Tag Archives: Gun Control

Roundup: Involving Elections Canada?

Posted on by

The Chief Electoral Officer is talking about approaching parties about monitoring nomination races, which I have some mixed feelings about. While the impetus around this is of course the ongoing paranoia about foreign interference and the notion that Chinese agents are trying to stage-manage these contests, that’s really the least of our concerns, because more often than not, the real problem is party leaders gaming these races in order to get their own preferred candidates on the ballot. Mind you, that is increasingly becoming a quaint notion as many parties are increasingly just foregoing nomination races entirely, and the leader is simply using their powers to appoint people to nominations, which betrays the whole mechanism of grassroots politics, and the Liberals have become some of the absolute worst about this.

But seriously—Samara Canada did a study on this a couple of years ago, and it’s shocking just how much parties have put their thumbs on the scales of these contests. (It’s actually worse than the report describes because the researchers credulously believed the NDP around their own claims around open nominations, ignoring everything that had been printed about all of their paper candidates who won in 2011, who absolutely did not even visit the ridings they had been assigned to beforehand, let alone face an actual nomination battle). The drama with the current by-election in Oxford is because the retired Conservative MP is outraged that Poilievre and Scheer put their thumbs on the scale to get their friend parachuted and nominated against someone from inside the riding, which is why he’s now supporting the Liberal candidate.

The big drawback, however, is that Elections Canada monitoring these contests is likely to become even more intrusive, because parties are essentially private clubs, which is not an especially bad thing. But we also have a huge volume of registered parties in this country who will never win a seat, and if Elections Canada has to monitor all of their nominations as well, that could be a giant swelling of their bureaucracy in order to have people who can monitor every one of these contests, particularly in advance of an election call, and in the time between the election being called and the cut-off date for names to be on the ballot. I’m not sure how feasible that’s going to be. The way our laws are currently structured were done in a way to explicitly keep Elections Canada from getting involved (which is why we developed a system of leaders signing off on nominations, which in turn became abused and a tool of blackmail). So while I’m cognisant that we have a problem with nominations in this country, I’m not sure that involving Elections Canada is the right solution.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There was another round of fire against Kyiv early on Sunday, which was largely repelled in the city but a regional airfield was hit. Russian forces struck the city of Dnipro, killing a child and wounding at least 25 others in what President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says have been five hundred child deaths so far. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces keep up their operations around Bakhmut, preventing Russian forces from solidifying gains in the city itself. Russians claim to have thwarted Ukrainian attacks in Donetsk province. This as Zelenskyy says that they are ready to begin the spring counter-offensive. Elsewhere, that survey of air raid shelters across Ukraine found that a quarter of them were locked or unusable, which is resulting in some charges.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No single point of failure

Posted on by

It was another big day at the Procedure and House Affairs committee as both the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Jody Thomas, appeared, as did Bill Blair, both on the subject of what they knew about the “threats” against Michael Chong and his family. What we got was a bit more of the corroboration from the Johnston report that the process of pushing intelligence up to senior levels hasn’t been working, which is why these things weren’t noticed or acted upon earlier. Blair in particular offered more clarity about the issue with the top-secret emails and how it’s being misconstrued that he didn’t have passwords to it. No, it’s that he doesn’t have access to that system period, and CSIS prepares a package from him and brings it to him physically. He did also take a bit of a swipe at CSIS, saying that the Chong information was determined to be something that they didn’t think the minister needed to know, which is a bit petty.

What stood out for me the most was Thomas saying that there wasn’t one single point of failure here, or one link in the chain, but a flaw in the process, which is consistent with what Johnston put in his report. This is why I can’t believe that anyone who says that the report is some kind of cover-up has actually read the report because it’s quite clearly pointing to these appalling failures on the part of senior levels of government, and that is on the government to have done something about. They are responsible, and they need to fully own it in order to make the necessary changes.

