Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: The ouster of the dissidents

Posted on by

After a day of bated breath, and rumours of regional caucus meetings, Justin Trudeau decided to pull the plug and expel Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from Liberal caucus, ostensibly saying that trust had been lost. While Wilson-Raybould would not say that she had confidence in the prime minister, Philpott went on camera that morning to say that she did, that her loss of confidence was solely in the handling of that one issue but otherwise she was still a good Liberal, but that wasn’t enough. For her part, Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to her caucus mates to plead her case, that she felt she was standing up for the values they shared and was trying to protect the prime minister from a “horrible mess,” but it didn’t sway any minds it seems. In the intervening hours, the texts and notes that Gerald Butts submitted to the Commons justice committee were released, and it mostly focused on the Cabinet shuffle, with the assurances that she was not being shuffled because of the SNC-Lavalin file, but because they needed someone with high profile for one of the highest-spending departments and she refused Indigenous Services. (Wilson-Raybould was also convinced that they were planning to replace her chief of staff with one of two PMO staffers she accused of trying to pressure her, which Butts said was not the plan, and which has not happened, for what it’s worth). I did find that Wilson-Raybould’s concern about the timing of the shuffle was suspicious, considering that the SNC-Lavalin file was on nobody’s radar until the Globe and Mail article, and her warnings of Indigenous anger if she was shuffled is also a bit odd considering that her record on addressing those issues while she was in the portfolio were…not exactly stellar.

When the “emergency” caucus meeting happened, Trudeau had just informed the pair that they were expelled, and he gave a lofty speech about trying to do politics differently, and sometimes that was hard and they didn’t always get it right, but he called recording the conversation with the Clerk of the Privy Council to be “unconscionable” (though it bears reminding that Philpott did not partake in this), and that they needed to be united because Liberals lose when they fight among themselves – and then he went into campaign mode. Because of course he did.

In the aftermath, Philpott put out a message that described her disappointment, and noted that she never got the chance to plead her case to caucus – though one imagines that for most of the caucus, the interview with Maclean’s, the hints of more to come, and what appeared to be a deliberate media strategy was her undoing, and her last-minute declaration of loyalty wasn’t enough to save her. She does, however, appear to want to stay in politics, so that remains interesting. Wilson-Raybould tweeted out a message that was unapologetic, rationalised her actions, and talked about transcending party, so perhaps that’s a hint of her future options. Andrew Scheer put out a message saying that there’s a home for anyone who speaks truth to power among the Conservatives, which is frankly hilarious given how much they crushed dissent when they were in power. (Also note that the NDP won’t take floor-crossers who don’t run in a by-election under their banner, and if they “make an exception” in this case, that will speak to their own principles. As well, if anyone thinks that they’re a party that brooks dissent, well, they have another thing coming). Liberals, meanwhile, made a valiant effort at trying to show how this was doing things differently – because they let it drag on instead of instantly putting their heads on (metaphorical) spikes. And maybe Trudeau was trying to give them a chance – he stated for weeks that they allow dissenting voices in the caucus – but the end result was the same.

In hot takes, Andrew Coyne says the expulsions serve no purpose other than vindictiveness, and that it’s a betrayal of the role of backbenchers to hold government to account. Susan Delacourt marvels at how long this has dragged out, and whether it’s a signal of dysfunction in the centre of Trudeau’s government that it’s carried out as it has. Robert Hiltz zeroes in on the lines in Trudeau’s speech where he conflates the national interest with that of the Liberal Party, which has the side-effect of keeping our oligarchical overlords in their comfortable places.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The caucus question

Posted on by

The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backlash from the tape

Posted on by

Following Friday’s release of the documents and audio tape provided by Jody Wilson-Raybould, and now comes the backlash. Which at this point I think is the backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash, or something. It’s like they’re ships firing broadsides at one another endlessly, and they’re all taking on water, but nobody will stop, and it’s just so exhausting. But here we go (again).

