Tag Archives: First Nations

Roundup: No inquiry (for now)

Posted on by

Another day, and a few more incremental pieces to add to the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair. There were reports that Justin Trudeau met with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the company two weeks after the Public Prosecution Service declined to offer them a deferred prosecution agreement (but we have no details). Wilson-Raybould attended caucus, and Trudeau apologized to her for not forcefully condemning the remarks about her, or the political cartoons that portrayed her bound and gagged. (We also heard that when it came to Wilson-Raybould addressing Cabinet on Tuesday, she apparently waited outside for two hours while some ministers argued that she be allowed to be heard. So that’s curious – and pretty unprecedented). Later in the day, the Liberals voted down the NDP’s Supply Day motion to call for an independent inquiry on the whole affair – the party line being that they don’t think it’s necessary at this time with the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee processes in place – but two Liberals did break ranks to vote for it. It should be no surprise that it was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long (but could We The Media quit framing these kinds of things as “cracks in party unity” or nonsense like that? That’s why parties develop iron fists). After the vote, Wilson-Raybould stood up to put on the record that she abstained because the vote was about her personally, and she didn’t want to be in perceived conflict (which immediately created cries from the opposition that the PM should also have abstained), but she said she wanted to “speak her truth” as soon as she could. So that got more tongues wagging, naturally.

Emerging from this whole issue are the metaphysics of how the federal justice minister has a separate hat as Attorney General, and how the two roles can sometimes clash, particularly when it comes to political consideration. To that end, Colby Cosh delves further into this dichotomy and why that may be part of the cause of this whole affair to begin with. There are also a couple of worthwhile threads to read on it – one from Adam Goldenberg (one-time Liberal staffer and former law clerk to then-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin) that argues that the Act requires a political consideration for deferred prosecutions in order for political accountability, while another litigator, Asher Honickman, disputes that – but agrees that the situation has a lot of nuance.

For context, here is an exploration of the role that Gerald Butts played in Trudeau’s PMO. Here’s the updated timeline of events as we know them so far. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column explores how a Commons committee could run an investigation into an affair like the current one, but notes they’re not well suited to do so, and also details where it would break down into a partisan sideshow.

In punditry, Chantal Hébert makes the salient point that Wilson-Raybould is more in charge of the current situation than the prime minister is, which is an interesting dynamic.

Continue reading →

QP: Scheer on repeat

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and still no real answers as to what actually happened in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair. Andrew Scheer led off in French, asking about today’s Globe and Mail report that Trudeau had a meeting with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin file after the Public Prosecution Service opted not to go for a remediation. Trudeau stood up to talk about standing up for jobs and all good things, but didn’t really answer. In English, Scheer wanted to know who asked for the meeting, but Trudeau deflected, saying there are processes underway,  but they stood up for good jobs while respecting judicial independence. Scheer asked again, and this time Trudeau invoked Cabinet confidentiality, but Canadians could rest assured they were acting in the best interests of Canada. Scheer wanted to know if he was aware of the Public Prosecution Service’s decision when he had the meeting, but this time Trudeau reminded him that there are ongoing court cases that he couldn’t answer about. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau noted the thousands of jobs at stake while they were standing up for the independence of the judicial system and the processes that keep the county safe. Guy Caron got up next for the NDP, and in French, he too tried to put SNC-Lavalin lobbying on a timeline regarding that meeting, and Trudeau repeated that they defend jobs while respecting the system, and he read a quote from the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to back up his case. Caron demanded to hear from Wilson-Raybould, and Trudeau re-read the quote that the Attorney General exercises their powers apart from partisan considerations. Charlie Angus reiterated the question, with added melodrama and sanctimony, and Trudeau repeated the same answer and the English version of the quote. Angus wondered if Trudeau would testify before the justice committee, and Trudeau noted their independence, before praising Gerald Butts’ contributions.

Continue reading →

QP: On Butts and Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

The first day back after a week of bombshells and self-inflicted wounds, the House of Commons was buzzing for the show that was about to begin. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he led off in French about Gerald Butts’ resignation, saying it was about the “bribery and corruption scandal,” and wondered why the resignation was accepted if nothing happened. Trudeau gave praise for Butts, and that his respect for the office was why he resigned. Scheer asked again in English, and Trudeau repeated his same point extemporaneously. Scheer tried again, and this Trudeau praised the institutions of Parliament including the independence of committee members, which resulted in a number of jeers. Scheer insisted that he allow Wilson-Raybould to speak (never mind that she’s the one who won’t speak, not that Trudeau hasn’t said that she can’t), and Trudeau noted the values of judicial independence and respect for the rule of law, and said that he was getting advice on waiving solicitor-client privilege so as to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer changed tacks slightly and wondered how many times Butts met with Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau noted that all ministers met on Tuesdays and that his staff was engaged with them. Guy Caron was up next, demanding that solicitor-client privilege be waived, and Trudeau reminded him they were getting advice on that. Caron demanded an independent inquiry — the subject of their Supply Day motion, to which Trudeau said they had confidence in the Ethics Commissioner and that he wouldn’t prejudge the work of the committee, which was the master of its own destiny.  Charlie Angus was up next to repeat the question in English with added sanctimony, and Trudeau repeated both points. Angus demanded that he let Wilson-Raybould speak, and Trudeau reiterated that they welcomed any inquiry from the Ethics Commissioner. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee performance

