Liberals to repeal Conservative immigration bill

Immigration Minister John MacCallum has introduced legislation in the federal parliament that repeals the law passed by the former Harper government that stripped dual Canadian citizens of their citizenship if convicted of terrorism-related offenses.

The Liberals promised during their 2015 election campaign that they would repeal the law. The promise was applauded by many lawyers, civil rights activists and others. So far the law has been used to deprive only one person of his citizenship — Zakaria Amara, the ringleader of the so-called Toronto 18who were charged back in 2006 with planning "to detonate a truck bomb in downtown Toronto, storm Parliament Hill and behead the prime minister."

Amara, also a Jordanian citizen, was convicted back in 2010 and sentenced to life in prison. Although he is eligible for parole this year, he is unlikely to be released given the nature of his crimes. The group had been infiltrated by Mubin Shaikh, who worked on behalf of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Amara is not likely a popular choice to receive his citizenship back.

However, McCallum said that the power of the government to strip a person of citizenship because they happen to commit a terrorist offence while being a citizen of another country should be removed as a "matter of principle." As McCallum put it: "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian." There are not two classes of citizens with different rights those who are not dual citizens and those who are. Justin Trudeau had used the exact same phrasing in arguing against Stephen Harper during a leader debate in the 2015 campaign. Trudeau also said:"And you devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anybody." McCallum also noted: "It will still be possible to revoke citizenship, as it always has been, for those who misrepresent who they are or who are guilty of citizenship fraud. I think under the previous law there was a risk of a slippery slope. If one crime made you eligible for revocation this year, what crimes could be added next year?We do have a criminal justice system. We do have courts. We do have prisons where those convicted of crimes are sent. And that is the way in which we deal with this."The Harper government had used the euphemistic title "Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act" for their legislation.

When Amara's citizenship was revoked midway through the 2015 election campaign, the Conservative Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney,tweeted: "This man hated Canada so much, he planned on murdering hundreds of Canadians. He forfeited his own citizenship."Conservative MP Michelle Rempel was critical of the Liberal decision, saying:"Make no mistake. This bill is a win for Zakaria Amara and not many Canadians. A lot of Canadians will question the government's judgment with the decision made today."McCallum admitted that the optics of the situation were not that favorable: "My life might be a little simpler if there wasn't this one person out there. But the fact is, there is. So I am comfortable adhering to the point of principle that this applies across the board."

The Conservatives used Amara for their own political purposes during the campaign. It did not seem to work then and it may not work now either. The NDP was also opposed to the Conservative legislation. Tom Mulcair accused Harper of "strutting his stuff for his right-wing base." The French socialist government is planning the same type of legislation concerning dual citizens as the Conservatives. In the last six years, the UK has stripped almost 40 citizens of their citizenship and that includes some who were born in the UK.

The new bill also reduces the time immigrants must spend in Canada before they can apply for citizenship and it also eases the language requirements for new arrivals in Canada. The credit removed from international students was also restored. McCallum said of the removal:"The dumbest actually was taking away the 50 per cent credit for international students, because if there's any group in this country who would be good Canadians — they're educated, they know about this country, they speak English or French — it's them. So why punch them in the nose when we're trying to attract them here in competition with Australia, the U.K. and others?"

Even Al Jazeera noticed that the Liberals were repealing the Conservative citizenship law. The paper notes that the move was applauded by Laura Track, a counsel for the BC Civill Liberties unions, who said: "We applaud the government for introducing these changes to restore equal citizenship in Canada. Bill C-24 was discriminatory and unconstitutional."Rona Ambrose, CPC's interim leader, has expressed concern over Amara's citizenship status via Twitter, saying that the government announcement "bestows Canadian citizenship on a convicted terrorist." Conservative MP Rempel also criticized the government: "I would like to think that the first principle that we put forward, that we're not celebrating people that commit terrorist actions against our country."

Raj Sharma, a Canadian immigration lawyer, was critical of the Conservatives, saying: "They're signaling to their base that they they're tough on [terrorism]. That was pandering to the gallery, done for political purposes." The new bill should easily pass through the parliament as the Liberals have a majority.

