Tag Archives: Immigration

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 →

Roundup: An important first report

Posted on by

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

Continue reading →

QP: Assurances that the system works

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Philpott has more to tell, but won’t

Posted on by

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.

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).

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.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1108917885676601344

Continue reading →

Roundup: Objections to the waiver

Posted on by

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.

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting Trudeau to committee

Posted on by

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!

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

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 →

Roundup: Too big to prosecute?

Posted on by

So, yesterday was a bit of a day, wasn’t it? To recap – the Globe and Mail published a piece that cited unnamed sources that the PMO had leaned on then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to abandon the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin as part of an ongoing corruption trial (related to Libyan contracts) so that they could take a deferred prosecution agreement instead – basically a plea deal administered by the courts, which the Director had thus far refused to do. (Note: For the Attorney General to make such a direction to Public Prosecutions, it must be done publicly and published in theCanada Gazette. This is not something that can happen on a whim). The story goes that Wilson-Raybould refused, and coincidentally she was shuffled from the post weeks later. Justin Trudeau refuted this, but because he strictly said that he and his office didn’t direct Wilson-Raybould or now David Lametti on this file, everyone parsed that as not saying he didn’t apply pressure, only for Lametti and every other Liberal put out on the file later in the day to add that he didn’t direct or put pressure on them. For what it’s worth.

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1093545282858614785

Now, I have questions. If the PMO applied this pressure, it would be a Very Bad Thing. And we don’t know if they did or didn’t. However. The Globe story gets out the red ball of yarn and starts pinning lines between different items on the conspiracy map, and some of those items I have a problem with being there. One of those items is that the government passed amendments to the Criminal Code that enabled there to be deferred prosecution agreements back in the spring, and one of the “sources” that the Globe taps insists that this was done solely to benefit SNC-Lavalin. And I have a problem with that. Why? Because I wrote about those provisions back when they were being debated, and I spoke to a number of lawyers who specialise in white collar crime. If this had been solely for the benefit of SNC-Lavalin, I would have expected them to say that this makes no sense in the bigger picture, but they didn’t. Instead, they said that these changes barely had Canada keeping up with other comparable jurisdictions (and in fact, some said that they still kept us behind). The consensus was that these kinds of changes were long overdue. And there is a record of government consultations about this issue that produced a report. For this to be a “direct line” doesn’t hold any water. “Oh, but they lobbied!” Of course, SNC-Lavalin lobbied. It was in their interest to do so. That’s not a revelation, nor is it any indication that the government actually listened to them. They’re also trying to get judicial review of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to offer them a deferred prosecution, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get it either. We also need to remember the size of SNC-Lavalin, and how many thousands of jobs and billions of dollars they have on the line, particularly in Quebec, and if any party thinks that they’d “get tough” on them with that on the line, they’re deluding themselves. (This is part of the problem with oligopolies in Canada).

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1093504225944965122

There is also the point about Wilson-Raybould in this. Many people, pundits included, are suddenly treating this story as some kind of exoneration for her demotion, and ignoring the fact that there were very real reasons for why she was replaced, many of which had to do with the fact that she wasn’t managing her office competently, and she was making questionable staffing choices in her own office. I have my own unnamed sources in the legal community who can point to her incompetence, and this is now being swept under because she’s suddenly being hailed as a hero – which is another reason why I have some suspicions about the source of this story (and why she hasn’t been in a hurry to offer any denials, only a “no comment”). The Globe story and its reporters are also trying to draw a line in her post-shuffle release about the justice system being free from political interference, but again, this was also taking place in the backdrop of the Meng Wanzhou extradition affair, and questions about the rule of law clanging around, so again, I have doubts that there is a direct connection.

So what next? Well, we can expect another few days of communications incompetence from Trudeau and the government because that’s what they do every single time something blows up on them, and eventually they’ll be forced to be more candid, but by then, everyone will have parsed everything to death and filled in the gaps with their own wild theories. Because this is a government that can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, and they make things worse for themselves every single time. There are demands for a police inquiry or a full public inquiry, but I have my doubts that Trudeau would call one so close to an election – but stranger things have happened.

Meanwhile, Chris Selley points to the shocking levels of cynicism that this whole story displays, while Susan Delacourt notes that the silence around Wilson-Raybould is allowing the “ring of truth” to overshadow a more complicated actual truth (and also hints to possible morale problems in the Liberal caucus). Paul Wells offers some withering analysis of what’s gone on with this, and the way this is reflecting on certain senior PMO staff, which could be a growing problem.

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 →

QP: Whacking and managing

Posted on by

Monday on the Hill, and the prime minister was present, but Andrew Scheer was not. Candice Bergen led off, and she demanded to know why Adam Vaughan was not fired from his parliamentary secretary role for his tweet about “whacking” premier Ford. Justin Trudeau said he would get to the question in a minute, but wanted to first pay tribute to the late Auditor General, Michael Ferguson. Bergen said that there would be time for that during ministerial statements, then reiterated the question. Trudeau said that Vaughan had apologised and they were endeavouring to keep debate civil. Bergen tried again, and got the same response. Gérard Deltell was up next to offer his usual questions about the deficit, and Trudeau dutifully recited his memorised talking points about investing in the Middle Class™ over Conservative cuts. Deltell tried again, and Trudeau reminded him they cut taxes. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded to know why oil and gas subsidies were not yet cut, and then railed about the Trans Mountain pipeline, repeating the misreading of the PBO report. Trudeau noted that they were honouring their commitment to cut those subsidies by 2025, and they were balancing the economy and the environment. Caron railed that the government wasn’t doing enough, and Trudeau rattled off the government’s many environmental measures. Murray Rankin took over in English to make the same environmental demand, and Trudeau reiterated his responses in English. Rankin tried again, and Trudeau lectured him that it was irresponsible not to get a proper price for oil while they needed to make investments in renewables. 

Continue reading →