Tag Archives: National Security

QP: Call an election/Get your security clearance ad nauseam

Posted on by

Wednesday, and what sounds like a less exciting caucus meeting for the Liberals, in spite of the talk going around. The PM was present and ready to take all of the questions today, while his deputy was absent. Not all of the other leaders were present, unusually, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, recited his talking points about the supposed “promise” in Canada that was “broken,” and wanted the government to adopt his plan to cut the GST on new homes under $1million. Justin Trudeau noted that the problem with any of Poilievre’s proposals is that they come with cuts, and in this case, it would cut $9 billion in transfers to Quebec to build affordable housing. Poilievre insisted that the government only builds bureaucracy and not homes, and again wanted them to adopt his GST cut. Trudeau listed investments the government is making, while Poilievre only offers cuts. Poilievre switched to English to give a paean to a very white, middle-class “Canadian promise,” which he claims the government broke and demanded they adopt his GST cut plan. Trudeau gave a longer soliloquy about the Conservatives only offering cuts and not help for people. Poilievre insisted that the current plans only build bureaucracy and that his plan was “common sense.” Trudeau noted that one of the fundamental responsibilities of any prime minister is to keep Canadians safe, but since Poilievre refuses a security briefing to keep his own caucus safe, he instructed security services to find a way to offer himself a briefing. Poilievre accused this of being a “tin-pot conspiracy,” before returning to the insistence that his plan was just common sense. Trudeau again repeated that Poilievre only offers cuts, and that he asked security services to figure out a briefing. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and accused the government of abandoning seniors by turning down the Bloc’s OAS bill. Trudeau listed ways in which they are helping seniors, which the Bloc opposed. Therrien took some swipes at the NDP before repeating his demand, and Trudeau linked the Bloc to the Conservatives in voting against measures to help seniors.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, raised Alberta turning over the administration of some hospitals to Covenant who refuses to provide abortions, and wanted Trudeau to do something. Trudeau noted that they have clawed back transfers to provinces who don’t provide services, and raised their motion to penalise pregnancy support charities that don’t offer the full suite of supports or options. Singh flubbed his attempt at a clip of “It’s her body her choice, not her body Conservative Party’s choice,” before switching to French to complain about housing transfers. Trudeau focused on the abortion aspect, and failed about the anti-choice MPs in the Conservative ranks.

Continue reading →

QP: Free-wheeling, chaotic, and from an alternate reality

Posted on by

In the wake of that big caucus meeting where little seemed to happen, the prime minister was present for QP—his proto-PMQ day in fact, while his deputy left for Washington. All of the other leaders were present, and Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he needled about 24 Liberal backbenchers signing the document, the Bloc supporting them, and demanded an election. Trudeau got up, for much applause from his caucus, the Conservatives got up with what was supposed to be sarcastic applause but just looked like more applause, and after it died down, Trudeau insisted (in English) that they were totally united and they were focused on delivering for Canadians. Poilievre noted that the question was in French, claimed that backbenchers leaking to journalists from the washroom at caucus, and again demanded an election. Trudeau, in French, trotted out his lines about confident governments investing in people and not resorting to austerity. Poilievre, still in French, listed slogans, claimed immigration was “out of control,” and demanded an election. Trudeau noted Poilievre only offers cuts and empty slogans and not investments in people and the green future. Poilievre turned to English to repeat his slogans, his concern trolling over the 24 backbenchers, lied about the privilege issue, and demanded an election. Trudeau recited his line about while the opposition is focused on politics, he is focused on Canadians. Poilievre again mocked the dissident Liberals, and Trudeau hit back with the Conservatives’ hanging out with white nationalists and Poilievre’s lack of a security clearance. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and worried about the allegations at a particular school in Quebec, and Trudeau noted that’s a provincial issue but they would defend rights and freedoms for all Canadians. Blanchet wondered if Trudeau was saying “forced religious education” and corporal punishment was freedom of expression. Trudeau reiterated that this was a provincial matter.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, declared that he knew the prime minister was distracted, and demanded he take action on food prices. Trudeau noted that they have taken action, whether it is with competition reform or a school food programme, before he took a swipe at the NDP for backing away from the carbon rebates. Singh wondered if Trudeau has even been to a grocery store, and was shouted down before the Speaker intervened. When he started again, he read the same line again (proving it was a scripted applause line to be clipped) before switching to French worry about rents. Trudeau, in English, noted he had recently been to a grocery store with the Speaker in his riding, and then turned to French to praise their housing investments.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another vice-regal safeguard?

