The big news yesterday was that the “Heartbleed Bug” had forced the shutdown of much of the Canada Revenue Agency’s website as a precaution, given that personal information that Canadians uploaded as they filed their taxes could be accessed and later decoded through the recently discovered backdoor flaws in the encryption software that some two-thirds of the Internet uses. Of course, the NDP tried to make a partisan issue out of this, and tried to say that it was because the Conservatives didn’t spend enough on cybersecurity – even though the issue has nothing to do with cybersecurity, or hacking, or malware, or anything like that. The minister, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, did later announce that the filing deadline would be extended by the number of days the site is down as they patch the bug, so that might give Canadians a few extra days to get their taxes in order. It also demonstrates how vulnerable we all are to these kinds of flaws in the basic Internet architecture that we rely on. Not affected were Canadian banks, and political party donation portals, for the record.
Tag Archives: Elections Canada
QP: 39 options!
Every leader was finally present in the House today — promised to be the only day that will happen this week. Go grand inquest of the nation! Thomas Mulcair started off by reading an old Stephen Harper quote about using time allocation on an electoral reform bill. Harper, unfazed, noted that the NDP opposed the bill without reading it. Mulcair wanted to know if Harper still stood by those sentiments of old, but Harper refused to take the bait and insisted that the current elections bill was subject to ongoing debate and that they would all eventually arrive at the conclusion that it was a good bill. Mulcair asked if Harper could yet name any expert who supported the bill. Harper insisted that the NDP had nothing on offer in the next election. Mulcair wondered if Harper stood behind some of Pierre Poilievre’s questionable assertion that the Chief Electoral Officer made false statements. Harper insisted that the NDP were not focused on the substance of the bill, even when pressed on the matter. Justin Trudeau got up for the Liberals, and after denouncing the elections bill and the government’s tactics, demanded that Conservatives be given a free vote on the bill. Harper dodged, and said that 99 percent of Canadians produced ID at the last election and needed far more rigorous forms of ID for the less important activities. Trudeau asked again in French, got the same answer, and in English once again, listed the groups concerned about the changes. Harper stuck to that same answer, and brought back his “secret votes, not secret voters” quip.
Roundup: Poilievre’s new conspiracy theory
Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
QP: Avoiding answers with congratulations
Three leaders out of four, which still isn’t great for the respect for the institution. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about a minister misleading the House, and whether it was an unacceptable practice. Harper responded first by congratulating Philippe Couillard for his victory and said that he looked forward to working with him. Mulcair got up and, after a screed about the Senate, pointed out the attacks that Pierre Poilievre made against the Chief Electoral Officer at the Senate committee. Harper again congratulated Couillard, this time in English. Instead of asking again, Mulcair stuck to his script and asked about voter fraud allegations that Poilievre made. Harper insisted that they were trying to ensure that voters had proper identification. Mulcair pressed, got the same answer, and moved onto the quotes of Sheila Fraser. Harper responded that elections shouldn’t be decided by people who can’t prove their identity. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals for a second day in a row, and again asked about the Building Canada Fund, the problems with which was impacting Nova Scotia municipalities. Harper responded, proclaiming ignorance of that issue, but touted their record investments. Brison pressed, to which Harper gave a staged plea for the Liberals to stop opposing infrastructure investments. Marc Garneau brought up the impacts to infrastructure programmes in Quebec, not that Harper was moved from his “disappointed” talking points.
Roundup: Buh-bye, Pauline Marois
It was akin to a massacre. The results are in, and it’s certainly a majority and almost a landslide for the Quebec Liberals considering the predictions going in, while Pauline Marois lost her own seat, and the Charter of Quebec Values is being consigned to the dustbin of history. And yes, Marois is stepping down as leader, while Pierre Karl Péladeau all-but declared his leadership intentions. Mark Kennedy looks at what Couillard’s win means for federalist forces in the country, which might mean an effort to rebuild some bridges, and remember that Couillard has even mused about getting Quebec’s signature on the constitution at long last. Andrew Coyne says that after this many elections were a referendum has been resoundingly rejected that in essence, Quebeckers have not only accepted the constitutional status quo but have pretty much signed the constitution. Paul Wells writes that the PQ is stuck between an electorate that won’t buy their policies, a party base that won’t retreat, and the looming threat that they will become the Tea Party of Quebec. Here’s the At Issue panel’s reading of the election results.
QP: Why do you hate the DPP?
