Tag Archives: Cyber-security

Senate QP: Questions about NATO math

Posted on by

I haven’t been able to attend Senate Question Period in years as the move to a separate building, and a shift of their usual timing to coincide with Commons QP have kept me away, as has the fact that they pretty much always rise at the same time as the Commons, which never used to be the practice, and for which I write a peevish column at the start of every summer. This year, however, they are sitting later to pass Bill C-5, so I am actually able to take it in. It’s been a long time since I’ve been here.

Taking in #SenQP for the first time in *years*.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-25T18:04:29.258Z

After statements and routine proceedings, things got underway in earnest as  Senator Housakos led off, and he raised the PBO saying that he has received little information on the NATO two percent announcement, and that they have now agreed to the five percent goal at this week’s summit, And wondered how they could take this credibly. Senator Gold lamented that there was underfunding over decades, and that this was because of a changing world, but also noted that only 3.5 percent of that was over a decade, while the other 1.5 percent was for other things. Housakos again questioned the credibility of the numbers, and Gold returned to the boilerplate assurances they are doing what they can, but also noted that DND hasn’t been able to spend their current allocations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: King home on Canadian soil

Posted on by

Following the Speaker’s election in the morning, the King and Queen of Canada arrived home on Canadian soil, to begin their all-too-brief visit. Stops were made at Lansdowne Park, both for a walkabout and for the King to meet local producers at the farmer’s market, being as this is one of his interests, and from there, they headed to Rideau Hall for a tree-planting, followed by audiences with the Governor General, the prime minister, leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council, as well as provincial lieutenant-governors and territorial commissioners. And then an early night, as the royal couple try to remain on UK time. (Write-ups from The Canadian Press, the CBC, the Star, and the Ottawa Citizen, with a few photos here).

Home on Canadian soil. #MapleCrown

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T17:37:48.786Z

The Sovereign’s Flag for Canada flying over Rideau Hall, denoting that King Charles III is in residence

— Patricia Treble (@patriciatreble.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T23:23:58.610Z

Today will make the first official use of the modified Canadian Royal Standard of the sovereign. It was changed following the death of EIIR and will remain the same for each future reign. It is an expression of Canadian sovereignty and is drawn from the Arms of Canada.

— (@rberthelsen.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T11:30:03.223Z

I have to say that there was a pretty big reception at every event—the airport at the arrival, at Lansdowne Park, and at Rideau Hall, and while the weather (mostly) cooperated, I do think that there is always an outpouring of affection at these events that takes some people by surprise, because we spend the week ahead of the event running stories about how “indifferent” everyone is to the monarchy, or interview the usual suspects (republicans, separatists, people who can’t read their bloody history or civics textbooks and know what a constitutional monarch actually is), and paint a dour picture and lo, the people turn out and are enthusiastic, even though we were constantly told that people weren’t going to warm up to Charles, or that he wasn’t going to live up to his mother. We’re not seeing that, which is nice to see for a change.

https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1927145761646485658

This all being said, there was one bit of a hiccough, where Rideau Hall put out a tweet that talked about the “meaningful bond between our nations,” with emojis for the Union Jack and the Canadian Flag, after Mary Simon earlier put out a statement welcoming the King of Canada home. I have my suspicions that her social media team are, well, the b-team after Julie Payette chased the good staff out of Rideau Hall, but some on, guys. Your moment to showcase the King of Canada is here, and you treat him like a foreign curiosity? For. Fuck. Sakes. (Yes, Rideau Hall deleted the tweet and sent out a revised one a short while later, but come on!).

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-26T21:54:54.426Z

Ukraine Dispatch

There were more Russian attacks against Kyiv and other targets, with injuries reported in Odesa. The governor of Sumy region says that four more settlements have been captured by Russian force.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another month of reprieve—maybe

Posted on by

Less than a week into the trade war, and the Americans have somewhat recanted? But only somewhat. Yesterday they decided to suspend the tariffs on New NAFTA “compliant” exports from Canada until April 2nd, but no one is quite sure what that means. Nevertheless, the Canadian government is still maintaining its first tranche of retaliatory tariffs, and will not remove them until the threat is gone, but they are holding back the second tranche of retaliatory actions until April 2nd, or until Trump abandons his tariff nonsense (which could be never).

