I'm confused. When Stephen Harper spoke about his anti-terrorism bill last Friday, he said there was no conflict between promoting security and protecting our freedoms. Yet Conservatives have come out swinging against further oversight to CSIS. If there is no conflict, why should they care? Their argument, of course, is that Canadians don't need more oversight. It is overkill—even “red tape.” Meanwhile, the experts are lining up on the other side. Even those who support the bill say that the existing bodies are woefully under-resourced for the job. CSIS is a highly sophisticated organization with some 2600 employees. By contrast, the Security Intelligence Review Committee that oversees it has five members, who work on the file only part-time. It's not easy to find an expert who thinks this is a good balance on such an important file. Still, the resource issue is the smaller one. The bigger concern is over the huge new powers the bill gives to CSIS. Here experts agree that some key clauses are open-ended in a way that, if abused, could put our personal freedoms at risk. For example, the bill would criminalize the “promotion of terrorism,” creating a new offence for advocating “the commission of terrorist offences in general”, punishable by up to five years in jail. There is much uncertainty about what counts as the promotion of terrorism. Not that this idea should be rejected, though it does need to be debated. For the moment, I'll just echo NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar that the exercise should not be approached as a trade-off between freedom and security. The two can co-exist. As Dewar rightly notes, many of the safest countries are the ones with the strongest freedoms. On the other hand, experts—including Dewar—are also reminding us of how the RCMP's abuse of power in the 1970s led to the creation of CISIS and warning us not to forget the lessons. Robust oversight is at the top of the list. Oversight helps ensure that CSIS will remain vigilant as it fulfills its mandate, so that these two aspects—security and freedom—continue to work “hand in hand.” Nor will anything here compromise CSIS' ability to do its job, so there is no obvious reason Conservatives should oppose it. Indeed, handing over such powers to a secretive bureaucracy usually makes Conservatives blanch. Normally, they would be the first to demand rigorous oversight. Recall Harper's claim that he killed the long-form census because it was an unacceptable intrusion into citizens' privacy. Yet it is the Conservatives who are now asking us to throw caution to the wind. They appear with their talking points, stare into the cameras, and argue against their own deepest instincts about government. The folks back home must be wondering. I know I am. Why have they dug in their heels on this? What is the endgame? I can see only one answer. Harper just cannot pass over an opportunity to gain partisan advantage over his enemies, even if it means twisting the principles of his Office out of shape to get it. By resisting the call for more oversight and accountability, he hopes to drive a wedge between the opposition parties and the legislation; at which time he will assail them for being soft on terrorism. This willingness to use his Office as an instrument for partisan gain is part of a well-established pattern. Consider CRA's tax audits. This has become a convenient way to punish or silence leftwing charitable groups who engage in too much political activity. Similarly, being able to muzzle the science community is handy when you're defending policies that run counter to the evidence, especially on topics such as climate change or crime. Or how about Harper's attack on the integrity of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who he accused of interfering in a judicial appointment process that wasn't going the way he planned. And what of Parliament itself? Recall the infamous Conservative handbook advising committee chairs on how to obstruct proceedings by barring witnesses, invoking closure and time limitations or moving to in camera sessions. Harper has had a good run over the past year. He's been renewing his profile on the international stage and reaping some of the rewards. But this Great Man act will remain convincing only if it is authentic. Great leaders have a moral purpose that people not only respect, but share. To believe in the Prime Minister, they must believe he is genuinely fighting for values they cherish. That is Harper's Achilles' heel. Too often, his moral compass leads him to sacrifice the public good for partisan gain. Sometimes it looks as though he can barely tell them apart. Worse, he seems to assume that everyone else is afflicted by the same blindness. They are not. People know the difference and, as others have noted, this proclivity has made Harper his own worst enemy. If he seemed to be making progress, over the last few days the new man is looking a lot like the old one. If the Conservatives agree to good oversight, the opposition parties likely will support the new bill. The public will also feel reassured. There is no cost here for the Conservatives. If they are smart, they will back off, chalk up a victory and move on, rather than risk raising a partisan ghost from the (recent) past. We will all be better off for it.   Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan