Tag Archives: Privacy

Roundup: A (likely) electoral false alarm

Posted on by

There were a few eyebrows raised in the Parliamentary Precinct yesterday when news came from the Procedure and House Affairs committee that the Chief Electoral Officer said that they intend to be ready for an election by the end of April, never mind that the fixed election date is October, and suddenly there was a renewed (but brief) round of election speculation fever (which was then suffocated by the Kavanagh hearings south of the border). Stéphane Perrault noted that they can basically run an election anytime under the previous contest’s rules, but they need lead time for future changes, which puts a clock on the current bill at committee if they want to have a chance for any of the changes to be implemented by next year’s election – and that assumes fairly swift passage in the Senate, which they may not get (particularly if the Conservatives are determined to slow passage of the bill down in committee as it stands).

Of course, I’m pretty sure that a spring election is not going to happen, simply because Trudeau’s agenda still has too many boxes without checkmarks – which is also why I suspect that we haven’t had a prorogation. And looking at how Trudeau has organised his agenda, so much of it has been backloaded to the final year, with plenty of spillover for him to ask for re-election in order to keep it going. (Things are also delayed, one suspects, because NAFTA talks have derailed things in the PMO, and sucked up much of the talent and brainpower. Suffice to say, I’m not taking any talk about an early election with any seriousness.

Meanwhile, more eyebrows were raised when Conservative MP Michelle Rempel claimed that she was being told to prepare for a fall election, which we’re 99 percent sure is just a new fundraising ploy, for what that’s worth.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A quixotic UN quest

Posted on by

It’s time for the United Nations General Assembly, and while prime minister Justin Trudeau won’t be making an address at the Assembly this year, he did give a speech yesterday about Nelson Mandela, and how other should follow his legacy, and later in the day, announced a $20 million contribution to a global infrastructure hub.

The other thing that everyone is talking about is Canada’s (possibly quixotic) quest for that temporary Security Council seat in 2020, which means a lot of schmoozing and diplomatic niceties during the General Assembly – and it’s going to be an uphill battle, for which Canada has so far…deployed a logo. Add to that, the government hasn’t really articulated why exactly this is important to our foreign policy other than to stick it to the Harper years when they decided that they wouldn’t bother going for the seat again in a fit of pique.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218706937696257

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218710519623685

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044218714202214400

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044284604310478848

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044287893554946048

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044288949806481408

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1044291455454404608

Meanwhile, this session of the General Assembly will see the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, which Canada had a hand in crafting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leniency for chronic offenders

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece about document security lapses within the federal government, which is something that speaks to me as someone who spent time doing records management within a federal department back during my early days in Ottawa as I was building up my freelance career (before I started on the Hill). The report cited 3075 lapses in the past year at Public Services and Procurement, with six employees being cited as chronic offenders.

During my time doing this kind of document work, there were a rash of news stories about secret documents being left unattended, or being thrown out and found on street corners, and much of it boils down to a culture within the public service of not caring about document security – in part because people aren’t trained to care about it. It was also because, in my department’s experience, every time they would train an admin assistant in document management, she would go on mat leave, then her replacement wouldn’t be trained to the same level, and she would go on mat leave or another assignment, and her replacement not trained, and on it went. So records went unattended, and people in the department stopped properly dealing with their records, including those who were supposed to be kept secret. And you’d see people in the Tim Horton’s downstairs from the office with Protected of Secret file folders on them, despite the fact that they weren’t supposed to leave the office area. And nobody seemed to care about that fact – all of which reinforced the notion that there isn’t a culture of responsibility around these kinds of things.

