Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

National

Election interference: eye on the ball, please

Published

2 years ago

9 minute read

David Johnston, who should be beside the point

People living in Canada are having their democratic rights undermined. Fixing that should be everyone’s goal.

Back from vacation, I’m delighted to see nothing has changed. It’s David Johnston this and David Johnston that and David Johnston the other. That last link is about how Johnston has hired Navigator, which is reliably identified as a “crisis-communications firm” in stories like this, to help him figure out what to say. To which one possible answer, given the current storm of excrement, is: My God, wouldn’t you?

I prefer not to pile onto stories that absolutely everyone else is writing about. Today constitutes a bit of an exception to that policy. I’m working on a bunch of stories on topics that will stray very far abroad from this one. But while those other stories percolate, here are a few thoughts on Canada’s response to election interference.

First, we’re in the phase of the story where everyone digs in. Johnston has a mandate from the Prime Minister of Canada which extends to October. He plans to keep working until then. I never thought he was right for this job. But nobody should be surprised that, having taken it, he intends to keep doing it.

But, we are told, Parliament has voted to demand that he stand down! Indeed, that’s how I’d have voted too. Yet Johnston persists. This too is hardly surprising. Ignoring Parliament is easy enough, and it often feels great, as when Parliament voted to express profound sadness over a cover illustration in a magazine where I used to work. Johnston could have taken Parliament’s counsel, but since we are, as I’ve noted, in the phase of the story where everyone digs in, he’s digging in instead.

There is a school of thought that believes this sort of situation must lead straight to a confidence vote and an election. Brother Coyne is that school’s headmaster. I’m always in favour of the largest possible number of elections too, especially since I now make a living selling political analysis. I fondly hope the next campaign will be excellent for business. But I seem to recall that the last time Parliament followed its convictions all the way to a forced election, Canadians responded by sending the Parliament-flouters back with reinforcements. I don’t know whether that would happen now. But the opposition parties are allowed to make such calculations. No surprise, then, that they too are digging in — but not all the way.

Where does this leave us? First, with a process terribly compromised by lousy design. Justin Trudeau sought to outsource his credibility by subcontracting his judgment. The credibility transfusion was supposed to flow from Johnston to Trudeau. Instead it has gone the other way. The PMO hoped they’d found somebody whose credibility nobody would challenge, because he comes from the sort of precincts that impress them. Now they’re stuck insisting that challenging Johnston’s fitness or his conclusions is uncouth. The number of Canadians who decline to take etiquette tips from the PMO continues to surprise the PMO.

So far I have discussed all of this in terms of the usual Ottawa obsessions: Parliament, status, tactics, winners and losers. This sort of scorekeeping comforts Ottawa lifers, soothes us because we have been doing it most of our lives.

But there is another audience here.

It is Canadians and permanent residents who live here and experience intimidation all the time. Most are members of diaspora communities, Chinese and other. They have been saying for years that their freedoms of speech and assembly and their right to security of the person — their Charter rights — are being targeted, infringed and impinged by agents of Beijing’s thug regime. What Cherie Wong, executive director of the Alliance Canada-Hong Kong, says every time she is asked, is that it’s time for action. ACHK’s latest report reads a lot like its earlier reports, like the reports from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that Trudeau admits he ignored. There’s not much new here, just as there would not be much new after Johnston’s process, or after a theoretically better process launched by some future government.

So Ottawa’s current process obsession, while understandable, is not at all helpful.

Share

The ACHK report includes recommendations that could be implemented before the next election, if parties were less obsessed with using foreign interference to win the next election. The Trudeau government is indeed moving ahead on some elements of ACHK’s recommendations, including a foreign-influence registry. That’s a fraught process that presents real pitfalls — overreach and stigmatization at one extreme, and at the other, a once-over-lightly framework that would not capture the sort of clandestine activity that’s the problem. As indeed the political scientist Stephanie Carvin discusses in the ACHK report. So it’s not something to be rushed. But all due dispatch would be welcome.

