Tag Archives: National Security

QP: Rigging a dangerous game

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau was away for Monday, but Andrew Scheer was present. Before things got underway, Elizabeth May led her new MP, Paul Manly, into the Chamber in order to take his seat. Scheer led off, demanding to know why Unifor was on the panel to help determine who gets funding for the media bailout and called it the Liberals stacking of the deck. Pablo Rodriguez said that Scheer was playing a dangerous game, and that any suggestion that journalists could be bought was insulting while the government was supporting the industry as a number of daily newspapers had closed in recent years. Scheer tried again, and got the same response, and then Scheer railed that government had not limited their own spending on ads in advance of an election, to which Karina Gould read a statement about how the government has focused their advertising and cut it in half. Steven Blaney stood up to repeat the question on Unifor being on the panel in French, and Rodriguez gave him much the same response, and they went another round of the same. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he demanded the government adopt their Pharmacare plan, to which Ginette Petitpas Taylor insisted that she listens to all sides and they have a national plan in the works while they have taken other measures. Singh tried again in French, got much the same response, before Singh lauded US Democrats’ attempts to change the New NAFTA, to which Chrystia Freeland insisted that they held out for a good deal. Singh tried again in English, and Freeland urged Singh to talk to some actual Canadian workers. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rationalizing a deciding vote

Posted on by

Yesterday, Independent Senator Paula Simons wrote a piece for Maclean’s to explain her vote last week that essentially ensured that the Senate’s transport committee would not vote to report Bill C-48 (the west coast tanker ban) back to the Senate without amendments. It’s a mere delay to the bill, ultimately, and it’s likely that the full Senate will vote to reject the committee report and may entertain another amendment or two at Third Reading, but I would be mighty surprised if this bill didn’t get pass largely unmolested. But as much as I do respect the good Senator, I will take exception to a few of the things she wrote in her piece.

The biggest thing I will always, always object to is when senators say that it’s not their job to defeat bills passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. That’s false – it’s absolutely their job under the Constitution – that’s why it has an unlimited veto. The question is when they should use it, and I’m not sure that this is a good example of a bill, because it doesn’t fail any particular constitutional tests (Jason Kenney’s nonsense rhetoric aside). But for as much as Simons prevaricates on the question of how appropriate it is to block bills in the newly empowered “independent” mindset of the Senate (insert more back-patting about the lack of whips here), she then says that the other tradition is to defend her region, which she did. I have reservations about this line of thinking, because it gives rise to parochialism and some of the flawed thinking that gave rise to a bogus school of thought that believed that a “Triple-E” Senate could somehow force the hand of a government with a majority in the Commons (rather than just become a repository for 105 new backbenchers). If she really were defending her region, she should remember that her region includes BC, whose northern coast the bill is intended to defend. As well, her concerns ignore the process that Trans Mountain has been undergoing for the past year – just because it hasn’t started construction doesn’t mean it won’t, and trying to provide an alternate route that was proved far more problematic in the past – witness the Federal Court of Appeal decision regarding Northern Gateway – I’m now sure that she’s doing anyone any favours by letting the rhetoric of Kenney and the oil industry dominate her thinking.

In the meantime, we should brace ourselves for another round of obnoxious talk about the “Salisbury Convention” (which doesn’t apply to Canada and never has), and about the original intent of the Senate. It won’t be edifying.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1130956002029916162

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mark Norman and the culture of leaks

Posted on by

As the Conservatives try to keep the Mark Norman affair in the news – currently demanding committee hearings with a laundry list of witnesses, as though that had any chance of happening this close to an election when Parliament is seized with trying to get as many bills through the process as they can – there are a couple of new bits of information that I have a hard time fitting into the established factual matrix. The one that the CBC published yesterday was that it was revealed that Norman was authorized by the Harper Cabinet to communicate with Davie Shipyard – because they were using Norman to doing an end-run around the then-Chief of Defence Staff, who was opposed to the lease and refit of the supply ship. I’m not sure entirely how this would be the piece of information to exonerate him, given that he’s alleged to have leaked the news of the pause on the process to a lobbyist and a reporter as a way of pressuring the government to restarting it (which they did in short order). You also have to wonder why Peter MacKay would have sat on this bit of information for all of these months only to pull it out now rather than defend Norman in public with it. None of it makes any actual sense, but that’s where we are.

