Tag Archives: CSIS

Roundup: Coronation details at last

Posted on by

At long last, the federal government finally announced the delegation that is heading to the coronation in London, and much of it is unsurprising given that, for example, Indigenous leaders are already there along with Mary May Simon. News is that astronaut Jeremy Hanson will be Canada’s flag-bearer at the ceremony, and that there will be coronation medals created, which they didn’t do for the sesquicentennial or the Platinum Jubilee.

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail has another particularly problematic story headline, wherein they cite the Governor General saying that King Charles “has work to do to cultivate ties with Canada.” The problem is that the story doesn’t actually say that—in the story, Mary May Simon says that because Charles isn’t as beloved as his mother, he “needs to develop his relationship further with Canada.” Which is true, but therein lies a couple of challenges. For one, he has plenty of ties to Canada that the headline incorrectly cites, and through his charity work over decades, he’s had exposure to a wide swath of the country that will be less accessible to him now that he’s King. In fact, not that he’s the King and not just a working member of the royal family, future trips to Canada will be much more circumscribed by what the government allows, because these kinds of visits are all at the behest and stage-managed by the government of the day. Charles has wanted to do more trips to Canada, trying to do one every two years, but the current government has been less interested in that, so he hasn’t been here as much as he would have liked. And that reluctance is going to play out in the future.

In other coronation-related stories:

  • Following midnight rehearsals, RCMP participating in the coronation say they’re good to go on the big day.
  • Here’s some of the history of the items being used during the ceremony.
  • There’s still no word about what our government is planning to do about the King on banknotes and coins, while other Realms go in different directions.
  • Australian constitutional scholar Anne Twomey offers some history and context on the coronation as it applies to realms like Australia and Canada.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces shelled Kherson, killing twenty-one civilians, and injuring over forty-eight. Russians claim they “foiled” an “assassination attempt” on Putin with an alleged drone attack on the Kremlin, which Ukraine denies launching. Experts also conclude that the Russian claim doesn’t make any sense.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1653824270626070540?s=61&t=4Hh5vgfw5YMHmDbMU3ctNg

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1653709872771260419?s=61&t=4Hh5vgfw5YMHmDbMU3ctNg

Continue reading →

QP: Belligerent framing around incompetence or dishonesty

Posted on by

While both the prime minister and his deputy were in town, neither were present for QP today—very unusually for a Wednesday, where Trudeau normally is present and takes all questions if he’s in town. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and said that two years ago, CSIS prepared the briefing about threats to Michael Chong, but the prime minister said he wasn’t made aware, though a former head of CSIS said that it should have been, and wondered how the prime minister couldn’t have known. Marco Mendicino said that Poilievre knows full well that the government takes threats to MPs seriously, and that they offered a briefing when they were made aware. Poilievre said that it was impossible to believe that the PM wouldn’t have received this kind of information, and said that he either didn’t know and is incompetent, or he did and is dishonest. Mendicino insisted that the government has been taking the protection of MPs seriously. Poilievre switched to English and tried calling Mendicino incompetent—and got a warning from the Speaker—and railed that Trudeau didn’t answer when Trudeau wasn’t there (but that’s the point—to get a clip for a future shitpost). Mendicino responded that partisan rhetoric doesn’t help Chong. Poilievre repeated his insistence that Trudeau must be either incompetent in not knowing about the allegations or dishonest in saying he didn’t, to which Mendicino repeated that Chong was briefed, and that they have issued fresh instructions to CSIS about this matter. Poilievre then railed that the diplomat named by the Globe and Mail story had not yet been expelled, and Mendicino accused Poilievre of making up laws around diplomatic immunity while the government has provided new powers to intelligence agencies to disrupt interference, before patting himself on the back for the creation of NSICOP and NSIRA.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and accused the prime minister of maligning CSIS, and trie to ask whether more people knew of these allegations including Morris Rosenberg and David Johnston. Mendicino recited the pabulum about how anointing Johnston was necessary for fighting foreign interference. Blanchet went on a wandering path about the prime minister’s brother and it somehow disqualifying him from appointing a public inquiry. Mark Holland insisted that the Foundation is independent and gives scholarships, and any questions should be directed to them.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, asked when he knew about the threats against Chong. Mendicino recited that they rely on independent civil servants and have taken measures. Singh switched to English and insisted that wasn’t really his question, and said that he wrote a letter to the prime minister about calling party leaders together in order to discuss the challenge. Mendicino said that the threat landscape has changed and they are taking steps to deal with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: You can’t replace committee travel with Zoom

Posted on by

Another day, another story where I roll my eyes and sigh because nobody can seem to grasp some pretty fundamental points. To wit: Scandal and pearl-clutching because the Senate’s audit committee is planning a trip to Westminster to consult with their counterparts there. Someone fetch a fainting couch for all of the zeros attached to the costs of the trip! And of course, we couldn’t have cheap outrage without getting a quote from the so-called Canadian Taxpayers Federation, whose continued existence depends on being the go-to source for media when they need a cheap outrage quote.