Posted on by

As the security clearance discourse carries on, we remain confronted by the false notions that Pierre Poilievre is unable to receive a clearance, rather than the fact that he is unwilling, using the false claim that it’s somehow a “trap” to keep him from criticising the government. It’s not, there’s plenty of opportunity for him to criticise the government while being fully briefed, but as is the tradition with Canadian politicians, they have long preferred not to know because then they would have to be responsible in their commentary rather than bombastic, or as the Beaverton aptly put it, he would have to lie just slightly less than he already does.

Nevertheless, this turns to the question of what would happen if someone were to become prime minister, or at least win an election, where there are genuine security concerns about them? Well, Philippe Lagassé has an answer for that, and it lies in the reserve powers of the Governor General.

He makes a crucial point that it would be beyond the pale for CSIS and the RCMP to somehow have the veto over the appointment of a prime minister, but the discretion of the Governor General could conceivably be the constitutional fire extinguisher in such a case. It’s extremely unlikely to ever happen, but nevertheless, it’s a good thought exercise to consider given the times we live in.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck a residential district in Odesa on Friday, but there were no casualties. Residents in Kupiansk are fleeing ahead of a Russian advance in the area. Both Russia and Ukraine swapped 95 prisoners each in a deal brokered by the UAE. South Korean intelligence is corroborating Ukrainian intelligence’s claim that North Korea is now sending troops to right for Russia. Here’s a look at how far-right influencers openly used Russian money to make “documentary” hit-jobs on Ukraine and president Zelenskyy.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1847257217424113736

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee as clown performance

Posted on by

Because we no longer really have a Parliament, but merely a content creation studio that occasionally passes legislation, we find ourselves in yet another series of events where the institution is being weaponized for social media content. It’s not just the privilege filibuster happening in the House of Commons, though that definitely is happening (the Conservatives are taking the opportunity to get the words “corruption” and “Liberal insiders” in all of their talking points so they can create clips from them, never mind that the word “Liberal” was nowhere to be found in the Auditor General’s report on SDTC). Today, Jagmeet Singh has decided he needs another stunt for his own socials.

Singh plans to attend the Natural Resources committee meeting after Question Period, so that he can “stand up to big oil and gas,” by which he means the CEO of Cenovus Energy and the vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, both of whom are appearing by video conference as part of the study on the Trans Mountain Expansion. To drive home the point, party leaders don’t appear at committees (Elizabeth May occasionally accepted, because hers is a party of two, and she occasionally wants to participate in a committee meeting). Singh, however, is going tomorrow for the sole purpose of putting on a dog-and-pony show for the cameras.

This isn’t Singh’s first time doing so, mind you. He did it with the grocery CEOs, where he comically brough in a huge stack of papers, claiming they were questions from Canadians to those CEOs, but he didn’t ask a single one, but merely soliloquized for the cameras in the NDP’s designated spots. It was a pure clown performance for the sake of clips, but the NDP fell all over themselves to insist how great it was, and now Singh wants to do this again. Why now? Well, probably because he slit his own throat and immolated what little credibility he had when he walked away from his agreement with the Liberals in bad faith, and played into Pierre Poilievre’s hands, and now he wants to redeem himself and play up his precious illusions about sticking it to corporations. You can bet this is going to be another clown show that he’ll pat himself on the back over, and absolutely everyone’s time will have been wasted.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian shelling killed one and injured five in the Kherson region, and guided bombs killed two and inured thirty in Kharkiv. Russian forces have reached the frontline city of Toretsk, and they are advancing to the centre of the town. Ukrainian forces are maintaining “sufficient pressure” on Russian troops in the Kursk region of Russia, as they hold captured territory for a third month.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1843704158240821371

