Tag Archives: Foreign Interference

QP: Trying to be clever about the list of names

Posted on by

The prime minister was on his way back from Normandy, while his deputy was off making announcements in Toronto, and all of the other leaders were also absent. Andrew Scheer led off with the NSICOP report, worried about Jennifer O’Connell’s outburst at committee, and demanded the names be released. Dominic LeBlanc suggested that his leader get classified briefings. Scheer asked if any implicated parliamentarians are in Cabinet (which is stupid because there is actual vetting of ministers), and LeBlanc gave Scheer credit for trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. Scheer tried a second time, and LeBlanc patted himself on the back for the actions the government has taken around foreign interference when the previous government didn’t. Luc Berthold took over in French, and tried to demand the names again, and got the same answer. Berthold then pivoted to a story about a woman who got chased on the streets in Montreal, and blamed this on bail and supervised injection sites. Ya’ara Saks said the safe consumption sites in the province are run by the province.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he too raised the NSICOP report, taking some swipes at Chrystia Freeland for her non-response yesterday. LeBlanc reiterated that the government his points that they have been taking action on foreign interference. Therrien made another complaint about Freeland, and got the same response. 

Heather McPherson rose for the NDP to worry about CBSA pensions per current labour negotiations. Anita Anand recited that they are committed to negotiation and that it’s a process of give-and-take. Alexandre Boulerice raised the UN’s request to raise taxes on oil companies and the government refusing. Pascale St-Onge said that she too believes Canada needs to do more to reduce emissions, and praised the elimination of subsiding and their climate resilience fund.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The demand to name names

Posted on by

The day was largely marked with the discourse around that NSICOP report, and the demand that the government name names, even though that’s never going to happen because intelligence is not evidence, there may be ongoing investigations that it might jeopardise, and the possibility of reputational damage for someone who may be unwittingly involved is great—all things the RCMP pointed to in their own release on the subject. The chair of NSICOP said that any next steps are up to the RCMP, but that hasn’t stopped reporters from asking salacious questions about whether they can trust their fellow caucus-members (because remember, reputational damage).

With all of this in mind, I went back to the report, and looked for more than just that one paragraph that every media outlet highlighted. It noted that much of that witting assistance was in relation to India, which is not a “hostile power” last time I checked, even if we have particular issues with them (such as their decision to assassinate someone on our soil). I have no doubt that some MPs would see no problem in trying to “forge closer ties” with India. The other thing that I noted was that, at least in relationship with the Chinese government is that there was an expectation of a quid pro quo relationship, that engaging with them would benefit the political player in question in the hopes that the PRC would mobilise their influence networks in favour of that candidate in the riding. I suspect that in several of these cases, the MPs in question wouldn’t think of it as foreign interference, but that they’re being so clever in leveraging diaspora politics to their advantage, and believing that they can somehow outwit Chinese agents to do it. Likewise with instances of blind eyes being turned to money flowing into ridings, particularly from the Indian government—that they think they can leverage that government to their advantage and not that they’re being played, and why I don’t think that certain media outlets and political figures screaming “name the traitors!” is doing much for the level of discourse. The report did make mention of Chinese and Indian influence in at least two Conservative leadership races, but no details provided as to how or the vectors that took shape as (money, membership sign-ups under the promise of repayment, or so on). There was also mention of one former MP who had wittingly provided information while maintaining a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer, but this was being conflated with the other allegations, which is not helpful in the slightest.

As for what’s next, it would seem to me that the real question here is why certain party leaders continue to be wilfully blind as to the full details of the report, and how they continue to refuse to accept classified briefings. The notion that it would “muzzle” them is bullshit—it would mean they can’t talk about certain specific details, but it would give them a more complete picture of what is happening and if their own MPs are implicated, which would allow them to take internal party action, even if they can’t publicize the details.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 22 out of 27 Russian drones overnight Wednesday, and an industrial facility in Poltava suffered damage. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with the emir of Qatar in advance of the peace summit in Switzerland.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1798300991407940083

Continue reading →

QP: Look at the interest rate decision, not at the NSICOP report!

