Tag Archives: Procurement

Roundup: Kenney’s a federalist, but…

Posted on by

Jason Kenney made his triumphant return to Ottawa yesterday, now bearing the title of premier of Alberta, and he went before a Senate committee to a) bluster, and b) warn that if he didn’t get his way that separatist sentiment would rise in Alberta, even though he insisted that he’s a federalist, but this was somehow beyond his control. Erm, except an actual federalist wouldn’t give oxygen to these swivel-eyed loons, nor would someone who was actually concerned about the state of the federation feed them a diet of lies and snake oil to keep them angry for the sake of electoral gain.

Part of Kenney’s bluster was his threatening to launch court challenges against Bill C-69 if it gets passed in its current form, because he claims it intrudes on provincial jurisdiction – but he’s also said a lot of bogus things about the constitutionality of his promises (up to and including his threat about holding a referendum on equalisation, which he is also now equivocating on in the media), so I’m not sure he’s got a lot of credibility to spare in this legal analysis. But these kinds of threats also put me in mind a certain sense of contagion with the court cases around the carbon tax, and according to one environmental lawyer that I interviewed recently for an upcoming article, there is a sense that the provinces are trying to lay out markers in the area of shared jurisdiction, and this may be more of that – provinces trying to grab more power for their own sake.

The thing that really bothers me about Kenney’s “I’m a federalist, but…” line is that he doesn’t seem to care how dangerous it is, and how very antithetical it runs to his so-called “open for business” shtick. Do you know what drives away business investment (beyond destroying certainty by promising to tear up the environmental regime that they were partners in developing and increasing the political risk by constantly threatening lawsuits)? Separatist sentiment. Ask Quebec what it did for them, when all of those national headquarters fled Montreal for Toronto (remember when Montreal used to be the financial capital of Canada?) and their housing market plummeted? Yeah, not sure that’s something that Kenney should be trying to repeat, even if he’s using it as a threat. Beyond that, he can’t just say “I’m a federalist, but…” and not take some responsibility for the anger he’s stoked knowing full well that he can’t deliver on those promises, which will just cause that anger to fester. I know some people are trying to claim that he’s simply trying to channel that separatist sentiment into more harmless paths, but he’s courted it rather than smacked it down. “I’m a federalist, but…” just winks to them, and it’s beyond irresponsible.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Suspension as a first step

Posted on by

The Senate’s Conflict of Interest and Ethics Committee has considered the Senate Ethics Officer’s report into the conduct of one Senator Lynn Beyak and found her response to be wanting. Because she has refused to acknowledge wrongdoing and hasn’t removed the racist letters from her website, let alone apologise for posting them, they are recommending that she be suspended without pay for the remainder of the current parliament (meaning that it would end when parliament is dissolved and the writs drawn up for the election). Part of the thinking is that the time away – without pay or access to Senate resources – will give her time to think about her actions, and they suggest that the sensitivity training about racism and Indigenous history should be out of her own pocket. And if she still refuses to take action, they’ll look at having Senate administration take the letters down from her site (though nothing would stop her from moving them to a site that she hosts on her own), and if she still refuses action, well, they can revisit her fate in the next Parliament.

A couple of things to consider in all of this. First – it may help to re-read my column on the subject – is that they are likely recommending suspension because they will be very reluctant to recommend full expulsion without exhausting all avenues, and to afford her every single bit of procedural fairness and due process they possibly can in order to ensure that if it comes to that, that they will be on unshakeable ground. Setting a precedent for the removal of a senator should be done very, very carefully, and it has been argued in some circles that the reason why Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau remain in the Chamber are because the need to be politically expedient in their suspensions and not affording them proper fairness essentially made it impossible to recommend expulsion in the future because they could plausibly argue that they hadn’t been afforded the due process. Consider that lesson learned with how they are dealing with Beyak.

I can’t stress enough that recommending expulsion is an extraordinary step, and they can’t just do it because she’s an unrepentant racist (even though she doesn’t see herself that way) – especially because part of the whole reason the Senate has such strong institutional protections is because Senators are supposed to be able to speak truth to power without fear of repercussion. But it’s clear that this isn’t what Beyak is doing, and they need to go to great lengths to prove it and to provide enough of a paper trail to show that there is no other choice to deal with her than expulsion, because this is a very dangerous precedent that they would be setting. More than anything, the measures they are recommending are done in the hopes that she does the honourable thing and resigns, though it remains to be seen if she will get that hint (given that she refuses to believe that she’s done anything wrong). This will be a slow process. People will need to be patient. Demanding her immediate removal will only make things worse.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Vetting judges? Oh noes!

