Category Archives: Political Roundup

What’s going on in Canadian politics

Roundup: An investigation into Rideau Hall

Posted on by

It was announced at the end of the day yesterday that the Privy Council Office would be launching a “thorough, independent and impartial” investigation into the claims of harassment and verbal abuse at Rideau Hall, and that this would be done with the cooperation of the Secretary to the Governor General, Assunta Di Lorenzo – whom these same complainants say was Payette’s abusive tag-team partner. Payette later tweeted that she takes workplace harassment “very seriously,” for what that’s worth.

Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé explains why Governors General need to be uncontroversial and above reproach – which extends to how they comport themselves in office, which this current situation is certainly an example of. He also makes the very salient point that the prime minister needs to be directly involved in fixing this situation one way or the other, which can mean encouraging Payette that it’s time to “spend more time with her family.” Chris Selley longs for the days of a boring GG in office, citing David Johnston as the ideal when compared to the current example (and there is a good chapter on the criteria for selecting a GG in Royal Progress, written by Senator Serge Joyal, with the observation that the women selected for the roles have largely had media presences as opposed to governance experience).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bill Morneau makes himself a bigger target

Posted on by

As if the WE Imbroglio couldn’t get any more ridiculous, Bill Morneau stepped up to the plate yesterday and drove it to an all new level of lunacy by declaring that he had just repaid some $40,100 in travel costs to WE after they sent him and his wife on tours of some of their operations, and he didn’t realize that they hadn’t been billed for the full costs. WE later said that they were ostensibly free trips because the pair are well-known philanthropists, and these kinds of trips help showcase their work to potential donors. It would also appear that these weren’t reported to the Ethics Commissioner, if I’m reading it correctly, so that means even more problems for Morneau coming at him. (And before you make the joke, no, Morneau did not previously “forget” about his French villa – he incorrectly reported its ownership structure).

Morneau was, of course, appearing at the Finance committee to answer questions on the WE Imbroglio, and this sent Pierre Poilievre and Charlie Angus in particular over the edge. Already there were more questions raised about the contract with WE over the student grant programme because they had signed it with one of the charity’s holding companies, but that may have been about limiting liabilities, so it could be explained away, but it has all become byzantine both from a lack of government candour (shocking, I know), and because the opposition has constructed conspiratorial narratives that have taken any facts and shaped them in the darkest way possible, so as to make it difficult to figure out what is going on.

And this is only going to spiral from here on out. While the Conservatives and Bloc are now howling for Bill Morneau to resign, both Justin Trudeau and his chief of staff, Katie Telford, have agreed to appear at committee at a future date to be negotiated, so that is going to be nothing shy of a circus. And because the circus did not have enough monkeys, conspiracy theorist Vivian Krause also appeared at committee yesterday, for some unknown reason, to assert – with no evidence – that WE was passing along information to the Liberal Party for their voter identification database (which was denied by both WE and the Liberals), and yet this was being brought up in the Commons, and in some irresponsible reporting.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1286029728982478848

Meanwhile, Justin Ling has a broad exploration of the bigger picture of what the whole Imbroglio says about this government and WE, particularly when it comes to the power of branding. Heather Scoffield lists the ways in which Bill Morneau has managed to be off-side because he’s blind to the ethics implications of his decisions. And to remind everyone about this column I wrote a couple of weeks ago about why it was time for Morneau to be shuffled from Cabinet before all of this WE business started up, which really starts to look like it’s untenable that he remain in the position much longer, not only because he can’t communicate, can’t deal with the business community, and now because it’s unavoidable that he is completely blind to his ethical obligations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The toxic environment at Rideau Hall

Posted on by

The big news last night was that the CBC had staff on the record about the climate of harassment and verbal abuse that has emerged at Rideau Hall since Julie Payette became Governor General, and her friend Assunta Di Lorenzo her Secretary. It’s not actually surprising – there are three years of stories coming out of Rideau Hall about the atmosphere getting increasingly toxic and that Payette’s behaviour has been mystifying at times – that she doesn’t want to do some of the ceremonial aspects of the job, and wants to have an active hand in portions of the job where she shouldn’t. My own sources have been saying that Payette and Di Lorenzo are “erratic,” and that most people can’t deal with them. Staff has left Rideau Hall in droves. All of the indications are that it’s a sick workplace – but Payette put out a press release saying that this is all news to her because nobody has complained through the official process (which isn’t really a complaint mechanism because it all goes back to Di Lorenzo and ultimately Payette). And if you need convincing, here are three years of stories (thread), including some of my own.

