The Guardian writes that the Communications Security Establishment was involved in secret briefings to energy corporations, ostensibly to discuss threats to energy infrastructure, and they are tying this into the allegations that CSE was conducting industrial espionage on mining and energy in Brazil – even though the documents don’t show that. CSE did confirm that they meet with industry, but said that it has to do with protecting them against things like cyber-threats. There are even public records of such kinds of meetings here. It should also be noted that Canadian energy companies do have operations in countries like Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria, which have had problems with stability and there would be threats to our operations and workers there. These facts weren’t enough to dissuade Thomas Mulcair, who said that there was “clear evidence” of industrial espionage, though that would be news to anyone else. The CBC’s Julie Van Dusen tried to get answers from the head of CSE in a walking scrum yesterday, but he wasn’t deviating from his talking points. (And kudos to the camera operator who filmed said walking scrum while walking backwards at high speed). James Fitz-Morris has a possible explanation for why Canada might be spying on Brazil’s energy officials.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
Roundup: Yet another Duffy revelation
Oh, Mike Duffy. As soon as RCMP investigators started digging through his financial records, something else caught their eye – some $65,000 paid out to one of Duffy’s friends as a consultant for which the friend admits to doing little or no work. (Insert all of the wise-asses of the world joking about how that’s all a Senator does – and those wise-asses would be wrong, but I digress). But more curious is that the money that was paid out seems to also have vanished, because that friend is also on disability and couldn’t take the money without losing his benefits, and his wife and son, listed as president and director of his company, aren’t talking. Add to all of this is the look into Patrick Brazeau’s housing claims, for which his Gatineau neighbours thought he worked from home because he was there so often. They’re also investigating his tax filings, as he listed his address on his former father-in-law’s reserve even though he didn’t live there. Kady O’Malley’s search through the court affidavits and comparing them to the timeline turns up what she thinks may be references to those emails being turned over to the RCMP along with some redacted diaries.
Roundup: Flaherty’s national regulator, take two
While the attempt to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers has been on the government’s agenda since 1867 (no, seriously), Jim Flaherty took yet another stab at creating a national securities regulator – despite being shut down by the Supreme Court the last time. This time, however, he’s not imposing a system from Ottawa – he’s working with provinces to create a “cooperative capital markets regulatory system,” that ensures that each level of government give up their own powers to this new body, and he’s got Ontario and BC signed on, meaning it has oversight over some 90 percent of industry in the country already. While most other provinces will likely come aboard in short order, Quebec and Alberta remain opposed for the time being. It will likely be discussed further this weekend at a federal-provincial finance ministers’ meeting. John Geddes looks at Flaherty’s journey to this point, while economist Stephen Gordon points out that our patchwork of regulations may not be our biggest problem – but a national regulator can’t hurt.
Roundup: Visits to the Langevin Block
Yesterday in Senate-related news, the visitor logs of the Langevin Block – which houses the PMO – shows the dates of visits by Senators Mike Duffy, David Tkachuk and Irving Gerstein in the days around the news of Duffy’s audit, and leading up to the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. It helps to further establish the timeline of who met with whom, as the investigation continues. Elsewhere, the Auditor General met with the Internal Economy committee and its audit subcommittee to discuss his forthcoming audit of the institution and its membership. The AG said that the audit will be “comprehensive,” but people shouldn’t think that it means “forensic,” because that’s not what his office does, and they don’t have the staff or expertise to do those kinds of audits. (That’s in large part why they get contracted out to Deloitte). The Internal Economy committee is also looking at an overhaul of the Senate communications office, which has shown itself to be unable to handle the increase in media requests given recent events, and their mandate is nebulous with too many masters. Fortunately, there seems to be an appetite to change this.
Roundup: Flaherty’s EI premium freeze
Jim Flaherty announced a “good news” economic measure of freezing EI premiums for the next three years – you know, like the Liberals have been hounding him to do for the past couple of years. Only, to be clever, the Liberals were calling them “job-killing payroll taxes” either, and despite the freeze, there will still be some rate increases. It also makes one wonder about the utility of the arm’s length board set up to advise on things like rates if the government continues to undermine them and set the rates anyway. Aaron Wherry notes that this was the subject of one of Justin Trudeau’s “crowd-sourced” questions during QP in the spring. When you crunch the numbers, however, the freeze isn’t worth all that much – about $24 per year for the average person, and $340 for the average business.
Roundup: A contract flawed from the outset
A leaked government report gives a rather stinging indictment of the Sea King helicopter replacement procurement, calling it flawed from the outset. At the time, the government treated it like they were buying “off-the-shelf” helicopters, but with so many procurements, the military loaded it up with new specifications until it was no longer “off-the-shelf,” but was rather something that should have been treated like an in-development contract. And so we get delays, and penalties, and intransigence. The report recommends re-scoping the contract in order to treat it as an in-development project so that they can start accepting delivery of helicopters and phasing in new features, but there’s no word on if the government will accept this proposal or not, or if they’ll just continue to blame the Liberals for it rather than taking responsibility or action.
Roundup: Senators in defence of their institution
Liberal Senate leader James Cowan penned an op-ed in yesterday’s Chronicle Herald about the work that the Senate does, and the value that it provides to the legislative process in Canada. And it was an excellent read, which I’d highly recommend – it was about time that a senator was so eloquent in the defence of the institution. I do find it curious that so far it seems to be Liberal senators who are doing a disproportionate share of that defence – even though I know plenty of Conservative senators who feel the institution should be left alone (financial controls tightened, of course). Unfortunately, most of the Conservative Senate caucus, if they do speak up, are only sticking to the absurd and disingenuous party line of “the Senate must change or be abolished,” as though any of the proposed reforms would either do anything about the alleged graft of a small number (it wouldn’t), were constitutional (they aren’t), or that they could measurably be said to actually improve the institution (highly debateable, but when you look at the totality of the Senate and its work, the proposed reforms would only serve to create partisan gridlock with 105 new backbenchers for party leaders to control). I have no doubt that they want to keep their heads down because they don’t want to be accused of trying to protect their entitlements, but they’re liable to find that if they don’t speak up for the institution, that they will be the unwitting agents of their own demise, which would be an absolute shame.
Roundup: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.
Roundup: So long, Mac Harb
It appears that Mac Harb has a sense of shame after all, and has not only tendered his resignation to the Senate, but repaid the full amount that the Senate has determined that he owed, and dropped his legal challenge. Of that challenge, he said it wasn’t about the money, but about the lack of due process within the Senate itself, which seems fair enough. And he does make the point that the ongoing cloud and investigations made his work there impossible, and that he thinks the Auditor General’s audit will turn up a trove of other Senators who interpreted the rules as he did. Um, okay. You know it won’t be a forensic audit, right? Just checking. With Harb’s departure, that still leaves the three embattled Harper-appointed Senators under a cloud of suspicion, and the Conservatives without a convenient whipping boy for the Liberals when it comes to saying that they don’t support the seal hunt (which Harb alone opposed when he was in their caucus).
Roundup: Mulcair’s summer tour
While in St. John’s, NL, Thomas Mulcair claimed that he won’t raise personal taxes (because apparently people don’t pay for corporate taxes) and that nobody had ever asked him that before (not true). He also pointed to a graveyard on a map and said that the Liberals are headed there – because that’s classy and raises the tone of debate! He then moved onto PEI to kick off his summer tour of constitutional vandalism (aka advocating Senate abolition) and offered nothing but bluster and misleading characterisations.
The Senate’s internal economy committee promises that they won’t “monkey around” with Pamela Wallin’s audit, but it may be damaging enough that they might consider recalling the full Senate shortly to deal with it.