Tag Archives: Brad Trost

Roundup: Subjecting a minister to a double standard

Posted on by

I found myself bemused at the CBC story yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s office allegedly being some kind of “toxic work environment,” according to a number of former staffers. Reading the piece, however, says little about Bennett herself – other than hammering on the point that she didn’t get along with Jody Wilson-Raybould, as though that were somehow relevant to her office – but rather that the toxicity was related to other staffers in the office who were clannish and played favourites with other staffers. The story made great pains to say that Indigenous staff felt their voices weren’t being heard on policy files, but again, this is about the behaviors of other staffers and not the minister herself.

This all having been said, I am forced to wonder whether anyone could reasonably expect a minister’s office to be some kind of normal office environment, because I can’t really see it. These places are pressure cookers of constant deadlines and stress, and there’s a reason why they tend to be populated by fairly young staffers, many of them recent graduates, which is because they are willing to put up with the long hours, constant travel, and the obliteration of their personal lives where older staffers with families and obligations largely wouldn’t. And while we can say we’d prefer that these offices are healthy work environments and safe spaces, but this is politics at the highest levels in this country. It’s not going to be pretty, as much as we may like it to be.

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417870826934730753

https://twitter.com/jec79/status/1417948347009101827

I also think it bears noting that Bennett has been the subject of a lot of criticism that is never given to male ministers, and in particular with the dust-up over her snarky text message with Wilson-Raybould a few weeks ago, seems subject to a double standard that women in ministerial roles are not allowed to have personality conflicts where this, again, is not even blinked at among men. Under this context, the CBC piece looks to be both catering to these double-standards, and looking like they have an axe to grind with Bennett, for whatever the reason.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Welcoming (another) investigation

Posted on by

And thus, the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama rolls along (and don’t you dare -gate this, or I will hunt you down and hurt you). The day began on a few different developments – first, that the Ethics Commissioner said he would begin “an examination” into the matter (which everyone stated was an investigation, though for a matter that has involved the parsing of words, I’m not sure that one is equal to the other), and that the Prime Minister said that welcomed the investigation from the Commissioner (possibly because it will take seven to nine months), that he’d spoken with Jody Wilson-Raybould twice over the past couple of day and stated that when they met back in the fall, and that he told her that any decisions around the Public Prosecution Service were hers alone (in the context of the public lobbying that was being done on all sides). And more to the point, he noted that the fact that she’s still in Cabinet should be proof that what’s alleged didn’t happen, as she would have resigned out of principle if she had been pressured, per the Shawcross Doctrine, and if he didn’t have confidence in her, then he wouldn’t have kept her in Cabinet. Oh, and he would ask the current Attorney General to look into the matter of whether he could waive solicitor-client privilege, because it’s not a simple matter (which got legal Twitter buzzing again).

Of course, none of this is proof enough for the opposition parties, who are demanding that the Justice Committee study go ahead, and the meeting is called for Wednesday, though the Chair has said that he’s hesitant because of the way in which the meeting was called, and the fact that he’s afraid of it simply becoming a partisan circus rather than a useful non-partisan exercise in getting to the truth of the matter. Other Liberals, like New Brunswick MP Wayne Long, is hoping the committee does take up the matter because he’s “troubled” by the allegations, while Celina Caesar-Chavannes is coming to Wilson-Raybould’s defence in light of accusations that there is a smear campaign in the works. And as added context to what is at stake, the federal government signed $68 million in new contracts with SNC-Lavalin last year, and they have a stake in some major projects.

Meanwhile, University of Toronto professor Kenneth Jull walks through the benefits and problems with deferred prosecution agreements like SNC-Lavalin has been pushing for. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column goes through procedurally what is likely to happen during Wednesday’s justice committee meeting. Lawyer Michael Spratt sardonically wonders if Wilson-Raybould couldn’t achieve any of the promises in her mandate letter because she was being held back by PMO. Andrew Coyne remains adamant that there has not been a proper denial in any of this mess, as the PM continues to step on his own messaging, like he so often does.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poking at polarization

Posted on by

The new issue of Maclean’s is focused on political polarisation in Canada, with whole suite of stories and op-eds about the issue, starting with what is perceived to be the problems with the “left” (although this piece is more about the Liberals than the “left”) and the “right” in Canada, though I’m not sure how much relevance those particular classifications have any longer, as they’ve been so bastardised with a focus on populism that is either left or right flavoured (and lo, Anne Kingston makes that point here). And with polling showing that one in four hate their political opponents, and Trudeau especially, they made a point of trying to explore the divide.

