Tag Archives: Citizenship

Roundup: Johnston’s day at committee

Posted on by

As expected, David Johnston’s testimony at the Procedure and House Affairs committee was largely a three-hour exercise in partisan showboating, most especially typified by the fact that Jagmeet Singh decided to make a personal appearance at committee so that he could get clips of himself haranguing Johnston, like he tried to do with Galen Weston (and looking like a fool for the most part considering he made the big song and dance about getting thousands of questions from Canadians and asking none of them). In fact, there were almost no actual questions on foreign interference over those three hours, because of course there weren’t.

Once again, Johnstone disputed the claims that he is biased, or in any number of conflicts of interest, and further made the point that he believes the vote in the House of Commons about him was based on false information. (Also, the House of Commons has been known on several occasions to hold these votes on risible matters, especially if they think they can embarrass the government, while the only votes that really matter are confidence ones, and that’s not going to happen). He said that he didn’t reach out to MP Han Dong before he cleared him in the report, in part because of Dong’s lawsuit and because he read intelligence that countered what had been reported. (I’m also not sure why that would have been necessary if the point of the exercise was to review the intelligence). He also made it clear he didn’t see every single document, because that would be impossible, but that the intelligence services were entirely forthcoming.

One of the things we ultimately need to grapple with in this story, which media outlets are incapable of doing, is that this is a process story. It’s almost entirely a machinery of government issue in terms of intelligence dissemination and consumption, and that’s unsexy and difficult to explain, so instead, the focus remains on Johnston himself, and making details about what the government did and didn’t know as lurid as possible, helped along by the fact that the leaker(s) is shaping the narrative in a particular way, using draft documents that contained items not found in the final documents that were pushed up the chain, and there is almost certainly intention behind that, which again, there has been absolutely no self-reflection around on the part of the media organisations doing the reporting. Instead of stopping to ask if they’ve been played, they rationalise and justify. And because this is a process stories, and mainstream outlets are allergic to those, this whole affair just spins further into both-sidesing the meathead partisanship on display.

Ukraine Dispatch:

With the explosion at the Kakhovka Dam, there is now an evacuation effort underway as the region begins to flood, with 22,000 people in areas in most danger. It could also have repercussions for the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which uses that water for cooling operations. There is concern that this could forestall any Ukrainian counter-offensive in the region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says the dam attack is an “environmental bomb of mass destruction,” and  has already approached the Hague about the incident. Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine is awaiting the final agreement on acquiring F-16 fighter jets. Russian, meanwhile, have been shelling an ammonia pipeline in the Kharkiv region, which has been part of the Black Sea deal around exporting grains and fertilizers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The leaker comes forward (sort of)

Posted on by

The big Friday bombshell from the Globe and Mail in their continued series of allegations of foreign interference was an op-ed from the primary leaker, who gave a self-serving justification for doing so, insisting that they were tired of the problem of foreign interference going ignored, and that they hoped to  ignite a conversation and that they didn’t intend for things to get this ugly. Erm, seriously? You leaked to Bob Fife, and you didn’t think he would torque the absolute life out of it? That seems dangerously naïve for an intelligence official. Even more to the point, their frustration with the pace of work is not justification for violating their oaths to secrecy (and comparing themselves to Jody Wilson-Raybould seems to be particularly ill-considered). There is an attitude of “I know best,” which former senior intelligence official Artur Wilczynski called “narcissistic,” and I did take that tone from the op-ed.

One of the things I’ve really come to recognise and have been building a series of columns around is that there is a pervasive normalcy bias in our governments at all levels. It’s why provincial governments inadvertently allowed their healthcare systems to collapse. It’s why we are now in a housing crisis nation-wide. It’s why our military was allowed to degrade, and it’s why successive governments of all stripes have not taken foreign interference seriously enough. We disbelieve and downplay threats and warnings because we’ve been sheltered for a century now under the wing of the Americans, and very little bad has happened to us in comparison to most other countries. We got lazy and complacent. That’s hard to shake, but I would say we’ve made more progress in the last five years than we have since the ned of the Cold War. And unfortunately, it’s probably going to take crises to shake us from our complacency (like what is happening in healthcare). Unfortunately, the crisis that this leaker precipitated has likely made the situation worse and not better because it’s now become a partisan battleground.

