Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer

Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Predictable committee stunts

Posted on by

As expected, the justice committee meeting yesterday was short and went nowhere, as the Liberals on the committee (most of whom are not regular members of said committee) voted to respect the original schedule, which is to consider next steps on Tuesday, like the plan was all along. And predictably, there was much performative outrage and the pundit class all shook their fists in outrage that the Liberals would dare to shut down the inquiry (which they didn’t), and lo, why doesn’t the PMO get it right on this whole sordid affair, woe is us, woe is us. If you need any clues that this “emergency meeting” was anything other than a stunt, let’s consider the fact that despite the fact that the committee was going to deal with next steps when Parliament returned next week, they nevertheless demanded said “emergency meeting” in the middle of March Break to denote how seriousthey were about it. (Meanwhile, if any of these MPs complain about how hard parliamentary life is on their families and children, we need only remind them that they pulled stunts like this). But when most of the actual committee members are unavailable, it’s not exactly like the bodies they’re filling the seats with are in a position to do the work of the regular members of the committee for them and to evaluate what they’ve heard. Oh, and putting Pierre Poilievre in the lead seat for the Conservatives is a flashing red light with accompanying klaxon that this is a stunt. The opposition also wanted this debate on inviting Jody Wilson-Raybould back to be in public, despite the fact that committee deliberations on witnesses and timetables happen behind closed doors for a reason. I cannot stress this enough. This kind of meeting to demand a vote in public is showmanship designed for the cameras. The feigned outrage and unctuous sanctimony when the Liberals voted the way everyone expected them to is also indicative that this was entirely a stunt. And We The Media bought it all, and nobody I saw bothered to challenge them on any part of it. Well done us.

Now, the Liberals have a choice next week, and if they don’t invite Wilson-Raybould back, it’ll be a black eye for them, deservedly. I suspect they know this. As for Wilson-Raybould, I’m not sure that anyone believes she can’t speak to her resignation, because it has nothing to do with solicitor-client privilege, Michael Wernick stated that none of this was discussed at Cabinet (hence essentially waiving any Cabinet confidence on the matter), and Gerald Butts has also spoken about this time period. If she insists she can’t, the credibility of that assertion needs to be questioned. But until the Liberals on the justice committee actually vote to shut it down and write their report, can we hold off on the pearl-clutching until then? Otherwise, we’re playing into stunts.

Speaking of predictable pundit outrage, here’s Andrew Coyne decrying that prime ministers can get away with anything in this country. Well, except for the resignations, the committee study, the Ethics Commissioner investigation, strongly worded letter from the OECD and intense media scrutiny. As for his shaking his fist at “our system,” I don’t exactly see the system south of the border any better at dealing with the blatant corruption of their president, so…yay?

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106007982209294336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106012461910581255

Continue reading →

Roundup: In the testimony’s aftermath

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day for performative outrage, as the Conservatives demanded – and got – an “emergency debate” on their call for Justin Trudeau to resign. Of course, given the reality of how our parliament works these days, “debate” is a term to be used very loosely, and it was more like several late-night hours of stilted speeches being read to one another for the sake of looking tough. Woo. On the committee front, Gerald Butts offered to testify on his own behalf, which was accepted, and both Michael Wernick and the deputy minister of justice are on their way back for another round, though none of the other staffers mentioned by Wilson-Raybould are (though that is also because they shouldn’t appear before committee, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility – it’s for ministers and deputy ministers as accountability officers to appear as they are responsible for them). Ministers of the Crown were also doing the media rounds, including Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland, and most of them were offering variations of the line that while they thought that Jody Wilson-Raybould was telling the truth as she saw it, they also believe the PM in that he would never be inappropriate or cross a line, which made most of the pundit class’ heads implode – never mind that the crux of this whole matter is that it’s a subjective test as to what kind of pressure is or is not appropriate. (On a related note, the Liberals really, really need to put Carla Qualtrough out more. She is easily one of the best communicators that they have in Cabinet, but she never gets out there enough on items other than Phoenix, which is too bad because they desperately need someone with her communications skills out in public). And we’ll see how this continues to play out in the caucus as well, given that the usual suspects are not remaining so silent, and the not-so-usual suspects have openly stated things like “sour grapes” (before being made to apologise).

https://twitter.com/WayneLongSJ/status/1101160075023011840

For context, here is a comparison between what Wilson-Raybould said, and what Michael Wernick testified before the committee. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner really can get to the bottom of this whole mess. Here’s the who’s who of everyone Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony. Here’s a roundup of how the Quebec press is treating Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt looks at how nervous the Liberal caucus seems by this whole affair, and what that disaffection may be doing to the party in the longer term. Robert Hiltz suggests that Trudeau take a long, hard look at himself and his government, given what this situation has revealed about them. Chris Selley points out that the Liberal treatment of not being Stephen Harper as a virtue is going to be something that ends up costing them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wernick calls out Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

