocal about — including C-51, which gave more power to Canada's spy agency, CSIS, and the environment.

In particular, she made clear that Mulcair hasn't taken a position on a Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion in Vancouver, forcing him into a series of non-answers during the debate on energy and the environment.

4. Trudeau got in his jabs

Expectations might have been lowest for Trudeau going into the debate, despite his rival's assertion to the contrary. But with his party in third, there was a lot to gain with a strong performance.

While he had some feisty exchanges with Harper, Trudeau also seemed nervous at times and stumbled badly in his closing, sounding stiff and rehearsed before going over his time.

That said, he probably had the most memorable exchange of the evening with Mulcair in the debate over Quebec sovereignty. Mulcair, whose NDP would let Quebec separate from Canada in the case of a clear 50 per cent plus one vote in favour, was pushing Trudeau for his own number.

"You're not answering...you haven't answered," Mulcair pressed.

"You want a number? I'll give you a number. My number is nine," Trudeau said, referring to a Supreme Court decision which he says contradicts Mulcair's policy.

5. Mulcair strong on the offensive

On the offensive, Mulcair was strong against Harper and Trudeau, forcing Harper into admitting Canada is very nearly in a recession, and generally keeping his opponents on their guard.

Mulcair's built a reputation as a tough questioner in the House, but the party has spent a lot of time softening his image, emphasizing his role as a father, son and brother, and putting him in photo ops with animals.

In Thursday's debate, this seemed to manifest itself through a continuous smile on his face. In the end though, forced smile or not, Mulcair's experience in the House served him in the more heated exchanges as he tried to pick at Harper's record and plug his own plans.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/ca...aug7-1.3182332

So now we know what CBC thinks . But what about you . Did you watch the debate and form your own views or do you take the CBC as the word of god ?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#6
I already stated my opinion before the article.

Press the red button to get the nurse to bring you your glasses.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+1
#7
The Republican debate was much more fun to watch.
 
Corduroy
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Trudeau was definitely disappointing.

He came off as a PR bot, whereas the rest of the candidates seemed human.

I had low expectations for Trudeau, so I was actually surprised at how well he did. Elizabeth May too. Her brand of "I can say anything because I don't have a shot" is usually a little sloppy, but not during this debate. I was hoping for firebrand Mulcair but his PR people must have thought he needed to seem less angry and smile stupidly more often.
 
Locutus
+3 / -1
#9  Top Rated Post
“A carbon tax is not about reducing emissions. It’s a front for raising revenues.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
 
bill barilko
+2
#10
It's nice May showed up sober but I don't expect that to last.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#11
 
petros
+1 / -1
#12
Are you high?
 
Mowich
Conservative
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by bill barilko View Post

It's nice May showed up sober but I don't expect that to last.

From all the reports I've been hearing Elizabeth May did very well in the debate. She appears to have reined in her habit of screeching and has a better handle on her emotions. The questions she asked and her knowledge of the subjects discussed were purportedly very astute. Not a fan of Lizzie but I will give her her due when it is called for and apparently this is the time.
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#14
Nothin better than a bunch of fvckin quotes. Here's one I like, A turd in the hand is worse than two in the bush
 
personal touch
Bloc Québécois
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Are you high?

if you missed the etiquette course,it was agreed on this forum,we would not respond with,"are you high" or "are you coked out"or "are you drunk"when people give their opinions or response.
did you miss the class?

i am voting Liz,I doubt it I have a green party candidate,if so,I am voting liz.
 
petros
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

From all the reports I've been hearing Elizabeth May did very well in the debate. She appears to have reined in her habit of screeching and has a better handle on her emotions.

Check out May's resume and her mental health issues post being introduced to the powers that the IMF be. Rafferty-Alameda, Free Trade and massive resources held as collateral in the form of national parks.

They scared the sh-t out of her and her paranoia led to hiding in BC and AK on fishing boats.

Then she became one of them after sacrificing a prime Saltspring goat on Randy Bachman's eco acreage.
 
mentalfloss
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

“A carbon tax is not about reducing emissions. It’s a front for raising revenues.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is wrong.