We also got word about the call that Trudeau had will Trump earlier in the week, and how heated it got, particularly on the question of dairy imports to Canada, where Trump got profane. More telling was the fentanyl question, where Trudeau pointed out the low seizures (and remember that 43 pounds seized last year was not actually all coming across the border, but apprehended within a certain radius of said border), to which Trump is apparently using a secret metric regarding progress on stopping it—proving yet again that this isn’t actually about fentanyl, and that it remains a legal fiction for Trump to abuse his authority. Also, when asked about Mélanie Joly terming the current state of affairs a “psychodrama,” Trudeau responded that he calls it “Thursday.” So, there’s that. And Trump is now posting on his socials that Trudeau is trying to use the tariffs to stay in power, which is again just him pulling it out of his ass, and MAGA-types in this country are already saying “See! That’s what I’m afraid of!” *sighs, pinches bridge of nose*

Reporter: "Your Foreign Affairs Minister [Melanie Joly] yesterday called all of this a psychodrama. How do you how do you characterize it?"Trudeau: "Thursday."#cdnpoli

— davidakin (@davidakin.bsky.social) 2025-03-06T15:21:57.509Z

Meanwhile, Doug Ford declared that he’s going to impose a 25 percent tariff on electricity exports to three American states as of Monday—but I’m not sure that he can actually do that, because trade and commerce powers are federal jurisdiction. Imposing tariffs is federal. Electricity exports are federally regulated by the Canadian Energy Regulator. But people are also insisting that Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator, which is a government-created entity, can apply a surcharge, which again raises questions about how this doesn’t run afoul of federal trade and commerce powers. And this is Ford we’re talking about, who always talks a big game and very rarely does he actually back it up with anything. I would remain incredibly skeptical of the whole thing.

He does, in fact, have that power: the IESO (which manages electricity sales to other jurisdictions) is wholly-owned by the Ontario government and answers to cabinet directives, in this case including a 25% surcharge to the two US grids in question.

— John Michael McGrath (@jm-mcgrath.bsky.social) 2025-03-06T20:03:28.613Z

I mean, who starts a trade war?

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-03-07T01:35:08.662Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched another mass drone attack on Odesa, damaging energy infrastructure. Russia claims to have captured another village in eastern Ukraine, Andriivka, but there is no confirmation. While Trump’s lackies are holding meetings with opposition politicians in Ukraine, opposition leader Petro Poroshenko says he’s opposed to a wartime election. Trump is also talking about revoking the temporary protected status for some 240,000 Ukrainians in the US, and could start deporting them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leadership hopefuls straying into provincial territory

Posted on by

It’s practically an iron law of Canadian politics that the longer a federal leadership contest runs, the more likely they are to start dipping into areas of provincial jurisdiction. With the NDP, well, that’s a given because they refuse to understand the very notion that federalism exists and you can’t just wave away jurisdictional boundaries with “political willpower” (aka Green Lantern Theory), but the Liberals are all pretty much at it right now with their various campaigns.

Chrystia Freeland proposed a plan to give incentives for Canadian-trained doctors and nurses to come home, with a big bonus and a promise to get credential recognition “within 30 days.” I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to work because the federal government doesn’t pay doctors and nurses (except in cases where they are working with Indigenous Services for First Nations and Inuit facilities), and credentials recognition is run by provincial professional colleges, where the federal government has no particular sway, so I’m not sure how she plans to make that happen. As well, most provinces have not done the necessary things to attract and retain doctors and nurses, such as properly increasing their compensation, or reforming how they bill the system, so it’s hard to see how the incentives are in place for them to be tempted by her one-time bonus.

Mark Carney wants to incentivise prefabricated and modular homes…but won’t give any details on how, that would happen. And yes, housing is primarily a provincial responsibility, so again, I’m not sure just what mechanism he wants to use for said promotion.

