Tag Archives: CBSA

Roundup: The rot Chong won’t address

Posted on by

Conservative MP Michael Chong took to Policy Options yesterday to decry that the unilateral expulsions of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus was indicative of a “deeper rot” in our parliamentary culture. His solution? Just make some amendments to his garbage legislation Reform Act to better enforce the called-for votes to implement at the beginning of each parliament, or to do away with the voting entirely (which was a compromise to make the bill palatable), and ensure that the measures in the bill are fully enforceable regardless. And I just can’t even.

Chong keeps insisting that his garbage bill was going to “rebalance” the power between MPs and party leaders, but it does nothing of the sort – much like this omnibus motion that Liberal MP Frank Bayliss is proposing to amend the Standing Orders (which Chong is a co-sponsor of). These kinds of measures don’t actually attack the root of the problems facing our parliament, and in the creation of new rules, they simply create avenues for unintended consequences that make things worse. (For more on the Bayliss motion and why it’s a problem, see my weekend column). The solution is not, and will never be, more rules. The solution is to do away with the rules that have made things progressively worse, and to start rolling back the changes that our MPs keep making in the vain hopes of improving their lot when all they need to do is assert the powers that they already have.

I fear I am getting repetitive about this point, but until people start listening, I will keep saying it – the biggest root cause of the problems in our system, particularly where it concerns the “balancing” of powers of MPs vis-à-vis the party leader, is the party leadership selection system. Unless caucus members can select the leader, any attempt made by them to remove the leader, garbage Reform Act or no, will be seen as illegitimate precisely because the current selection system insulates leaders with a false notion of “democratic legitimacy.” And Chong knows this, but keeps trying to burnish his garbage bill in the hopes that it will somehow shine. It’s not going to happen, and MPs telling themselves that the solution is more rules are simply deluding themselves. More rules got us in this situation. More rules keeps taking power away from MPs under the guise of “rebalancing” or “restoring” that power, and this cycle keeps repeating. It needs to stop, and it means MPs (and the pundit class of this country) need to stop believing this mythology. The only solution is caucus selection of leaders. Anything else is a mirage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Performative outrage and scapegoating

Posted on by

A couple of headlines this weekend made me roll my eyes, and they’re on a related subject. The first was Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe lamenting that federal-provincial legal battles are the “new normal” in Canadian intergovernmental affairs. The problem? That pretty much 99 percent of these cases are frivolous and examples of provincial governments throwing tantrums – and this is not just the various court references about the carbon price backstop, but also BC’s initial challenge to say that they have the power to regulate what goes through a federally-regulated pipeline. They’re futile bids that are the equivalent of shaking one’s fist at the clouds in order to performatively look like they’re being tough, and all it does is waste time, resources, and throw uncertainty into the business climate. If anything, being performative for populist reasons is the “new normal” and the courts are just pawns in the whole affair, which is really unfortunate.

The second headline was a Calgary professor who says that the anger in Alberta is being dismissed as “alienation” when it’s “abuse” by the federal government toward the western provinces – which is patently absurd. Most of Alberta’s problems are related to the collapse in the world price of oil (which has to do with a global supply glut), and the fact that the province has long refused to adequately diversify their economy (because oil money is so addictive). But when things like pipeline projects are being made to respect the constitutional obligations to properly consult Indigenous peoples – as opposed to simply bulldozing over their rights as what used to be the case – that’s “abuse”? Really? That the imposition of a federal carbon price that oil companies have been asking for as part of a market-based solution for the serious climate crisis this planet is facing is “abuse”? Seriously? No, it’s not abuse. The province has obligations to live up to, and scapegoating Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau for the problems stemming from the world price of oil is populist bilge, and professors who rationalize it are part of the problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Vetting judges? Oh noes!