(For a discussion of the complexities of foreign-influence registries, readers could do worse than to look at the proceedings of a February meeting of a joint committee of both chambers of the Australian Parliament, considering amendments to Australia’s own foreign-influence registry six years after it was implemented. The comparison with our own debate does not flatter Canada’s Parliament. Australian politics can be raw and tough, and Beijing’s influence is, if anything, a more pressing issue there than here. But members from all parties in Australia discuss the issue calmly. They treat witnesses as sources of useful information, not as sticks to beat their political opponents with. I’m not sure how Canada can get there from here, but it’s refreshing to be reminded it’s possible.)

I suppose what I’m proposing here is a dose of pragmatism informed by a sense that Parliament can be something more than an endless pissing match. I was an early member of the skeptics’ club on David Johnston’s suitability for this particular task. I don’t feel chastened by subsequent events. But that ship has rather spectacularly sailed. Trying to turn the next five months of his work into a bigger fiasco won’t help the people living in Canada in fear and worry. Neither will adding another commission with grander pretensions for a report sometime after the next election. The question facing parliamentarians now is to work on solutions instead of trying to win arguments. There’ll be plenty of arguments later.

Subscribe to Paul Wells. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power

Business / 3 hours ago

Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre

2025 Federal Election

The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power

Published on May 2, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Pat Murphy

The Liberals just proved they’ll do anything to win, including gutting key Trudeau-era policies

With the general election safely in the rear-view mirror, here are some observations.

The Liberal will to power

To me, the most surreal moment came during Mark Carney’s speech on the night he won the Liberal leadership. Raucous cheers ensued when he
declared the abolition of the consumer carbon tax and the retreat from the increase in capital gains inclusion rates. If you knew nothing about Canadian politics, you’d think this jubilation was in response to the assertion of long-cherished Liberal policies and principles.

But, of course, it was nothing of the sort.

In fact, the policies being jettisoned were Liberal in origin and had been hitherto fiercely defended. If you criticized the carbon tax, you were labelled a climate change “denier.” And if you were opposed to the capital gains changes, you were indifferent to increased inequality, the spread of child poverty and various other social ills.

This ability to shamelessly execute dramatic policy flips is indicative of the Liberals’ intense passion for power. And however cynical it may be, it’s one of the keys to their status as Canada’s “natural governing party.”

Thus we have Mark Carney presenting as someone who “just got here,” a tactic designed to disassociate himself from the previous Liberal government. It was  immaterial that he was an adviser to that same government, has stocked his team with its alumni and was an early advocate of carbon taxes. Instead of the enthusiastic net-zero hawk, he ran as the sober, economics-savvy technocrat whose banking and private sector experience is tailor-made for the current trade-war turbulence.

Does this mean that Carney has abandoned the ideological agenda of his unpopular Liberal predecessor? Not necessarily—and probably not at all.
Still, it worked politically. Will to power isn’t something to be sneezed at.

Conservative blues

There’s no sugar-coating the fact that it’s been a deeply disappointing election for the Conservatives. After being the “inevitable” government-in-waiting just four months ago, the combination of Justin Trudeau’s departure and Donald Trump’s trade war totally upended the electoral landscape. And to add insult to injury, their leader, Pierre Poilievre, lost his seat. That said, not everything is doom and gloom.

Compared to the actual results from the previous (2021) election, the Conservatives gained 25 seats. Or if you prefer adjusting the 2021 results to
reflect the new electoral boundaries, the seat gain comes to 18. Either way, the direction is non-trivially positive.

The popular vote share of 41.4 per cent is similarly impressive. Looking over the past 60 years, the Conservative median vote was in the 35 to 36 per cent range. You might call that their natural base. Only Brian Mulroney’s fragile coalition ever brought them north of 40 per cent.

And as Poilievre has been criticized for simply playing to the base, it’s fair to ask whether 41 per cent or thereabouts is the party’s new base. If it is, the
Conservative future is potentially promising.

Mind you, Poilievre might not be around to personally reap the rewards.

The NDP debacle

It was the worst of times for the NDP. Their support collapsed, dropping to its lowest ever level in terms of vote share, and they lost official party status. In the process, they shed over 70 per cent of their caucus and were wiped out in voter rich Ontario. Some of this misfortune may be attributed to their propping up the Trudeau government, thus tending to blur the difference between the two parties. So when Trump’s trade war hit, it was easy for NDP voters to flee to Carney’s perceived safe pair of hands.