Some context to this story—the Senate’s audit committee has been a long and hard-fought battle to come into existence because the previous Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, was trying to steer the nascent committee in a direction that would see it be completely staffed by outsiders, which is a particular affront to Parliamentary privilege and the status of the Senate as a self-governing body in and of itself. Eventually the current composition—a mix of senators and outsider, with senators in the majority—was adopted, years after it should have been, and very much in the model that the House of Lords employs. (Note that this model had first been championed by the late Senator Elaine McCoy, and we could have saved years of fighting had people just listened to her). And because this has to do with a parliamentary body, you can’t just get advice from any audit firm in Canada, as the CTF seems to think—you need best practices from those who have dealt with the particular issues that a parliamentary body has. Of course, none of this context is in the story, because nobody pays attention to the Senate unless it’s for a cheap outrage story like this one. Of course.

Meanwhile, the most galling part of the piece is the suggestion that all of this should be done over Zoom, both out of a concern for cost and carbon emissions. And honestly, this type of suggestion needs to have a stake driven through it. This kind of work relies on human interaction, and relationship-building, and that doesn’t happen and cannot happen over Zoom. This is one of the biggest problems with hybrid sittings (which, mercifully, the Senate has ended), but which MPs refuse to believe, and apparently a few senators do too—parliament is a face-to-face institution. It cannot effectively operate remotely. The pandemic was a short-term (ish) problem that required a solution, and while this was not the best one, it was a solution that nevertheless has emboldened people to think that Parliament is a job you can do from home. It’s absolutely not, and this kind of committee travel is no exception. You cannot replace the kinds of interactions that make this travel essential over Zoom, and we need to stop thinking of Zoom as the solution to problems that aren’t actually problems.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched another overnight round of attacks on Kyiv, this time with drones, but all were shot down. The commander of Ukraine’s ground forces says it’s important that they maintain their hold on Bakhmut in advance of the counter-offensive (not the least of which because it’s degrading Russia’s forces significantly). The EU is hoping to increase production of ammunition in order to help Ukraine’s efforts. And here is one Ukrainian farmer’s novel way of de-mining his fields using parts from old Russian tanks.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1653390767329558530

https://twitter.com/war_mapper/status/1653169425749508100

Continue reading →

Roundup: The campaign leaders testify

Posted on by

Yesterday was the big day when top campaign officials from the Liberals and Conservatives appeared at the Procedure and House Affairs committee to talk about foreign interference allegations in the previous two elections, and we learned a couple of things. One of which is that Fred DeLorey, the Conservative campaign director, is eminently reasonable and acknowledges they don’t know if there was any actual interference in those ridings they lost, or if it was the result of other factors, like their hard-line rhetoric on China, or gun-control measures (as the Liberal campaign insists). Another thing we learned is that the reporting on the CSIS “warnings” about MP Han Dong were not described accurately, and that they didn’t insist the party drop him as a candidate—which never did make sense if you listened to the actual intelligence experts who said at the time that that didn’t sound right.

There was also talk about how it takes an incredibly high threshold for a party to be able to drop a candidate, so if intelligence agencies had concerns, they would need to come up with something pretty tangible for the parties to exercise that kind of power (and don’t forget that their spending caps are determined by how many candidates they’re running, so if they need to drop one after the cut-off point to replace a name on the ballot, that creates even more headaches). There was also talk about how there needs to be more ongoing dialogue between national security agencies and parties, particularly between election cycles, because these agencies didn’t seem to understand how parties operated, which makes it hard for them to be making determinations about how any interference might be happening (and again, considering that the reported leaks had a bunch of details that didn’t make any sense, this could be the reason why).

Suffice to say, these were the people who should have been testifying the whole time rather than the dog and pony show we had with Katie Telford, which was just a waste of time and resources.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck a museum in Kupiansk, in the Kharkiv region, killing one civilian and wounding ten others. As well, a woman died from shelling in nearby Dvorichna, and two others in the eastern Donetsk region. Elsewhere, Ukrainian forces staged raids on the east side of the Dnipro river in order to degrade Russian capacity, particularly in their shelling of Kherson, in a sign that the counter-offensive is near. Ukraine is planning on a “complete transformation” of six war-torn cities that were badly damaged in the invasion, to be rebuilt under an experimental programme according to “new principles.”

