Remember those anti-pot ads that the government plans to run, which totally aren’t partisan and totally not about Justin Trudeau? Well, as it happens, they don’t show up in planning documents, and there’s no budget for new television advertising, especially for ones geared toward marijuana specifically. But remember – it’s totally not partisan. Really! And it looks like those doctors’ groups are starting to reconsider their participation, because they can see what’s going on.
Tag Archives: Temporary Foreign Workers
Roundup: Referring the file to Elections Canada
It probably wasn’t unexpected, but the Board of Internal Economy has ruled that the NDP has broken the rules with their “satellite offices,” and wants Commons administration to figure out how much they need to repay for those staffers, most of whom are either working from home or out of Thomas Mulcair’s constituency office. Not only that, but the Board has also mentioned turning over the file to Elections Canada, because of concerns that those staff were not on “leave of absence” when it came to the by-election in Bourassa, where they already spent right up to the limit and this could put them over it. The excuse was that they were using banked overtime and whatnot, but again the rules around in-kind donations would also be triggered here. The NDP, predictably, tried to douse distraction sauce all over it by shouting “kangaroo court!” over and over, and demanding that the Auditor General be brought in to look at everyone’s expenses (um, he’s not your babysitter, guys), so that they can try to spread blame all around. They also kept insisting that the salaries were approved by Commons administration, though the Speaker’s office disputes this with the timeline they published (and it’s fascinating reading). We’ll see if they try to contest this in court as well, but it’s not looking good for them at this point.
Roundup: Hacker concerns and delays
The National Research Council had concerns about their IT security before the hack attack happened, and some of those concerns delayed their move to join Shared Services Canada. What the article doesn’t mention is that NRC also has a lot of legacy computer systems that wouldn’t integrate easily, and that was part of the concern with amalgamation. That said, amalgamation creates its own security risks because everything is in one place, so a well-placed hack there would have far broader implications than the current “federated” model, where individual systems can be isolated. Meanwhile, the Privacy Commissioner’s officer has confirmed that the attack breached a system that contained personal information, and they’re still assessing the damage.
Roundup: Hacking very valuable data
Hackers, allegedly from China, have hit the National Research Council’s systems and have compromised them, leading to them being shut down. While we don’t know what kind of damage there is or what has been accessed, this is the country’s premier research institution, which has more recently been billing itself as a partner for businesses around the country to help them develop and get to market new technologies. It’s suspected that employee personal information and client data may have been compromised. It’s no wonder that it would be a prime target for industrial espionage. China denies that they were involved, but CSE seems to believe that the hackers originated from there. It may be a year before NRC has a more secure platform for their data, though curiously, they have been working on quantum communications, which promise to be unhackable and secure. Not soon enough, however, it would seem.
Roundup: CRA takes exception
Things with the CRA seem to be taking a turn for the bizarre as they are getting into a fight with well-known charity Oxfam over the charity’s stated goal of trying to prevent poverty around the world. According to the CRA, that’s not an acceptable goal – they should only try to alleviate poverty, as preventing it might benefit people who are not already poor. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure that one out too. According to CRA, the courts haven’t found that that the risk of poverty is the same as actually being in need, so this splitting of hairs means that they can’t put “prevention” in their purpose statement. And it’s not like this is part of the supposed “crackdown” on charities either – this had to do with a regular process of renewing Oxfam’s non-profit status, but it has been noted that Jason Kenney singled them out earlier in the year over their opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Why the CRA would play petty politics for any minister – especially one that they don’t report to – sounds a little too odd, but this whole situation is just so strange that it will invite conspiracy theory.
Roundup: Right vs privilege confusion
The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Roundup: Distraction sauce on the satellite offices
The Commons Board of Internal Economy met yesterday, briefly, but came to no resolutions about NDP satellite offices because an hour before the meeting, the NDP delivered more documents that the committee didn’t have time to consider. And meanwhile, Peter Julian put on a big dog and pony show about the “Kangaroo Court” that is the Board, and how they want it opened up, and so on. And that’s really where the whole narrative falls apart. This tactic of releasing more documents just before the meeting smacks to me of the same thing they tried when Mulcair was called before committee, where they produced untranslated documents – something they know won’t be distributed (and usually they are the first to complain, given their Quebec-heavy caucus). And then they want the doors thrown open, so that they can put on the same demonstration of obfuscation and bafflegab that Mulcair did at committee, where he not only talked around his answers, but made untrue allegations under the protection of parliamentary privilege (lest we forget the falsehoods about Conservatives co-locating party and MP offices), all the while every NDP staffer was on Twitter proclaiming that “this is what transparency looks like.” Indeed it was. That they rather transparently want to do the very same thing at Internal Economy makes it seem all the more reasonable for the other parties to say no. Thrown into this are their demands that the Auditor General audit everybody – in order to spread blame around – and demands that Internal Economy be blown up and replaced with a more open body (thus providing yet another ground for partisan showmanship, and depriving MPs and administration a place for full and frank discussion about administrative matters) all smacks of one thing – distraction sauce. Delicious, delicious distraction sauce. You’ll pardon me if I prefer my sauce on the side.
Roundup: Parsing the bribery charge
Mike Duffy says that he looks forward to his day in court, and wants it sooner rather than later. Considering that the court system is a little jammed, that may not happen sooner. In the aftermath of the charges, Kady O’Malley delves further into the reasons why Nigel Wright wasn’t charged with bribery even if Duffy was charged for accepting said bribe (hint: proving the intention of “corruptly” makes it a high bar for prosecutors), as well as the rules around sitting parliamentarians testifying before the courts. Stephen Maher looks at those charges relating to what Duffy was charging the Senate for partisan activity and wonders what the party knew about those expenses.
Roundup: Hostile witnesses
Kady O’Malley looks at how sex workers were treated as hostile witnesses at the Justice Committee, in particular by Conservative MP Stella Ambler – who, it should be noted, isn’t even a regular member of that committee. Any of their experiences in which they stated that they weren’t victims were often dismissed or challenged as being somehow untrue, which is unfortunate but not surprising given that the government has a narrative around this bill that they intend to push.
Roundup: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.