[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

That's fine and welcome.

[viper37]

Some MPs are helping foreign actors meddling in Canadian elections

A shocking new report from one of Canada's intelligence watchdogs suggests some Parliamentarians are "wittingly" helping foreign governments like China and India meddle in Canadian politics.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which is made up of MPs and senators from across the political spectrum, was asked last year to investigate allegations of foreign interference in Canadian elections.

Their heavily-redacted report, tabled in the House of Commons on Monday, pointed to "particularly concerning" behaviour by some Parliamentarians.
The report said some elected officials "began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election."

In another case cited in the report — based on Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) information shared with NSICOP — a then-member of Parliament maintained a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer. The officers' country of origin was not included in the public report.

According to CSIS, the MP sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence, said the report.

The report said China believes it has a quid pro quo relationship with some MPs who will engage with the Chinese Communist Party in exchange for Beijing mobilizing its vast networks in their favour. 
NSICOP reported it also saw intelligence suggesting that unnamed parliamentarians:

• Communicated frequently with foreign missions before or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses to be mobilized by diplomatic missions;
• Accepted knowingly, or through willful blindness, funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which have been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source; 
• Provided foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow parliamentarians, knowing that such information would be used by those officials to inappropriately pressure parliamentarians to change their positions;
• Responded to the requests or direction of foreign officials to improperly influence parliamentary colleagues or parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state

NSICOP said some of the cases of foreign interference they examined might have involved illegal activity but are unlikely to end in criminal charges "owing to Canada's failure to address the long-standing issue of protecting classified information and methods in judicial processes."

"Regardless, all the behaviours are deeply unethical and, the committee would submit, contrary to the oaths and affirmations parliamentarians take to conduct themselves in the best interest of Canada," says the report.
In one case, NSICOP members said they saw intelligence suggesting MPs worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.

Trudeau government's slow response 'a serious failure'

Monday's report marks the third time NSICOP has reviewed the government's response to threats of foreign interference since 2018 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's trip to India — a point members make known throughout their latest report.
"Given the risks posed by foreign interference to Canada's national security, the committee expected the government to act. It was slow to do so," says the report.
"In the committee's view, this delay contributed in part to the crisis in which the government found itself in late 2022 and early 2023."

The committee says Canada's security and intelligence community has been held back by outmoded tools and legislation. 
"Gaps in these areas limited the ability of security and intelligence organizations to act, particularly with respect to sharing information with law enforcement bodies to enable investigations, lay charges or support prosecutions," says the report. 

The report also takes aim at the Liberal government, which the committee says has known since 2018 about the need to take foreign interference more seriously.

"The slow response to a known threat was a serious failure and one from which Canada may feel the consequences for years to come," it said.

"The implications of this inaction include the undermining of the democratic rights and fundamental freedoms of Canadians, the integrity and credibility of Canada's parliamentary process, and public trust in the policy decisions made by the government."

[...]

[/quote]

"Slow response" seems to be a Liberal modus operandi on everything.

[Sheilbh]

Hey sorry for introducing actually facts into a Languish circle jerk claiming the pandemic is over.

If it's a scientific term, what's the definition of a pandemic?

For what it's worth I'm fully willing to go along with the WHO when they stated - over a year ago - that covid was well established, ongoing and no longer a "public health emergency of international concern". They note that "this does not mean the pandemic itself is over, but the global emergency it caused is - for now". There could be a new variant that changes things fundamentally but the experience we all had globally of covid as a global pandemic from 2020-22/3 is distinctive and is over.

Edit: And I suppose, relatedly, do you basically agree with that WHO assessment that it's no longer a public health emergency of international concern?

It is endemic - it's not going to be medically eliminated. The WHO have moved it from a public health emergency level (though there may be specific areas where it is or a new variant). And socially most of the world has basically returned to living as they did in 2019. And that is the historic norm of how pandemics "end". There aren't many which we wipe out like polio, generally they end because the risk becomes low enough (through vaccines, medicine or acquired immunity) or the social perception of risk shifts enough to, for want of a better phrase, "move on" - or perhaps, better, to go back.

(And I'd add as a total aside - I find it fascinating how right now there are no real cultural representations of the covid experience. There were at the time but there aren't many books, or TV shows or movies set during covid - and I think that again is historically normal. There's not many cultural representations of Spanish flu or the "normal" sort of plague years either. I've no idea why - I mean it may just be too soon but I can't imagine the desire for a covid film is likely to increase with time.)

I've never said - and wouldn't because I don't think it - that "it is wrong for people who might be more vulnerable to wear a mask". I also didn't say - again because it's not my experience - that no-one in the UK wears masks.