I would also add that while this testimony was good to have, I still don’t see how this relates to Chong’s privileges supposedly being breached, and what remedies should be applied. There seems to be an effort to make this into a bigger issue around foreign interference, and not on the specific issue of Chong, and what the House of Commons should do if his privileges as an MP were specifically breached,  and I’m not seeing much of that.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired over 30 missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight, and all appear to have been shot down. The Russians also claim that they destroyed Ukraine’s “last warship” in a strike on Odessa, but Ukraine won’t talk about whether it’s true or not. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in Moldova for the NATO meeting, calling for security guarantees if Ukraine can’t get NATO membership until the war is over. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled against Ukraine in denying same-sex marriage licences, which is going to need to be part of Ukraine’s hoped-for European integration.

https://twitter.com/internewsua/status/1664252937156059140

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1664311594858299402

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 →

QP: The “courage” to manufacture misleading clips

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but elsewhere, while his deputy was present for a change. Most of the other leader were also absent, save the Leader of the Opposition. After the Speaker had to read a statement about decorum and calling one another liars, Pierre Poilievre led off, and stated—falsely—that the finance minister had said that the deficit was fuelling inflation, and raised the defeated policy motion at the Liberal convention on the weekend about balancing budgets. Chrystia Freeland said that what the party really said at the convention is that they’re the optimistic party, and the party that believes in Canada. Poilievre accused the prime minister of not having the courage to answer, when he’s not here, and praised the “courageous” Liberals who raised the policy proposal. Freeland said that Liberals were courageous for doing what needed to be done in the pandemic and raised the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre insisted the prime minister stand up and be “courageous” in kicking out that Chinese diplomat who was involved in the Chong threats. Freeland insisted that it was beneath the dignity to say that nobody stands for threats against elected officials. Poilievre tried again, demanding to “bring home” security—because he has to get his new tag line in there—and demanded the diplomat be expelled. Marco Mendicino reminded him that the foreign minister summoned the ambassador last week and let it he know that interference will not be tolerated. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Mendicino.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and raised the so-called “century initiative” to increase immigration by the end of the century, but didn’t have regard for Quebec or the status of French, and demanded to know if this is government policy. Sean Fraser said that they can bring in immigration and protect French, and noted the increased Francophone immigration last year. DeBellefeuille repeated her concerns, and Fraser said that the government makes policy, not Dominic Barton, before repeating his same points.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and demanded to know if any other MPs were being threatened like Michael Chong was. Marco Mendicino said that 49 parliamentarians had been briefed by CSIS. Alexandre Boulerice worried that big corporations want to introduce GMO foods into schools, and that voluntary compliance was not enough. Francis Drouin said that the government has been working with the organic food sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: You can’t replace committee travel with Zoom

Posted on by

Another day, another story where I roll my eyes and sigh because nobody can seem to grasp some pretty fundamental points. To wit: Scandal and pearl-clutching because the Senate’s audit committee is planning a trip to Westminster to consult with their counterparts there. Someone fetch a fainting couch for all of the zeros attached to the costs of the trip! And of course, we couldn’t have cheap outrage without getting a quote from the so-called Canadian Taxpayers Federation, whose continued existence depends on being the go-to source for media when they need a cheap outrage quote.

Some context to this story—the Senate’s audit committee has been a long and hard-fought battle to come into existence because the previous Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, was trying to steer the nascent committee in a direction that would see it be completely staffed by outsiders, which is a particular affront to Parliamentary privilege and the status of the Senate as a self-governing body in and of itself. Eventually the current composition—a mix of senators and outsider, with senators in the majority—was adopted, years after it should have been, and very much in the model that the House of Lords employs. (Note that this model had first been championed by the late Senator Elaine McCoy, and we could have saved years of fighting had people just listened to her). And because this has to do with a parliamentary body, you can’t just get advice from any audit firm in Canada, as the CTF seems to think—you need best practices from those who have dealt with the particular issues that a parliamentary body has. Of course, none of this context is in the story, because nobody pays attention to the Senate unless it’s for a cheap outrage story like this one. Of course.

