The signs of the current government’s incompetence at handling the big files are numerous, but recent revelations about their anti-terrorism legislation just may take the cake. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show that last year, Canadian intelligence services said that they were looking for “significant improvements” to information sharing between the various agencies – but they wanted them within the existing legislative framework. They didn’t need all kinds of new powers or expanded mandates, and yet, the government turn around and brought in C-51, which did just that. Because this government, after almost a decade in office, apparently doesn’t know what they’re doing, gave the intelligence services a ham-fisted, overly broad new suite of powers that they didn’t need – or even want, if these documents are to be believed – because they had managed to terrify themselves thanks to a couple of lone-wolf attacks on home soil. They drafted a bill that was so sloppy and terrible that every expert on the subject could hardly believe it. And their inept communications strategy around the bill managed to get every civil society group up in arms over it, creating a second sweep of paranoia (despite the fact that no, the bill had nothing to do with trying to expand surveillance to civil society groups or use terrorists as cover for trying to bring the hammer down on First Nations – a simple look at the fact that the government has underfunded CSIS and the RCMP will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about their intentions). It looks to be just one more example of where this government once again rejected expert advice in order to make themselves look like they were getting tough on terrorism – as effectively as they’ve gotten “tough on crime” – and they managed to balls things up for themselves and everyone else in the process. Would that we could have some grown-ups leading this country for a change.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
QP: Like a greatest hits package
All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305
Roundup: Leaks and leaping to judgement
Even before the Auditor General had turned over to the Senate his report on their expenses, the leaks were already coming out fast and furious, starting with the knowledge that the two leaders in the Senate as well as the Speaker had expenses that were questioned, and in the cases of the Liberal leader and the Speaker, they planned to challenge those claims before the independent arbiter that has been set up to deal with these issues, while the Conservative leader’s expenses were already paid back as they related to a staffer who had improperly filed claims. The Liberal leader, Senator Cowan, got out in front of it – there are $10,000 in travel expenses from four years ago that had to do with parliamentary business that he no longer had supporting documentation for because the claims had been dealt with at the time and not retained, but the auditors are making a big deal of it – and that seems perfectly fair and reasonable. By this point, however, certain breathless types in the media started hyperventilating about how the fact that these were the people who established the arbitration process, so this was supposedly some kind of “conflict of interest,” which not only sounds ridiculous on its face, but it impugns the integrity of former Justice Ian Binnie, who will hear the cases. I mean, come on. It also smacked of the presumption of guilt, never mind that there is plenty of indication that in many cases, the auditors made value judgements about what should qualify and what should not, and of these 29 total files, one has to assume that a good chunk of them will come out of the arbitration process favourably. As time went on, the nine senators whose audits were found to be egregious were revealed, two of those senators still sitting – Senator Boisvenu for the Conservatives (who immediately removed himself from caucus pending the outcome of the investigation), and Senator Kenny for the Liberals (who was recently out of caucus during a sexual harassment investigation that he was cleared in). All of this before the report has been made public. The fact that we don’t have facts and figures before us, that we have a number of claims going before the arbiter, that some of these claims were simply errors and not done with malicious intent, and that there were demonstrable problems with the auditors during the process means that we should all take a deep breath and not rush to proclaim everyone guilty, or the institution as a whole to be tarnished. Yes, it’s a rough patch, and it’s the price they are paying for increasing their transparency. It’s funny that all of the MPs sanctimoniously lining up to denounce the Senate – or worse, concern troll about its credibility or legitimacy – won’t let the AG look at their own books. Funny that.
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/606644654902288384
Roundup: Tales of internal audits
The issue that dominated Question Period and the headlines yesterday – that the PMO was trying to direct the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee to protect Duffy from internal audits – is one that needs a bit of a deep breath before we freak out about it. For starters, we need to be aware that Duffy and his lawyer are deliberately stoking this in order to direct the attention toward Harper and the PMO as their way of exculpating Duffy. Number two, that any “conspiracy” within the Senate to protect Duffy has largely been limited to a couple of players and not the chamber as a whole. In this case, it seems to be largely three key players – then-leader Marjory LeBreton, Harper loyalist Carolyn Stewart Olsen, and David Tkachuk. That Stewart Olsen might be doing Harper’s bidding is no surprise, and while Tkachuk should have known better than to take PMO direction, he has been playing his own power games within the Senate (including a few nasty leaks to the media designed to undermine people). The other thing that should be pointed out is that Senate administration – the Clerk and a senior staffer conducting an internal audit – were trying to point to the nebulous rules around residency and were getting pushback from Stewart Olsen and Tkachuk, and in Stewart Olsen’s case, the motives were likely self-interested given her own problematic residency situation at the time. That internal audit was not killed, in part because of legal action threatened by the Clerk, but it does point to the fact that while rules could be nebulous, the staff was trying to ensure that there was some due diligence, and Duffy would have been caught up in that exercise. That the PMO was trying to take the heat off of Duffy with a later external audit is concerning, but should be for the rest of the Senate. They have institutional independence for a reason, and they are betraying their role when they take that kind of direction. Of course, Harper created the situation where a number of senators would take direction by flooding the chamber with so many pliable rookies at once who wouldn’t hesitate to take orders. It’s one of the things that the late Speaker Nolin was trying to change – getting senators, particularly those in his own caucus, to take their roles more seriously. None of this should detract from the fact that Duffy still bears responsibility for his own actions, and that senators themselves should be telling the PMO to shove off. We shouldn’t let Duffy and his lawyer play us to confirm those facts.
