Tag Archives: NSICOP

Roundup: A genteel time that never was

Posted on by

I saw a post yesterday that took a page from Hansard on that day in 1978, and well, it was full of the first prime minister Trudeau and several honourable members accusing one another of being animals, or parts thereof. And while hilarious, I think it’s a bit of a corrective when people keep insisting that Parliament used to be a much more genteel place (and we got a lot of that during the Ed Broadbent and Brian Mulroney memorials).

It really wasn’t that genteel. It never has been—there are infamous reports in Hansard about early debates in the 1860s where MPs were setting off firecrackers in the Chamber and playing musical instruments to disrupt people speaking. And I can also say that Question Period was a hell of a lot more raucous when I started covering it fifteen years ago compared to what it is today, which has a lot to do with the Liberals clamping down on applause (for the most part) for their members, which has led to there being less heckling from the Liberal benches (not saying it doesn’t happen—it absolutely does—just not as much, and certainly not in the quantities it used to be).

Question Period is worse in other ways, however—nowadays it’s all reciting slogans and everyone on the same script so that they can each get a clip for their socials, while the government gives increasingly disconnected talking points in lieu of responses, and there’s almost no actual debate (though every now and again, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre will get into an actual exchange with one another). And the repetition of slogans or the reading of canned lines each give rise to heckling because of its ridiculousness, and yes, there is louder heckling when women ministers are answering questions (but this is not a recent phenomenon either). But there was never a golden age of gentility in our Parliament, and we need to stop pretending there was as we lament the state of things. Instead, we should be lamenting the quality of the debate, which has been dead and buried since about the time that Bob Rae retired from politics.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck an educational facility in Odesa, killing four. Russian forces are advancing in the eastern Donetsk region after the withdrawal from Avdiivka, while Ukraine waits for new arms from the west. UN experts say that a missile that landed in Kharkiv on January 2nd was indeed of North Korean manufacture. Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, visited Kyiv—the first member of the royal family to do so since the war began—and continued her work championing those affected by conflict-related sexual violence.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith’s municipal power grab

Posted on by

The Alberta government tabled a bill yesterday that gives them sweeping new powers as it relates to municipalities in the province, leaving a lot of questions as to why. Constitutionally they do have this ability, as municipalities are creatures of the province, but the motivation is the real question. Among the changes are allowing political parties to run in municipal elections in Edmonton and Calgary, which I have to wonder if this isn’t for some kind of back-handed partisan purposes, so that they can point to how many counsellors identify as NDP, Liberals, or C/conservative as opposed to having to guess under the current system, but it’s a change nobody really asked for. I am of two minds with it, because it could provide more resources and better nomination processes…but it would also create expectations between the provincial party and the municipal party, and that is something I’m not sure anyone would really look to as being a good thing.

The bill also seeks to ban electronic tabulators in municipal elections (which I’m not wholly opposed to because I prefer hand-counting ballots whenever possible), but the real thrust has to do with the ability to terminate councillors, and with overturning bylaws, and this seems to be the big one, because they are particularly butthurt that certain municipalities have implemented single-use plastic bans, and that’s far too “woke” for this provincial government. Better to overrule the decisions that those elected officials made and will be accountable to their voters for, and just strike those bylaws entirely.

As for the ability to terminate sitting councillors, the minister insists this is only for extremely serious cases (of which I can’t think of any in Alberta—we’ve had a couple in Ontario and one in Ottawa particularly), but just who decides what that threshold is are the premier and Cabinet, so it’s not like there is much in the way of safeguards, and if you’re giving this power to premier and Cabinet, to overturn an election in a municipality, is asking for it to be abused—particularly when you have someone like Danielle Smith in charge of those powers. I foresee a future gong show, because this is Danielle Smith’s Alberta we’re talking about.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian shelling killed three in the Donetsk region, while a missile attack against the Kharkiv region hit a railway station, wounding ten. Another Russian missile damaged critical rail infrastructure in the central Cherkasy region. Meanwhile, while the soon-to-be arriving new tranche of US aid is going to help Ukraine rebuild its defences, it is unlikely to recover it enough to resume a counter-offensive anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Simping for the return of Stephen Harper

Posted on by

Yesterday, former Conservative campaign manager and current media darling Fred DeLorey wrote a column for iPolitics that posited that under a Pierre Poilievre government, appointing Stephen Harper to the Cabinet post of foreign affairs would be a “bold declaration of Canada’s readiness to assume a pivotal role in shaping global affairs.” It’s a…novel…argument, and while I will admit that I haven’t read the piece because my subscription has lapsed, I wanted to make a few points regardless.

