Tag Archives: Jody Wilson-Raybould

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: China vs Brexit

Posted on by

Wednesday, and most but not all leaders were present, somewhat unusually. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and in French, he read some condemnation that the prime minister didn’t fire John McCallum soon enough Trudeau stood up and said that on China, they were working to freeing the imprisoned Canadians, and then took a shot at Scheer’s lack of foreign policy credibility given his support for Brexit. Scheer switched to English to read his litany of foreign policy sins by this government, and Trudeau reiterated that they were working to safeguard Canadians in China before repeating his shot at Scheer on Brexit. Scheer wondered why it took so long for Trudeau to fire McCallum, but Trudeau wouldn’t let up on Scheer’s Brexiteering. Scheer then switched to the carbon tax and said that the government planned to raise the price to $3/tonne before his benches reminded him that the talking point was $300. Trudeau responded that Scheer still hasn’t delivered his own climate plan, and when Scheer gave falsehoods about industrial exemptions and the apparent planned carbon tax hikes, Trudeau shrugged and noted that their rhetoric was empty if they were resorting to personal attacks, before talking about how people would be better off with carbon rebates. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, and in French, predictably raised the issue of housing, but this time name-dropped the riding of Outremont. Trudeau picked up a script to state that it was too bad if the NDP derided the plans to refit existing housing. Julian switched to English to ask the same, and Trudeau had a script in hand but didn’t actually read from it while he listed the investments being made in housing. Charlie Angus stood up to demand personal action on the housing emergency in Cat Lake, and Trudeau read that they were developing a long-term plan of action with its leadership, and noted they lifted the boil-water advisory in that community already. Angus took a couple of shots at Seamus O’Regan and the prime minister, and Trudeau listed the investments they have made with Indigenous communities. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Playing into Ford’s framing

Posted on by

While Ontario Premier Doug Ford doubles down on his assertion that a carbon tax will drive the economy into recession, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And it’s not just Ford’s doubling down on this assertion – the Saskatchewan government is also insisting that the report it commissioned on the effect of carbon taxes is correct, despite the fact that the other experts who’ve looked it over say that the report vastly overestimates the effect by orders of magnitude. But as with Ford (and Andrew Scheer), it’s not about truth – it’s about taking any crumb of data that they think will fit with their narrative and blowing it so far out of proportion that it becomes an outright lie.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087768772436463617

But beyond that, the way in which this issue is being framed in the media should be questioned – something economist Mike Moffatt did over the Twitter Machine yesterday.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087670357757227009

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1087673953819287552

And he’s got a point – the CBC’s own story to debunk Ford’s claims is headlined “Economists cool to Doug Ford’s warning of ‘carbon tax recession’,” which again frames this as Ford versus economists – something that plays directly into Ford’s hands because he can turn around and claim that this is just the out-of-touch elites in their ivory towers and not “real folks,” a populist construction that is again built on a foundation of lies. And yet we in the media can’t seem to help ourselves because we don’t want to be seen as being biased, even when we are subjected to bald-faced lies, and again, we need to look like we’re being fair to the liars who are lying to our faces, which they take full advantage of. We’re hurting ourselves, but we can’t seem to help ourselves.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another solution in search of a problem, by-election edition

Posted on by

The good folks at Samara Canada have penned an op-ed in the Globe and Mail to call for legislation that demand swifter by-elections than currently exists, and would seek to remove the discretion of the prime minister in calling them. To this I say nay, because much like fixed election dates, this is a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, the piece entirely ignored that fixed election dates are not only antithetical to our system, which is based on confidence, but that it created a whole host of new problems and solved none. It used to be the big concern that prime ministers would call “snap” elections when it was deemed politically suitable, and that it wholly disadvantaged opposition parties. Of course, that’s entirely a myth that doesn’t survive actual scrutiny (recall that governments in this country were punished when they called elections too soon because they had good poll numbers), and fixed election dates instead created interminable election campaigns that required even more legislation to crack down on spending and advertising in defined pre-writ periods – something that wouldn’t need to exist under the proper system of ministerial discretion.