Delving in further on the right, Andrew MacDougall looks at the Conservatives’ use of snark and shitposts to try and throw red meat to a base that stayed home in the last election, while Jen Gerson tries to equate the attempts made by Conservatives to tap into the current populist uptick as trying to tap a relief well to prevent a worse explosion – but they are playing a risky game that could infect their politics for a generation. On the other side, Andray Domise points to the “woke Olympics” and shifting social rules that alienate newcomers on the left, while Terry Glavin looks to the yellow vest protests in France (as opposed to Canada) as a sign that populism on the left is becoming indistinguishable from populism on the right.

But amidst this talk of polarisation, Paul Wells offers the piece that is probably most necessary – a reality-check as to the history of polarisation in this county, and how it’s always been there, in very blatant ways, and how we seem to be a country that is constantly battling amnesia as we clutch our pearls about losing our innocence. Not to say that some things haven’t changed, but it’s not like we’re wilting flowers being exposed to some new terrible new vitriol. (It’s like in Question Period, it’s the most behaved MPs have been in decades, possibly ever, and we’re still wringing our hands over it). That said, I think this was a good and timely package from Maclean’s, seeing as we’re entering into an election year and the nonsense on all sides is going to ratchet up to eleven really fast. Being clear-headed about where our politics are going is always a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hung legislatures vs basic civics

Posted on by

New Brunswick had an election on Monday night, and it resulted in a 22-21-3-3 hung legislature, and wouldn’t you just know it, there’s been some really awful reporting about it, because apparently people who report on politics in this country can’t be arsed to learn the basics of how Responsible Government works. Hence, we got reporters saying that people “don’t know who the premier is” – which is wrong, because it remains Brian Gallant as he hasn’t resigned – or that he would “get first crack to try and form a government” – he already has a government, but rather he will try to test the confidence of the Chamber – or another heinous offender was framing his meeting with the lieutenant governor as getting “permission” to test confidence, which is again wrong because the LG doesn’t grant permission. I’m also not crazy about framing the election as “inefficient votes” for the provincial Liberals because that implies that the popular vote is a real thing, when it’s a logical fallacy – it was not one election, but rather 49 separate elections that happened at the same time. This is basic civics, and yet our media is failing Canadians, so well done everyone.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1044537682427170817

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1044539629687328768

What makes this particular election result interesting is the fact that there are two “third-parties,” each with three seats – the Green Party, and an anti-bilingualism populist party – that will have to prop up either the incumbent Liberals or the PCs, who won one more seat (so far as we know – there are several recounts now underway). That means that the election of a Speaker will be crucial, and word has it that the government is making offers to PC winners to try and get one of them to take up the post. Of course, one particular quirk of New Brunswick is that, well, their Speakers tend to be fairly partisan. So that could make things doubly interesting for the way things will play out in the weeks and months to come.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1044762695554269184

Meanwhile, Paul Wells accurately describes the dynamics of the post-election period and how the LG will discharge her role, which is not to give permission. Susan Delacourt tries to tease out the effect of populism on this election, but along the way grossly mischaracterises the LG as having “waded into” the results and giving Gallant “the right” to stay on as premier, when that’s not how it works, and it’s disappointing that these myths keep getting traction.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An “uncontroversial” bill delayed