In light of the case, the National Post has a piece about the use of leaks in Ottawa, and the currency around them – how governments use them to manipulate journalists, how bureaucrats use them to even scores, and very occasionally they’re used to hold people to account. The question the piece asks is why, in a city of leaks, Norman was being made an example of, but I’m not sure it’s a question we’ll get an answer to anytime soon. While it’s a good overview, I keep going back to The Thick of It, and the discussion around leaks during the Goolding Inquiry, when Malcolm Tucker described leaks as essential to release the pressure going on in government, lest things get dark if they didn’t. And I do think there’s an element of that, but given the exercise we just went through during the Double-Hyphen Affair, and the competing leaks and denials, I find myself wondering if We The Media need to exercise a bit more self-reflection in our use of them, rather than simply allowing ourselves to be manipulated because we think it’ll be good for our careers. (Or maybe I’m just being naïve).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about that Senate poll

Posted on by

There is some drama going down at the Senate’s internal economy committee over Senator Donna Dasko’s poll on the Senate appointment process. Conservative senators say the poll is really partisan and should be a personal expense, whereas Dasko says they just don’t like the results and are trying to shoot the messenger. But I will have to say that I’m leaning more toward the Conservative side on this one because Senator Yuen Pau Woo – the “facilitator” of the Independent Senators Group – and others have been using this poll to push the Senate appointment process as an election issue, knowing full well that Andrew Scheer plans a return to partisan appointments and Jagmeet Singh follows the NDP dogma of preferring to abolish the Senate (but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces). That is de facto partisan, whether Woo and the Independents believe it to be or not (and it’s somewhat galling that they don’t see this as being partisan, and yet they refuse to engage in the horse trading on managing bills in the Senate, because they see that as a partisan activity when it most certainly is not).

We all know that I didn’t find the poll particularly illuminating, because it could have asked Canadians if they wanted a pony and would have achieved similar results. I do especially find it objectionable that these senators are using it to justify their world view of the Senate, which is and of itself a problem – their particular disdain for everything that came before, dismissing it as being partisan and hence evil and wrong, is part of what has caused the myriad of problems the Senate is now facing with its Order Paper crisis and committees that aren’t functioning, because they don’t understand how Parliament or politics works and they don’t care to. But now they have a poll to point to that says that Canadians like the independent appointments process, as though that justifies everything. It doesn’t and it creates more problems in the long term.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Beyak suspended

Posted on by

It was inevitable, but the Senate has voted to suspend Senator Lynn Beyak without pay for the remainder of his Parliament in accordance with the recommendation from the Senate’s ethics committee after the findings of the Ethics Officer that letters Beyak posted to her website were racist and breached the ethics code for senators. Beyak got her chance to defend herself yesterday before the vote, and she insisted that she has done nothing wrong, that there’s nothing racist about the “truth” (as she sees it), and she thinks that her website is a beacon of positivity because she’s trying to assert that residential schools for Indigenous children weren’t all bad.

In terms of next steps, Beyak will likely reappear at the start of the next parliament, following the election, where she will be given another chance to apologise, and prove that she understands why those letters were racist (something she has been completely incapable of comprehending to date – and the Ethics Officer did point out that this was an issue of comprehension, not malice). At that point, if she still refuses to see the error of her ways, the Senate could revisit the matter and vote to suspend her again for that parliamentary session (meaning until there is a prorogation or dissolution), and if that extends past two years, there is the possibility that they could declare the seat vacant at that point. More likely will be pressure to simply vote to expel Beyak for the Senate because she has been unrepentant in exposing the Senate to disrepute for her racist actions – at which point she may get the hint and do the honourable thing and just resign, but she does seem to be sticking to her guns here. Regardless, this suspension is now the first stage in a two-stage process of dealing with the problem. But those who want Beyak to be out immediately will need to be patient, because the power to expel a senator can’t be used casually.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Some of Goodale’s Regina Monologues