Karina Gould proposed both reforms to EI, which her government has been sitting on for years (and yes, I know people who were working on said project years ago), and also promised to a “path” toward basic income, which is hugely problematic at the federal level because most social services are delivered by the provinces, and it’s incredibly complex to try and figure out the various supports at different levels. The BC government had an expert panel report on how to make it happen, and their ultimate recommendation was not to proceed with a basic income, but to enhance existing supports because often they are better targeted for people with complex needs. Gould seems to have ignored this research, and even more disappointing was that the CP story about Gould’s proposal talked about the NDP private members’ bill and the Senate public bill which called for a “framework” for basic income, but those bills couldn’t actually make it happen. They were empty because those kinds of bills can’t spend money, and would simply have been moral suasion. Unfortunately, progressives have consistently ignored the research on basic incomes, because it’s a solution in search of problems that they are desperate to try, and if Gould wants “evidence-based” policy, this is not it.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians launched 140 drones against Ukraine overnight Wednesday, and strikes damaged port facilities in Izmail, while two of the drones landed in neighbouring Moldova. Ukrainian drones hit Russia’s Andreapol oil pumping station, starting a fire. President Zelenskyy appeared to have visited near the front lines at Pokrovsk, praising the good work of the soldiers there. Zelenskyy also said that he would not accept any bilateral “peace deal” that the US reaches with Russia in which Ukraine is not a participant.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1890070620504985845

A reminder: Vladimir Putin could end the war in Ukraine right now, just by ordering his soldiers to go home. No need for treaties or negotiations.

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.bsky.social) 2025-02-13T12:17:35.210Z

Continue reading →

Roundup: Unilateral Arctic plans and foreign aid churlishness

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a press conference from Iqaluit, yesterday, where he announced his Arctic policy ideas, which include finally building an air force base in the region, doubling the number of Canadian Rangers, and building two more heavy icebreakers, but for the Royal Canadian Navy and not the Coast Guard. Oh, and that he was going to pay for it all by gutting foreign aid. Set aside the fact that the plans for an Arctic base have long been in the works with slow progress, but does the Navy even want icebreaker capability? They didn’t want the slushbreakers—sorry, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships that the Harper government decided they needed, and here is another Conservative who wants to impose capabilities that they have not asked for, because reasons. Nevertheless, this whole thing set off the premier of Nunavut, who noted there was zero consultation on these policies, and pointed to actual sovereignty-affirming things that governments should be doing for the north that aren’t this kind of performative flexing.

As for Poilievre’s disdain for foreign aid, it’s one-part monkey-see-monkey-do with MAGA and Elon Musk dismantling USAID, but it’s juvenile, provincial, and ignores that foreign aid is soft power that also does thinks like not let Russia and China swoop in and start winning hearts and minds in those countries, which is what Trump opened the door to, and which Poilievre seems keen to follow, justified by a number of lies about the recipients of that aid based on the fact that UNRWA may have had a handful of compromised employees. He doesn’t care about the realities of this aid spending and the projection of soft power, because those recipients can’t vote for him, and he’s playing into tired populist tropes about “taking care of people at home,” even though they actually don’t care about vulnerable people at home, and just want a tax cut instead of actually helping anyone. And again, Poilievre doesn’t care.

If anything, Canada should actually be living up to its previous pledges about increased funding for foreign assistance, particularly because the dismantling of USAID is going to affect programmes that Canada was partnering with them on, and they provided much of the “thought leadership” in the space. Children are going to die of malnutrition, and preventable illness, HIV infections are going to skyrocket, and again, Poilievre doesn’t care because those people can’t vote for him. What a bleak, cursèd timeline we live in right now.

Ukraine Dispatch

A Ukrainian drone attack damaged an industrial facility—possibly an oil refinery—in Russia’s Saratov region. The US’ “freeze” of aid money means that organisations helping investigate Russian war crimes can’t pay staff or continue their work—Trump and Musk just doing Putin’s bidding.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1888916130254725208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Parsing the dinner at Mar-a-Lago

Posted on by

So much of the weekend was spent parsing what happened at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, particularly given that Justin Trudeau didn’t put out an official readout of the meeting (probably because Trump is not officially in government yet), while Trump posted about it on his social media where he called it “productive.” The takeaways appear to be that the tariffs threats cannot be avoided immediately, because Trump believes in them and wants to use them to balance the budget (good luck with that), but that we may be able to carve out exceptions. There was also talk about the border and fentanyl, according to Dominic LeBlanc, and talk about more drones and helicopters to patrol the border (but who knows where the helicopters and personnel will come from—we are not flush with excess capacity).

