Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: Compromising positions vs oversight

Posted on by

As the fallout from his sexting “scandal” continued, MP Tony Clement was booted from caucus yesterday, which shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. First thing in the morning, Andrew Scheer said that he was assured that it was a one-off so Clement would be allowed to stay, but by Question Period, Clement was out, meaning that more stuff has come to light (possibly the raft of women over social media describing their creepy encounters with Clement online).

While Cabinet ministers including Ralph Goodale don’t believe that this incident with Clement actually breached national security, the bigger worry by experts in the field is the fact that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is still nascent and building trust, and the fact that Clement was a member of that team and obviously ignored the training he was provided about not putting himself in compromising positions could shake the domestic trust of this new committee, especially given that this level of parliamentary oversight of our national security is new and largely untested.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1060246150266138625

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060245758123753472

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060246898810867712

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060248352011431936

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060250149736202240

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060251763486257152

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060254722823618560

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1060258407968473089

Susan Delacourt notes the three ways in which Clement has damaged himself, and possibly his party as well. John Ivison ponders the security implications of this whole sordid affair. And on Power Play, Stephanie Carvin explains why this is an issue with national security considerations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Sexts and extortion

Posted on by

Conservative MP Tony Clement has resigned from Conservative shadow cabinet and his parliamentary duties (but not from caucus) after he was victim to an attempted extortion after sharing “sexually explicit images and video” with someone.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059976854415659008

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059982799095050240

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1059986660748812288

Some observations:

  • Clement is part of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which is of the highest security classification. Being a target for blackmail on that is a Very Big Deal, and can’t be excused by those who don’t want to be involved in any kind of shaming for sexting. Clement apparently notified PCO about this a few days ago, so this is serious in how it affects his role with NSICOP, and now they will need to find a new member to fill that vacancy.
  • This is likely to get bigger. Already a number of women are coming forward over social media about his creepy behaviour on Instagram and this kind of thing has apparently happened before (sans extortion attempt).
  • The Conservatives can stop being so smug about the fact that they haven’t had to boot anyone from caucus for being sexually inappropriate. Clement is still in caucus for the moment, but we’ll see how this grows in the next few days.
  • Clement says that he’ll be “seeking treatment,” which is the really gross part here, because it employs the language of trying to medicalise sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour. And when you try to medicalise it, you try to diminish personal responsibility – as this Tracey Ullman sketch so amply demonstrates.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A StatsCan privacy check

Posted on by

While the ongoing issue of Statistics Canada looking for financial transaction data continues, the actual privacy practices in the institution aren’t being adequately explained to Canadians – and they certainly aren’t being represented accurately by the opposition. So with that in mind, here’s professor Jennifer Robson to explain just what she has to go through in order to access data for her research at StatsCan, in order to give you a better sense about how seriously they take this kind of thing.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1059641954021990400

This is why the complaints that the data won’t be secure as it’s being anonymized is pretty specious, and the pearl-clutching that StatsCan would have a person’s SIN is also overblown considering that they already have it – they matched up people’s tax returns with their census forms to ensure that they had accurate data regarding household incomes, and lo, nobody made a peep about that when it happened. Again, this overblown rhetoric around what is being planned about this financial transaction data is not only risible, but it’s actively mendacious (particularly when Conservative MPs keep saying things like this is a project by the Liberal Party or by Justin Trudeau himself). And yes, StatsCan has done a woeful job as to explaining what it needs these data for, and this government is largely too inept to communicate any of that information either. And yet here we are.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne points out that while the Conservatives have been spending years attacking StatsCan, the real privacy threat comes from the unregulated use of personal information by political parties, not the country’s statistical agency.

Continue reading →

Roundup: StatsCan’s self-inflicted wounds

Posted on by

The furore and histrionics over the planned administrative data scoop by Statistics Canada continued to boil over the weekend, and there were further interviews with the Chief Statistician, and some other analysis, such as this look at how the agency’s current data collection with long-form surveys are becoming increasingly unreliable, and this private sector view that warns that because of the European Union’s increasingly stringent privacy laws that it could somehow affect our trade or business ventures with European countries.