Posted on by

Yesterday the Globe and Mail had a story about how the current government will run potential judicial nominees through the Liberal party’s voter database as part of the vetting process, which was followed by an analysis of how many appointees were Liberal donors. This first came up weeks ago when yet another Jody Wilson-Raybould-related leak revealed that she was trying to “depoliticize” the appointment process by not providing certain information to PMO when she passed along recommendations, which is a problem – not that it was framed that way. This current story follows up on that, and has a few framing issues of its own. There are a few things to unpack in this, but first of all, I’ll let Adam Goldenberg point out a few issues with this analysis:

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013782795497478

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013787128156160

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121013789766369280

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1121024056663400448

With this in mind, I have a few thoughts of my own – first of all is that I think Goldenberg is correct in his reminder that vetting includes political vetting – and the party’s database (as Susan Delacourt noted on Power Play) contains more than who donated – they will collect all manner of information as part of their construction of voter profiles, so it makes sense that they would also run potential appointments through this. (The fact that parties don’t have stringent privacy rules around their databases is a discussion for another day). Why? Because the prime minister is ultimately politically accountable for all Governor-in-Council appointments, and that includes judges. And so long as the prime minister is politically accountable, I think it’s reasonable that his office does whatever vetting they deem necessary – and there’s nothing in here to indicate that they’re checking to ensure that they’re voting for Liberal partisans, which we need to keep in mind.

The other aspect of his story that makes me a bit queasy is the implication that there is favour being shown to Liberal donors – and the math bears out a little bit that while seventy percent of appointees hadn’t donated to anyone, twenty-five percent of them donated to the Liberals, which is disproportionate to other parties. But we also need to remember a few things, the primary one being that we need to stop treating political donations as a bad thing. The donation limits in this country are quite small – you’re not going to bribe someone for $1200, let’s face it – and we donations are a form of engagement. Engagement is a good thing. The more we stigmatize past political donations – and those donations could be for a variety of reasons, such as an acquaintance running in a local campaign, or because they wanted the tax receipt – the more we send the message that engagement is bad, which is the very opposite of what we should be doing in a country where we already have abysmal levels of engagement, whether it’s taking out party memberships, donating, or volunteering (and yes, Samara Canada has done research on this). Pearl-clutching stories like this just reinforce this narrative, which is bad for democracy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A trio of justice issues

Posted on by

There were three major law-related stories in the news yesterday, starting with the announcement that Supreme Court of Canada Justice Clement Gascon has opted to retire early, citing “personal and family reasons.” This was quickly followed by Justin Trudeau announcing that a replacement process would be launched, and would again be headed by Kim Campbell, while the Conservatives followed a few hours later with a demand that this process not go ahead until the leak from the previous process was investigated (though the Privacy Commissioner is already on that case). The thing to remember of course is that there is something of a deadline here, being the election, and it’s more than possible that the Conservatives want this delayed so that they have the possibility of naming the next judge if they should happen to form government in October. For what it’s worth.

The second story was that of the carbon tax reference at the Ontario Court of Appeal, which was live-streamed for the first time in its history. The province’s argument apparently is that if the federal government is allowed to impose a carbon tax, that they’ll start intruding into other areas of provincial jurisdiction, which is…dubious. And it sounds like the judges weren’t having much of that line of reasoning either.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/1117808109802663938

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117809485395816451

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1117811576940060673

The third law story of the day was the revelation that the directive around civil litigation involving Indigenous people that Jody Wilson-Raybould instituted as one of her last acts as justice minister has been fiercely contested within the department because it many cases, it amounts to litigating badly and not actually getting the courts to resolve the legal questions that are at issue, which they argue doesn’t actually help reconciliation because you’re not dealing with underlying issues that require resolution. The piece also noted the frequent and direct political interference that Wilson-Raybould exerted on civil litigation (which she can do as Attorney General, unlike the arm’s length nature of criminal prosecutions), sometimes undermining the arguments that Crown attorneys were trying to advance in the middle of cases. It’s fascinating reading and yet more insight into what was going on with Wilson-Raybould in the lead up to her being shuffled.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Statute or prerogative?

