Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: Exit Butts, leaving uncertainty in his wake

Posted on by

So, mid-Family Day when most people in most provinces of this country were enjoying a day off (federal workers excluded), the latest bombshell in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama dropped – that the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, resigned his position. In his resignation letter, he vigorously denied any wrongdoing but was removing himself from the office to defend himself and to keep from being a distraction. Of course, the Conservatives cheered, but insisted that this was the sign of a PMO in crisis, and they would continue to get to the bottom of things at the Justice Committee (despite the fact that they’re limited in what they’re actually able to look into, and they are apparently going to go beyond the bounds of what procedure allows). The NDP, meanwhile, will be using their Supply Day to move a motion to demand an independent inquiry into the whole matter – because what government would welcome a Gomery-style inquiry that has the potential to spin out of control and blow up in their faces?

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1097580024742531073

It’s not hard to note that this leaves a gap in Trudeau’s office – Butts was his long-time friend and one of the architects of his success. But he was also seen by opponents as this puppet-master figure (RIP all of those “PM Butts” Twitter accounts), and among other observers of politics that he and Katie Telford may have also been a bit of a bottleneck for decisions. We’ll see who Trudeau replaces him with, and if the management style in the PMO changes as a result. We’ll also see if the mood in the caucus changes as well, and it’s been theorized that it’s another reason for the departure – that MPs have been getting restless with the amount of control that Butts has (cue the stories about MPs disgruntled about the way that caucus meetings are being handled, and that they’re afraid to air their views there for fear of being insulted). There are several months before the election, so perhaps this will give them time to right the ship in time. Maybe.

In terms of reaction columns, Susan Delacourt reflects on the Trudeau-Butts power dynamic within the party, and the uncertainty that is left in the wake of the departure. Chantal Hébert notes that Butts’ resignation may deflect the internal friendly-fire, but could leave Trudeau vulnerable on the eve of the election campaign (which is still eight months away!). Likewise, John Ivison hears that there may have been a “riot” at Liberal caucus on Wednesday had Butts not resigned, and this move makes him something of a scapegoat. Paul Wells regales us with the role Butts played as the “senior Liberal insider” in media stories, and how this central role in the PMO was probably not suited to federal politics, which will mean a way of reforming how Trudeau’s government operates.

Amidst this, there are two threads from Philippe Lagassé that you need to read – the first questions the critique that there are too many political staffers running things and that Parliament would work just great if they were gone. (I too find this a problematic assertion given that the bigger problem is the way in which our bastardized leadership contests have inflated the leader and his or her office in the first place). The second is a corrective to the specious lines about the “unelected” nature of the PMO and the power it wields, as people forget that we don’t elect prime ministers or Cabinet – they are appointed positions. Only the House of Commons is elected.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The drip, drip, drip of details

Posted on by

At a press event yesterday morning, Justin Trudeau tried to offer some reassurances around Jody Wilson-Raybould, and only seemed to complicate matters – which didn’t help that everyone seemed to read meaning into what he said that I don’t think was at all was intended. To recap, Trudeau said that back in September, at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the SNC-Lavalin, and the jobs and economic repercussions, Wilson-Raybould asked him if he intended to direct her on how to deal with the issue, and he said no, it was her call; in October, the Public Prosecution Service rejected the notion of giving SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. He also said that if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned that she would still be in justice, but things get moved around when you start shuffling Cabinet pieces around (which is fair – there are a lot of considerations). This of course turned into a childish game over Twitter about “blame Scott Brison,” which is not only ridiculous, but completely misrepresents what he said. (Note that regarding her poor performance managing her department, Brison’s departure may have been the opportunity to deal with it, but that it was considered manageable until the next election, but I can’t say that I’m privy to those determinations). Oh, and Trudeau also said it was unacceptable for people to be taking shots at Wilson-Raybould, but this was also about eight days after the anonymous grousing started appearing in media reports.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1096465016100777986