A few observations:

  1. The Chief Statistician is not a very effective communicator, and I’ve seen several interviews where the host of whichever political show he’s on has completely railroaded him. StatsCan hasn’t been good in demonstrating why they need the data, and what kind of value it holds, and this is important, and they need to better make the case that the way the data are being collected currently is becoming unreliable, and that hurts everybody. They could say that they already have our SINs, because they linked our census data to our tax forms, and lo, there were no problems (and we got more reliable data for it). But they’re not. That they’re leaving the explanation to the government, which can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, compounds the problem.
  2. Most of the journalists and political show hosts out there are exacerbating the problem, worse than the politicians mendaciously framing the issue as one of mass government surveillance, because they’re muddying the waters and trying to get some kind of unforced error from the Chief Statistician or the government spokesbodies, rather than trying to clarify the issues. This in turn feeds the paranoiacs on the Internet (and seriously, my reply column is replete with them right now on the Twitter Machine).
  3. These worries about the EU’s privacy laws are likely overblown, or more likely concern trolling. More than a few EU countries rely on scooping up administrative data rather than using a census, so they will have an idea about how this kind of thing works. Which isn’t to say that perhaps our own laws need updating, but I think the fears remain a bit overblown here.
  4. It remains the height of hypocrisy for the Conservatives to stoke fears about using administrative data like this, because in their attempt to kill the long-form census on trumped up privacy and invasiveness grounds, they were promoting using administrative data in its place. That they’re concerned about it now as being too invasive (while simultaneously lying in their construction that this is somehow a surveillance directive of the Trudeau-led Cabinet that they are using StatsCan as cover for) is more than a little rich, and dare I say amoral.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Di Iorio’s bizarre tales

Posted on by

The tale of absent MP Nicola Di Iorio got even more bizarre yesterday as he started talking to the media, but remained secretive about what he’s been up to since he stopped showing up to Parliament. Di Iorio claims that when he announced his intention to resign in April, there was an outpouring of support from the riding that had him reconsider. Fair enough. He then disputed the reporting that an issue had arisen because he wanted to hand-pick his successor rather than run an open nomination…and then basically confirmed it by saying he wants a hand in picking the successor in the riding and not wanting it to be an open nomination, casting aspersions on the nomination process and claiming the nomination is the election (because it’s a pretty safe seat). So, points for that own-goal.

But wait – it gets even more bizarre. Di Iorio claims that he is on a special assignment from the prime minister that has work that keeps him busy in the riding – too busy to be in Ottawa. And he won’t say what that work is, other than it has something to do with “road safety.” And to add to that, PMO confirmed that he “agreed to continue his work to ensure a smooth transition in his riding and to work on specific files that are in line with his work experience and expertise,” and that he’s expected to announce his decision regarding his future in the coming days. I’m…unconvinced by this. In my ten years covering the Hill, I have never seen any MP disappear for months on a “special assignment” that is so demanding that they can’t show up in Ottawa. I’ve seen plenty of sick leaves, and one or two stress leaves, but never a “special assignment” that has them ignoring their actual duties in Ottawa, where they should be. And why the PMO is being vague about this as well is all the more odd, and smacks of trying to save some kind of face for the situation that Di Iorio has caused. I’m not convinced that any of this is legitimate, so we’ll see what he has to say in the “coming days.”

Meanwhile, here’s Katie Simpson talking about her interview with Di Iorio yesterday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Immigration concern trolls

Posted on by

Amidst the other disingenuous, fear-based campaigns going on in the political sphere right now – Statistics Canada, and the carbon price, in particular – the issue of immigration is also threatening to get worse, in part because the simmering issue around irregular border crossers is being conflated with the government’s announcement of new immigration targets. And we need to drill this into people from the start – immigration and asylum are two very different things, and shouldn’t be treated or conflated. We don’t accept refugees because we think they’ll fill out our workforce – we accept them for humanitarian reasons, which is why the expectations that they’ll find work right away is also problematic, as usually they’re traumatized upon arrival. That’s why it’s especially problematic when you have partisan actors like Michelle Rempel standing up in Question Period to decry the new immigration targets as having some form of equivalency with the irregular border crossers – they’re not the same thing, and conflating them is using one to demonize the other. Even more problematic is the kind of concern trolling language that we’re seeing from other conservatives – that they “support immigration” but are concerned about the “confidence in the system.” There is a certain dogwhistle quality to those “concerns” because it implies that the “confidence” in the system is undermined by all of those bad newcomers arriving. It’s subtle, but the signals are still there.

