The good, the bad and the ugly – part two

Still with me?  Let’s continue

#13 and #14 – fantastic (that’s even better than great)!  We should have let CSIS and the RCMP off the leash a long time ago.  They, more than anyone, know the nature and level of the threat and should be able to tell Canadians about it.

#15 – very good, although it will be very, very challenging to implement preventing the entry of foreign funds in an interconnected world.

#16 – good – the more briefings and awareness the better

#17 – bad.  How many people will CSIS have to screen?  I’ve been at very successful events where hundreds were present and which were organised at the last minute.  How would this be done?  I’ve also been at events where extremists showed up.  Not only did these people not hijack the session, but they were shouted down by other participants.  Again, it comes down to stigmatisation (which is in the report – did they read that section?).  Implement screening and no one would show up.  So much for the government role in CVE.

#18 – good idea.  Terrorism cases may be infrequent but members of the judiciary do require a specialised knowledge.

#19 – dunno.  I have no idea what it means.

#20 – great.  Again, should have been the case all along that other jurisdictions could lay terrorism charges.

#21 – UGLY!  This is probably the worst one of all – well maybe after that imam training one.  CSIS has enough on its plate without wasting limited and valuable resources to determine whether the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist entity.  It should not (there, recommendation filled).  Who wrote this, Egypt’s President Sisi (I didn’t see him on the list of witnesses)?

#22 – whatever.

#23 – great, except that this government doesn’t want more independent review.

#24 – good.  Get rid of that “at-risk women” thing and this is a great idea and a good follow on to the work done under Kanishka.

#25 – good I guess.  Not my area.

So, I count 18 goods and greats (albeit with some objections), 3 bads, 2 uglies and 2 “I have no idea why these are heres”.  So the senate is batting 72%.  Overall, I think the recommendations are valuable. So kudos to the committee.

There are clearly partisan elements here but why should we be surprised?  That’s how government works for good or for bad.  Or even ugly.

By Phil Gurski

Phil Gurski is the President and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting Ltd. Phil is a 32-year veteran of CSE and CSIS and the author of six books on terrorism.

Leave a Reply