Posted on by

Yesterday the Globe and Mail had a story about how the current government will run potential judicial nominees through the Liberal party’s voter database as part of the vetting process, which was followed by an analysis of how many appointees were Liberal donors. This first came up weeks ago when yet another Jody Wilson-Raybould-related leak revealed that she was trying to “depoliticize” the appointment process by not providing certain information to PMO when she passed along recommendations, which is a problem – not that it was framed that way. This current story follows up on that, and has a few framing issues of its own. There are a few things to unpack in this, but first of all, I’ll let Adam Goldenberg point out a few issues with this analysis:

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013782795497478

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013787128156160

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013789766369280

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121024056663400448

With this in mind, I have a few thoughts of my own – first of all is that I think Goldenberg is correct in his reminder that vetting includes political vetting – and the party’s database (as Susan Delacourt noted on Power Play) contains more than who donated – they will collect all manner of information as part of their construction of voter profiles, so it makes sense that they would also run potential appointments through this. (The fact that parties don’t have stringent privacy rules around their databases is a discussion for another day). Why? Because the prime minister is ultimately politically accountable for all Governor-in-Council appointments, and that includes judges. And so long as the prime minister is politically accountable, I think it’s reasonable that his office does whatever vetting they deem necessary – and there’s nothing in here to indicate that they’re checking to ensure that they’re voting for Liberal partisans, which we need to keep in mind.

The other aspect of his story that makes me a bit queasy is the implication that there is favour being shown to Liberal donors – and the math bears out a little bit that while seventy percent of appointees hadn’t donated to anyone, twenty-five percent of them donated to the Liberals, which is disproportionate to other parties. But we also need to remember a few things, the primary one being that we need to stop treating political donations as a bad thing. The donation limits in this country are quite small – you’re not going to bribe someone for $1200, let’s face it – and we donations are a form of engagement. Engagement is a good thing. The more we stigmatize past political donations – and those donations could be for a variety of reasons, such as an acquaintance running in a local campaign, or because they wanted the tax receipt – the more we send the message that engagement is bad, which is the very opposite of what we should be doing in a country where we already have abysmal levels of engagement, whether it’s taking out party memberships, donating, or volunteering (and yes, Samara Canada has done research on this). Pearl-clutching stories like this just reinforce this narrative, which is bad for democracy.

Continue reading →

QP: Leaks and legal fees

Posted on by

While there were more leaks and allegations on the ongoing Double-Hyphen Affair, neither Justin Trudeau nor Andrew Scheer were present today, so it was all going to be overwrought Conservative talking points versus Bardish Chagger’s bland assurances. Candice Bergen led off, accusing Trudeau of misleading Canadians on the Affair, to which Chagger gave her usual reply that he was transparent, gave the waiver, and that everything was in the public. Bergen accused Trudeau of smearing Wilson-Raybould, and Chagger repeated that all facts were now public. Bergen read a selective timeline of events, and Chagger repeated that the committee heard weeks of testimony and that this was all public. Alain Rayes took over to repeat Bergen’s allegations of falsehoods, but in French, and Chagger repeated her same response in French, without notes, as she’s memorised it all by now. Rayes then raised the issue of the media Access to Information request about the PCO documents raised in the case, but Chagger stuck to the same points about everything being public, adding at the end that they would receive the documents they requested (but did not say when). Jagmeet Singh was up next, and  raised elements of an interview Jane Philpott earlier today in which she commented on the potential of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for SNC-Lavalin and wanted assurances that they would not give a deal to the company, to which David Lametti reminded him that they were still in the appeal period for the judicial review request, so he would not comment publicly.  Singh tried again in French, got the same answer, and then asked a Quebec-flavoured pharmacare question. Ginette Petitpas Taylor reminded him they created an advisory council and their final report was on the way. Singh switched to English to demand immediate action and touted his party’s plan, to which Petitpas Taylor repeated her response in English.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about Erskine-Smith

Posted on by

As was not a surprise, the Ethics committee met on the matter of hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and the Liberals on the committee voted it down. The lead for the Liberals was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is a more maverick Liberal in the ranks, and yet he said this motion was premature, said it was better to wait for Wilson-Raybould’s submissions to the justice committee, and stated bluntly that they weren’t the best committee to deal with legal issues. Oh, and he also stated that he got zero input from PMO, and he’s one of the more believable Liberals on that front, so it muffles some of the inevitable cries of “Cover up!” – especially as he says he’s of the opinion that the PM should give the blanket waiver of confidences so that the two resigned ministers can say their piece, because this whole affair is damaging the Liberal brand. So, frank speaking, but that won’t change the narrative any, unfortunately.