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1650769182286331905

Continue reading →

Roundup: Continuing the budget reactions

Posted on by

Now that the budget is out, and people have had a little more time to digest it, more reactions are pouring in. Without further ado, let’s review some of them:

  • AFN national chief RoseAnne Archibald says the budget failed to make progress on a new “economic deal” with First Nations.
  • The aviation industry has some mixed feelings about the measures to address delays.
  • Veterans groups are afraid that they may face possible cuts, because the budget was vague on commitments to their needs.
  • Public sector unions welcome the cap on outsourcing, but are worried about coming cuts as part of the programme review.
  • Humanitarian groups are decrying the $1.3 billion cut to foreign aid in the budget, which is moving further away from our goals.
  • The proposed mortgage code of conduct is welcomed, but there is almost nothing else in the budget around the housing crisis.
  • Here is how the alcohol industry says they got the government to back down on the planned escalator tax.
  • There are hints as to how the assault-style weapon buyback will be handled.
  • Quebec already wants to opt-out of the not-yet created federal dental care programme (with full compensation, of course).

Meanwhile, the debt bomb “it’s 1995 and will always be 1995” crowd is lighting their hair over the deficit, even though it’s really not that big, and it’s not 1995.

https://twitter.com/BrettEHouse/status/1641196835468374017

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are saying that Russians have had some limited success in Bakhmut in recent days, while there are concerns that Russians have been significantly increasing the number of troops around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which they are occupying. Here is a look at how president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been travelling across the country recently. Zelenskyy says he has invited Xi Jinping to Ukraine, since China wants to play a role in peace talks, but he hasn’t heard back.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1641149869975797774

Continue reading →

QP: Harvesting clips demanding no new taxes

Posted on by

In between Biden’s visit and tomorrow’s budget, the prime minister was present for a somewhat rare Monday appearance, not not every other leader was. Pierre Poilievre led of in French, and he decried a supposed “war on work” that punishes people with taxes, which is a risible talking point. Justin Trudeau had a script in front of him as he noted how many hundreds of thousand of children they lifted out of poverty thanks to the Child Benefit, plus their child care and dental care programmes that the Conservatives voted against. Poilievre repeated it in English, and got largely the same response from Trudeau, this time without script, and with added mentions of clean energy jobs and the Canada Worker Benefit. Poilievre insisted that the  government was constantly raising taxes—factually wrong—and demanded no new taxes in the new budget. Trudeau pointed out they lowered small business taxes and created more supports for workers and families that delivered growth, taking a shot at trickle down economics. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was the only one believing in trickle down as he scoops up all the money, insisted that he was right about deficits causing inflation (he’s not), and again demanded no new taxes. Trudeau insisted that they were “laser-focused” on growing the economy for Canadians. Poilievre segued this to doubling housing prices and demanded “serious penalties” in the budget for “gatekeepers,” to which Trudeau recited housing measures the government was taking.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry for allegations of foreign interference. Trudeau, with a script, read that they have tasked the “unimpeachable” David Johnston with determining next steps while NSICOP and NSIRA conducted their own investigations. Therrien then took swipes at Jean Chrétien’s comments that he wasn’t concerned about the problem, and Trudeau insisted that this was the Bloc trying to make partisan attacks over a serious issue.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he cited a CBC article that says that millennials are at higher rates of insolvency and demanded measures to help youth in the budget. Trudeau, again with a script, listed measures they are taking for housing. Singh switched to French to ask if the government was putting a “grocery rebate” in the budget as reported, and Trudeau told him to wait for tomorrow like everyone else.

Continue reading →

Roundup: We all got played on the Telford gambit

Posted on by

Yesterday morning, we saw an exhausting series of manoeuvres that made the Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives all pretend like they were playing 3D chess against one another, but it was none of that. First thing was that the Liberals released the final mandate of David Johnston in his role as special rapporteur on the allegations, and he has until May 23rdto make a recommendation around a public inquiry, and until October 31st for his final report (but I see the possibility for shenanigans if the recommendation for a public inquiry won’t actually be acted upon until the final report so that it can be fully informed, etc.) And if there is a recommendation for a public inquiry, Sikh organisations in this country want India to be included in any examination of foreign interference

In the meantime, Justin Trudeau said that no, the vote on the motion to send Katie Telford to committee wasn’t going to be a confidence measure (because frankly that would be stupid), and that they had decided to send Telford to the Procedure and House Affairs committee after weeks of filibustering to prevent it, just as Singh was announcing he would support the Conservative motion to bypass the filibuster by instructing the Ethics committee hear her testimony instead (which the Conservatives chair). This just blew up three weeks of trying to trying to prevent her from appearing under the principle of ministerial responsibility and not calling staffers to committee, because they didn’t have an end game for the filibuster, and we’re just going to throw centuries of Westminster parliamentary principles on the fire for the sake of scoring points—and that’s what this all is about. Scoring points, as the Liberals also used this as a test of their agreement with the NDP, which shook it.

