Tag Archives: Ukraine

Roundup: David Johnston, special rapporteur

Posted on by

The “unimpeachable” eminent Canadian chosen to be the special rapporteur on allegations of foreign interference is former Governor General David Johnston, and it took mere minutes for the Conservatives to start denouncing him, citing that he was affiliated with the Trudeau Foundation, and that his role on the election debate commission saw Rosemary Barton ask questions during the last debate when she “sued” the Conservatives (note: she did not sue them, but the CBC sued the party in her name for unauthorised use of footage; also, I don’t believe Johnston chose the moderators or questioners, considering that it was a demand of the broadcast consortium that their talent each be allowed to have time during the debate), and on and on it went. The pundit class largely insisted that Johnston should have recused himself right away because he is too closely associated with Trudeau, and others insisted that if it was truly a non-partisan appointment then Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh should have been part of the process and naming him, and anyway, the whole special rapporteur thing was stupid and so on.

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1636102797623009281

I mean, I understand why Trudeau decided to go this route—not everyone agrees that a public inquiry is the best route to go, because it could go for years and that could mean delaying action that should be taken now. Even if it is the route we want to go (and several Liberals are now saying that it’s the only option at this point), it would still be Trudeau and Cabinet setting the terms of reference, which is also part of the rationale—Trudeau says that he would leave that determination up to Johnston, and he’d follow his recommendations, thereby trying to put some measure of distance between himself and any such task. I do say that it mystifies me that everyone demanding an inquiry right now if not yesterday never seems to care about this very point, even though we all damned well know that they would immediately cite these points as to why the inquiry is illegitimate.

But honestly? Canada is a small pond. There are not too many “eminent Canadians” who have the track record to take on this kind of task, and who don’t have some kind of perceived conflict, no matter how unrealistic it is. But that’s the whole thing with perceived conflicts, and this notion of “smell tests” that don’t actually mean anything but which get the chattering classes frothing. Is Johnston the best choice? Maybe, maybe not. The likely other option was a former Supreme Court Justice, which has become a running joke in Canadian politics these days. Regardless, the fact that this is just more partisan fodder is all the more proof that parties are not actually taking this seriously, and would rather be out to score points instead.

Ukraine Dispatch:

American intelligence suggests that the Russians are making small advances toward Bakhmut, but at great cost. Further north near Kreminna, similar battles are playing out, with the Russians making unsuccessful attacks, but they worry that the attempts to surround Bakhmut could have repercussions for their section of the front, while fatigue is starting to set in.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding the Speaker to something he can’t

Posted on by

The Liberals are no stranger to stunts, and the “poor me” stunts are some of the worst of all. With this in mind, it should be no surprise that MP Ya’ara Saks has written an open letter to the Speaker to demand apologies from Conservatives for sexist remarks, be it Michael Cooper in Committee or Rick Perkins telling Jean Yip that she deserves a participation ribbon. The problem? There’s nothing the Speaker can really do about it.

Saks didn’t cite any Standing Orders that were contravened, and the Speaker is bound to operate within the Standing Orders. Those are the rules by which he is refereeing. And for well over a generation now, the Canadian House of Commons has seen fit to effectively neuter the Speaker so that he (or she) doesn’t have much in the way of leeway in order to enforce, well, anything. Other Speakers in other Westminster parliaments have a lot more authority and latitude—Australia’s Speaker can even demand that governments answer the question when they are seen to be evasive (though this can sometimes stray into Speakers acting in potentially partisan ways). But ours? Nope—because MPs chose to have a ridiculously unempowered Speaker. The result? More of a gong show, more speaking lists, more canned speeches without any flow, and overall, an unserious Parliament, particularly in relation to our comparator countries.