Thursday in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair was much more explosive, on a couple of fronts. First, the Globe and Mail reported that Jody Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet that she was improperly pressured, which raises some real questions as to who the Globe source is, and also raises the question as to why Wilson-Raybould didn’t resign in protest at the time. (It also said that SNC-Lavalin is threatening to relocate their headquarters to the UK, which would be the first company looking to move there in the midst of Brexit chaos). And then, after a forgettable appearance by David Lametti at the Commons justice committee, where he could not guarantee that the solicitor-client privilege issue would be solved by the time Wilson-Raybould appears at committee, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick let blew up the media cycle, not only with his very frank introductory comments, but also his belief that not only did any improper pressure not happen (going so far as to call the original Globe story false and “defamatory”), but that none of this should be covered by Solicitor-Client privilege because it was not discussed in Cabinet, and no legal advice was given. (Full text here).

Wernick’s comments were praised by some, criticised by others – particularly the Conservatives – with a lot of concern trolling going on about the perception that they were partisan (despite the fact that Wernick praised both the Harper government’s work as well as Trudeau’s). As John Geddes points out, the testimony also gave a glimpse as to how he interacts with power in this city, going so far as to leave an NAC gala to avoid being near SNC-Lavalin executives.

In related news, it looks like Wilson-Raybould didn’t renew her law licence in BC in 2016, which could mean that she’s not a practicing lawyer, which might also invalidate her claim to solicitor-client privilege. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ also tests Trudeau’s assertion that waiving solicitor-client privilege may impact the other two ongoing court cases involving SNC-Lavalin.

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt lays out how Wernick’s testimony is a direct challenge to the version of events that the Globe and Wilson-Raybould’s silence has allowed to develop, which puts pressure on Wilson-Raybould to confirm or deny his testimony. Jen Gerson doesn’t see Butts’ resignation as solving any of the Liberals’ problems. Robert Hiltz says that more than anything, this whole affair puts a lie to the government’s promise of being “real change” in doing politics.

Continue reading →

QP: Chagger has some new talking points

Posted on by

Following an explosive morning at the justice committee, QP got underway without any of the major leaders in attendance. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, asking if the prime minister asked David Lametti to leave the room when Wilson-Raybould addressed Cabinet on Tuesday. Lametti first accused Raitt of cherry-picking the testimony, and said that since Clerk of the Pricy Council, Michael Wernick, released him from Cabinet confidence he recused himself of his own volition. Raitt asked why Trudeau met with Wilson-Raybould after the Director of Public Prosecutions made a decision on SNC-Lavalin, to which Bardish Chagger read that it was confirmed verbally and in writing that Wilson-Raybould was not being directed on the file. Raitt went through the timeline, and accused Wernick of pressuring Wilson-Raybould, to which Chagger read out about Raitt’s own meetings with SNC-Lavalin. Alain Rayes took over and re-asked in French why Trudeau had the meeting with Wilson-Raybould, and Chagger read that they need to respect the independence of committees. Rayes tried again, and Chagger read out Wernick’s assurances that the kinds of discussions that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had were perfectly appropriate. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he demanded that Wilson-Raybould be allowed to speak, and Lametti assured him that the issue was complex but they too wanted to ensure she could speak. Boulerice asked if Trudeau’s meeting with Wilson-Raybould was to change her mind, and Chagger stood up to remind him that the NDP leader also met with SNC-Lavalin, and that the government respects the legal system. Nathan Cullen stood up to repeat the allegations in the Globe and Mail that Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet she was pressured, to which Chagger reminded him that committees are independent and should do their job. Cullen railed about the government not caring about employees and pensioners, to which Chagger praised the Ethics Commissioner and the government’s record.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A hard Wilson-Raybould exit

Posted on by

The day got off to a quiet start, with news of an emergency Cabinet meeting (via teleconference), followed by the news that Jody Wilson-Raybould had resigned from Cabinet (but not caucus), and retained a former Supreme Court of Canada justice as a lawyer to figure out what she’s able to say. Trudeau’s office later said that she informed him last night, and that Harjit Sajjan would be temporarily taking over the Veterans Affairs file until someone new can be put into the position. And people noticed that Trudeau didn’t thank Wilson-Raybould for her contributions after the fact either.

