While the prime minister was off meeting the president of Croatia, and Andrew Scheer was elsewhere, Candice Bergen led off QP, and she started off with more angry rhetoric about the Mark Norman case. David Lametti responded with his bland assurances that the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service were independent, and that all stated there was no interference or contact. Bergen stated that she wasn’t disputing their independence but that the decision to stay the charges was in spite of government interference. Diane Lebouthillier, bizarrely, repeated Lametti’s response in French. Bergen demanded that the government allow the Defence Committee to investigate the matter, and Lebouthillier repeated her response. Alain Rayes got up next to decry that an infrastructure announcement was made in Quebec with no member of the provincial government present. Jean-Yves Duclos got up to recite how their infrastructure programme was making a difference. Rayes accused Duclos of attacking the government of Quebec, and Duclos repeated his praise for the government’s investments in Quebec. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he read some platitudes about the NDP environment plan and wanted a declaration of a climate emergency. Oddly, Ginette Petitpas Taylor read some praise for the 50 measures that the government was taking to reduce pollution. Singh switched to French to repeat the demand, and Petitpas Taylor read the French version of the script. Singh then raised the report on money laundering in BC, and Lebouthillier noted that CRA is ramping up their audits to combat this. Singh repeated the question in English, and Bill Blair directed Singh to read Budget 2019, which gave greater police funding and new regulations to help investigations and prosecutions.
Tag Archives: Immigration
Roundup: The rot Chong won’t address
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.
QP: An administrative issue
Thursday, and Justin Trudeau was off meeting with Jason Kenney, while Andrew Scheer was the only leader present. He led off, railing about further trade actions from China, and Marie-Claude Bibeau assured him that the pork issue was a simple administrative issue that was being resolved. Scheer dismissed the response and carried on with his narrative of Trudeau’s supposed weakness on the world stage and demanded action, to which Bibeau switched to English to repeat that the pork issue was administrative before lobbing a talking point that the Conservatives refused to let their promises be costed. Scheer then railed about the energy sector and claimed the Liberals were trying to kill it, to which Amarjeet Sohi debunked the response by listing the approved pipelines that were completed or nearly so, and that they would ensure projects proceed in the right way. Luc Berthold was up next to repeat the pork issue with China in French, and he got the same response about it being an administrative issue. Berthold railed that China doesn’t respect Canada because we don’t stand up to them (Err, have they spoken to a single China expert?), and Bibeau listed actions they are taking. Peter Julian was up next for the NDP, and he railed about corporations before switching to judicial appointments, to which David Lametti reminded him that they instituted an open and transparent process that is merit-based and has resulted in a more diverse bench. Julian railed about inadequate funding for women’s shelters while Loblaws got funds, to which Maryam Monsef said that they have invested in shelters, in gender based violence prevention, in carve-outs for women as part of the housing strategy, and that the NDP voted against all of it. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Jean-Yves Duclos responded in French about the investments in housing for women. Trudel repeated the torqued question about judicial appointments in French, and Lametti repeated his previous response in French.
Roundup: Anger over vilified legislation? Shocking!
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.
Roundup: An important first report
While everyone was focused on Jane Philpott’s attempt to claim that the provisions in the garbage Reform Act weren’t met as it regards her expulsion from caucus, a much more important event was taking place, which was the release of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ first public report. This is the first time that Canada has seen any kind of public oversight into our national security and intelligence services, and it was important to see. One of the things that they focused in on was the oversight of military intelligence operations, for which the military thanked them for their suggestions on improving governance, but balked at the proposal for a legislative framework.
