Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: A declaration of persona non grata

Posted on by

A week after the Chong revelations were made in the Globe and Mail, and two years after the briefing had been prepared by CSIS, Mélanie Joly has declared the Chinese diplomat at the centre of those revelations to be persona non grata. This declaration was made right as the Commons was voting on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to expel any diplomats implicated in this affair, in which all opposition parties voted for it and the government voted against, meaning that they lost (but it’s non-binding, so it’s more of an expression of opinion than anything else).

The reaction, of course, is that this is two years too late, and that the government’s insistence that this is complicated isn’t actually backed up by the Vienna Convention—though it has been said that they were likely preparing people on the ground in China for the inevitable retaliation, because China doesn’t like to do tit-for-tat, as happens with most PNG declarations, but rather they prefer to escalate. (See: the two Michaels). The Canadian Press has a brief primer on previous diplomatic expulsions from Canada.

Meanwhile, Marco Mendicino still won’t say who is either responsible or accountable for the failure to alert political actors about those Chong revelations two years ago, and is relying on vague “hostile actors” talk rather than, you know, being held to account for what is clearly a process failure within the government’s bureaucracy. That would seem to me what he should be doing as minister, because it’s been made clear that this wasn’t a CSIS problem—it was a problem further up the chain, and whether that’s because we have a poor culture of consuming intelligence at the senior levels, or because this government can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, that kind of thing needs to be addressed.

Ukraine Dispatch:

For Russia’s Victory Day, they launched one of the biggest swarms of drones against Ukraine in months, targeting mostly Kyiv and Odessa, though air defences are largely repelling the attacks on Kyiv. Russian shelling also hit two villages in the Kherson region, wounding eight people, as well as damaged the electrical grids in five Ukrainian regions. In Bakhmut, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries says they still haven’t received promised ammunition from Russia. Elsewhere, farmers in Ukraine are having a harder time because many workers are off fighting, which is hurting their operations.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1655510660367757313

Continue reading →

QP: The “courage” to manufacture misleading clips

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town but elsewhere, while his deputy was present for a change. Most of the other leader were also absent, save the Leader of the Opposition. After the Speaker had to read a statement about decorum and calling one another liars, Pierre Poilievre led off, and stated—falsely—that the finance minister had said that the deficit was fuelling inflation, and raised the defeated policy motion at the Liberal convention on the weekend about balancing budgets. Chrystia Freeland said that what the party really said at the convention is that they’re the optimistic party, and the party that believes in Canada. Poilievre accused the prime minister of not having the courage to answer, when he’s not here, and praised the “courageous” Liberals who raised the policy proposal. Freeland said that Liberals were courageous for doing what needed to be done in the pandemic and raised the country’s Aaa credit rating. Poilievre insisted the prime minister stand up and be “courageous” in kicking out that Chinese diplomat who was involved in the Chong threats. Freeland insisted that it was beneath the dignity to say that nobody stands for threats against elected officials. Poilievre tried again, demanding to “bring home” security—because he has to get his new tag line in there—and demanded the diplomat be expelled. Marco Mendicino reminded him that the foreign minister summoned the ambassador last week and let it he know that interference will not be tolerated. Poilievre repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Mendicino.

Claude DeBellefeuille led for the Bloc, and raised the so-called “century initiative” to increase immigration by the end of the century, but didn’t have regard for Quebec or the status of French, and demanded to know if this is government policy. Sean Fraser said that they can bring in immigration and protect French, and noted the increased Francophone immigration last year. DeBellefeuille repeated her concerns, and Fraser said that the government makes policy, not Dominic Barton, before repeating his same points.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and demanded to know if any other MPs were being threatened like Michael Chong was. Marco Mendicino said that 49 parliamentarians had been briefed by CSIS. Alexandre Boulerice worried that big corporations want to introduce GMO foods into schools, and that voluntary compliance was not enough. Francis Drouin said that the government has been working with the organic food sector.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Grading the official Star Wars Day posts

Posted on by

Yesterday was May the 4th, also known as “Star Wars Day,” and this year’s Canadian politics offerings were largely unimpressive, most had little to no effort, which is supremely disappointing. Congrats to Library and Archives Canada who made the most effort.

From the political leaders:

For someone who loves memes and trying to win Twitter, Poilievre didn’t even participate.

A sampling of government departments and organizations:

And the rest:

Internationally, we got a couple more:

That last one, the “Stand with Ukraine,” was the best, and caught the spirit perfectly. We are living in a moment where there is a resistance to tyranny taking place, so why not lean into that message?

