Tag Archives: Danielle Smith

Roundup: O’Toole claims privilege over foreign interference

Posted on by

Yesterday in the House of Commons, Erin O’Toole rose on a point of privilege to say that his briefing from CSIS warned of “active” campaigns against him from China in four categories—that they are funding operatives to build propaganda campaigns against him, funding networks to amplify it, using WeChat for that purpose, and run voter suppression against his party and one MP in particular. His claim is that the government’s inability or unwillingness to act on the intelligence of foreign interference impacts his privileges as an MP.

I’m dubious that this constitutes an actual breach of privilege, because frankly, if disinformation campaigns, social media amplification and voter suppression are happening, well, his own party is just as guilty as the Chinese regime of doing exactly the same thing. I also fail to see what the House of Commons can do about addressing this supposed breach of privilege other than vote on sending a strongly-worded rebuke to the regime in Beijing. I also don’t necessarily trust that O’Toole is giving us all of the relevant details because he seemed to be very selective with what he wrote about his meeting with David Johnston on his Substack, and I cannot stress this enough, Erin O’Toole is a serial liar. Unfortunately, because he does it with a solemn tone and not, say, a clown nose and a unicycle, he manages to bamboozle a swath of the pundit class who are convinced that he’s the upstanding guy that they all want him to be rather than who he proved himself to be during his leadership, and that somehow, now that he’s no longer the leader, he’s gone back to being the guy they all want him to be. I don’t get it.

Meanwhile, the NDP used their Supply Day to call on David Johnston to step down so that the government will call a public inquiry. This while Pierre Poilievre is daring Singh to bring down the government, and Singh saying he won’t until trust is restored in elections (which is tactically stupid). The government insists they have confidence in Johnston, but it does raise the point that if everyone but the Liberals vote for this, it becomes politically untenable for the government to maintain the current course of action, even if it’s the right thing to do (because I remain unconvinced that a public inquiry will do absolutely anything more in this situation other than take three years, cost $180 million, and create a media circus with a daily drip of “revelations” that will amount to nothing but will nevertheless fuel said media circus). But this may wind up backing the Liberals into a corner and forcing them to call an inquiry, lest the damage get worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith stays, Alberta still a one-party state

Posted on by

Well, Alberta has decided that it remains a one-party state, no matter how corrupted that party is, or how completely awful the leader is, and just how utterly unsuited Danielle Smith is for office, and that she has embraced all manner of conspiracy theories, or behaved in ways that imperilled democracy. While I have a full column on this coming out later today, there are a couple of things not mentioned therein that I did still want to mention.

One is that I cannot fathom how the whole “Take Back Alberta” narrative persisted. Take it back from whom? From what? You’ve been a one-party state for nearly fifty years, minus the four-year NDP interregnum that came about as a result of a perfect storm that in no way could be replicated this time around.

The NDP ran a weak campaign, and they are now comforting themselves with the fact that they have the largest official opposition in the province’s history, for what little it matters because Smith still has a majority, and they have no actual leverage to make any particular difference in the legislature. I am feeling some flashbacks to 2011 when the federal NDP formed official opposition and felt like they won the election, when they also handed the Conservatives a majority and they had no actual ability to make change or have leverage.

There is also still a particular ugliness in this election, as exemplified by the fact that the UCP candidate who compared trans children to faeces in cookie batter won by a landslide. Smith claims that she’s out of caucus “for good,” but I don’t actually believe her, and I have no doubt that after a few months in that penalty box, she’ll be welcomed back into the party because Smith believes in forgiveness, or some bullshit like that. And not nearly enough people will do any soul-searching over this, and this ugliness will fester.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Another night, another massive air raid against Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine, with more than 20 drones shot down as of this writing, and at least one high rise is being evacuated as falling debris has caused a fire. The constant nightly air attacks against Kyiv are taking a toll on its citizens (which is of course why the Russians are doing it). Russians did also allegedly hit a Ukrainian air base, plus port infrastructure in Odessa. There was also a Russian attack on the city of Toretsk in the Donetsk region, which killed two and injured at least eight.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663350609385254912

