Tag Archives: Cyber-security

Roundup: Consulting the caucus

Posted on by

Yesterday the Star reported that Justin Trudeau has been so weakened by the WE Imbroglio that he is *gasp!* asking his Cabinet ministers and caucus for ideas about the upcoming Speech from the Throne. I find the fact that this is a news story to be pretty distressing because this is supposed to be how governments work in this country – it’s not supposed to be a one-man-show with the leader and his or her office running the whole party’s platform and policies.

This criticism certainly extends to what we just saw out of the Conservative leadership race, where each candidate had a policy book that they were running on – something that should never happen because it’s not leaders who are supposed to come up with policy, but the party’s grassroots members, and the Conservatives especially like to crow that they are a “grassroots party” that respects its members, and so on. If that was the case, why would your leadership candidates be trying to run on different policy platforms? And you can’t say that this is about what the leader believes in – policy platforms are not beliefs, and the party shouldn’t be contorting itself to fit the leader because it’s not supposed to be a personality cult, but sadly we’ve missed that boat, and that’s exactly what parties have become in this country.

As for the notion that Trudeau should be consulting with the Conservatives on his Throne Speech, as raised in the Star piece, he really has no obligation to – it’s not O’Toole’s job to prop up the government, even if Trudeau wants to project some kind of “all in this together” message about the economic recovery. That’s not how our system works – we need opposition to hold the government to account, and trying to co-opt the opposition with promises in exchange for co-operation weakens that accountability. There are two other dance partners that the government can tap to maintain confidence, but subverting the official opposition is not a viable course of action.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Morneau

Posted on by

After a week of leaks about clashes, finance Bill Morneau took to a lectern late in the day on Monday to announce that he had tendered his resignation, and would be resigning both as minister and as MP. Well, first he did some back-patting over his record and couched the decision by saying that he never planned to serve more than two election cycles, and since the economic recovery would take years, it was better for someone else to step in who could carry the work through. The bombshell out of this was the face-saving gesture that he had put his name forward to be the next secretary general of the OECD, and that he had the PM’s full support in doing so – which is either really cute that he thinks he actually has a chance, or a bit pathetic in that he offered up an excuse that beggared credulity. The Q&A portion had very few answers, but this kind of pabulum is what Morneau was so good at – lots of words, not a lot of substance. When asked about the difference that he was apparently clashing with Trudeau over, Morneau mouthed that there was “vigorous discussion and debate,” and that he hoped that work on the green economy could continue and that he would try to help with the OECD (which he won’t get). He denied that he was pressured to resign, said that when it came to WE, he has been involved in philanthropy for many years and that in hindsight he wished that he had one things differently and recused himself – and yet said nothing about the donor trip he didn’t disclose. He insisted that he still wanted to contribute, and said that at the OECD, he would deal with things like international taxation and digital transformation, and use the expertise he gained as the finance minister of a G7 country to help, but, well, that’s not going to happen and we all know it.

Liberal Sources™ are saying that there won’t be an interim finance minister, though the Orders in Council say that Mona Fortier is already the Acting Minister since Morneau is out of the picture. The leading contenders for the job appear to be Jean-Yves Duclos, Chrystia Freeland, and François-Philippe Champagne.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells describes the strange circumstances that surrounded Morneau’s departure – particularly the leaks to the media about fights that Morneau lost and was gracious about, with added snark about how the departure went down. Heather Scoffield notes the good work Morneau did before agreeing that it was time for him to go. (Look for my own column on Morneau’s departure later today on Loonie Politics).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some strings attached

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau wound up holding an irregular presser yesterday, mid-afternoon instead of late morning, and with a specific purpose in mind – to announce that the federal government had finally come to an agreement with the provinces over the Safe Restart Plan, now pegged at $19 billion rather than the $14 billion initially put on the table. What is noteworthy is that there were still federal strings attached for this money, though some premiers noted that the strings were not as tight as before. The money is to go toward municipalities, transit, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, childcare, and ten days of paid sick leave (so now Jagmeet Singh can pat himself on the back, even though this was BC premier John Horgan’s initiative), and is to last for the next six to eight months, at which point there will be a re-evaluation of where everyone is at. Trudeau also made it official that the Canada-US border will remain closed to non-essential travel until August 21st.