Amidst this, people have started taking a look back at the deferred prosecution portion of the budget implementation bill when it was being debated and studied back in the spring (*coughs*my story once again*coughs*), perhaps to prove that this was something the government snuck through to the benefit of all of that SNC-Lavalin lobbying. While Aaron Wherry finds a voluminous paper trail here, and the chair of the Commons finance committee, Wayne Easter, told Power & Politics that he personally questioned why that section wasn’t being sent to the justice committee, where things get really interesting is before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, where those provisions were sent for study. It becomes exceedingly interesting that Wilson-Raybould refused to make herself available to testify on the issue – which is a very bad thing for a minister – and while Senator Serge Joyal, who heads the committee, says that in hindsight she may not have been comfortable with the subject matter if there was pressure (if that is indeed what was happening), we also need to remember that she refused to appear on other bills, which was holding them up because the committee (quite rightly) said no minister, no bill. Since she was shuffled, Lametti has agreed to appear before the committee on those bills. This kind of truculent behaviour should be taken into consideration when people think that she was doing a “great” job (she wasn’t), but even when she did appear to answer questions, the only thing she’d ever say was how proud she was of the job she was doing (another strike on her record).

Former BC premier Christy Clark affirmed Trudeau’s line that if Wilson-Raybould had a problem and was feeling unduly pressured that she had a duty to say something and resign, which she didn’t. And as a related note, here’s a closer look at the principles of Cabinet secrecy that Trudeau has noted are a consideration in what’s going on here, and how Trudeau has the prerogative to invoke it or not.

In other related news, a former SNC-Lavalin executive had his obstruction of justice charge stayed because it “timed out” under the Jordan principles outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As for SNC-Lavalin’s pursuit of a deferred prosecution agreement, here is an explainer of what kind of process a company would need to go through for a prosecutor to consider granting them one, and why it’s not simply paying a fine.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne insists that because SNC-Lavalin couldn’t meet the tests necessary to even qualify for a DPA that there shouldn’t have been any reason for Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould to talk about one, while Paul Wells looks at the polling numbers on the issue, and finds Trudeau’s credibility lagging Wilson-Raybould’s on the issue.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Committee performance

Posted on by

Well, yesterday’s justice committee meeting was about as performatively partisan as could possibly be expected. The Liberals had their own counter-motion to propose, delivered by Randy Boissenault, who insisted that this was done independent of the government, but then behaved as though it was, especially when he began throwing around terms like “witch hunt.” (What did we say about this gang not managing to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag?) While the Conservatives wanted nine witnesses, the Liberals proposed three – though, the key crossover witness was the Clerk of the Privy Council – though the Liberals were open to others, though they wanted to have an in cameraplanning meeting for witnesses and timetable as is standard in any committee. The Conservatives railed that they didn’t want anything in camera, which is utterly galling if anyone recalled how they ran committees when they were in government and everything went in camera, all the time. Nathan Cullen proposed a compromise with three more witnesses, but the Liberals voted it down, and in the end, the Liberal motion won the day.

At this, everyone is filled with sanctimonious outrage. Why isn’t Jody Wilson-Raybould testifying? Well, because she says she can’t say anything, so calling her to say that she can’t say anything is a waste of everyone’s time, and oh, right – she can’t be compelled to testify because she’s a sitting MP. As for those key PMO staffers like Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, well, they still might, but I am also a bit unsure how their appearance would fit into the rubric of ministerial responsibility (though good luck getting the PM to testify). The Conservatives, however, are gleefully shitposting about the “Liberal coverup” because this is exactly what they wanted, gathering as many clips of Pierre Poilievre doing his usual schtick that will be all over their social media channels. Because that’s the game these days.

If you need to catch up with everything that’s happened to date, Kady O’Malley has a timeline here for you. Chrystia Freeland went on the radio to talk about handling pressure on files and bringing matters up with the PM, which is an interesting but subtle rebuke of what is being alleged about what Wilson-Raybould did or didn’t do. Here’s a rundown of what the Quebec media has been saying on the issue, and it’s a very different conversation than English Canada is having, focused on protecting SNC-Lavalin. Speaking of SNC-Lavalin, one of its former executives wants the bribery and fraud charges thrown out over court delays. (Yeah, don’t think that’ll happen). Incidentally, SNC-Lavalin never came up during debate or testimony on implementing the deferred prosecution agreements, for what that’s worth.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert says that Trudeau risks isolating himself if he continues to try to undermine Wilson-Raybould in public, while Stephen Maher enumerates the miscalculations in demoting Wilson-Raynould in the first place, and says that someone in Trudeau’s inner circle should pay the price for it. Chris Selley has a very salient look at how Trudeau’s focus on identity politics symbolism has backfired on him as all of Wilson-Raybould’s critics for her failure as justice minister are now singing her praises because she’s an Indigenous woman, not because she was good at her job.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Independence and intense discussions

