Today's vote on extending the anti-terrorism provisions went as expected -- Canada's opposition parties have decided that terrorism is not likely to rear it's ugly head in Canada, so have removed important tools for law enforcement that just about everyone agreed were important, even essential:
Members of Parliament voted against a proposal to extend two controversial anti-terror measures contained in the Criminal Code.
The proposal was voted down 159-124 on Tuesday in the House of Commons.
All Conservatives present, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, voted for the extension. The Bloc, NDP present, and all but two Liberals voted against it.
The anti-terror rules became law on Dec. 18, 2001, in the chaotic aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
The measures, which are set to expire on Thursday, allow police to arrest people suspected of being about to carry out a terrorist act and hold them for up to three days.
The measures also allow closed investigative hearings, where judges can demand evidence on suspected plots.
Terrorist attacks are planned to the minute. A three-day detention of any member of a cell is guaranteed to utterly wreck any plan.
So what of the two Liberals who did not vote the party line?
The Liberals who did not vote with the rest of their party are former justice minister Irwin Cotler, who abstained, and MP Tom Wappel, who voted with the Conservatives. Wappel was a member of the subcommittee that reviewed the measures.
Their future is in doubt. This was declared by Stephane Dion to be a "three-line whip". That means that MPs were expected to show up for the vote, cast a vote, and vote the party line. No being away on business, no abstentions on the floor of the House.
A certainly no votes in defiance of the party and the party leader.
So what of the consequences for Irwin Cotler and Tom Wappel?
They face isolation and potentially expulsion. There is no glossing over this.
But for Stephane Dion, the consequences are more dire.
He put his credibility as a leader on the line on this issue, not such a smart move given that this issue was already so divisive. A stronger leader might be able to afford the risk, but a weak leader like Stephane Dion is only likely to be weakened further. A weak leader can't guarantee that all his MPs will follow his lead -- that's the definition of a weak leader.
And the consequences for the party are serious as well. Stephane Dion has little choice but to severely punish Wappel and Cotler.
That is an act with nothing but downsides.
If Dion does nothing, his leadership will be badly undermined, perhaps fatally.
But both Wappel and Cotler are just as likely to bolt, and that is also going to severely hurt Dion. And the party as well, as two more seats in the House are lost.
For Wappel, he is a social conservative with strong law-and-order views. A perfect match for the Conservative Party?
Wappel is a staunch social conservative. He is a prominent opponent of abortion and gay rights, and has made controversial comments on immigration and the role of religion in government.
Wappel opposed federal daycare programs during one all-candidates meeting, arguing that the Canadian government should promote stay-at-home parenting instead. Late in the campaign, he said that he did not consider single-parent households or homosexual couples to be families.
He was endorsed in March 1990 by Liberals for Life, an anti-abortion pressure group working inside the Liberal Party. His candidacy was not supported by any other MPs. During his nomination speech at the convention, Wappel called for abortion to be made a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. He finished in fourth place, as Jean Chretien won the leadership on the first ballot.
Wappel was appointed as the Liberal Party's immigration critic in January 1991. Late in the year, he prepared an internal party document calling for the creation of detainment camps (to be called Welcome Centres) for refugees arriving in Canada. Claimants would be provided with food, lodging and clothing, but would not be permitted to work outside the centre while their cases were under review. Wappel's proposal also called for any claimant with HIV to be automatically denied status. His suggestions were leaked to the media, and were immediately rejected by the Liberal Party's leadership. He was removed as the Liberal Party's immigration Critic in January 1992, and reassigned as critic for the Solicitor-General. In his new position, he called for increased safeguards in Canada's parole system.
Wappel was endorsed by the Canadian Police Association in the 1993 federal election, and focused his campaign on "law and order" issues. He was easily re-elected as the Liberals won a majority government nationally.
As a Conservative, Wappel would still be on the right-wing of the party, but at least the centre would be within sight, instead of on another planet.
For Cotler, this could be the last straw. His wife Ariela very publicly resigned her membership from the Liberal Party back in October. The issue? Same then as this time around -- the Liberal Party's willingness to be soft on terrorism. Back then, it was the harsh criticism by Michael Ignatieff of Israel for attacking Hezbollah, and barely making any mention of ongoing Hezbollah terrorism:
I have been an active, involved and contributing member of the Liberal party until yesterday, when I decided to give up my membership because of the statements from Michael Ignatieff, given in French to a Quebec radio station.
I was hoping that with his background as a professor of human rights, Mr. Ignatieff would be able to make the distinction between the attackers and the attacked. I would remind Mr. Ignatieff that it was a Liberal government that placed Hezbollah on the international terrorist organizations list.
I feel it was not political savvy and wisdom that Mr. Ignatieff lacked in his address in Quebec. Rather, it was a lack of moral integrity, sacrificing the truth for personal political gains in the upcoming leadership election for the party.
I, and many of my friends, will no longer be there for that event.
Ariela Cotler, Montreal.
Irwin Cotler might just resign entirely from politics and join his wife as a political independent. I thought it was likely to happen. I might be right.
We'll see over the next hours and days what the fallout is likely to be. But short of an entirely uncharacteristic response from Wappel and Cotler, Stephane Dion is going out of this legislative win as a loser.