Nevertheless, the expert in this stuff is Stephanie Carvin, so I will turn over the reactions to her (full thread starts here):
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115716056247676929
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717071185301504
https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1115717072657502210
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115678714291871746
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115683292928299008
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1115688317452935168
QP: Assurances that the system works
While the PM had initially promised to be in QP today, he cancelled earlier in the morning, leaving Andrew Scheer to square off against another front-bencher — likely Bardish Chagger. Scheer led off in French, mini-lectern on desk, and went through previous statements of the PM on the Double-Hyphen Affair and demanded the truth on the matter. Chagger reminded him that everything was in public and people could make up their own minds. Scheer tried again in English, and got the same response in English. Scheer read that nobody bought the prime minister’s line, and he read statements from the transcript of the Wilson-Raybould/Wernick call, to which Chagger reminded him the committee heard testimony in public. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to accuse the justice committee of being obstructionist, and Chagger reiterated that all of the facts were now public and the system was working. Paul-Hus listed the staffers who the committee hadn’t heard from, and Chagger repeated that everything was in public, and that the prime minister already took responsibility. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led off for the NDP, and read a defence of Wilson-Raybould’s decision to record the conversation with Wernick and turned it into a question about not standing up for women. Chagger calmly repeated that all of the facts were now public, and accused the NDP of playing politics. Brosseau then read a demand that the PM visit Grassy Narrows immediately, and Seamus O’Regan responded that they were moving ahead with building the health facility there. Charlie Angus then self-righteously demanded the PM personally call the chief of Grassy Narrows to apologise personally, and O’Regan said that he was going to meet the chief personally to ensure they would move ahead with the health centre. Angus then thundered sanctimoniously about the recorded call, and Chagger remarked that in their own caucus, they allow robust discussion.
Roundup: Philpott has more to tell, but won’t
The day, which was already off to a cranky start for most MPs who were voting all night, got an early, crankier start – for the Liberals, in any case – as a bombshell interview with Jane Philpott was released, in which she stated that there was more to the Double-Hyphen Affair story that needed to be told. But…she’s not going to do it. Oh, and by the way, she has no leadership ambitions, so this isn’t about that. And that was pretty much throwing a cat among the pigeons in the Commons, as suddenly the Conservatives started waving this interview about as further ammunition in their so-called protest vote-a-thon to “let her speak” (never mind that the votes have absolutely nothing to do with this Affair in any way, shape or form). And as the day wore on, other nonsense crept in, such as the Liberals fumbling a “shift change” during the votes and almost losing one of them. And incidentally, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould have been excused from the vote-a-thon, so as to not exacerbate any tensions with their sleep-deprived colleagues.
They are not gagged, period. The demands are empty.
— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2019
And it becomes increasingly more obvious that the way both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are handling this is becoming a problem for all involved. Other MPs like John McKay and Judy Sgro vented by saying that if they’ve got something so important to say, that they should just raise it as a point of personal privilege in the Commons and get it over with. The former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, also said that they have absolute immunity in the Commons if they want to speak, and there would be no real consequences as they are no longer in Cabinet – except possibly being booted from caucus, and Trudeau reiterated that he was fine to let them stay in caucus because they’re okay with disagreement in the Liberal caucus. (He also insisted that Wilson-Raybould was not shuffled over the SNC-Lavalin DPA, yet again).
NEW – Liberal MP Judy Sgro told @glen_mcgregor that "there's no reason that Jane or Jody cannot go into the house of commons, parliamentary privilege, talk for as long as they want, say anything they want, they'll be clear of any cabinet issues” #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/J2gc6I0qId
— Mackenzie Gray (@Gray_Mackenzie) March 21, 2019
Former House of Commons law clerk @toccataprima says he doesn't see any significant legal consequences for Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott if they were to break cabinet confidence OUTSIDE of parliamentary privilege on the SNC-Lavalin affair. pic.twitter.com/hvM7IuLCMp
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) March 21, 2019
In hot takes, Matt Gurney says that Philpott is waving a red flag and we should hear what she has to say. Justice committee chair Anthony Housefather gives his reflections of what the committee heard, but also cautions that they are not a legal process and can’t be expected to behave like one. Susan Delacourt, however, is running out of patience with the drama, and notes that speaking truth to power isn’t acting like you’ve got a big secret you can be coy about. If it’s that important, then they should take any advantage they have and say what it is.
That’s a point that we in the media should reflect on, as well. We’ve all just gone along with the “they couldn’t possibly speak publicly” assumption. Why?