Which brings me back to the article. With those chronic offenders, they are being treated leniently, despite the fact that they are supposed to be subjected to tough sanctions, including demotion or termination. But as with so many things in the public service, where there are so few instances where there are consequences for transgressions, it seems to reinforce the notion that document security doesn’t need to be taken seriously, and then we get more security and privacy breaches. If there were actual consequences, that might start making an effort at reducing the number of breaches.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A melodramatic floor crossing

Posted on by

So there was a bit of drama in the House of Commons yesterday as Liberal MP Leona Alleslev gave a speech that served as her rebuke to her own party and her signal that she was crossing the floor to the Conservatives. It’s unusual that this was done on the floor of the Commons as opposed to the usual manner of a surprise press conference where the leader comes out with his or her new MP, and they give a repudiation of the deserted party along the way. And while Alleslev told Power & Politics that she hadn’t made her mind up until the last minute, when she was giving the speech, she had reached out to Andrew Scheer in August and had conversations with him then. But considering that Scheer had already called a press conference for just before QP far earlier in the morning (after Candice Bergen already gave a press conference on the party’s plans of the fall), I’m calling bullshit on that explanation.

While I will defend the rights of floor crossers with my dying breath (and I have a column to that effect coming out later today), there’s something else in Alleslev’s speech that sticks in my craw:

“The government must be challenged openly and publicly. But for me to publicly criticize the government as a Liberal, would undermine the government and, according to my code of conduct, be dishonourable.”

This is ridiculous and wrong. Plenty of Liberal MPs have openly criticized the government. Some have faced minor punishments for it, others not, but I have yet to hear anyone saying that Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, for example, undermined the government. It’s the role of backbenchers to hold government to account, just as much as it is the opposition – they’re not supposed to be cheerleaders (which is especially why it’s frustrating that they treat their QP questions as suck-up opportunities, with the exception of Bill Casey). Government backbenchers get the added ability to have no-holds barred discussions behind the caucus room door with the PM and cabinet, which can be even more effective than opposition questions under the right circumstances. And her former caucus members have expressed some disbelief in her excuse that she’s said that – particularly that there were no warning signs (and I’ve heard this from numerous MPs).

I’m also a bit dubious with the reasons she’s given for why she’s decided to cross the floor, particularly because she recited a bunch of Conservative talking points that don’t have any basis in reality, such as the apparent weakness of the economy (seriously, the gods damned Bank of Canada says our economy is running near capacity and unemployment is at a 40-year low), and her concern about military procurement (she does remember the Conservative record, right?). Never mind the fact that she’s suddenly reversing positions she publicly held just weeks ago, as people digging up her Twitter history are demonstrating.

There is also a question of opportunism here, not only for what she thinks she may get by switching her allegiance to Scheer, but she may have read the tea leaves from the provincial election and gotten spooked. Whatever the reason, she made her choice as she has the agency to do, and her constituents will get to hold her to account for it, which is the beauty of our system.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt wonders if Alleslev’s defection means that Trudeau isn’t keeping pace with the rapid change of pace in politics (though I disagree with her on the calculations around prorogation).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A diminishing work ethic?

Posted on by

The Senate rose for the summer yesterday after the morning’s royal assent ceremony, which I find to be extremely curious given that they were scheduled to sit for another week and had a whole new batch of bills sent to them when the House rose on Wednesday. You would think that they would want to get started on them, and possibly even pass a few more of them before rising for the summer, but apparently not, and that does trouble me a little bit. We saw this happen at Christmas, and we’re seeing it again now, where the tradition that the Senate sits at least an extra week to get through the raft of bills sent to them by the Commons is being abrogated by Senate leadership that seems less interested in demonstrating that they’re doing the work that needs to be done when MPs take off.

