It’s a very curious tale that didn’t seem to get much attention yesterday, but the Globe and Mail had a very interesting and lengthy dissection of the relationship between the Canadian government and the US ambassador to Canada, and it’s not good. It’s also one of those cases where it’s hard to assign blame, because so much of what’s terrible seems to be coming from both sides. First Obama took nine months to announce a replacement, which was seen as a snub, and then when Bruce Heyman was appointed and arrived in Canada, he basically said he couldn’t help with any of the big files – Keystone XL and the new Detroit-Windsor bridge – and wanted us to bend on other files like intellectual property. Oh, and he told a crowd at his first big outing that we need to pretty much get over Keystone XL. So the Canadian government froze him out – Harper won’t meet with him, nor will the cabinet, and since Harper still meets with Obama at international summits, and John Baird had a good relationship with John Kerry, it was all well and good to go around Heyman, who in turn started going around the federal government and has been focusing on premiers instead. It’s all perfectly dysfunctional, and perhaps a sign of the dysfunction at the top, and problems in the world’s biggest trading relationship.
Tag Archives: CSIS
Roundup: The unspoken morale problem
As the results of the Senate audit draw closer, and senators are complaining anonymously about the way in which it’s being handled by the Auditor General’s office (and those that they’ve subcontracted to), what has been missing from the reporting is the blow to morale that has taken place in the institution. The constant air of suspicion, the questioning of expenses that should be no problem (like stamps for Xmas cards being sent to the States, or as the article describes, single phone calls and sandwiches) has made not only for some unhappy senators and staff, but it’s sucked the life out of the place, and their focus on the grown-up policy work of parliament – which we should expect from the Commons but don’t end up getting – is being completely sidetracked by the way this audit is being handled, and the time that it is consuming. It’s also to the point of invasive, where one senator mentioned that she had been asked for her personal journals by auditors. And the problem has become that because of the actions of those couple of bad apples – Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau, and Harb – that all senators are under a cloud of suspicion and are unable to push back without it looking like they have something to hide, rather than the fact that there is a genuine feeling like they are being abused by auditors who don’t understand the role of the Senate. One does have to wonder if there won’t be any long-term damage to what is going on, especially as blame is being laid on the institution, and not on the person who made appointments without due diligence.
QP: Don’t question, just support C-51
Because Thursday is the new Friday, none of the major leaders were in the Commons, leaving it up to Megan Leslie to lead off, asking about Turkish reports that a Canadian helped those three British teens cross into Syria. Stephen Blaney wouldn’t comment, but invited her to support Bill C-51 instead. Leslie tried again in English, and got much the same answer. Nycole Turmel then asked about the extension of the mission in Iraq, to which Jason Kenney insisted that they hadn’t made a decision, but when they do, a motion will be tabled. Turmel and Leslie then wondered when a budget would be tabled, to which Kevin Sorenson decried Liberal and NDP tax increases. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, detailing the history of racist comments by John Williamson, and demanded that he be kicked out of caucus. Pierre Poilievre stood up to say that Williamson apologised, and that Justin Trudeau should apologise for his comments about the Holocaust (which, it bears noting, he didn’t actually mention). After another go around of the same, McCallum pressed one last time, and this time Tim Uppal repeated the very same talking points.
QP: The Wright connection
Wednesday, caucus day, and everyone was present and ready to go. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking if the prime minister was planning an extension or expansion of the Iraq mission. Stephen Harper responded by first thanking the House for its support of the mission and then said that no decision had been made and he would let them know when it had. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same response. Mulcair then switched to the topic of the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Diane Finley, and wondered about Nigel Wright’s role in the affair. Harper responded that she used her discretion while acting in good faith, and would take the advice of the Commissioner going forward. Mulcair pressed, but got the same response that she acted in good faith. Mulcair tried to push on the quote about Nigel Wright being asked to “sort out” the issue, but Harper tried to distance himself. Justin Trudeau was up next, and wanted the Prime Minister to explain to the half-million Muslims in the country how he found their faith to be “anti-women.” Harper responded by reading condemnations from Jewish groups about elements in Trudeau’s speech on Monday. Trudeau pointed out that Harper used to oppose Sihk’s wearing turbans in the RCMP, and Trudeau responded by reading some Muslim groups defending the no-niqabs-in-citizenship-ceremonies position. Trudeau then moved to Jason Kenney’s misleading photos on Twitter, to which Kenney doubled down, insisting we were in Iraq to protect women and girls from ISIS. So, no apology then.