In the fallout from Monday’s leaks, the Canadian and Manitoba Bar Associations have put out statements condemning them, as did several MPs including Erskine-Smith. (It also emerged that Justice Joyal withdrew his name after Trudeau rejected it, for what it’s worth). Trudeau himself wouldn’t answer any questions on the leak, even to say that he would investigate where it came from (which should be a bare minimum considering the seriousness of it).

Meanwhile, the Star decided to host competing op-eds about whether dissident Liberals should be allowed to remain in caucus, with Sheila Copps saying no, and Erskine-Smith saying yes. Copps did raise a few interesting points about things that Wilson-Raybould has omitted from her repeated statements, but Erskine-Smith did have the better articulation of what it means to be an MP. Neil Macdonald also has little time or sympathy for the drip-drip-drip approach and wonders why journalists are going along with it, but does offer some historical perspective on MPs who work against their leaders and walk-outs. Susan Delacourt praises Erskine-Smith for his handling of the situation, and the frankness that PMO should be employing. Chris Selley rightly points out that the attempt to drag Justice Joyal into this Affair as a new low, while John Ibbitson says it’s a sign that those inhabiting the PMO have little regard for the rule of law. Paul Wells brings some more righteous fire to this whole debate, torching the cries to purge the party, the leaks of confidential information, and the underlying accusations of system-rigging.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1110628732882972672

Continue reading →

Roundup: Caucus drama and another vote-a-thon

Posted on by

Yesterday was another non-stop day of shenanigans and ongoing fallout from the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair, so let’s walk through it. The day began with caucus meetings, and on the way into Liberal caucus, Justin Trudeau stated that he was satisfied that Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott wanted to still work for the Liberal cause, so he would let them stay in caucus – though apparently Philpott got something of a rough ride from her fellow Liberals, according to various sources. Nearby, Andrew Scheer opened the door to the media for a speech about how terrible the budget was, except it was the same kind of jejune talking points that we’ve come to expect, such as how these deficits were terrible, unsustainable, and would lead to future tax increases – all of which are objectively untrue given that the deficit is actually small, sustainable, and with a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, will not require future tax increases. Because remember, a federal budget is nothing like a household budget, and people should be smacked for comparing them. Scheer also told some complete falsehoods about the deficit (detailed in this thread by Josh Wingrove), and it wouldn’t be his first lie of the day – his whole shtick during QP was another complete falsehood about parliamentary procedure.

Just before QP, there were more developments – Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes decided to quit caucus, and later cited that her tweet and subsequent interview about her tense meetings with the PM around her departure led to unintended consequences “for those she cares about,” and she felt it best to sit as an independent for the remainder of the session. Also, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said that he never said that 9000 jobs were in danger – but if you also recall the testimony from committee, that seemed to stem from a memo from the department of finance, and there is also a hell of a lot of nuance to this figure of the 9000 jobs and what is at stake for SNC-Lavalin (thread here). And then not long after QP, the Conservatives started their vote-a-thon as a “protest” about the handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, during which they again made the tactically inept decision to vote against all of them, opening themselves up to all manner of Liberal social media about all the good and necessary funding that they “threatened.” The Liberals, meanwhile, went into full drama queen mode and got cots put into the space behind the House of Commons so that MPs rotating off of votes can nap (which the Conservatives tried to mock in their own tweets). It’s all so very stupid.

In related news, Bill Morneau’s chief of staff, Ben Chin, denies he did anything wrong in talking to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, saying there’s nothing wrong with staffers talking to staffers. Michael Chong is also trying to keep his hot garbage Reform Act in the news by saying that it would be illegal for Justin Trudeau to kick anyone out of caucus without a vote (though that doesn’t appear to be an issue any longer). Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at how the procedural shenanigans could play out over the next few days.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The drip, drip, drip of details

Posted on by

At a press event yesterday morning, Justin Trudeau tried to offer some reassurances around Jody Wilson-Raybould, and only seemed to complicate matters – which didn’t help that everyone seemed to read meaning into what he said that I don’t think was at all was intended. To recap, Trudeau said that back in September, at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the SNC-Lavalin, and the jobs and economic repercussions, Wilson-Raybould asked him if he intended to direct her on how to deal with the issue, and he said no, it was her call; in October, the Public Prosecution Service rejected the notion of giving SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. He also said that if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned that she would still be in justice, but things get moved around when you start shuffling Cabinet pieces around (which is fair – there are a lot of considerations). This of course turned into a childish game over Twitter about “blame Scott Brison,” which is not only ridiculous, but completely misrepresents what he said. (Note that regarding her poor performance managing her department, Brison’s departure may have been the opportunity to deal with it, but that it was considered manageable until the next election, but I can’t say that I’m privy to those determinations). Oh, and Trudeau also said it was unacceptable for people to be taking shots at Wilson-Raybould, but this was also about eight days after the anonymous grousing started appearing in media reports.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1096465016100777986

