A new site launched this week called FactsCan, which aims to fact-check claims put out by political leaders and parties as we head toward an election. The organisers like to think that because they’re not filing stories to the 24-hour news cycle that they can spend the time doing this when journalists apparently can’t. It sounds like a laudable goal on the surface, but if you think about it for longer than a few seconds, I’m not exactly convinced of the merits of this programme. For one, journalists are already fact-checking and pointing out blatant falsehoods. All the time. It’s our job. The site talks about offering information “with no BS or alternate agenda.” So, the mainstream media is delivering both? Is that their implication? At least one of the names attached to the project raises a red flag with me, which is someone from Democracy Watch, seeing as that is an organisation that often deliberately distorts the way our democratic system functions and has often given massively inaccurate information about some basic civic literacy concepts in this country – and yet one of their members will be “fact checking.” Okay. What bothers me the most, however, is the funding aspect. This site appears to be trying to do the crowd funding thing, but hey, why not simply pay for your news so that journalists can continue to do this kind of work like we’re supposed to, and so that we won’t have to keep facing newsroom cuts which further impact on our time? They’re also relying on volunteers to help them out, which again impacts on journalists’ livelihoods. If they want the media to do a better job, well, then they can subscribe to a newspaper or two so that we have the resources to do our jobs – not getting others to do it for free.
Tag Archives: CBSA
Roundup: A new posting for Kevin Vickers
House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers has been appointed Canada’s new ambassador to Ireland, which seems like a fitting reward for the his heroic actions on October 22nd. Well, once you get past the questions about his diplomatic credentials (not that Ireland is likely to be a posting with actual diplomatic challenges). It also does leave one wondering about what will happen with the ongoing review of security on Parliament Hill in the wake of the shooting, since Vickers will no longer be around to answer questions. His deputy, Pat McDonell, will be assuming his duties for the time being, but if he doesn’t get the job full-time once Vickers is officially gone, it could mean that we might get a female Sergeant-at-Arms, as one of the other deputies who often sits in the chair is a woman. Kady O’Malley rounds up some of the reaction to the news.
Roundup: Reassigning Fantino
In some ways, it was a big surprise because it’s almost – almost – like Stephen Harper was admitting he made a mistake with regards to his choice for veterans affairs minister. But it wasn’t entirely that – just a bit of a shuffling of the deck. Without really summoning press to Rideau Hall yesterday, the PM shuffled Julian Fantino out of Veterans Affairs, and put newcomer Erin O’Toole in his place. But lest you think that Fantino has had his day in cabinet and he can quietly disappear into the backbenches, no – Harper found him a new home. Technically it’s his old home as Associate Minister of Defence, but instead of being on the procurement file, as he was previously, now he’s been charged with Arctic sovereignty, cyber-defence and foreign intelligence. Let’s remember that when Fantino was previously on that job, he had the F-35 fiasco blowing up around him. Then Veterans Affairs fell apart around him when he was in that portfolio. And if his lack of interpersonal skills was a big part of the failure at Veterans Affairs, he’s going to be in charge of a fairly diplomacy-heavy role with Arctic Sovereignty? Really? Same thing with foreign intelligence and CSE. You want a notoriously poor communicator to deal with those questions? Really? (My other thought is about what this says about confidence in the abilities of Rob Nicholson if the PM need to split off some of his duties to hand them over to an Associate Minister). As for the veterans file, it’s going to be an uphill battle for O’Toole, who is an immeasurably better communicator than Fantino or his parliamentary secretary, Parm Gill, ever were, but he’s still constrained by the policy of the day, and the spending restraints that the government has imposed across the board. Sure, he may be able to communicate better and maybe not alienate his stakeholders to the same extent that Fantino did, but if he can’t really change what’s really ailing the department, it is likely to just be a fresh coat of paint and little else. Paul Wells shares a few thoughts about what the PM might have been thinking.
So some poor sap at Langevin gets to dig up the microtapes to revert the M-4 Unit to his previous Associate Defence Minister programming?
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 5, 2015
One does suppose that a duotronic computer system like the M-4 Unit might be well placed to deal with information security. #Fantino
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 5, 2015
Just think of all the new talking points that the M-4 Unit will have to upload to his duotronic databanks. #Fantino
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) January 5, 2015
Roundup: Raising the spectre of domestic terror
It was an odd event yesterday – a Conservative MP asking the PM during Question Period to respond to “unconfirmed reports” to a domestic terrorism link to a hit-and-run case in Quebec involving two members of the Canadian Forces, where the suspect was shot and later died. It was only hours later that the RCMP released a brief statement that the suspect was known to them, and that he may have been radicalised. It’s still early days in the investigation, but one wonders if it’s perhaps too soon to suddenly believe we have ISIS cells operating in Canada, and that this wasn’t an isolated incident where one individual who, by all accounts, was a recent convert for whatever reason, and decided to act on the vague ISIS threats that were made public in media reports. I guess time will tell, but expect the government to start using this incident as justification for greater counter-terror legislation. At the same time as this story was breaking, the Director of Operations of CSIS was at a Senate committee, saying that they do the best they can with prioritizing their investigations, but can’t cover every base because of budget limitations. Duly noted.
