Tag Archives: Ethics Commissioner

Roundup: Weasel words on conversion therapy

Posted on by

In the wake of the Liberals announcing that they were looking at what measures they could take at a federal level to ban “conversion therapy,” the question was put to Andrew Scheer if he opposed it. Scheer responded that while he opposes “forced” conversion therapy, he will wait to see what the government proposes around banning it before if he’ll support it. The Conservatives quickly cried foul that the Global news headline was that “Andrew Scheer will ‘wait and see’ before taking a stance on conversion therapy ban” was just clickbait that didn’t reflect his actual quotes (and Global did update their headline), but not one of them pointed out the fact that Scheer’s own words were, to be frank, weaselly.

Scheer said that he opposed “forced” conversion therapy, and that he’s opposed to “any type of practice that would forcibly attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation against their will or things like that.” And you note the weasel words in there – about only being opposed to “forced” therapy, or to change it “against their will.” The giant implication that not one conservative rushing to defend Scheer is that there are types of “voluntary” conversion therapy that he is okay with, and that is alarming because any kind of so-called “conversion therapy” is torture, whether entered into voluntarily or not – and it ignores that when people enter into it voluntarily, it’s because they have such a degree of self-loathing that they have deluded themselves into believing that they can change their sexual orientation in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and a lot of that self-loathing comes from the sorts of violence, whether physical, mental or spiritual, that has been inflicted upon them. And it does look entirely like Scheer is being too cute by leaving a giant loophole in the window for his religious, social conservative flank to not feel threatened by his position, because it lets them carry on with the mythology that there is such a thing as “voluntary” conversion therapy, and that this is all about their “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit that asserts that homosexuality is just a learned behaviour and not an intrinsic characteristic. So no, I don’t think Scheer has been at all unequivocal.

Meanwhile, Scheer’s apologists will demand to know why the government refused to act on a “conversion therapy” ban when presented with a petition about it in March, but again, this is an issue where there is a great deal of nuance that should be applied. The government response was that these practices tend to fall under healthcare or be practiced by health professionals, which makes it provincial jurisdiction, and that while there can be some applications of the Criminal Code with some practices, it required coordination with the provinces to address, which they have been doing. What the Liberals announced this week was that they were seeing if there were any other measures they could take federally, which might involve the Criminal Code. Again, it’s an issue where it’s hard for them to take a particular line, so they’re trying to see what it is possible to do – that’s not a refusal, it’s an acknowledgement that it’s a complicated issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anger over vilified legislation? Shocking!

Posted on by

Over on the Financial Post’s op-ed pages, Senator Richard Neufeld worries about all of the angry Canadians the Senate’s energy committee is hearing from over Bill C-69. I have no doubt that they are hearing from angry people, because there has been a massive disinformation campaign around this bill from the start. The Conservatives and their provincial counterparts in Alberta have dubbed it the “no more pipelines” bill, even though it’s nothing of the sort. Neufeld worries that the bill means that we can never have any more major projects in this country, which is absurd on the face of it, but hey, there are narratives to uphold.

I’ve talked to a lot of environmental lawyers about this bill, and the potential amendments that it could merit. It is certainly not a bill without flaws, and the government seems to have acknowledged that (and apparently there is some kind of gamesmanship being played right now, where the government has a list of amendments they want to introduce at the Senate committee via one of their proxies but they won’t release them ahead of time for some reason). This having been said, there seems to be no acknowledgment of a few realities – that the current system that the Harper government put into place isn’t working and has only wound up with litigation; that we simply can’t bully through projects past Indigenous communities anymore, because Section 35 rights mean something; and that the bill sought to eliminate a lot of heavy lifting by putting more consultation on the front end so that projects could be better scoped, and that it would mean not needing to produce boxes of documents that nobody ever reads in order to check boxes off of lists as part of the assessment process. This is not a bad thing.

