Tag Archives: NSICOP

QP: Demanding a show of urgency on Calls to Action

Posted on by

For Wednesday, proto-PMQ day, Justin Trudeau was present with his one other MP, Mark Gerretsen, because of course he was. Erin O’Toole led off, script on his mini-lectern, and he mentions the Kamloops mass graves, and wanted urgent action on several of the Calls to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation report. Trudeau had a script to read that they accepted all of the calls to action, and are working with Indigenous communities to fulfil those calls, including millions of dollars from Budget 2019. O’Toole insisted that this wasn’t good enough and wanted “urgent” action, for which Trudeau insisted that they have been taking it seriously, and that they are working with the communities, but mentioned that this fresh sense of urgency comes from non-Indigenous Canadians, but Indigenous people have been living with this. O’Toole tried to sound somber in saying that the families deserved a precise roadmap to achieving these calls to action, and Trudeau slowed down to annunciate that they were working in a culturally appropriate and trauma-informed way, and then slammed the Conservatives for not giving funding when the Commission asked for it in 2019. O’Toole insisted that they needed to “show urgency” and that this wasn’t time for political rhetoric — and yet that was all he was offering. Trudeau repeated that they are moving forward and put the boots to the Conservatives for fighting the UNDRIP bill. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question about the renounced funding, and Trudeau reiterated that they are taking action and allocated funding.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he wanted time allocation on Bill C-10, musing that perhaps the government wanted the bill to fail so that they could blame the Conservatives, and Trudeau condemned the games the Conservatives were playing in committee to delay the bill while praising the aims of the bill. Blanchet then meandered about protecting French, before returning to C-10 as a mechanism to do so, and Trudeau thanked him for recognising the cultural protections in the bill, which was why they were trying to get it passed.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and he returned to the topic of the mass grave, and once again raised the court cases against Indigenous children and survivors (though, as a lawyer, Singh should know that narrow points of law do need to be contested when they create bad precedents). Trudeau somewhat sharply reminded him that they support compensation and moving forward in culturally appropriate ways. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same reply.

Continue reading →

QP: Leaning harder into the Winnipeg Lab conspiracy theory

Posted on by

It was the prime minister’s first appearance in the Chamber since the discovery of the mass grave in Kamloops last week, and he was joined once again by Mark Gerretsen. Erin O’Toole led off, and with his script before him, he asked for swift action on the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission around the residential schools. Justin Trudeau gave some platitudes about reconciliation and mentions their investments in those Calls to Action. O’Toole then moved onto the National Microbiology Lab, and deliberately conflated the issue around the two fired scientists with the global demand for answers around the origin of COVID, for which Trudeau reminded him that there are mechanisms to review national security matters. O’Toole dismissed NSICOP as the prime minister’s “secret committee” and tried to conflate the issue around those scientists, for which Trudeau hit back about the secrecy of the Harper government and their refusal to subject national security agencies to independent oversight. O’Toole switched to French to repeat his first question on the two scientists, for which Trudeau reminded him of the oversight mechanisms. O’Toole switched back to English to try and tie in this with approvals for foreign investment from China and Huawei, and Trudeau replied that the Conservatives never hesitate to play politics with national security, before he returned to his praise of the creation of NSICOP.

Yves-François Blanchet rose for the Bloc, and pressed for the swift passage of Bill C-10 in spite of Conservative opposition, for which Trudeau praised the cooperation of other parties in trying to pass the bill, and that they hoped to pass it before summer. Blanchet warned that if it did not pass by summer, there would be a heavy political price to pay in Quebec, and Trudeau reminded him that they have been there for artists since the beginning, starting with reversing the Harper-era cuts, and that it was the Conservatives blocking culture.

Jagmeet Singh led for the NDP, and he raised the court challenges around Indigenous children and residential school survivors (which are about narrow points of law and not compensation). Trudeau stated that every survivor deserves compensation and they are working on that, and they have also been guiding “transformative change” around Indigenous child and family services. Singh repeated the question in French, and got much the same answer.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A broken system thwarting foreign agents

Posted on by

Something in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) annual report, made public this week caught my eye, which talked about how the “critical election incident protocol panel” – the body set up in order to have some sort of way to help deal with any detected foreign interference during an election (given the whole Russian interference thing south of the border in previous of their elections) – needs to include more traditional espionage as part of their warning triggers. Why? Because, as NSICOP says, foreign agents could try to infiltrate political parties to exert influence, whether it’s in nomination meetings, or volunteering in campaign offices.

I will admit that I laughed.