To begin with, Bill Morneau’s office is disputing the characterisation of conversations their staff had with Wilson-Raybould’s staff, and Gerald Butts tweeted that he’s submitting more of his documents to the committee, which will be released publicly when they too are translated. Michael Wernick’s lawyers are saying that Wernick didn’t brief the PM on the call with Wilson-Raybould because of holidays and the fact that Scott Brison’s announced resignation consumed matters subsequently, and that they didn’t talk about SNC-Lavalin until the Globe and Mail story came out (which one former staffer says is entirely plausible, though not everyone is buying it). Patty Hajdu went on television to say that Wilson-Raybould’s recording of that conversation was unethical, and that she doesn’t think she can trust her in caucus not to record their private conversations any further, though she’ll leave any decisions about ousting her to the caucus itself. And then there was a whole tangent arising from those documents about whether Brian Mulroney directed Kim Campbell as justice minister regarding the David Milgaard case, which led to competing versions of what happened in Mulroney’s memoir’s versus Campbell’s (and she tweeted out more clarifications over the weekend).

As for Wilson-Raybould, she says she’s “absolutely ready” for whatever happens next, and insists she was doing her job and “speaking her truth.” She also stated that Jane Philpott didn’t resign for her benefit, but because of Philpott’s own sense of integrity (which may be a way of trying to shield Philpott from the inevitable calls to have the pair of them booted from caucus, which will only intensify after the revelation of the recording). But a lot of things will now circle back to that recording, something that BC’s former Attorney General says speaks to a “deep fracture” at the heart of the Liberal Party. And he may be right, and it may also be a consequence of doing politics differently, given that one former national director of the party says has a lot to do with Trudeau’s refusal to put any heads on (metaphorical) spikes, which may now cost him in the long run.

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: Competing leaks

Posted on by

And now we’re into competing leaks. In the Globe and Mail, we got another leak from a “mysterious” source that posited that Jody Wilson-Raybould was trying to elevate Justice Glenn Joyal to the Supreme Court of Canada because she apparently felt the LGBT community wouldn’t be receptive to presumptive heir Justice Richard Wagner (now the Chief Justice) for what I assume was a trumped up reading of his not inviting LGBT groups to present at the Supreme Court in the Trinity Western case (which is pretty absurd), and because she wanted Joyal’s successor at the Court of Queen’s Bench to be a Métis judge. In other words, it was trying to burnish Wilson-Raybould’s progressive credentials in light of the prior leaks attempting to make her look more of a social conservative (as though one didn’t need to look too hard at her record to see signs of it). Because hey, why not keep up leaks that damage the perceptions around Supreme Court of Canada appointments? Way to go, team! (And before anyone gets too self-righteous, don’t forget that in 2014, Stephen Harper leaked the six names he was considering when he named Justice Marc Nadon to the bench, and putting words in the mouths of the MPs who served on the “selection” committee at the time, knowing full well that they couldn’t respond).

And then come the denials. Wilson-Raybould and PMO each denied that they were the source of any of the leaks, and Wilson-Raybould (who submitted her additional materials to the justice committee on Tuesday afternoon) said there should be an investigation into who was leaking these Supreme Court deliberations. Lisa Raitt tried to insist that it should be the Federal Judicial Affairs Commissioner who should investigate, and he quickly wrote back with a giant nope, citing that he has no mandate to do any such investigations. Which leaves us with who for an investigation? The RCMP? Yet another demand for a public inquiry? Our very own Goolding Inquiry? Won’t that be fun?

And with all of this going on, in swoops Neil Macdonald to remind us that everyone in the media gets “used” by leakers all the time, and hey, the preponderance of leaks is a sign that journalists are doing their jobs because they are competing to do the best job. There is certainly a mercenary aspect to it all, not to mention some status-seeking, but I’m not sure he’s entirely wrong.

Continue reading →

Roundup: All about Erskine-Smith

Posted on by

As was not a surprise, the Ethics committee met on the matter of hearing from Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and the Liberals on the committee voted it down. The lead for the Liberals was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is a more maverick Liberal in the ranks, and yet he said this motion was premature, said it was better to wait for Wilson-Raybould’s submissions to the justice committee, and stated bluntly that they weren’t the best committee to deal with legal issues. Oh, and he also stated that he got zero input from PMO, and he’s one of the more believable Liberals on that front, so it muffles some of the inevitable cries of “Cover up!” – especially as he says he’s of the opinion that the PM should give the blanket waiver of confidences so that the two resigned ministers can say their piece, because this whole affair is damaging the Liberal brand. So, frank speaking, but that won’t change the narrative any, unfortunately.