When he did face the media later in the day, Trudeau said that he was surprised and disappointed by Wilson-Raybould’s decision, and that he couldn’t understand why she made it. But as is his usual way of doing things, it was all a bit rehearsed, because he repeated those words almost verbatim in response to reporters’ questions. But he also said that if Wilson-Raybould felt like rules weren’t being followed that she should have come to him, and she didn’t. He did also say that he’s trying to figure out the options around what they can say under solicitor-client privilege because they don’t want to have unintended consequences for the two other ongoing court cases related to the SNC-Lavalin matter, which is fair and valid, but he’s already given flat denials about what was reported in the Globe and Mail initially. (Here is a more in-depth explanation of the restrictions she is under when it comes to Cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, neither of which have a time-limit).

The next battleground is going to be the justice committee, which meets today, and the question is how the Liberals are going to decide to go. Trudeau is publicly saying he’s not directing them because that would be against their parliamentary role (and I will say it was mighty galling for Candice Bergen to go on TV yesterday to say that the Liberals direct what happens at committees when they are far more hands-off than the Conservatives ever were, given that they had ministers’ staff directing their committee members when they were in government). The chair, Anthony Housefather, says that he is leaning toward hearing from witnesses on the issue, but he is more likely to do so under an amended motion rather than the one the Conservatives and NDP tabled (in part because of the suggested witness list), not to mention the fact that he’s wary of the whole exercise turning into a partisan gong show rather than a non-partisan way to get some answers. But with this in mind, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make this a partisan exercise, from Andrew Scheer tweeting out the phone numbers and email addresses of the Liberals on the committee so that people can “demand” they agree to their motion, and the fact that they are putting Pierre Poilievre on the committee as one of their “replacement” members, because “logistics” with the snow storm. It would almost sound to me like they want to do as much as they possibly can to annoy the Liberals and to turn them off from holding any kind of hearings so that the Conservatives can claim they’re participating in a cover-up. Because they would never engage in that kind of concern trolling. (Note that Scheer has also demanded that they “preserve all records” on this, because he is also pushing the narrative that the same Liberals from Queen’s Park who destroyed the gas plant files are now in Ottawa).

As for Wilson-Raybould’s departure, some of the reporting is getting a bit cringe-worthy, particularly how they keep reaching out to her father for comment. I can think of no other ministerial demotion or resignation that sought comment from their parents, for what it’s worth. As well, the fact that the reaction from Indigenous leaders as this being some kind of betrayal also leaves me a bit unsettled because it was no secret that things were not being well managed in Wilson-Raybould’s office in Justice, and the narrative seems to reinforce the notion that it’s not the quality of the job being done, only the symbolism of the person holding the office. That particular lens on what has taken place over the past few days seems to be absent, while Wilson-Raybould is tactical in her silence. Meanwhile, some Cabinet and caucus colleagues are tweeting support for Wilson-Raybould, while others try very much to walk the line.

It’s worth adding that SNC-Lavalin is in the midst of yet another criminal investigation in Quebec regarding their bid for the Cartier Bridge. This while every newspaper in Montreal is running columns wondering why the opposition wants the federal government to let SNC-Lavalin fail – something that will have impacts come the election.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095350523933278208

Meanwhile, Anne Kinston parses Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter, while Susan Delacourt notes the weight of the silence on what has taken place – and offers us some new information about the shuffle and the discussions with Wilson-Raybould that took place at the time. Paul Wells looks at all of the behind-the-scenes work done by SNC-Lavalin through the past few years, and the way in which they attempt to exert influence in Ottawa, and shows that this seems to be the underlying way things work in Ottawa amidst the government’s talk of a new way of doing things.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095517895205871617

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095519163601154048

Continue reading →

Roundup: The myth about the tweet

Posted on by

At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.

And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.

But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: To travel or not to travel?

Posted on by

There’s a battle brewing in the Senate over Bill C-69, and some of it seems like a concern trolling on the face of it. Given that the bill – which aims to reform the environmental assessment process – is contentious among certain sectors, and has been subject to a misinformation campaign by the Conservatives (who have dubbed it the “no more pipelines bill” based on zero actual evidence), there is a push by Conservative senators to have the Senate’s energy and environment committee take hearings on the road. You know, to hear directly from those affected. The bill’s sponsor, government whip – err, “liaison,” Senator Mitchell, resists that, and it looks like he’s got the leader of the Independent Senators Group, Senator Woo, more or less backing him, Woo saying that travel is unnecessary when you can videoconference.

