Tag Archives: National Security

Roundup: Conspicuous silences

Posted on by

While responses from Canadian politicians and civil society was swift to the mass murder in New Zealand by an alleged white nationalist, Andrew Scheer’s initial tweets didn’t mention the fact that the victims were Muslims, or that they were killed in a mosque. He later put out an official statement that mentioned these things, but didn’t recant any of his winking to white nationalists with “globalist” conspiracy theories, giving succour to racists in order to “own the Libs,” or his wilful blindness of the racist and xenophobic elements of the “yellow vest” protesters that he recently addressed on the Hill (alongside other famous white nationalists, without denouncing them).

Ahmed Hussen said that people who are silent about hateful online comments feed into the narratives that lead to violence, which had Scheer’s office sniping that he was trying to score political points off of a tragedy, but it’s notable that Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel were calling out people posting racist responses to the news of the tragedy. (Notably, only Michael Chong called out the white nationalist problem in Canada). Here’s Carleton University professor Stephanie Carvin providing some national security and intelligence context, along with some analysis of how social media feeds this problem.

Andrew Coyne points out Scheer’s continued inability to do the right thing, not only with his poor first statement this time, but his inability to confront racists and for buying into populist conspiracy theories (and he even missed a few other examples).

Jody Wilson-Raybould

As the next Liberal caucus meeting draws closer, and a decision as to whether Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott should be allowed to remain in caucus becomes more immediate, Wilson-Raybould published an open letter to her constituents to reiterate her commitment to being a Liberal, but it was more than that. Rather than just a simple statement about serving her constituents, or some feel-good language, she went on about being new to party politics and wanting to bring change to reject the culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games. Except this reads a lot like a cynical game in and of itself because it’s both a dare to the prime minister to keep her (and Jane Philpott) in caucus – Justin Trudeau saying he hasn’t spoken to either of them, and that he had no comment on this letter – and it sounds a lot like a challenge to Trudeau and his authority. You know, like she did with her refusal to turn over relevant information about recommendations for judicial appointments, and her refusal to be given a different Cabinet post. It remains to be seen what her endgame is, but this seems to be looking more like a future leadership bid, albeit in a way that hasn’t been done by those who have done so in the past. But that said, I think it’s pretty hard to ignore that Wilson-Raybould has an endgame in mind.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106587109429641216

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have decided that they’re going to begin a new round of procedural warfare over the demands to get Wilson-Raybould to testify again at the Justice committee, and they’re going to demand all-night line-by-line votes on the Supplemental Estimates. But…we’ve seen this show already. It’s a poor procedural protest because these votes have zero to do with the Wilson-Raybould situation, and when they vote against line items, it opens them up to attack from the government – just like the last time they attempted this and voted against things like veteran benefits allocations. It’s not smart strategy, and it’s premature because the committee hasn’t decided if they’re going to hear from Wilson-Raybould again or not. And then they’ll cry foul, like “You’re making us inconvenience everyone!” when no, nobody is making you do anything. Try again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to draw the line of appropriateness

Posted on by

I think it’s fair to say that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony at the Commons justice committee was far more explosive than most of us anticipated. Several of us had anticipated to be something that was going to be sufficiently vague so that everyone could read they wanted into it, and we’d be no better off than before. Well, that didn’t happen. Right off the start, she detailed how she was inappropriately pressured by several senior staffers, and a four-month campaign to get her to change her mind on the question of SNC-Lavalin, and the line for her was when they tried to make the case that SNC-Lavalin packing up their headquarters for London either in the middle of the Quebec election or six months before a federal election would be bad news for everyone, and saying that the prime minister made the point that he’s a Montreal MP. She also stated that she didn’t feel the need to resign but would have if they overrode her and published a direction in the Canada Gazette to the Director of Public Prosecutions (no kidding), but toward the end, she did say that nothing illegal happened (despite the fact that the Conservatives have spent the past two weeks trying to make the case that criminal obstruction of justice happened). Oh, and she refused to say whether she still has confidence in the prime minister. (More highlights here). While the opposition questions were, well, less questions than assertions that they believed her version of events and for her to elaborate on just how pressured she felt (and they asked the same thing over, and over, and over, for the entire four-hour hearing), while the Liberals made a somewhat concerted effort to poke holes in where she drew the line of what was inappropriate, and of her loyalty to the prime minister as party leader. Also noteworthy was that very few of the MPs who were involved in questioning were regular members of the committee – the Liberals somewhat inappropriately pulling in a parliamentary secretary for finance, Jennifer O’Connell, along with Ruby Sahota, to be their lead questioners, while the Conservatives pulled in Lisa Raitt and Pierre Paul-Hus as their “heavy hitters.” (The NDP also brought in Charlie Angus and Nathan Cullen to delivery sanctimony in the later rounds, once regular committee member Murray Rankin, had asked his questions).

