Tag Archives: NSICOP

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 →

Roundup: Putting words in the Auditor General’s mouth

Posted on by

It was an Auditor General’s Report Day in the Nation’s Capital, and these reports were far more salacious than many in the past, which is in part why they dominated Question Period. The AG looked at three issues—contracts awarded to McKinsey and Company, the allegations around governance at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and combatting cybercrime, and each report has a lot of things to say.

  1. Many of the contracts awarded to McKinsey were done sole-source with poor justification, going all the way back to 2011. And for context, these are contracts sought and awarded by the civil service, and not the political direction of the government; also, while there was a huge focus on McKinsey, they are less than one percent of these kinds of external contracts.
  2. There were governance problems at SDTC, including conflicts of interest in awarding funds, but there has been a lot of reporting in The Logic that suggests that some of this has been overblown, such as the fact that everyone on SDTC’s roster was given funds during the pandemic including operations that directors had ties to, so there couldn’t have been preferential treatment. Nevertheless, the government announced today that they are essentially pulling the plug on the organisation and folding it into the National Research Council.
  3. Cybercrime incidents have a poor record of being followed up on when reported to the wrong agency, and that many were dropped and the complainants were not told they reported to the wrong agency, meaning that a lot of files got lost along the way. The government is working on a single-window solution for reporting cyber-incidents, but that hasn’t happened yet.

On the first two, the Conservatives made up a huge fiction about these being contracts to “Liberal insiders,” or “friends of the government,” or “cronies,” or the like, when the reports said absolutely nothing of the sort. In fact, the reports quite clearly state that there was no political direction or involvement in these contracts, which means that these allegations by the Conservatives are not only false, but potentially libellous, but they want to create an air of corruption around the government. In addition, they seem desperate to avoid any scent of involvement themselves, when the McKinsey contract problems date back to when Harper was in government, and SDTC was set up by the Conservatives, including its governance structure, which proved problematic. In either case, the cries of corruption and trying to invoke the ghost of Sponsorship are little more than cheap lies, but that’s what the Conservatives do best these days, it seems, so none of it is surprising.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A pair of Russian missiles struck civilian infrastructure in Dnipro, injuring eight including two children. Ukrainian officials say that the decision to allow Ukraine to strike into Russian territory will disrupt their advances and help defend the Kharkiv region.

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: A genteel time that never was

Posted on by

I saw a post yesterday that took a page from Hansard on that day in 1978, and well, it was full of the first prime minister Trudeau and several honourable members accusing one another of being animals, or parts thereof. And while hilarious, I think it’s a bit of a corrective when people keep insisting that Parliament used to be a much more genteel place (and we got a lot of that during the Ed Broadbent and Brian Mulroney memorials).

It really wasn’t that genteel. It never has been—there are infamous reports in Hansard about early debates in the 1860s where MPs were setting off firecrackers in the Chamber and playing musical instruments to disrupt people speaking. And I can also say that Question Period was a hell of a lot more raucous when I started covering it fifteen years ago compared to what it is today, which has a lot to do with the Liberals clamping down on applause (for the most part) for their members, which has led to there being less heckling from the Liberal benches (not saying it doesn’t happen—it absolutely does—just not as much, and certainly not in the quantities it used to be).

Question Period is worse in other ways, however—nowadays it’s all reciting slogans and everyone on the same script so that they can each get a clip for their socials, while the government gives increasingly disconnected talking points in lieu of responses, and there’s almost no actual debate (though every now and again, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre will get into an actual exchange with one another). And the repetition of slogans or the reading of canned lines each give rise to heckling because of its ridiculousness, and yes, there is louder heckling when women ministers are answering questions (but this is not a recent phenomenon either). But there was never a golden age of gentility in our Parliament, and we need to stop pretending there was as we lament the state of things. Instead, we should be lamenting the quality of the debate, which has been dead and buried since about the time that Bob Rae retired from politics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck an educational facility in Odesa, killing four. Russian forces are advancing in the eastern Donetsk region after the withdrawal from Avdiivka, while Ukraine waits for new arms from the west. UN experts say that a missile that landed in Kharkiv on January 2nd was indeed of North Korean manufacture. Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, visited Kyiv—the first member of the royal family to do so since the war began—and continued her work championing those affected by conflict-related sexual violence.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1785060798890459222