Throughout the recent round of braying to call by-elections, none of the arguments has convinced me that this is anything more than a moral panic. While the op-ed does correctly point out that MP offices remain staffed and operational, reporting to the party whip instead of the departed MP, the op-ed laments that there is no MP to push files through the bureaucracy – something that is not only not an MP’s job, but is something we should actually be discouraging because it sets up a system that starts to look corrupt, when it becomes who you know that will get action on your files. If anything, parties should actually take advantage of the fact that when a by-election hasn’t been called yet, it gives the riding associations ample time to locate a good candidate, run an effective nomination process, and then start door-knocking. If parties got their act together, they’d have more time to do this, rather than waiting months, and trying to get a hint as to when the by-election might be called before they even start their nominations – something that is absolutely boggling. Jagmeet Singh should have used the time to do the door-knocking at every available opportunity, and yet that didn’t seem to be the case for the months he was complaining that the by-election hadn’t been called.

You don’t have to convince me that it’s important to run these by-elections in a timely manner, and that having an MP in place as soon as possible is the right thing to do. It absolutely is. But more legislative constraints on executive discretion won’t solve any problems, and only creates more of them. We keep seeing this time and again, and yet we keep coming back to yet more proposals for even more of them, creating a spiralling cycle of more rules to fix a problem that was never actually a problem in the first place. Time to step off this merry-go-round.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unexpected shuffle

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Cabinet shuffle came with a few surprises, but the biggest was probably the decision to move Jody Wilson-Raybould from justice to veterans’ affairs – a move which can only be interpreted as a demotion, despite both prime minister Justin Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould making the argument that it was insulting to veterans to think of them as a lesser consideration. Added to that, Wilson-Raybould got defensive and put out a lengthy press release that said she wouldn’t discuss why she was moved, as that’s the prerogative of the prime minister (true), but then went on to laud all of her accomplishments as justice minister (which she bizarrely abbreviated as MOJAG – Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the first time I can recall such an abbreviation being used). The problem, of course, is that there was a lot of talk about how things were not going well in her office. I personally heard from a number of people in the legal community about their concerns about the managerial competence within Wilson-Raybould’s office, particularly around staffing key positions such as the Judicial Affairs Advisor – necessary for the appointment of judges, and a post that was left vacant for months at a time, as the number of vacancies began increasing, and still have a significant backlog in place. There was also a lot of staffing churn within her office, which should be a warning sign that not all is well. And more reports came out yesterday that there had been some tensions around the Cabinet table when it came to Wilson-Raybould, so the fact that she penned a defensive release probably speaks volumes.

As for the other ministerial changes, David Lametti (my Canadian Lawyer profile here) replaced Wilson-Raybould, who replaces Seamus O’Regan at veterans’ affairs, O’Regan moving to Indigenous services to replace Jane Philpott, who in turn replaced the departing Scott Brison. Trudeau added a new portfolio to the mix – rural economic development, under new minister Bernadette Jordan, who is now the Nova Scotian in Cabinet. That portfolio is another one without a ministry, and it looks like it’ll be housed within Innovation, Science and Economic Development, where all of the other regional development ministries are housed, but as with a growing number of portfolios under this government, it’s another minister without a line department of her own, which I find a bit concerning.

Meanwhile, there are so many hot takes on the shuffle, starting with Chantal Hébert, who says the few changes mean it’s steady-as-she-goes for Trudeau before the election. Likewise, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column says these changes highlight that there is little room for experimentation, this late in the current parliament. Mercedes Stephenson echoes the sentiment, with some added details on O’Regan’s time on the veterans file. Paul Wells brings the shade when it comes to the performance of this government, and the inability for any particular minister to make any meaningful changes in the face of bottlenecks of authority in the PMO, and a government too afraid to make any changes so close to an election. Mike Moffatt delivers a thread on the challenges of rural economic development, and why the portfolio might be a good idea after all.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Jody Wilson-Raybould is still so proud

Posted on by

After the day’s repetitive QP in the Other Place, the justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould headed down the hall for Senate Question Period. Senator Larry Smith was up first, asking about the decision-making process to approve only one THC testing device, which many police forces are opting not to buy. Wilson-Raybould replied that they had expertise from the Canadian Society of Forensic Scientists, and that while it was the first device approved, it was not the only tool that law enforcement officers have, which was why they invested in field training for drug detection. Smith asked if there were other devices on the way, and Wilson-Raybould offered the backgrounder on the one approved device and said that she was open to approving others as they are tested.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Upping the Trans Mountain drama

Posted on by

Late afternoon yesterday, Kinder Morgan put out a surprise press release saying that they were suspending “non-essential activities” and spending related to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, citing the political fights still underway on the project. It’s a transparent move to try and force a political solution to some of the drama underway, and it certainly got everyone’s attention. Within the hour, Jim Carr was standing before reporters to assure them that all options were on the table, but by that point, Rachel Notley was demanding “concrete action” from the federal government, while Jason Kenney started his performative caterwauling about how terrible the federal government has been on this, and the federal conservatives promptly followed suit, ignoring their own record on pipelines in the meantime. Andrew Leach, however, has kept receipts, and immediately called them out on it. (John Horgan, incidentally, denies that he’s been harassing the project).