And MPs could change this. But they don’t want to, so they won’t. And that is a problem.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that his country’s military chiefs are unanimous to keep defending Bakhmut, probably because they are grinding the Russian forces down there at a fairly alarming rate. Meanwhile, the Americans are accusing the Russians of downing one of their drones over the Black Sea, which Russia denies.

https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1635649300922245120

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1635665484954718208

Continue reading →

Roundup: Commonwealth Day reminders

Posted on by

Yesterday was Commonwealth Day, and also the ten-year anniversary of the Commonwealth Charter, which was supposed to be a project to spearhead the adoption of more common human rights legislation that would include better inclusion of LGBTQ+ rights in those Commonwealth countries where they are still an issue. In those ten years, that seems to have fallen off the radar, and I have barely heard any mention of that Charter at all, until when the anniversary was mentioned yesterday.

With anything related to the Commonwealth, we were guaranteed a bunch of bad media takes, and lo, for their inaugural episode, CTV News Channel’s new debate show had one of their topics as to whether Canada should stay in the Commonwealth or abandon the monarchy, which is a dumb false dichotomy because the vast majority of Commonwealth countries are not monarchies. Only fifteen member countries are Realms, meaning that we share Charles III as our monarch in a natural capacity (we each have separate Crowns), and newer members of the Commonwealth are not former British colonies, but have requested membership because they see value in the institution. Even if we did abandon the monarchy (which isn’t going to happen because it would mean rewriting our entire constitution and good luck trying to make that happen), we would still probably retain membership in the Commonwealth because of the relationships forged there, and it can be good forum for getting things done with countries.

Meanwhile, I’m going to re-up this interview I did with MP Alexandra Mendès, who is the chair of the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, about the work these associations do and how Canada helps to train the legislatures and parliaments of smaller Commonwealth countries.

Ukraine Dispatch:

The battle near Bakhmut continues to rage, while the International Criminal Court is expected to seek the arrest of Russian officials responsible for the policy of forcibly deporting children from Ukraine, as well as their continued targeting of civilian infrastructure.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s facile budget demands

Posted on by

Pierre Poilievre called a Sunday morning press conference, which is a particularly Conservative tactic that tries to set the agenda for the week, in which he made his demands around the upcoming budget. We all know that it’s pretty much set in stone by this point and is on its way to the printers, but that never stops parties from making performative demands right up until the end. To that end, Poilievre had three main demands:

  1. Bring home powerful paycheques with lower taxes, so hard work pays off again.
  2. Bring home lower prices, by ending inflationary carbon tax hikes & deficit spending that drive up inflation & interest rates.
  3. Bring homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits.

First of all, the thing he refuses to acknowledge or understand is that tax cuts fuel inflation. If he’s worried about the increasing cost of living, tax cuts won’t actually do anything meaningful, and are more likely to just add fuel to that fire. (Meanwhile, taxes aren’t going up for anyone except profitable corporations and on luxury goods). When it comes to housing prices, carbon prices are not inflationary (the Bank of Canada has cited that their effect on inflation is negligible), and deficit spending has absolutely nothing to do with either inflation or interest rates. This is a facile narrative that Poilievre keeps insisting, preferring an austerity budget that will only make the vulnerable even more precarious without government supports, but this economic message still resonates for a particular generation. Meanwhile, none of this will affect housing prices, because that is driven by a lack of supply, which is because municipalities refuse to zone for density, and because provincial governments won’t use their powers to force the issue. And that leads us to the third point, which is that the federal government has no ability to “remove gatekeepers” at the provincial or municipal level. They can’t do anything about building permits, and I am dubious that there is enough federal land that is suitable for housing developments in major cities around the country that is underutilized. I may be wrong, but this has been a perennial promise by governments for years and nothing has really moved, which leads me to believe there’s not a lot to be had.

