While Justin Trudeau was in Paris to sign the Christchurch Call on ending on online extremism, Andrew Scheer was present, and he led off with a level-headed question about the video of the RCMP interrogating an Indigenous sexual assault victim, and Ralph Goodale asserted that the video demonstrated technique at that were abhorrent and wrong, and that police needed to ensure that survivors were not re-victimised in the process. Scheer then pivoted to Mark Norman case and the disclosure of documents to the court, to which Bill Blair started that the government fulfilled its obligations and all decisions relating to them were done by public servants and the court and not the government. Scheer tried again highlighting the use of code words to evade Access to Information requests — a practice that long predates this incident — and got the same answer. Pierre Paul-Hus tried again in French, and Blair repeated himself again in English. Paul-Hus accused the prime minister of trying to destroy Norman, but Blair’s answer did not change. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and moaned about Loblaws before demanding more action around climate change. Catherine McKenna asserted that there was indeed a climate emergency and they had a plan, but then highlighted Singh’s constantly shifting position on things like the LNG project in BC. Singh flailed, trying to connect climate change with stable work and jobs, and McKenna zeroed in on the ten thousand jobs related to the LNG project. Singh then changed topics to the Phoenix fiasco, and Carla Qualtrough noted their “laser focus” on the matter and it was being fixed with IBM as a partner. Singh tried again in French, and got much the same response.
Tag Archives: Jagmeet Singh
Roundup: Fighting on the economy
There are a couple of interesting threads out on the wires right now about the direction that the government is headed in as we head toward an election, and one of them is that Liberals in Ontario would rather their party fight the election based on the economy rather than the environment – this as the Liberals and NDP are trying to compete as to who can talk a better game on climate in order to head off the surge in Green Party support in the polls, and the recent Green by-election win. I’m sure this is going to be a very lively discussion behind the caucus room doors, and in the party’s election planning meetings, but that sentiment is clearly there.
At the same time, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada are expressing some displeasure with the government, but as Paul Wells notes here, some of it is a bit…dubious, such as demanding balanced budgets and lower taxes while the Americans are fuelling their tax cuts with trillion-dollar deficits. Wells also noted that both of these lobby groups aren’t really acknowledging that much of the drag on our economy is caused by outside forces – namely the brewing trade war between the US and China, and before that, Donald Trump’s threats to tear up NAFTA – and that these groups have studiously avoided talking about climate and the need to deal with our emissions. Nevertheless, there is a malaise between Corporate Canada and the Liberals possibly because the party seems to be setting their Blue Liberal base loose as they try to move further to the left in order to claim the space the NDP usually occupies, and that may wind up costing them in the longer term, if history is any guide.
Kevin Milligan, meanwhile, finds himself a bit puzzled at how little these same Corporate Canada voices have acknowledged the very significant changes that the government made in the fall economic update to deal with the US tax changes.
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127275895859716096
https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1127278184821444608
Roundup: Mark Norman and the culture of leaks
As the Conservatives try to keep the Mark Norman affair in the news – currently demanding committee hearings with a laundry list of witnesses, as though that had any chance of happening this close to an election when Parliament is seized with trying to get as many bills through the process as they can – there are a couple of new bits of information that I have a hard time fitting into the established factual matrix. The one that the CBC published yesterday was that it was revealed that Norman was authorized by the Harper Cabinet to communicate with Davie Shipyard – because they were using Norman to doing an end-run around the then-Chief of Defence Staff, who was opposed to the lease and refit of the supply ship. I’m not sure entirely how this would be the piece of information to exonerate him, given that he’s alleged to have leaked the news of the pause on the process to a lobbyist and a reporter as a way of pressuring the government to restarting it (which they did in short order). You also have to wonder why Peter MacKay would have sat on this bit of information for all of these months only to pull it out now rather than defend Norman in public with it. None of it makes any actual sense, but that’s where we are.
In light of the case, the National Post has a piece about the use of leaks in Ottawa, and the currency around them – how governments use them to manipulate journalists, how bureaucrats use them to even scores, and very occasionally they’re used to hold people to account. The question the piece asks is why, in a city of leaks, Norman was being made an example of, but I’m not sure it’s a question we’ll get an answer to anytime soon. While it’s a good overview, I keep going back to The Thick of It, and the discussion around leaks during the Goolding Inquiry, when Malcolm Tucker described leaks as essential to release the pressure going on in government, lest things get dark if they didn’t. And I do think there’s an element of that, but given the exercise we just went through during the Double-Hyphen Affair, and the competing leaks and denials, I find myself wondering if We The Media need to exercise a bit more self-reflection in our use of them, rather than simply allowing ourselves to be manipulated because we think it’ll be good for our careers. (Or maybe I’m just being naïve).