Speaking of partisan battlegrounds, yesterday we had the prime minister accusing Pierre Poilievre of “ginning up a partisan circus” and trying to take a flamethrower to our institutions in order to win power (not untrue), and Poilievre saying that the intelligence community is in full revolt because of Trudeau (and hey, it turns out it’s largely one narcissistic leaker). Trudeau also defended Johnston against the “horrific” partisan attacks, though Trudeau does deserve a measure of criticism for putting Johnston in this position. Johnston, incidentally, provided a statement saying he was working to finalise the details around his role and the mandate, so it looks like he is going ahead with it, concerns notwithstanding.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces continue to resist the Russians’ attempt to encircle Bakhmut. While this is happening, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, for his war crimes but most especially for his programme of forcibly relocating Ukrainian children and working to re-educate them and place them with Russian families—a hallmark of a genocide. Meanwhile, Slovakia has now pledged their 13 MiG-29 fighters to Ukraine after Poland got the ball rolling.

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 →

Roundup: Trying to politicize NSICOP

Posted on by

The fight for documents related to the National Microbiology Lab firings from 2019 has been intensifying in the House of Commons, both in the Conservatives working on a privilege fight over access to unredacted documents, but also in the way they have been treating the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP). While not perfect, NSICOP is at least some level of oversight of the national security apparatuses of this country by parliamentarians (though not an actual parliamentary committee), which is more than existed previously. They have tried to dismiss it as somehow partisan, which it’s not – all parties are represented on the committee (though the Bloc seat is currently vacant), and say that the prime minister’s office controls it (as it’s an executive body and not a parliamentary one). But they have the power to have their members resign in protest if they felt that the PMO was bigfooting them, and they haven’t, which means that these objections are about politics – particularly as they are building a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories around the two firings in order to score cheap points.

As a reminder, the Conservatives were dismantling some of the national security oversight, neutering the Inspector General at CSIS and making poor appointments to the only other real civilian oversight of national security agencies in the country. This is at least a point in Trudeau’s favour – he overhauled and strengthened the various oversight mechanisms of all of these bodies, including the creation of NSICOP, which does valuable work.

With that in mind, here is Stephanie Carvin with some thoughts on this fight, and check out this thread from Philippe Lagassé for more thoughts as to how NSICOP is currently structured and how it compares internationally.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446108376174594

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446110653689856

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446112931225601

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400446115099680773

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1400479339528003594

Continue reading →

Roundup: Quitting over a municipal issue

Posted on by

News came down yesterday that Liberal MP Bob Bratina announced, in a bit of a huff, that he wasn’t going to run again in the next election because the government decided to fund an LRT project in Hamilton – where his riding is, and where he used to be mayor – because he’s personally opposed to the project. A certain Postmedia columnist picked up on this and insisted this was dire news for the Liberals, because they’re not even listening to their own MPs. There are counterpoints to this argument.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394439822748659719

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1394441891937140741

This having been said, yes, we know that sometimes Trudeau and Cabinet can be deaf to caucus concerns, but in this case, Bratina is throwing a tantrum, insisting that they didn’t consult “the Hamilton guy” when the Labour minister’s riding is also in Hamilton, and the infrastructure minister, Catherine McKenna, grew up there. In other words, the voices at the Cabinet table are just as qualified to talk about Hamilton issues than the “Hamilton guy,” especially because he’s personally opposed to a project that is basically what his own party is standing up for right now – mass transit options as part of the oncoming rapid decarbonization we need to engage in if we’re going to get our GHG emissions below catastrophic levels. He should be well aware of this given it’s the party he ran for two elections in a row. If he wants to run for mayor again to oppose the project, he’s within his rights to do so.

As for said the aforementioned columnist’s coded language around “common sense” and “silent majorities,” it’s hard to square that with the current incarnation of the Liberals. In other words, it’s probably pretty safe to consider his dire warning about this as an example of concern trolling, for what it’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau cleared, Morneau not

Posted on by

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner released his reports on Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau’s involvement in the WE Imbroglio yesterday, and came to two different results – the prime minister was cleared, but Morneau was found to have breached three sections of the Act, because he was not only personal friends with the Kielburgers (which Trudeau was not), but Morneau gave them a lot of access to his department as a result of that friendship, and offered them very preferential treatment.