In the fallout from Monday’s leaks, the Canadian and Manitoba Bar Associations have put out statements condemning them, as did several MPs including Erskine-Smith. (It also emerged that Justice Joyal withdrew his name after Trudeau rejected it, for what it’s worth). Trudeau himself wouldn’t answer any questions on the leak, even to say that he would investigate where it came from (which should be a bare minimum considering the seriousness of it).

Meanwhile, the Star decided to host competing op-eds about whether dissident Liberals should be allowed to remain in caucus, with Sheila Copps saying no, and Erskine-Smith saying yes. Copps did raise a few interesting points about things that Wilson-Raybould has omitted from her repeated statements, but Erskine-Smith did have the better articulation of what it means to be an MP. Neil Macdonald also has little time or sympathy for the drip-drip-drip approach and wonders why journalists are going along with it, but does offer some historical perspective on MPs who work against their leaders and walk-outs. Susan Delacourt praises Erskine-Smith for his handling of the situation, and the frankness that PMO should be employing. Chris Selley rightly points out that the attempt to drag Justice Joyal into this Affair as a new low, while John Ibbitson says it’s a sign that those inhabiting the PMO have little regard for the rule of law. Paul Wells brings some more righteous fire to this whole debate, torching the cries to purge the party, the leaks of confidential information, and the underlying accusations of system-rigging.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1110628732882972672

Continue reading →

Roundup: More documents, more drips

Posted on by

Another day, another drip in the ongoing Double-Hyphen Affair fallout. This time, it was a letter from Jody Wilson-Raybould to the chair of the Commons justice committee saying that she plans to forward new evidence to him in the form of emails and text messages – evidence which will be translated, checked over by committee members, and then made public once that’s done. But she also stipulated it was the period within the waiver, so I’m sure this will lead to another round of accusations that she’s not being allowed to tell “her full truth,” and people will believe it. Justin Trudeau, for his part, insisted yet again that he gave her the ability to give a full airing of the issue, reiterated later in a town hall meeting in Thunder Bay, where he also talked about needing to do a better job in how he manages “those conversations” with people with strong ideas in the future. Trudeau also appointed a new caucus-PMO liaison, which may go a ways to soothing caucus tensions, given that there is a lot of grumbling that part of the problem has been that he hasn’t been listening to them and their concerns – but it’s just another staffer and not him personally, inside the caucus room, so we’ll see if it helps.

In related news, the past secretary general of the OECD wrote a piece in the Financial Post to explain the whole language around “national economic interest” that so many people (many reporters included) are getting hung up on. The intent of the phrase – and he was at the OECD at the time – was to prevent countries from using the excuse that bribery was necessary to protect their export markets – and it wasn’t about protecting jobs. And hey, he’s even got context about the state of international trade in 1995 when this was an issue. Imagine if we’d had some better reporting about this history weeks ago! (Also, here’s a thread from a former OECD public sector integrity official who also gives context to the rules and why a DPA was not only a valid tool, but so is seeking outside counsel on the suitability of offering one).

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert is coming to the conclusion that if Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott keep stoking the controversy without adding new facts that their target is the prime minister. Philippe Lagassé gives a more complete recounting of the issue of parliamentary privilege and what Wilson-Raybould and Philpott can avail themselves of in this situation, and the broader moral obligation of the fact that the privilege exists to hold government to account without fear of consequence, and if they feel that there were constitutional violations in the Affair, they have the choice to avail themselves of the opportunity to speak.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109129350866075648

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109130053739147264

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109131631804084224

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1109134666890534912

Continue reading →

Roundup: Philpott has more to tell, but won’t

Posted on by

The day, which was already off to a cranky start for most MPs who were voting all night, got an early, crankier start – for the Liberals, in any case – as a bombshell interview with Jane Philpott was released, in which she stated that there was more to the Double-Hyphen Affair story that needed to be told. But…she’s not going to do it. Oh, and by the way, she has no leadership ambitions, so this isn’t about that. And that was pretty much throwing a cat among the pigeons in the Commons, as suddenly the Conservatives started waving this interview about as further ammunition in their so-called protest vote-a-thon to “let her speak” (never mind that the votes have absolutely nothing to do with this Affair in any way, shape or form). And as the day wore on, other nonsense crept in, such as the Liberals fumbling a “shift change” during the votes and almost losing one of them. And incidentally, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould have been excused from the vote-a-thon, so as to not exacerbate any tensions with their sleep-deprived colleagues.