B.C. achieves greenhouse gas emissions target

 
petros
+1
#18
The sulpher haze over the lower mainland is f-cking awesome at dawn. Pretty sunrises in Nanaimo but good news, tankers and US refineries are upping the supply.


http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/brit...uver-1.3174724

Is a supply shortage an emissions success?

Boo to Kinder Morgan and non imported oil!

Hooray for California oilsands/heavy oil and double hooray for blind bipolar bear and caribou brain damaging North slope oil.

Have you based enough coke to save a deaf rainforest three toed sloath yet?
Last edited by petros; Aug 8th, 2015 at 12:29 AM..
 
mentalfloss
#19
Tale of the tape: Read a full transcript of Maclean's Debate - Macleans.ca
 
petros
#20
What is Mulcairs plan?

Are Trade Unionists still issuing travel tickets for Red Seal tradesmen to work western Canada or are locals sitting on the board with thumbs up their asses?

Are Red Seal tradesmen still coming from around the globe to fill positions or is it kaput dead no more 3 million bbl per day by 2025 goal?
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is wrong.

B.C. achieves greenhouse gas emissions target

never trust anyone with blue eyes they be of the beelzebubster
 
Locutus
#22
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper: Thank you, Paul.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair: Thank you, Paul.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, and I also want to thank Maclean’s and Rogers.

Justin Trudeau:
Mr. Harper has spent millions of dollars on attack ads trying to convince you that I’m not ready for this job.
[...] And after ten years of Mr. Harper, so do we.

Paul Wells: Thank you, Mr.—

Justin Trudeau: That’s why I’m in this. That’s why I want to be your Prime Minister.


Paul Wells: Thank you, Mr. Trudeau.



Cringeworthy | Definition of cringeworthy by Merriam-Webster
 
JamesBondo
+3
#23
This is a perfect example how the CBC injects their layer of partisan politics onto a federal election. Rather than just reporting the facts, they are arrogant to think that we need the information all nicely packaged and summarized. If at the end of this debate, we take away talking points from the CBC, then we are the good little sheep the CBC thinks we are.

Seriously folks. I think everyone needs to work very hard at preserving a sovereign. style of free thinking. The biggest long term threat here is not what Mulcair said to Trudeau, and what Trudeau said to Mulcair. That is less important than the CBC style of 'TV programming' our free thought away. Am I making any sense here? I think this would be a good topic to create a thread on. How do we think independantly from tv programming? How did we make decisions free of outside influence? How do we make decisions outside of other's agendas?

It is ok to draw your own conclusions from the debate. If they happen to be the same conclusions as the CBC, then atleast you got there on your own.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The sulpher haze over the lower mainland is f-cking awesome at dawn. Pretty sunrises in Nanaimo but good news, tankers and US refineries are upping the supply.


http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/brit...uver-1.3174724

Is a supply shortage an emissions success?

Boo to Kinder Morgan and non imported oil!

Hooray for California oilsands/heavy oil and double hooray for blind bipolar bear and caribou brain damaging North slope oil.

Have you based enough coke to save a deaf rainforest three toed sloath yet?

Utah set to be home of first oilsands mine project in U.S. by end of 2015 | Financial Post

... Those damned dirty oil projects that BHO hates
 
Corduroy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

This is a perfect example how the CBC injects their layer of partisan politics onto a federal election. Rather than just reporting the facts, they are arrogant to think that we need the information all nicely packaged and summarized. If at the end of this debate, we take away talking points from the CBC, then we are the good little sheep the CBC thinks we are.

Quotes are a liberal conspiracy.
 
Mowich
Conservative
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Check out May's resume and her mental health issues post being introduced to the powers that the IMF be. Rafferty-Alameda, Free Trade and massive resources held as collateral in the form of national parks.

They scared the sh-t out of her and her paranoia led to hiding in BC and AK on fishing boats.

Then she became one of them after sacrificing a prime Saltspring goat on Randy Bachman's eco acreage.

As I mentioned, petros...........I am no supporter of Liz or her party.
 
mentalfloss
#27
A lot of good critical revelations coming out of this debate.




Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen
ottawacitizen.com

Thursday’s federal leaders’ debate produced some passionate statements from Conservative leader Stephen Harper about the danger terrorism poses to national security. They included an aggressive defence of his government’s divisive Bill C-51, the legislation giving sweeping powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP to thwart suspected threats.