Posted on by

While his planned appearance had been postponed a few weeks earlier due to “unforeseen circumstances,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was in the Senate for Question Period, which curiously interrupted a vote bell, as the rules of the Senate allow. Senator Plett led off, asking about the gun control bill and the amendments that the committee is debating, asking if he would “instruct” the Independent senators to kill the amendments of not, to which Goodale quipped that he would never presume to tell senators what to do. When Plett tried to press as to whether the government would entertain amendments, Goodale gave a paean about the need for debate and votes.

Linda Frum raised the House of Commons voting to list the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and eleven months later, they had not been. Goodale reminded her that there is a detailed process under law that was being followed, and noted that some of their subsidies had already been listed.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Forcing a partial denunciation

Posted on by

While Andrew Scheer was goading Justin Trudeau to carry on with his libel lawsuit against him, it seems that Trudeau did manage to get Andrew Scheer to do one thing that he has thus far avoided, which was an actual denunciation of white nationalism, and that he actually said those words rather than talking around them. He didn’t denounce Faith Goldy for appearing with him at that “convoy” rally, and he didn’t say anything about his cherry-picking of wilful blindness of the “Yellow Vest” contingent with their racist and whites supremacist messages at that rally, but it was a start. Baby steps. 

Part of the backdrop for this was an exchange between Senator Leo Housakos and Chrystia Freeland at a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, where Housakos said he didn’t see any white suprematist threat (which he later said was poorly worded), and Freeland laying down the law on it. 

Amidst this drama, the head of CSIS was appearing at a different Senate committee, this time to talk about Bill C-59, the national security bill, and he did state that the intelligence service was becoming more and more preoccupied with the threat of white nationalists and far-right extremists, even though religious extremism was still one of their largest focuses. It’s something that is of concern and we can’t ignore the winking and nudges that absolutely takes place, or especially the blind eyes that get turned, but we do seem to be having a conversation about it, so that’s probably a good start.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An important first report

Posted on by

While everyone was focused on Jane Philpott’s attempt to claim that the provisions in the garbage Reform Act weren’t met as it regards her expulsion from caucus, a much more important event was taking place, which was the release of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ first public report. This is the first time that Canada has seen any kind of public oversight into our national security and intelligence services, and it was important to see. One of the things that they focused in on was the oversight of military intelligence operations, for which the military thanked them for their suggestions on improving governance, but balked at the proposal for a legislative framework.

Nevertheless, the expert in this stuff is Stephanie Carvin, so I will turn over the reactions to her (full thread starts here):

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115716056247676929

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717071185301504

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717072657502210

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115678714291871746

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115683292928299008

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115688317452935168

Continue reading →

Roundup: The ouster of the dissidents

Posted on by

After a day of bated breath, and rumours of regional caucus meetings, Justin Trudeau decided to pull the plug and expel Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from Liberal caucus, ostensibly saying that trust had been lost. While Wilson-Raybould would not say that she had confidence in the prime minister, Philpott went on camera that morning to say that she did, that her loss of confidence was solely in the handling of that one issue but otherwise she was still a good Liberal, but that wasn’t enough. For her part, Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to her caucus mates to plead her case, that she felt she was standing up for the values they shared and was trying to protect the prime minister from a “horrible mess,” but it didn’t sway any minds it seems. In the intervening hours, the texts and notes that Gerald Butts submitted to the Commons justice committee were released, and it mostly focused on the Cabinet shuffle, with the assurances that she was not being shuffled because of the SNC-Lavalin file, but because they needed someone with high profile for one of the highest-spending departments and she refused Indigenous Services. (Wilson-Raybould was also convinced that they were planning to replace her chief of staff with one of two PMO staffers she accused of trying to pressure her, which Butts said was not the plan, and which has not happened, for what it’s worth). I did find that Wilson-Raybould’s concern about the timing of the shuffle was suspicious, considering that the SNC-Lavalin file was on nobody’s radar until the Globe and Mail article, and her warnings of Indigenous anger if she was shuffled is also a bit odd considering that her record on addressing those issues while she was in the portfolio were…not exactly stellar.