To the extent that’s true, there’s a historical echo. Between 1972 and 1974, the NDP supported Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal minority in return for various policy concessions. Then the Liberals pulled the plug, winning a majority in the ensuing election while the NDP lost almost half of their seats. It was that will to power again!

This underlines the dilemma confronting parties like the NDP. Do they want to ruthlessly compete for power? Or are they content with shaping public debate, gradually making once-radical ideas seem mainstream and pushing the boundaries of what society sees as politically acceptable?

It’s a very real—and honourable—trade-off choice.

The pollsters

In a post-election interview, poll aggregator Philippe J. Fournier was generally satisfied with his model’s performance. And if you take margins of error into account, he was justified in doing so.

Nonetheless, his final projection had the Liberals at 186 seats and the Conservatives at 124. The respective actuals were 169 and 144. And he
significantly underestimated the Conservatives in Ontario while overestimating the Liberals in Alberta.

Vindication is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste

Published on May 2, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Ian Madsen

From overstaffed departments to subsidy giveaways, Canadians are paying a high price for government excess

Canada’s federal spending is growing, deficits are mounting, and waste is going unchecked. As governments look for ways to control costs, some experts say Canada needs a dedicated agency to root out inefficiency—before it’s too late

Not all the Trump administration’s policies are dubious. One is very good, in theory at least: the Department of Government Efficiency. While that
term could be an oxymoron, like ‘political wisdom,’ if DOGE proves useful, a Canadian version might be, too.

DOGE aims to identify wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary or destructive government programs and replace outdated data systems. It also seeks to
lower overall costs and ensure mechanisms are in place to evaluate proposed programs for effectiveness and value for money. This can, and often does, involve eliminating departments and, eventually, thousands of jobs. Some new roles within DOGE may need to become permanent.

The goal in the U.S. is to reduce annual operating costs and ensure government spending grows more slowly than revenues. Washington’s spending has exploded in recent years. The U.S. federal deficit now exceeds six per cent of gross domestic product. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the cost of servicing that debt is rising at an unsustainable rate.

Canada’s latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion in fiscal 2023-24 amounts to about two per cent of GDP—less alarming than our neighbour’s situation, but still significant. It adds to the federal debt of $1.236 trillion, about 41 per cent of our estimated $3 trillion GDP. Ottawa’s public accounts show expenses at 17.8 per cent of GDP, up from about 14 per cent just eight years ago. Interest on the growing debt accounted for 9.1 per cent of
revenues in the most recent fiscal year, up from five per cent just two years ago.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) consistently highlights dubious spending, outright waste and extravagant programs: “$30 billion in subsidies to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt. Federal corporate subsidies totalled $11.2 billion in 2022 alone. Shutting down the federal government’s seven regional development agencies would save taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion annually.”

The CTF also noted that Ottawa hired 108,000 additional staff over the past eight years, at an average annual cost of more than $125,000 each. Hiring based on population growth alone would have added just 35,500 staff, saving about $9 billion annually. The scale of waste is staggering. Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail collectively lose more than $5 billion a year. For reference, $1 billion could buy Toyota RAV4s for over 25,600 families.

Ottawa also duplicates functions handled by provincial governments, often stepping into areas of constitutional provincial jurisdiction. Shifting federal programs in health, education, environment and welfare to the provinces could save many more billions annually. Poor infrastructure decisions have also cost Canadians dearly—most notably the $33.4 billion blown on what should have been a relatively simple expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Better project management and staffing could have prevented that disaster. Federal IT systems are another money pit, as shown by the $4-billion Phoenix payroll debacle. Then there’s the Green Slush Fund, which misallocated nearly $900 million.

Even more worrying, the rapidly expanding Old Age Supplement and Guaranteed Income Security programs are unfunded, unlike the Canada Pension Plan. Their combined cost is already roughly equal to the federal deficit and could soon become unmanageable.

Canada is sleepwalking toward financial ruin. A Canadian version of DOGE—Canada Accountability, Efficiency and Transparency Team, or CAETT—is urgently needed. The Office of the Auditor General does an admirable job identifying waste and poor performance, but it’s not proactive and lacks enforcement powers. At present, there is no mechanism in place to evaluate or eliminate ineffective programs. CAETT could fill that gap and help secure a prosperous future for Canadians.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X