Tag Archives: David Johnston

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: Johnston says no public inquiry

Posted on by

It was David Johnston Day, as his first report was delivered, and he did not recommend a public inquiry for very good reasons—particularly that it could not be necessarily public given the nature of the information, and that it would be window dressing at this stage of the game, considering he had already done a lot of the heavy lifting, and planned to do public hearings as part of his final report. You can read the full report here, but here are the five key takeaways. There was plenty of scathing material in there, particularly to the system of information dissemination within government, but also to the way media stories torqued partial information into falsehoods (the Han Dong allegations were discredited in the report). There is a problem with information culture within government, and while this government has done a lot to fix some things, they are not adapting fast enough to the changing environment, and that is on them. (Check out some of the threads linked below as well).

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1661045080705187842

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1661080153122848781

https://twitter.com/stephaniecarvin/status/1661211717924188161

Johnston’s decision was necessarily a no-win scenario, and everyone is unhappy, but nobody has exactly explained how a public inquiry was going to restore trust in the democratic system—particularly as it comes under attack by bad faith actors who spent the day trying to discredit Johnston and his report (never mind that he did address the alleged conflicts and consulted with a former Supreme Court of Canada justice before accepting the job), and that no matter who would lead either the Special Rapporteur process or a theoretical public inquiry, there would be the same bad faith attacks because they don’t actually want to restore faith in the process. They want people to distrust because they cynically hope to leverage that in the next election. Pierre Poilievre in particular has refused to strike any kind of statesmanlike tone and refuses to be briefed because he knows that the moment he actually knows the intelligence and can’t talk about it, he can’t outright lie and make accusations with wild abandon, and that’s his entire shtick. But this is a fairly classic Canadian problem, where MPs don’t want to know the actual secret information, because then they’d have to stop talking, which they don’t want to do. Remember, ours is no longer a serious Parliament.

There is a conversation to be had about the role media is playing in undermining the faith in democracy, but you can rest assured there will be no self-reflection around it. Rather, there will be self-justification and rationalization, and sniping that Johnston expects us to take the intelligence he’s seen at face value, which is ironic considering that the media outlets reporting on these leaks are expecting us to do the very same thing, even though there are agendas at play within that reporting.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1661050997936996356

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1661051520018706432

In pundit reaction, Justin Ling gives a fairly balanced summation of the report with some insightful commentary. Susan Delacourt is sceptical of Johnston’s assertion that politicians and media can play their parts in restoring faith in democracy. Andrew Coyne is unhappy with the notion that we are expected to just trust Johnston (ignoring the contradiction made above), and while he credits Johnston with inviting NSICOP and NSIRA to review his findings, the same secrecy problem remains. Matt Gurney despairs at the picture of incompetence the report paints.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Following his return to Ukraine after meetings at the G7 in Hiroshima, Japan, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visted marines on the front lines in the country’s east. Over the weekend, the Russians claimed they overran Bakhmut over the weekend, which Ukraine denies, particularly as they have been reclaiming territory surrounding it. Russians are also claiming Ukrainian “sabotage groups” are crossing the border into the Belgorod region, but it sounds like these may be disaffected Russians, as Ukrainans deny involvement. Russians later claim to have “crushed” these groups.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1660291196030271490

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1660884230174560256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ad hoc panel assembled to review documents NSICOP should have handled

Posted on by

After months and months of delay, the government has finally unveiled the ad hoc panel that will examine the Winnipeg Lab documents, and that panel will comprise of four MPs and three former judges—two former Supreme Court of Canada justices, and one from the Federal Court of Appeal. Allegedly it took so long to set up because they needed to convince the judges, and then it took forever to get the Bloc and finally the Conservatives on board.

Of course, this whole exercise is completely unnecessary because this should have all been done by NSICOP. This is exactly the kind of thing that it was created for, but the Conservatives have been bad actors about this entire affair (and Michael Chong being among the worst of said bad actors), turning this whole thing into a needlessly drawn-out affair that has involved the government suing the House of Commons over a production order, and years of absolutely unhinged conspiracy theories as to what happened (again, with Chong being among the worst offenders).