Speaking of Senate leadership, our good friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative” sent out a press release yesterday that pat himself on the back for all of the changes to make the Senate more independent, which he equated with making better laws. Why? Well, 13 out of 51 bills in the current session of this parliament were successfully amended by the Senate, so that must mean it’s working! Well, maybe, but it ignores the context that the current prime minister is more willing to entertain some amendments, unlike the previous one. That gives room for the Senate to propose them, but the vast majority of the amendments that do get accepted tend to be technical rather than substantive ones. Not that it doesn’t happen – the government has backed down on a couple of occasions and accepted major amendments (like with the RCMP unionisation bill, which had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling to back up the amendments), but for the most part, the government has resisted substantive amendments to its legislation, so much that you have their new appointees like Senator Pratte openly questioning why the government bothered with creating its “independent Senate” if they’re not going to listen to what it has to say. Not that I’m suggesting that the government should accept every Senate amendment, but there are recent examples where they probably should have, such as with the impaired driving bill that passed this week. There was overwhelming evidence to show that this was almost certainly unconstitutional and would create havoc within the justice system, but the government refused to listen, and senators backed down and let the government reject their amendments rather than insist upon them in the face of such overwhelming testimony. If Harder were really concerned that the Senate was improving legislation, he might not have insisted that once the government rejected those amendments that the Senate back down rather than stand up for some constitutional principles, but he didn’t. Make of that what you will.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Silence from Trudeau on child removals

Posted on by

While all attention is glued to the horror show south of the border when it comes to child removals from migrant families, there is a lot of commentary around the conspicuous silence by this government, and from Trudeau in particular. While he said that he’s not going to “play politics” around this, some of his ministers have made comments to the effect that this policy is “simply unacceptable,” but Trudeau is largely mum. If anything, the government has taken a particularly defensive tone by talking about how much work they’ve done to reform immigration detention in this country, and to not separate children from their parents and only detain when necessary (and the record has improved, but it had some particularly dark spots in recent years, from suicides in detention to people being housed in provincial jails when there were no other immigration detention facilities available). There is an assumption that this is because he’s trying to “play nice” with Trump, but I’m not convinced about that.

If anything about the particular problem we’ve had with irregular border crossers over the past two years has shown, it’s that there is a narrative about how Trudeau’s #WelcomeToCanada tweet created the crisis. I’m not convinced that it did, but that’s the narrative. Given this crisis at the American borders, with migrants coming in from conflict zones in Central America, and with global refugee numbers at an all-time high, you can bet that Trudeau is doing his level best to be circumspect in all of his statements, not because of Trump, but rather to avoid another surge of migrants headed for our borders, and into a system that is already swamped (in no small part because they’ve been unable to make timely appointments to the IRB, and because it’s still under-resourced). Now, if Trudeau made sweeping condemnations about what’s happening in the US, that could be seen as another open invitation, which would stress our system even further. Add to that the calls from the NDP and others to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement – a move that would immediately cause a massive rush for our ports of entry to claim asylum, again, swamping our already stressed system, beyond the diplomatic escalation that removing the “safe” designation from the US would cause. And the Trump administration may be fine with it, and do all it can to push more of their migrants to our borders and say “good riddance.” Regardless, I see Trudeau’s silence as an abundance of caution and trying not to create a larger border crisis than the one he’s currently dealing with, no matter the fact that what’s happening in the States is unconscionable.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1009287591957581824

Meanwhile, as if to highlight Canada’s own record, there was testimony before the Senate Aboriginal People’s Committee about how child removals within Indigenous communities continues to erode them, given that currently child welfare workers are more likely to separate children from their families than get proper assistance for those families in crisis, and that the numbers today are akin to another residential schools system. So, yeah. We don’t have a clean record, and I’m sure this would quickly be thrown in the government’s face if they said anything.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Covering up non-existent data

Posted on by

With the Conservatives still railing about the supposed Carbon Tax Cover-Up™ (yes, Pierre Poilievre is still trying to make fetch happen), their allies are trying to get in on the action. Jason Kenney tried, and Andrew Leach took him to task for it – and it’s some pretty crucial context because pretty much everything he and the Conservatives are saying is utter bunk. But they’ve set up the narrative that this document they’re demanding is some kind of smoking gun, because they’re building the narrative that this is all some cash grab by a government dire to pay for its spending (never mind that the revenues are going back to the province from which it was collected and not federal coffers, but the truth has never mattered here).

Later in the day, Lisa Raitt tweeted about how one gas station in her riding lowered its prices and there were line-ups around the block! People are struggling! Carbon taxes will devastate families! Again, Leach took her to task, especially the point that this is the whole point about carbon taxes – to change behaviours through price signals. You know, something a free market conservative should espouse (but Raitt is not a free market conservative, but a right-flavoured populist, and said as much during her leadership campaign).