During the Q&A that followed, Trudeau expressed optimism around the vaccine candidate being held up by Chinese customs, and said that in spite of the Russian hacking story, it was important to work with everyone to develop a vaccine and that they were working to get the balance right. When asked if he would appear before committee as invited around the WE Imbroglio, that his House leadership team was looking at the possibilities, but that he also looked forward to taking questions in the Commons next week during the scheduled special sitting day. Chrystia Freeland was asked about what she knew regarding the WE Imbroglio, and she gave a fairly lengthy response about how everyone accepts responsibility for what happened, and apologized, saying that “clearly we made a mistake and we’re going to learn from it,” adding that everyone knew that the PM was connected to WE but didn’t know of his family’s specific financial arrangements, and then added that she still supported the PM and that it was a privilege to serve in his Cabinet. When asked if Quebec had no problems with the strings attached to the billions on the table, Freeland said that they agreed to it like everyone else, and that it was actually a Really Big Deal to get all thirteen provinces and territories to sign onto a deal that includes the municipalities and covered several ministries, saying that it showed that Canadians have understood that we need to work together in this time of crisis.

Shortly after the presser ended, Bardish Chagger and her officials appeared before the Finance committee to discuss the WE Imbroglio. Chagger insisted that nobody in PMO directed her to make an arrangement with WE, but she kept deferring to her officials, which…isn’t really how ministerial responsibility works. There was also talk about how WE had sent an unsolicited proposal to several ministers about a youth programme before this was announced, which WE later came out and said was a youth entrepreneurship programme which had nothing to do with what became the Service Grant programme. This having been said, the senior bureaucrat on the file said that they had three weeks to come up with a programme, and that WE fit the bill for its requirements, which is why they were recommended – and pointed out that potential conflicts are for public office holders to deal with, not bureaucrats (which is true). Up today, the Ethics Committee will begin their own examination into the Imbroglio, so we’ll see if that goes any better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, a new bill has been tabled that amends the province’s enabling legislation to run referenda, and upon reading what’s in the bill, the NDP critic immediately sounded the alarm on what’s in the bill – that it gives the premier sole power to determine whether or not these referenda are binding, the timing, and the wording of the referendum question, and more to the point, it allows for third parties to spend as much as $500,000 in advertising – and they won’t be audited if they spend under $350,000. (Remember that in the province, during a general election, third parties can only spend $150,000 on advertising). And when said critic labelled the bill as “undemocratic,” she has been ridiculed by the premier, justice minister, and any number of halfwits over social media who insist that there is nothing more democratic than a referendum.

They’re wrong. Referenda are actually deeply undemocratic.

Why? Because anytime there is more than two simple alternatives being put to the public – and alternatives are never simple or binary – then there isn’t actually a clear question being put forward, or a clear choice involved. And at the end of the process, the government then gets to interpret those unclear results as they see fit, which is actually a means by which the premier (or equivalent – this is the case with any referendum) simply uses those results to strengthen their own control. They use the façade of putting the decision to the people to tighten their own grip on power, and democracy as a whole suffers, especially because it reduces the role and function of Parliament (or provincial legislature in this case). I would recommend that people read The Will of the People: A Modern Myth by Andrew Weale, which, while predicated on the Brexit referendum, lays out why these exercises diminish Parliament. It’s important that people understand what exactly Kenney is doing by bringing this forward.

More to the point, the reason why Kenney is bringing this bill forward is advancing the agenda of his “Fair Deal Panel,” which aims to hold referenda on things like equalization (which can’t actually do anything), opting out of the Canada Pension Plan in favour of a provincial model (which should raise alarm bells considering how the province’s existing pension plan has made a series of bad decisions), or any other number of the Panel’s recommendations for opting out of federal institutions in favour of more costly provincial ones out of spite, or as a make-work project. It’s deeply cynical, and as we’ve established, actually undemocratic wearing the guise of populist democracy, and Kenney is going to do untold damage to the province with these tools at his disposal, but people won’t care because they’ve been fooled by his rhetoric. It’s all deeply concerning, but unless the province’s opposition can up their game and actually make cogent arguments to the public, then Kenney will continue to steamroll over them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An admission of systemic racism in Canada

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser was held away from Rideau Cottage yesterday, at a local business that benefitted from the wage subsidy, and it was remarked that it looked to be suspiciously like a campaign stop. Trudeau did his best to try and deflect blame for losing at political chicken – err, Wednesday’s inability to get the government’s latest emergency omnibus bill passed, outlining all of the places where items in the bill matched the demands of opposition parties, while dismissing some of the criticisms – primarily that of the Conservatives in their insistence on having full parliamentary sittings restored. The more memorable moment, however, was when he was asked about RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki’s comments that seem to dismiss systemic racism in the RCMP (though she did cop to unconscious bias), where Trudeau said that of course there is systemic racism in the RCMP, just like there is in all of our institutions, and that systems are not broken, but were in fact built that way. He went on to say that part of why it’s difficult to address is because it’s in the building blocks of these institutions, which should serve as a reminder to everyone that there are no quick fixes to any of this. He also went on to say that Canadian exceptionalism isn’t just that we do well, but that we know we need to do better and are willing to address it. This is probably the first time that a head of government has made this kind of an admission, and an acknowledgment of concepts that many Canadians are still coming to terms with – but he also did say that he had faith in Lucki to do the job of reforming the RCMP, so there’s that.