Here’s the spin, and a few facts to add context.

The Spin:

“What we did in developing our legislation is we looked at what modern powers police and security agencies have across our allies, and we’ve made sure that we are up to those standards.” – Stephen Harper

The Facts:

Recent reviews of national security laws in other western countries, including Canada’s closest allies, found no instance of a true precedent for new CSIS powers. Academics Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, leading experts on national security law, concluded: “Canada is not ‘catching up to allies’. It appears to be on an adventure of its own.”

The Spin:

“We have moved our oversight in a very different direction, not having politicians do oversight. We have oversight done by independent experts, by people who are experts in the field, an independent committee. When it comes to the operations of security agencies, I don’t think those things should be politicized or done by politicians. I think they should be done by experts and by judges.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

Canada’s chief body monitoring security intelligence operations is the independent civilian agency, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It reviews selected CSIS activities to ensure its spying is lawful. It employs subject-matter experts and is headed by a five-member panel of former politicians and other privy councillors. Its latest chair is Pierre Blais, former chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal and a cabinet minister in the Progressive Conservative governments of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell.

Others who had sat on SIRC include former Reform Party MP Deborah Grey; former Tory MP Chuck Strahl; Philippe Couillard, now Liberal premier of Quebec; Frances Lankin, former Ontario NDP MPP; Gary Filmon, former Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba; Roy Romanow, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan; Frank McKenna, former Liberal premier of New Brunswick; Bob Rae, former NDP premier of Ontario and later federal Liberal MP; and others.

The Spin:

“I think (the current model) is a robust system of oversight.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

“Oversight” implies involvement in the active political decision-making or operational decision-making. SIRC, established in 1984, is not involved in CSIS’s operational decision-making. It was purposely devised to be a limited, after-the-fact “review” body – not an all-seeing “oversight” committee that would vet spy operations.

Direct, real-time oversight of CSIS used to be the responsibility of an inspector general, whose job was to keep the minister of Public Safety informed about the spy agency’s ongoing operations. The Conservative government abolished the office in 2012.

Meanwhile, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, a former civilian and military judge, is Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s foreign intelligence signals agency. Despite the title, Plouffe is the CSE watchdog. But his prime responsibility is to review, not oversee, CSE activities to ensure they are lawful.

Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen
Last edited by mentalfloss; Aug 8th, 2015 at 10:08 AM..
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Utah set to be home of first oilsands mine project in U.S. by end of 2015 | Financial Post

... Those damned dirty oil projects that BHO hates

He only hates the ones he can't impose a carbon tax on.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

A lot of good critical revelations coming out of this debate.




Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen
ottawacitizen.com

Thursday’s federal leaders’ debate produced some passionate statements from Conservative leader Stephen Harper about the danger terrorism poses to national security. They included an aggressive defence of his government’s divisive Bill C-51, the legislation giving sweeping powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP to thwart suspected threats.

Here’s the spin, and a few facts to add context.

The Spin:

“What we did in developing our legislation is we looked at what modern powers police and security agencies have across our allies, and we’ve made sure that we are up to those standards.” – Stephen Harper

The Facts:

Recent reviews of national security laws in other western countries, including Canada’s closest allies, found no instance of a true precedent for new CSIS powers. Academics Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, leading experts on national security law, concluded: “Canada is not ‘catching up to allies’. It appears to be on an adventure of its own.”

The Spin:

“We have moved our oversight in a very different direction, not having politicians do oversight. We have oversight done by independent experts, by people who are experts in the field, an independent committee. When it comes to the operations of security agencies, I don’t think those things should be politicized or done by politicians. I think they should be done by experts and by judges.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

Canada’s chief body monitoring security intelligence operations is the independent civilian agency, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It reviews selected CSIS activities to ensure its spying is lawful. It employs subject-matter experts and is headed by a five-member panel of former politicians and other privy councillors. Its latest chair is Pierre Blais, former chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal and a cabinet minister in the Progressive Conservative governments of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell.

Others who had sat on SIRC include former Reform Party MP Deborah Grey; former Tory MP Chuck Strahl; Philippe Couillard, now Liberal premier of Quebec; Frances Lankin, former Ontario NDP MPP; Gary Filmon, former Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba; Roy Romanow, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan; Frank McKenna, former Liberal premier of New Brunswick; Bob Rae, former NDP premier of Ontario and later federal Liberal MP; and others.