Posted on by

It’s starting to become something of a rote exercise – that whenever the Senate does its job and considers large and contentious legislation, it’s accused of moving slowly. Most of the time, they’re actually moving fairly swiftly in the context of how bills get passed, but that’s not the narrative. And every single time, the pundit class will moan about how they’re frustrating the “will of Parliament” (because that’s how they refer to the House of Commons, when it is in fact but a third of what constitutes Parliament – the Senate and the Crown being the other two aspects), and on and on we go. This week’s performative disbelief that the Senate is daring to do the job required of it is around the marijuana bill – but not just that, but the accompanying bill regarding mandatory roadside testing. While the marijuana bill is actually proceeding fairly quickly given the agreed-upon timelines that Senators set for themselves on the bill (though they were slow off the mark because Senator Harder thought it wise to have the Senate rise essentially a week early at Christmas and then not consider the bill again until well after they’d returned so that he could put on the dog and pony show of having three ministers appear in Committee of the Whole before second reading debate even began), the mandatory testing  bill is languishing at committee. Why? While John Ivison may consider the bill “relatively uncontroversial,” it is actually the opposite, and there is a debate raging about the bill’s constitutionality, and many senators – including one who helped to author the Charter of Rights and Freedoms back in 1982 – are unimpressed with the government’s assurances. After all, they went through a decade of the Harper government insisting that their justice bills were Charter-compliant, only for them to be struck down by the courts, one after another.

Of course, this too has led to debates in the Senate about their role and whether they should be challenging the constitutionality of bills. Some of the Independent senators, which Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder has added his voice to, believing that Senators shouldn’t substitute their judgment for that of the courts, citing that because these issues aren’t black and white that the courts should handle them. (In the same breath as Harder says this, he also says that they shouldn’t be rubber stamps, apparently unable to pick a lane). So to say that this is “uncontroversial” means that someone isn’t paying attention to the debate – only what’s being told to him by the government’s mouthpiece (in this case, Bill Blair).

If the Senate passes C-45 before C-46, the sky won’t fall. They can apply existing impaired driving laws, because, newsflash, people already drive high while pot is illegal. Once again, the government isn’t inventing cannabis – they’re legalizing and regulating it. Will it be more difficult without detection devices? Maybe. But it’s not like there’s a legal vacuum. Let’s calm down a little.

Continue reading →

Roundup: That $1 trillion figure

Posted on by

The big scary headline yesterday was that Canada’s market debt had reached $1 trillion. OH NOES! screamed the commentators, and the Conservatives most especially (albeit not in Question Period, but at committee). Part of the problem with this figure, however, is how it’s being reported, and most especially, being compared to things like a household mortgage, which it is absolutely nothing like. For starters, the “market debt” figure being reported there adds a great many things into it – things like the debts of Crown Corporations like CMHC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, or Export Development Canada. These may have federal backstops, but with BDC and EDC, for example, these are important vehicles for entrepreneurs and exporters to expand their businesses, which is generally good for the economy. And you can bet that the “fiscal hawks” out there are disingenuously bundling this into the federal government’s net debt, or sub-national government debt, and giving themselves the vapours to prove a point, which isn’t necessarily helpful.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/978405748253212672

And as much as the Conservatives are snarking at Bill Morneau over this figure, ignoring how much they added to the national debt in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 (much of the spending coming too late as the recovery had already started when they spent the money, which was also not necessarily spent efficiently) or the fact that when the Liberals took office in 2015, there was a $70 billion hole in GDP because of the mini-recession that happened in part due to the drop in oil prices. That $70 billion is largely where their increased deficit figures come from, not that they communicate this very effectively. But despite Kevin Page’s warning that interest on debt is the fastest growing line item in the federal budget, debt-to-GDP is going down, and the deficit is shrinking faster than initially reported because the economy has been growing faster than expected. Current PBO figures show that there is no debt bomb – federal figures are in a downward trajectory sustainably. I’m not sure that tearing our hair out over this $1 trillion figure is helpful, particularly because it bundles in a lot of things, and the reporting on that isn’t making it clear. It’s just a big number that people are supposed to get upset over, which helps nobody understand the true fiscal situation, of the levers that governments have to deal with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A shambolic process delivering Ford

Posted on by

It was a shambolic affair from start to finish, from the court challenge around the deadlines, the problems with the voting itself, and in the end, thousands of misallocated ballots and a result where Christine Elliott won more votes in more ridings, but Doug Ford managed to get more of the allocated points and won the leadership on a narrow victory. Elliott did not concede for the better part of a day later, and the feeling is that this all could very well be Kathleen Wynne’s “lifeline,” though one probably shouldn’t count Ford out the way that people counted Donald Trump out.