When it was all over, Andrew Scheer rushed to a microphone to declare that Justin Trudeau needed to resign and the RCMP needed to open up an investigation, immediately overplaying his hand. Jagmeet Singh in turn demanded a public inquiry, but then again, there is nothing that doesn’t demand a national public inquiry. And Trudeau? He came out and said that he completely disagrees with Wilson-Raybould’s characterization of things, that they never crossed a line, and went back to his line about standing up for jobs while respecting the rule of law.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100977251351515138

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100978330994724864

But that’s really where this all winds up, doesn’t it – the subjective line of what constituted “inappropriate” pressure. And this is where the utility of any kind of investigation will fail – the Commons committee certainly won’t be able to come up with a definition because of partisan interest (and no, the Senate would not really do any better, nor do they have the time to devote to their own study of this issue because they are facing a crisis on their Order Paper). The Ethics Commissioner doesn’t have the ambit to deal with this kind of situation. A public inquiry would be led by a former jurist, but this is not a legal question – it’s one of subjective ethical considerations. That’s why this isn’t some black-and-white issue with regard to being on Trudeau or Wilson-Raybould’s side, because there isn’t a clear line. Was the amount of pressure the PMO was putting on her inappropriate? Probably, if her version of events is to be believed (and the description of trying to get an eminent legal mind to provide a third party opinion they could use did stick in my craw, though you will recall that Stephen Harper did the same thing in his attempt to put Marc Nadon on the Supreme Court), but they will be quick to justify it with political considerations (which, let’s face it, are not insignificant for any party). I fully expect Trudeau and the Liberals to try and nuance the hell out of this in the coming days – once you give them the requisite 36 to 48 hours to finally stop stepping all over their message and come up with a coherent line – and there may be another resignation or two from the PMO, but it won’t be from Trudeau. When the committee inevitably recommends that the government split the role of minister of justice and Attorney General into two separate roles, I would imagine that Trudeau would be all over that as a demonstration of good faith, but remember that would require a legislative change, and we’ll see if there’s enough time for that to pass in the remaining weeks of this parliament, or if it becomes an electoral promise (from all parties) to tackle first thing in the next parliament. We’ll have to see.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100938094713466885

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100939177884114944

In hot takes – and there were so, so many, Andrew Coyne calls it a full-out crisis for the PMO and Wilson-Raybould’s testimony to be “damning evidence”, while Chantal Hébert suspects that Trudeau will cling to the line that no laws were broken. Colby Cosh calls it the most compelling event in our Parliament in ages which doesn’t paint a pretty picture of “business as usual,” while Susan Delacourt says that this demonstration of the hard cynicism of power makes it difficult for Trudeau to run on “sunny ways” again this fall. There were a number of columnists that started writing Trudeau’s political obituary, but I frankly didn’t bother with them because seriously, we are a long way from that, particularly if Quebec takes the position that he was standing up for them and their jobs. Paul Wells pens a scorcher about pressure, partisanship, and the particular moral morass that the Liberals find themselves in after this whole affair.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1100964053092950016

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Butts, leaving uncertainty in his wake

Posted on by

So, mid-Family Day when most people in most provinces of this country were enjoying a day off (federal workers excluded), the latest bombshell in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama dropped – that the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, resigned his position. In his resignation letter, he vigorously denied any wrongdoing but was removing himself from the office to defend himself and to keep from being a distraction. Of course, the Conservatives cheered, but insisted that this was the sign of a PMO in crisis, and they would continue to get to the bottom of things at the Justice Committee (despite the fact that they’re limited in what they’re actually able to look into, and they are apparently going to go beyond the bounds of what procedure allows). The NDP, meanwhile, will be using their Supply Day to move a motion to demand an independent inquiry into the whole matter – because what government would welcome a Gomery-style inquiry that has the potential to spin out of control and blow up in their faces?

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1097580024742531073

It’s not hard to note that this leaves a gap in Trudeau’s office – Butts was his long-time friend and one of the architects of his success. But he was also seen by opponents as this puppet-master figure (RIP all of those “PM Butts” Twitter accounts), and among other observers of politics that he and Katie Telford may have also been a bit of a bottleneck for decisions. We’ll see who Trudeau replaces him with, and if the management style in the PMO changes as a result. We’ll also see if the mood in the caucus changes as well, and it’s been theorized that it’s another reason for the departure – that MPs have been getting restless with the amount of control that Butts has (cue the stories about MPs disgruntled about the way that caucus meetings are being handled, and that they’re afraid to air their views there for fear of being insulted). There are several months before the election, so perhaps this will give them time to right the ship in time. Maybe.