Roundup: Cluelessly demanding reforms
Over the long weekend, Independent Senator Tony Dean posted an op-ed over on iPolitics to decry the supposed partisan attempts to block reform in the Senate – but it’s a dog’s breakfast that betrays a complete lack of understanding about the institution. It’s indicative of the attitude of a cohort of the new senators who think that they know best, despite not having a working knowledge of Parliament as a whole, or the Senate in particular, and yet they feel as though they know definitively how it needs to change. And more dangerously, Dean brings up that recent poll to show how Canadians apparently love the “new” Senate as a means of bashing Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives, who have no intention to continue the new appointment process – in effect campaigning for the Liberals, which should be uncomfortable for “independent” senators.
The core of Dean’s argument is that the Senate needs a business committee in order to get things done – which is both wrong, and wrong-headed. He complains that individual senators can delay bills, which he fails to grasp is the whole point. The Senate does not exist to rubber-stamp government bills, and yet Dean seems to miss that point. It’s not just that the Conservatives are partisan and therefore Bad – it’s because the Senate has a constitutional role to fill, and a business committee won’t stop delays. All it does is institute time allocation on all legislation before the Chamber – and it’s ironic that he’s pushing for that notion because in the very same piece he complains that the Conservatives were draconian about time allocation when they were in charge. He complains that there is no “TV Guide” for the Senate because debates aren’t organised, which is another wrong notion because the whole point about the way in which the Chamber has operated, where there are days between speeches between proponents and critics on bills is because it allows for thoughtful responses rather than the canned speechifying that happens in the House of Commons. And “organising” debates for the sake of TV is just time allocation in disguise. Which he fails to grasp.
Pointing to the programming motions on the assisted dying or cannabis legislation are not necessarily good examples of programmed debate in the Senate, because those were extraordinary bills, which the majority of Senate business is not. Dean was also known for insisting that the Conservatives would refuse to let those bills go to a vote when the Conservatives were proposing timetables for negotiation (and we all know that neither the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Peter Harder, nor the Independent Senators Group, seem to believe in negotiation or horse-trading to get things done in the Senate, because they mistakenly believe it to be “partisan,” which it’s not – it’s how stuff gets done). A business committee is a bad move for the Senate, and Dean needs to get a clue about that. It won’t stop the Conservatives from being partisan, and simply time allocating all business could set a bad precedent for when the Conservatives get back into power – which they will one day – and the impulse to return to some of the “draconian” measures of the Harper era come back, and suddenly they may feel differently about time allocating everything. But this cohort of new senators doesn’t get that because they’re not familiar with how parliament works, and they need to get on that because change for the sake of change may sound like a good idea in the moment, but can have lasting, damaging consequences for the institution as a whole.
Roundup: Wilson-Raybould’s recorded call
Because we couldn’t go another weekend in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair without another bombshell, we got one in the revelation that among the materials that Jody Wilson-Raybould turned over to the justice committee was a recording she made of a conversation she had with outgoing Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, which was quickly pointed out was in violation of the ethical obligations of lawyers (and no, this isn’t a situation of whether you’re wearing your Attorney General or Minister of Justice hat – it’s whether you’re a lawyer, and if you are, you are forbidden from surreptitiously recording a conversation). ETA: This may have been overstating it, but there is an argument that Wernick could have been a client receiving advice, which is where it would violate the rules.
Here's what the Law Society of Ontario has to say about the practice of recording by lawyers. #cdnpoli #SNCLavalin pic.twitter.com/EXF4aYgl04
— Susan (@susandelacourt) March 29, 2019
I did listen to the recording, and I had a few observations, but there are a few things I noticed that weren’t being talked about in any of the rush to find a smoking gun. For starter, there is a very performative element to the recording – she’s asking very leading questions, and fishing for quotes. I know this because I make my living having conversations with people on tape in order to get quotes for stories. And some of the formality of the language with which she speaks – there is a lot of spelling out of acronyms and relationships that read like a literary device we call an “As you know, Bob,” where you explain things in dialogue to someone who should know what you’re talking about. This conversation was rife with this kind of phrasing, so it looked very much like she wanted this for a purpose. She stated that, while she knows it was unethical, she did it because she was afraid the conversation would “inappropriate” and she didn’t have staff around to take notes. But there is an intent here that I’m curious about.
