Tag Archives: China

Roundup: Not just a golf game

Posted on by

The top brass of the Canadian Forces shot themselves in the foot – metaphorically – yet again this weekend as both the outgoing vice-chief of defence staff and the head of the Royal Canadian Navy both went golfing with former CDS, General Jonathan Vance, while Vance is under active police investigation. To call it tone-deaf is an understatement – rather, it highlights the old boys’ club mentality that still pervades the upper ranks of the Forces, and sends the wrong message to the victims of sexual misconduct, who remain the subordinates of these officers. And to make the optics even more nightmarish, the vice-chief technically has the power to issue orders to the Provost Marshall, who controls the military police.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404114717405286401

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1404192298905264128

You can get that there was an outcry, including from numerous Cabinet ministers, and in short order, there were apologies from those involved, while the minister of defence, Harjit Sajjan, said that he would be evaluating “next steps” in this particular situation.

https://twitter.com/leahwest_nsl/status/1404262974504812545

To the point that West (who was drummed out of the military because of the double standard around sexual misconduct) is making in her tweet, there is very much a growing trend of professionally-crafted apologies going around given where things have gone over the past year or so, and I have to agree with this take that we need to take this into account as yet more of them are delivered over the coming days.

Continue reading →

QP: Security breach and securities regulators

Posted on by

While the prime minister was off to the G7 meeting in the UK, the only Liberal in the Chamber was Francis Drouin, though Mark Gerretsen would replace him later in the hour. Erin O’Toole led off, accusing the government of hiding a security breach at the National Microbiology Lab. Jennifer O’Connell warned that O’Toole was playing a dangerous game, and that redacted documents were provided to the Canada-China committee and the unredacted documents went to NSICOP. O’Toole accused her of participating in a cover-up, and O’Connell accused O’Toole of not caring about national security. O’Toole scoffed, noting his military service, and worried there was a Chinese “infiltration” at the Lab, which O’Connell countered with a prof at the Royal Military College praising NSICOP. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, got the same answer as before, adding that she used to be a member of NSICOP so she could vouch for its security. O’Toole repeated his allegation of a cover-up in French, and O’Connell, exasperated, noted that she wasn’t sure how many more times she could say that they turned over the documents in the appropriate way.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, accusing the government of trying to create a new pan-Canadian securities regulator which Quebec opposed. Sean Fraser noted that the office cooperated voluntarily with provinces. Therrien tried again, and Fraser repeated that Quebec was not bound to work with that office.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he condescended to the government about the WE Imbroglio, and demanded that the government respect the Ethics committee’s report. Bardish Chagger thanked the committee for the work, but accused them of being more interested in partisan games. Charlie Angus then repeated the demand in English with added sanctimony and stretched the credulity of the allegations, and Pablo Rodriguez batted away the insinuations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chalk up another moral victory

Posted on by

The NDP did what they are very good at yesterday, which is to get a non-binding motion passed in the House of Commons, and declare a moral victory in spite of the fact that it does little more than make a statement. In this case, it was their Supply Day motion on calling on the government to drop their litigation on both the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around First Nations children taken into foster care, while the second is round survivors of the St. Anne’s residential school. The Cabinet abstained from the vote, while most Liberal backbenchers voted for it – agreeing in principle to parts of the motion, and making a statement, but not binding the government to do anything. And while the NDP pats themselves on the back and says that they are “forcing” the government to drop the litigation, it does no such thing. It was merely the House of Commons voicing an opinion.

Part of the problem is that there is very little ability for people to discuss what the litigation is actually about in a meaningful way. According to Singh and company, this is about “taking First Nations kids to court,” which isn’t it. As a lawyer, Singh very well knows that there are complex issues that governments are obligated to sort out, especially if there is a bad precedent that it can set. In the case of the Tribunal decision, the government says they will pay compensation – and they are negotiating with two other class action lawsuits on similar matters to do just that – but the Tribunal ordered individual remedies for a systemic claim, which it should not be able to do, if the logic holds from previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence that said that they could not offer systemic remedies for individual claims. The government, however, mumbles about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than explaining this, and it means they look like the bad guys. With the St. Anne’s case, I’m less familiar but the government’s line has been that they are seeking clarity on some five percent of survivors who have not yet been compensated, and in some of those cases could be getting more compensation for some of those five percent – because complex issues can require complex litigation to solve.