Ukraine Dispatch:

Another day, another early morning drone attack, this time targeting Kyiv and Odessa. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made an “unscheduled” trip to the Hague to call for Putin to face a special tribunal once Ukraine wins the war. The first opportunity to arrest Putin may come in South Africa this summer, and there are those who are “confident” that South Africa will do the right thing. Zelenskyy also got assurances from the Dutch prime minister that talks are progressing on acquiring F-16s for Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1654199754358771722

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1654192129260900368

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 →

QP: Was there a briefing two years ago?

Posted on by

While the prime minister was present today, his deputy was off to Washington DC, but the other party leaders were all present today, so a show was to be had. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, railed that it had been two years since the allegation about threats to Michael Chong’s family, demanded to know when he knew, and why the diplomat in the story was not yet expelled. Justin Trudeau took exception to the characterisation, said that the information he received after yesterday’s story was that measures were taken to protect measures when they are in the spotlight of foreign actors, and that he reached out to Michael Chong directly. Poilievre switched to English to repeat the same allegations, and Trudeau reiterated his same response. Poilievre repeated the key elements of the story more slowly, and demanded that the diplomat in question be expelled. Trudeau again took exception to the characterisation of what happened, said that those kinds of accusations were unworthy of members of this House. Poilievre insisted that the government knew about the threats to years ago—with no proof that this made its way up the chain—and Trudeau repeated that this wasn’t true, and that where is action to take, it is taken. Poilievre insisted that Trudeau was only interested in his political reputation, and demanded the diplomatic immunity of that “agent” be taken away. Trudeau once again said this wasn’t true, and that nobody would simply sit on a threat to a colleague.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, said he didn’t see anything false in the Conservatives’ questions, and tried to turn this into a question on the Trudeau Foundation, and Trudeau insisted that political interference is not allowed and legal processes will go forward as necessary. Blanchet tried again to wedge on the Foundation, and Trudeau recited that he hasn’t had any involvement for a decade.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he too accused the prime minister of doing nothing on the alleged Chong briefing for two years, and demanded to know why Chong wasn’t informed at the time. Trudeau said it would be outrageous if someone sat on a threat for two years, and that is not what happened. Singh switched to French, and railed that the prime minister should have known at the time, and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau insisted that they did act starting in 2015 with a G7 mechanism with allies to fight interference, plus the election monitoring panel, and the creation of NSICOP and NSIRA.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Allegations and reactions to reports of targeting an MP’s family

Posted on by

The big news that dominated much of the discourse yesterday was that Globe and Mail story that a secret intelligence document from two years ago says that the Chinese regime sees Canada as a priority target for foreign interference because we don’t have a foreign agent registry, and said that they were targeting Conservative MP Michael Chong’s family in Hong Kong, and that a Chinese diplomat in Canada was working on the matter. This of course turned into the daily outrage—Chong decried that he wasn’t warned about this, and then we saw the dog and pony show in Question Period. Justin Trudeau said that after reading the Globe story he has asked his officials to look into this document, and called the matter unacceptable. Oh, and two of those so-called Chinese “police stations” appear to still be in operation in the Montreal area, in spite of the RCMP saying they’d shut them down. So, there’s that.

https://twitter.com/MichaelChongMP/status/1653044204438732803

But here’s the thing—Chong isn’t an idiot, even if he sometimes plays one in Question Period, and should have known that his family there did face risks. Activists from these diaspora communities here have been saying it for years, and many have pointed to the fact that they deliberately don’t have contact with their family members back home in order to try to protect them. Chong shouldn’t have needed a CSIS briefing to know if his family in Hong Kong was under threat—he should have put two-and-two together on his own, given how outspoken he is about the regime. (Update: Behold, two years ago he stated he was doing just that). Trying to blame the government sounds particularly disingenuous because I know that Chong knows better, even if he wants to playact shock and outrage for the cameras in order to score points. There is a better way to deal with these allegations of foreign interference without these kinds of drama camp antics.

Meanwhile, Canada’s self-appointed media critic is in full braying doofus mode, and has some thoughts about journalistic ethics around media outlets reporting (or not) on leaked documents that they haven’t seen or been able to verify. Aside from the fact that CBC’s politics page did run the Canadian Press wire story about Chong’s reaction, Scheer should know how this works, right? Does he think that CBC can just call up the leaker and say “Hey, can we have a look at those documents too?” Well, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did believe that, but seriously—if he bothered to think it through for half a second, he would understand why CBC isn’t reporting on it, but that’s inconvenient for his narrative and his rage-farming, so here we are.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired another early-morning salvo of missiles at Ukraine, and of the 18 fired, 15 were brought down by air defences, leaving three to strike targets primarily in the eastern city of Pavlohrad, killing two and rounding 40; Kyiv did not suffer any strikes this time. Over in Bakhmut, Ukrainian forces have pushed Russians back from several parts of the city, and US estimates are that 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in the past five months (up to 20,000 of those killed), most of them in and around Bakhmut. Two Canadian volunteer soldiers fighting for Ukraine were killed in Bakhmut last week.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1653047560020414465

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1652911854501388290

Continue reading →

Roundup: The scope of the transition

Posted on by

As Alberta heads into an election, one can be certain that Danielle Smith is going to wield the threat of the supposed “just transition” as a cudgel to attack Justin Trudeau and Rachel Notley. Nevertheless, there are issues around the future of work in the province as the oil and gas extraction industry changes—a process that began years ago, and is currently far more automated than it used to be.