— Alex Boutilier (@alexboutilier) March 22, 2019
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1108917885676601344
Roundup: Objections to the waiver
At first it seemed like today was going to be the big day. Jody Wilson-Raybould had agreed to meet the justice committee to tell “her truth.” On his way into Cabinet, Justin Trudeau said he was “pleased” that she would be able to appear at committee. The committee agreed to give her the thirty minutes she requested off the top instead of the usual five or ten for an opening statement. Some MPs wanted to try and get the hearing moved from after QP to beforehand (never mind that it’s when all of the parties hold their caucus meetings) in order to be able to ask the PM any questions that might arise from the testimony. And then, surprising probably nobody who paid attention, Wilson-Raybould sent another letter to committee, expressing her “concerns” that the Order in Council that waived solicitor-client privilege wasn’t enough for her to tell the full story.
Here’s JWR’s letter expressing concerns: #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/cAvJG9CI2b
— Vassy Kapelos (@VassyKapelos) February 27, 2019
At this point, it’s starting to feel like a game – that Wilson-Raybould’s attempt to keep controlling the narrative is running out of runway, given that Michael Wernick called her out and Justin Trudeau went and waived solicitor-client privilege (unnecessarily, if you listen to some of the legal commentary out there), and now she’s trying to sow doubt that she’s still not completely free to speak, in order to keep up the narrative that she’s the victim or the hero, distracting from her poor record as justice minister. And it’s starting to feel like the more song and dance that she keeps putting up in order to keep from speaking, the less there is to what she has to say. But maybe I’m getting cynical after a decade on the Hill.
Meanwhile, former litigator Andrew Roman takes a deeper look into the portents of doom for SNC-Lavalin if they were subject to prosecution and even a ten-year ban from federal contracts, and finds them to be less dire than advertised, which makes any alleged wrongdoing by the government to protect them all the more baffling.
Roundup: Getting Trudeau to committee
The political theatre around the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair will again be back in full force today as the Conservatives are moving a Supply Day motion to have Justin Trudeau appear before committee to answer questions, which is procedurally awkward given that the Commons shouldn’t be dictating the business of committees, but that’s theatre for you. Of course, if Trudeau appeared, it would be doing so in order to answer for the conduct of his staff (given ministerial responsibility), but we’ll see if there is any appetite to make the committee process even more of a partisan gong show. (I’m guessing there won’t be, but stranger things have happened). Jody Wilson-Raybould is expected to be at committee either Tuesday or Wednesday, depending on her schedule, but maybe she’ll treat this like she did a Senate committee summons and simply refuse to show up.
What revelations did we get over the weekend? That Wilson-Raybould needed to make her pitch to Trudeau directly last Tuesday morning before he would let her address Cabinet; that Wilson-Raybould is a prodigious note-taker, forcing PMO to review their own notes about meetings with her; and that hey, Cabinet ministers are friends outside of work and sometimes get together socially. Shocker!
To be clear, I live in Ottawa & have kids so regularly have friends & colleagues over. We’re a team. We talk about things like our families, current events & need to focus on doing what Cdns elected us to do. Wish someone had spoken with me rather than rely on anonymous source. https://t.co/yOOwQs92Yc
— Catherine McKenna (@cathmckenna) February 23, 2019
Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé goes through the various Canadian politics tropes that this whole affair has been playing into – and are being challenged by – and what people should take away from them as the situation has unfolded. He’s also got a couple of other words of wisdom to take away from Michael Wernick’s testimony about his concern that people are losing faith in the government.
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099709688478744577
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099712261046689792
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099713329050734592
Roundup: An untenable position?
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).
NEW: The Prime Minister's Office says @Puglaas brought up the issue of SNC-Lavallin in December with Gerry Butts. PMO says Butts told Wilson-Raybould to bring it up with the clerk of the Privy Council. Unclear if she did or not, yet.
— Michel Boyer (@BoyerMichel) February 8, 2019
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).
When you set up a moral hazard problem like that, corporate governance scandals are inevitable. Why clean up your act if governments will do it for you, and at no cost? https://t.co/5g6Vs2Knrm
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) February 8, 2019
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.