But like I said, there are problems with the bill, and Neufeld lists a few of them in passing while trading in more of the myths and disinformation around it. But so long as that disinformation campaign goes unchallenged – and this includes by ministers who can only speak in talking points and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag because they’re too assured of their own virtues that they don’t feel the need to dismantle a campaign of lies – then the anger will carry on, and when this bill passes in some amended form (and it’s likely it will), then it will simply become another propaganda tool, which should be concerning to everyone – including those who are weaponizing it, because it will blow up in their faces.

Continue reading →

QP: Concern trolling over perjury

Posted on by

The Thursday before the Easter break, and neither Justin Trudeau nor Andrew Scheer were present. That left Alain Rayes to lead off in French, and he demanded that the prime minister commence his legal action right away. Bardish Chagger said that Canadians heard the truth because the PM had the courage go waive any confidences, but the legal letter was sent because the leader of the opposition keeps speaking falsehoods. Rayes dared Chagger again, and Chagger reiterated that they took the first step with the letter. Mark Strahl took over in English, with added bluster, in demanded that the prime minister see his leader in court. Chagger reiterated her points in English, and so Strahl tried again, and again, not that the answer changed. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he wanted assurances that the government would not interfere with the Director of Public Prosecutions, to which Chagger was concerned that Singh seemed to indicate a lack of confidence in the Ethics Commissioner of other institutions. Singh demanded a public inquiry in French, to which Marc Garneau stood up to say that Canada was cooperating with the OECD. Singh then asked about big banks’ sales practices and worried the government was only worried about big corporations, and Ralph Goodale reminded him that they introduced tougher penalties against banks giving misleading information. Singh tried again in English, and Goodale repeated his response with a tone of exasperation. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Republic of the Northwest wank-off

Posted on by

With an election soon to be called in Alberta, we’re going to start seeing all manner of ludicrous stories related to it, and lo, Maclean’s brings us an imagining of the future history of the “Republic of the Northwest,” which is apparently what a would become of a future Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba-parts-of-BC-and-the-North seccession from Canada. The piece should have instead come with a mature content warning, as it’s basically the two authors jerking one another off to the masturbatory fantasy of a “more prosperous, freer, and more patriotic” future that is never going to be. Why? Because they simply glossed over all of the hard things that such a future would entail, the biggest and most obvious obstacle being the fate of the Indigenous populations. Sure, all of their environmental concerns are just “Laurentian Canadian” bureaucratic meddling. Apparently once Ottawa was out of the way, this new Republic (and curious that such a “patriotic” imagined country would not retain the Crown, if this is supposed to be some kind of small-c conservative fantasy that doesn’t involve being immediately swallowed up by the US), all kinds of pipelines could get built in mere months, with no obstacles whatsoever! Sure, the tidewater is all in Northern BC because the southern coast wouldn’t separate with them, but that won’t affect things! There weren’t any domestic environmentalists in this new country – they were apparently either all figments of Ottawa that were rained upon them, or they were all subject to mass arrest in this “freer” country. There were no Indigenous protests. There were no concerns about actual economic viability of these pipelines with relation to future capacity, or the fact that there is an ongoing global supply glut of oil and dumping more Alberta crude into the world economy wouldn’t be subject to yet more price declines because of basic laws of supply and demand. Nope – it’s all just freedom and prosperity!

And that’s not even to talk about how much they glossed over in terms of what separation would actually mean for the country, from fiscal arrangements, armed forces (do you think they’d just let them take half of the fighter fleet and a chunk of the Navy for their strip of Northern BC Coast line?), and again, the reality of treaties with Indigenous peoples with the Crown of Canada. Honest to Hermes, my eyes could not stop rolling the entirety of this piece. And the worst part is that there is a cohort of Albertans who think this is a plausible vision of the future. They all need to give their heads a shake, and the pair who wrote this piece need to wake up to reality.