When Leach called out the fact that the previous government didn’t hold a press conference about the approval of Northern Gateway, and didn’t travel to BC to promote it, Raitt didn’t get his point and responded with a news article from the day which pointed out directly that the minister’s office sent out a release and refused all questions, after which Harper noted in the Commons that jurisdiction was deferred to the NEB. So the question is, if that was good enough for the Conservatives then, why is it so terrible that the Liberals are doing more and being more vocal about Trans Mountain now?

Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes a survey of the landscape in the wake of these developments, and continues to express some doubts as to what is going on. I personally have to wonder what more the federal government can do in the face of the provincial tit-for-tat from Alberta and BC, seeing as they already have jurisdiction over this pipeline, and they realistically can’t bigfoot the actions of the NEB, which is a quasi-judicial body. After all, there is the rule of law to contend with. To date, BC really hasn’t made any concrete actions that the government can take to court, for example, and certainly nothing that would merit reviving the powers of disallowance from constitutional dormancy. Kenney et al.’s demand to declare Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution is legally illiterate, so what else, pray tell, should the federal government do? I’ll be curious to see what verifiable solutions present themselves in the coming days.

To round it off, Kevin Milligan also offered some observations on the situation on the ground.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/983120057608781824

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/983121108852289536

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/983123756355694592

Continue reading →

Roundup: Chickpea politics

Posted on by

One never thought that pulses – and chickpeas in particular – would be the cause of a supposed major political crisis in this country, and yet here we are. The problem is that the supposed problem is almost entirely fictional. News that India raised their tariffs on chickpea imports to some sixty percent was treated by the Conservatives as a direct response to the Jaspel Atwal incident and the supposition by certain senior officials in Canada that some rogue Indian factions arranged for him to be there in order to embarrass Trudeau as a way of demonstrating that the Canadian government is soft on Khalistani extremists. Except that’s not it at all – India raised their tariffs on all of their imports, and Canada barely exports any of those particular chickpeas to India. Australia is taking a bigger hit that Canada is on these tariffs, so if that’s somehow Trudeau’s fault, I’m open to hearing it.

https://twitter.com/mrmubinshaikh/status/969679520218451968

Of course, there is a broader discussion that is being completely ignored with by most of the Canadian media, who are joining the Conservatives in trying to wedge this news into the pre-determined narrative. Indeed, Canadian Press wire copy went out that uncritically repeated that the Conservatives linked the tariff hike to the India visit without any actual fact-checking, or checking the situation on the ground in India. That situation being that there is a worldwide glut of pulse crops that has depressed prices, and the Indian government, in advance of an election, is trying to shore up their support by bringing in these tariffs to protect farmers. At the same time, there is a rash of suicides by Indian farmers in the country, which is no doubt causing India’s government some distress. “But Trudeau said he’d raise the tariff problem and he failed,” cry the critics. Sure, he raised it with Modi, but their discussions were apparently more about an ongoing fumigation issue than tariffs. And while the tariff issue may have come up, I’m not sure that Trudeau has the magical ability to solve the expansion of supply over demand or to fix India’s domestic agricultural issues, but tell me again how this is all about the Canadian pundits’ perceptions of that India trip.

Speaking of Atwal, MP Randeep Sarai spoke to his local newspaper to say that he didn’t know who Atwal was when his name was forwarded to him along with several others who were in the country and asked for an invitation – but he still takes responsibility for it, and volunteered to resign as the party’s Pacific caucus chair. He also says that he doesn’t know who Atwal is because he was a child at the time that Atwal committed his crimes, and his staffers are all younger than he is, which is a reflection of the generational change happening in Canadian politics.

On a related note, Supriya Dwivedi calls out the Canadian media’s amnesia when it comes to the history of Indian relations with Canada, especially as it relates to Sikh separatists, and for their complete lack of awareness of some of the Hindu nationalist politics being practiced in India by Modi’s government.

Continue reading →