The Spin:

“I think (the current model) is a robust system of oversight.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

“Oversight” implies involvement in the active political decision-making or operational decision-making. SIRC, established in 1984, is not involved in CSIS’s operational decision-making. It was purposely devised to be a limited, after-the-fact “review” body – not an all-seeing “oversight” committee that would vet spy operations.

Direct, real-time oversight of CSIS used to be the responsibility of an inspector general, whose job was to keep the minister of Public Safety informed about the spy agency’s ongoing operations. The Conservative government abolished the office in 2012.

Meanwhile, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, a former civilian and military judge, is Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s foreign intelligence signals agency. Despite the title, Plouffe is the CSE watchdog. But his prime responsibility is to review, not oversee, CSE activities to ensure they are lawful.

Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen

Now THAT is spin.
 
skookumchuck
Free Thinker
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

A lot of good critical revelations coming out of this debate.




Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen
ottawacitizen.com

Thursday’s federal leaders’ debate produced some passionate statements from Conservative leader Stephen Harper about the danger terrorism poses to national security. They included an aggressive defence of his government’s divisive Bill C-51, the legislation giving sweeping powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP to thwart suspected threats.

Here’s the spin, and a few facts to add context.

The Spin:

“What we did in developing our legislation is we looked at what modern powers police and security agencies have across our allies, and we’ve made sure that we are up to those standards.” – Stephen Harper

The Facts:

Recent reviews of national security laws in other western countries, including Canada’s closest allies, found no instance of a true precedent for new CSIS powers. Academics Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, leading experts on national security law, concluded: “Canada is not ‘catching up to allies’. It appears to be on an adventure of its own.”

The Spin:

“We have moved our oversight in a very different direction, not having politicians do oversight. We have oversight done by independent experts, by people who are experts in the field, an independent committee. When it comes to the operations of security agencies, I don’t think those things should be politicized or done by politicians. I think they should be done by experts and by judges.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

Canada’s chief body monitoring security intelligence operations is the independent civilian agency, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It reviews selected CSIS activities to ensure its spying is lawful. It employs subject-matter experts and is headed by a five-member panel of former politicians and other privy councillors. Its latest chair is Pierre Blais, former chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal and a cabinet minister in the Progressive Conservative governments of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell.

Others who had sat on SIRC include former Reform Party MP Deborah Grey; former Tory MP Chuck Strahl; Philippe Couillard, now Liberal premier of Quebec; Frances Lankin, former Ontario NDP MPP; Gary Filmon, former Progressive Conservative premier of Manitoba; Roy Romanow, former NDP premier of Saskatchewan; Frank McKenna, former Liberal premier of New Brunswick; Bob Rae, former NDP premier of Ontario and later federal Liberal MP; and others.

The Spin:

“I think (the current model) is a robust system of oversight.” – Stephen Harper.

The Facts:

“Oversight” implies involvement in the active political decision-making or operational decision-making. SIRC, established in 1984, is not involved in CSIS’s operational decision-making. It was purposely devised to be a limited, after-the-fact “review” body – not an all-seeing “oversight” committee that would vet spy operations.

Direct, real-time oversight of CSIS used to be the responsibility of an inspector general, whose job was to keep the minister of Public Safety informed about the spy agency’s ongoing operations. The Conservative government abolished the office in 2012.

Meanwhile, Jean-Pierre Plouffe, a former civilian and military judge, is Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s foreign intelligence signals agency. Despite the title, Plouffe is the CSE watchdog. But his prime responsibility is to review, not oversee, CSE activities to ensure they are lawful.

Reality Check: Stephen Harper’s take on the anti-terror bill | Ottawa Citizen

Perhaps tell us what YOU would have done, all knowing flossie. You are no better than the candidates, running your mouth, but actually worse because you just C P someone elses garbage.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#30
I wouldn't lie?

Wow, that was an easy one.
 

Similar Threads

3
Notable quotes from federal party leaders
by mentalfloss | May 3rd, 2011
0
Online Leaders Debate
by Locutus | Oct 4th, 2007
0