On the one hand, this defused a few of the prepared talking points, but it didn’t disarm all of them. The Conservatives insist that even if he wasn’t found to have broken the rules, the system is still “broken” and needs to be made even tougher, which they are going to regret when every interaction becomes a minefield and their own members start getting caught up in impossible situations should they form government, and it misses the mark of what the current problems are. The NDP, predictably, say that this proves the Liberals only care about their “rich friends,” which I’m not sure the Kielburgers really qualify as for obvious reasons.

Of course, as I have written before, the problem is not that the rules are too lax, but rather that the Liberals in their current incarnation have a culture that believes that so long as they mean well, that the ends will justify the means. No amount of tinkering or toughening up the rules can change that because it’s a cultural problem. It also doesn’t help that the definition of “corruption” has become so broad in the Canadian discourse that penny ante bullshit is treated as a capital crime, though very curiously, grift that is out in the open in places like Queen’s Park or the Alberta Legislature are not treated with the same kinds of howling denunciations that the WE Imbroglio has been. I also have to wonder what these same howlers would do if they saw the actual corruption that takes place in other countries, because it’s on a whole other level than anything that has happened here. And on a final note, this report does not mean that WE Charity was “destroyed” for nothing. The charity hasn’t been “destroyed,” and its dubious activities were brought to light by good reporting, not Charlie Angus’ antics at committee, and that’s a good thing. This incident helped to shine that spotlight. Let’s not confuse Trudeau’s exoneration with anything else that has happened to WE in the interim.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Accusing your opponents of encouraging mass deaths

Posted on by

My patience for the current round of blame-shifting in the handling of this pandemic has pretty much reached its breaking point, and Alberta’s justice minister has crossed a line. Recall that a week ago, NDP MP Heather McPherson accused the prime minister of rather watching Alberta burn than help Jason Kenney – a statement that borders on psychotic and ignores the billions of dollars in federal aid that has been extended that Kenney has either sat on or declined. Of course, McPherson, like her leader Jagmeet Singh, seems to think that the federal government should be invoking the Emergencies Act and swooping in to take over the province, which is nothing more than a recipe for a constitutional crisis the likes we have never seen in this country. (Can you imagine the reaction in the province if Trudeau did this?)

Well, yesterday Alberta’s justice minister declared that the provincial NDP opposition, the federal government, and the media, were all cheering on a COVID disaster in the province, which is absolutely boggling. To think that your opponents literally wish death upon Albertans is some brain worm-level thinking, and yet here we are – and no, the minister would not apologise, citing that his opponents were trying to exploit the pandemic for political purposes. This is nothing short of insane, and yet this kind of thinking is clearly rearing its head as the provincial government flails, under attack by all sides, and frankly, reaping the unhinged anger that it has been sowing for years and thinking they were too clever to get caught by.

But in the midst of this, there was a column in Maclean’s yesterday which declared that it was “partisans” that were the cause of this blame-shifting, and then proceeded to pathologically both-sides the issues until my head very nearly exploded. It’s not “partisans” – it’s political actors who are to blame, and trying to pin this solely on people who vote for them is ridiculous. I will say that a chunk of the blame does rest on media, for whom they downplay actual questions of jurisdiction as “squabbling” and “finger-pointing,” thus allowing premiers in particular to get away with the blame-shifting and hand-waving away their responsibilities, and it’s allowed this obsessive fantasy about invoking the Emergencies Act to keep playing itself out – especially because most of these media outlets have been cheerleading such a declaration (so that they can fulfil the goal of comparing this to Trudeau’s father invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis). If media did a better job of actually holding the premiers to account rather than encouraging their narratives that everything can be pinned on the federal government (for whom they have some of their own issues they should be better held to account for), there may have been actual pressure on some of them to shape up long before now, and yet that doesn’t happen. Absolutely nobody has covered themselves in glory here, and it’s just making this intolerable situation all that much worse.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1391949740896657410

Continue reading →

QP: Spinning a Vance/Norman conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was a grey day in the Nation’s Capital, but the prime minister was in the Galactic Senate House of Commons for Question Period, along with the other fixture in the Liberal benches, Mark Gerretsen.