August 24 poll averages show NDP in slim lead

A recent poll by Nanos, Globe and Mail, CTV shows the three main parties in a virtual tie although other recent polls still show the NDP ahead by several points. Nevertheless the NDP vote percentage has gone down since the last CBC poll-tracker averages.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

The Nanos poll shows the Conservatives at 30.1 percent of the vote, the NDP is at 29.1 percent and the Liberals at 29.9. The Nanos poll is in contrast to two other recent polls that still have the NDP leading by several points. Nanos polls for some reason in several cases give lower values for the NDP than other polls as can be seen by the list of polls at the CBC poll-tracker.

Nevertheless the poll averages also show a decline for the NDP and the three parties closer in the polls. The most recent poll-tracker results averaged on August 24 are: Conservatives 29.4 percentage of vote, a slight gain of 0.2 from the last polls; the NDP at 32.3, a significant drop of 1.5 from last time; and the Liberals at 28.3 the largest gain of 0.8. Seat projections show the NDP still ahead with 126 seats, followed by the Conservatives with 118 and the Liberals trailing with only 93. The Green Party would win one seat and the Parti Quebecois none.

In the previous elections in 2008 and 2011, Harper was able to successfully claim that his Conservative government was best suited to guide the economy. This time around with the Canadian economy in the doldrums if not recession and the stock markets tanking, this advantage appears to be declining. The economy is still a crucial election issue. A recent Ipsos Reid poll showed that 76 per cent of Canadians considered the economy "absolutely critical" to determining their vote. Three quarters also said the same for creating jobs. An Abacus Data polls shows that only 43 percent of Canadians think the economy is good or very good. Two years ago 67 per cent thought this. The numbers of those who think the country is on the wrong track have increased while those thinking it is on the right track, still 36 per cent, has declined. While one third think the economy is still growing, 64 percent think it is shrinking. There are more detailed results at the Abacus site with quite helpful figures.

On the issue of leadership on the 15 issues tested, on all 15 a majority of respondents thought Mulcair or Trudeau would make more acceptable decisions than Harper. However, on the economy, respondents in three of four recent polls gave Harper an edge of one or two points over Mulcair and the NDP. An IPSOS poll showed a wider lead of 36 to 28 percent for Harper. If the vote were on the economy alone Harper might win at most a small minority victory and perhaps not even that as he no longer has a huge advantage on the issue. With Canada facing economic troubles and the energy sector in particular badly hit, the opposition is sure to blame Harper for this situation even though much is beyond his control. Likely, emphasis will continue on the issue of ethics in opposition attacks on Harper. Polls so far do not show any negative results for the Conservatives in response to the revelations at the Duffy trial.

Why Liberals should vote for the NDP this election

In the past when the New Democratic Party had no chance of forming the government, the Liberals have often called for NDP supporters to vote Liberal in order defeat the Conservatives.

+ Add Image

During those periods, the NDP languished in third place with dismal polling numbers. However, now the NDP leads in the polls and the Liberals are in third place behind the Conservatives. The NDP should be calling upon Liberals to return the favor and now vote strategically to ensure that Harper is defeated. There are other reasons as well that Liberals should consider voting for the NDP.

The NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was himself for many years a Liberal and cabinet minister in the Quebec provincial government. Mulcair served as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment, and Parks in the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest. During his tenure he promoted and passed in November 2004 a Sustainable Development Plan that included an amendment to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to include a right to live in a healthy environment that respects biodiversity. In 2006, after Mulcair opposed a government development plan in a national park he was removed from his cabinet position. Those within the Liberal party who supported former leader Stephan Dionne in his move to attempt a Green Shift within the Liberal Party might do well to support the perhaps more saleable environmental policies of Mulcair. Dionne led the Liberals from 2006 to 2008:The Liberals lost support on 14 October federal election, being reduced to 77 seats, down from 103 won in the 2006 election. They captured only 26.2 per cent of the popular voteThe Liberals have had a continuing leadership problem. While Dionne was the choice of those at the leadership convention and not favoured by some Liberal king makers the next leader was favoured by the establishment.