As has become tradition, there were no major leaders in the House for Monday QP, which is a sorry comment in and of itself. When things got started, NDP deputy leader David Christopherson led off, shouting about the Conservatives’ dismissal of Sheila Fraser’s warnings about the elections bill. Pierre Poilievre responded that they simply disagreed with Elections Canada’s opinion and that it was reasonable to expect ID at the polls. Christopherson loudly mused dark conspiracy theories about the PMO cooking up smears against anyone who has had anything to do with Elections Canada. Poilievre, undaunted, gave his prepared talking points. Christopherson brought up the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not consulted about the changes in the bill that affect him, to which Poilievre accused him of casting aspersions on the DPP’s independence. Alexandrine Latendresse repeated the same questions in French, eliciting a similar response. Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, worrying about the infrastructure needs of Fort McMurray being hurt by the cuts to the Building Canada Plan. Denis Lebel insisted that they were making record investments. David McGuinty asked the same again in French, but changed the location in need to Ottawa, not that Lebel gave him a different answer.
Roundup: An amended Reform Act?
Conservative MP Michael Chong is introducing another reform bill today, which would approach his proposed reforms to leadership reviews from another angle, via the Parliament of Canada Act, rather than the Elections Act, especially to address concerns brought forward by his caucus. That said, it still doesn’t address the fundamental issues of leadership selection, and the consequences of maintaining our current system of membership selection rather than caucus selection, or what happens to the legitimacy of a sitting Prime Minister when a caucus orders a leadership review, which is kind of a big deal. I will also be interested to see if this version contains the provision for a provincial nominating officer instead of a riding one, but there remain other problems with the original Reform Act that Chong tabled, so we’ll see how many this new one corrects.
Roundup: Harper’s saint turns against him
Call it a shot across the bow, or maybe a broadside, but former Auditor General Sheila Fraser has weighted in on the Fair Elections Act, and she is not amused. In a blistering, no-holds-barred interview, the woman whom the Conservatives had previously sainted point-blank called them out for trying to rig up a bill designed to sideline Elections Canada because they had been investigating various voting irregularities and other misdeeds by the Conservatives, and which would advantage their particular donor base. And yet, during QP yesterday, Pierre Poilievre just kind of shrugged it off and denounced the “so-called experts” as not being able to stack up against “common sense and democracy.” Actual quote. And yet, when we see the real need for things like being able to compel testimony, as the investigation into “Pierre Poutine” continues to this very day. Former Guelph Conservative campaign worker Andrew Prescott, who has been granted immunity in exchange for testimony, has given evidence about Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged in that whole affair – as well as Ken Morgan, then campaign manager who is now living in Kuwait. Sona, meanwhile, asserts that he has ironclad alibis that will exonerate him, and that they didn’t learn their lessons after being coached into a story about Sona that was contradicted by the fact that he was in Aruba when an alleged incident took place. If the Commissioner of Elections had the power to compel testimony, it is likely this dance around the Guelph robocalls would have long been over. First Nations groups are also sounding the alarm about the bill, and pointing out the reality on most reserves are that the kinds of acceptable ID just aren’t there for most residents and that the bill is a fix for something that simply isn’t broken.
QP: Burying the Sheila Fraser lede
Despite it being only Thursday, there was only one major leader in the House, as Stephen Harper was in Mississauga to announce a bill, and Justin Trudeau in Fort McMurray in advance of the by-election call there. Thomas Mulcair, still present in Ottawa, led off by asking about a refugee deportation case, to which Chris Alexander seemed to imply that the woman in question was not a genuine refugee. Mulcair brought up the plight of someone thrown in jail in China for assisting the labour movement, to which Alexander gave a paean about how great their refugee reforms were. Mulcair moved onto the elections bill, demanding that it be withdrawn. Pierre Poilievre insisted that his stories about widespread voter fraud were true. Mulcair then brought up former Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s objections to the bill — something I figured would have led off QP — but Poilievre was undaunted in his praise of the bill. For his final question, Mulcair brought up the request that the families of fallen soldiers pay their own way to a national memorial service. James Bezan said that expenses would be covered, and laid blame on the Colonel who sent out the letter. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, and brought up the changes in median incomes since the Conservatives came to power. Kevin Sorensen insisted that everyone was better off since they were in power. Freeland brought up other worrying figures, but Sorensen praised the government’s job creation record. Emmanuel Dubourg asked the same again in French, and Sorensen accused Trudeau of voting against middle class families time and again.
Roundup: All about Eve
The tale of Eve Adams and her nomination race got even more sordid yesterday as all kinds of other allegations started appearing out of the woodwork, now that attention is being paid to her. First came word that the riding association was appealing directly to Harper to investigate her activities, with regard to things like her access to the party database, her purchasing the colour-coded maps, that she was door-knocking and telling people that she had been asked by Harper to run in that particular riding, and generally trying to bigfoot the nomination race. (Letter here). Harper in turn asked the party to investigate. After this was made public, the owner of an Ottawa gas station called the media to let them know that he had also asked the PMO to investigate Adams’ behaviour after she had a meltdown tantrum over a $6 carwash that she was unsatisfied with. It has been suggested that all of these leaks are being made public in order to have her discredited and lose the nomination race that way, rather than have Harper or the party disqualify her from afar. It’s not such an outlandish theory either.