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s municipal power grab

Posted on by

The Alberta government tabled a bill yesterday that gives them sweeping new powers as it relates to municipalities in the province, leaving a lot of questions as to why. Constitutionally they do have this ability, as municipalities are creatures of the province, but the motivation is the real question. Among the changes are allowing political parties to run in municipal elections in Edmonton and Calgary, which I have to wonder if this isn’t for some kind of back-handed partisan purposes, so that they can point to how many counsellors identify as NDP, Liberals, or C/conservative as opposed to having to guess under the current system, but it’s a change nobody really asked for. I am of two minds with it, because it could provide more resources and better nomination processes…but it would also create expectations between the provincial party and the municipal party, and that is something I’m not sure anyone would really look to as being a good thing.

The bill also seeks to ban electronic tabulators in municipal elections (which I’m not wholly opposed to because I prefer hand-counting ballots whenever possible), but the real thrust has to do with the ability to terminate councillors, and with overturning bylaws, and this seems to be the big one, because they are particularly butthurt that certain municipalities have implemented single-use plastic bans, and that’s far too “woke” for this provincial government. Better to overrule the decisions that those elected officials made and will be accountable to their voters for, and just strike those bylaws entirely.

As for the ability to terminate sitting councillors, the minister insists this is only for extremely serious cases (of which I can’t think of any in Alberta—we’ve had a couple in Ontario and one in Ottawa particularly), but just who decides what that threshold is are the premier and Cabinet, so it’s not like there is much in the way of safeguards, and if you’re giving this power to premier and Cabinet, to overturn an election in a municipality, is asking for it to be abused—particularly when you have someone like Danielle Smith in charge of those powers. I foresee a future gong show, because this is Danielle Smith’s Alberta we’re talking about.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian shelling killed three in the Donetsk region, while a missile attack against the Kharkiv region hit a railway station, wounding ten. Another Russian missile damaged critical rail infrastructure in the central Cherkasy region. Meanwhile, while the soon-to-be arriving new tranche of US aid is going to help Ukraine rebuild its defences, it is unlikely to recover it enough to resume a counter-offensive anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Simping for the return of Stephen Harper

Posted on by

Yesterday, former Conservative campaign manager and current media darling Fred DeLorey wrote a column for iPolitics that posited that under a Pierre Poilievre government, appointing Stephen Harper to the Cabinet post of foreign affairs would be a “bold declaration of Canada’s readiness to assume a pivotal role in shaping global affairs.” It’s a…novel…argument, and while I will admit that I haven’t read the piece because my subscription has lapsed, I wanted to make a few points regardless.

The first point is that while it is possible for a prime minister to appoint a minister who doesn’t have a seat, the convention is that they find one as soon as possible, whether in the Commons or in the Senate, because otherwise they can’t report to Parliament or sponsor legislation without needing a proxy to do it for them. Harper himself appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to serve as minister of public works, and later international trade. (Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a seat in the Commons in the next election and was soundly defeated). I find the notion of Harper being given a Senate seat to be far too ironic considering his utter disdain for the institution, and in particular its appointed nature. The alternative is asking one of Poilievre’s MPs to resign in a safe seat to run a by-election for Harper to run in, but again, I have seen zero desire on his part to get back into electoral politics. He’s also a one-man show, and the party is still very much his cult of personality, three leaders later, so I have a hard time envisioning him being a team player and not undermining Poilievre’s authority at every turn.