[Josephus]

(And I'd add as a total aside - I find it fascinating how right now there are no real cultural representations of the covid experience. There were at the time but there aren't many books, or TV shows or movies set during covid - and I think that again is historically normal. There's not many cultural representations of Spanish flu or the "normal" sort of plague years either. I've no idea why - I mean it may just be too soon but I can't imagine the desire for a covid film is likely to increase with time.)

There were a few predictions from COVID that never came to pass.

One was how shaking hands will become a thing of the past. Old habits are hard to kill, I suppose, but I see most people are back to shaking hands.

Masks will become as endemic as the pandemic. We will continue to wear masks in our day to day lives when interreacting with people, the way, after AIDS, we use condoms in our casual sexual encounters. NOT.

I read predicitons on how if you own stock in cruise liners, sell because their day is over. I think they're overbooked now as people are flocking back.

But to your point about culture. yeah, I remember reading how there will be many books, movies etc on, or about or featuring COVID. And there were a few, yes, but mostly unsuccessful. (As my own aside, check out Marillion's last album An Hour Before It's Dark).

I think the reason for all this, is that people want to forget about COVID as quickly as possible and move on from it. It was disruptive and I think the majority feel the response was an over reaction.

We, as humans, are set in our ways. We love our pleasures and won't change them for anything.

[Josephus]

[Barrister]

(And I'd add as a total aside - I find it fascinating how right now there are no real cultural representations of the covid experience. There were at the time but there aren't many books, or TV shows or movies set during covid - and I think that again is historically normal. There's not many cultural representations of Spanish flu or the "normal" sort of plague years either. I've no idea why - I mean it may just be too soon but I can't imagine the desire for a covid film is likely to increase with time.)

There were a few predictions from COVID that never came to pass.

One was how shaking hands will become a thing of the past. Old habits are hard to kill, I suppose, but I see most people are back to shaking hands.

Masks will become as endemic as the pandemic. We will continue to wear masks in our day to day lives when interreacting with people, the way, after AIDS, we use condoms in our casual sexual encounters. NOT.

I read predicitons on how if you own stock in cruise liners, sell because their day is over. I think they're overbooked now as people are flocking back.

But to your point about culture. yeah, I remember reading how there will be many books, movies etc on, or about or featuring COVID. And there were a few, yes, but mostly unsuccessful. (As my own aside, check out Marillion's last album An Hour Before It's Dark).

I think the reason for all this, is that people want to forget about COVID as quickly as possible and move on from it. It was disruptive and I think the majority feel the response was an over reaction.

We, as humans, are set in our ways. We love our pleasures and won't change them for anything.

So shaking hands...

One of the biggest screw-ups from the early Covid days was the understanding that Covid was spread by droplets.  Thats why we had all the 6' separation, had to disinfect everything coming into the house, and no shaking hands.

Turns out Covid was an aerosol.

Thats why cheap cloth masks weren't that effective, but N95s were very effective.  Thats why outdoor gatherings were actually pretty safe, but sitting in a confined room wasn't even if at greater distances.

But generally yes - once humanity received the word it was safe to go back to "normal" we all jumped in head-first, and there've been precious few overall changes.

I mean in my own life - despite us demonstrating the virtues of online court appearances during Covid, they've been pushed to the margins quite rapidly.

[Jacob]

Bank of Canada cuts their rate by 0.25% today. More (orderly) cuts expected over the next little while.

[crazy canuck]

Goddamit - Covid-19 just broke so many people.

And look, I see it the other way too - people who refuse to give up on Covid restrictions, who insist on wearing masks etc. well after the pandemic is over - but it is clearly more prevalent on the anti-vax right.

What's wrong with people - we faced a global pandemic.  The response to which sucked (but was necessary).  We can quibble about some of the responses (did we need bans on outdoor meetings) but overall they seemed necessary.  It also seems that with widespread vaccination there's nothing to be afraid of.

Sheilbh, this is the post you agreed with and why I took you to task. 

You didn't say there was anything with wearing a mask, but BB did and you agreed with him.

And to Reiterate, the pandemic is not over. 

[Sheilbh]

So shaking hands...

One of the biggest screw-ups from the early Covid days was the understanding that Covid was spread by droplets.  Thats why we had all the 6' separation, had to disinfect everything coming into the house, and no shaking hands.

Turns out Covid was an aerosol.

Thats why cheap cloth masks weren't that effective, but N95s were very effective.  Thats why outdoor gatherings were actually pretty safe, but sitting in a confined room wasn't even if at greater distances.

Part of this, I think, is also admitting that we were wrong which is always challenging.

I remember on here using arguments I'd heard from doctors against Tamas and G - and I was wrong. I remember the version of that in the media with two examples that were really extreme. One was a daytime TV show where the former glamour model Caprice was saying "why aren't we locking down like Italy now" and being patronised by a doctor (repeating the same arguments I was). I remember the viral Medium post by a techbro about locking down, he then got invited onto Newsnight to talk about it with a professor of epidemiology advising the government. And in both cases I remember saying that it was a disgrace those interviews happened at all because it was two people who were quite media trained arguing with technical scientists - it was like having a politician v a scientist on climate change. Except they were right and I wasn't. We should have listened to the glamour model and the techbro.