Posted on by

While Wednesdays are normal the day the prime minister is present and answers everything, he was instead off to France to take part in D-Day commemorations, and while his deputy was not scheduled to be here, she was after all. With Trudeau gone, one of the other leaders didn’t bother to show up. Pierre Poilievre was present, and started off in French, and he wondered about the NSICOP report about which MPs were implicated, and repeated the same in English in the same time period. Dominic LeBlanc said that no government would release security information in public, and said that if the leader opposite got his security clearance, he could read the confidential information for himself rather that casting aspersions on the floor of the House of Commons. Poilievre stuck to English to raise the AG report on SDTC, and demanded the information be turned over to the RCMP. Chrystia Freeland said that it was no surprise that Poilievre didn’t want to talk about the economic thanks to the good news that rates decreased. Poilievre returned to French to worry about daycares in Montreal where people need police escorts, and demanded changes to the Criminal Code. Freeland, however, reiterated her same response in French. Poilievre switched back to English to demand the release of the report that the Parliamentary Budget Officer claimed he was being gagged about. Freeland ignored this entirely in order to praise the Oilers winning their conference as part of a “good week for Canada.” Poilievre read the letter sent to the PBO asking him not to disclose the report in question, and Freeland said that it was Poilievre under a gag order, who couldn’t say anything nice about Canada. (Seriously?! Honest to Hermes, this is ridiculous).

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded action on the NSICOP revelations of MPs as witting accomplices of foreign governments. LeBlanc praised Therrien’s cooperation on the foreign interference file. Therrien reiterated his demand, and Freeland rose to praise the economic good news of the interest rate decision. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too demanded action on those revelation, noting that he has requested a classified briefing but railed that the prime minister has done nothing for months. LeBlanc said he was pleased to hear that he had requested the briefing before patting himself on the back for the action on combatting foreign interference so far. Singh repeated his question in French, and Freeland again got up to praise the economic good news.

Continue reading →

QP: Inventing condemnation from the Auditor General

Posted on by

For likely the only time this week, both the prime minister and his deputy were both present for QP today, as were all of the other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he raised the Auditor General Report on SDTC, the allegations of improper spending, and demanded a taking of responsibility. Justin Trudeau said that they would look into report carefully, and that they were still focused on the green economy in a responsible manner. Poilievre noted the various contracts intended to focus McKinsey, to which Trudeau said that they have ensured that processes are now more transparent. Poilievre switched to English to praise the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and his allegation of a “gag order” on a federal report. Trudeau said that the PBO admitted to a mistake, and insisted that eight out of ten families get more money back than they spend (which is not the part of the report that was flawed). Poilievre returned to the report on SDTC spending, and demanded personal responsibility for the “costs and corruption.” Trudeau said that the minister has already taken measures to ensure that processes are properly followed while stepping up on the creation of the green economy. Poilievre then repeated his question on McKinsey, and demanded they get no more money, and Trudeau repeated that they have strengthened processes by how civil servants grant contracts to outside consultants,  before taking on a pitch about the carbon rebates. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and raised the NISCOP on the possible witting engagement by some parliamentarians with foreign powers. Trudeau thanked NSICOP for the report, and listed actions they have taken including the public inquiry, but said nothing about the parliamentarians. Blanchet demanded an answer on who was implicated, and Trudeau said it was ironic that Blanchet was asking his because he refused to get security-cleared so that he could see for himself.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised foreign interference particularly by India, noted the Conservatives’ refused to denounce Narendra Modi, and demanded more answers on implicated parliamentarians. Trudeau again spoke in generalities about what has been done. Singh repeated his same question in French, and Trudeau repeated his generalities. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO immolates what little credibility he had left

Posted on by

It looks like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, decided to extend his “winning” streak and cover himself in glory at the Commons’ finance committee yesterday, and once again immolated what credibility he has left. Defending his report, claiming he had access to a confidential report from Environment Canada that he was “gagged” from releasing (which the Conservatives jumped on and launched a thousand shitposts about, because committees are now only about content generation), lamented that the government doesn’t publish more climate modelling of their own, and how he hates how his reports are politicised, even though he’s been at this job for years and knows full well that PBO reports are always politicised, because that’s why MPs like them—so that they can both wield those reports as a cudgel, while hiding behind the shield of the PBO’s non-partisan “credibility” to keep the government from attacking it.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1797780078203671008

https://twitter.com/prairiecentrist/status/1797691621708054916

While this Tony Keller column lays out four major problems with the original carbon price report that the PBO produced—which again, Giroux continues to not really apologise for—energy economist Andrew Leach has some additional comments, driving home both how shallow the analysis is, and the fact that it’s not replicable because the PBO studiously refuses to explain his methodology, relying on “trust us, that’s our job.” But as we saw on P&P and again at finance committee, he complained that the government should be doing this kind of modelling work when it’s literally his one statutorily legislated job to do.

