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

Good reads:

  • China has suspended the import abilities of a second Canadian canola company, while the government is considering a higher-level delegation response.
  • Gun control advocates in Canada are urging swift action like New Zealand’s, after that country rapidly changed laws post-Christchurch massacre.
  • The Conservatives are outraged that the RCMP and CBSA sent people to a major gun show in Las Vegas – because it’s not like they need to keep up on what’s new.
  • Following two days of hearings, the Supreme Court of Canada is considering whether the military justice system should be handling serious cases at all.
  • An Ontario judge is fining the federal government $20 million for placing mentally ill inmates in solitary confinement (with the money to go toward new programming).
  • The procedure and House affairs committee is planning to hold meetings to preserve a hundred year-old elm tree near Centre Block.
  • Senators are calling for a new harassment policy that considers that party whips are a diminished influence, and to possibly make it easier to remove senators.
  • PEI will be going to the polls to avoid conflicting with the federal election. It will also include a binding referendum on electoral reform.
  • It looks like the Quebec government plans to pre-emptively use the Notwithstanding Clause to protect their upcoming secularism legislation.
  • In the Alberta election, Jason Kenney is back to defending allowing parental notification if students join a GSA at school. (Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!)
  • Martin Patriquin calls out Andrew Scheer’s convenient blindness to some of his populist supporters, who gain from the credibility he gives them.
  • Heather Scoffield calls the SNC-Lavalin situation an object lesson in the dangers of economic nationalism.
  • My column looks at the budget as a failed distraction by the Liberals, but also a failure of Andrew Scheer to prove his economic chops.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

One thought on “Roundup: All about Erskine-Smith”

  1. The unhinged rant by Neil Macdonald that’s referenced above is entitled, “At this point, the Philpott-Wilson-Raybould end game is obvious — destroy Trudeau.” That tells you everything you need to know about the subtlety and nuanced thought processes Macdonald brings to bear in exploring the issue. Well, that and the fact he holds up Sheila Copps as the avatar of serious advice on the SNC-Lavalin matter.

    What the article does usefully demonstrate is that, all too often, punditry’s ‘old Ottawa hands’ such as Macdonald don’t really understand politics. They may understand the traditional power dynamics on the Hill, but they don’t understand politics at its core because very few have actually been engaged in it at ground or gut level.

    The result is that the ‘Macdonalds’ amongst the pundit class are confounded when things don’t play out as they always have. Having made a career out of explaining how things ‘should’ work — which is equated with how things have always worked for long-standing political elites in Ottawa — these pundits can’t conceive (or can’t admit) that the ground has shifted in ways they can’t understand. Faced with the inconvenient fact that they don’t know what’s going on, they lash out and demand that politicians must fit their paradigm.

    In this case, rather than taking the opportunity to reflect intelligently on the change and what it means, Macdonald falls back on reminiscing about how all this would have played out in Turner’s day, or Mulroney’s day, or Chretien’s day. Those might be interesting discussions over a drink, but they are only distractions when applied to today’s realities.

Comments are closed.