It's a shame he's not here because he'd love this - but I remember Dorsey bringing up the UK advertising regulator prosecuting and fining companies and taking down ads on Amazon for masks in the early days of covid. Again I remember defending that because the message from the WHO and scientists speaking in the UK press at that stage was not just that masks didn't help but that they might be counter-productive because they'd give people a false sense of security.

I think an awful lot of that has been memory-holed. I do look at the Asia Pacific countries that did best and came closest to achieving zero covid. And they adopted mask use when the WHO and western scientists were saying it's useless on the assumption that it's probably aerosol and they closed their borders or imposed mandatory quarantine which, again, here was just seen as a non-option. I think it's quite challenging. Or at least it is for me - Tamas and garbon are great, but admitting Dorsey was right

Masks will become as endemic as the pandemic. We will continue to wear masks in our day to day lives when interreacting with people, the way, after AIDS, we use condoms in our casual sexual encounters. NOT.

Well it did in the gay community until prep came along. And that's my observation on masks - London is relatively young so comparatively less vulnerable to covid. Both during the pandemic and now, where I see masking most is when I visit my parents who live in the West Country surrounded by elderly retirees and there you definitely see it more. Twin-set, pearls and a surgical mask. But that makes sense - there is more vulnerability there.

But to your point about culture. yeah, I remember reading how there will be many books, movies etc on, or about or featuring COVID. And there were a few, yes, but mostly unsuccessful. (As my own aside, check out Marillion's last album An Hour Before It's Dark).

I think the reason for all this, is that people want to forget about COVID as quickly as possible and move on from it. It was disruptive and I think the majority feel the response was an over reaction.

Yeah I also wonder if it's maybe difficult to do a story. It's difficult to have a hero or a moral out of disease?

Here we had a couple of dramatisations of the chaos in government and social care which were incredibly powerful but they were of that moment and I don't think there's any appetite for anything new set during covid.

[Barrister]

So shaking hands...

One of the biggest screw-ups from the early Covid days was the understanding that Covid was spread by droplets.  Thats why we had all the 6' separation, had to disinfect everything coming into the house, and no shaking hands.

Turns out Covid was an aerosol.

Thats why cheap cloth masks weren't that effective, but N95s were very effective.  Thats why outdoor gatherings were actually pretty safe, but sitting in a confined room wasn't even if at greater distances.

Part of this, I think, is also admitting that we were wrong which is always challenging.

I remember on here using arguments I'd heard from doctors against Tamas and G - and I was wrong. I remember the version of that in the media with two examples that were really extreme. One was a daytime TV show where the former glamour model Caprice was saying "why aren't we locking down like Italy now" and being patronised by a doctor (repeating the same arguments I was). I remember the viral Medium post by a techbro about locking down, he then got invited onto Newsnight to talk about it with a professor of epidemiology advising the government. And in both cases I remember saying that it was a disgrace those interviews happened at all because it was two people who were quite media trained arguing with technical scientists - it was like having a politician v a scientist on climate change. Except they were right and I wasn't. We should have listened to the glamour model and the techbro.

It's a shame he's not here because he'd love this - but I remember Dorsey bringing up the UK advertising regulator prosecuting and fining companies and taking down ads on Amazon for masks in the early days of covid. Again I remember defending that because the message from the WHO and scientists speaking in the UK press at that stage was not just that masks didn't help but that they might be counter-productive because they'd give people a false sense of security.

I think an awful lot of that has been memory-holed. I do look at the Asia Pacific countries that did best and came closest to achieving zero covid. And they adopted mask use when the WHO and western scientists were saying it's useless on the assumption that it's probably aerosol and they closed their borders or imposed mandatory quarantine which, again, here was just seen as a non-option. I think it's quite challenging. Or at least it is for me - Tamas and garbon are great, but admitting Dorsey was right

Masks...

I think it's basically come out that in spring 2020 public health officials did not want panic buying of masks because they were needed in hospitals.  So they actively discouraged mask use by the public.  In fact, they lied.

The lies came from a good place and was understandable.  Perhaps it was even morally justified.  But still - lies.

I struggle with the "we should have listened to the techbros and glamour models" though.  They weren't really coming from a place of knowledge, just wishful thinking.  Public health officials were doing the best they could with the knowledge (or lack thereof) that they had at the time.

Look, there were some decisions made somewhat later in the pandemic that I think were less defensible.  Like when I hear for how long schools in the US were closed/remote-only, on grounds that basically to me sound like teachers just found it easier to work from home - that's disgraceful.  But I have nothing but respect for Dr. Fauci (or Dr Hinshaw in Alberta) even if with the benefit of hindsight some different decisions could have been made.