To that end, the government decided to launch a pro-immigration ad campaign, which the Conservatives have immediately derided as an attempt to paper over the irregular border-crosser issue, despite the fact that they’re separate issues, and they’re actively undermining confidence in the immigration system that they claim to support by conflating it with the asylum seekers they’re demonizing. And this cycle of conflation and demonization gets worse when the federal minister pushed back against the Ontario minister’s politicizing of the issue and attempt to blame asylum seekers for the city’s housing crisis (and more importantly pushed back against her claims that “40 percent” of shelter residents are now irregular border crossers and that they used to be 11 percent as being fabricated because the shelter system doesn’t track that kind of data). The Ontario minister responded by calling Hussen a “name-calling bully” (he didn’t call her any names), and on it goes. Would that we have grown-ups running things.

Meanwhile, The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ checks the government’s claim that they’ve reduced irregular border crossings by 70 percent (it was one month’s year-over-year data), and Justin Ling gives an appropriately salty fact-check of the political memes decrying the planned increase in immigration figures.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On MPs’ sanctimony

Posted on by

My patience for self-aggrandising bullshit is at an all-time low, so you can image just how hard my eyes rolled when I heard that Justin Trudeau was telling a school group that was touring Parliament that his side is “serious and respectful” and the other guys like to shout, and how it was because when a there isn’t a lot that they can go after the government on, they make noise instead. Trudeau’s capacity for sanctimony is practically legendary, but this was gilding the lily more than a little. Now, I will grant you that since he’s been in charge, the Liberals have been far better behaved in QP than they used to be, and the clapping ban has lowered the level of din in the chamber by a great deal (though said ban is not always honoured). And yes, the Conservatives do yell and heckle a lot, but some of it is deserved when you have ministers or parliamentary secretaries who read non sequitur talking points rather than doing something that resembles answering a question. (They also yell and heckle to be childish and disruptive as well, but it bears pointing out that it’s not entirely undeserved). It’s also cheap theatre, and there is a time and a place for that in politics, and if we didn’t have it during QP, then I daresay that there might be an outbreak of narcolepsy on the Hill. But as with anything, it should be done judiciously and cleverly, and that’s not something that these guys are any good at, and so we return to the sounds of jeering, hooting baboons no more days than not, but that’s no excuse for sanctimony. There are no saints in that chamber.

With that in mind, my tolerance for the whinging and crying foul over the removal of Leona Alleslev as chair of the NATO Parliamentary Association is also mighty thin, for the sheer fact that when she crossed the floor, she wouldn’t be able to chair a parliamentary association. The way these things work is that a government MP chairs, and an opposition MP vice-chairs, and lo, the Conservatives already had a vice-chair on said association. Her removal was not retaliation, but it is a consequence. Now, there are definite questions that can be asked about the timing of said removal – two weeks before a NATO meeting that she has worked toward, and weeks after she crossed the floor (but I don’t know how often this association meets, so this may have been the first opportunity) – but that is far different from the caterwauling from the Conservatives about how the “supposedly feminist” prime minister was being mean to a woman and a veteran. (As an aside, could we please stop with this policing of the PM’s feminism? 99 percent of attacks attached to said policing have nothing to do with feminism). This attempt to claim the moral high ground is exasperating.

To add to all of this, the meeting where the removal happened was met with a bunch of disruptive, juvenile behaviour by Conservative MPs and staffers that included butchered singing, and *gasp!* drinking! Oh noes! Nobody behaved admirably in this situation, and nobody has any high ground to claim, so maybe we should all behave like adults around this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Proposing a debate commissioner

Posted on by

Yesterday the government unveiled their plan to establish an election debate commissioner, who would set about coordinating leaders’ debates during the next election, along with proposed around which party leaders could participate – rules that would give Elizabeth May an in, but could exclude Maxime Bernier unless he gets an awful lot of candidates in place, and his polling numbers start to rise. The proposed Commissioner is to be former Governor General, His Excellency the Rt. Hon. David Johnston, who is a choice that nobody is going to want to dispute.