In terms of reaction columns, Susan Delacourt reflects on the Trudeau-Butts power dynamic within the party, and the uncertainty that is left in the wake of the departure. Chantal Hébert notes that Butts’ resignation may deflect the internal friendly-fire, but could leave Trudeau vulnerable on the eve of the election campaign (which is still eight months away!). Likewise, John Ivison hears that there may have been a “riot” at Liberal caucus on Wednesday had Butts not resigned, and this move makes him something of a scapegoat. Paul Wells regales us with the role Butts played as the “senior Liberal insider” in media stories, and how this central role in the PMO was probably not suited to federal politics, which will mean a way of reforming how Trudeau’s government operates.

Amidst this, there are two threads from Philippe Lagassé that you need to read – the first questions the critique that there are too many political staffers running things and that Parliament would work just great if they were gone. (I too find this a problematic assertion given that the bigger problem is the way in which our bastardized leadership contests have inflated the leader and his or her office in the first place). The second is a corrective to the specious lines about the “unelected” nature of the PMO and the power it wields, as people forget that we don’t elect prime ministers or Cabinet – they are appointed positions. Only the House of Commons is elected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flippant suggestions stepping on the message – again

Posted on by

There weren’t any official new developments in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould controversy yesterday, but we did get a few more drips of information, like how prime minister Justin Trudeau had a one-way teleconference call with the caucus in the wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s departure, with the main message being that he still wished her well and didn’t want her booted from caucus. Not helpful was justice committee chair Anthony Housefather who somewhat flippantly suggested that perhaps Wilson-Raybould was replaced because she didn’t speak French at a time when a great many legal issues are coming up in Quebec – only to apologise later and clarify that he said it in relation to the baseless speculation that is rampant, not because it was a serious suggestion (except he did repeat it in a couple of different interviews, but I’m sure it sounded good in his head at the time). Because this party never ceases to stop stepping all over its own message, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Every. Single. Time.

In the absence of any new developments in the story was looking at where various Liberals are starting to align themselves in relation to Wilson-Raybould’s current status, but that hasn’t stopped the anonymous Liberals from trying to give takes about “crossed wires” and “revisionist feelings” with benefit of the doubt going to Trudeau – or not, in other cases. Northwest Territories MP Michael McLeod points out that Wilson-Raybould’s departure means there is no longer Indigenous representation in Cabinet (expect this to be a factor in the upcoming shuffle). New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long continues to break ranks and say he wants more answers, and good for him for doing his job as a backbencher properly. Oh, and PMO now apparently condemns the smack talk of other anonymous Liberals besmirching Wilson-Raybould’s record following complaints from Indigenous groups that said it was sexist and racist. Elsewhere, a number of Indigenous senators published a letter of support for Wilson-Raybould but also noted that this shouldn’t derail reconciliation, which is more than the work of one minister. (Senator Brazeau was not among them and is trying to make more hay of this).

In related matters, here’s a look at how the way in which the Ethics Commissioner undertook his examination (note that he didn’t investigation) of the matter could mean that he can end it at any point without a public report, and it’s not clear that he really has the scope to undertake such an investigation to begin with. The premier of Quebec is calling for SNC-Lavalin to get that deferred prosecution agreement, surprising no one. Here’s a look at SNC-Lavalin’s history of lobbying on the issue, and why Quebec sees the company as an asset in spite of their poor history.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt thinks there are lessons from #MeToo that Trudeau should be drawing from in handling this whole mess, particularly as silence remains on half of the tale. Jen Gerson thinks that it’s time to stop treating SNC-Lavalin with kid gloves, and that their demise may actually benefit a number of other companies who don’t have a history of corruption.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Polling on magical parties

Posted on by

I am not a big fan about reporting on polls, which makes me particularly aggrieved that we saw a few stories today about the latest Angus Reid poll that postulated a hypothetical “Western Canada Party” and how that would skew the vote for the established parties. Why a poll like this is especially irksome is because when you invite people to vote for a hypothetical that has no leader, or policies, or structure, or even raison d’être, then it simply becomes a repository for unicorns and pixie dust. You’re inviting people from four fairly disparate provinces to join forces, when you have separate grievances with the federal government, and you think you’d make a coherent political force out of it? Really? What exactly is anyone supposed to take from this message, other than people have vivid imaginations?