Continue reading →

Roundup: Speaker Fergus on the spot in new privilege battle

Posted on by

The brewing privilege battle over the Sustainable Development Technologies Canada documents is largely going under-reported, save for the National Post, but it’s going to be an interesting showdown with the Speaker about the refusal to turn over these documents. The government’s argument is that the stated purpose for demanding these documents is not for Parliamentary business, such as committee study, but because they intend to be turned over to the RCMP, which is in and of itself a problem because it does violate the separation of powers and really, really looks like politicians trying to direct the police (who have said that they don’t want the documents, because it would violate the Charter rights of any accused). I think this is a sound argument, and one that is necessary because of the ongoing abuses of privilege that the past couple of parliaments have engaged in.

Yes, Parliament has unfettered authority to send for the production of papers, but there have to be limits on this privilege, or it can be abused, and I think that this case demonstrates the limits. The complicating factor is that limits are especially difficult to maintain in a minority parliament situation because all of the opposition parties tend to be all be interested in embarrassing the government at any turn (and this is not unique to this government, but any government). It’s partly why NSICOP was fine during a majority Parliament but became the subject of political manoeuvring during the minority years—because opposition parties will try to use their leverage to embarrass a government or score points when they think they can.

I don’t envy Speaker Fergus in having to make this decision, but this kind of exercise is clearly beyond the pale. It’s not up to MPs to get information on behalf of the RCMP, and that crosses so many red lines that it should be blinding. He’s going to be criticized whatever he makes, but hopefully for the sake of precedent, he makes the right choice and rein in some of this foolishness, because once MPs feel empowered enough to do this to one organisation—SDTC in this case—they’re going to start going after anyone they disagree with ideologically on an increasing base going forward.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians targeted a geriatric centre in Sumy, as well as the power grid, which a UN body believes is probably against international humanitarian law. Russia says they are ramping up their drone production tenfold (but that may just be all talk, given the sanctions and the availability of components).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1836807096391676132

Continue reading →

QP: Won’t somebody think about the GDP?

Posted on by

The first prototype-PMQ day of the fall sitting promised to be a caustic set of exchanges between the PM and the leader of the opposition, and it did not disappoint. Well, it’s always disappointing, but it went about as well as expected, though perhaps not quite as caustic as one might have assumed. Pierre Poilievre led off in French with a swipe at the Bloc for their plans not to topple the government, and listed a bunch of nonsense about what the federal government allegedly did—but it wasn’t really a question for the government. Justin Trudeau listed things they have done that the Conservatives would cut. Poilievre recited some slogans, and wondered again why the Bloc allowed it, which was again not a question for government, and the Speaker said nothing. Trudeau listed things that Poilievre voted against in his “thirst for power.” Poilievre switched to English to make the same swipe, but this time directed to the NDP, and wondered why they weren’t saying they would vote against the government, which again was not a question for government. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre voted against Canadians’ interests because he only cares about himself, and that he was in a bad mood because the economy was performing well. Poilievre recited a litany of slogans, and Trudeau said this was mere performance because he doesn’t care about Canadians and repeated the points about inflation coming down and that Poilievre can’t use his “justinflation” slogan anymore. Poilievre took this as an excuse to list the people using food banks or who are in tent encampments, and Trudeau said this empathy was false because he was using the vulnerable for his own gain.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he lamented the remarks of the special advisory to counter Islamophonia, and wanted the government’s definition of Islamophobia. Trudeau spoke about the rise of it and antisemitism, but did not provide a definition. Blanchet noted this and accused the government of polarising Canadians, and Trudeau pointed out that he is a proud Quebeckers and there are more Liberals from Quebec than in the Bloc, and that they need to combat intolerance. 