As for the content of the conversation, a few things stood out for me, which I haven’t seen being written about in the media, because they are focusing on the quotes that she specifically set up for them. First of all, Wernick’s tone seemed to me to be more of a friendly warning – the PM was looking for answers, but I didn’t get the sense that there were threats, thinly veiled or otherwise. Wernick made the point several times in the conversation that “He wants to understand more why the DPA route isn’t being used.” Repeatedly, Wernick is trying to get information about why the Director of Public Prosecution has rejected it, and each time, Wilson-Raybould tried to bring it back to “I’m uncomfortable with this, but I’m happy to talk to you,” and threats that these conversations were bordering on inappropriate. Wernick keeps insisting that they are trying to keep these conversations above-board, and that they’re not actually asking her to do anything, but they’re looking for information because they want to ensure that they’ve done their due diligence with regard to those jobs.
Regarding outside legal advice, Wernick said that he was concerned the PM would seek it himself, or if Wilson-Raybould felt it more appropriate, have it go through her, and former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s name is bandied about several times, which should make everyone feel a little gross, but we developed a political culture of “Mother, May I?” in this country when it comes to getting the blessing of the Supreme Court of Canada, either with its current or former members. Wilson-Raybould went on about public perceptions of interference if she overrode the DPP’s decision about granting the remediation agreement, which is fair (and she warned him that she was keeping receipts), and there was even an exchange where she’s talking about the prime minister and prosecutorial independence, and Wernick said “I don’t think he sees it like that,” to which Wilson-Raybould snapped back, “Then nobody’s explaining that to him, Michael.” (As an aside, one wonders if that was not her job). But again, Wernick kept circling back for an explanation – not direction – asking when the DPP related her decision to Wilson-Raybould, and specifically asking “Can they get her to explain?” Wilson-Raybould insisted that the Prime Minister’s office had the report since September, to which Wernick replied “That’s news to me.” And what I find fascinating is that Wernick keeps asking for explanations, and the media picked out the quotes about pressure. They were very much talking past one another,
There were the other documents she turned over, which included her reasons for resigning from Cabinet, and a couple of things leapt out at me from there – one being that with this release, she doesn’t think she has anything left to contribute to a formal process in looking into this. The other is that in her personal observations at the end, she goes on about looking forward “to a future where we truly do politics differently,” which could be hints about future political ambitions. (John Geddes has some more good parsing about parts of the Cabinet conversation around DPAs here).
In fallout from this, Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that he hadn’t been briefed on this conversation, and that he wished that Wilson-Raybould had come to him directly, but he’s taken responsibility for the loss of trust, announced next steps, and he wants to move forward (as a team). This while more Liberals in the caucus are getting restive and want Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to be ousted, and they’re signing their names to it rather than whispering anonymously. With Wernick already on his way out, and Wilson-Raybould saying that there’s no more for her to tell, one supposes that Trudeau hopes this will finally put an end to things and he can move forward without showing any further contrition that his taking responsibility for the breakdown in trust, and that he can leave it up to his pabulum talking points going forward. I guess we’ll see how much is left to litigate in Question Period, but I guess we’ll see if there are any additional rabbits to be pulled out of hats now.
And then come the hot takes, and hottest of all is Andrew Coyne, who takes this as a complete vindication for Wilson-Raybould. Susan Delacourt sees some poetic parallels between Trudeau fighting for his political life right now, with that boxing match with Senator Brazeau some seven years ago this weekend. Chris Selley notes that the tape really won’t change anyone’s mind, but does give Wilson-Raybould props for not bowing to the status quo.
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1111738095018430465
Good reads: Continue reading
Roundup: Common ground on “secularism”
There was some small respite in news coverage yesterday and a chance for all of the federal party leaders to come to agreement on an issue – their mutual disdain for Quebec’s now-tabled “secularism” legislation that forbids the wearing of religious symbols for anyone in a position of authority, which includes teachers and police officers. Never mind that it’s not actually about secularism and that it specifically targets minority communities – this is about “solving the problem” in Quebec about their not knowing how to accommodate these minorities, so says one particular Quebec MNA who went on English Canadian television to try to sell the plan. It was as distasteful as it sounds, because hey, who needs to protect minority rights when the majority of voters feel uncomfortable with them?
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1111319646475423744
“Quebeckers want us to move on.”
“Which Quebeckers?”