It’s not at all surprising that Poilievre is sticking to facile and wrong budgetary narratives, but it would be great if he could actually be called out on it rather than both-sides at best, which is barely even happening. This is important stuff and we’re just shrugging it off, and focusing on more bullshit polls about people believing the Conservatives are still the better economic managers in spite of decades of proof to the contrary.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces have believed to have suffered more than 1100 dead in a week of battles near Bakhmut, with another 1500 wounded so badly as to be removed from the fighting. The Institute for the Study of War believes Russia’s planned advance has stalled in Bakhmut, and that the assault will be more difficult to sustain without more significant losses.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634849209840173057

Continue reading →

Roundup: The allegations reach Queen’s Park

Posted on by

Another day, another Global news story about supposed foreign interference allegations, this time naming Ontario PC MPP Vincent Ke as someone who has been working on behalf of the Chinese government, and who was given funds to disperse for election influence. Ke denies this, but Doug Ford swiftly demoted him from parliamentary assistant to committee chair, and then hours later, Ke “voluntarily” stepped out of caucus for the time being. But there are a lot of problems with the reporting in the piece, as both Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis—both of whom are former CSIS analysts—point out in separate Twitter threads that are absolutely essential reading to understand why this reporting is so suspect.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634268769697640449

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634272246817607682

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1634282290921590798

Meanwhile, former Senator Vern White is calling out the Conservatives’ characterisation of NSICOP to be the bullshit that it is, and says that it would be faster and cheaper for that committee to do the review into interference allegations than a public inquiry. He also doesn’t believe an NSICOP member leaked an unredacted report to Global news considering how strict the security is. I previously wrote a piece about the legislation empowering NSICOP and how it compares to other Westminster parliaments’ own parliamentary national security committees, and they too face redactions from their political executives—NSICOP is not out of line in that regard, not to mention that we don’t have secure places for a secret-cleared parliamentary committee to meet on Parliament Hill (which should be part of the renovations to Centre Block).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1634335994525757440

Ukraine Dispatch:

An aide to president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the decision to stick out the battle in Bakhmut has to do with the ability to pin down and degrade Russia’s best forces ahead of the planned spring Ukrainian counter-offensive. Meanwhile, most of the power in Kyiv has been restored after Thursday’s missile barrage from Russia.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1634182540868108290

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1634245229627809792

Continue reading →

Roundup: Derailing the committee with sexism

Posted on by

The big happenings of the day on the foreign interference file were at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee when ministers Dominic LeBlanc and Mélanie Joly testified. We found out that thus far, one diplomatic visa has been rejected by Canada because of interference allegations, and we also got the very reasonable explanation from Joly that we haven’t been expelling diplomats because that invites tit-for-tat from the Chinese government (and they are not afraid to take hostages), and we need our eyes and ears on the ground in that country. We also learned from Joly’s Great China director at Global Affairs that “diplomatic representations” were made about their alleged boats around helping to defeat Conservative candidates in the last election.

What made the news, however, was that Conservative MP Michael Cooper was hostile and belittling toward Joly in a clearly misogynistic manner, made worse by the fact that he later put out a statement that refused to apologise for it, but insisted he wanted action and not a “symbolic stare down.” Erm, you guys keep bringing up Harper’s symbolic stare down of allegedly telling Putin to get out of Ukraine in 2014 and calling that courageous, so I’m not sure why Joly’s confrontation with her Chinese counterpart is considered any lesser. Oh, wait—we know why.

In other news on the interference file, here’s an interview with former CSIS director Ward Elcock on recent developments, and there are a couple of takeaways—that this is old news, and that we’ve known about Chinese interference for years; that there is no reason to believe that the PM did get these briefing notes (and it has been noted by other experts that Canada does not have a system of pushing intelligence upward, and yet this is what so much of Global’s reporting in hinging on); and that it is highly unlikely these leaks are coming from CSIS, but someone who has access to their documents (and the good money is on someone within the RCMP).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633863409211961346

As well, NSIRA did announce that they too are undertaking their own investigation of the allegations and what CSIS has been doing around it, while not looking to duplicate the work that NSICOP is doing.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633808644935409666

Ukraine Dispatch:

Yesterday’s widespread Russian attack saw more than 80 missiles, plus more drones, hitting cities across the country, killing six people and cutting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant off of the power gird for eleven hours.

https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1633720689541652483

Continue reading →

Roundup: A leaked NSICOP report?