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the Bloc, and decried the increasing privatisation of healthcare and demanded the government put a stop to it. Trudeau said that the NDP can’t deliver the goods on progressive policies, as shown by their backing out of their agreement, because they didn’t like it when things got hard. Alistair MacGregor took over in English to worry about grocery prices, and accuse the government of “caving to CEOs.” Trudeau accused them of taking a page from the Conservative playbook in choosing slogans over hard work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A decision without the grassroots

Posted on by

There was a shocking announcement out of BC, where the leader of the “BC United” party (former the BC Liberals, which are not the same as the federal Liberal Party) declared that he was suspending his party’s campaign in favour of supporting the upstart BC Conservatives so that they could defeat the provincial NDP in this fall’s election. It’s stunning, and while I don’t really follow BC politics closely, there are a few observations that I am qualified to make from my particular perch.

One of those observations is that BC has a history of parties forming and dissolving in opposition to the NDP, so this is just the latest iteration of the same, and yes, that kind of history does make a difference. The other, more important observation is just how much this was leader-driven, with no real chance to consult or address the grassroots members of the party, which is a very real problem. Political parties are not supposed to belong to their leaders—they are supposed to belong to the grassroots members, many of whom don’t want to have anything to do with the BC Conservatives because the party is led by a climate-denier (he was kicked out of the then-BC Liberal caucus for expressing those sentiments), and is a party that has devoted itself to culture war bullshit (particularly anti-LGBTQ sentiments) and other social conservative nonsense. A lot of right-of-centre but socially progressive voters in the province have every right to be pissed off about this development, because it should be their party and they should be the ones to make the call about whether they will field candidates and run, even if the polls are against them. And if this is an attempted party merger under the rubric of not splitting the anti-NDP vote (and papering over the very big and cultural issues that kept the parties apart since their mutual inception), it’s also being done against the will of the grassroots membership (whose party this is). It sounds like there are a lot of frustrated incumbents and would-be candidates who are incredibly unhappy with this decision, and I’m curious about what kind of fallout will happen, but this kind of move is beyond cynical.

The other thing I noticed during the press conference was the use of catastrophising language with regard to the NDP, and why the BC United leader felt it was necessary to oppose them to the detriment of his own political fortunes. These are supposed to be rivals, not enemies, and yes, that does matter in politics, especially in this day and age where the polarization has become so great because they have personalized it to such a tremendous extent. They should be grown-ups about what has happened here, but I suspect it’ll be mostly a bunch of poll-driven narratives that only serve to alienate the grassroots members, whose party once again is supposed to belong to.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile struck Kryvyi Rih, which was already observing an official day of mourning for the previous day’s attack that killed four, while a family of four were killed when a Russian bomb hit a home in Izmailivka in Donetsk region. Ukrainian drones continue to strike oil infrastructure in areas outside of Moscow

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hearings before the investigation concludes

Posted on by

As we’ve been expecting the Commons public safety committee met yesterday, and held the usual performances about just how very seriously they take the situation of the two accused terror suspects, and the questions about how they made it to Canada and in one case was given Canadian citizenship. But rather than waiting for the internal investigation to complete so that they could scrutinize the results, they all decided to go ahead and start holding hearings before they have those answers, because what’s important is getting clips for their socials. To that end, they have agreed to hold six meetings starting in the last week of August, but there are competing agendas at play.