On a related note, Jen Gerson digs into the looming problem of Alberta not really preparing for a future with a decreased oil demand, as they prefer instead to keep waiting on the next oil boom. (As the bumper sticker says, “Please God, give us another boom, and I promise not to piss it away this time.”) Yes, the province’s economy has diversified somewhat, but it’s still very dependent on oil revenues. That said, the Bank of Canada did note that the share of GDP that the oil sector is responsible for has diminished a fair amount since the 2015 oil shock, and it’s now less than IT services. The big problem the province is going to have is what to do with all of its under-educated young men, who either quit school or barely got their high school diploma while counting on lucrative oil sector employment. Those days are dwindling, and there will need to be plans to help them transition, sooner than later.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A small shuffle

Posted on by

The practical fallout from Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation played out with a minor Cabinet shuffle yesterday morning, but rather than simply picking another backbencher to slot into the veterans affairs portfolio, Justin Trudeau moved Lawrence MacAulay from agriculture to put him in veterans, moved Marie-Claude Bibeau from international development to agriculture, and gave the international development portfolio to Maryam Monsef in addition to her status of women portfolio. There are a couple of calculations here – MacAulay held the veterans file over twenty years ago, so he’s not completely new, and he’s someone who is running again and has held his seat forever, so he looks like a steady hand in the department (and as a bonus, the department headquarters is in Charlottetown, and he’s a PEI MP). Bibeau, meanwhile, gets the distinction of being the country’s first woman agriculture minister, but she herself pointed out that she’s from a rural Quebec riding with a lot of dairy farmers, and she knows their issues well, and that’s a constituency that this government is keen to placate after concessions made in TPP and New NAFTA. And Monsef? She’s got a track record of good work in the portfolio’s she’s held, and can handle the added responsibility, as well as it reinforce the whole “feminist foreign policy” line of the government (not that you’d know it from how they’re funding it, but whatever).

In other SNC-Lavalin/Wilson Raybould Affair news, the opposition parties demanded that Parliament be recalled next week to keep this issue going, but Trudeau refused (and it’s worth remembering that the justice committee will still be meeting over the constituency weeks). Former Conservative and NDP Attorneys General have also written to the RCMP to demand an investigation (no political interference here), while former Liberal ones say there’s no clear criminal case. New Attorney General David Lametti says he wasn’t aware that Wilson-Raybould had already made the decision on the SNC-Lavalin file when he took over the portfolio, and that he’s still getting all of the facts on the situation.

For context, here’s a profile of Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff, Jessica Prince. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner can really look into the whole matter. Here’s a look at the government’s reconciliation agenda in the lens of Wilson-Raybould’s demotion and resignation, and why her Indigenous world-view may have informed her decision not to go ahead with insisting on a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin. Here’s a look back at the measures the Conservatives put in 13 years ago to separate the role of the Crown Prosecutor from the Department of Justice, creating the Public Prosecution Service, which was one of their measures when they rode in on the white horse of accountability. In light of Michael Wernick’s testimony, here’s a look back reforms Brian Mulroney made to the role of Clerk of the Privy Council, which may create untenable contradictions in his role. Here are five possible scenarios for the future of SNC-Lavalin if the trial goes ahead, which includes decamping for the UK, or a foreign takeover.

And for pundit comment, Chantal Hébert has four questions about the ongoing situation. Andrew Coyne is not convinced it’s time for a prime ministerial resignation or an RCMP investigation, but that a rethink of our governing culture nevertheless is what will ultimately be needed. My weekend column contemplates the damage to Brand Trudeau™ after the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Welcoming (another) investigation