Not because foreign interference isn’t serious – because it is – but because the joke would be on them, given that grassroots members no longer have any influence in our political system since we have made the system entirely leader-driven. Nomination meetings are being gamed by leaders’ offices to the point where it’s difficult to determine just how free and fair any of them are these days – that is, when leaders aren’t outright appointing candidates (as Justin Trudeau did with Marci Ien and Ya’ara Saks for the by-elections late last year). Trying to hijack nomination contests at the best of times is exceedingly difficult because of the requirement for the leader’s signature (or their proxies, thanks to the garbage Reform Act), which was part of why that requirement was created back in 1970 – officially to keep the Chief Electoral Officer from needing to adjudicate nomination disputes, but anecdotally about heading off pro-life groups trying to hijack Liberal nominations. Foreign agents trying to use the same tactics would have fairly marginal chances of success once their involvement became known.

This is less of an indictment of the use of party infiltration as a tactic of foreign agents, but rather of how our system has degenerated. Because we insisted on moving to leadership contests that became quasi-presidential primaries, we have upended the entire grassroots nature of our parties, and now everything is top-down, leader driven. It shouldn’t be this way, and yet this is where we are.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ending the defence committee study

Posted on by

Something unexpected happened yesterday, in that the Defence committee voted to end the study on the allegations against General Jonathan Vance – the Liberals moving the motion, and the Bloc supporting it (which was the real surprise). Of course, ending the study comes with a number of different narratives. For the Conservatives and the NDP, this is all about the government trying to “cover up” what happened, because they won’t allow staffers to testify – nor should they. The concept of ministerial responsibility is inviolable in our constitutional framework, and the government should be fighting to maintain it, and yes, they have put the minister forward in this case several times, so that does matter. For the Liberals’ decision to move to end the study, it’s also at the request of some victims’ groups, who have stated that every past government is at fault, and that the committee is simply using the victims in order to score partisan points – and they are 100 percent correct in that assertion.

I do find it disturbing, however, that in most of the reporting on what has gone on, media have followed the opposition narrative that staffers are being “blocked” from appearing, and that the only time that ministerial responsibility is mentioned, it’s in quotes and being both-sidesed in terms of the government’s response. This is a real problem because it is undermining this fundamental principle in our democracy. This is something that should be explained, including why it’s wholly improper for the opposition to be demanding that this important principle be violated, and why when the Conservatives were in government, they repeatedly invoked the same principle as well to keep their staffers away from committee. Constitutional principles matter – they’re not just to be dismissed as a “process story” as so many journalists and editors are wont to do in this city, and it cheapens the discourse when this context is being left out of the stories, and when the government’s correct position is being spun as being improper.

Of course, if the government is going to claim ministerial responsibility, that doesn’t just mean Sajjan has to show up (which, to his credit, he did for six hours) – Sajjan has to actually take responsibility as well, and he hasn’t. And more to the point, Sajjan should fall on his sword for this, because he did drop the ball. He remained way too incurious about the allegations and whether an investigation was being carried out – which is not the same as involving himself in the investigation or meddling in it. It’s basic due diligence for someone who is responsible to Parliament for the armed forces and its leadership, and he failed in that due diligence. Sajjan has no choice but to resign over this, and it will be a giant sign that Justin Trudeau is not taking this seriously if he doesn’t insist on a resignation in short order.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More alike than unalike

Posted on by

The NDP decided that the bilateral meeting between Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden was the perfect time to take to shitposting about it, in the form of a juvenile mock-up of the agenda items, and making their remarks on them. Because this is where we’re at in this country – our two main opposition parties have decided that the online tactics of shitposting are definitely the way to win the hearts and minds of Canadian voters.

In the NDP’s case, this is not only about trolling Trudeau, but also Biden, because they have made a concerted effort to appeal to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Bernie Sanders fanbase – consistent with their lifting their policy ideas wholesale, no matter whether or not they have any relevance in the Canadian context. This tends to involve a certain amount of trying to “win the Internet,” whether it’s with Jagmeet Singh adopting TikTok memes, or the culmination of this attempt to co-opt American Democrat cred when Singh and Ocasio-Cortez played Among Us over Twitch as part of a fundraiser. As a more centrist, compromise candidate, Biden is seen as a betrayal of the progressive wing of the Democrats, and you can bet that the Canadian New Democrats trying to appeal to them is going to cash in on that as much as possible.

None of this should be too surprising, however – the NDP have long-since abandoned any real sense of ideology for the sake of being left-flavoured populists, running after flavours of the week and pursuing policies that don’t actually make sense for their own purported principles (like their demand to cut the HST off of home heating, which would only disproportionately reward the wealthy). In this way, they have been more like the Conservatives than unalike for a while now, but with this full-on embrace of shitposting (as opposed to simply the mendacious omission of jurisdictional boundaries in their demands) just drives that point home.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau in isolation

Posted on by

The pace of COVID-19 news was relentless yesterday, culminating in the news that Sophie Grégoire Trudeau had tested positive for the virus following her trip to the UK, and that the prime minister would be isolated for the next two weeks as a result. He’d already announced earlier in the day that he was self-isolating while his wife was undergoing testing, and that he would be working from home, but it also meant the cancellation of the First Ministers Meeting – to be held later today by phone – and the indefinite postponement of said first ministers meeting with Indigenous leaders. Not to be outdone, Jagmeet Singh also announced that he was self-isolating because he was feeling “unwell.” And while more events get cancelled, Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole have stated they will suspend public campaign activities for the time being (though one suspects that this will simply escalate into a shitpost war online as they battle for votes in that space).