Posted on by

Well, yesterday’s justice committee meeting was about as performatively partisan as could possibly be expected. The Liberals had their own counter-motion to propose, delivered by Randy Boissenault, who insisted that this was done independent of the government, but then behaved as though it was, especially when he began throwing around terms like “witch hunt.” (What did we say about this gang not managing to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag?) While the Conservatives wanted nine witnesses, the Liberals proposed three – though, the key crossover witness was the Clerk of the Privy Council – though the Liberals were open to others, though they wanted to have an in cameraplanning meeting for witnesses and timetable as is standard in any committee. The Conservatives railed that they didn’t want anything in camera, which is utterly galling if anyone recalled how they ran committees when they were in government and everything went in camera, all the time. Nathan Cullen proposed a compromise with three more witnesses, but the Liberals voted it down, and in the end, the Liberal motion won the day.

At this, everyone is filled with sanctimonious outrage. Why isn’t Jody Wilson-Raybould testifying? Well, because she says she can’t say anything, so calling her to say that she can’t say anything is a waste of everyone’s time, and oh, right – she can’t be compelled to testify because she’s a sitting MP. As for those key PMO staffers like Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, well, they still might, but I am also a bit unsure how their appearance would fit into the rubric of ministerial responsibility (though good luck getting the PM to testify). The Conservatives, however, are gleefully shitposting about the “Liberal coverup” because this is exactly what they wanted, gathering as many clips of Pierre Poilievre doing his usual schtick that will be all over their social media channels. Because that’s the game these days.

If you need to catch up with everything that’s happened to date, Kady O’Malley has a timeline here for you. Chrystia Freeland went on the radio to talk about handling pressure on files and bringing matters up with the PM, which is an interesting but subtle rebuke of what is being alleged about what Wilson-Raybould did or didn’t do. Here’s a rundown of what the Quebec media has been saying on the issue, and it’s a very different conversation than English Canada is having, focused on protecting SNC-Lavalin. Speaking of SNC-Lavalin, one of its former executives wants the bribery and fraud charges thrown out over court delays. (Yeah, don’t think that’ll happen). Incidentally, SNC-Lavalin never came up during debate or testimony on implementing the deferred prosecution agreements, for what that’s worth.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert says that Trudeau risks isolating himself if he continues to try to undermine Wilson-Raybould in public, while Stephen Maher enumerates the miscalculations in demoting Wilson-Raynould in the first place, and says that someone in Trudeau’s inner circle should pay the price for it. Chris Selley has a very salient look at how Trudeau’s focus on identity politics symbolism has backfired on him as all of Wilson-Raybould’s critics for her failure as justice minister are now singing her praises because she’s an Indigenous woman, not because she was good at her job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An untenable position?

Posted on by

So, the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould drama didn’t stop, and throughout the day, we saw Wilson-Raybould release another statement that simply said that she wouldn’t answer any questions because of solicitor-client privilege (which had legal Twitter debating what exactly that means), and the PMO putting out a statement that she was the one who approached the PMO about SNC-Lavalin, and that Gerald Butts told her to talk to the Clerk of the Privy Council. (Here’s a good background primer in case you’re late to the news).

For the opposition reaction, Andrew Scheer demanded that the Commons justice committee look into the situation (and they will apparently meet to determine this next week, which isn’t a sitting week), while the NDP called on the Ethics Commissioner to open an investigation (and I’m not sure this would be in his purview, but who knows – it’s possibly that Mario Dion will read is mandate so broadly as to insert himself, just like Mary Dawson read her mandate so narrowly so as to exclude herself on most occasions). This said, I have my doubts about what the justice committee could reasonably do, because it will devolve into a complete partisan circus, as it so often has. Of course.

Because they are the centre of attention in all of this, here’s a bit about SNC-Lavalin – that they’re the “jewel of Quebec” apparently, and there’s a lot of political pressure to protect them from their past misdeeds. And as Paul Wells explains, they have been hard at work on cleaning up their image – and their operations – because these misdeeds are going to cost them dearly if they don’t get some kind of deferred prosecution agreement. And none of this lobbying to get such an agreement was underhanded either – it was all out in public, with YouTube and newspaper campaigns. And lo, late Friday afternoon, it appears that they may have been able to strike some kind of deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions (and no doubt this will be seen as a case of suspicious timing, and the Liberals will step on their own lines over this. Again).