And just one more time for certain people's benefits: saying "the pandemic is over" does not mean "Covid-19 is over".  A pandemic is a huge increase in an infection across large areas.  Covid-19 is now endemic - it still exists, we still need to be concerned about it, but it's rate is more stable (with flare-ups here and there).  It's more like the seasonal flu (which, lets not forget, still kills lots of people).


In terms of popular media the only thing I can really think of is "Glass Onion" - early in the movie everyone is trapped in their home.  However the action quickly switches to Ed Norton's character's private island where they receive some kind of shot and then Covid is no longer a factor.

A movie directly about Covid would be hard - you need a hero and villain.  So unlesws you want to come up with a storyline about plucky investigators trying to prove that it was the Chinese behind Covid I can't see it.  Otherwise - a movie that's just set during Covid just reminds people of a time that sucks.

[Grey Fox]

And to Reiterate, the pandemic is not over. 

How will it stop being a pandemic for you?

According to the authors of this paper :

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1600-0498.12370

"Epidemics end once the diseases become accepted into people's daily lives and routines, becoming endemic—domesticated—and accepted."

We're pretty much there and have been for some time.

[Jacob]

Looks like farmland is turning into an attractive investment asset, with the attendant increase in value: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-farmland-real-estate-investment-1.7218435

I wonder if long-term this will contribute to the stress on cost of living?

[Sheilbh]

Masks...

I think it's basically come out that in spring 2020 public health officials did not want panic buying of masks because they were needed in hospitals.  So they actively discouraged mask use by the public.  In fact, they lied.

The lies came from a good place and was understandable.  Perhaps it was even morally justified.  But still - lies.

Maybe - but I'm not sure because even aside from masks I think in the UK it took probably about six months to really pivot from advice on dealing with/preventing droplets to aerosol spread. There were people at the time saying a lot of the evidence looked more aerosol than not (I remember an early study about spread in a basketball team). I think they probably were trying to protect PPE stocks, but also think given the other advice at the time that they were genuinely doubtful that it was aerosol.

And I think that's sort of my point Caprice and the techbro were basing what they were saying on what was going on in Italy especially. But you're right they're not scientists. It's a bit tongue in cheek (because they were right - and being patronised to) and perhaps better to say Japan, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand were right. But I think it's the thing that is scary from that experience of even the best people in their field with the best intentions could get things wrong in ways that had a huge impact: an incorrect assumption, or not assuming enough. And you can believe them and repeat their arguments to your internet friends in good faith - but it's still wrong and the techbro with a blog might be right. I think it's a destabilising experience, certainly how I've experienced it (which is, I think, why a lot of it has been memory-holed).

Looks like farmland is turning into an attractive investment asset, with the attendant increase in value: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-farmland-real-estate-investment-1.7218435

I wonder if long-term this will contribute to the stress on cost of living?

Yeah this line in particular doesn't feel like it'll end well. Financialisation of land for farming is something I feel could go wrong in a lot of ways:

"More urban people are becoming interested in farmland as an asset class, as a place to park their money," said André Magnan, a University of Regina sociology professor who studies the growing influence of financial and corporate actors in agriculture and how it reshapes food and farming.

[Valmy]

Masks...

I think it's basically come out that in spring 2020 public health officials did not want panic buying of masks because they were needed in hospitals.  So they actively discouraged mask use by the public.  In fact, they lied.

The lies came from a good place and was understandable.  Perhaps it was even morally justified.  But still - lies.

Yeah a huge deal about this lie was made in 2020 and used to demonstrate that everybody is evil or something.

The thing is this went right down the memory hole because I have zero recollection of anybody ever telling me not to wear masks. Only people telling me they are not fort Knox protection because they don't cover your eyes but at the time I figured that it was more about protecting others than myself. So if a big announcement was made for nobody to wear masks it made no impact on me.

But damn did I hear about this big lie for months and months later on. Like this was some kind of huge breach of public trust, this thing I never heard nor recall anybody following. When I went to the grocery store at the beginning of the pandemic everybody was six feet apart wearing masks and running from each other in terror.

I am kind of curious if I went back on Languish to this time if there was anybody saying "actually, experts are saying not to wear masks".

[Barrister]

I am kind of curious if I went back on Languish to this time if there was anybody saying "actually, experts are saying not to wear masks".

So I don't remember "masks might actually make it worse".  I do remember "masks won't help".

Like you I remember going to the grocery store very early on in the pandemic.  Long lines outside, everything marked to be 6' apart.  Within the store, again 6' apart, but only limited people inside.

And nobody wearing a mask.

I think masks only became popular once they started to be more available.  Same thing with hand sanitizer.