And while all of this was taking place, Mark Holland got up in the House of Commons to apologise for misspeaking yesterday in saying that Pierre Poilievre was offered a briefing and declined it, but his confusion was that Poilievre had publicly stated he would refuse such a briefing on classified information. (Are you following?)

So while Jagmeet Singh spent the day insisting that he was the one who ended the filibuster (he wasn’t), the NDP their own procedural game they were trying to play, which was to force a concurrence debate and vote on the PROC report recommending a public inquiry into these interference allegations, but the Conservatives beat him to the punch and called for a concurrence debate on a different committee report, which just points out how nobody is actually taking this issue seriously. It’s a pissing contest and point-scoring. And at the end of this, the NDP voted against the Conservative Supply Day motion to send Telford to the Ethics committee, because it was now a moot point.

And in the end? We’ve torched more parliamentary principles and weakened our parliamentary system further, and Trudeau has spilled more blood in the water, which is only going to make things even worse because there is now a frenzy around him. The Conservatives and their bad faith politics have played all of us in this whole affair because this was never about Telford and her testimony, but merely trying to set a trap so they could claim a cover-up, and the Liberals walked right into it and flailed for weeks. We’ve set more bad precedents, and democracy is worse off than it was before, because everyone needed to score points instead of being adults over this whole situation. Everyone keeps making it worse, because they can’t help themselves. What a way to run a country.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Japan’s prime minister made an unannounced visit to Ukraine yesterday to meet with president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and to tour the massacre site at Bucha. Meanwhile, police in Avdiivka are trying to evacuate holdouts in the town, as Russian forces continue their attempts to encircle it.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1638100893856944128

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1638272233054392327

Continue reading →

QP: Fighting to take credit for the Telford decision

Posted on by

After a morning full of rapid-fire decisions around what was happening with Katie Telford heading to committee and David Johnston’s mandate being released, the prime minister was present, as were all other leaders. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, took credit for pressuring Trudeau to change his mind in letting Telford testify, and took a swipe at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry starting today. Justin Trudeau responded that this should’t be a partisan issue, which is why the appointed Johnston and were waiting for his recommendations. Poilievre switched to English to again take credit, and took several more swipes at Johnston before demanding a public inquiry right now. Trudeau repeated that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue which was why they appointed Johnston, and that they would abide by his recommendations while they moved forward on other measures. Poilievre then switched topics to inflation, blamed rising food prices on carbon prices (it’s not the cause) and demanded the planned increase be cancelled. Trudeau said that when he sat down with farmers, they underlined their real problems and leadership on climate change, before he listed climate rebates levels. Poilievre went on his usual talking points about carbon prices, and Trudeau listed how much the climate rebates were going up in Poilievre’s riding. Poilievre spouted some disingenuous bullshit about the ongoing heating costs at 24 Sussex and Trudeau’s flights, while Trudeau shrugged off the personal attack while patting himself on the back for dental care and rental benefits.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded a public inquiry be called right here and now. Trudeau insisted that appointing Johnston was the first step and that they would follow his recommendations. Blanchet was talked around the appointment of Johnston, before again demanding the inquiry. Trudeau read some praise for Johnston and insisted he rejected the attacks against Johnston.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too took credit for forcing the government to make Katie Telford appear at committee, and then tried calling out Poilievre for blocking their attempt to move a motion on calling a public inquiry. Poilievre theatrically got up to answer, before the Speaker stood up to remind everyone what Question Period was for, which is holding the government to account, and Trudeau took the opportunity to denounce personal attacks and praise Johnston. Singh said that his proves neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals wanted a public inquiry before he switched to French to demand said inquiry right here and now. Trudeau insisted that they appointed Johnston to who could make recommendations about next steps, while NSICOP was doing their work.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a confrontation for point-scoring alone

Posted on by

The whole sorry affair over summoning Katie Telford to testify at committee is coming to a head today with the vote on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to bypass PROC and have her testify at the Ethics Committee (where they hold the chair). And in the meantime, the Liberals are deciding if they want to make this a confidence vote, while the NDP are deciding if they are going to go along with the Conservatives on this, or back the Liberals—particularly if this does become a confidence measure.