Erin O’Toole led off in French, worrying about the message that NACI gave yesterday, deliberately conflating it with Health Canada. Justin Trudeau told him that the most important thing is to get vaccinated with the first one offered to you, as they have all been judged safe and effective by Health Canada. O’Toole asked again in English, and got the same answer. O’Toole then switch to the Vance allegations, and spun an elaborate conspiracy that Katie Telford was friendly with Vance, and wondered if they didn’t pursue the allegations because of the Mark Norman investigation, to which Trudeau offered a simple no. O’Toole insisted that things all seemed a little too cozy, and Trudeau insisted they would support with anyone who came forward with an allegation. O’Toole spun the conspiracy out again, and Trudeau called him out for doing so.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and worried that victims of CERB fraud were being told to pay now and get reimbursed later. Trudeau insisted that was false, and that the department was working closely on the issues with fraud, and nobody had to pay for it. Blanchet was not able to reconcile the statement, and Trudeau repeated that they were there to help fraud victims.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and in French, he wondered why they were refusing to implement the Deschamps Report, and Trudeau insisted that they did take concrete measures, and listed a number of federal strategies around things like combatting gender-based violence. Singh switched to English to state that there was a chilling effect for women who complain about sexual misconduct in the Forces, and Trudeau largely repeated his list of measures taken.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a “data-driven” plan to re-open

Posted on by

On a beautiful Tuesday in the Nation’s Capital, the prime minister was indeed in the Chamber for QP, along with fourth other Liberals, which was a very pleasant change of pace. Erin O’Toole led off in person, script on mini-lectern, and he raised the fatigue over lockdowns and the spectre of opioid overdoses, and true to his party’s Supply Day motion, demanded a “data-driven” federal plan for re-opening the economy. Justin Trudeau noted that the federal government has always been there for Canadians and would continue to listen to the recommendations of experts on re-opening. O’Toole tried to wedge a mental health angle, and Trudeau insisted that they stuck to the advice of science, and poked that some Conservatives didn’t even believe in masks. O’Toole then falsely accused the federal government of making a political decision around second doses, before accusing the federal government of being late on everything, to which Trudeau pushed back, citing that the provinces make the decision around spacing vaccine doses. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, got much the same response in French, and for his final question, O’Toole accused the country of trailing behind. Trudeau took the opportunity to say that while O’Toole wanted a plan for the economy, he still doesn’t believe that the environment and the economy go hand in hand.

Yves-François Blanchet rose to for the Bloc, and after raising the announcement on high-speed internet yesterday, demanded higher health transfers. Trudeau reminded him that they have given higher transfers to the provinces in the pandemic and they would discuss future transfers after it was over. Blanchet then raised the panic over a certain obnoxious blow hard professor’s “Quebec-bashing,” but this time, Trudeau didn’t bite and returned to talk about federal supports for provinces. 

Jagmeet Singh then rose for the NDP, and in French, demanded an apology for General Vance getting a raise after allegations were raised against him, and Trudeau spoke about the importance of independent investigations. Singh switched to English to demand the government support their Supply Day motion on taking profit out of long-term care, to which Trudeau reminded him that under the constitution, this is a provincial responsibility. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Approvals sooner than we think

Posted on by

The day in vaccine news was marked by the first in what was promised to be a weekly series of briefings about the progress of the planned vaccine rollout, wherein we learned that Health Canada’s close work with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency in the rolling application process, so that means that the Canadian approval for the vaccines should happen around the same time as their do – something that will relieve some of the anxiety. We are also expecting some six million doses (so, vaccinations for three million people) between approval and the end of March, with more doses to start ramping up considerably faster afterward. So there’s that.

Meanwhile, for all of the yelling and pleading for at-home tests, no manufacturer has applied to Health Canada (and Health Canada has proactively asked them to apply), and most companies haven’t even perfected their technologies yet, so this remains something of a pipe dream that we should stop hoping will be the panacea to ending lockdowns.

Over in Alberta, a number of recordings of meetings that their Chief Medical Officer of Health had were leaked to media, showing how her advice was being overruled by Cabinet, which confirms what was pretty much a no-brainer, but because it leaked, there is going to be damage to the way our system of government operates. Dr. Hinshaw called the leaks a betrayal of trust – and she’s right – but it really puts her in an impossible situation. (I have more about this in my weekend column, so keep an eye out for it).

Continue reading →