None of this was good enough for Pierre Poilievre, who took to the microphones on Sunday to claim that Trudeau went in a “position of weakness” (because that’s Poilievre’s go-to line these days), and lamented that Trudeau came home “empty-handed,” as though these things are done in a day, particularly with a mercurial chaos agent like Trump. Poilievre also says he wants a cap on asylum seekers, because he claims there are too many bad actors, and said he would allow a reprieve in the ongoing filibuster if there is a border plan that meets his approval on the table. But when asked what he would do different, Poilievre says he’s not the prime minister, and walked away. So…that happened.

In a fight between Canada and the US, with the incoming US President engaged in disinformation about the Canadian border, Pierre Poilievre sides with the US.

— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) 2024-12-01T19:19:43.012Z

Meanwhile, Doug Ford insists that the premiers are “unanimous” that they want us to accelerate defence spending to reach our NATO target sooner than later. No word yet on what fiscal demands they will give up from the federal government to reach that spending target faster (because the money has to come from somewhere).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian drone hit a residential building in Ternopil overnight, killing one and injuring several others. Drones also targeted Kyiv the night previous, and killed three in a strike on Kherson. Russians claim to have overtaken the settlements of Illinka and Petrivka in Donetsk region. Ukraine says it will increase the use of unmanned ground vehicles over the coming year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PBO’s new NATO numbers

Posted on by

The PBO is at it again, and he released a report yesterday on his particular calculations about how Canada could get to our stated NATO goals of 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33, and that we would need to double defence spending to get there, and what that looks like if the government remains committed to its deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio targets. Fair enough, but there are a number of capital commitments in the works that include new submarines, and one has a pretty good bet that these costs will only increase as time goes by, for what it’s worth.

While this is all well and good, there was some particular language in the report that should raise some eyebrows, because Yves Giroux is talking about how other economic forecasts are “erroneous” and he is insisting therefore that his aren’t, which is…a choice. In his previous report on defence spending, Giroux went on a whole tangent about how the OECD figures used as the baseline weren’t correct and his numbers were, but NATO uses those OECD figures for their purposes, not the PBO’s. For the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison, you would think that he would use the same denominator as NATO does, but of course not. Giroux has a particular sense of hubris around his figures, and we all know what happened when he got them wrong with his first report on the carbon levy and then he tried to prevaricate and rationalize them away, and insisted there wouldn’t be any real changes when lo, there were some pretty significant ones.

While we’re on the topic, the 2 percent figure remains a bad one because the denominator—Canada’s GDP is much larger than many NATO members’, making that figure incredibly hard to reach, particularly as the economy grows, and the fact that any country could exceed that target if their economy crashed. Not saying we don’t need to spend more, because we do (and I would not expect the Conservatives to meet the target either as they pledge to cut significantly should they form government next), but we also need to keep some perspective.

Ukraine Dispatch

Ukrainian forces shot down 33 out of 62 drones plus one missile overnight, which killed at least four in various regions of the country, while Russia claims they downed 25 Ukrainian drones, as North Korea’s foreign minister travelled to Moscow. Last evening, a guided bombs struck a high rise in Kharkiv, killing a child. Russians claim to have taken the village of Kruhliakivka in the Kharkiv region.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1851612628021318115

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Bloc vs the Senate

Posted on by

The Bloc Québécois are getting a taste of what the Senate does and why, and they’re not happy. The Senate has been slow-walking Bill C-282, which aims to forbid a government from negotiating any further reductions to Supply Management in trade negotiations, and it’s a bad bill. Nevertheless, it passed the House of Commons, because MPs are sometimes sentimental fools and will vote for things that they think are feel-good without actually thinking through the consequences. This was one such bill, where MPs voted on it nearly unanimously because they fell all over themselves to show how much they all loved Supply Management, neverminded that it’s a bad bill. Now that it’s in the Senate, with some actually knowledgeable former senior civil servants in the Chamber who know what they’re talking about have the bill in their hands, and they’re not giving it an easy ride.