And then there’s Wilson-Raybould, and trail of breadcrumbs she has been leaving with her very convenient silence (all of which has only served to burnish her image now that people are suddenly calling her a hero that stood up to the PMO, and the very real issues about why she was shuffled out of that portfolio are set aside). Amidst it, her father has been inserted into the media narrative, which makes this all the more odd. But in the meantime, here’s some legal analysis of the solicitor-client privilege issue, and what constitutes direction – including the very real notion that if she had been unduly pressured that the proper thing to do would be to resign in protest. That is going to become a tough question for her in the days ahead, as is the question about whether or not she is in an untenable position now, given the suggestion that she brought up the issue in some capacity (though we still don’t know in what capacity that discussion was had), not to mention the tensions in Cabinet around this whole incident – though she also knows that Trudeau can’t summarily dismiss her without risking even worse optics. It’s a real quagmire.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1093950651694964738

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert says we need some kind of explanation from Wilson-Raybould, which includes why she didn’t resign in protest if she was indeed improperly pressured, while Andrew Coyne says this scenario could determine whether or not this government believes in the rule of law after all. Martin Patriquin notes that while none of this appears to rise to the level of the Sponsorship scandal, it nevertheless starts trading on old stereotypes in Quebec, which could be poison for the Liberals.

Continue reading →

QP: Lametti on repeat

Posted on by

Following a morning dominated by a salacious tale in the Globe and Mail, Justin Trudeau was off in the GTA (where he denied the allegations in the story), but Andrew Scheer deigned to show up to get some clips of him asking angry questions about that story. And when the time for oral questions was called, Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he read the allegation in French that the government was pressuring the Attorney General over SNC-Lavalin. David Lametti got up and categorically denied any pressure was applied. Scheer asked again in English, and Lametti stood up to say the allegations were false. Scheer said that wasn’t the question, and asked again, and again Lametti repeated the response. Scheer then asked if the criminal prosecution questions came up as part of SNC lobbying, and Lametti said he wasn’t party to those meetings. Scheer read that SNC lobbied the government 14 times, and Lametti repeated that no directions were given to him or his predecessor. Guy Caron was up next, stated that SNC gave illegal donations to the Liberals in 2006, and now wanted help from the government, and Lametti repeated that the allegations were false. Caron tried again, linking this to Jody Wilson-Raybould being “fired,” and Lametti again repeated the allegations were false. Nathan Cullen got up to repeat the question in English with added sanctimony, and Lametti repeated again that he or his predecessor were not subjected to pressure. Cullen tried again, throwing everything he could manage at the topic, but got the same reply.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer’s own personal Brexit idea

Posted on by

You may have heard the Conservatives making a big push over the past couple of weeks about promising that they would bow to Quebec’s wishes and let them have a single tax return (as in, surrender the federal authority to collect income tax in the province, as opposed to Quebec returning to the system that every other province uses by which the federal government collects all taxes and turns over their provincial share). While the Conservatives portray it as a simple administrative change, and that there wouldn’t even need to be any job losses – just put those 5000 CRA employees in Quebec to work on tax evasion! – it’s really a lot more complicated than that. While Alan Freeman wrote about the history and why it’s naked pandering to Quebec, tax economist Kevin Milligan walks through the complexity, and quite tellingly, notes that this is a Brexit-like proposal from Scheer – bold idea, no proposal of how to implement it. And yes, that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093194511260442624

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093195511857704960

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093196146011385856

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093197692530974722

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093198624656306176

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093199538192433153

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093200551653736448

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093205332216541184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093230785094606848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093259900912775168

Continue reading →

QP: Treating a gaffe as gospel

Posted on by

For caucus day, Andrew Scheer decided to show up for QP, and he led off in French, and he immediately zeroed in on yesterday’s verbal gaffe about low-income people not paying taxes, and Trudeau launched into a rant about the Conservatives gearing benefits to the wealthy while he was lowering taxes for the Middle Class™, enriching the Canada Child Benefit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, all of which the Conservatives opposed. After they repeated the exchange in English, Scheer insisted that taxes were lower under the Conservatives, to which Trudeau said they were misleading the House, and that it was a fact they vote against the measures that would help Canadians. Scheer listed off tax credits that the Liberals cancelled, to which Trudeau slowly enunciate that non-refundable tax credits don’t help the low-income people who need the help. Scheer insisted that low-income people would have benefitted from those tax credits, but Trudeau shrugged off the attacks on his family fortune, before he talked about his choice to serve Canadians. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and in French, he railed about a pharmacare system that still lets private plans exist, to which Trudeau rattled off his talking points about their advisory council that was concerned with implementation. Caron insisted that a fully public system would provide economies of scale, and this time Trudeau picked up a script to list the “concrete steps” they took to make pharmaceuticals more affordable. Don Davies repeated Caron’s first question in English, and Trudeau repeated his first points in kind. Davies went again, and Trudeau replied with the English version of his script.

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: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

Continue reading →