Tag Archives: Procurement

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 →

Roundup: Polling on magical parties

Posted on by

I am not a big fan about reporting on polls, which makes me particularly aggrieved that we saw a few stories today about the latest Angus Reid poll that postulated a hypothetical “Western Canada Party” and how that would skew the vote for the established parties. Why a poll like this is especially irksome is because when you invite people to vote for a hypothetical that has no leader, or policies, or structure, or even raison d’être, then it simply becomes a repository for unicorns and pixie dust. You’re inviting people from four fairly disparate provinces to join forces, when you have separate grievances with the federal government, and you think you’d make a coherent political force out of it? Really? What exactly is anyone supposed to take from this message, other than people have vivid imaginations?

Of course, the idea is pretty ludicrous on its face – it could never be anything other than a protest party that couldn’t aspire to power by sheer mathematics – and it builds on some particular mythology around the Reform Party that I’m not sure necessarily reflects history. You have people like Deborah Grey who hears this and just sighs about the notion about splitting the Conservative party again (though there is plenty to debate about how we qualify the “reunification”). Should Andrew Scheer read this poll and take it as a warning that his Western base thinks he’s pandering too much to Quebec? We’ve already seen him embrace some outright tinfoil hattery because he’s been spooked by Maxime Bernier and losing those votes – will he crank up his faux-Saskatchewan credentials to eleven for the rest of the election to keep pretending that he’s one of them to bash away at the federal government? Will we hear big and small-c conservatives double down on the faux mythology of Alberta’s conservativism (and if you haven’t yet, please do read Jen Gerson’s exploration of that mythology here). “Ooh, but protest vote!” people will handwave. But BC and Alberta would be protesting against different things – and different parts of BC would have different protests at that. Grievance-mongering is not a path to sustainable politics. Polls like this just confuse issues and make people think that there are magic wands – or in this case, magical political parties that could somehow cure all of their woes by forcing Ottawa to take them seriously, somehow. But that’s not real life, and politics is hard work, which is not something that this kind of polling reflects.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The C-69 battle begins

Posted on by

The Senate’s Energy and Environment committee is slated to begin their examination of Bill C-69 today, which promises to be a right gong show as the Conservatives have been pledging to do everything they can to kill the bill, which could mean attempting to delay things as long as possible – which is one reason why they have been aggressively pushing for the committee to hold cross-country hearings. This is being pushed back against by the government whip – err, “liaison,” and the leader of the Independent Senators Group, but that hasn’t stopped the agitation. Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald went so far as to pen an op-ed in the National Post that says the prime minister is trying to “keep the Senate from the people,” which is absurd on its face considering that Trudeau’s hands-off policy on the Senate is one reason why the Chamber is in a bit of disarray at the moment.

Meanwhile, there will be an effort from non-Conservative senators to see amendments to the bill, which could create its own delays as the debates and votes on those amendments could get drawn out for weeks, while the parliamentary calendar ticks down. (For reference, I wrote this piece last week, talking to lawyers on both the environmental and proponent sides of the issue about the kinds of amendments they would like to see). The bill has its issues, no doubt, but the rhetoric around it has reached hyperbolic proportions, and much of the opposition we hear has become based on myth rather than fact or analysis. That’s going to make the Senate’s deliberations more difficult in the weeks ahead, as people will be howling about non-existent segments of the bill, and we’ll hear the daily demands in QP that the bill be withdrawn, never mind that the current system isn’t working and has been the subject of numerous court challenges. I suspect this will become a very nasty fight before the end of spring.

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 →

Roundup: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

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 →

QP: Lavish lifestyles or austerity

Posted on by

Thursday in the new Chamber, and neither the PM nor Andrew Scheer were present. Plus ça change… That left Candice Bergen to lead off with slams against the prime minister’s alleged lavish lifestyle before demanding to know whey they planned to raise taxes. Bill Morneau got up and noted that the first things they did was lower taxes on the Middle Class™. Bergen retorted that the Conservatives delivered a balanced budget (not really), and that today’s deficits were tomorrow’s higher taxes (not with a declining debt-to-GDP ratio), but Morneau noted that the facts didn’t match her rhetoric and that Canadians didn’t want to return to the “bad old days” of Conservative austerity. Bergen read more vitriol about Trudeau, to which Morneau listed off their tax cuts and Canada Child Benefit plans, and decried the Conservative legacy of debt. Gérard Deltell took over in French, and gave his usual demand to know when the budget would  be balanced. Morneau state that their plan was clear to invest, and that the approach was working as witnessed by lowest unemployment in 40 years and people with more money in their pockets. Deltell asked a second time, and Morneau repeated his pabulum. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and said that the PBO reported that the government paid too much for the Trans Mountain pipeline. Morneau replied that he had it wrong — that they bought the pipeline because it was good for the economy. Caron wondered why they didn’t invest instead in transitioning to a clean economy, to which Morneau reminded him of the need to get access to international markets, which was why it was necessary to buy the pipeline. Nathan Cullen took over in English to repeat the question with added sanctimony, to which Morneau said that their purchase price of the pipeline was in the middle of the commercial range, which meant it was a good one. Cullen tried again, and got much the same response.

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 →

QP: New Chamber, same talking points

Posted on by

On the first day in the new Chamber, everyone was trying to find their way through the new building, yours truly included. After introducing the newest Conservative by-election winner, Andrew Scheer led off, decrying the government’s foreign policy as a “disaster,” listing a number of dubious points to bolster his case. Trudeau stood up, assured Scheer that he would get to his question in a moment, but wanted to take a moment to applaud the work of the men and women who did the hard work of getting the West Block up and running. Scheer repeated his question in French, and read that the government was hard at work to get those two Canadians released and for clemency for the third, while they stood up for the rule of law. Scheer read a wooden question about Trudeau apparently not being good with money, and Trudeau rotely recited his talking points about lowering taxes for the middle class. Scheer read the same question again in English, and got the same response, with an added Stephen Harper swipe included. Scheer insisted that the richest were paying less in taxes than before (not really true), and raised the spectre that the government planned to raise the carbon tax six times more than they stated — also false. Trudeau noted that people are now getting the Canada Child Benefit, and that Scheer didn’t talk about it probably because he wanted to cut it. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he demanded that the budget include investments in housing. Trudeau responded that their housing strategy was benefiting a million Canadians. Caron demanded more actions like cutting taxes on housing investments, to which Trudeau reiterated that their strategy was making progress. Peter Julian repeated the same question in English, and got much the same response from Trudeau, and when he brought up the big city mayors, Trudeau noted he met with them earlier in the day and that they thanked him for the investments.

Continue reading →