The first point is that while it is possible for a prime minister to appoint a minister who doesn’t have a seat, the convention is that they find one as soon as possible, whether in the Commons or in the Senate, because otherwise they can’t report to Parliament or sponsor legislation without needing a proxy to do it for them. Harper himself appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to serve as minister of public works, and later international trade. (Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a seat in the Commons in the next election and was soundly defeated). I find the notion of Harper being given a Senate seat to be far too ironic considering his utter disdain for the institution, and in particular its appointed nature. The alternative is asking one of Poilievre’s MPs to resign in a safe seat to run a by-election for Harper to run in, but again, I have seen zero desire on his part to get back into electoral politics. He’s also a one-man show, and the party is still very much his cult of personality, three leaders later, so I have a hard time envisioning him being a team player and not undermining Poilievre’s authority at every turn.

As for it being a “bold declaration,” I think that on the face of it, it smacks of trying to copy Rishi Sunak giving David Cameron the post in the UK government (along with a seat in the Lords), and Sunak’s government is about to be wiped out in the upcoming general election. There has also been plenty of chatter since this proposal went up over Twitter, and a lot of it is from people who still, to this day, believe that Harper is some kind of Bond villain, and that his IDU is some kind of SPECTRE. He’s not, and it’s not. The IDU is a social club for terrible people, and Harper has spent a lot of time cultivating friendships with autocrats and dictators, and has been part of the move to create permission structures for far-right parties to engage in increasingly autocratic far-right behaviour. It’s hard to think of what kind of cachet Harper is going to have on the foreign policy circuit given that he didn’t really have any foreign policy wins when he was in office. Conservatives love to recount how he allegedly told Putin to get out of Ukraine at a major summit, and look how effective that was—Putin went from occupying Crimea to launching a full-scale invasion of the rest of the country. Harper really showed him! Meanwhile, he’s spent so much time cuddling up to these terrible people and laundering their actions in pretending that they are “centre-right democratic parties,” unless that’s the kind of foreign policy that Poilievre wants to cultivate (which is possible). I just fail to see where DeLorey sees an upside in any of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have been pounding Ukrainian power facilities, including a hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, or power supplies in Kharkiv, during which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on allies to summon the political will to deliver needed air defences. Russia says these are “revenge strikes” for attacks across their border, an claims these military targets including “concentrations of troops and foreign mercenaries.” Ukraine says that Russian oil refineries are legitimate targets. Ukraine is also worried that Russia could be preparing as many as 100,000 troops to make a new offensive push this summer, or to replenish depleted units.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1771149078010765485

Continue reading →

Roundup: It’s Speaker Election Day!

Posted on by

Today is the day for the election of the new House of Commons Speaker, which begins with speeches at 10 AM, a thirty-minute pause so that the candidates can lobby MPs one last time and answer any questions they have, and then they begin voting. It’s a preferential ballot, so we don’t know how long it will take to count (which will depend if someone wins on the first ballot or not), and then they need to go through the protocol with the Senate before the Commons can return to business. Depending on how long this takes, we may or may not have Question Period today, so stay tuned.

In the meantime, here are some of the candidates for the position lamenting the current state of affairs in the Commons, but as I wrote in my weekend column, this is something that the Speaker alone cannot fix. He or she can help, particularly by applying the rules and not simply shrugging off when people break them (like Anthony Rota had a tendency to do), but real reform is going to require the cooperation of all MPs to change the Standing Orders to empower the Speaker to do more, and to give up the power of the party House Leaders to determine speaking lists (because they claim to need to have a “strategy,” which is both ridiculous and undermines the power of MPs). And more to the point, if a Speaker is too tough in enforcing the rules, then MPs may conspire to ensure they don’t win the Speaker election in the next Parliament (which is what happened to Geoff Regan, and why we wound up with the deeply unserious Rota).

This being said, it sounds like Chris d’Entrement may have soured his chances with the Liberals with his ruling last week in not admonishing Melissa Lantsman for her personal attack on Karina Gould during Question Period, and that may mean that Alexandra Mendès could win enough votes provided that enough Liberals rally around her as first choice, ensuring that we finally get our second female Speaker (finally), given that I really don’t think that Greg Fergus or Sean Casey are serious contenders for the job. Then again, ranked ballots are funny things, and sometimes crazy things happen as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces shelled the southern city of Kherson, killing two and wounding ten. In the northern city of Kharkiv, officials are building a fully underground school so that children can learn safely as Russian attack continue. Meanwhile, as shenanigans are taking place in the US Congress around funding for Ukraine, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with EU ministers about continuing vital cooperation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Smith can’t get her story or timeline straight

Posted on by

Danielle Smith took to the microphones yesterday to thump her chest about the proposed clean electricity regulations, but what wound up happening was a series of wrong facts about her government’s “pause” on approvals for new clean electricity projects. Smith claims that the moratorium came at the request of the Alberta Utilities Commission and the Alberta Electric System Operator, except neither requested it, the timelines don’t add up, and it looks a lot like Smith’s government has been going out of their way to screw with clean energy stakeholders.