Posted on by

As we’re still discussing the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould issue, we’ll start off with an interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions on her independence from political pressure, and why she opted not to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin, as well as why their quest for judicial review is foolhardy. Elsewhere, “senior officials” say that intense discussions with Wilson-Raybould on the SNC-Lavalin issue did take place, but that there’s nothing wrong with that. David Lametti took to television to say that he doesn’t see any evidence to warrant the justice committee’s investigation, but it’s up to them to decide. It also sounds like the Liberals on the justice committee are going to turn down the motion to launch an investigation, so expect more howling about this over the week to come.

While we wait for the committee, Andrew Scheer has written to the PM to demand that he waive solicitor-client privilege with Wilson-Raybould, under the ham-handed threat that failure to do so means that he has something to hide. Scheer, it has also been noted, also met with SNC-Lavalin lobbyists on their criminal charge issues and deferred prosecution agreements, but Scheer won’t say what his positions on them are.

Amidst this, there are a few more anonymous Liberal voices grousing about Wilson-Raybould in the media now, saying that she was more about herself than the team, and that she only ever showed up to Indigenous caucus once.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094736733609095168

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094738844275097600

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1094750943793442816

Meanwhile, University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese walks through the public law principles at stake, and the fact that we don’t really know just what is being implied because the terms used interchangeably in the original Globe story all mean different things, which makes the nuance of this situation inherently tricky. Keeping Forcese’s analysis in mind, Susan Delacourt hears from her “senior officials” that the PM still has confidence in Wilson-Raybould and that he plans to meet with her before the next Cabinet meeting, and they continue to dispute the account in the Globe and Mail, citing that if they had attempted undue influence that she would have resigned out of principle, and she did not.

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: Scheer’s own personal Brexit idea

Posted on by

You may have heard the Conservatives making a big push over the past couple of weeks about promising that they would bow to Quebec’s wishes and let them have a single tax return (as in, surrender the federal authority to collect income tax in the province, as opposed to Quebec returning to the system that every other province uses by which the federal government collects all taxes and turns over their provincial share). While the Conservatives portray it as a simple administrative change, and that there wouldn’t even need to be any job losses – just put those 5000 CRA employees in Quebec to work on tax evasion! – it’s really a lot more complicated than that. While Alan Freeman wrote about the history and why it’s naked pandering to Quebec, tax economist Kevin Milligan walks through the complexity, and quite tellingly, notes that this is a Brexit-like proposal from Scheer – bold idea, no proposal of how to implement it. And yes, that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093194511260442624

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093195511857704960

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093196146011385856

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093197692530974722

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093198624656306176

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093199538192433153

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093200551653736448

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093205332216541184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093230785094606848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093259900912775168

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 →

Roundup: To travel or not to travel?

Posted on by

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

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

Continue reading →

Roundup: Election interference protocols

Posted on by

The federal government unveiled their plans for dealing with election interference in future elections, and tried to create a system that keeps it within the realm of the civil servants and away from Cabinet (who would be in caretaker mode during the writ-period) and politicians in general. The protocol (infographic here) would see that the heads of national security agencies brief the Clerk of the Privy Council, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, and the deputy ministers of Justice, Public Safety, and Global Affairs, who would then determine if there is a substantial threat to a free and fair election, at which point they inform the PM, party leaders, and Elections Canada before they hold a press conference to inform people of the incident.

In response, the Conservatives say it doesn’t go far enough, because they are on tear about foreign funding and third-party campaign financing, while the NDP say they want the Chief Electoral Officer involved (though I’m not quite sure what he would do in that kind of situation, because he deals with administering the election and not things like strategic “leaks” to media or propaganda). They also want social media companies to do more, and they are apparently reaching out to the government over this, but, well, their records have a lot to be desired in these kinds of situations.

Meanwhile, here’s Stephanie Carvin with what she was looking for beforehand:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090623966895587330

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090623974957039621

And what we saw in the announcement:

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090643636231028736

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1090649350609473538

Continue reading →