Of course, that hasn’t eliminating the grumbling and complaints. The NDP are complaining that they weren’t consulted before Johnston was nominated (not that they’re complaining it’s him), and the Conservatives are calling this a giant affront to democracy and add this onto their pile of complaints that Justin Trudeau is trying to rig the election in his favour. (Not sure how this does that, and it seems pretty cheeky to make these claims when their own unilateral changes to election rules in the previous parliament were panned by pretty much everyone). And Elizabeth May is overjoyed because the proposed rules would include her. Of course, Johnston still needs to be approved by Parliament, and he will appear before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, but all of this having been said and done, there remain questions as to why this is all necessary. Gould went around saying that this was because Harper didn’t want to do debates in 2015, except that he did debates – he simply didn’t want to do the same “consortium” debates that are usually done and decided by the TV broadcasters, and he most certainly didn’t want to have anything to do with the CBC. The key point they seem to be making is that the 2015 formats saw far fewer viewers than the consortium debates typically attract, for what it’s worth. Is this a reason to implement a new system, that neither compels leaders to participate or broadcasters to air? Maybe, and people will point to the debate commission in the United States.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1057344603861397506

To that end, here’s Chris Selley asking some of those very questions, looking at some of the problematic behaviour from broadcasters in response to the changed formats from the 2015 debates, and offering some suggestions as to how this all could be avoided.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debating the future shape of the Commons

Posted on by

In a piece for Policy Options, Jennifer Ditchburn worries that there hasn’t been enough public discussion about the forthcoming renovations to the Centre Block, and what it means for our democracy. Part of the problem is the structure by which these decisions are being taken, and much of the decision-making is being put off until after the building is closed and the workers have a better sense as to the deterioration and what needs to be done as part of the renovation and restoration, which seems problematic. That said, it’s not like there hasn’t been any debate over the whole project, lest anyone forget the weeks of cheap outrage stories over the price tag of the “crystal palace” that has been created in the courtyard of the West Block to house the House of Commons on a temporary basis.

Ditchburn goes on to lament that we haven’t had any kind of public debate over how we want the House of Commons to look, and if we want to keep the current oppositional architecture (though she later tweeted that if forced to decide, she’s probably want to keep it). I will confess to my own reluctance to open up a debate around this because it has the likelihood that it will go very stupid very quickly, if the “debate” over electoral reform is any indication. We’re already bombarded by dumb ideas about how to reform the House of Commons, with ideas like randomized seating as a way to improve decorum, but that ignores both tradition and the fact that our system is built to be oppositional for good reason, as it forces accountability, and a certain amount of policy dynamism. I’m especially leery of the coming paeans to semi-circles, and people who think that the circular designs of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut legislatures as being at all replicable in Ottawa (which they aren’t).

If I had my druthers, I’d not only keep the current oppositional format, but would get rid of the desks and put in benches like they have in Westminster, thereby shrinking the chamber and doing away with means by which MPs have for not paying attention to debate as it is, where they can spend their time catching up on correspondence or signing Christmas cards, or playing on their iPads. Best of all, it does away with the mini-lecterns, which have become a plague in our Chamber as the scripting gets worse. The reasons for why they had desks have long-since vanished into history (as in, they all have offices now), and if we want better debates, then benches will help to force them (even if it means we’ll have to learn faces instead of relying solely on the seating chart to learn MPs’ names).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not the right by-election

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau called a by-election yesterday – but only in the riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands, and not Burnaby South, where Jagmeet Singh has declared that he wants to run – and now the NDP are sniping about it, calling it “petty and manipulative,” and even more curiously, griping that Canadians from that riding are being deprived of representation.

A couple of things: First of all, Singh has had several opportunities to run for a seat before now, and has turned them all down. The fact that he has suddenly realised that his being “comfortable” with not having a seat until his poll numbers started plunging doesn’t mean that the Liberals have an obligation to get him in the House as soon as possible – he already made it clear it wasn’t a priority. As well, it they were so concerned about a lack of representation, they should have said something to their MP who vacated the seat in the first place – and not only that, who waited until the last minute to vacate it after spending the summer campaigning for another job. Likewise with Thomas Mulcair in Outremont and now Sheila Malcolmson in Nanaimo – they chose to leave before the current parliament expired.

Add to that, the time to call this particular by-election was running out, and with the other current openings, Trudeau may be waiting on Malcolmson to give a date as to when she officially plans to leave her seat, and for Liberal MP Nicola Di Iorio to officially vacate his own seat in Montreal (given that he suddenly started having second thoughts after declaring he was going to resign) before Trudeau calls the other by-elections, so that they can “cluster” the by-elections in those regions. I’m not convinced that there’s a crisis here. Singh made his bed, and now he gets to lay in it.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056716042976747521

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717272276918273

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1056717517324832768

Continue reading →