Posted on by

Another day, another story on foreign interference, this time from Global. It was largely a rehash of material released earlier, but hidden inside was mention of seeing an unredacted report from NSICOP, which raises more questions about who is leaking this material (and to what end). Justin Trudeau continues to be evasive and not give any answers to fairly clear and specific questions about what he was told and when, which is not something you should need the special rapporteur for, and which shouldn’t be a matter that requires the blanket of national security secrecy, but the barrage of pabulum about the importance of national security oversight bodies is not exactly helping his case, or making it look like he has everything under control.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633509940064133130

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633509943625105411

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633472781428948998

NSICOP did announce that they will look into the allegations of foreign interference, but the fact that one of their unredacted reports was leaked to the media is going to undermine trust in that process by security officials in this country, who were dubious about the process from the start, and who will find it even harder to trust now. That’s not good for the ongoing ability to have parliamentarians play a role in the oversight of those bodies, which is necessary in a democracy.

In the meantime, there’s more that the government could get started on right away when it comes to combatting foreign interference, and Jessica Davis has a good thread about those actions here.

https://twitter.com/JessMarinDavis/status/1633488015573041153

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians fired a massive missile barrage across Ukraine early this morning, with more critical infrastructure being targeted. The Wagner Group is claiming that they have made advances into Bakhmut, but it’s still too early to tell the veracity or what it means in the bigger picture. Here’s a look at Canadian soldiers training Ukrainians on how to operate the Leopard 2 tanks we’ve sent them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The tone of the interference debate gets worse

Posted on by

Because we are in an era of bad faith and lowest-common-denominator shitposting, Pierre Poilievre called a press conference yesterday to assert that Justin Trudeau was working in China’s interests against Canada—no doubt catnip to the conspiracy theorists whom he has been trying to attract to his banner, who carry signs about “treason” and who carry nooses to rallies. Even one-time sensible moderate Michael Chong has gone on television to be “just asking questions” about Trudeau’s loyalty to Canada, which is frankly beyond the pale. (Poilievre also said some absolute nonsense about LNG in Canada and his steadfast belief that there would have been a market for it if not for red tape—never mind that proponents could find buyers and couldn’t make a business case to proceed with projects that were fully permitted).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1633197743131750400

Trudeau later responded that Poilievre’s was eroding faith in democracy with this kind of rhetoric, but that’s kind of the point with this brand of populists. They are trying to erode faith in institutions so that they can insert themselves as the solution to the problems of democracy, without needing to worry about things like minority rights. Not that Trudeau has helped, with his back-patting and platitudes, which doesn’t push back against this kind of threat. (Some good analysis here).

In the meantime, we wait for the announcement of the special rapporteur, but if the goal is to have opposition sign-off, that could be difficult. The NDP say they are cautiously optimistic, but the Bloc want someone who has pre-determined that there needs to be an inquiry, while the Conservatives are likely to engage in bad faith regardless of what happens, so the ability for there to be consensus on a name is not a hope I am holding out for. But seriously—everybody howling for a public inquiry doesn’t seem to realise that NSICOP is likely more independent, because a public inquiry would be appointed by Cabinet, with terms of reference set by Cabinet, and would report to Cabinet. The government is trying to create some distance from themselves with this rapporteur, but nobody wants to hear the actual process or procedure around the demands they’re making.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1633129536358346755

Ukraine Dispatch:

Kyiv is disavowing a group that has been making raids over the border in Russia, while other small groups within Russia are also conducting sabotage operations in opposition to Putin. Ukrainian officials have identified the soldier in a video that was executed by Russians, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1633042812605280256

Continue reading →

Roundup: Planning to appoint a special rapporteur

Posted on by

After two weeks of pretty much flailing on the subject of allegations of Chinese influence on the last two elections, Justin Trudeau held a late-day press conference yesterday to declare that he was going to appoint a special rapporteur to deal with these allegations, who would take a look at the situation and determine if a public inquiry or commission was necessary to look into the matter, and if so, to determine what the terms of reference should be for it.

