From the National Citizens Coalition

By Brian Passifiume

The prime minister’s decision to forego separate mandate letters for his cabinet is being met with raised eyebrows.

Former MP Kevin Vuong told the Toronto Sun the decision to issue a single mandate letter — instead of the customary individual directives to each cabinet minister — is yet another concerning diversion from the norm that’s become typical of the Prime Minister’s Office under Carney.

“No budget, no itineraries and now no mandate letters. Somebody should tell Prime Minister Carney that that’s not how a democracy works,” he said.

“By refusing to share, we have no choice but to ask: What does he have to hide? Is there something in his ministers’ mandate letters that he doesn’t want Canadians to see?”

On Wednesday, Carney issued a single mandate letter — free from Justin Trudeau-era platitudes like diversity, climate change and social justice and instead emphasizing trade, the economy and rebuilding Canada’s relations with the United States.

“This seems to be a government that is running less on emotional intelligence and virtue signalling,” said Stephen Taylor, a partner at Shift Media who nonetheless added Carney’s decision to withhold mandate letters does little but consolidate the power of the PMO.

“There’s some good words in the mandate letter, but a cabinet appointed full of Trudeau ministers just makes it suspect because that’s the government that will be implementing that agenda.”

He said a cabinet boasting members such as Steven Guilbeault and Gregor Robertson should give Canadians pause.

Alex Brown, a director with the National Citizens Coalition, said forgoing mandate letters is another worrying sign of this government’s tendency to err on the side of unaccountability.

“Justin Trudeau produced 38 of these mandate letters in 2021,” he said.

“And yes, all 38 of those ended up being historic dumpster fires, but to just cut the corner here already — by the end of the summer this group will have only sat in the House of Commons for 20 days in total.”

While he said the mandate letter had some encouraging signs, Brown said what it lacked most of all was substance aside from almost peripheral mentions of key issues like immigration and housing.

“It’s as if they ran the Conservative election platform through ChatGPT and asked them to distil it to 1,000 words and then take out the details,” he said.

“It’s so high level it’s almost insulting — it doesn’t get into anything specific.”

From the Brownstone Institute

By Bruce Pardy 

Canadians shouldn’t have information about their wayward MPs, but the RCMP can’t have too much biometric information about regular people. It’s always a good time for a little fishing. Let’s run those prints, shall we?

Forget the members of Parliament who may have colluded with foreign governments. The real menace, the RCMP seem to think, are House of Commons pages. MPs suspected of foreign election interference should not be identified, the Mounties have insisted, but House of Commons staff must be fingerprinted. Serious threats to the country are hidden away, while innocent people are subjected to state surveillance. If you want to see how the managerial state (dys)functions, Canada is the place to be.

In June, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) tabled its redacted report that suggested at least 11 sitting MPs may have benefitted from foreign election interference. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme cautioned against releasing their identities. Canadians remained in the dark until Oct. 28 when Kevin Vuong, a former Liberal MP now sitting as an Independent, hosted a news conference to suggest who some of the parliamentarians may be. Like the RCMP, most of the country’s media didn’t seem interested.

But the RCMP are very interested in certain other things. For years, they have pushed for the federal civil service to be fingerprinted. Not just high security clearance for top-secret stuff, but across government departments. The Treasury Board adopted the standard in 2014 and the House of Commons currently requires fingerprinting for staff hired since 2017. The Senate implemented fingerprinting this year. The RCMP have claimed that the old policy of doing criminal background checks by name is obsolete and too expensive.

But stated rationales are rarely the real ones. Name-based background checks are not obsolete or expensive. Numerous police departments continue to use them. They do so, in part, because name checks do not compromise biometric privacy. Fingerprints are a form of biometric data, as unique as your DNA. Under the federal Identification of Criminals Act, you must be in custody and charged with a serious offence before law enforcement can take your prints. Canadians shouldn’t have information about their wayward MPs, but the RCMP can’t have too much biometric information about regular people. It’s always a good time for a little fishing. Let’s run those prints, shall we?

It’s designed to seem like a small deal. If House of Commons staff must give their fingerprints, that’s just a requirement of the job. Managerial bureaucracies prefer not to coerce directly but to create requirements that are “choices.” Fingerprints aren’t mandatory. You can choose to provide them or choose not to work on the Hill.

Sound familiar? That’s the way Covid vaccine mandates worked too. Vaccines were never mandatory. There were no fines or prison terms. But the alternative was to lose your job, social life, or ability to visit a dying parent. When the state controls everything, it doesn’t always need to dictate. Instead, it provides unpalatable choices and raises the stakes so that people choose correctly.

Government intrudes incrementally. Digital ID, for instance, will be offered as a convenient choice. You can, if you wish, carry your papers in the form of a QR code on your phone. Voluntary, of course. But later there will be extra hoops to jump through to apply for a driver’s licence or health card in the old form.

Eventually, analogue ID will cost more, because, after all, digital ID is more automated and cheaper to run. Some outlets will not recognize plastic identification. Eventually, the government will offer only digital ID. The old way will be discarded as antiquated and too expensive to maintain. The new regime will provide the capacity to keep tabs on people like never before. Privacy will be compromised without debate. The bureaucracy will change the landscape in the guise of practicality, convenience, and cost.

Each new round of procedures and requirements is only slightly more invasive than the last. But turn around and find you have travelled a long way from where you began. Eventually, people will need digital ID, fingerprints, DNA, vaccine records, and social credit scores to be employed. It’s not coercive, just required for the job.

Occasionally the curtain is pulled back. The federal government unleashed the Emergencies Act on the truckers and their supporters in February 2022. Jackboots in riot gear took down peaceful protesters for objecting to government policy. Authorities revealed their contempt for law-abiding but argumentative citizens. For an honest moment, the government was not incremental and insidious, but enraged and direct. When they come after you in the streets with batons, at least you can see what’s happening.

We still don’t know who colluded with China. But we can be confident that House of Commons staffers aren’t wanted for murder. The RCMP has fingerprints to prove it. Controlling the people and shielding the powerful are mandates of the modern managerial state.

Republished from the Epoch Times