Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


159-124. The Sunset Clauses are officially defeated and will not be renewed.

The 2 Sunset Clauses are officially defeated. All but 2 Liberals voted against it (Tom Wappel – not a shocker, and Irwin Cotler, who abstained).

Bravo to Dion for sticking to his guns and saying that anti-terror legislation does not need to go overboard and trample our civil liberties and our civil rights while protecting us.. and that view isnt being “weak on terror”. The Supreme Court took the same view on Friday with the Security certificates.

Somewhere, Pierre Trudeau is smiling at both decisions.


26 comments to 159-124. The Sunset Clauses are officially defeated and will not be renewed.

  • “These measure were not abused so the clause should have been extended.”

    Why? Not only were they not abused, they were not used. The potential exists for abuse and the police seem to be doing jsut fine without them, so why have them around.

    Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who wanted these measures to be extended to make the case. They needed show, quite forcefully, that these measures must continue. They did not. The best they came up with was “it will scuttle Air India” – which didn’t hold water considering that the RCMP and government’s own reluctance to provide un-redacted evidence to Justice John Major is threatening to scuttle the inquiry. Considering that the RCMP, who have been investigating this crime for 22 years, have had access to these provisions for 5 years and never used them. Considering that the Conservatives themselves agreed in committee in October that the renewal wold only apply to future, new investigations not past one (thus excluding Air India) and as late as yesterday morning, Harper offered to agree to THAT agreement, essentially scuttling the Air India investigation as he implied the Liberals would do.

    All of this for measures that are a clear danger to our civil rights, that have never been used – the police have foiled plots since 9-11 using good old fashioned police work (Toronto 17 anyone?). Clamoring to keep these measures to “protect” us from terrorism, despite the fact that we are more likely to die in a car accident, by drowning or by taking prescription drugs that by terrorist acts, seem rather silly. Cowardly almost.

    I’m glad they are gone – good riddance to bad, unneeded laws with a huge potential for abuse.

  • Wow.. my post has not only drawn out the Conservative crazies, but drawn you out of blogging retirement Ferrethouse? I’m impressed. :em19:

    No partisanship about it Ferret; I opposed these measures when they were first implemented, and I wasn’t a Liberal back then. I believe the potential always existed for them to be abused, and we have plenty of tools without needing such draconian measures. I’ve see what the US has done, and I dont even want a whiff of that here.

    The Supreme Court said the same thing on Friday when it ruled those security certificates unconstitutional… and the same tonight when a majority of MP’s representing 64% of the popular vote took a stand and refused to allow the hint of a police state, Ferret.

    Its been a great few days for civil liberty rights people like me.. and especially gratifying to see the New York Times lead editorial congratulate Canada for what its court did on Friday.

  • If I’m not mistaken the two measures in question were never used so stating that they “trampled our civil liberties and civil rights” is hyperbole at best. Do you REALLY feel like you live in a police state Scott or is this just another edition of “partisanship gone wild”!!

    It was Dion and the Liberals who introduced these measures and the sunset clause was put in place to ensure an “out” in case of abuse. These measure were not abused so the clause should have been extended. But politics trumpts common sense and national security I guess.

  • Some people just can’t let that leadership thing go eh Scott?

    Good post my friend.

    Carry on.

    The What Do I Know Grit

  • Thanks for the inspiring post, Scott. It’s great to feel proud to be Canadian again. (Let’s hope the feeling isn’t too fleeting.)

  • Mark:
    I’m referring to 1982 Charter of Rights Trudeau.. not the 1970 version 🙂

  • knb

    Centre, read the question asked. Do you really think that was an honest poll? Preventative arrest…do you think most people know that that means being arrested without charge? Re-phrase the questions with honesty Ipsos, then watch the reply.

    Please do not give credance where it is not due.

    Dr. Dawg, actually Cotler chose, pricipled abstentia, so he was in the House and did not rise. I heard him before the vote and while he backed his Leader, so he was there, he had explained why he could not rise on this vote. I believe this was accepted by Dion. That’s fine for me and considering Cotler’s role in all of this looking back, I don’t know how he could have taken a different view.

    Gayle, I suspect that the Lib’s have been drafting away. To be honest, I hope the con’s have too. I’d like to see something come to the House asap.

    Joe Steel, pretty darned pathetic.

  • There is no need for such legislation. I’m glad to see it gone.

    As for Pierre Trudeau… Didn’t he implement the War Measures Act once upon a time…? :em62:

  • Joe Steel

    Still doesn’t answer my question.
    I’m no insider, went to a lunch put on by Rae last summer and have been on the call list ever since. I knew Libs were cut throat but you gotta give a guy a chance. Organizing for a leadership run less the 3 months after a new leader, not you, was chosen. Ouch !
    But really the party should have chosen Rae or Kennedy.

  • Gayle

    I am with Centre on this. The liberals should be the ones to reintroduce the legislation, with amendments. Not like the conservatives can refuse to pass it, since they are the ones who suggested the 11th hour compromise to include the amendments this afternoon.