Unfortunately, that’s not what most journalists will sort out. Instead, we get the usual both-sidesing of this, where you get the advocates insisting the government is being “incomprehensible,” and the government gives some pat talking points, and they leave it at that. It’s why, for the Tribunal litigation, I went and talked to law professors and got some outside perspective on what the issues actually are, and why they matter for a government to bother litigating them. We’re being failed because most journalists are too incurious to sort the issues out, and that’s a problem. Legal stories are complex, but they deserve some attention paid to them so that we’re not left with the misleading narratives that are now being allowed to circulate unchallenged. Media needs to do better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberals being weasels about “open nominations” – again

Posted on by

Remember back before the 2015 election when Justin Trudeau declared that the Liberals would be a party of open nominations? And then how he weaselled out on that after the election in order to protect nominations when they had a majority? And even after that, decided to trigger their “electoral urgency” rules in advance of the 2019 election, even though they knew the timing of it years in advance and could have actually let those nominations happen? Well, they are being weasels again, and just triggered the “electoral urgency” rules once more.

Of course, because there are only three narratives to choose from in most media outlets, this was seen as “more proof” that there’s going to be an election this fall, especially when combined with the fact that MPs agreed to hold a take note debate session on the 15th that will allow MPs who have opted not to run again to give a farewell speech. It’s all proof! Erm, except that this is a hung parliament that will have reached the two-year mark in the fall, making an election far more likely, so it’s a convenient time to hold such a session, given that it certainly wouldn’t happen after a confidence vote to bring down the government. I remain unconvinced that the Liberals are planning to dissolve parliament by the end of summer on a flimsy excuse, but then again, I generally don’t subscribe to the Three Narratives.

This being said, this weaselly behaviour around nominations is unsurprising given the trends in this country, and where the party has been headed. They did it in 2019, and at the end of last year, they did away with open nominations for the two by-elections and simply appointed candidates outright, never mind that there was interest from others in each riding and they could have held competitive races, yes, including in a virtual situation. We’ve seen all parties behave in ways that are undermining the democratic process by gaming nominations – Samara Canada wrote a report on it. (Samara was also credulous about the NDP’s claims about open nominations in 2011, in spite of all of the evidence of paper candidates who never even visited the ridings, never mind having run in an open contest, but that’s neither here nor there). The point is that this kind of behaviour is toxic to the long-term health of our system of government, and it needs to be countered and pushed back against. Unfortunately, because the media is hung up on the “early election” narrative at any opportunity, they never actually hold the parties to account for their undemocratic behaviour, and we’ve allowed it to get to this point. This is a very bad thing, and we should be pushing back and demanding proper, open nominations from all parties, no matter how inconvenient it may be in a hung parliament.

Continue reading →

QP: The documents have been sent to NSICOP

Posted on by

It was one of those days in the Chamber where the benches seemed particularly thin, and once again, only Mark Gerretsen was present for the Liberals. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and wanted a new commitment to the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Report around the graves around former residential schools, and Mark Miller assured him they are working with communities so that they can come up with their own processes and that the federal government was there to support them and with funds when they were ready. O’Toole repeated in French, and Miller gave him the same answer. O’Toole then switched back to English and the issue of the National Microbiology Lab, raising redacted documents that have been released to date, tying it to the lab in Wuhan, for which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were cooperating with any investigation and that the correct place for Parliament to deal with the matter was NSICOP, which has been provided with documents. O’Toole insisted that they weren’t being given enough to hold government to account for a security breach, but Hajdu repeated her assurances with a warning not to play games with national security. O’Toole repeated the calls in French, and Hajdu repeated herself.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and demanded that Quebec’s Bill 101 be extended to federally-regulated workplaces, and Mélanie Joly gave her assurances that they would ensure that French would be a language of work and service. Therrien wanted government support for their bill to make the extension formal, but Joly deflected with talking points about the government’s forthcoming Official Languages Act reforms.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded support for their Supply Day motion on ending litigation around Indigenous children — litigation that is about a bad precedent by the Tribunal and not the compensation order. Miller assured him they were working toward proper compensation. Singh repeated the question in English, and gave a more clear response on the substance of the action around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that discussions around compensation are ongoing.