On top of that, Trudeau also:

  • Asked both NSICOP and NSIRA to conduct their own investigations into the allegations;
  • Launched formal public consultations on a foreign agent registry (with the caution that we have to be careful about how to go about registering people from certain nationalities given the history of this country);
  • Established a new National Counter Foreign Intelligence Coordinator within the department of Public Safety;
  • Called for a plan to address outstanding recommendations from NSICOP and the Rosenberg Report within 30 days;
  • Pledged $5.5 million for civil society groups to counter disinformation.

It was a lot, and there are a few things worth noting in there. The recognition that they have dragged their feet on past NSICOP recommendations is significant, because NSICOP had previously found the federal government slow to react in the 2019 election. That this current crisis is kicking their asses into finally acting is a good thing, all things considered.

The Conservatives are already outraged saying that this is too secretive, and the NSICOP is a “trap” for their members—which is, of course, bad-faith bullshit, because if they were being unduly silenced or felt that official redactions to the reports were unfair, then they would resign in protest, which no member of NSICOP has ever done. The NDP were saying this was a “baby step” in the right direction but still want a public inquiry (but remember, there is no problem in this country for which the NDP does not demand an independent public inquiry). They may yet get one. Trudeau said he would consult with opposition leaders on who would be the special rapporteur, so he can at least launder any accountability for the appointment through them (not always a good thing, guys!), and we’ll see how that goes in the next few weeks. Nevertheless, it’s a bit surprising that it took Trudeau two full weeks to get to this point, and it shouldn’t have, but once again, he and this government can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and this has once again left them looking weak, and incapable of dealing with the issue.

Meanwhile, the Star has more reminders from the Chinese diasporic communities that they have been sounding the alarm for nearly twenty years and have been consistently ignored.

Ukraine Dispatch:

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says his advisors were unanimous in their agreement to press the fight at Bakhmut and not retreat. American analysts are saying that even if Bakhmut were to fall, it wouldn’t change the tide of the war in any appreciable way. Meanwhile, photos have shown that the town of Marinka, which used to be home to 10,000 people, has been completely razed to the ground by Russian forces. A new top anti-corruption investigator was also appointed on Monday, as part of the ongoing efforts to clean up the system for future EU membership.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1632819587405295616

Continue reading →

Roundup: A caution around more nomination “safeguards”

Posted on by

There has been some renewed interest in party nominations after the accusations of shenanigans in Liberal MP Han Dong’s nomination, and unsurprisingly, we get a rather tepid piece asking if we need more safeguards. There are a few things that this ignores, part of which is the history. MPs actively wanted to keep Elections Canada out of policing nominations (though they now have a bigger role in policing the funding of said contests). This is one of the reasons why the decision was made to have party leaders sign off on nominations forms—to keep Elections Canada out of the process. (That later turned into a problem of leaders using this power to blackmail members into staying in line, which was not something contemplated at the time, and yes, I did study the Hansards of those debates as part of research for my book).

The other thing that the piece missed is how parties have been monkeying with nomination processes to get their favoured candidates installed. The Samara Centre for Democracy has a great report on this (though they were a little too credulous at the NDP’s claims they always run open nominations when they don’t), and my particular caution is that more “safeguards” for nominations may very well mean a greater ability for the party or the leader’s office to monkey around or put their thumbs on the scale. Already we are in a veritable crisis where open nominations are fast disappearing behind the curtain of protected nominations for incumbents and invoking “electoral urgency” rules unnecessarily that allow the leader to just directly appoint candidates. Parties used to be robust enough to fight this kind of interference, but they are losing that ability, particularly in the Liberals, who rewrote their party constitution to centralize even more power in the leader’s office and disempower the grassroots after Trudeau became prime minister.

Should there be more safeguards? Probably. But that means returning the power to the grassroots riding associations so that they can run proper, open and transparent contests, rather than what has been happening.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that in spite of Russian claims, Bakhmut is not surrounded, and the fighting continues. In fact, the head of the Wagner Group mercenaries has said that their position is at risk if they can’t get more ammunition. The Ukrainains are, however, trying to evacuate the remaining civilian population, who are still there for many different reasons.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1632023670087352321

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1632403808016908288

Continue reading →