“The large majority…”
FFS. Let’s trample on the rights of minorities because the majority is getting tired of hearing about it. #PnPCBC— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 28, 2019
As for the reactions of party leaders, they may have been uniformly opposed to the bill, but they did it in very different ways – Trudeau forceful in denouncing laws that legitimize discrimination. Jagmeet Singh gave personal perspectives on being othered as a child because he was different and how this legislation reinforces that. Andrew Scheer, however, was true to form and gave an insipid line about freedom of religion and individual rights, but didn’t actually denounce discrimination. Oh, and he promised he wouldn’t introduce similar legislation federally, which I suppose is small progress from the moral panic over veiled voting that his party stirred up while in government.
.@JustinTrudeau commented on Quebec's secularism bill earlier saying, "It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion." pic.twitter.com/xRXQXZaAay
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) March 28, 2019
“A society based on fundamental freedoms and openness must always protect fundamental individual rights and should not in any way impede people from expressing themselves," says @AndrewScheer about Quebec's secularism bill. #cdnpoli #qcpoli pic.twitter.com/EaFww8dnUT
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) March 28, 2019
Chris Selley, meanwhile, brings some fire to this “debate,” and finds hope in the province’s youth, who are rejecting the underlying anxieties that led to this kind of legislation in the first place.
The interminable Double-Hyphen fallout
Yesterday’s Double-Hyphen Affair fallout stories included The Canadian Press following-up on the story of that wrongful conviction that Jody Wilson-Raybould sat on for 18 months. Documents were also obtained to show that SNC-Lavalin indeed told the Public Prosecution Service that if they didn’t get a deferred prosecution agreement that they would move their headquarters to the US, cut their Canadian workforce to 3500 and eventually wind-up their operations here. Justin Trudeau told the media that he condemned the leaks about the Supreme Court of Canada appointment process and insisted that his office “would never leak.” Jody Wilson-Raybould’s submission to the justice committee is expected to be ready for public release later this afternoon. In advance of this, the Stargot a copy of a legal opinion from the justice department to Wilson-Raybould saying that any decision regarding remediation agreements haven’t been tested in Canada and that she could get outside legal advice on it – and it meshes with the timeline of what we know.
Roundup: Caucus drama and another vote-a-thon
Yesterday was another non-stop day of shenanigans and ongoing fallout from the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair, so let’s walk through it. The day began with caucus meetings, and on the way into Liberal caucus, Justin Trudeau stated that he was satisfied that Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott wanted to still work for the Liberal cause, so he would let them stay in caucus – though apparently Philpott got something of a rough ride from her fellow Liberals, according to various sources. Nearby, Andrew Scheer opened the door to the media for a speech about how terrible the budget was, except it was the same kind of jejune talking points that we’ve come to expect, such as how these deficits were terrible, unsustainable, and would lead to future tax increases – all of which are objectively untrue given that the deficit is actually small, sustainable, and with a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, will not require future tax increases. Because remember, a federal budget is nothing like a household budget, and people should be smacked for comparing them. Scheer also told some complete falsehoods about the deficit (detailed in this thread by Josh Wingrove), and it wouldn’t be his first lie of the day – his whole shtick during QP was another complete falsehood about parliamentary procedure.
Just before QP, there were more developments – Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes decided to quit caucus, and later cited that her tweet and subsequent interview about her tense meetings with the PM around her departure led to unintended consequences “for those she cares about,” and she felt it best to sit as an independent for the remainder of the session. Also, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin said that he never said that 9000 jobs were in danger – but if you also recall the testimony from committee, that seemed to stem from a memo from the department of finance, and there is also a hell of a lot of nuance to this figure of the 9000 jobs and what is at stake for SNC-Lavalin (thread here). And then not long after QP, the Conservatives started their vote-a-thon as a “protest” about the handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, during which they again made the tactically inept decision to vote against all of them, opening themselves up to all manner of Liberal social media about all the good and necessary funding that they “threatened.” The Liberals, meanwhile, went into full drama queen mode and got cots put into the space behind the House of Commons so that MPs rotating off of votes can nap (which the Conservatives tried to mock in their own tweets). It’s all so very stupid.
Good luck to my fellow campers in caucus as we head into an overnight voting marathon. But next time we go camping, maybe we can choose an #oTENTik? pic.twitter.com/zLyKdrAsqi
— Catherine McKenna (@cathmckenna) March 20, 2019
In related news, Bill Morneau’s chief of staff, Ben Chin, denies he did anything wrong in talking to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, saying there’s nothing wrong with staffers talking to staffers. Michael Chong is also trying to keep his hot garbage Reform Act in the news by saying that it would be illegal for Justin Trudeau to kick anyone out of caucus without a vote (though that doesn’t appear to be an issue any longer). Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at how the procedural shenanigans could play out over the next few days.