Receipts are all below.

Smith also refused to say whether our record wildfire season across the country is related to climate change, but insisted that most of the fires in her province were set by humans. That’s also a lie, but that’s Smith’s modus operandi.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia launched a large-scale air attack against western Ukraine including the city of Lviv, which was the largest attack on the city since the start of the war. There were missile and drone strikes against Odessa which wounded three in the early hours of Monday. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited troops near the eastern front line yesterday.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Johnston carries on with the job

Posted on by

As expected, all of the opposition parties voted for the NDP’s motion to call on David Johnston to step aside and for the government to call a public inquiry, and it passed. It’s a non-binding motion, and so it doesn’t have much weight, and Johnston put out a reply shortly thereafter saying that his mandate comes from government and not Parliament, so he’s going to keep doing his job. (Of note, only government and not Parliament can call a public inquiry as well, so the notion that Johnston is “not independent” because his mandate comes from government is stupid, illogical, and made in bad faith). The NDP motion also ignores one other crucial bit of reality, which is that there is almost zero chance that there would be a suitable replacement who would actually want to subject themselves to ongoing character assassination and harassment, whom every party leader can also agree to because they have no conflicts of interest, real or invented (and there are a hell of a lot of invented ones at play).

I will note that David Cochrane put these questions to Jagmeet Singh on Power & Politics last night, and Singh just flailed and kept repeating his talking points about the “appearance of bias,” and accusing Johnston’s lawyer of being biased because she has been a Liberal donor (never mind that she doesn’t actually make any decisions here), and kept saying that he wasn’t casting aspersions on Johnston when he obviously was by repeating the false accusations of bias.

Meanwhile, here’s Jessica Davis on how untenable this situation has become, which is why Johnston unfortunately remains the best-placed person to finish the job (click through for the whole thread).

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have kept up their air attacks on Kyiv, and at least three people were killed overnight as a result. Russians are claiming that Ukrainians shelled one of their towns, and that their drones struck two oil refineries (the veracity of said claims remains untested).

Continue reading →

QP: Why won’t you take the briefing?

Posted on by

The prime minster, his deputy, and all of the other leaders were present today, which was a nice change of pace. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and declared that nobody believes that the prime minister’s “chalet buddy” David Johnston has to say, accuse him of covering up foreign interference, and demanded the prime minister fire his “Trudeau Foundation Buddy” and call a public inquiry. Justin Trudeau pointed out that Poilievre claims to want the facts but he has refused briefing in order to know them. Poilievre insisted that a briefing was a trap to silence him, to which Trudeau suggested that it was why he didn’t do anything about foreign interference when he was minster of democratic reform. Poilievre gave a tortured recitation about secrets, and suggested Trudeau was so enamoured with Chinese dictatorship that he wants to silence his critics. Trudeau repeated that Poilievre would rather hide behind a veil of ignorance so he that he can carry on making baseless personal attacks. Poilievre insisted that he would have been subject to silencing measures, and Trudeau noted that as a former minister of the Crown, he was already subject to oaths of secrecy and he could handle those, but now he prefers ignorance in order to make personal attacks. Poilievre returned to French to again link Johnston to the Trudeau Foundation and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau said that this was a clear demonstration that Poilievre has no understanding of how security and intelligence works, and that he is manufacturing reasons to remain in ignorance.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc and listed people calling for a public inquiry, and wondered if Trudeau would listen to David a Johnston or Morris Rosenberg. Trudeau recounted Johnston’s calculation as to why he chose not to recommend one. Blanchet insisted that Johnston and therefore the report had no legitimacy, and Trudeau pointed out that Blanchet was also refusing briefings in order to maintain partisan attacks.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, claimed an “overwhelming perception of bias” and demanded that Johnston stand aside and call a public inquiry. Trudeau sang Johnston’s praise, and that it was too bad the opposition was too busy playing politics. Singh switched to French to demand support for his Supply Day motion on a public inquiry, and Trudeau insisted they took the allegations seriously, which is why they have instituted a number of mechanisms to combat it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Arguing over an appearance already scheduled

Posted on by

It’s not even a sitting week, and yet we were treated to another instalment of the parliamentary clown show that has infected our House of Commons. The Procedure and House Affairs committee held an emergency meeting to demand that David Johnston appear before them to explain his reasons for not recommending a public inquiry. But the moment they got there, the chair said that Johnston was already scheduled to appear at the committee on June 6th, and that this had been arranged previously, and it just confirmed that this insistence he appear right away was just really, really bad theatre.