When the “emergency” caucus meeting happened, Trudeau had just informed the pair that they were expelled, and he gave a lofty speech about trying to do politics differently, and sometimes that was hard and they didn’t always get it right, but he called recording the conversation with the Clerk of the Privy Council to be “unconscionable” (though it bears reminding that Philpott did not partake in this), and that they needed to be united because Liberals lose when they fight among themselves – and then he went into campaign mode. Because of course he did.

In the aftermath, Philpott put out a message that described her disappointment, and noted that she never got the chance to plead her case to caucus – though one imagines that for most of the caucus, the interview with Maclean’s, the hints of more to come, and what appeared to be a deliberate media strategy was her undoing, and her last-minute declaration of loyalty wasn’t enough to save her. She does, however, appear to want to stay in politics, so that remains interesting. Wilson-Raybould tweeted out a message that was unapologetic, rationalised her actions, and talked about transcending party, so perhaps that’s a hint of her future options. Andrew Scheer put out a message saying that there’s a home for anyone who speaks truth to power among the Conservatives, which is frankly hilarious given how much they crushed dissent when they were in power. (Also note that the NDP won’t take floor-crossers who don’t run in a by-election under their banner, and if they “make an exception” in this case, that will speak to their own principles. As well, if anyone thinks that they’re a party that brooks dissent, well, they have another thing coming). Liberals, meanwhile, made a valiant effort at trying to show how this was doing things differently – because they let it drag on instead of instantly putting their heads on (metaphorical) spikes. And maybe Trudeau was trying to give them a chance – he stated for weeks that they allow dissenting voices in the caucus – but the end result was the same.

In hot takes, Andrew Coyne says the expulsions serve no purpose other than vindictiveness, and that it’s a betrayal of the role of backbenchers to hold government to account. Susan Delacourt marvels at how long this has dragged out, and whether it’s a signal of dysfunction in the centre of Trudeau’s government that it’s carried out as it has. Robert Hiltz zeroes in on the lines in Trudeau’s speech where he conflates the national interest with that of the Liberal Party, which has the side-effect of keeping our oligarchical overlords in their comfortable places.

Continue reading →

QP: Bringing in Anne McLellan

Posted on by

The news broke just before Question Period that Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick was retiring, and before things got underway, new MPs were shown in to take their places, including Jagmeet Singh, so now the NDP questions would no longer have to wedge his name into them. When things got underway, Andrew Scheer led off by first giving the prime minister the opportunity to address the shootings in New Zealand, auto which Justin Trudeau read a statement of sorrow, and made mention of the shooting in Utrecht earlier this morning. Scheer then switched to French to start up with question on the Double-Hyphen Affair, and wondered when the prime minister would “allow” the former Attorney General to speak at committee. Trudeau responded that because of the questions raised by this incident, he has appointed Anne McLellan as a special advisor to provide recommendations to the government. After the same question again in English, Scheer then raised Wernick’s retirement, and again demanded that Wilson-Raybould be allowed to speak. Trudeau read that he took responsibility for the erosion of trust between her and Butts, and that they already granted an unprecedented waiver, but the decision around prosecutions were always hers. Scheer tried one last time, and got the same response. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and after a brief statement about New Zealand, Singh demanded a commitment to building half a million new affordable homes. Trudeau first congratulated him on his election, before reading about the things they were doing to help Canadians and hoped he could count on the NDP’s support. Singh then switched to climate change and demanded an end to carbon tax exclusions for big emitters — shoeing he doesn’t understand the system. Trudeau responded with a memorised platitude about supporting the Middle Class™ while protecting the environment. Singh switched to French to worry about the OECD warning around SNC-Lavalin, to which Trudeau recited his lines about standing up for jobs. Singh repeated the question in English, and got much the same answer. 

Continue reading →