Roundup: Procedural warfare denied (for now)
If the Conservatives were hoping for procedural tactics to try and delay the budget speech on Tuesday, well, they were outplayed by the government, who used their ability to control the timing of those Estimates votes to Wednesday instead of Monday. If you recall, the plan was for the Conservatives to force line-by-line votes on the Supplementary Estimates, so that they could delay the budget speech, which I will also remind you is a tactically stupid move, and doesn’t prove any point. And yet here we are. This having been said, I fully expect them to try some kind of dilatory tactics including a privilege motion of some variety on Tuesday in order to move the budget speech, because they’ve tried it before in the past, but once again, we’re a long way from the times that people who were good at this kind of thing were in charge.
Well, the procedural flaw in CPC's plan for voting on the Estimates has now been revealed. The Gov is simply going to move the last Opposition day from Monday to Wednesday, giving the Opp a short day for debate as well.
— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) March 17, 2019
The last Opposition day is the last allotted day of the Supply Period. Was supposed to be Monday. Rules changed a few yrs back to allow for an Opposition motion on the last allotted day. Previously it was only the Estimates. Opposed Votes require divisions.
— B. Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) March 17, 2019
Meanwhile, you can expect the next two days to be replete with bleating admonishing that the Liberals are going to try to use a “shock and awe” budget to drown out the Double-Hyphen Affair, as though the past five weeks of breathless reporting will evaporate in a single night. Come on.
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: Calling Wilson-Raybould’s bluff?
We may be finally reaching the climax in the whole SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair, as Justin Trudeau formally waived solicitor-client privilege and Cabinet confidence when it comes to Jody Wilson-Raybould appearing at the justice committee in order to clear the air on the whole situation. The limitation is that she can’t reveal any information or communications about her and the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding SNC-Lavalin – but that’s not what’s at stake, so it shouldn’t be an issue (though the Conservatives spent all afternoon decrying that Trudeau wasn’t sufficiently unmuzzling her before they knew the terms of the waiver). Of course, as soon as Trudeau announced that there was no issue with her speaking at committee, Wilson-Raybould released a letter saying that she was still consulting with her attorney, but she really wanted to appear at committee, but she eventually does, she wants a full thirty-minutes uninterrupted off the top to tell her side of the story. In other words, she’s still trying to control the situation.
Wilson-Raybould tells justice committee chair in letter that she would like to make an extended opening statement (30 minutes) when she speaks to committee. @Puglaas says she'd prefer not to schedule appearance until she has clarity on solicitor-client privilege etc. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/tSM3A0EWUC
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) February 25, 2019
This having been said, it is starting to feel like Trudeau is calling Wilson-Raybould’s bluff, after Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick called her out at committee when he stated that there could be no privilege because no legal advice was given, and it was never discussed at Cabinet. Which makes me also wonder if Wilson-Raybould will overplay her hand given that she’s going to have to be very careful what she says if she wants to remain a Liberal for much longer. As for the committee, the Liberals defeated the Conservatives’ demand that the PM be ordered to appear before them, and they heard from legal experts on the Shawcross Doctrine.
In related news, it was also found that the as part of the same consultations that led to the deferred prosecution agreements legislation, the government is also considering other changes to the integrity regime (as part of the two-year review that was part of said regime when it was implemented), which would empower an arm’s length officer in Public Procurement to offer more flexible debarrments to companies that have been found guilty of corporate malfeasance (such as SCN-Lavalin and the ten-year ban they could face), and which Carla Qualtrough says offers them more flexibility to deal with corporate bad behaviour. Meanwhile, a group of SNC-Lavalin shareholders are planning a class-action lawsuit against the company for not disclosing that they were denied a deferred prosecution for over a month, while the lack of convictions for wrongdoing by the company’s former executives has people questioning whether the RCMP and the Crown prosecutors are up to the task of dealing with corporate crime.
In punditry, Susan Delacourt notices that while Wilson-Raybould is driving the Affair right now, it’s odd that it seems to be done absent leadership ambitions, which creates a different dynamic. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column reviews the whole Affair to date to offer suggestions as to where Parliament could strengthen its accountability measures to prevent a future repeat occurrence. Professor Jonathan Malloy lays out why this whole Affair is not a classic political scandal by any measure (which is also why Scheer calling it “textbook corruption” is also very odd).