Ultimately, this is Justin Trudeau’s responsibility because he appointed her without due diligence that she would be suitable for the role. The fact that he did away with the vice-regal appointments committee in order to listen to his own inner cadre about Payette as a choice is pretty much the exact kind of thing we’re seeing with the WE Imbroglio playing out right now – nobody bothered to exercise critical judgment, and instead all went along nodding and drinking more of the Kool-Aid, and lo, a bad decision was made – and one that ultimately damaged one of our parliamentary institutions. It also is now up to Trudeau to do something about the situation, whether it’s managing Payette and Di Lorenzo and working on a plan to transition them out, or if they won’t go, calling up the Queen and asking her to dismiss Payette (which is a last resort because the first rule of constitutional monarchy is you don’t get the Queen involved). Any way you look at this, it’s not good, and it’s yet another black mark on Trudeau’s record.

Here’s Philippe Lagassé on the options available to dealing with Payette. And if you want to know more about the former vice-regal appointments commission and the role of the Secretary to the Governor General, and why Di Lorenzo’s appointment has been a problem from the start, read my chapter in Royal Progress: Canada’s Monarchy in the Age of Disruption, and learn more about it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking a personal day

Posted on by

Of all the possible misplays for Justin Trudeau to make at the height of a controversy around his poor choices, ethical blind spots, and insistence that he’s being open and transparent, the first day of a two-day recall of the House of Commons saw him absent with the only excuse on his daily itinerary being a “personal day,” which sent the opposition into a frenzy. It’s not like Trudeau chose this day for the Commons to be recalled and for there to be a proper Question Period – erm, except he did. And then wasn’t present. Way to read the room.

Andrew Scheer had his own attempts to make hay, insisting that if the Liberal backbenchers don’t oust Trudeau (without a mechanism to do so, it should be noted), that they were signalling that they were okay with his “corruption” – never mind that a conflict of interest is not actually corruption, and he’s not exactly someone who should be throwing stones considering that he was forced to resign his own leadership after it was revealed that he was helping himself to party funds to the tune of almost a million dollars.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are also pushing back against the bill being debated, objecting to the “complexity” of the wage subsidy changes, despite the fact that for there to be a proper phase-out and to ensure it’s more broadly encompassing than the programme was initially, there needs to be added complexity. Their objections won’t matter for much, considering that the Bloc has agreed to support the bill regardless so there are enough votes to go around, but it is a change from bills being supported unanimously at all stages, and something that resembles a sense of normalcy slowly returning to Parliament, which is a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A brief return to the Commons

Posted on by

The Commons will be meeting today in an actual, real sitting and not an abbreviated strange hybrid committee, in order to pass Bill C-20 on disability payments, which they say is in an improved format from their previous attempt in C-17 (which one presumes is now withdrawn from the Order Paper). The bill also includes the changes to the wage subsidy that were announced on Friday, and it sounds like will also have the changes to court system timelines that were previously announced and part of C-17, but the text of the bill won’t be out until the Commons actually sits. We also know that the bill will pass, because the Bloc have agreed to everything, and this means a motion that will see the bill essentially passed at all stages with a couple hours’ worth of speeches in lieu of actual debate or legislative processes, which is less than ideal. We’ll also have a proper Question Period today, so we can look forward to that, and all of the questions on the WE Imbroglio that will come with it. The Senate has not yet announced when they will be meeting to pass it on their end, which may not be until later in the week.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feigned confusion and a filibuster

Posted on by

As anticipated, the government unveiled their reforms to the wage subsidy programme yesterday, which included more of a sliding scale for revenue drops and how much support businesses could get before the subsidy phases out, which helps ensure that businesses don’t reach a “cliff” in terms of restart growth only to have that support ripped away at an arbitrary level. This has the business community both applauding the government for responding to concerns, while also moaning that it’s so complicated now, which has some economists rolling their eyes. It also looks like the government that insisted they don’t like abusive omnibus bills is rolling the legislation for these changes in with the new-and-improved disability payments, as well as the justice timelines legislation, so that’s something to look forward to when the House comes back next week for a single day.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee met yesterday to start their own look into the WE Imbroglio (conveniently with many of the same faces who subbed in at the Finance Committee during its hearing), to which the Liberals on the committee, knowing that they don’t have sufficient votes, decided instead to filibuster things, which is not a good look. Their arguments that this undermines the work of the Ethics Commissioner ignores that his role is supposed to support them, not the other way around; the fact that they were blocking a motion to demand the receipts from Margaret and Alexandre Trudeau’s public speaking events from their Speaker’s Bureau going back to 2008 is a little more suspect, and I haven’t heard a reasonable rationale for it or how it relates to the proposed study on how well the conflict-of-interest regime is working. Suffice to say, this isn’t a good look for the Liberals, and there are better ways of beating the Conservatives at their own game than playing into their hands. It’s too bad that they can’t seem to grasp that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some strings attached