On the subject of the RCMP, Indigenous services minister Marc Miller is not having any of Commissioner Lucki’s excuses about not understanding systemic racism, and is critical that not enough has been done to combat it over the past two years. AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde says that the federal government’s complacency allows police violence against Black and Indigenous people, and he’s right. And lo and behold, the dashcam footage of Chief Allan Adam’s arrest has been made public, and it is hard to see how senior RCMP officials could have concluded that the actions were “appropriate,” which is a big flashing indicator of a problem in the ranks.

Meanwhile, as the debate on bringing back Parliament properly progresses with Trudeau’s disingenuous excuses, Conservative House leader Candice Bergen has put forward a number of suggestions for how MPs could safely vote in-person in a returned Parliament – some of which I’m not in favour of, but at least it’s a better solution than the Pandora’s Box of remote or electronic votes, which the government favours – and make no mistake, they are an evil that will be unleashed and there will be no going back. (I have more on this in my weekend column, out later today).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Manufacturing allegations of inaction

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau led off with the fact that the Canadian Forces’ report on the conditions in Quebec long-term care facilities would be released later in the day (and it was), before moving onto the news that some 45,000 postings were up on the federal Job Bank for students, along with a renewed plea for employers to access the wage subsidy. During the Q&A, there were constant questions about what the federal government was going to do about long-term care, to which Trudeau kept reiterating that it was provincial jurisdiction but that the federal government was going to be at the table for the discussion on long-term solutions, which generally means the provinces will want federal dollars to pay for it. When asked about the upcoming G7 meeting and Donald Trump’s insistence it be held in-person, Trudeau said that in-person meetings are preferable to virtual ones, but it remained to be seen if this meeting would meet safety concerns – which is also a bit ironic considering that he insisted on carrying on fairly useless “virtual” committee meetings and pretending it’s parliamentary work, even though Parliament as a whole works best in-person.

As for the long-term care discussion, Jagmeet Singh started off the day by railing that Trudeau was using jurisdiction as an excuse for “not showing leadership,” which is either grossly ignorant for a someone with a law degree, or it’s a deeply cynical political tactic to mislead the public into believing that Trudeau is simply choosing not to act when in fact his hands are tied. Singh also went off on his spiel about how the federal government should shut down privatized long-term care delivery, which again ignores jurisdictional issues, and more to the point, conveniently ignores that many of these same problems are also found in the publicly run facilities, which belies that it’s a broader cultural problem than simply just cutting care for the sake of profit margins. And as for his reasons for going along with the government’s plans to keep the Commons in a neutered capacity, well, it seems he also doesn’t have any grasp about what his own job as an MP is.

Speaking of those neutered committee hearings, the first “hybrid” special meeting was held yesterday, where big video screens were installed in the Commons chamber so that MPs could participate there by Zoom while a handful of MPs were still in the Chamber. The problem with this is that it adds a gloss of “legitimacy” to the farcical nature of these committee meetings, and Trudeau will disingenuously talk about how they’re carrying on the “important work of Parliament” by letting MPs ask all these questions, while committing the lie of omission that the crucial work of studying the Estimates isn’t getting done. Oops. But everyone is instead wrapped up in the novelty of it all and the pretense that there is parliamentary business being done – which there really isn’t – and the Liberals have apparently judged correctly that only the appearance of accountability matters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Committee Zoom™

Posted on by

For his Tuesday presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau noted the reports of his mother being sent to hospital when her apartment building in Montreal caught fire, and assured everyone that he had spoken to her and that she is doing fine. There wasn’t much in the way of news to share – noting that new federal modelling numbers for the course of the pandemic would be released shortly (and they were, with the same obligatory dumb questions as though these were predictions and not tools for planning purposes), and that their federal guidelines would also be forthcoming later in the day (and they too were). The Q&A was mostly focused on attempts to get Trudeau to say whether or not he would make any potential COVID-19 vaccine mandatory, some obligatory Francophone outrage that some of the personal protective equipment coming into the country didn’t have French labelling, and several attempts for him to give his personal opinion on whether he would send his kids to school if they were reopened when Quebec’s intend to be (which he dodged repeatedly, talking about science and evidence).