Roundup: Assisted suicide heads to the SCC
With the Supreme Court challenge to assisted suicide laws heading to the Supreme Court tomorrow, here’s a look at some of the other countries’ laws in that regard. Carissima Mathen gives us a primer on the assisted suicide case going before the Supreme Court this week.
QP: Major network censorship!
Despite it being a Thursday, none of the major leaders were present in the Chamber for QP. Yay accountability! Megan Leslie kicked off by asking about radicalized Canadians who were not stopped before they left the country. Stephen Blaney said that there were 63 investigations underway covering over 100 individuals, and why didn’t the NDP support their anti-terrorism legislation. Leslie asked why they were relying on US intelligence for these radicals, but Blaney gave a non sequitur about supporting the mission in Iraq. Leslie turned to the Ebola crisis, to which Rona Ambrose assured her of all the ways in which Canada was contributing. Libby Davies carried on asking about the Ebola vaccine and reiterated the tale of the intellectual property concerns, but Ambrose assured her that the supply that was given to the WHO did not have those concerns and it was up to them to decide what to do with it. Davies quoted a WHO release stating that the commercializations of the vaccine was held by that U.S. company. Ambrose, somewhat exasperated, insisted that they were two completely different issues, and the intellectual property on the donated doses belonged to Canada. Ralph Goodale asked about the plans to stuff things like copyright changes into the budget bill. Kevin Sorenson insisted that Goodale wait until the bill was tabled. Goodale blasted the plans to change those copyright plans so that news clips can freely been used in political ads, calling it “expropriation without compensation.” Shelly Glover said she wouldn’t comment on rumours or speculation, but gave an excuse about networks censoring content. No, seriously. The round closed with Dominic LeBlanc giving the same question in French, and Glover repeating as well.
Roundup: The Tabulator gong show
Over in the New Brunswick election last night, their new Tabulator machines which were supposed to deliver election results faster all pretty much fried and turned into a big gong show, with missing ballots and unreadable results, while the company who was contracted out to run the machines didn’t answer calls. With no results being trustworthy, parties began demanding manual recounts, and with a virtual tie result, the final results likely won’t be clear in the morning. And so, let this once again be a lesson that paper ballots should always be used with manual counts because that’s the only tried and true way with actual accountability.
QP: Those pesky temporary foreign strippers
With the March for Life happening on the lawn outside — mostly Catholic high school students bussed in for the occasion, and disrupted by topless protesters — and with the House not sitting tomorrow because of the Day of Honour for the mission in Afghanistan, it was a bit of a Friday-on-a-Thursday day in the chamber. Well, attendance was a bit better, but not much. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP and brought up the government collecting data by “creeping” Facebook pages. Tony Clement assured her that the government wants to listen to Canadians, and they were engaging with the Privacy Commissioner, before accusing them of trying to shut down Canadians who were letting their views be known. Leslie changed topics to the Nadon appointment and the reports that he was advised to resign from the Federal Court and rejoin the Quebec Bar. MacKay accused her of conspiracy theory, and touted the consultation process and the expert legal advice they sought. Françoise Boivin carried on with the same line of questioning in both languages, to which MacKay continued to tout the process that they followed. John McCallum led off for the Liberals and accused the government of hating the Canada Pension Plan and being dismissive of Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario pension plans. Clement responded and decried the “massive tax grab” that would ruin jobs and opportunity. McCallum moved onto the topic of market wages for foreign workers and driving down Canadian wages, to which Kenney took a shot at the opposition parties.
Roundup: Whips and grandfathered MPs
Given that it’s the big March for Life on the Hill, reporters asked Justin Trudeau yesterday about the whole pro-choice thing for the party (I’m guessing since it’s a fun game to try and catch the Liberals out on being a nominally pro-choice party with a few pro-life MPs still in the caucus). Trudeau said that as was decided by the membership in the 2012 policy convention, the party is officially pro-choice, that such votes would be whipped, and that the existing pro-life MPs are being grandfathered in, but all future candidates must follow the pro-choice party line. “So much for open nominations!” the commentariat cries, ignoring the kinds of conditions – or indeed groupthink – that other parties employ with their own candidates. And pro-life Liberals like John McKay kind of shrugged and said that it’s normal to have some disagreements within a party and left it at that. And now everyone else will try to make hay of this, because that’s the way it works.
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.