Amidst this, people have started taking a look back at the deferred prosecution portion of the budget implementation bill when it was being debated and studied back in the spring (*coughs*my story once again*coughs*), perhaps to prove that this was something the government snuck through to the benefit of all of that SNC-Lavalin lobbying. While Aaron Wherry finds a voluminous paper trail here, and the chair of the Commons finance committee, Wayne Easter, told Power & Politics that he personally questioned why that section wasn’t being sent to the justice committee, where things get really interesting is before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, where those provisions were sent for study. It becomes exceedingly interesting that Wilson-Raybould refused to make herself available to testify on the issue – which is a very bad thing for a minister – and while Senator Serge Joyal, who heads the committee, says that in hindsight she may not have been comfortable with the subject matter if there was pressure (if that is indeed what was happening), we also need to remember that she refused to appear on other bills, which was holding them up because the committee (quite rightly) said no minister, no bill. Since she was shuffled, Lametti has agreed to appear before the committee on those bills. This kind of truculent behaviour should be taken into consideration when people think that she was doing a “great” job (she wasn’t), but even when she did appear to answer questions, the only thing she’d ever say was how proud she was of the job she was doing (another strike on her record).

Former BC premier Christy Clark affirmed Trudeau’s line that if Wilson-Raybould had a problem and was feeling unduly pressured that she had a duty to say something and resign, which she didn’t. And as a related note, here’s a closer look at the principles of Cabinet secrecy that Trudeau has noted are a consideration in what’s going on here, and how Trudeau has the prerogative to invoke it or not.

In other related news, a former SNC-Lavalin executive had his obstruction of justice charge stayed because it “timed out” under the Jordan principles outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As for SNC-Lavalin’s pursuit of a deferred prosecution agreement, here is an explainer of what kind of process a company would need to go through for a prosecutor to consider granting them one, and why it’s not simply paying a fine.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne insists that because SNC-Lavalin couldn’t meet the tests necessary to even qualify for a DPA that there shouldn’t have been any reason for Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould to talk about one, while Paul Wells looks at the polling numbers on the issue, and finds Trudeau’s credibility lagging Wilson-Raybould’s on the issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flippant suggestions stepping on the message – again

Posted on by

There weren’t any official new developments in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould controversy yesterday, but we did get a few more drips of information, like how prime minister Justin Trudeau had a one-way teleconference call with the caucus in the wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s departure, with the main message being that he still wished her well and didn’t want her booted from caucus. Not helpful was justice committee chair Anthony Housefather who somewhat flippantly suggested that perhaps Wilson-Raybould was replaced because she didn’t speak French at a time when a great many legal issues are coming up in Quebec – only to apologise later and clarify that he said it in relation to the baseless speculation that is rampant, not because it was a serious suggestion (except he did repeat it in a couple of different interviews, but I’m sure it sounded good in his head at the time). Because this party never ceases to stop stepping all over its own message, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Every. Single. Time.

In the absence of any new developments in the story was looking at where various Liberals are starting to align themselves in relation to Wilson-Raybould’s current status, but that hasn’t stopped the anonymous Liberals from trying to give takes about “crossed wires” and “revisionist feelings” with benefit of the doubt going to Trudeau – or not, in other cases. Northwest Territories MP Michael McLeod points out that Wilson-Raybould’s departure means there is no longer Indigenous representation in Cabinet (expect this to be a factor in the upcoming shuffle). New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long continues to break ranks and say he wants more answers, and good for him for doing his job as a backbencher properly. Oh, and PMO now apparently condemns the smack talk of other anonymous Liberals besmirching Wilson-Raybould’s record following complaints from Indigenous groups that said it was sexist and racist. Elsewhere, a number of Indigenous senators published a letter of support for Wilson-Raybould but also noted that this shouldn’t derail reconciliation, which is more than the work of one minister. (Senator Brazeau was not among them and is trying to make more hay of this).