And then it went downhill from there, as MPs spent the next four hours debating a motion for Johnston to appear even sooner than the 6th, for no less than three hours, alone, because remember, they need to put on a bit song and dance about how they’re so serious! about all of these allegations. As I said, bad theatre. And then, the Liberals and NDP decided to try and be clever about this, and include a recommendation in the motion that all party leaders go through the security clearance process in order to read the full report and all of its classified evidence used to compile it. Well, that didn’t go over very well, and in the end, the Conservatives voted against their own motion because they didn’t want to be called out for refusing to actually read the full documents.

Spending four hours to try and sound tougher about a pre-scheduled meeting, to give themselves the last word, is just one more reason why our Parliament is no longer a serious institution. It’s appalling that they have wasted everyone’s time and resource like this, because Michael Cooper needed to make himself look like a tough guy. Inexcusable.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Wagner Group mercenaries are preparing to turn over control of their positions in Bakhmut to Russian soldiers, while Ukraine says that Wagner is only turning over positions on the outskirts of the city, and that they have drawn Russian forces into the city, where they are inflicting high casualties and weakening Russian defensive lines elsewhere. A prisoner swap took place for 106 Ukrainian soldiers, some of them captured in the fighting in Bakhmut. Russian control of one of the dams along the Dnipro river is causing flooding because they haven’t been working to level the water flow with the other dams in the network.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ad hoc panel assembled to review documents NSICOP should have handled

Posted on by

After months and months of delay, the government has finally unveiled the ad hoc panel that will examine the Winnipeg Lab documents, and that panel will comprise of four MPs and three former judges—two former Supreme Court of Canada justices, and one from the Federal Court of Appeal. Allegedly it took so long to set up because they needed to convince the judges, and then it took forever to get the Bloc and finally the Conservatives on board.

Of course, this whole exercise is completely unnecessary because this should have all been done by NSICOP. This is exactly the kind of thing that it was created for, but the Conservatives have been bad actors about this entire affair (and Michael Chong being among the worst of said bad actors), turning this whole thing into a needlessly drawn-out affair that has involved the government suing the House of Commons over a production order, and years of absolutely unhinged conspiracy theories as to what happened (again, with Chong being among the worst offenders).

I can pretty much guarantee you that this committee is going to find nothing to write home about. There has been plenty of reporting as to what happened. It wasn’t Chinese espionage. It was almost certainly a policy breach related to intellectual property, but this being a highly secured facility, you can imagine that has complicated matters. In any case, this whole thing is going to wind up being one giant waste of everyone’s time and resources because they decided to make a dog and pony show out of it for the sake of trying to embarrass the government rather than being responsible and just letting NSICOP read the unredacted documents that were provided to them in the first place.

Ukraine Dispatch:

There have been more early-morning missiles fired at Kyiv, and falling debris has set fire to one non-residential building, while at least one person was killed in a missile strike on Odessa. While Ukrainian forces continue to make gains around Bakhmut, the Russians are still sending people into the fighting, and there doesn’t appear to be any ammunition shortage, in spite of those Wagner Group videos.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658751950165356544

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1658800755946528774

Continue reading →

Roundup: The choices around Basic Income

Posted on by

Because I saw some news stories floating around this week yet again around Basic Income and the desire for the federal government to implement it, I wanted to point out that economist Lindsay Tedds has co-authored a book which was released yesterday on how to move beyond that discussion into better alternatives, drawing on her experience from the BC Basic Income panel that she was a part of.

To that end, here is Kevin Milligan providing some back-up on why this conversation involves choices that nobody likes to ever talk about. Funny that.

And yes, most Basic Income models keep gutting the supports for those who need them the most, and that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1651260056866811904

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces pounded Bakhmut yet again, trying to destroy buildings so that the Ukrainians can’t use them as fortifications. Elsewhere, Ukraine was able to retrieve 44 POWs from Russian company, two of whom were civilians. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an hour-long call with Chinese president Xi Jinping, which included talk of what role China could play in the peace process with Russia.

Continue reading →