I can pretty much guarantee you that this committee is going to find nothing to write home about. There has been plenty of reporting as to what happened. It wasn’t Chinese espionage. It was almost certainly a policy breach related to intellectual property, but this being a highly secured facility, you can imagine that has complicated matters. In any case, this whole thing is going to wind up being one giant waste of everyone’s time and resources because they decided to make a dog and pony show out of it for the sake of trying to embarrass the government rather than being responsible and just letting NSICOP read the unredacted documents that were provided to them in the first place.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There have been more early-morning missiles fired at Kyiv, and falling debris has set fire to one non-residential building, while at least one person was killed in a missile strike on Odessa. While Ukrainian forces continue to make gains around Bakhmut, the Russians are still sending people into the fighting, and there doesn’t appear to be any ammunition shortage, in spite of those Wagner Group videos.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658751950165356544

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658800755946528774

Continue reading →

Roundup: The allegations reach Vancouver

Posted on by

The Globe and Mail had another leak yesterday, and this time it involved municipal politics, and more particularly, the allegation that the Chinese consulate in Vancouver was meddling in that city’s election last year. Later in the day, former mayor Kennedy Stewart appeared on Power & Politics to confirm that yes, he did get a visit from two CSIS officials to warn him that they were concerned about interference, but there wasn’t really anything Stewart could do about it, since the Vancouver police couldn’t investigate. The new mayor, Ken Sim, rejected any insinuation he was helped by Beijing, and that there wouldn’t be the same questions if he were Caucasian.

The most interesting thing from the story in my opinion was that these diplomats were hoping to get a council member or two in place in the hopes that they could groom them into having political careers that included provincial or federal ambitions, but again, this is mostly about trying to get people into place who will be sympathetic to Beijing and who can help project a better image for them, and is less about actual espionage, for what it’s worth.

I’m seeing a couple of issues here. One is that we’re going to start seeing “Did the Chinese interfere?!” with every lost race in this country, I fear, no matter how ridiculous the charge, because that’s how media tends to operate. I also think there is a lot of “not my problem” happening on the official side, especially because the federal government doesn’t want to be seen to be bigfooting any municipal races, while lower levels of government don’t know what to do with warnings because they don’t have any systems in place (because we have an enormous normalcy bias in our politics). I also question why so much emphasis seems to be placed on the boasts of these consular officials who are claiming credit for election outcomes that there is no possible way they could have meaningfully influenced. People take credit for lots of things they didn’t do. We shouldn’t believe them because it’s convenient for our narrative. Cripes.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Poland has decided to give its MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine, with the first four to be sent in the coming days, answering Ukraine’s pleas for more fighters. Because they are Soviet-era fighters, the Ukrainians already know how to fly and service these planes, so they can be put into operation immediately and not requires months or years of training on newer platforms. Meanwhile, the artillery battle continues around Bakhmut.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1636430656954671105

Continue reading →

Roundup: David Johnston, special rapporteur

Posted on by

The “unimpeachable” eminent Canadian chosen to be the special rapporteur on allegations of foreign interference is former Governor General David Johnston, and it took mere minutes for the Conservatives to start denouncing him, citing that he was affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, and that his role on the election debate commission saw Rosemary Barton ask questions during the last debate when she “sued” the Conservatives (note: she did not sue them, but the CBC sued the party in her name for unauthorised use of footage; also, I don’t believe Johnston chose the moderators or questioners, considering that it was a demand of the broadcast consortium that their talent each be allowed to have time during the debate), and on and on it went. The pundit class largely insisted that Johnston should have recused himself right away because he is too closely associated with Trudeau, and others insisted that if it was truly a non-partisan appointment then Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh should have been part of the process and naming him, and anyway, the whole special rapporteur thing was stupid and so on.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1636102797623009281

I mean, I understand why Trudeau decided to go this route—not everyone agrees that a public inquiry is the best route to go, because it could go for years and that could mean delaying action that should be taken now. Even if it is the route we want to go (and several Liberals are now saying that it’s the only option at this point), it would still be Trudeau and Cabinet setting the terms of reference, which is also part of the rationale—Trudeau says that he would leave that determination up to Johnston, and he’d follow his recommendations, thereby trying to put some measure of distance between himself and any such task. I do say that it mystifies me that everyone demanding an inquiry right now if not yesterday never seems to care about this very point, even though we all damned well know that they would immediately cite these points as to why the inquiry is illegitimate.