And it becomes increasingly more obvious that the way both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are handling this is becoming a problem for all involved. Other MPs like John McKay and Judy Sgro vented by saying that if they’ve got something so important to say, that they should just raise it as a point of personal privilege in the Commons and get it over with. The former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, also said that they have absolute immunity in the Commons if they want to speak, and there would be no real consequences as they are no longer in Cabinet – except possibly being booted from caucus, and Trudeau reiterated that he was fine to let them stay in caucus because they’re okay with disagreement in the Liberal caucus. (He also insisted that Wilson-Raybould was not shuffled over the SNC-Lavalin DPA, yet again).

In hot takes, Matt Gurney says that Philpott is waving a red flag and we should hear what she has to say. Justice committee chair Anthony Housefather gives his reflections of what the committee heard, but also cautions that they are not a legal process and can’t be expected to behave like one. Susan Delacourt, however, is running out of patience with the drama, and notes that speaking truth to power isn’t acting like you’ve got a big secret you can be coy about. If it’s that important, then they should take any advantage they have and say what it is.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1108917885676601344

Continue reading →

Roundup: Traps and tantrums

Posted on by

Budget Day was a giant production, for a variety of reasons yesterday, starting with the long-awaited showdown at the Commons justice committee. Given that the Liberal members had released that letter the night before, we knew that they were going to wrap it all up – without a report, I might add – and on their way in this morning, they handed to the media a copy of the motion they were planning to move to start a new study on hate crimes (because this increasingly seems like what the Liberals want to fight the next election on). Well, this caused the opposition to storm out because that motion was supposed to be in camera (and we all know how much they’ve respected the notion that committee business be handled in camera of late), and then they came back and had their meeting, and the committee (read: Liberal majority) decided to end the study of the Double-Hyphen Affair.

This set the Conservatives off, and they warned that they would ensure that the budget was going to be delayed, mark their words, and they set up all manner of procedural trickery in which to do so. Except that the Liberals outplayed them, tabled the document just before 4 PM, right before the vote was being called that was intending to delay the budget speech, and then Bill Morneau marched out to the Foyer to start talking to all of the assembled media outlets and get his message out, while the opposition stayed in the Chamber to carry on their procedural shenanigans, to the point where they essentially held themselves hostage. When Morneau was able to give his speech, well over an hour later, the Conservatives did ensure that he was drowned out with noise so that he couldn’t be heard and that no clips were able to be captured for news media, but given how Morneau was doing the media rounds and Scheer wasn’t – indeed, after the fact, when he and his caucus marched out to the Foyer, they denounced the budget as a distraction from the Double-Hyphen Affair, and had nary a substantive comment on it. (Jagmeet Singh, incidentally, had the usual NDP talking points about how it wasn’t enough, but couldn’t really respond when pressed about specifics or implementation of their vision). So, take it for what you will, I’m not sure how well the Conservatives came across in the end yesterday, especially as Scheer walked right into Trudeau’s very obvious trap that about the Conservatives not wanting to talk about the economy.

Speaking of the budget, it was far more stimulus-heavy than I would have expected, but then again, targeting both seniors and millennials, and going some distance in doing more for skills training, though their housing affordability measures were weak sauce and will likely do nothing about the supply side of the issue (especially as they keep the focus on buying a home rather than simply having affordable housing writ large).

With that in mind:

  • The deficit will grow this year before shrinking again, but there is no path back to balance in the immediate future. (Debt-to-GDP continues to decline).
  • Here are the highlights for five key demographics.
  • Here are 23 key measures in the budget.
  • There was the start of Pharmacare, beginning with the Canadian Drug Agency to facilitate bulk buying – next steps coming with the Hoskins report.
  • Municipalities got a chunk of new funding (with shots taken at premiers who are holding up infrastructure agreements).
  • There are more funds earmarked for Indigenous services, not only with water but also child and family services.
  • The budget also outlines a plan to start targeting stock options for taxation as another way of soaking the wealthy.
  • There is a plan to start taxing cannabis products by the potency of their THC.
  • The budget has money to help veterans transition to civilian life, but doesn’t seem to have anything to deal with the disability backlog.
  • There was a big commitment on rural broadband, but implementation details remain fuzzy.
  • Here are ten things that may slip under the radar.
  • Here’s a fact-check of Morneau’s speech (but the sources could have been better selected).