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1663176973793861633

Continue reading →

Roundup: Claims O’Toole also was a target

Posted on by

It is being alleged that Erin O’Toole has been briefed by CSIS that Chinese agents had been targeting him during his time as party leader because of his bellicose language about the regime. While there is no indication his family was also being targeted, his sister did live in Hong Kong for a number of years. Of course, I am taking the language in the article with a few grains of salt because the Johnston report pointed out that threats weren’t actually made to Michael Chong’s family, but that there was an indication that the agent in Canada was trying to gather information, so what exactly this “targeting” of O’Toole consists of I am keeping my powder dry on.

This has, of course, given rise to another round of cries for a public inquiry. Not one of them has articulated just how such an inquiry would make any iota of difference from the current process being undertaken by Johnston (aside from taking three years and costing a few hundred million dollars). How exactly does this situation require additional subpoena powers when the government has willingly turned over all of their documentation? If most of it will need to be behind closed doors because of the nature of the information, how exactly does this build trust? Nobody has yet articulated this, and “it just will” is not an answer—especially when the media and the opposition have been undermining trust in how these matters are being reported and discussed, and I fail to see how a public inquiry will change any of this.

Meanwhile, David Johnston took to the op-ed pages of the Globe and Mail to defend his decision to carry on with the review in light of the criticisms of his involvement, which has been pointed out seems to misunderstand the nature of how the political game is played these days. Of course, Johnston is hoping that he can get MPs and party leaders to be grown-ups and work together on this problem, but that’s unlikely to happen in the current climate and especially with the current players, and in that same token, writing an op-ed in the Globe seems a bit like that same kind of naïve hope that people will treat this as they did a couple of decades ago.

On a related note, the CBC has one of the worst examples of both-sidesing the supposed controversy around Johnston’s alleged conflict of interest—two professors who say it’s probably not a conflict, all things considered, but Democracy Watch (which has no actual credibility other than they are a reliable quote generator for lazy journalists) says it is, so it’s up to Canadians to decide. Seriously? This is exactly the kind of thing that has allowed misinformation and disinformation to flourish, because they refuse to call out bullshit when they see it. This is killing democracy, and they absolutely refuse to engage in any self-reflection about it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a clinic in the city of Dnipro, killing two and wounding 30, after Ukrainian forces shot down ten missiles and twenty drones targeting Dnipro and Kyiv overnight. Meanwhile, the disaffected Russian group has allegedly shelled more targets in Belgorod region in Russia. Ukraine’s defence ministry is warning that Russia plans to simulate a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in order to thwart the coming counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1662024887731474432?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1661975921455161344?s=61&t=P3QULyv63iAc0o1A98RiWQ

Continue reading →

Roundup: Why read when you can have a dog and pony show?

Posted on by

The morning after the David Johnston report and his recommendation not to hold a public inquiry, and the day was largely just more people demanding one anyway. Yves-François Blanchet decided to team up with Pierre Poilievre to declare that any ability to give them classified briefings was a “trap” to shut them up, which is a) patently ridiculous, b) a test of being adults that they both failed, and c) an admission that they would rather make hay than actually do the work of accountability that their job requires of them, which again, goes to the fact that ours is no longer a serious Parliament.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1661329685546975232

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1661383973488975872

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1661372432676954118

As if to prove that Parliament is not serious, opposition members on the Procedure and House Affairs committee are now demanding that Johnston appear before them to explain his decision not to recommend a public inquiry. I mean, those reasons are all in his report if they bothered to read it, but that’s not what this is about. Rather, they want a dog and pony show, a chance to mug for the cameras while they hurl either invective or sanctimony toward him (depending which opposition party we’re discussing here) so that they can take those clips for their social media.

Meanwhile, two of the journalists reporting on the leaked documents were on Power & Politics last night, an as expected, there was zero self-reflection or acknowledgement that they might be getting played, particularly after Johnston debunked things they have written about. Instead, we got self-justification and rationalization, and trying to insist that Johnston wasn’t the expert while their leaker was—never mind that we can see that what was leaked was done in a way to craft a particular narrative that appears to have partisan ends. And lo, the same pair produced one of the laziest stories I’ve seen in weeks, where they got two former commission counsel to insist that a public inquiry would “restore confidence” without actually saying how.