But honestly? Canada is a small pond. There are not too many “eminent Canadians” who have the track record to take on this kind of task, and who don’t have some kind of perceived conflict, no matter how unrealistic it is. But that’s the whole thing with perceived conflicts, and this notion of “smell tests” that don’t actually mean anything but which get the chattering classes frothing. Is Johnston the best choice? Maybe, maybe not. The likely other option was a former Supreme Court Justice, which has become a running joke in Canadian politics these days. Regardless, the fact that this is just more partisan fodder is all the more proof that parties are not actually taking this seriously, and would rather be out to score points instead.

Ukraine Dispatch:

American intelligence suggests that the Russians are making small advances toward Bakhmut, but at great cost. Further north near Kreminna, similar battles are playing out, with the Russians making unsuccessful attacks, but they worry that the attempts to surround Bakhmut could have repercussions for their section of the front, while fatigue is starting to set in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer’s risible demands

Posted on by

Even before the day’s meetings got started, Justin Trudeau offered up a pre-emptive strike against Andrew Scheer’s demands by announcing that Parliament would be summoned on December 5th – immediately after his return from the NATO summit – where they would hold both the Speaker election and the Speech from the Throne on the same day (rather unusually, as they tend to be on subsequent days). When Scheer did meet with Trudeau, he came armed with seven demands, and immediately following that, Trudeau met with Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who also moaned that his own demands weren’t being capitulated to.

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1194313181990129665

As for Scheer’s demands, a good many of them are simple non-starters, and others are simply laughable, but let’s walk through them, shall we?

  1. Keep Canada united and strong by launching a task force to study the establishment of a national energy corridor, which could bring Ontario and Quebec hydroelectricity to new markets, open up opportunities for Western Canadian oil and gas, and connect rural communities in Atlantic Canada and the North.
  2. Help Canadians get ahead by offering broad-based tax relief, providing a date for balancing the budget, and proceeding with fair tax-free maternity benefits.
  3. Restore ethics and accountability to government by introducing stronger penalties in the Conflict of Interest Act.
  4. Get the energy sector back to work by tabling a detailed plan, with concrete deadlines, to build the Trans Mountain expansion and repealing Bills C-48 and C-69.
  5. Take real action on the environment by drawing on policies from our Real Plan to Protect the Environment, such as the Green Patent Credit, the Canadian Clean brand, the Green Home Renovation Tax Credit, and ending raw sewage dumps.
  6. Immediately fund regional transit expansion in the GTA, starting with the Ontario Line and Yonge Extension.
  7. Reduce the paperwork burden on Quebecers by adopting a single tax return.

To start with, I’m puzzled as to how Scheer believes that his “national energy corridor” scheme is a national unity project. I mean, I get that he keeps insisting it’s “a win-win,” but if you stop and think about it for thirty seconds, they’re demanding that decades be spent on land negotiations and expropriations involving First Nations and provinces that may not be keen on them, for another decade to be spent building a pipeline that, by the time it’s completed, will be in the middle of massive global decarbonization. That’s some forward thinking. The broad-based tax relief that was in the Liberal platform was better targeted to low-income Canadians than in the Conservatives’, as was their proposal for tax-free maternity benefits; the date for a balanced budget is also somewhat mired in mid-nineties thinking, while the government has chosen a different fiscal anchor that allows them to take advantage of the low-interest rate environment to make investments in Canadians. The demand for a detailed plan with concrete deadlines for the TMX construction is farcical because any delays would be contingent upon the Federal Court’s hearing the concerns of those Indigenous groups who are challenging the most recent consultations, and that’s not something the government has any control over, but never mind that there is pipe going in the ground right now. The repeal of C-69 and C-48 are non-starters, and would do absolutely nothing to benefit the energy sector because the problem is the low world price of oil. Demanding that the government adopt the Conservative non-plan for the environment? Hilarious. Immediately funding the GTA transit expansions? How is it responsible to sign a blank cheque when there is no concrete plan on the table? Seriously, you claim to be the fiscally responsible party. And having Quebec adopt a single tax return? Yeah, if Quebec wants that, they can adopt the federal one. They made the choice for the current system. Is rudimentary critical thinking dead in politics?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Saudi oil and AG reports

Posted on by

While the issue of Saudi Arabia continues to make headlines, Chrystia Freeland insisted that she doesn’t consider the case closed and more sanctions are being contemplated. She also said in QP yesterday that no future export permits will be granted to the kingdom (in reference to the LAVs we’ve been selling to them).