And then came the Great Virtual Committee Meeting – which was not a sitting of the House of Commons as so many people kept calling it. I settled on Committee Zoom™ as what I was going to call it, for what it’s worth. It started off with a ministerial statement from Patty Hajdu, followed by each other party offering a response of equal length, none of which had any bearing on what she was talking about, because we don’t actually debate in this country any longer – we just read prepared speeches past one another. After a brief interruption for petitions, we got down to the questions – five-minute rounds started with Scheer (who was the only leader to ask questions; Jagmeet Singh was wholly absent from the entire day), and then distributed through the parties in what appeared to be the QP rotation list that included obsequious backbench suck-up questions from the Liberals. But it was glitchy – lots of mute button errors, interruptions when MPs didn’t mute properly, constant challenges with the translation channels and which channel the MP was speaking on (some of those points of order leading to huge digressions as points mounted), a couple of Ministers whose connections were poor and made for very bad sound (spare a thought for the poor transcriptionists in Hansard),

Of course, everyone’s takeaway seems to be just how civil the whole thing was, and that there was no heckling. The closest we got was when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner was fairly aggressively asking questions and interrupting the responses she felt were taking too long. But without the clapping (which needs to die regardless) and the heckling, everyone has taken up with the impression that this was somehow preferable to QP. It’s not. Sure, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith has a point about the questions being generally better, but this was also the function of it not being on a 35-second clock, which QP needs to do away with as it is. That would help matters immensely. But the flip-side of this format is that ministers were able to give non-sequitur talking point answers that had nothing to do with what was asked of them (particularly the ones around tax havens), which is one of the places where heckling in the Chamber would actually help get that point across. Heckling doesn’t need to be just the jeering, hooting baboons that it can be (and yes, it absolutely can be). As well, there is a need for some theatre in politics, and I don’t see the long-term benefit of being robbed of it by trying to make this a more permanent feature as people are already salivating at the prospect of. The unintended consequences will be far worse than you can possibly imagine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On Scheer’s silence over Sloan

Posted on by

For his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau was all about science – specifically, a $1.1 billion package for research on vaccines and clinical trials, plus the launch of an immunity task force that will help to determine the spread of the virus within the population (as many may have been exposed and only ever experienced mild symptoms or had none at all), which will be necessary as we talk about re-opening the economy and how that will proceed. Trudeau also reiterated that the situation with long-term care facilities is untenable, that using soldiers to help the residents of those homes is merely a short-term solution that demands a long-term re-think. During the Q&A, Trudeau was not promising the billions of dollars that municipalities were demanding, but made some fairly vague commitments about working with provinces, given that cities are creatures of provincial legislation. He also said that provinces were going to take their own leads on re-opening their economies given that there are different epidemics playing out across the country and not just one nationally, though there is talk of federal guidelines.

The thing that had everyone talking throughout the day, however, was Conservative leadership candidate Derek Sloan making a fairly blatantly racist call for Dr. Theresa Tam to be fired while questioning her loyalty to Canada as he accuses her of following Chinese propaganda. And more to the point, that Andrew Scheer refuses to comment on what Sloan says insofar as the racism – he did say that as the opposition, they should be criticizing ministers who make decisions and not officials who give advice. Of course, this shouldn’t be too surprising as the party has already been pursuing this notion of vilifying the WHO because they were too credulous about the information coming out of China and Canada followed WHO advice, and Sloan simply took it one step further. And more to the point, under Scheer, the party has offered succour to racists on more than one occasion (most notably after the incident when Trudeau called out the racist statements of an avowedly racist woman in Quebec at an event, after which the Conservatives insisted that she was merely concerned about the economic impact of “illegal” asylum seekers and that anyone who questioned the government would be called a racist – because being labelled a racist is apparently a worse crime than actual racism). A few other Conservative MPs did denounce Sloan’s comments, and local officials within Sloan’s riding called on him to be denounced by Scheer and expelled from the party.