And to be helpful, Jennifer Robson provides some unsolicited advice on how the PBO could make his methodologies more transparent, if he actually wanted to do that (which I doubt, because so many of his reports rely on his pulling a novel methodology out of his ass, according to the many economists I’ve interviewed in the past). But that’s also part of the point about why he has no credibility left, and why he should start drafting that resignation letter.

https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/1797817128483254759

Ukraine Dispatch:

A civilian was killed in a Russian strike on a recreation facility in Kharkiv. Here’s a look at what to expect from Ukraine’s peace summit to be held in Switzerland next week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Responding to events isn’t a desperation move

Posted on by

If you’ve been paying attention to Question Period over the past several days, you may have noticed that the Liberals haven’t been asking endless questions about abortion, or rather, asking the government to comment on the Conservatives’ stance about abortion. Throughout this, you had a bunch of pundits, almost all of them located outside of Ottawa, going “The Liberals are desperate! They’re using the abortion move 18 months too early!” The problem with that particular analysis is that it ignores the events going on around them.

What the Liberals were really doing, if someone bad bothered to pay attention, was responding to things the Conservatives have been doing around them. It started with Pierre Poilievre’s speech where he promised to use the Notwithstanding Clause to “make” tough-on-crime policies and laws “constitutional” (never mind that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is a flashing red light that what you’re doing isn’t constitutional, and you’re doing to do it anyway—at least for the next five years, anyway. The Liberals were not going to pass up an opportunity to ask Poilievre just what else he planned to use those powers for, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.

From there, Arnold Viersen tabled his petition calling for abortion restrictions, and the March for Life happened on the same week, which the Liberals (and usually the NDP) always put on a big production in Question Period about how important a woman’s right to choose is. This all happened within a few days, so of course they were going to respond to it. And once those events happened, they moved onto other things (like lambasting Poilievre’s “housing” bill). Not everything is a desperation move. They talked about abortion back in December when the Conservatives swapped a bill so that Cathay Wagantall’s backdoor abortion-banning bill could be voted on before they rose for the winter break (so it wouldn’t act as a millstone around their necks, even though the entire caucus voted for it), and everyone wasn’t insisting this was some kind of desperation move then. The moral here is that sometimes you need to pay attention to what is going on around Question Period, because it’s not the only thing going on.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine shot down 13 out of 14 drones launched by Russia on Monday night, with most of the debris falling on the Rivne region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Belgium to sign another security agreement.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Recruitment rage-farming

Posted on by

It’s getting exhausting to think of the number of things that Justin Trudeau is supposedly personally responsible, whether it’s global inflation or the rise in interest rates. Today, it’s apparently the military recruitment crisis that the country faces.

First of all, in his tweet, Conservative MP James Bezan mischaracterized what the exchange between the committee chair and the Canadian Forces officer was, and the Chair said nothing about Trudeau or the government at all. But that’s what Conservatives to when they clip these committee exchanges and try to gin them up to make them look like it’s something scandalous happening, because that’s how they get their clips for their socials. To reiterate—nobody said anything at all about the government in the clip. The Chair was frustrated that the military can’t process potential recruits faster, not the government, because the government doesn’t play a role in this at all.

And even more to the point, Bezan knows this. He was a long-standing parliamentary secretary to successive ministers of defence in the Harper government, and he knows gods damned well that nobody in government approves or disapproves of recruits. But like everything these days, facts or truth doesn’t matter—it’s nothing but constant rage-farming to keep people angry, over the dumbest, most illogical things, because rage-farming doesn’t need to make sense. It’s all about feelings and vibes, and they’re willing to undermine democracy for clicks.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Three people were killed and six wounded in a Russian missile attack on the southern Mykolaiv region, while the Russians claim to have captured two more settlements—one in Kharkiv region, the other in Donetsk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Spain, and secured a promise for more air defence systems to help deal with the onslaught of Russian glide bombs.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1795083380192604436

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling about homelessness and food insecurity

Posted on by

The prime minister was off in Toronto, having taken part in the WNBA expansion announcement, and his deputy was at a finance ministers’ conference, while most of the other leaders were also absent. Pierre Poilievre led off, and blamed government spending on homelessness and food insecurity, with Bloc complicity. Soraya Martinez Ferrada considered the question hypocritical because the Conservatives voted against housing programmes. Poilievre insisted that government programmes to eliminate homelessness have doubled the problem, and again blamed the Bloc, and trotted out his “feeding obese government” line because apparently he thinks that plays well on the socials. Martinez Ferrada repeated that the question was hypocritical because they voted against the school food programme. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, minus the swipes at the Bloc, and this time called it a “morbidly obese government.” Anita Anand said that they would take no lessons from the Conservatives because they voted against all of their programmes to help people. Poilievre insisted that those government programmes were what doubled housing or homelessness, and Anand insisted that they have focused on keeping inflation lower while helping people, but did nothing to call out the absolute lack of coherence in the question. Poilievre gave a slow, incredulous recitation of how many homeless encampments had cropped up. Mark a Holland pointed out that when Poilievre was minster responsible for housing (sort of), there were more people living in poverty and without housing, and shamed them for promising to cut things like dental care.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and claimed that the Hogue Commission complained about withheld documents (she didn’t really), and railed about government secrecy. Dominic LeBlanc said that they had committed to share Cabinet information, and were available to work with the Commission to have access to all “appropriate” documents. Therrien railed that if the Commission doesn’t have all information, that Quebeckers would lose confidence in the process. LeBlanc repeated that they are committed to sharing all necessary information. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he railed about the serious problem about the St. Lawrence river and that it needed its own rights to protect its biodiversity. Steven Guilbeault pointed out that when they took power, there were no protections for any waterways, and now they were at fifteen percent, with twenty percent reached by next year. Laurel Collins took over in English to complain about a BC watershed fund. Jonathan Wilkinson did acknowledge the wildfires, and pointed out the measures they are taking, and took a shot at the Conservatives’ climate plan being to let the planet burn.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fix nominations how?