Ukraine Dispatch:

All the news appears to be about those Russian dissent groups crossing into Belgorod region in Russian, denying reports that they were “crushed” by Russian forces ad saying that they’ll keep up the incursions, which is likely to stretch Russia’s forces even more than they are already over-extended maintaining their invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Norway will also help train Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets (but I haven’t heard who will be donating the aircraft just yet).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1661405030388310018

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1661249400281202688

Continue reading →

Roundup: A bad report and a bad debate

Posted on by

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released another one of his highly dubious reports yesterday, this time on the incoming clean fuel regulations. Why is it dubious? Because it’s entirely one-sided and assumes no costs to climate change, and no adaptation on the part of industry in order to bring costs down to meet their obligations under the regulations, which is the whole gods damned point of these kinds of mechanisms. Oh, and this isn’t fiscal policy, so it’s not clear why he’s even doing this kind of report in the first place.

As you may have noticed during Question Period, the Conservatives jumped all over this report and its findings, and when they were questioned, their media staff were over social media accusing people of calling the PBO a liar. Well, it’s not that he’s a liar—it’s bad data, a bad report, and the numbers taken from it were used dishonestly and entirely in bad faith. And the PBO gets the attention he’s looking for, and around and around we go.

Rachel Notley vs Danielle Smith

For the purposes of researching my column last night, I subjected myself to the leaders’ debate in the Alberta election and it was…not great. Yes, lots of people gushed at how nice it was just to have two leaders going head-to-head and not four or five, but we don’t have a two-party system federally (and it’s a bad sign that Alberta has a de facto one provincially).

My not-too-original observations were that Notley was weirdly on the defensive most of the night, while Smith was pretending to be the upstart challenger rather than the incumbent, attacking Notley on her record at every turn when Notley wasn’t effectively throwing many punches herself. Yes, she did well on the healthcare and education portions, but was not effectively countering Smith’s confident bullshit throughout, and that’s a real problem in a lower voter-information environment, where that confidence plays well regardless of the fact that Smith lied constantly with a straight face. On the very day that Smith was found to have broken the province’s Conflict of Interest Act, Notley had a hard time effectively making this point, while Smith claimed vindication because it showed she didn’t directly call Crown prosecutors, while it full-out warned that Smith’s behaviour was a threat to democracy, and Notley could barely say the words.

Programming Note: I am taking the full long weekend off, so expect the next post to be on Wednesday.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There are reports of more air raids in Ukraine early Friday morning. Russians fired 30 cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets in the early morning hours on Thursday, and Ukraine shot down 29 of them, with the one that got through striking an industrial building in Odessa, killing one and wounding two. There were also further gains made around Bakhmut, and even the Wagner Group’s leader says that they have bene in retreat. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy set up a reintegration council in order to provide advice for the restoration of Ukrainian rule when they liberate Crimean.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1659213321927794693

Continue reading →

Roundup: A declaration of persona non grata

Posted on by

A week after the Chong revelations were made in the Globe and Mail, and two years after the briefing had been prepared by CSIS, Mélanie Joly has declared the Chinese diplomat at the centre of those revelations to be persona non grata. This declaration was made right as the Commons was voting on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to expel any diplomats implicated in this affair, in which all opposition parties voted for it and the government voted against, meaning that they lost (but it’s non-binding, so it’s more of an expression of opinion than anything else).

The reaction, of course, is that this is two years too late, and that the government’s insistence that this is complicated isn’t actually backed up by the Vienna Convention—though it has been said that they were likely preparing people on the ground in China for the inevitable retaliation, because China doesn’t like to do tit-for-tat, as happens with most PNG declarations, but rather they prefer to escalate. (See: the two Michaels). The Canadian Press has a brief primer on previous diplomatic expulsions from Canada.