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau wound up holding an irregular presser yesterday, mid-afternoon instead of late morning, and with a specific purpose in mind – to announce that the federal government had finally come to an agreement with the provinces over the Safe Restart Plan, now pegged at $19 billion rather than the $14 billion initially put on the table. What is noteworthy is that there were still federal strings attached for this money, though some premiers noted that the strings were not as tight as before. The money is to go toward municipalities, transit, contact tracing, personal protective equipment, childcare, and ten days of paid sick leave (so now Jagmeet Singh can pat himself on the back, even though this was BC premier John Horgan’s initiative), and is to last for the next six to eight months, at which point there will be a re-evaluation of where everyone is at. Trudeau also made it official that the Canada-US border will remain closed to non-essential travel until August 21st.

During the Q&A that followed, Trudeau expressed optimism around the vaccine candidate being held up by Chinese customs, and said that in spite of the Russian hacking story, it was important to work with everyone to develop a vaccine and that they were working to get the balance right. When asked if he would appear before committee as invited around the WE Imbroglio, that his House leadership team was looking at the possibilities, but that he also looked forward to taking questions in the Commons next week during the scheduled special sitting day. Chrystia Freeland was asked about what she knew regarding the WE Imbroglio, and she gave a fairly lengthy response about how everyone accepts responsibility for what happened, and apologized, saying that “clearly we made a mistake and we’re going to learn from it,” adding that everyone knew that the PM was connected to WE but didn’t know of his family’s specific financial arrangements, and then added that she still supported the PM and that it was a privilege to serve in his Cabinet. When asked if Quebec had no problems with the strings attached to the billions on the table, Freeland said that they agreed to it like everyone else, and that it was actually a Really Big Deal to get all thirteen provinces and territories to sign onto a deal that includes the municipalities and covered several ministries, saying that it showed that Canadians have understood that we need to work together in this time of crisis.

Shortly after the presser ended, Bardish Chagger and her officials appeared before the Finance committee to discuss the WE Imbroglio. Chagger insisted that nobody in PMO directed her to make an arrangement with WE, but she kept deferring to her officials, which…isn’t really how ministerial responsibility works. There was also talk about how WE had sent an unsolicited proposal to several ministers about a youth programme before this was announced, which WE later came out and said was a youth entrepreneurship programme which had nothing to do with what became the Service Grant programme. This having been said, the senior bureaucrat on the file said that they had three weeks to come up with a programme, and that WE fit the bill for its requirements, which is why they were recommended – and pointed out that potential conflicts are for public office holders to deal with, not bureaucrats (which is true). Up today, the Ethics Committee will begin their own examination into the Imbroglio, so we’ll see if that goes any better.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: A shock-and-awe number

Posted on by

The Conservatives are crowing about their membership numbers in the lead-up to their leadership vote, where some 269,000 Canadians are now eligible to vote – not that they all will, but it’s a shock-and-awe number that they say are bigger than any previous Conservative (or its predecessor parties’) leadership contest – though not quite as large as the Liberal contest that elected Justin Trudeau. And while on paper it’s great that there are so many people who have joined the party, this is one of those traps that have created so many of our problems in this country.

The original sin in Canadian politics was the Liberals’ decision in 1919 to move away from caucus selecting their new leader after Wilfrid Laurier’s death to a delegated convention. From then on, under the guise of being “more democratic,” they ensured that their leaders could henceforth not be held to account by the MPs of their caucus – nor the party, really, because “leadership reviews” are largely bogus exercises (sorry, Thomas Mulcair!). And what ends up happening is that when you have a big number like 260,000 party members, when the leader who winds up being selected in this manner gets into trouble, he or she tells their caucus “I have the democratic legitimacy of these 269,000 votes – the average riding has 75,000 electors. I have the bigger mandate.” It has been the way in which the centralization of power has been justified, and all of abuses of that power have followed.