For the Conservatives, the agenda is pretty clear—outraged clips, and showcasing their MPs badgering and hectoring witnesses, most especially the ministers who will appear before them. For the Bloc and NDP, it’s quite obviously to embarrass the government at every opportunity, like they are keen to do with every single other issue that rears its head. For the Liberals, however, they believe they are being clever and want to make this into an exposé into the cost of Conservative austerity, because it would seem that the timeline would match up to a point where Conservatives had cut thousands of CBSA agents and civil servants in the immigration department, before the Liberals were able to really reinvest and reinvigorate the processes (if that ever did happen—remember, it’s incredibly difficult to recover capacity once you’ve lost it through cuts). They think they have some kind of gotcha here, but I suspect that they’re going to mishandle this so badly that it’ll blow up in their faces like it always does.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 38 drones and two missiles overnight Monday, and while 30 of those drones were destroyed, one person was injured as a result. Russian shelling killed at least one civilian in the Sumy region, and the government has restricted civilian movement in that area. Russians have been increasing their assaults in the Pokrovsk area of Eastern Ukraine. Russians claim that they halted Ukraine’s advance in the Kursk region, while Ukraine says they actually have no interest in holding that territory (but their ultimate goals remain unclear).

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1823306864097988712

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stunt at committee everyone fell for

Posted on by

The Conservatives, and Michael Chong in particular, pulled a stunt yesterday where they tried to call for an emergency meeting at the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee to study the Winnipeg Lab documents. Liberal and NDP members on the committee said that this isn’t the right committee and this isn’t an emergency, and shut it down. This was the Conservatives’ plan, so that they could take to social media and scream and caterwaul about the “cover-up coalition,” and just like they planned, virtually every single pundit and media outlet did their bidding for them.

To wit, this is that particular committee’s mandate:

“Under Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee’s mandate is to study matters related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act (matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons are studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs). The Committee can also study any legislation or regulation or propose initiatives that relate to access to information and privacy and to ethical standards relating to public office holders.”

This study has absolutely nothing to do with it, and while there should be some kind of parliamentary scrutiny, it belongs most likely at the Health Committee, as PHAC would fall within their remit, and possibly Public Safety and National Security, but not Ethics. The NDP think this should go to the Canada-China Relations committee, but I also find that one to be a bit of a stretch (because I also think that committee is little more than a sideshow). But again, it was wholly appropriate for the Ethics committee to shut this down, because it was only meant to be a stunt.

It’s absolutely maddening to see how many media outlets and pundits walked right into this trap and let themselves get played. The CBC, for example, both-sided it, with the headline of “Conservatives accuse,” and the Liberals pointing out this was the wrong committee halfway down the piece. The Canadian Press both-sidesed it more concisely, and didn’t provide any context about the committee. The Globe and Mail, somewhat predictably, downplayed the Liberals and NDP pointing out that this was the wrong committee, gave over plenty of space to the Conservative argument that it should be without actually checking it against the statutory remit of the committee, and privileged Michael Chong’s comments, when he is not on the committee and was 100 percent pulling a stunt.

The thing is that this keeps happening—Conservatives have been regularly proposing studies on issues that committees have no remit over (such as trying to get the Public Accounts committee to go after the Trudeau Foundation), and then crying foul when they don’t play along, and then drive social media engagement off of the faked outrage. Rules matter. Parliamentary procedure matters. It’s not a “process story” you can dismiss, it’s bad faith actors playing the media, and the media going along with it when they should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they stopped a Russian advance near Avdiivka, but that Russian troops appear to be regrouping further south.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, East Coast LNG isn’t going to happen

Posted on by

With the news out of Ukraine becoming more pressing, we’re once again seeing some bad faith takes in Canada about how we should be displacing Russian gas with our LNG, which is never going to happen. Ever. And people should know this, but they keep clinging to this fantasy because it sells to a particular base, but lying is lying, whether it’s to yourself or to your voters.

As always:

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian drone attack hit an apartment building in Odesa over the weekend, and the final tally shows twelve people were killed, including a baby. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on Western allies to summon the political will to get them the aid they need (speaking mostly to the Americans for that one). Veterans across Ukraine have been disavowing medals in support of a gay soldier whose medal was rescinded by the church.

Continue reading →