Ah, but that’s part of the issue. The Conservatives, if you recall, voted to adopt certain provisions of Michael Chong’s (garbage) Reform Act which ensures that the full caucus must vote to expel a member, that the leader alone can’t do it. It would be mighty awkward for Scheer to pull that trigger regardless, considering that he’s in an interim, outgoing position and not really the leader any longer, and that Sloan is vying to replace him (and it will be a doomed effort), but I will say that regardless of the circumstances, I have long been uncomfortable with both leaders expelling members, and with the more recent notion that MPs (and senators, where applicable) should be expelled at the first sign of trouble, rather than managing them better from within the fold, or leaving it up to their riding association to decide whether or not to keep them in the party, being as they are really the ones who should be deciding.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A whole lot more ventilators

Posted on by

This morning’s presser from prime minister Justin Trudeau was largely focused on the domestic production of personal protective equipment, with 5000 companies having stepped forward to help, and letters of intent signed with partners to produce new supplies, which includes up to 30,000 new ventilators as well as other necessary supplies. He also mentioned that the proposed legislation on the wage subsidy was in the hands of the opposition to help negotiate swift passage (something which is outside of parliamentary norms), and because much of that subsidy is embedded in the Income Tax Act, it will require parliamentary approval (but I’m guessing that Parliament won’t be recalled until after Easter at this point, given that they need 48 hours’ notice). During the Q&A portion, Trudeau said that some of those ventilators could be for export if we have more than we wind up needing, but better to plan for the worst. He also said that they recognize that the banks could be doing more during this particular point in time, and they were looking at ways to get them to step up. When asked to weigh in on the mask debate, he again tried not to but then coined the phrase “speaking moistly,” and well, that turned into a meme. So that happened.

Meanwhile, as my reply column turned into another argument of “Why can’t the government just send everyone a cheque?!” here’s Kevin Milligan to disabuse you of that notion, with a couple of other reminders from Jennifer Robson.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247675121113821184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247677279997591554

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247678433347264513

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247680977440104448

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247686764099022849

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247687814063329280

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1247690939390255107

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspended for negotiations

Posted on by

For his daily presser yesterday, Justin Trudeau first gave some bland assurances about believing in democratic institutions before updating on his conversation with the premiers the day before, stating that now was not the time for the Emergencies Act to be implemented, but it remained the tool of last resort. (He also gave some information on other flights they have secured for stranded Canadians, said that faster testing was coming, and that they’re not ruling out using telecom data to find social gatherings so that they can shut them down). But the drama for the day started moments later when the House of Commons convened for the Skeleton Parliament, and immediately suspended in order to continue negotiations because the Conservatives in particular were not going to let the government give itself the power of unlimited spending without any parliamentary oversight – as well they shouldn’t. Even more to the point, Conservative MP Scott Reid showed up, despite not having been on the leader’s approved list, and posted a 2500-word essay online about why he was going to deny any unanimous consent, why it was improper for his party to try to keep him from being there, and his (proper) concern around Parliament passed three bills sight-unseen in one fell swoop before they suspended. And he’s absolutely right.

While the negotiations carried on for at least the next twelve hours (by the time I gave up waiting and went to bed), it sounded like the government was walking back on some of the measures but a new text of the bill still hadn’t been forthcoming. But that didn’t stop the absolute inane partisanship from all sides, which was not helped at all by ministers like Mélanie Joly saying asinine things like “the parliamentary process is too slow” for the government’s pandemic response, which is utterly infuriating. People defending the government’s move to try and bypass parliament seem to forget that this is how democracy works, and it’s not a bad thing. If they don’t like that, then they can tell the Queen that we’re turning over all power to her because it’s easier that way. And then there were the conspiracy theories that the Conservatives had somehow set up Reid as the weasel so that they could be partisan spoilers over the government’s response, which is so mind-blowingly stupid that I can’t even. Reid, who is on the outs with Scheer, somehow cooked up a scheme to be spoilers? When the government went and put an unconstitutional provision in the bill and expected parliament to swiftly pass it and just trust them? Seriously? And the harrowing cries that this was causing people to die, never mind that the plan was always that the Senate would receive the bill today and that it would get royal assent today, not yesterday. Because why should two centuries of Responsible Government matter? And Westminster parliaments going back to the late 1600s? It’s not like turning over more power to governments in times of fear without proper oversight ever goes badly, right?

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt has some of the behind-the-scenes details on how those offending passages got into the bill, though I’m not mollified by the notion that this was all to be negotiated because I’ve heard from people at briefings who say that this wasn’t how it was presented to them. Heather Scoffield isn’t reassured by the government’s words, considering they wanted to enhance their spending powers until the end of 2021. Chris Selley praises Scott Reid for standing up for Parliament in the face of a government that would have trod all over its rights.

Continue reading →