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne points out the fact that what the Conservatives are demanding is a mix of publicly available data combined with provincial implementation and offsets that nobody has yet, so the government can’t actually provide the data (as some of us have been saying for weeks now), while adding that there is more than a little hypocrisy for a party that keeps demanding disclosure but won’t offer any of their own when it comes to their own supposed plan. But hey, this is about politics and coming up with a scary number that won’t have any proper context or that makes assumptions that no behaviours will change, which misses the point. But, as I’ve said time and again, this isn’t about the truth. This is about the Conservatives building a scary straw man to go to war against, because that’s how they think they’ll win in 2019. And maybe it’ll work. Time will tell.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bernier booted from shadow cabinet

Posted on by

The surprising news last night was that Andrew Scheer had finally had enough and removed Maxime Bernier from his shadow cabinet, reassigning his critic portfolio to Matt Jeneroux. The ostensible reason that Bernier was booted? That he uploaded that chapter from his cancelled book in which he decries the tyranny of Supply Management. Never mind that the chapter was already floated to the Globe and Mail and was published weeks ago, which led to the outcry that had Bernier pull the book until his political retirement. Scheer said that this constituted Bernier breaking his word to caucus on the book, never mind that it was already in the public domain.

A more plausible explanation? That Scheer was getting a lot of heat about Bernier’s views about Supply Management in the face of Trump’s tweets about dairy tariffs that are part of the system, where the government could point to Bernier being on Scheer’s front bench as proof that the Liberals cared more about Supply Management than the Conservatives did. In fact, the swipes about this got increasingly nasty in QP the last few days, to the point that Luc Berthold got right indignant about it when it was thrown in his face yesterday. Add to that, there’s a by-election coming up in a rural Quebec riding, where this is one of those issues that they care a lot about, and Scheer (who is campaigning there later this week with the former Bloc leader who has renounced separatism and taken out a Conservative membership card) wanted to prove that he’s listening to Quebeckers on Supply Management – even though Bernier himself is a Quebecker. (Note: This is also why the Conservatives rarely ask Supply Management questions in English during QP – this is all about pandering for Quebec votes).

I do think that this is further proof that there is little room in the current Conservative party for actual free-market conservatives, and that they are working hard to cravenly embrace right-flavoured populism that is divorced from the values that they claim to espouse (as I wrote a year ago when Scheer first won the leadership). My only question now is whether Bernier will be banished to the nosebleeds along with fellow disgraced caucus member Kellie Leitch.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No, this election won’t be good for electoral reform

Posted on by

I know that I really shouldn’t give bad columns more coverage, but I can’t help myself, because this is just the first of many that we are doubtlessly going to see in the coming months – that a Doug Ford win on Thursday could get the ball rolling on electoral reform, at least in Ontario. It’s a specious argument, but it’s attractive to a certain class of voter and wonk, so brace yourselves, because this red herring will be coming at you hard in the coming month.

Part of the problem with this particular column is that it doesn’t really make the argument why electoral reform is the logical follow-through for a Ford-led government, because most of the complaints have to do with how Ford won the leadership instead of Christine Elliott. This is not the fault of the electoral system – it’s the fault of our very broken leadership selection system and would largely be corrected if we returned to the system of caucus selection of leaders that our system is designed for. If we had that in place, Elliott would likely have been chosen because she was in caucus at the time that Patrick Brown challenged for the post (while he was still a federal MP, in case you’d forgotten). That would be two dark chapters in the Ontario PC party that could have been avoided, but I digress. The argument here should be that the Ford gong show should be an object lesson in how we need to restore proper leadership processes, where caucus can select and remove leaders in order to ensure that there is proper accountability and more importantly that leaders can’t throw their weight around, that caucus has more power to keep the leader in check. Sadly, that’s not the argument we got.