Of course, the idea is pretty ludicrous on its face – it could never be anything other than a protest party that couldn’t aspire to power by sheer mathematics – and it builds on some particular mythology around the Reform Party that I’m not sure necessarily reflects history. You have people like Deborah Grey who hears this and just sighs about the notion about splitting the Conservative party again (though there is plenty to debate about how we qualify the “reunification”). Should Andrew Scheer read this poll and take it as a warning that his Western base thinks he’s pandering too much to Quebec? We’ve already seen him embrace some outright tinfoil hattery because he’s been spooked by Maxime Bernier and losing those votes – will he crank up his faux-Saskatchewan credentials to eleven for the rest of the election to keep pretending that he’s one of them to bash away at the federal government? Will we hear big and small-c conservatives double down on the faux mythology of Alberta’s conservativism (and if you haven’t yet, please do read Jen Gerson’s exploration of that mythology here). “Ooh, but protest vote!” people will handwave. But BC and Alberta would be protesting against different things – and different parts of BC would have different protests at that. Grievance-mongering is not a path to sustainable politics. Polls like this just confuse issues and make people think that there are magic wands – or in this case, magical political parties that could somehow cure all of their woes by forcing Ottawa to take them seriously, somehow. But that’s not real life, and politics is hard work, which is not something that this kind of polling reflects.

Continue reading →

QP: A gaffe and a gotcha

Posted on by

A very a sloppy Tuesday in Ottawa, and the prime minister was present for QP; Andrew Scheer was again absent. Alain Rayes led off, and he launched into an attack against Justin Trudeau because he ruled out a single tax return for Quebec. Trudeau stated that they would defend Quebeckers, including the 5000 people working for CRA in the province. Rayes disputed that this was about jobs, but Trudeau did not let up on that point, and asserted that it meant that the Conservatives didn’t understand the issue. Pierre Poilievre led off with the usual attacks against the prime minister’s family fortune, before railing about the deficit, to which Trudeau reminded him that his assets are in a blind trust, and that it was noteworthy that the Conservatives didn’t ask the previous question in English, because it showed that they weren’t afraid to beggar certain provinces. Poilievre repeated “blind trust” and spun it into an attack that he wanted Canadians to blindly trust him while he ran up the deficit. Trudeau noted that the Conservatives were content to give benefits to millionaires while he was focused on the Middle Class™. Poilievre accused him of class warfare, to which Trudeau reminded him that low income families don’t pay taxes, which he quickly corrected to them not benefitting from non-refuneable tax credits when they don’t pay taxes, before he praised the Canada Child Benefit. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and demanded a national pharmacare plan, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read about their advisory council coming up with a report on implementation. Caron railed about private insurance and corporate profits, to which Trudeau reminded him that they didn’t have the report, so they were simply engaged in fear-mongering. Don Davies repeated the question in English, to which Trudeau read the English version of his script. Davies repeated the point about private profits, to which Trudeau accused him of grasping at straws.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Election interference protocols

Posted on by

The federal government unveiled their plans for dealing with election interference in future elections, and tried to create a system that keeps it within the realm of the civil servants and away from Cabinet (who would be in caretaker mode during the writ-period) and politicians in general. The protocol (infographic here) would see that the heads of national security agencies brief the Clerk of the Privy Council, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, and the deputy ministers of Justice, Public Safety, and Global Affairs, who would then determine if there is a substantial threat to a free and fair election, at which point they inform the PM, party leaders, and Elections Canada before they hold a press conference to inform people of the incident.

In response, the Conservatives say it doesn’t go far enough, because they are on tear about foreign funding and third-party campaign financing, while the NDP say they want the Chief Electoral Officer involved (though I’m not quite sure what he would do in that kind of situation, because he deals with administering the election and not things like strategic “leaks” to media or propaganda). They also want social media companies to do more, and they are apparently reaching out to the government over this, but, well, their records have a lot to be desired in these kinds of situations.

Meanwhile, here’s Stephanie Carvin with what she was looking for beforehand:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090623966895587330

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090623974957039621

And what we saw in the announcement:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090643636231028736