Posted on by

Because there was (thankfully) not a lot of news this weekend, and I just can’t about the Alberta election right now (seriously, does nobody realize the how much fire they’ve playing with by stoking anger and making unrealistic promises?) I’m instead going to leave you with some food for thought from Philippe Lagassé about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians’ report and the calls for military intelligence to be a subjected to a statutory framework rather than carrying on operating under Crown prerogative, as they currently are. Enjoy.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1117440021689016320

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1117441870907330560

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1117444492477353984

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1117447616806047745

Continue reading →

Roundup: A list of demands

Posted on by

It was another day full of plot threads in the ongoing Double-Hyphen Affair and its associated fallout, and boy oh boy was there some overwrought rhetoric throughout the day. First up was the release of that memo that the Deputy Minister of Justice apparently wrote for PCO about DPA but was blocked by Wilson-Raybould from being delivered, and it outlined areas where SNC-Lavalin may still be able to bid on federal contracts if they did not get a DPA and was convicted. Wilson-Raybould claims she don’t recall blocking the release, and said that Michael Wernick should have taken her word that she considered it. (Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column adds this to the list of unresolved plot points in this Affair). Following this was the Daughters of the Vote event, where a number of the attendees walked out on Andrew Scheer, and others stood up and turned their backs to Justin Trudeau in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould and Philpott. Trudeau also took a number of questions from the attendees, and many of them were not friendly. Before Question Period, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould scrummed on their way into the House of Commons, Philpott saying that trust was a two-way street, and Wilson-Raybould said that interference in a prosecution was “unconscionable,” echoing Trudeau’s words, and that she made the recording to protect herself from “danger.” And then came QP, which was largely 45-minutes of policing each other’s feminism. Because of course it was.

And then came the inevitable bombshell. It’s starting to feel like this is becoming a daily occurrence, this little game of tit-for-tat, where those anonymous senior Liberals leaked to both the Star and CBC that there had been weeks of negotiations between Trudeau’s office and Wilson-Raybould on what it would take for them to end their rift, and Wilson-Raybould had a list of demands, which included firing Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick (done), an apology of some sort, and assurances that David Lametti would be instructed not to override the Director of Public Prosecutions on the SNC-Lavalin file – and it’s this one that’s pretty problematic, because it sounds an awful lot like she wants the prime minister to interfere in the decision of the Attorney General on an ongoing prosecution. One might say it’s political pressure – especially given the continued media leaks and dribbling of information. If these negotiations are true, it could explain why it took Trudeau so long to come to the decision to oust them, but even then, it all starts to feel like a bit of a bad play where the threat is brand damage, and a calculation that it’s survivable in the face of other options. I guess we’ll see what the rebuttal to this will be. And the subsequent rebuttal. And so on.

Chantal Hébert notes that wherever Wilson-Raybould and Philpott wind up, they would find that most other parties have their own internal divisions as well. Emmett Macfarlane thinks that if the decent people in the PMO and among the Liberal caucus had simply exercised some self-reflection, the expulsions would not have been necessary. Sarmishta Subramanian looks at some of the odd media narratives that have emerged throughout this whole Affair, where some cases see the media doing the spin for the parties without them even bothering to.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wilson-Raybould’s recorded call

Posted on by

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.

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”

Posted on by

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

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.

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Procedural warfare denied (for now)

Posted on by

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.

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Musings from a non-committee member

Posted on by

It was another day of clutched pearls as Liberal MP Francis Drouin, who moved the motion at the stunt committee meeting on Wednesday to adjourn until the planned meeting next week, spoke to CBC about the fact that he thinks that they’ve heard enough and it’s time to move to the next phase of the committee. The problem? That Drouin isn’t actually a member of said committee, so his opinion doesn’t really matter. That he was at the committee on Wednesday is largely because his riding is not far from Ottawa, and that tends to be what happens when emergency meetings get called – most of the regular members don’t end up showing up because of travel times and commitments (or in this case, it’s the middle of March Break, and some of them have families with kids that they don’t see nearly enough). Now, if the Liberals meet on Tuesday, and put a bunch of ringers on the committee when they decide to go in camera to talk next steps for witnesses and timetables, and they decide they’ve had enough, well then, yes, we will have something to complain about. But that hasn’t happened yet, there isn’t any indication about that happening, so let’s all just calm down. Drouin is entitled to his own opinions, but he won’t be making any decisions here.

Should the justice committee opt to end the investigation, here are options that Jody Wilson-Raybould could use to “speak her truth” some more (though given how tactical her silence has been, I wouldn’t hold my breath). I also suspect that after their dire warnings yesterday, the opposition are going to start procedural shenanigans in order to try and force the government to carry on the hearings, but we’ll see how that unfolds.

In related news, it turns out that SNC-Lavalin also tried to recruit the Quebec justice minister to lobby for a DPA on their behalf. As well, a luxury condo in Toronto owned by the Gaddafi family, redecorated at SNC-Lavalin’s expense, has been sitting empty since 2009.

Continue reading →