It’s all really stupid. While I have a longer piece on the underlying parliamentary implications around forcing staffers to testify at committee coming out later today, we can’t lose sight of why this is happening. The Conservatives knew the government would balk at forcing a staffer to testify, so they would use the reluctance to push the line that they are hiding something, and if they’re fighting this hard “it must be really bad.” Which is bad faith bullshit, but that’s the name of their game, and true to form, the Liberals walked right into it, because they flailed over the leaks in the media, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. And the Conservatives get to jam the NDP in the process, and try to force a wedge between them and the government. None of this is about foreign interference or taking the issue seriously. This is entirely about the Conservatives smelling blood in the water and going on the attack so they can score as many points as possible, because nobody in this parliament is serious or a grown-up. This is all a gods damned game to them, and it’s destroying our Parliament in the process.

Do I think the Liberals will force a confidence vote? No, because as much as the principle of ministerial responsibility is of importance, they’re not going to risk bringing down the government over it—particularly to have an election over allegations of interference in elections without any chance to ensure there are proper safeguards before that election happens. Then again, miscalculations have happened in minority parliaments before, and sometimes games of chicken go wrong. But really, this is yet another instance of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And this really is the stupidest game.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces are warning that the town of Avdiivka could become a “second Bakhmut,” as they have held out against assault for eight months while avoiding being encircled, but Russians are trying to cut off their supply lines. Meanwhile, Ukraine sort of claimed responsibility for destroying a shipment of cruise missiles travelling by train through occupied Crimea. Elsewhere, here is a look at the de-mining work that needs to take place in places freed from occupation before they can complete critical infrastructure repairs.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1637881139355328523

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1637750630566486016

Continue reading →

Roundup: The leaker comes forward (sort of)

Posted on by

The big Friday bombshell from the Globe and Mail in their continued series of allegations of foreign interference was an op-ed from the primary leaker, who gave a self-serving justification for doing so, insisting that they were tired of the problem of foreign interference going ignored, and that they hoped to  ignite a conversation and that they didn’t intend for things to get this ugly. Erm, seriously? You leaked to Bob Fife, and you didn’t think he would torque the absolute life out of it? That seems dangerously naïve for an intelligence official. Even more to the point, their frustration with the pace of work is not justification for violating their oaths to secrecy (and comparing themselves to Jody Wilson-Raybould seems to be particularly ill-considered). There is an attitude of “I know best,” which former senior intelligence official Artur Wilczynski called “narcissistic,” and I did take that tone from the op-ed.

One of the things I’ve really come to recognise and have been building a series of columns around is that there is a pervasive normalcy bias in our governments at all levels. It’s why provincial governments inadvertently allowed their healthcare systems to collapse. It’s why we are now in a housing crisis nation-wide. It’s why our military was allowed to degrade, and it’s why successive governments of all stripes have not taken foreign interference seriously enough. We disbelieve and downplay threats and warnings because we’ve been sheltered for a century now under the wing of the Americans, and very little bad has happened to us in comparison to most other countries. We got lazy and complacent. That’s hard to shake, but I would say we’ve made more progress in the last five years than we have since the ned of the Cold War. And unfortunately, it’s probably going to take crises to shake us from our complacency (like what is happening in healthcare). Unfortunately, the crisis that this leaker precipitated has likely made the situation worse and not better because it’s now become a partisan battleground.

Speaking of partisan battlegrounds, yesterday we had the prime minister accusing Pierre Poilievre of “ginning up a partisan circus” and trying to take a flamethrower to our institutions in order to win power (not untrue), and Poilievre saying that the intelligence community is in full revolt because of Trudeau (and hey, it turns out it’s largely one narcissistic leaker). Trudeau also defended Johnston against the “horrific” partisan attacks, though Trudeau does deserve a measure of criticism for putting Johnston in this position. Johnston, incidentally, provided a statement saying he was working to finalise the details around his role and the mandate, so it looks like he is going ahead with it, concerns notwithstanding.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces continue to resist the Russians’ attempt to encircle Bakhmut. While this is happening, the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, for his war crimes but most especially for his programme of forcibly relocating Ukrainian children and working to re-educate them and place them with Russian families—a hallmark of a genocide. Meanwhile, Slovakia has now pledged their 13 MiG-29 fighters to Ukraine after Poland got the ball rolling.

Continue reading →