The balance of the column is a bunch of whinging that parties got majority mandates with less than 40 percent of the popular vote – never mind that the popular vote is a logical fallacy. It’s not a real thing – it’s an extrapolation that magnifies the sense of unfairness by those whose parties did not win, but it’s not a real thing because general elections are not a single event, they’re a series of simultaneous but separate elections for individual seats, and yes, that matters greatly in how the system works, how parliaments are formed, and in the agency afforded to individual MPs.

The other implicit argument being made in pieces like these, though this pieces doesn’t come out and say it, is that proportional representation will likely deliver us a series of coalition governments by nice leftist parties, and we’ll get solar panels on roofs, and great social programs, and no divisive politics because they’ll be forced to cooperate. Won’t it be great? Err, except that’s not what happens, and if anyone thinks it’ll be nice leftist coalitions in perpetuity, they should perhaps look at what’s going on in Europe right now, and how the populist mood there and in North America would have consequences in our own elections that wouldn’t be mitigated like our current brokerage system does, and that could be an even bigger problem. But that’s not the established electoral reform/PR narrative, even though it should be.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trans Mountain and Phoenix

Posted on by

The government announced yesterday morning that they were going to acquire the Trans Mountain pipeline and the project to twin it from Kinder Morgan – but that this would be a short-term acquisition if another buyer can’t be found before August. In the meantime, a loan would be extended to Kinder Morgan to begin construction immediately. Rachel Notley cheered and said that it’s time for Albertans to pick up tools and get to work on building it. Morneau, incidentally, won’t say what those construction costs will be, as that’s commercially sensitive information that could undermine the process for finding a buyer for the pipeline. As for who some of those buyers might be, here’s a look at that question. The buyout – if it happens – won’t eliminate opposition, but it changes the legal situation for BC in that federal paramountcy is even more prevalent than it was before. BC premier John Horgan says that his fight will carry on, but he’s suddenly saying that this is all because the federal oceans protection plan isn’t good enough, which is…new, and not terribly convincing. As for Indigenous activists, some say that the announcement is tantamount to a “declaration of war,” but other Indigenous communities are seeing this as an opportunity to buy a stake in the pipeline to benefit their communities.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1001476415815127041

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1001481702470905857

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1001486610729394176

The Conservatives immediately stated that this was all because of Liberal incompetence, that Kinder Morgan never said they wanted to sell, that they only wanted “certainty,” and then Andrew Scheer engaged in a bunch of revisionist history that falsely claimed that other pipeline projects never got government financing (it’s like he’s never read about the Trans Canada Pipeline construction in the 1950s, not to mention the development of the Hybernia offshore oilfield, or the development of the oilsands themselves). Oh, and Scheer’s definition of “certainty” that he would provide includes forgoing the current environmental assessment bill (has he talked to environmental lawyers or looked at the kinds of court challenges that the Conservative legislation has generated?) and his insistence that they could somehow “assert” federal jurisdiction by means of a declaration or a bill is ridiculous because they already had jurisdiction. The pipeline crosses a provincial boundary, thereby making it federal. Jurisdiction was never seriously in question. His MPs and other federal and provincial mouthpieces have been trying to spin this as some kind of conspiracy that Trudeau is only buying the pipeline in order to take control of it and shut it down so that they can shut down the entire oil sector. Seriously? You expect people to believe that, after Trudeau has staked an enormous amount of political capital on this very move? Really?

In other reaction, Andrew Coyne sees this as not all bad news (though I’m not sure how much more the Liberals could have done to avoid it), while John Ivison sees irony in the government “getting into the pipeline business” on the same day as the Auditor General blasted them for an inability to manage big projects. Tim Harper sees this as a potential precursor to tougher days ahead for Trudeau, while Jason Markusoff notes that this will make it hard for Albertans to sustain the narrative that Ottawa hates them (though by gods, the Conservatives in Ottawa are really trying). Andrew Leach also gives a very detailed analysis of the purchase in Twitter threads here, here, here, and here.

Continue reading →