The essential complaint is that the bill constrains the royal prerogative around trade negotiations, which could have serious consequences down the road. I’m not sure it’s quite as serious as that—you can’t really bind future governments and this bill, should it pass, could be easily repealed (say, in the next budget implementation bill), but there won’t be an easy passage on this, and for good reason. The Senate exists to put a check on the populist excesses of the House of Commons, which is why they have an absolute veto (only exercised in extreme circumstances, mind you), and who can say “Hey, you guys didn’t do your due diligence, so now we’re going to.” It is their raison d’être, whether MPs like it or not, and it’s especially important for private members’ bill because they are pre-time allocated under the rules and get very little scrutiny, even when they really need it.

The Bloc, however, are trying blackmail. In Question Period yesterday, they were demanding that the government tell senators to pass the bill, or they’ll topple the government. But the government can’t tell the Senate what to do, and as I mentioned in a previous post, there is no mechanism by which the Government Leader in the Senate could fast-track such a bill, even if they wanted to, because it’s a private member’s bill. Furthermore, with a Chamber of mostly-independent senators who have a job until age 75, they are not bothered if the government falls. The blackmail doesn’t really work on them because their seats aren’t in jeopardy, and I’m not sure what the Bloc thinks they’re doing, particularly in trying to blackmail the government into passing this bill as well as their OAS bill (which remains unvoteable as they are unlikely to get a royal recommendation). In either case, they are learning the hard way that the Senate is not a rubber stamp and they can’t expect to order it around as though it were.

Ukraine Dispatch

Three people were killed in a Russian missile attack on the central city of Kryvyi Riv, and another three were killed in a drone attack on the southern city of Izmail. Nine children taken to Russia during the invasion have now been returned to their families in Ukraine thanks to help from Qatar.

Continue reading →

Roundup: First day back, and privilege is being abused

Posted on by

As you may have read in the QP recap, the first day back was full of general name-calling and childish behaviour. Before QP even got started, Karina Gould called Pierre Poilievre a “fraudster” for his whole “economic nuclear winter” bullshit, while Elizabeth May referred to the NDP as “No Discernible Principles,” and added “It’s fine for Jagmeet Singh to say that he doesn’t listen to Pierre Poilievre, but Pierre Poilievre’s words come out of Jagmeet Singh’s mouth.” Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet said the situation was akin to playing chicken with four cars, and suspected that an election may wind up happening sooner than later. That said, the Bloc said they won’t vote for any confidence motion that calls for the destruction of the carbon levy, so that’s something.

The bigger issue that has been revived, however, is the demand that the opposition parties voted for regarding documents related to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC), which the Conservatives deride as the “green slush fund” (when it was their government that set it up). The demand for these documents is an absolute abuse of parliamentary privilege, and the Auditor General doesn’t want to respond because infringes upon her independence, and the RCMP said they don’t want the documents, which was the point of why the Conservatives moved the motion to demand them in the first place. And political shenanigans from the Conservatives aside, the fact that the Bloc and the NDP couldn’t see where this was going and why this was a Very Bad Idea speaks very poorly to their own understanding of parliament, and why these kinds of privileges shouldn’t be abused (especially the fact that they have been abusing the Law Clerk and his office to do this kind of work when it’s not his job). Most concerning is the fact that using Parliament to get the RCMP to investigate where there is no evidence of criminal activity is a big flashing warning sign of authoritarian tactics of rule by law, instead of rule of law, and we absolutely do not want to go down that path in this country, and the fact that none of the opposition parties could see that this is a problem is really worrying.

Me, regarding the state of #cdnpoli:

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2024-09-16T21:10:06.144Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia claims that they re-took two villages in western Kursk district.

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 →