As for it being a “bold declaration,” I think that on the face of it, it smacks of trying to copy Rishi Sunak giving David Cameron the post in the UK government (along with a seat in the Lords), and Sunak’s government is about to be wiped out in the upcoming general election. There has also been plenty of chatter since this proposal went up over Twitter, and a lot of it is from people who still, to this day, believe that Harper is some kind of Bond villain, and that his IDU is some kind of SPECTRE. He’s not, and it’s not. The IDU is a social club for terrible people, and Harper has spent a lot of time cultivating friendships with autocrats and dictators, and has been part of the move to create permission structures for far-right parties to engage in increasingly autocratic far-right behaviour. It’s hard to think of what kind of cachet Harper is going to have on the foreign policy circuit given that he didn’t really have any foreign policy wins when he was in office. Conservatives love to recount how he allegedly told Putin to get out of Ukraine at a major summit, and look how effective that was—Putin went from occupying Crimea to launching a full-scale invasion of the rest of the country. Harper really showed him! Meanwhile, he’s spent so much time cuddling up to these terrible people and laundering their actions in pretending that they are “centre-right democratic parties,” unless that’s the kind of foreign policy that Poilievre wants to cultivate (which is possible). I just fail to see where DeLorey sees an upside in any of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have been pounding Ukrainian power facilities, including a hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, or power supplies in Kharkiv, during which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on allies to summon the political will to deliver needed air defences. Russia says these are “revenge strikes” for attacks across their border, an claims these military targets including “concentrations of troops and foreign mercenaries.” Ukraine says that Russian oil refineries are legitimate targets. Ukraine is also worried that Russia could be preparing as many as 100,000 troops to make a new offensive push this summer, or to replenish depleted units.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1771149078010765485

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s Speaker Election Day!

Posted on by

Today is the day for the election of the new House of Commons Speaker, which begins with speeches at 10 AM, a thirty-minute pause so that the candidates can lobby MPs one last time and answer any questions they have, and then they begin voting. It’s a preferential ballot, so we don’t know how long it will take to count (which will depend if someone wins on the first ballot or not), and then they need to go through the protocol with the Senate before the Commons can return to business. Depending on how long this takes, we may or may not have Question Period today, so stay tuned.

In the meantime, here are some of the candidates for the position lamenting the current state of affairs in the Commons, but as I wrote in my weekend column, this is something that the Speaker alone cannot fix. He or she can help, particularly by applying the rules and not simply shrugging off when people break them (like Anthony Rota had a tendency to do), but real reform is going to require the cooperation of all MPs to change the Standing Orders to empower the Speaker to do more, and to give up the power of the party House Leaders to determine speaking lists (because they claim to need to have a “strategy,” which is both ridiculous and undermines the power of MPs). And more to the point, if a Speaker is too tough in enforcing the rules, then MPs may conspire to ensure they don’t win the Speaker election in the next Parliament (which is what happened to Geoff Regan, and why we wound up with the deeply unserious Rota).

This being said, it sounds like Chris d’Entrement may have soured his chances with the Liberals with his ruling last week in not admonishing Melissa Lantsman for her personal attack on Karina Gould during Question Period, and that may mean that Alexandra Mendès could win enough votes provided that enough Liberals rally around her as first choice, ensuring that we finally get our second female Speaker (finally), given that I really don’t think that Greg Fergus or Sean Casey are serious contenders for the job. Then again, ranked ballots are funny things, and sometimes crazy things happen as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces shelled the southern city of Kherson, killing two and wounding ten. In the northern city of Kharkiv, officials are building a fully underground school so that children can learn safely as Russian attack continue. Meanwhile, as shenanigans are taking place in the US Congress around funding for Ukraine, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with EU ministers about continuing vital cooperation.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1708921746907111912

Continue reading →

Roundup: Smith can’t get her story or timeline straight

Posted on by

Danielle Smith took to the microphones yesterday to thump her chest about the proposed clean electricity regulations, but what wound up happening was a series of wrong facts about her government’s “pause” on approvals for new clean electricity projects. Smith claims that the moratorium came at the request of the Alberta Utilities Commission and the Alberta Electric System Operator, except neither requested it, the timelines don’t add up, and it looks a lot like Smith’s government has been going out of their way to screw with clean energy stakeholders.

Receipts are all below.

Smith also refused to say whether our record wildfire season across the country is related to climate change, but insisted that most of the fires in her province were set by humans. That’s also a lie, but that’s Smith’s modus operandi.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched a large-scale air attack against western Ukraine including the city of Lviv, which was the largest attack on the city since the start of the war. There were missile and drone strikes against Odessa which wounded three in the early hours of Monday. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops near the eastern front line yesterday.

Continue reading →