As Andrew Leach points out, the scale of the issue is something that the province will need to grapple with.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The death toll from the overnight strike in Uman has risen to 23, with another two deaths from a separate strike in Dnipro. Ukrainian leadership say that they are “to a high percentage ready” to launch their spring counter-offensive, and that modern weapons will serve as an “iron first.” Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy hosted the presidents of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, while seven foreign ministers met with Ukraine’s foreign minister in Odessa, all of whom were expressing support for Ukraine as Ukraine pushes for more modern aircraft.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1651966751268278272

Continue reading →

Roundup: Angst over a poor metric

Posted on by

A lot of ink (or, well, pixels, I supposed) has been spilled over the past week about those leaked documents where Justin Trudeau allegedly told NATO leadership privately that Canada will never reach the two percent of GDP defence spending target, which shouldn’t be a shock to anyone who has paid a modicum of attention. And while we get these kinds of analysis pieces that try to dig more into the two percent target and its significance, we have to remember that it’s a lousy metric. Greece has been above it for years because of a stagnant economy and including military pensions in their calculations—and you can easily get to 2 percent of GDP by tanking your economy, while growing your economy makes that spending target increase impossibly. The other thing that the two percent metric doesn’t capture is engagement—Canada routinely steps up to meet its NATO commitments even without reaching the spending target, while certain European countries may meet the spending target but don’t participate in these missions (again, looking at you, Greece, but not just Greece).

Part of the problem is that while this is a conversation that requires some nuance, the two percent target is too easy for journalists to focus on, and that becomes the sole focus. It’s a problem because We The Media keep reducing this to a single binary “are we meeting/not meeting that two percent” rate, which doesn’t help advance the conversation in any way, but most of us refuse to learn because a simple binary is easier to understand/convey.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Fighting continues in the western part of Bakhmut, as Wagner Group mercenaries are worried about the coming Ukrainian counter-offensive. Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation says that new technologies are going to help them win the war, particularly as they enhance the accuracy of modern artillery.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1649397099300093954

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions on regulatory efficacy

Posted on by

The Environment Commissioner released a series of reports yesterday, and I have some questions about a couple of them. His first report looks into the plan to plant two billion trees and states that it won’t be achievable unless there are big changes, citing that last year’s targets weren’t met, and that the agreements with provinces and territories around this are still being worked out. While I did notice that his graph about the plans for planting these trees does backload much of it because it will take time to grow enough saplings to plant, I’m not sure that one year’s data is enough to declare imminent failure. Maybe I’m just being optimistic.

One of his reports also criticises that the government can’t track which regulations reduce how many emissions, which makes it hard to assess their efficacy. I’m just not sure how a government would go about doing so, because there are so many overlapping measures including the carbon price, and emissions have started to bend, so that we’re slowly dropping below pre-pandemic and 2005 levels, particularly as the economy is growing, which is a good sign that measures are working overall, but there is more to do. And while I appreciate what he’s trying to say, I’m just not sure how someone goes about calculating how much the inventory changed for each regulatory measure. He did also talk about how many missed targets there were, but didn’t differentiate between which stripe of government was in power, and how the previous government set targets that they deemed “aspirational,” meaning that they did nothing to attempt to meet them, while the current government’s targets are for 2030, and they could very well still meet them if they continue their current trajectory. I’m sure he doesn’t want to get into that difference as part of his role as non-partisan quasi-Officer of Parliament (he is not a standalone officer but is part of the Auditor General’s office), but it is relevant to the state of the discussion.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces had a misfire, and accidentally bombed their own city of Belgorod, near the Ukrainian border. Oops. Meanwhile, the head of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, visited president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and declared that Ukraine’s future is in NATO (but that can’t happen under NATO rules so long as they have Russians occupying their territory). Ukraine has trained eight storm brigades worth 40,000 troops for the upcoming counteroffensive. Treason charges are being laid against several Ukrainian servicemen for giving away information to Russian force during an unauthorised mission, and those Russians damaged a Ukrainian airfield as a result.

https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/1649030309109813248

https://twitter.com/minpres/status/1649093237632647179

Continue reading →