In budget hot takes, Chris Selley calls it the budget of a government that is no longer selling utopia – just buying votes, whereas Alan Freeman simply calls it a “do no harm” budget. John Geddes details the spending surprises in the document, while Andrew Coyne grouses about the how there seems to be more concern over the quantity of spending over the quality of it, given there is nothing in the budget about things like productivity. Heather Scoffield takes note of the Liberals’ attempt to frame the budget as a response to anxieties – economic or otherwise – that Canadians are feeling. Kevin Carmichael cautions that there budget leaves very little wiggle room for economic downturns, given how sluggish growth already is. Paul Wells notes the sprinkling of spending throughout the document, and the big bomb for political journalists in there. There are also worthwhile threads from economist Kevin Milligan here and here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau begins his Big Reset

Posted on by

Yesterday very much looked like the start of Justin Trudeau’s attempted Big Reset after the weeks of damage that the Double-Hyphen Affair has done to his reputation, starting with the appointment of Joyce Murray to Cabinet as the new Treasury Board president. Murray has been the parliamentary secretary for Treasury Board during the entire life of this government, has been pushing for a “greening of government” initiative within the department, and has a history of being someone who has gone offside with the rest of caucus on several occasions, thus her appointment could be seen as sending signals that Trudeau is open to disagreement. Following this was the announced retirement of Michael Wernick as Clerk of the Privy Council, citing that he couldn’t carry on in the role if he was no longer trusted by opposition parties on issues like his role around sounding the alarm regarding election interference. This doesn’t mean culpability for the Double-Hyphen Affair, but it is nevertheless part of the accountability process (and accountability, like democracy, is a process). Wernick will be replaced by Ian Shugart, who is currently the deputy minister of foreign affairs. (I’m also not convinced that this is the last of the staffing changes, and we may yet see more cleaning house in the PMO as a demonstration of doing something).

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1107703758396350464

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1107706802458624000

Minutes later, during Question Period, Trudeau announced that former justice minister Anne McLellan was named as a special advisor to the prime minister to examine aspects of what happened in the Affair, particularly as it relates to the dual roles of Justice Minister and Attorney General, and whether it’s time to separate the two. (She also backed out of a fundraiser for the Liberal Judy Lamarsh fund – which aims to help more women run for office – after taking on the new role). And then, after QP, Trudeau gave a rousing speech about condemning hatred and calling out white supremacy, and made some pointed digs at Andrew Scheer and Maxime Bernier for their winking and nudging of white nationalists without condemning their messages. All of this is working to change the narrative – things are being put into place to fix what happened, the speech sets Trudeau on a different rhetorical tone than Scheer – and sets out a huge contrast between the two, especially after Scheer’s insipid speech that followed – so we’ll see if the Liberals can capitalise on this, but the fact that Trudeau explicitly said in the speech that this was exactly the time for politics could be the signal that he wants to fight an election on this issue.

But that may be harder to do, given that the Liberal members of the justice committee put out a letter saying that they weren’t inclined to call Jody Wilson-Raybould back to testify further, stating that they’d heard enough and wanted to get on with the report, and let the other processes carry on. I will say that at least they put out a letter with reasoning in it – they simply could have gone in camera today and emerged saying they were going to focus on writing the report, and saying nothing more. You know, like the Conservatives frequently did when they were in power. It doesn’t look good for the Liberals, and feeds the Conservative narrative that they’re hiding something, but they may simply be trying to move on as quickly as possible. (Of course, there is no smoking gun here, and it’s a matter of determining credibility and finding the line of where pressure is deemed “inappropriate,” so that makes for a harder sell to keep this going as long as possible).

The Senate, meanwhile, is debating the motion to start their own study on the issue, but we’ll see how that goes. I’m not sure that the Conservatives in the Senate will get the Independents onside, as their performance during the inaugural televised Senate Question Period had the ISG leader tweeting right away that it was all about partisan posturing, but stranger things have happened.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1107811059711119361

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1107813615136997376

Continue reading →