The Conservatives are looking to delay the bill, likely to death, given that the number of sitting days in this parliament is rapidly dwindling. Never mind that many affected industries are behind the bill, or that most others say that they would rather see amendments at this stage than a whole new process because that just increases the uncertainty (and it should be pointed out that the current system, which the Harper government implemented, has not worked and has resulted in a number of court challenges). And to add to that fact, the senator who chairs the committee is inexperienced (and many will openly say that she doesn’t know what she’s doing), and the Conservatives on that committee haven’t been cooperative in getting the hearings up and running because they are protesting the fact that she appears to be taking dictation from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Harder. So, this is all turning into a giant mess. And did I mention that the number of sitting days is rapidly dwindling? I suspect this is going to get ugly.

Continue reading →

QP: Bigger deficit fears

Posted on by

It being nearly the last day of the season, the benches were filling up, and both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present. Scheer led off in French, worrying about the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer who says the deficit could be bigger than anticipated. Trudeau stood up without a script, and talked about how much better off Canadians are now and how great the economy was doing. Scheer reiterted the question in English, and Trudeau deployed his talking points about bringing up the growth rate and the lowest unemployment rate in modern records. Scheer said that Trudeau doesn’t care about spending because he came from wealth, and Trudeau hit back with the $150 billion debt the Conservatives left with nothing to show for it. Scheer tried to respond by burnishing the Conservative record and accused Trudeau of squandering the good fortunes left to him, for which Trudeau listed the ways in which cuts made to ensure a “phoney” balanced budget hurt Canadians. Scheer tried to get pointed in his retort, that Trudeau was “darn right” that they were obsessed with treating taxpayer dollars with respect before repeating his slight about Trudeau’s family wealth, and Trudeau noted that Scheer was resorting to personal attacks because he had nothing else to offer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he railed that trade deals meant that VIA Rail couldn’t prefer Bombardier for its fleet renewal. Trudeau took up a script to read that they wanted to ensure that people got the best value for money and that government interference would be bad for business. Caron changed topics to talk about the CUPW court challenge of the Canada Post back-to-work legislation, and Trudeau noted that they undid the labour law changes from the Conservatives and how they worked with labour to ensure tripartite agreements. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read that the litany of measures they took to ensure that negotiations kept going and that the recently appointed a new arbitrator to deal with the outstanding issues. Tracey Ramsey then repeated the VIA Rail question in English, for which Trudeau said that those trade deals mean that Canadian firms can access procurement in other countries.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Ginning up the Grewal resignation

Posted on by

As the stories on Raj Grewal’s gambling debts and intended resignation continue to trickle through, a number of them have taken on a vaguely conspiratorial tone. A lot of facts that shouldn’t be out of the ordinary are treated as suspicious for absolutely no reason at all. For example, people keep wondering why he was reassigned from the finance committee in September “with no warning.” Gee, what else happened in September that would have affected committee memberships? Could it have been the fact that the parliamentary secretaries all got shuffled, so committee assignments need to be rejigged? Maybe? And whoa, he asked questions on catching money launderers to law officials and FINTRAC agents during a study on – wait for it – “Confronting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: Moving Canada Forward.” Such an amazing coincidence that is totally suspicious. And the latest “revelation” is that Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais says that a retired Mountie told him a year ago that he heard Raj Grewal was under investigation, and he therefore thinks PMO should have known then. Erm, except that neither the OPP nor the RCMP tell the PMO what they’re investigating because they operate at arm’s length, and more to the fact, Grewal was a backbench MP, which I cannot stress enough.

To that end, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the issue of parties policing MPs’ off-hours, considering the Clement and Grewal situations, while Susan Delacourt cites those same two cases, and wonders if we need to do a better job of screening backbenchers. And I’m pretty dubious because backbenchers are not ministers. They don’t have access to secret materials (Clement, I remind you, is a former minister and thus a member of the Privy Council, and his activities on NSICOP are outside of the usual activities of a backbencher), nor are they public office holders. Their job is to hold government to account – they are not part of the government, and it doesn’t matter what committees they’re on. Treating them as the same thing is not only a gross overreach, but frankly it will give MPs a wrongheaded sense of their place in the system, which is already suffering because of civic illiteracy.

Are Grewal’s debts concerning? Yup. Is it a crisis that he was mentioned in passing as part of an investigation into other suspicious characters? Maybe, but we don’t know enough to say whether it is or not, and the baseless speculation and ginned up allegations aren’t helping. Should Trudeau and the PMO have been more candid from the start about the reasons Grewal was resigning? Probably, and given this government’s inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, their approach once again blew up in their faces. But treating this affair with clickbait headlines and spinning random facts out of context in order to make them seem sinister is bad reporting.

Continue reading →