Posted on by

And thus, the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama rolls along (and don’t you dare -gate this, or I will hunt you down and hurt you). The day began on a few different developments – first, that the Ethics Commissioner said he would begin “an examination” into the matter (which everyone stated was an investigation, though for a matter that has involved the parsing of words, I’m not sure that one is equal to the other), and that the Prime Minister said that welcomed the investigation from the Commissioner (possibly because it will take seven to nine months), that he’d spoken with Jody Wilson-Raybould twice over the past couple of day and stated that when they met back in the fall, and that he told her that any decisions around the Public Prosecution Service were hers alone (in the context of the public lobbying that was being done on all sides). And more to the point, he noted that the fact that she’s still in Cabinet should be proof that what’s alleged didn’t happen, as she would have resigned out of principle if she had been pressured, per the Shawcross Doctrine, and if he didn’t have confidence in her, then he wouldn’t have kept her in Cabinet. Oh, and he would ask the current Attorney General to look into the matter of whether he could waive solicitor-client privilege, because it’s not a simple matter (which got legal Twitter buzzing again).

Of course, none of this is proof enough for the opposition parties, who are demanding that the Justice Committee study go ahead, and the meeting is called for Wednesday, though the Chair has said that he’s hesitant because of the way in which the meeting was called, and the fact that he’s afraid of it simply becoming a partisan circus rather than a useful non-partisan exercise in getting to the truth of the matter. Other Liberals, like New Brunswick MP Wayne Long, is hoping the committee does take up the matter because he’s “troubled” by the allegations, while Celina Caesar-Chavannes is coming to Wilson-Raybould’s defence in light of accusations that there is a smear campaign in the works. And as added context to what is at stake, the federal government signed $68 million in new contracts with SNC-Lavalin last year, and they have a stake in some major projects.

Meanwhile, University of Toronto professor Kenneth Jull walks through the benefits and problems with deferred prosecution agreements like SNC-Lavalin has been pushing for. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column goes through procedurally what is likely to happen during Wednesday’s justice committee meeting. Lawyer Michael Spratt sardonically wonders if Wilson-Raybould couldn’t achieve any of the promises in her mandate letter because she was being held back by PMO. Andrew Coyne remains adamant that there has not been a proper denial in any of this mess, as the PM continues to step on his own messaging, like he so often does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Courting the tinfoil hat crowd

Posted on by

Over the past few days, the Conservatives have been delving into tinfoil hat territory in their attempts to stir up panic and anger toward the UN compact on global migration, which Canada plans to sign next week in Morocco. According to the Conservatives, this non-binding political declaration will somehow erode Canadian sovereignty and be tantamount to “border erasure,” and that if you listen to the Twitter trolls picking up on Andrew Scheer and Michelle Rempel’s posts about this, it will make criticizing immigration a “hate crime.” All of which is complete and utter bullshit, and even Chris Alexander, one-time Harper-era immigration minister, calls this out as factually incorrect. And yet, the Conservatives plan to use their Supply Day today to force a vote on this very issue so that they can express performative shock and dismay when the Liberals vote it down.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1070071215384080389

While Justin Trudeau and Ahmed Hussen have quite rightly called the Conservatives out on this issue as repeating Rebel Media talking points, I have to see this as yet another example of Conservatives not only shamelessly lying to score points, but trying to dip their toe into extremist territory, and the belief that they can just “just enough” extremist language and talking points to try and stir up enough anger and paranoia that they think it will move their poll numbers, but no white supremacists or xenophobes please, “we believe in orderly immigration.” And of course, real life doesn’t work that way, and they wind up stirring up elements that they say they disavow, but continue to wink at because they think it’ll get some kind of benefit out of it.

The other theory raised about why the Conservatives are going full steam on this issue is because they’re trying to head off Maxime Bernier, who is also trolling on this particular bit of lunacy. Why they think this would be a good strategy, I’m not entirely sure, but it’s not as harmless as they might think it is, and that should be concerning to everyone.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On MPs’ sanctimony