Meanwhile, Marco Mendicino still won’t say who is either responsible or accountable for the failure to alert political actors about those Chong revelations two years ago, and is relying on vague “hostile actors” talk rather than, you know, being held to account for what is clearly a process failure within the government’s bureaucracy. That would seem to me what he should be doing as minister, because it’s been made clear that this wasn’t a CSIS problem—it was a problem further up the chain, and whether that’s because we have a poor culture of consuming intelligence at the senior levels, or because this government can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, that kind of thing needs to be addressed.

Ukraine Dispatch:

For Russia’s Victory Day, they launched one of the biggest swarms of drones against Ukraine in months, targeting mostly Kyiv and Odessa, though air defences are largely repelling the attacks on Kyiv. Russian shelling also hit two villages in the Kherson region, wounding eight people, as well as damaged the electrical grids in five Ukrainian regions. In Bakhmut, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries says they still haven’t received promised ammunition from Russia. Elsewhere, farmers in Ukraine are having a harder time because many workers are off fighting, which is hurting their operations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Allegations and reactions to reports of targeting an MP’s family

Posted on by

The big news that dominated much of the discourse yesterday was that Globe and Mail story that a secret intelligence document from two years ago says that the Chinese regime sees Canada as a priority target for foreign interference because we don’t have a foreign agent registry, and said that they were targeting Conservative MP Michael Chong’s family in Hong Kong, and that a Chinese diplomat in Canada was working on the matter. This of course turned into the daily outrage—Chong decried that he wasn’t warned about this, and then we saw the dog and pony show in Question Period. Justin Trudeau said that after reading the Globe story he has asked his officials to look into this document, and called the matter unacceptable. Oh, and two of those so-called Chinese “police stations” appear to still be in operation in the Montreal area, in spite of the RCMP saying they’d shut them down. So, there’s that.

https://twitter.com/MichaelChongMP/status/1653044204438732803

But here’s the thing—Chong isn’t an idiot, even if he sometimes plays one in Question Period, and should have known that his family there did face risks. Activists from these diaspora communities here have been saying it for years, and many have pointed to the fact that they deliberately don’t have contact with their family members back home in order to try to protect them. Chong shouldn’t have needed a CSIS briefing to know if his family in Hong Kong was under threat—he should have put two-and-two together on his own, given how outspoken he is about the regime. (Update: Behold, two years ago he stated he was doing just that). Trying to blame the government sounds particularly disingenuous because I know that Chong knows better, even if he wants to playact shock and outrage for the cameras in order to score points. There is a better way to deal with these allegations of foreign interference without these kinds of drama camp antics.

Meanwhile, Canada’s self-appointed media critic is in full braying doofus mode, and has some thoughts about journalistic ethics around media outlets reporting (or not) on leaked documents that they haven’t seen or been able to verify. Aside from the fact that CBC’s politics page did run the Canadian Press wire story about Chong’s reaction, Scheer should know how this works, right? Does he think that CBC can just call up the leaker and say “Hey, can we have a look at those documents too?” Well, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did believe that, but seriously—if he bothered to think it through for half a second, he would understand why CBC isn’t reporting on it, but that’s inconvenient for his narrative and his rage-farming, so here we are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired another early-morning salvo of missiles at Ukraine, and of the 18 fired, 15 were brought down by air defences, leaving three to strike targets primarily in the eastern city of Pavlohrad, killing two and rounding 40; Kyiv did not suffer any strikes this time. Over in Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces have pushed Russians back from several parts of the city, and US estimates are that 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in the past five months (up to 20,000 of those killed), most of them in and around Bakhmut. Two Canadian volunteer soldiers fighting for Ukraine were killed in Bakhmut last week.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1653047560020414465

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1652911854501388290

Continue reading →

Roundup: The scope of the transition

Posted on by

As Alberta heads into an election, one can be certain that Danielle Smith is going to wield the threat of the supposed “just transition” as a cudgel to attack Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley. Nevertheless, there are issues around the future of work in the province as the oil and gas extraction industry changes—a process that began years ago, and is currently far more automated than it used to be.