Michael Ignatieff was a top academic who left a position at Harvard where he taught to enter the contest for the Liberal leadership. He sometimes forgot whether he was an American or a Canadian. He supported the US-led invasion of Iraq and also had a rosy view of the US Empire:As a journalist, Ignatieff observed that the United States had established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known."Ignatieff turned out to be far more disastrous as a leader than Dionne. In the 2011 federal election, Ignatieff lost his own seat. The Liberal party had its worst showing in history winning only 34 seats. It placed third far behind the Conservatives enabling the NDP to become the official opposition for the first time ever. Now it is time for the Liberals to vote strategically for the NDP.

The Liberals showed their affinity to the right wing of the NDP when they chose Bob Rae the former NDP premier of Ontario as their interim leader. With the election of Justin Trudeau Liberals no doubt thought that they were on their way to power again. At first, polls encouraged this view. Just days after Trudeau won the leadership a poll showed that 43 percent of respondents favoured the Liberals with just 30 percent for the Conservatives and only 19 percent for the NDP, the official opposition. In July 2014 the Liberals still had a ten point lead over the Conservatives with the NDP coming third. Just over a year later under Trudeau's leadership the NDP is now in first place several points ahead of the Conservatives with the Liberals still trailing the Conservatives and in third place. Liberals should realize for the third election in a row their party is going nowhere and their prime duty is to turf out Harper.

The Conservatives have had a field day criticizing Trudeau because of the constant gaffes he makes. He jokes about Russia and the Ukraine He admired China's ability to control the economy. He famously said that the budget will balance itself. The Conservatives take this out of context as Trudeau was claiming that given good economic growth the budget would balance itself. This is still questionable. However, the Conservatives can use Trudeau's many gaffes as part of a clever ad campaign as shown in the appended video. They hammer home the theme of "just not ready" as applying to Trudeau.

Trudeau has supported Harper's regressive anti-terror bill even without amendments. Mulcair and probably many Liberals reject the bill. Another reason to vote for Mulcair. Trudeau says he will not use the politics of fear as Harper does. Yet in supporting the anti-terror bill Trudeau is doing exactly that. While Trudeau would legalize marijuana, Mulcair would act faster decriminalizing it a day after being elected. Come on all you Liberals! Get out there and vote NDP.

NDP and Conservatives in virtual tie as federal election campaign begins

As expected, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with the Governor General today. The parliament was dissolved and writs were issued for a federal election on October 19.

+ Add Image

As of July 28 the CBC Poll Tracker shows the Conservative Party of Canada(CPC) is virtually tied with the New Democratic Party(NDP) while the Liberals, the third major party, lag behind in spite of their youthful good-looking leader Justin Trudeau. As of July 28, the Conservatives had 31.6 percent support, NDP 32.1 and Liberals, 25.6. However, the most recent seat projections by the same site give the Conservatives 132 seats, the NDP 122, and the Liberals just 81. The Quebec separatist Bloc Quebecois would win two seats and the Green Party one. Given the Canadian political system of first-past-the-post, a party could obtain the highest popular vote without winning the most seats. Seat projections can change considerably over a relatively short period to time. On July 7 the seat predictions were 119 for the Conservatives, 127 for the NDP, and 89 for the Liberals with the other minor parties being the same. Predictions for who will win in each separate riding can be found here.

The Conservatives have been regaining some lost ground lately to come even with the NDP but the Liberals appear to be stuck in the doldrums. The Poll Tracker has a graph showing support for the parties over time. The Liberals have been dropping for some time while the NDP surged but now is back even with the Conservatives. The Conservative fortunes were no doubt helped when last week the Harper government issued checks to families as part of Universal Child Care Benefit increases.