Posted on by

My patience for self-aggrandising bullshit is at an all-time low, so you can image just how hard my eyes rolled when I heard that Justin Trudeau was telling a school group that was touring Parliament that his side is “serious and respectful” and the other guys like to shout, and how it was because when a there isn’t a lot that they can go after the government on, they make noise instead. Trudeau’s capacity for sanctimony is practically legendary, but this was gilding the lily more than a little. Now, I will grant you that since he’s been in charge, the Liberals have been far better behaved in QP than they used to be, and the clapping ban has lowered the level of din in the chamber by a great deal (though said ban is not always honoured). And yes, the Conservatives do yell and heckle a lot, but some of it is deserved when you have ministers or parliamentary secretaries who read non sequitur talking points rather than doing something that resembles answering a question. (They also yell and heckle to be childish and disruptive as well, but it bears pointing out that it’s not entirely undeserved). It’s also cheap theatre, and there is a time and a place for that in politics, and if we didn’t have it during QP, then I daresay that there might be an outbreak of narcolepsy on the Hill. But as with anything, it should be done judiciously and cleverly, and that’s not something that these guys are any good at, and so we return to the sounds of jeering, hooting baboons no more days than not, but that’s no excuse for sanctimony. There are no saints in that chamber.

With that in mind, my tolerance for the whinging and crying foul over the removal of Leona Alleslev as chair of the NATO Parliamentary Association is also mighty thin, for the sheer fact that when she crossed the floor, she wouldn’t be able to chair a parliamentary association. The way these things work is that a government MP chairs, and an opposition MP vice-chairs, and lo, the Conservatives already had a vice-chair on said association. Her removal was not retaliation, but it is a consequence. Now, there are definite questions that can be asked about the timing of said removal – two weeks before a NATO meeting that she has worked toward, and weeks after she crossed the floor (but I don’t know how often this association meets, so this may have been the first opportunity) – but that is far different from the caterwauling from the Conservatives about how the “supposedly feminist” prime minister was being mean to a woman and a veteran. (As an aside, could we please stop with this policing of the PM’s feminism? 99 percent of attacks attached to said policing have nothing to do with feminism). This attempt to claim the moral high ground is exasperating.

To add to all of this, the meeting where the removal happened was met with a bunch of disruptive, juvenile behaviour by Conservative MPs and staffers that included butchered singing, and *gasp!* drinking! Oh noes! Nobody behaved admirably in this situation, and nobody has any high ground to claim, so maybe we should all behave like adults around this.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The people’s vanity project

Posted on by

Yesterday, Maxime Bernier confirmed his party will be called the “People’s Party of Canada,” just like so many communist parties in the world. Oops. And like those other “People’s Parties,” he won’t hold a contested leadership race, and he’ll get the final say on policies, so that’s off to a great start. Even better was the fact that his logo is simply a repurposing of an old Reform Party logo, and the policy page is a word-for-word copy of the Libertarian Party’s policy (which people also insist was a copy of Bernier’s leadership race policies), so that’s a great start. And during his press conference, he already started with the policy musings that apparently originated from the Internet’s darker recesses. So there’s that.

And aside from the trite attempt to use gay rights as a cover for bashing Muslims, Bernier has a glimmer of awareness that he’s going to be branded with the xenophobes he’s riling up, and he insists that anti-Semites and xenophobes will be kicked out of the party, while at the same time as he’s still using not-even-thinly-veiled xenophobia to try and create a wedge between his nascent party and the Liberals. But while he hopes to make immigration and refugees (and yes, there is a difference) between them as a wedge, he’s already getting warnings that he’s going to have to be very careful to keep the racists out (not to mention the alt-right, the MRAs, and whichever other dog-whistles he happens to be blasting at the time).

Meanwhile, John Geddes deciphers Bernier’s messaging and what he’s offering based on it, while Andrew Coyne reminds all of those who insist this will simply split the Conservative vote that yes, there is actually room in the Canadian political spectrum for such a “worthy experiment,” assuming that Bernier were capable enough to pull it off (and Coyne, like the rest of us, has his doubts). And Paul Wells delivers an epic takedown of Bernier’s potential voters.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering justifications for the indefensible

Posted on by

The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Continue reading →