As Andrew Leach points out, the scale of the issue is something that the province will need to grapple with.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The death toll from the overnight strike in Uman has risen to 23, with another two deaths from a separate strike in Dnipro. Ukrainian leadership say that they are “to a high percentage ready” to launch their spring counter-offensive, and that modern weapons will serve as an “iron first.” Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy hosted the presidents of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, while seven foreign ministers met with Ukraine’s foreign minister in Odessa, all of whom were expressing support for Ukraine as Ukraine pushes for more modern aircraft.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1651966751268278272

Continue reading →

Roundup: The dog and pony show around Telford at committee

Posted on by

After weeks of haranguing, filibusters, and Question Period clown shows, the prime minister’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee. Shortly before she appeared, documents were tabled to show some dates of briefings the prime minister had with his National Security and Intelligence Advisor, but there weren’t many specifics, and in her testimony, Telford didn’t fill in any of those blanks. And nearly two-and-a-half hours were spent with Telford largely telling MPs that she couldn’t confirm or deny anything, except when the Liberals asked her to pat herself on the back for all of the actions the government has thus far taken around taking foreign interference seriously.

And of course, the Conservatives spent the time putting on a show for the camera, whether it was Larry Brock playing prosecutor—in spite of committee chair Bardish Chagger repeatedly warning him that this was a committee and not a court room—or Rachael Thomas’ rehearsed Disappointment Speech at the end. It was nothing but a dog and pony show.

This never should have happened. Telford never should have been summoned. We’ve once again damaged the fundamental precepts of parliamentary democracy and Responsible Government for the sake of some cheap theatre and clips for social media. Our Parliament should be a much more serious place, but this was just one more incidence of MPs debasing themselves and the institution for the sake of scoring a few cheap points.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian missiles struck the eastern city of Sloviansk, hitting residential buildings and killing at least nine people and wounding over 21.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An abuse of parliamentary privilege

Posted on by

I’m going to start off with the caveat that I don’t know a lot of what is happening in Nova Scotia politics, but I came across this story yesterday that is pretty concerning for the practice of parliamentary democracy across Canada. During debate on a bill around use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases, an independent MLA (formerly a Progressive Conservative but was ejected from caucus in 2021) tabled a document that she claimed was a non-disclosure agreement that a former female staffer had been coerced into signing with the PC Party. (To make things more interesting, said staffer died last year, and was working for this MLA at the time, and she says the document was found in the staffer’s effects—and, the party’s former leader was forced out over inappropriate behaviour toward a female staffer, so I’m not sure how many of these factors actually connect).

A government minister has since moved a motion to force her to retract her comments about the incident, and if she doesn’t, that she should be ejected from the Chamber until she does. And that’s a capital-P Problem. Said independent MLA has since complained to the province’s justice department that the move is unconstitutional…but the justice department can’t do anything about it, because this is clearly a matter that is within parliamentary privilege. But it absolutely violates all of our constitutional norms, and should be a warning sign about the lengths to which parties will abuse their majorities in legislatures to silence or bully opposition members. It sounds like the provincial Liberals and NDP will be opposing this motion, but the PCs do have a majority, so they may not be able to do much in the long run. I would not be surprised if the Speaker finds that the motion is out of order, but this is genuinely frightening about how much they are willing to abuse process and parliamentary privilege like this.

Don’t get me wrong—parliament or the legislatures do have the power to eject members, but it needs to be for very serious wrongdoing, such as being convicted of a serious crime, and if the member refuses to resign gracefully, then they can order the seat vacated. But those are extreme circumstances that have yet to be actually tested (because in virtually every case, sanity prevails and they resign with a shred of dignity still intact). But this is an unconscionable abuse of that power, an abuse of a parliamentary majority, and sets a very dangerous precedent for the future, and the PC members who thought this was at all appropriate should not only be ashamed, but should probably consider tendering their resignations for this debacle.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they repelled 45 Russian attacks around Bakhmut over a twenty-four-hour period, continuing to grind down the Russian forces while they await more arms from allies like the US in order to begin the spring counter-offensive.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1643326962226585604

Continue reading →