In related matters, here’s a look at how the way in which the Ethics Commissioner undertook his examination (note that he didn’t investigation) of the matter could mean that he can end it at any point without a public report, and it’s not clear that he really has the scope to undertake such an investigation to begin with. The premier of Quebec is calling for SNC-Lavalin to get that deferred prosecution agreement, surprising no one. Here’s a look at SNC-Lavalin’s history of lobbying on the issue, and why Quebec sees the company as an asset in spite of their poor history.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt thinks there are lessons from #MeToo that Trudeau should be drawing from in handling this whole mess, particularly as silence remains on half of the tale. Jen Gerson thinks that it’s time to stop treating SNC-Lavalin with kid gloves, and that their demise may actually benefit a number of other companies who don’t have a history of corruption.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Polling on magical parties

Posted on by

I am not a big fan about reporting on polls, which makes me particularly aggrieved that we saw a few stories today about the latest Angus Reid poll that postulated a hypothetical “Western Canada Party” and how that would skew the vote for the established parties. Why a poll like this is especially irksome is because when you invite people to vote for a hypothetical that has no leader, or policies, or structure, or even raison d’être, then it simply becomes a repository for unicorns and pixie dust. You’re inviting people from four fairly disparate provinces to join forces, when you have separate grievances with the federal government, and you think you’d make a coherent political force out of it? Really? What exactly is anyone supposed to take from this message, other than people have vivid imaginations?

Of course, the idea is pretty ludicrous on its face – it could never be anything other than a protest party that couldn’t aspire to power by sheer mathematics – and it builds on some particular mythology around the Reform Party that I’m not sure necessarily reflects history. You have people like Deborah Grey who hears this and just sighs about the notion about splitting the Conservative party again (though there is plenty to debate about how we qualify the “reunification”). Should Andrew Scheer read this poll and take it as a warning that his Western base thinks he’s pandering too much to Quebec? We’ve already seen him embrace some outright tinfoil hattery because he’s been spooked by Maxime Bernier and losing those votes – will he crank up his faux-Saskatchewan credentials to eleven for the rest of the election to keep pretending that he’s one of them to bash away at the federal government? Will we hear big and small-c conservatives double down on the faux mythology of Alberta’s conservativism (and if you haven’t yet, please do read Jen Gerson’s exploration of that mythology here). “Ooh, but protest vote!” people will handwave. But BC and Alberta would be protesting against different things – and different parts of BC would have different protests at that. Grievance-mongering is not a path to sustainable politics. Polls like this just confuse issues and make people think that there are magic wands – or in this case, magical political parties that could somehow cure all of their woes by forcing Ottawa to take them seriously, somehow. But that’s not real life, and politics is hard work, which is not something that this kind of polling reflects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The C-69 battle begins

Posted on by

The Senate’s Energy and Environment committee is slated to begin their examination of Bill C-69 today, which promises to be a right gong show as the Conservatives have been pledging to do everything they can to kill the bill, which could mean attempting to delay things as long as possible – which is one reason why they have been aggressively pushing for the committee to hold cross-country hearings. This is being pushed back against by the government whip – err, “liaison,” and the leader of the Independent Senators Group, but that hasn’t stopped the agitation. Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald went so far as to pen an op-ed in the National Post that says the prime minister is trying to “keep the Senate from the people,” which is absurd on its face considering that Trudeau’s hands-off policy on the Senate is one reason why the Chamber is in a bit of disarray at the moment.

Meanwhile, there will be an effort from non-Conservative senators to see amendments to the bill, which could create its own delays as the debates and votes on those amendments could get drawn out for weeks, while the parliamentary calendar ticks down. (For reference, I wrote this piece last week, talking to lawyers on both the environmental and proponent sides of the issue about the kinds of amendments they would like to see). The bill has its issues, no doubt, but the rhetoric around it has reached hyperbolic proportions, and much of the opposition we hear has become based on myth rather than fact or analysis. That’s going to make the Senate’s deliberations more difficult in the weeks ahead, as people will be howling about non-existent segments of the bill, and we’ll hear the daily demands in QP that the bill be withdrawn, never mind that the current system isn’t working and has been the subject of numerous court challenges. I suspect this will become a very nasty fight before the end of spring.

Continue reading →