Continue reading →

QP: Leaning harder into the Winnipeg Lab conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was the prime minister’s first appearance in the Chamber since the discovery of the mass grave in Kamloops last week, and he was joined once again by Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, and with his script before him, he asked for swift action on the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission around the residential schools. Justin Trudeau gave some platitudes about reconciliation and mentions their investments in those Calls to Action. O’Toole then moved onto the National Microbiology Lab, and deliberately conflated the issue around the two fired scientists with the global demand for answers around the origin of COVID, for which Trudeau reminded him that there are mechanisms to review national security matters. O’Toole dismissed NSICOP as the prime minister’s “secret committee” and tried to conflate the issue around those scientists, for which Trudeau hit back about the secrecy of the Harper government and their refusal to subject national security agencies to independent oversight. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question on the two scientists, for which Trudeau reminded him of the oversight mechanisms. O’Toole switched back to English to try and tie in this with approvals for foreign investment from China and Huawei, and Trudeau replied that the Conservatives never hesitate to play politics with national security, before he returned to his praise of the creation of NSICOP.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and pressed for the swift passage of Bill C-10 in spite of Conservative opposition, for which Trudeau praised the cooperation of other parties in trying to pass the bill, and that they hoped to pass it before summer. Blanchet warned that if it did not pass by summer, there would be a heavy political price to pay in Quebec, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been there for artists since the beginning, starting with reversing the Harper-era cuts, and that it was the Conservatives blocking culture.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and he raised the court challenges around Indigenous children and residential school survivors (which are about narrow points of law and not compensation). Trudeau stated that every survivor deserves compensation and they are working on that, and they have also been guiding “transformative change” around Indigenous child and family services. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

QP: Saving our forestry sector from the Americans

Posted on by

For a Monday in the shadow of the discovery of that mass grace of Indigenous children in Kamloops, and there was once again but a single Liberal in the Chamber, and yes, it was once again Mark Gerretsen. Candice Bergen led off in person for the Conservatives, and she raised the discovery of the mass graves, and wanted an update on plans to find the identities of those children. Gary Anandasangaree responded after a delay, citing the funding commitments already made and made mention of work done with Indigenous leaders. Gérard Deltell repeated the question in French, and this time Marc Miller responded, saying that they are standing with the communities and will deliver the support they need. Bergen was back up, and she accused the government of being silent on American predations in the forestry sector, for which Seamus O’Regan expressed his disappointment in American actions, and his desire for a negotiated solution. Bergen derided the government’s actions on this as well as pipelines, for which O’Regan assured her they were looking out for all workers, including energy workers. Deltell then repeated the lament about softwood lumber in French, and O’Regan repeated his earlier response.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded that federal workplaces in Quebec make French the language of work — and being very particular about it — and Pablo Rodriguez gave the flattering falsehood about French supposedly declining in Quebec (it hasn’t), and stated their commitment to protecting the French language. Therrien railed that the federal government simply wanted to extend bilingualism, which Rodriguez reassured him that they have worked to strengthen French across the country.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in a somber tone, raised the mass grave in Kamloops and demanded the government drop their lawsuits against Indigenous children and survivors, and Marc Miller assured him they have committed to compensation, and that they are committed to continuing the search for truth and devoting resources for doing so. Singh repeated the question in French, and Miller repeated his response in French.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some of the misconceptions around C-10

Posted on by

The other day, I made a somewhat snarky comment over Twitter in response to an op-ed in The Line, because people are still making stuff up about Bill C-10. Like, out of whole cloth, complete fiction, because they do not grasp the basic mechanics of regulation in this country.

So, with this in mind, here are a few reminders. Start by re-reading my piece in National Magazine about the bill. Individual content uploaders are not being regulated – only the platforms themselves. The CRTC is not going to takedown YouTube content, and it’s not going to regulate news. If it regulates Facebook, it’s not regulating the algorithm of timelines – it’s only regulating if Facebook is acting like a broadcaster of scripted content, or when they livestream baseball games (which they have done). The reason why YouTube as a platform, for example, is being targeted is because it is the largest music streaming platform in the world, and this is why they want to bring it into the ambit of CanCon regulations, governing both discoverability (so that the algorithm shows more Canadian artists in suggested playlists), and contributing financially to the system that helps provide grants and royalties for Canadian artists. People keep mentioning Instagram and TikTok, but they’re not really broadcasting platforms.

So how does the CRTC determine what counts as CanCon? Well, they have a formula that assigns points to it, and 6/10 or 8/10 points gets particular CanCon status. These are all determined by regulations under the Broadcasting Act. Remember that legislation is the framework and policy direction – the nitty-gritty rules get determined by regulation, and it follows a process of development that involves stakeholder engagement and consultation, and is done at the bureaucratic level. It’s not Cabinet pulling rules out of their asses, nor should it be. You don’t want Cabinet to be putting its thumb on the scale, which is why there is an arm’s length regulatory body, being the CRTC. And it’s not just the cabal of commissioners who are making these regulations either, in spite of what certain people are claiming.

https://twitter.com/G_Gallant/status/1395427604107300867

This brings me to my next point – the very notion that the CRTC is going to police the whole of social media is completely crackers on the face of it. They barely have enough resources to do their existing job (and if you listen to some of the reasoning around this week’s telecom decision, they seem to think they can’t handle doing the work of wholesale internet prices). If you think they’re going to somehow hire an army of bureaucrats to police your tweets, you should be certifiable.