Posted on by

Over in the Globe and Mail, Andrew Coyne points to Hogue Report’s comments on party nomination races as a possible vector for foreign interference, and declares that they need to be cleaned up, but declines to say how. He disputes that parties are entirely private clubs, because “Their sole purpose is to seek and wield coercive power over the rest of us. How they go about it is therefore a matter of vital public concern, and regulation in the public interest – at the least, transparency – is entirely justified.”

But how exactly does one propose to do that? Involve Elections Canada with all internal deliberations of these parties, whether it’s a nomination contest, leadership race, or policy convention? While I get the temptation, we have to ask ourselves if any of this is practical, not only because when an election happens, there are a tonne of last-minute nomination meetings, but there are hundreds of registered political parties. Should they only concern themselves with parties that have seats in the Commons? Would they create disparate sets of rules for the big four parties than any others? Could they get away with that in the courts? I’m not sold that this is a solution because it would involve a massive expansion of their powers and bureaucracy, and because they are ultimately reporting to an Independent Officer of Parliament who has no real accountability, the potential for abuse if enormous.

This isn’t to say that things don’t need to change, because they do, but it’s not exactly something that external monitors can fix. In fact, the solution on its face is much less mysterious than it might sound, but it goes back to the original sin of Canadian politics—the decision to remove leadership selection from the caucus to the party membership. Restore this to caucus selection, and you can start separating the parliamentary and constituency party powers again, so that the parliamentary party leader can’t exert outsized influence on the nomination races, and the constituency party is motivated to keep a closer eye on the nomination races, particularly because that’s their job rather than the parliamentary leader trying to stuff the races with its parachute or hand-picked candidates. I would also note that the number of races that would be vulnerable to foreign interference is actually very small, given that you’re not going be able to find diasporic communities in most rural ridings, so again, we should beware what we’re talking about here. I think we need to better appreciate the scope of the problem, and ensure that the right incentives are there for the parties to clean up their own messes rather than involving Elections Canada.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian infantry has been trying to breach local defences in the Kharkiv region, but so far, Ukraine has been holding them off. Ukraine is due to start receiving their first F-16s by summer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MPs lacking a moral compass make up bizarre accusations

Posted on by

When it comes to the absolute moral decline of MPs in the current Parliament, we’ve found a good candidate who exemplifies this in the form of Conservative MP Brad Redekopp, who put out an absolutely batshit crazy video a few days ago that literally blames Justin Trudeau and his supposed “soft on crime” policies for the murders that happened in Saskatoon so far this year. Columnist Phil Tank points to all of the ways that this accusation is batshit insanity by looking at the circumstances of each of these murders, and you really can’t connect them to any of Trudeau’s policies, but that won’t stop Redekopp from not only making these accusations, but defending them in the face of Tank’s column.

The accusations against the so-called “attack” against him (because heaven forfend, we hold him to account for his batshit insane conduct) as being from an “extremist left-wing agenda,” and that both the columnist and Justin Trudeau want to hand out free drugs. I would laugh at how absolutely childish this thin-skinned retaliation is if this wasn’t a gods damned elected official who should not only know better, but should have the ability to take criticism, and to behave in a manner that is somewhat dignified as befits his office.

But it’s more than that—it’s the fact that he feels like he can get away with outright lying (and lying to such batshit insane lengths) because he feels no sense of shame or moral compass that says “Maybe you shouldn’t lie or make up batshit insane accusations and stick to some facts in the face of tragic circumstances.” But he doesn’t, and that is perhaps most concerning out of all of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian strikes have damaged several power generation plants in a fresh round of targeting them. Ukrainian artillery forces need to fire and then quickly hide their platforms from Russian drones. Ukrainian intelligence says that they thwarted (another) attempt on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s life.

https://twitter.com/rustem_umerov/status/1787917915460649244

Continue reading →