Together the NDP and the Liberals would have a large majority of seats. It would make strategic sense for the two to agree to a coalition government to replace the Harper government. A recent poll by Forum Research shows that over two-thirds of Liberal and NDP supporters are in favour of the two parties forming a coalition if the Conservatives should win a minority government on October 19. Seventy-five percent of NDP supporters are in favour of a coalition and even 68 percent of Liberals, even though the leader Justin Trudeau has consistently ruled out such a move.The NDP has said that it is open to the idea. Forum Research president, Lorne Bozinoff said: “The two opposition parties have spent the last week dancing around the coalition question, but it appears their supporters, especially the New Democrats, have no such qualms. They’re ready to get hitched as soon as a minority Conservative government is elected –– if that happens."

Harper extends Iraq mission for a year and expands mission into Syria bombings

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has presented a motion before parliament that would renew its mission as part of the coalition led by the US that is fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or IS).

+ Add Image	1 of 2

The entire text of the motion can be found here. The original mission that involved air attacks and special forces advisers lasted six months. One Canadian soldier was killed in a friendly fire incident at a Kurdish checkpoint near the front lines during the present mission.

The mission has not just been extended for a year rather than another six months, it has also been expanded to include air strikes in Syria. When Harper first made his case for joining the coalition, he specifically noted that Canada would attack the Islamic State only where it had the clear support of the government of the area being attacked. Now he has simply ignored that proviso along with the US and some other members of the coalition. Harper said: "In expanding our air strikes into Syria, the government has now decided that we will not seek the express consent of the Syrian government." NDP defense critic Jack Harris asked why the Harper government has now decided that consent of the Syrian government is not required. The foreign minister Rob Nicholson said that it was the same basis as used by the other coalition members that the IS posed a threat to everyone. They are claiming the same type of "self-defense" argument that is used by the US. When Tom Mulcair the NDP leader asked about the legality of the operation: In response, Harper referenced a letter the U.S. government sent UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in September that set out the Americans’ rationale for strikes in Syria – but which itself was criticized as playing fast and loose with international law.

An article in Macleans magazine shows in detail the similarities between the Canadian argument and that of the US. Harper claimed that Canadian special forces would not be operating in Syria. Canada also will continue an extensive humanitarian operation to help refugees from the conflict.

Both New Democratic Party leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau complained that the government had not been up front about the role special forces were playing. They also were concerned about the seeming lack of any exit strategy.No doubt the US urged Canada to expand its role to bomb the IS in Syria.

The New Democratic Party leader promised that if the NDP becomes the government after the next elections all Canadian troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. The Liberals did not go that far but promised to change the mission to concentrate on humanitarian help and training of Iraqi forces. Both leaders claimed that bombing of the IS in Syria could consolidate Assad's power. Canadians must go to the polls before Oct. 19 this year.

The Conservatives politics of fear appears to be working. A recent IPSOS poll shows that two thirds of Canadians are in favour of an extension of the Canadian mission with just 34 percent opposed. A majority of supporters in each of the three main parties support the extension: A majority of Conservative (86%), Liberal (67%) and NDP (56%) voters support extending the current mission against ISIS, but only 38% of Bloc voters support an extension.

The Bloc Quebecois is a Quebec-based federal separatist-leaning party. 65 percent of Canadians support the use of Canadian troops in a combat mission against the IS with only 35 percent disagreeing. However, the 35 percent opposed is actually 4 percent more than last month.

Daryl Copeland a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute argues that Canada's participation in US-led wars such as that against the IS in Iraq and Syria undercuts whatever is left of Canada's former reputation as a peace-keeper. Canada's participation he claims was not necessary in the first place and to continue the mission and even expand it will simply increase the costs. Copeland argues that the intervention will not work as is shown by what has happened after earlier US interventions, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Blowback from these interventions is what has generated support for the Islamic State. Copeland lists five reasons in all for not intervening. Given that the intervention is politically popular and that it will allow Harper to demand more money for the military as well as fitting in with his politics of fear, no doubt five reasons not to intervene will have zero influence on Harper's great leap forward into Syria.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-harper-to-expand-and-extend-canada-s-fight-against-isis/article/429113#ixzz3VgvgwYs2