Of course, when I tweeted this, my reply column filled up with a bunch of indignant people who demanded to know when we would stop buying Saudi oil and use Alberta oil in Eastern Canada instead. Let me assure you that it’s never going to happen. If we don’t buy Saudi oil, it won’t impact their bottom line in the slightest. The amount we import from them is a rounding error on their books. Add to that, Energy East was never about domestic supply – it was about export via the long route. If by some miracle, a future Andrew Scheer government not only built said pipeline and they demanded that Eastern Canada start using Alberta oil, he would essentially be demanding that Alberta take a $10/barrel discount on that oil, because economics. I seem to recall a former prime minister who remains demonised in Alberta to this day because he wanted to ensure domestic supply, which would mean Alberta got a lower price for their barrels. Why would Scheer want to repeat that very same policy, but wrapped in an “ethical oil” cloak?

Auditor General’s report

Yesterday was the fall report of the Auditor General, and there were reports on:

  • The fighter jet procurement programme got a spanking, and particular attention was paid to the retention problems around pilots and mechanics.
  • Security at many of our embassies is falling behind; the government blames the Harper era for lack of investment.
  • The military isn’t stamping out harassment as quickly as it should because there is no coordination in its programmes, resulting in a number of gaps.
  • There is a lack of both a strategy and budget for rural Internet connectivity.
  • CRA gives people inconsistent treatment, and where you live can determine how friendly your local regional tax office is.
  • Inmates eligible for parole are being kept in prison for longer than necessary because of a lack of halfway houses and parole officers.
  • The lack of coordination between departments means the government may not even know which historic buildings they own.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sexts and extortion

Posted on by

Conservative MP Tony Clement has resigned from Conservative shadow cabinet and his parliamentary duties (but not from caucus) after he was victim to an attempted extortion after sharing “sexually explicit images and video” with someone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059976854415659008

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059982799095050240

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059986660748812288

Some observations:

  • Clement is part of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which is of the highest security classification. Being a target for blackmail on that is a Very Big Deal, and can’t be excused by those who don’t want to be involved in any kind of shaming for sexting. Clement apparently notified PCO about this a few days ago, so this is serious in how it affects his role with NSICOP, and now they will need to find a new member to fill that vacancy.
  • This is likely to get bigger. Already a number of women are coming forward over social media about his creepy behaviour on Instagram and this kind of thing has apparently happened before (sans extortion attempt).
  • The Conservatives can stop being so smug about the fact that they haven’t had to boot anyone from caucus for being sexually inappropriate. Clement is still in caucus for the moment, but we’ll see how this grows in the next few days.
  • Clement says that he’ll be “seeking treatment,” which is the really gross part here, because it employs the language of trying to medicalise sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour. And when you try to medicalise it, you try to diminish personal responsibility – as this Tracey Ullman sketch so amply demonstrates.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

QP: StatsCan surveillance?

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was again in Question Period today, while Andrew Scheer was off to Queen’s Park to meet with Doug Ford, sans media availability. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, worrying about the Statistics Canada plan to access financial information for their purposes. Trudeau took up a script to read that the data was anonymised and that it was for statistical purposes only, and that they were working with the Privacy Commissioner. Raitt equated this to another issue related to a credit monitoring agency being asked to turn over data. Trudeau took up a second script to read about the sins of the Conservatives when it comes to StatsCan, and assured her that privacy was being protected. Raitt pressed, and Trudeau snarked that the Conservatives remained the party of Stephen Harper. Alain Rayes took over in French, got the same scripted reply, and on a follow-up, Trudeau dropped the script to make the Harper digs. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he asked about the lack of CRA’s progress in going after anyone from the Panama Papers. Trudeau read a script about CRA doing a great job. Caron raised the court case regarding charities before doubling back to lack of progress, and Trudeau dropped the script this time to praise the investment his government made in CRA to recover evaded taxes. Peter Julian took over in English, with added invective, and Trudeau read the English version of his script, and for his final question, Julian demanded by-elections be called, and Trudeau picked up another script to read more about the CRA.

Continue reading →