QP: Obstruction and obfuscation
With it being Thursday, it appears that the PM couldn’t be bothered to show up, and with Harper put, so was Trudeau. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about the recent revelations of the PMO interference in a Senate audit around Mike Duffy. Paul Calandra demurred, and insisted that the Senate should answer their own questions, and when pressed, Calandra returned to the satellite office repayment talking points. Mulcair tried a third time, this time in French, and Calandra gave the same in both languages. Mulcair switched back to English, so Calandra did too, now adding the inappropriate mailings into his list of NDP sins. Mulcair kept reading from the email in question, and accused the PM of obstruction of justice. Calandra called it ridiculous, wanted the courts to do their job, and demanded the NDP repay their millions. For the Liberals, Domininc LeBlanc kept up the topic, to which Calandra demanded the Liberals repay the “missing $40 million” from Adscam, and noted that Trudeau’s home is worth $2 million. Sean Casey asked the same again in English, adding in the “Albertastan” and soviet jokes, but got no different response from Calandra.
Roundup: A surprise visit
Stephen Harper took everyone (and most especially assignment editors across the country) off-guard by taking a surprise trip to Iraq while headed to V-E commemoration ceremonies in the Netherlands. While in Iraq, he met with that country’s prime minister and announced $167 million in aid and security equipment promises ($139 million of which is actually for the region, including Lebanon and Jordan). Politically, he also gained the advantage of being in theatre, getting photos and video of him being near the front lines, and talking tough about terrorism and national security, which he sees as vote-getters and poll-movers after weeks where his messaging has been thrown off track by both the distraction that is the Duffy trial, and the pushback to the budget, which was only balanced by raiding the contingency reserve and EI fund. In other words, he needs to remind people why they should vote for him, and looking prominent in a place where we’ve sent troops is one way to do it. While there, it was also said that the investigation into the friendly fire death of Sgt. Doiron is complete, and was likely due to fatigue among Peshmerga fighters. That report is supposed to be released publicly back in Canada within a month.
Roundup: Freezing out the ambassador
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.
Roundup: The illogic of the fear campaign
It’s difficult not to question the logic behind the Conservatives using that supposed threat from al-Shebab against West Edmonton Mall as a party fundraiser/data mining tool, particularly as the blowback starts to affect everyone around it. It defies logic that they tell people to still go shopping there while simultaneously whipping up a panic that they’ll be next on a terrorist hit list – never mind that al-Shebab is pretty marginal as an organisation and has neither the resources nor the reach outside of East Africa, and that by the government whipping up the hysteria around a video by a marginal group like this one, they’re playing right into the terrorists’ game – fomenting terror, no matter what the Conservatives’ objectives are. Meanwhile, merchants suffer – oh, but the fragile economy! – and cheerleader teams are pulling out of the competition being held at said mall, ostensibly because their insurance companies are freaking out (never mind that the very act of cheerleading is more likely to result in death or dismemberment than a terrorist event). If you ask Tim Uppal about it – under whose name this went out – he gives you talking points about the threat of these groups, and as Paula Simons discovered, it’s just talking points rearranged in a different order than his fundraising appeal talking points. Well done there. It’s still too early to tell whether this will in fact blow back on them, but with other conservatives lining up to denounce the move, it’s hard to see how they can continue to justify it without causing even more damage.
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.
QP: Arthur Porter, come on down!
A blustery winter day in Ottawa, and there were a few sour faces among the official opposition ranks following the Board of Internal Economy directive the previous evening. All of the leaders were in the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about more layoffs in Toronto. Stephen Harper said that it has to do with particular decisions of particular companies, but their Economic Action Plan™ has created more jobs than were lost. Mulcair insisted those new jobs were part time and precarious, then listed more retail layoffs. Harper retorted the NDP position was simply to raise taxes. Mulcair then moved to the issue of CSIS, and whether the thirty year-old SIRC has the tools to oversee the agency today. Harper insisted that the system was robust and had safeguards, but the solution was not to go after the police but the terrorists. “Arthur Porter, come on down,” Mulcair quipped and noted SIRC’s report saying that CSIS had misled them just last year. Harper said that the example shows that the system works. Mulcair gave a line about freedom and safety going hand-in-hand, and saying that Harper has been decisive about it. Harper insisted that the bill already enhances oversight. (Really? Where?) Justin Trudeau was up next, demanding income splitting be cut in favour of more investment in infrastructure. Harper insisted that they were already running the largest, longest infrastructure programme in history and that he recently announced more funding — and that the Liberals want to raise taxes. Trudeau pointed out the massive difference difference in funding over the last two years and that an April budget meant municipalities would miss construction season. Harper repeated his insistence that they were already spending record amounts and accused Trudeau of being bad at math. Trudeau repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer in French, with an added promise for a balanced budget and targeted tax breaks.