Meanwhile, the most galling part of the piece is the suggestion that all of this should be done over Zoom, both out of a concern for cost and carbon emissions. And honestly, this type of suggestion needs to have a stake driven through it. This kind of work relies on human interaction, and relationship-building, and that doesn’t happen and cannot happen over Zoom. This is one of the biggest problems with hybrid sittings (which, mercifully, the Senate has ended), but which MPs refuse to believe, and apparently a few senators do too—parliament is a face-to-face institution. It cannot effectively operate remotely. The pandemic was a short-term (ish) problem that required a solution, and while this was not the best one, it was a solution that nevertheless has emboldened people to think that Parliament is a job you can do from home. It’s absolutely not, and this kind of committee travel is no exception. You cannot replace the kinds of interactions that make this travel essential over Zoom, and we need to stop thinking of Zoom as the solution to problems that aren’t actually problems.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched another overnight round of attacks on Kyiv, this time with drones, but all were shot down. The commander of Ukraine’s ground forces says it’s important that they maintain their hold on Bakhmut in advance of the counter-offensive (not the least of which because it’s degrading Russia’s forces significantly). The EU is hoping to increase production of ammunition in order to help Ukraine’s efforts. And here is one Ukrainian farmer’s novel way of de-mining his fields using parts from old Russian tanks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1653390767329558530

https://twitter.com/war_mapper/status/1653169425749508100

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 choices around Basic Income

Posted on by

Because I saw some news stories floating around this week yet again around Basic Income and the desire for the federal government to implement it, I wanted to point out that economist Lindsay Tedds has co-authored a book which was released yesterday on how to move beyond that discussion into better alternatives, drawing on her experience from the BC Basic Income panel that she was a part of.

To that end, here is Kevin Milligan providing some back-up on why this conversation involves choices that nobody likes to ever talk about. Funny that.

And yes, most Basic Income models keep gutting the supports for those who need them the most, and that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1651260056866811904

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Bakhmut yet again, trying to destroy buildings so that the Ukrainians can’t use them as fortifications. Elsewhere, Ukraine was able to retrieve 44 POWs from Russian company, two of whom were civilians. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an hour-long call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which included talk of what role China could play in the peace process with Russia.

Continue reading →

QP: One aborted sing-along later…

Posted on by

The PM and all of the other leaders were present, which can sometimes set the stage for a good show, and it actually delivered—more or less—today. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, starting off with a recap of the allegations about the donations to the Trudeau Foundation from Chinese sources, and demanded that the prime minister allow his brother to appear at committee to answer about the donation. Trudeau stated that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation for a decade, and committees decide who they will call before them. Poilievre said that Trudeau was taking people for fools if he thinks people don’t believe he has nothing to do with the Foundation, and repeated his demand for the committee motion. Trudeau responded that he hasn’t had any contact with the Foundation, and the Conservatives were focusing on him while he delivers for Canadians. Poilievre pivoted to the strike and the increasing cost of bureaucracy while Canadians are getting less service, and wondered if taxpayers need to go on strike. Trudeau replied that they respect unions and that they are at the bargaining table. Poilievre repeated the question in English, and this time, Trudeau struck back harder with the Conservatives’ cuts to services and attacks on unions, while they respect unions. Poilievre then tried to start a singalong for “New York, New York,” in reference to Trudeau heading there after QP, before the Speaker stopped him, and when he was allowed to resume, wondered if Trudeau would pay for his own hotel room on the trip. Trudeau tried to pivot this into an answer about how his government was attracting investment from companies like Volkswagen. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, started with a plea for the Speaker to allow any singing, before he tried to once again conflate PMO and PCO with that meeting between five deputy ministers and the Foundation. Trudeau restated that he and his staff did not participate in that meeting, then got in a dig that maybe it was different under the Conservatives when they tried to politicise the civil service. Blanchet tried to spin this as the prime minster is deliberately being ignorant, but Trudeau said this was part of baseless attacks on people like David Johnston, which are unworthy of this place.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, said the government was showing an ugly face in not capitulating to the civil service union. Trudeau chided the NDP for not understanding how bargaining works, and said a new offer was on the table. Singh switched to English to demand the prime minister not jet off to New York and settle the strike first, but Trudeau repeated his jibe at the NDP not understanding bargaining.

Continue reading →