Roundup: The other CSIS bill gets scrutiny
The Senate heard a lot of testimony yesterday regarding Bill C-44 – the other bill to boost CSIS’ powers, in case you’d forgotten about it. Those new powers include being able to operate abroad and break laws in other countries, which might be a bit of a problem, and raises a bunch of questions when it comes to how you oversee those kinds of operations, particularly given the limitations that SIRC faces when they can only visit one CSIS foreign posting per year to look into their operations. There was also testimony from Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director at CSIS, who described the internal processes of conducting investigations and getting warrants, painting a pretty robust system of high bars to proceed with investigations or operations – but again, we have to take his word for it, because we no longer have the in-house oversight of the Inspector General’s office, and SIRC does an annual review. SIRC, incidentally, said they have enough resources to do the job they’re supposed for now, but if they’re going to need to take on new responsibilities such as overseeing a far more robust and empowered CSIS, well, they’ll also need more money, which this government seems pretty unwilling to give. Curiously, the deputy minister of Public Safety said that the Auditor General also provides oversight of CSIS operations, which is pretty wrong – he looks at value-for-money, which is not the kind of oversight that CSIS requires.
Roundup: Friendly fire death
With news of a death by friendly fire in Iraq, one can pretty much imagine how this is going to become the fodder of QP over the coming days – much of it likely to be condemnation about a mission where these special operations forces were never supposed to be near the front lines in the first place, and a government that will be urging patience for the outcome of the investigations into just what happened that night when our troops came under fire. To add insult, the Kurdish forces took to their local media to blame the Canadians for the incident, but there are already dissenting reports, saying that their version doesn’t fit with the facts on the ground, including the maxim that “special forces don’t freelance” – hence why the government will be urging calm until an investigation happens. Just don’t hold your breath when it comes to requests not to politicise this death, because we’ve already crossed that line.
Roundup: Review or oversight?
With C-51 now before committee, and the process of hashing out hearing schedules and witness lists begun, the debate continues over its merits. The story about the young Edmonton who went to support ISIS and CSIS didn’t stop her – because they’re not empowered to disrupt – is adding fuel to the fire, while it’s also bringing out a lot of conspiracy theories that are way out there, like ones that state that the terrorism angle is just a smokescreen so that the government can go after environmentalists and First Nations who oppose their resource development projects. (For the record, I have a really hard time seeing that, especially when you start intimating that it’s at the behest of corporations). The question of oversight remains top of mind, particularly as the Liberals are making that the hill they want to die on – or at least fight an election over – to which Philippe Lagassé writes a very interesting piece about the nature of parliamentary oversight committees in comparable Westminster democracies. In particular, these committees and the one that the Liberals have proposed here in Canada is not actually oversight either – it’s a review committee, like SIRC, only broader because it would review all national security agencies as a whole rather than in silos as what little oversight or review mechanisms to do currently (an four years later, talk about better integrating oversight remains just that). More importantly, however, Lagassé notes that opposition parties need to be very careful about how much oversight that they demand parliamentarians have because involving them too much can make them complicit in decisions that they should be holding the government to account for, and by swearing in a group of MPs to secrecy to see the materials, it effectively silences them because they can’t talk about what they know, and it can take such material out of sight and out of mind – as what happened with the Afghan detainee documents. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have more parliamentary review of national security, but we need to be cognisant of its aims and limits.