  • I also give mad props to Cotler for taking a principled stance on this vote.

    A “principled stand?” Abstaining?

  • Centre

    If my party want to take back ownership of this issue before getting slaughtered on the airwaves for being “soft on terrorism and crime”, then they should introduce a motion ASAP that reintroduces the clauses with the Liberal senate approved amendments. It puts the ball back in the CPC’s court.

    Emotion bested facts with this issue. Both the Liberals and Conservatives share blame for this.

    And I guarantee this is not the last time we will here about the clauses.

  • Angus Reid also said that a massive majority of Canadians thought Harper was in the wrong for smearing Navdeep Bains and the majority also said he should apologize.

    Canadians hate American-style gutter politics and smear… and that will wipe away any advantage the Tories think they might have on the issue. Shame on them.

  • Centre

    Angus Reid today:

    As you may know, some provisions in the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, which was implemented in December 2001, will expire at the end of this month. These measures include giving police the power to make preventive arrests of people suspected of planning a terrorist attack, and requiring anyone with information relevant to the investigation of a terrorist act to appear before a judge. Which of these statements comes closest to your own view?

    The provisions are adequate and should be extended – 65%

    The provisions are excessive and should not be extended – 24%

    Not sure – 12%

    I also give mad props to Cotler for taking a principled stance on this vote. It is something both the Liberals and Conservatives should take note of

  • Leftdog: They dont know what they’re talking about.

    A dozen were absent. 4 of those 12 were known supporters of the Sunset Clauses. 2 others had legitimate reasons to be away apparently (Dosaanjh and Graham).

    Not bad when all things are considered.

  • Hey, maybe MHF could run in a Scarborough riding…

  • Posters at smalldeadanimals are saying that 25 Liberal ducked the vote and were not in the House. Is that true?? does anyone know??

  • You folks are hilarious. :em32: Gotta love the anonymous comments from so-called Liberal staffers.

    IF you were a Rae guy.. you’d know he went on TV tonight and said that Harper had demeaned the debate by taking the low road. Instead of arguing with each other respectfully and respectfully disagreeing.. he chose the smear tactics and the “soft on terror” crap.. and Rae said there was no place for that. He said Dion and Layton and everyone else who opposed these did so on points of principle and needed to be respected for it.

    My view of Rae just went up a mile after seeing that interview.

  • Joe Steel

    Got a call from the Rae leadership team, last night. They wanted to know, if I was interested in helping to prepare for another leadership bid.

    It seems they think that Dion will fall on his face and be pushed out,soon.

    What’s going on ?

  • I see the Tory talking points have been distributed. The Supreme Court ruling I am talking about refers to the Security Certificates Paul.. which I’m sure you knew.. but tried to distract from. Again.. I ask you.. do you think the SC is soft on terror for their Security Certificate ruling?

    As for the Sunset clauses.. they may have been ruled constitutional but they have never been used but once, and that doesn’t mean we need them to fight terror with – and infringing our civil liberties in the process.

    Also.. why is it such a big deal now for the RCMP? Where were they between 2001 and now where they could have used these to question people, but now that they expire.. its all of a sudden a big deal to need to keep these and they have tons of people they could use this on? Forgive me if I’m a tad cynical and think they were politically motivated to come out and say this – as they were with the Ralph Goodale income trusts investigation.

  • Time for some pedantry.

    We are not sure that Franklin was the author, and it’s misquoted:

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”


    Oh, I think the vote was just great, by the way.

  • Paul

    The supreme court of Canada ruled that these measures are constitutional. The police say that these clauses provide them with necessary tools to fight terrorism. The families of the Air India bombing and 9/11 victims have begged parliament to renew the measures.

    Opposition to these measures, which were brought in by the Liberal Party of Canada back when it was respectable, is purely based in ideology. Extremist left-wing elements in the party have been allowed to dictate Liberal policies.

  • I have faith there are more Canadians out there who reject the politics of fear and smear and who value our civil liberties then there are of Canadians who want to hide under a rock and and who think we need to take away our freedoms from the society. It is those Canadians that the earlier quote I left from Benjamin Franklin refers to: Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.

    Is the Supreme Court pro-terrorist too, Mike? Even those 2 Conservative appointed judges apparently are, including the Chief Justice. Are you smear-artists going to be attacking them as well?

  • Mike in White Rock

    Best purchase loads and loads of Tylenol stock. The Conservatives are going to beat you over the head with this during the next election.

    I’d suggest getting a new leader.

  • I am glad that it did not pass, but I am sick to death of the the Conservatives running down Dion, at every breath.The Globe and Mail letters are terrible..the Conservatives are out fullforce running down Dion.
    As for the Court’s views, and the result of this vote, I bet Pierre is smiling.

  • […] 159-124. The Sunset Clauses are officially defeated and will not be renewed. […]

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.