The other problem is that these kinds of memberships tend to be transactional for the duration of the leadership contest. A good many of these members won’t stick around and to the work of nominations or policy development, which is another reason why these shock-and-awe numbers wind up being hollow in the long run. We do need more people to take out party memberships in this country, but it has to be meaningful engagement, and a leadership contest is not that. It only serves to perpetuate the problems in our system.

 

Good reads: Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology on the second attempt

Posted on by

It was prime minister Justin Trudeau’s first presser since the WE Imbroglio blew up over the revelations of his family being paid speakers for the charity, and there was a definite note of contrition this time. After hinting that the government would extend the wage subsidy until December with details coming later in the week, a mention of his call earlier in the morning with Donald Trump that touched on tariffs, Black Lives Matter, and China, and a promise on further updates on the Safe Restart Plan with the provinces to come later in the week, Trudeau turned to his mea culpa on the Imbroglio. “I made a mistake in not recusing myself from discussions, and I’m sincerely sorry about not having done that,” Trudeau said. He praised how the government got creative with designing programmes during the pandemic, and how they had worked with a range of partners to make it happen, but he was sorry that he didn’t remove himself from the discussions with WE, and that he was frustrated that youth would have to wait longer to do their party to serve because of the mistakes he made. (I would argue that WE’s plans raised a lot of red flags too, for what it’s worth). When asked if he would appear before committee to discuss what happened, Trudeau was non-committal, but in a hung parliament, he doesn’t have the votes to shield himself this time.

During the Q&A, he said that he pointed out to Trump about the disruptions to the aluminium supply chains and hoped that they wouldn’t see tariffs that would only slow down the economic recovery; he also mentioned that there were ongoing discussions around the border, but the rest of the time was spent reiterating, over and over, that he didn’t have the details on what his family members had been paid by WE and that he should have, and that he did seem to have some reflection that he needed to be careful on this file because of his past activity with the charity but that he didn’t go far enough and should have removed himself entirely from the conversation. Later in the day, Bill Morneau sent out his own apology for his own failure to recuse himself given his daughters’ activities with WE.

For what it’s worth, there seems to be some kind of learning curve because it only took the second try for Trudeau to give an apology rather than stick to talking points aimed at deflection until the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner’s report, at which point there would be either an apology or admission of some kind of wrongdoing and a promise to do better next time. This time, we managed to skip weeks of such failed damage control, so that’s something, I guess.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt finds herself wanting when it comes to Trudeau’s explanation for how the whole thing went down, and hopes that he’s saving it for his discussion with the Ethics Commissioner. Matt Gurney gives credit where credit is due for Trudeau learning enough to make a rapid admission and apology rather than dragging things out for months. Paul Wells is unimpressed with the apology and wants a full accounting of what happened, particularly as it is increasingly evident that things were wrong with the WE contract outside of the apparent conflict of interest, and how those decisions were made need to be aired.

Good reads:

  • Ruh-roh! It looks like the federal government wasn’t enforcing the rules around temporary foreign workers, which allowed outbreaks to occur on farms.
  • Here is some number-crunching on the PM’s daily pressers in the first phase of the pandemic and lockdown, including on his choice of verbs and phrases.
  • The RCMP have charged a Quebec man with calling for Justin Trudeau’s death and the eradication of Muslims.
  • Former Liberal MPs who lost their seats in the last election are waiting to hear about nomination contests so they can be ready to run again.
  • Leona Alleslev has resigned as deputy leader of the Conservatives to more vocally back Peter MacKay, who says that no promises were made for her support.
  • Maclean’s has a profile of Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis.
  • Jason Kenney is accusing the federal government of preventing Apple from fixing the province’s contact tracing app, which requires iPhones to be unlocked to work.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the options for calling prime minister Trudeau to committee to testify on the WE Imbroglio.
  • Heather Scoffield is frustrated by the vague answers being given on the extension and amendments to the wage subsidy programme.
  • Colby Cosh recounts how Alberta has abolished its last vestiges of prohibition, by allowing liquor sales in Mormon-centric towns that were still “dry.”

Odds and ends:

For the CBA’s National Magazine, I wrote about Friday’s Supreme Court decision on genetic privacy, and what the broader implications of the ruling are.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.