The big question now is whether or not Parliament will suspend for the coming weeks, and there are moves afoot – the Senate has been recalled to sit tomorrow (they usually don’t sit Fridays), and the talk is that the Commons will pass the New NAFTA tomorrow morning, and send it to the Senate immediately for passage so that if there is a decision to suspend, that will be out of the way. And it should be noted that the Senate did to pre-study on the bill while it was still in the Commons, so that will expedite the passage in the Senate, provided that twelve different senators don’t feel the need to give useless Second Reading speeches (because that’s a real danger these days).

Once again, Maclean’s has resources on symptoms and how to get tested.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells gives a decent reading of the year to date, and makes the case that First Ministers’ meetings are pretty useless these days so the cancellation of this one is not a big loss. Heather Scoffield ensures that you know where to place the blame for the markets crashing and wiping out retirement savings. And here’s infectious disease specialist Dr. Isaac Bogoch on what we can expect over the next two weeks.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Self-isolating MPs

Posted on by

Yesterday evening, Seamus O’Regan tweeted that after a persistent head cold, he went to his doctor and was self-isolating until he got the results of the COVID-19 test that he got. Around the same time, former Conservative Cabinet minister (and sexting blackmail victim) Tony Clement was on Power & Politics saying that it may be time to think about taking Parliament “digital,” and holding debates and votes remotely for the duration. Yeah, that’s a big nope.

I get that being a politician is a tactile business, and there are concerns that the House of Commons is essentially one big cruise ship, however Parliament needs to happen face-to-face. It’s inconceivable that it could be done remotely because so many of the needed conversations happen off-camera and on the sidelines. That can’t be replicated by everyone working remotely. Should they take additional precautions? Sure – additional hand-washing, practicing social distancing when they take meetings, and so on, but that’s not exactly a big hardship. And it’s not like there aren’t a number of constituency weeks coming up for MPs to hunker down if they need to, and even though it may be a hung parliament, there are more than enough provisions for members from different parties to “pair” absences so that there are no accidental losses of confidence in the meantime (because as much as the Conservatives claim they want an early election, this is largely bravado as their party organization is in chaos and they are in no shape for it, not to mention that neither the Bloc nor the NDP want one either, and they have the votes that count).

The bigger danger, however is contagion – not of the virus, but of the notion that MPs can “work remotely,” which many have been pushing for in the ongoing effort to make Parliament more “family friendly.” But that way lies madness – MPs won’t bother to leave their constituencies, believing they can do more good there (even though constituency work is actually not part of their job description), and without those sideline conversations, it will polarize the environment even more than it already is. Recall how collegiality was shattered after evening sittings were ended and MPs no longer ate dinner together – this would make it that much worse, if they no longer have to look one another in the eye or cross paths. This nonsense needs to be quashed here and now. You can’t Skype Parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sledgehammer solution

Posted on by

Talk about the sexual assault training for judges bill has continued, and the Conservatives have continued to float the idea that it should be expanded to include Parole Board officers. The problem there, of course, is that the bill deals with amendments to the Judges Act, which has bugger all to do with the Parole Board, and this too-cute-by-half tactic of the Conservatives betrays how boneheaded their tactics are.

Meanwhile, Gib van Ert, former Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (who heads the Canadian Judicial Council), has some thoughts on the bill and why it’s very problematic.

Some scholars have shrugged and say “Big deal if it means they get more training,” but the original legislation was far more insidious in that the reporting requirements were a threat do the administrative independence of the court as well. But I’ve spoken to former judges who say this is unnecessary. Another one responded to van Ert. Part of the problem is that there have been high profile cases where the judge has been very wrong on sexual assault law, and that tends to be overturned at the appellate level – but much of the time, the most infamous cases have been provincial court judges, which this doesn’t deal with.

So why are they doing this? Optics. MPs want to look like they’re doing something about the problems or perceived problems, and they’re taking the sledgehammer approach because it looks effective, even when it may not actually be. But that is so much of politics these days, which we need to start breaking out of.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Defence intelligence and their limits

Posted on by

Some of you may recall that recently, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians submitted a report to the prime minister, which was later made public, about how military intelligence in this country is large and vaster than most people anticipate. The Canadian Press recently obtained the August 2018 federal directive about what kinds of personal information that defence intelligence is able to collect and keep, and it turns out that they can indeed keep some of that information, even if obtained by chance, so long as it supports a legitimate investigation. You may recall that at the time of the NSICOP report that there were calls for its activities to be bound by statute instead of by Crown prerogative, as it is currently. With that in mind, here’s Philippe Lagassé with some context on why that may or may not be a good thing.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1137787804979748865

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1137789288127631361

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 →