Now, this isn’t to say that C-10 is without problems, because they are there. For one, the Broadcasting Act may be the wrong vehicle for this, as it was about regulating the limited bandwidth for TV and radio. It will be on platforms to adjust their algorithms to make CanCon more discoverable, which is going to be the high-level work, but there are particular concerns around meeting the objectives under the Act, which involve things like “safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada,” and whether these platforms will moderate content to try and fit those objectives, and that moderation will likely involve the use of AI, which is where we have particular concerns. And those are legitimate concerns, but they have nothing to do with the Orwellian picture being painted of moderated tweets, and newsfeeds being monkeyed with, or “takedown notices.” The level of complete hysteria around this bill, rooted in a complete ignorance of how regulatory bodies work – and a great deal of partisan disinformation – is making the debate around this bill utterly loony (at least in English Canada). Yes, it’s complicated, but don’t fall for easy narratives.

Continue reading →

QP: Confusing rapid and PCR tests

Posted on by

For a Thursday with no ministers in the chamber, we had not one but two Liberals on the government benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he complained there wasn’t a national rapid testing regime like Taiwan has, and then complained about the contract with Switch Health at the border. Patty Hajdu reminded him that he was conflating rapid tests – which they sent to provinces – with the PCR tests that Switch was contracted to perform at the border, and that if was worried about rapid tests, he should talk to premiers. O’Toole complained that Switch was missing its timelines in one in six cases, and 5000 cases that failed. Hajdu noted that those tests take longer because they’re PCR tests, and they were bringing on more corporate partners. O’Toole accused the government of changing the law rather than the company when it came to missing certain days, and Hajdu insisted this was incorrect, and that they were doing full due diligence to ensure travellers were protected. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and Hajdu reiterate that O’Toole was conflating rapid tests with PCR tests, and that they are used differently. O’Toole then condemned the lack services in French at the border with Switch Health, and Hajdu agreed that this was essential, which is why Switch doubled their French capacity and they added another supplier.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she complained that the motion on Bill 96 didn’t pass, and wanted assurances that the province could use Section 45 of the constitution to make the changes — which is a trap. Mélanie Joly assured her that they were working to protect the French reality in Canada. Normandin assured her that this wasn’t a trap, and wanted those assurances, and Joly again would not give her the assurance she was looking for.

Jagmeet Singh led rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded the federal government stop banks from raising fees, for which Chrystia Freeland went into an assurance about the taxes on luxury goods. Singh repeated in English to add emphasis to the same question, and Freeland repeated the same talking points under the rubric of people paying their fair share.

Continue reading →

QP: Promulgating microbiology lab conspiracy theories

Posted on by

The prime minister was indeed present for his Wednesday proto-PMQs, in spite of it feeling kind of like a Tuesday because of the holiday Monday. Of course, the only other Liberal present was once again Mark Gerretsen. (We really, really need this pandemic to be over). Erin O’Toole led off with his script on mini-lectern, and he asked how a person with “deep connection” to China were able to get high-level security clearance to work in the National Microbiology Lab, and Justin Trudeau simply stated that the scientists were no longer employed by the government. O’Toole went on a tangent about the government’s “failure” in granting them clearance and demanded and end to all partnerships with China, and Trudeau read a statement about the research security working group. O’Toole kept insinuating that the two scientists in question were Chinese when they were in fact Canadian citizens, and Trudeau read more statement about national security agencies reaching out to research organisations to ensure that security was being taken seriously. O’Toole raised the supposed “cash for access” fundraisers Trudeau had with supposed Chinese agents early in his time in office, threw a bunch of non sequiturs against the wall, and then again demanded an end to all partnerships with China’s military medical institute. Trudeau read yet more talking points about the development of guidelines that take into account national security issues with research projects. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, and got another scripted response about how the government takes espionage seriously and that Public Safety and CSIS were working with universities.

Yves-François led for the Bloc, and he wanted support for a motion coming to the House around support for Quebec’s bill 96, and Trudeau stated that he looked forward to it, reminding him of the 2006 Harper motion. Blanchet waxed poetic about the motion, and Trudeau stated that he will work to protect French and that they already declare Quebec to be a nation in a untied Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried that cuts to the Canada Recovery Benefit were on the way, and demanded the decision be reversed, and Trudeau reminded him that they would be there for Canadians, and that would not change. Singh then railed about banks raising fees, and Trudeau noted that they have been clear in discussions with these institutions that Canadians are going through a tough time which is why it’s important that everyone have their backs.

Continue reading →