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090649350609473538

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding a tax pledge

Posted on by

Another snowy day in Ottawa, and things got back underway in the new Chamber, with numerous statements of remembrance for the Quebec City Mosque shooting two years ago. While Justin Trudeau was present today, Andrew Scheer was not, preferring to tweet instead about Google search results he didn’t like. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, raising the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, and allegations that Scott Brison was withholding personal emails from the courts. Trudeau stood up to read that they were respecting judicial independence and would not comment. Raitt tried again, calling it a “concerning cover-up,” but Trudeau’s response did not change, only he recited the lines from memory. Raitt then moved on to a homily about affordability and wanted assurances that the government wouldn’t raise taxes. Trudeau assured her that they were cutting taxes for the Middle Class™ while they were growing the economy. Alain Rayes took over in French to demand a balanced budget with no tax hikes. Trudeau deployed his lines about growing the economy and helping the Middle Class™. Rayes tried again, and this time Trudeau insisted that they lowered taxes and would not raise them, while the Conservatives preferred tax cuts for the rich, when “trickle down economics doesn’t work.” Peter Julian led off for the NDP, accusing the PM of misleading the House on housing stats. Trudeau delivered some pat lines about their National Housing Strategy that has helped a million Canadians so far. Julian name-dropped the riding of Burnaby to demand new affordable housing, to which Trudeau cautioned him against maligning the refurbishment of existing housing which ensures Canadians have safe and affordable places to live, which is what they were ensuring. Brigitte Sansoucy went into a paean about personal debt and affordable housing, and Trudeau deployed more talking points about the investments they made. Sansoucy then said that he didn’t consider seniors in his response, to which Trudeau deployed his standard talking points about increasing the GIS.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few notes on the state of the Brexit drama

Posted on by

Given the state of the drama in Westminster right now, I thought I’d make a couple of points about why we’re here now. It’s pretty unprecedented for a government to lose a vote – badly – on a major foreign policy plank without automatically losing confidence, and yet, thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, that’s exactly the case. And because Theresa May squeaked out a confidence vote, that leaves her in something of a precarious situation about not really having a mandate to continue on the path she was on, while not being able to take anything to the people in a general election, as might ordinarily be the case under our share Westminster system. The FTPA has made Parliament untenable, and enables bad actors to game the system, which would ordinarily have been avoided by the sheer fact that they would have been keen to avoid shenanigans that the Queen would need to be involved in.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085530081768857600

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085531738971897858

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1085270260498886656

It seems to me that if the Westminster parliament were functioning normally, then May could have taken the question of proceeding with Brexit to the people in an election, given that she lost the vote of confidence. Of course that would necessitate Labour to come up with a coherent position (and perhaps a more coherent leader, which their current bastardised leadership selection process also gave them). That would have given the winning government a popular mandate to overtake the referendum if need be, but again, that’s now off the table because of the way the FTPA has distorted the Westminster system. With the practice of Responsible Government being blunted by this statute, it’s clear that it must go.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert looks at the Brexit omnishambles and compares it to the plans for Quebec sovereignty back in the day, and how this seems to be dampening any sovereigntist sentiment in the province even further (while getting in a few jabs about Andrew Scheer’s Brexit boosterism along the way). Andrew Coyne likewise looks to the Brexit drama as an object lesson in how seccession from any union is far from painless.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy v privilege

Posted on by

As expected, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed Senator Mike Duffy’s attempt to sue the Senate for their disciplining him because the Senate is protected by parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what allows the Senate to be self-governing and as a body that is focused on holding government to account, it has complete institutional independence for very good reason – so that they can speak truth to power without fear of dismissal or reprisal. So imagine the utter gall of Duffy’s response to this ruling.

“The Charter of Rights applies to all Canadians, but the Court decision states that because of the centuries old concept of Parliamentary Privilege, the Charter doesn’t apply to Senators.” Oh dear me. No. You see, the only reason that Duffy still has a job in the Senate is because of parliamentary privilege. If he didn’t have the privilege afforded to him, he couldn’t have made the myriad of accusations about Stephen Harper and his operatives in the Senate Chamber on the eve of his suspension – not without fear of reprisal, particularly a lawsuit. That the Senate is self-governing and has institutional independence saved him from being summarily dismissed by the prime minister of the day when Duffy caused him a great deal of embarrassment. While I don’t dispute that Duffy was subjected to a flawed process that denied him the benefit of due process due to political expediency because, the fact that he received a suspension without pay that was eventually lifted, allowing him to resume his duties with full pay and serving enough time for his pension to kick in, means that he has pretty much escaped consequence for actions that he very likely would have been fired for in any other circumstance. That he then accuses the concept of privilege as stripping him of his Charter rights, when it has in fact protected him in every conceivable way, is utterly boggling.

Meanwhile, it seems clear that between this bit of self-pitying and the decision to pose with Senators Brazeau and Wallin while Brazeau tweeted that they “survived the unjustifiable bs [sic]” (since deleted), that there seems to be an insufficient amount of self-reflection at play, and that perhaps the three should continue to keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves, because the public has not forgotten them.

Continue reading →