QP: National security and painting a bridge
Despite it being Wednesday, the Prime Minister was absent from QP, meeting with Bill Gates instead. So when Thomas Mulcair led off asking about how much time the public safety committee would get to study C-51, Stephen Blaney responded by hoping they wouldn’t engage in any dilatory actions at said committee. Mulcair wondered if the PM was trying to hide the bill from scrutiny, to which Blaney accused Mulcair of attacking the credibility of CSIS. Mulcair then listed instances of where the RCMP were in the wrong when he meant to give examples of where CSIS broke the law, before asking about the right of dissent in the bill. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of a Quebec City rail bridge, at which point Lisa Raitt reminded him of CN Rail’s responsibilities. Mulcair then moved onto the topic of a funding cut at Marine Atlantic, to which Raitt pointed out that they were returning to their base level of funding after years of increases for revitalisation. Justin Trudeau was up next, asking what the government intended to do on the doctor-assisted dying issue, to which Robert Goguen moaned about how emotional of an issue it was. Trudeau then moved onto the issue of Keystone XL, and if the PM would put a price on carbon to convince the Americans that we are serious about the climate issue. Greg Rickford gave a couple of non sequiturs to slam Trudeau, and insisted it was not an international issue but a domestic American one. Trudeau called it a diplomatic failure, to which Rickford listed off the size of our energy trade.
QP: Engaging at all levels
Tuesday in the Commons, and all of the leaders were present. Apparently Mondays don’t count. Thomas Mulcair led off asking about Mohamed Fahmy and demanded that the Prime Minister contact the Egyptian President directly. Stephen Harper responded by saying that they have raised it at all levels, including his own, and that they would continue to press the case. Mulcair said that it wasn’t a clear answer, and asked it again. Harper repeated the substance of his answer, and and dead his disappointment in the lack of progress. Mulcair moved onto C-51, to which Harper dismissed the criticisms as “ridiculous.” Mulcair then asked if Harper felt that SIRC was adequate oversight when even SIRC’s members indicated otherwise. Harper expressed dismay that Mulcair compared Canada’s human rights record to Egypt’s, and read a passage about judicial authorization — nothing to do with the question. Mulcair then changed topics to ask about a backbencher’s musing about using the Notwithstanding Clause on the doctor-assisted dying issue. Harper said he respects the decision of the courts, and was listening to Canadians. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and wondered if they would support their supply day motion on creating a special committee to study the issue. Harper said that it was a delicate issue and threw it to the Commons justice committee to study it if they wish. Trudeau noted the time crunch, to which Harper repeated that it was a non-partisan issue and repeated his previous answer. Trudeau noted that Harper hadn’t actually answered on the Notwithstanding Clause question, and asked again — not that he got a different answer.
Roundup: About those federal minimum wage claims
I got a householder from my MP, Paul Dewar, the other day, and the figure he cited on it bothered me – that raising minimum wage for federally-regulated workers would benefit “tens of thousands.”
We fact-checked this right? There aren't tens of thousands of federally regulated workers making min wage. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/oODcbmGfMw
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) February 20, 2015
I remember this being fact-checked when the NDP first announced this policy, and shortly after I tweeted the photo of the mailer, one of my followers found the reference – that there are currently 416 federally-regulated workers earning minimum wage.
https://twitter.com/debalap/status/568907831178600448
And let’s also be clear – federally-regulated workers are paid the prevailing provincial minimum wage, which keeps them in line with their local counterparts, and is in line with other jurisprudence regarding federally-regulated workplaces and provincial workers compensation regimes – jurisprudence that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level. It was later pointed out to me that the number of federally-regulated workers who earn between the local minimum wage and $15 may indeed be in the thousands.
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568985974824267776
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986289363484673
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986575398252545
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568986883247640576
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987594337296384
https://twitter.com/kaylehatt/status/568987927687995392
Fair enough. It may well be that the intent of the NDP policy is to encourage the provinces to raise their own provincial minimum wage rates, but no province with an NDP government has bothered to make such a move, so that may be a telling sign. The bigger issue, however, is that this $15/hour minimum wage issue is a gimmicky policy that will actually do nothing to raise anyone out of poverty, and in fact seems to be yet another case of a political party lifting talking points from American sources without bothering to check the Canadian data or context, and if you talk to any credible Canadian economist, they will tell you that you may as well advocate raising the minimum wage to $20 even $20,000/hour, because raising the minimum wage is terrible policy for poverty reduction. What does work, however, are cash transfers to the poor by means of things like the GST rebate mechanisms that are already in place. But it’s populist to say that people “deserve a raise,” even if it’s terrible policy, and it deserves to be pointed out. Context is as important to journalism as repeating facts in isolation.