And lo, we will be inundated with Ford/Trump comparisons for the coming weeks, and analyses of whether these comparisons are fair or not.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/972883042921582592

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/972883824400064517

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/972884738586415104

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/972894725798707200

Chris Selley notes the big risk that the Ontario PC party takes with Ford, while Paul Wells notes how Ontario conservatism is a bigger tent and stranger coalition than most people may take for granted.

I’m hoping that out of this, we finally start having a real conversation about how leadership contests are run, because it’s ridiculous. Sure, the partisans will close ranks around this, and we’ll get the voices that insist that this is the best way to grow the party, but it just perpetuates the same cycle. You’re not actually growing the party – you’re creating a number used for shock and awe purposes, and giving an even bigger “democratic mandate” to a leader who will then abuse it to consolidate power. It happens time and again, and we need to have a real conversation about restoring accountability to our politics. Maybe Ford will be the last straw, but I find myself pessimistic that it will change much.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy’s privilege problems

Posted on by

At long last, the Senate has responded to Senator Mike Duffy’s lawsuit against it, and is asking the Ontario courts to remove it from the suit because of parliamentary privilege. This was to be expected, and I’m surprised it took this long, but here we are. Duffy’s lawyer says that he’ll fight it, of course, but he’s going to have an uphill battle because this is very much a live issue.

For a refresher as to why this matters as an issue of privilege is because it’s about the ability of the Senate to discipline one of its own members. This is especially important because the Senate is a self-governing body of Parliament, and because it’s appointed with institutional independence and security of tenure in order to ensure that there is that independence. In other words, the Senate has to be able to police its own because there’s no one else who can while still giving it the ability to be self-governing (as we explored in great detail over the Auditor General’s desire to have an external audit body oversee the chamber’s activities). And indeed, UOttawa law professor Carissima Mathen agrees that it would be odd for the Senate not to have the power to suspend its own members, and raises questions about whether it’s appropriate for the judiciary to interfere in this kind of parliamentary activity. (It’s really not).

The even bigger complicating factor in this, of course, is that NDP court case trying to fight the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy decision around their satellite offices. The Federal Court ruled there that it’s not a case of privilege (which is being appealed), and Duffy’s former lawyer, Donald Bayne, said that this is a precedent in their favour while on Power & Politics yesterday. And he might have a point, except that the Commons’ internal economy board is a separate legislative creature, whereas the Senate’s internal economy committee is a committee of parliament and not a legislative creation. This is a Very Big Difference (and one which does complicate the NDP case, to the point that MPs may have actually waived their own ability to claim privilege when they structured their Board in such a fashion – something that we should probably retroactively smack a few MPs upside the head for). I don’t expect that Duffy will win this particular round, meaning that his lawsuit will be restricted to the RCMP for negligent investigation, but even that’s a tough hill to climb in and of itself. He may not have much luck with this lawsuit in the long run.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Freeland brings the vague

Posted on by

The morning belonged to Chrystia Freeland yesterday, starting with her speech on NAFTA renegotiation at the University of Ottawa, followed by her appearance before the Commons trade committee to answer questions – however vaguely – about what the country’s priorities were. And while she did list ten things that Canada is looking for (compared the American wish list of 100 items), she didn’t bow to opposition pressure to negotiate in the media, or to lay out which of the items on that list were merely for show, whether that’s the proposed chapter on gender or Indigenous issues. It was driven home several times that yes, Supply Management is going to be defended (no matter how many times the different opposition parties have tried to play the game that only they truly love the system). And as for talk about things like harmonizing regulations – a constant promise that never seems to make much progress no matter which government is in power in either country – it has become clear that this is something that the government began doing their homework on since Trump began raising trade issues in the 2016 US election.

Meanwhile, Paul Wells evaluates Freeland’s deliberate vagueness in what she was trying to convey about the talks, while Andrew Coyne wonders if the Canadian government’s wishlist isn’t a deliberate attempt to sandbag the talks from the start, possibly in the hopes of keeping things status quo.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demanding ATIP perfection may be the enemy of the good

Posted on by

I find myself torn about the government announcement on new legislation to amend the Access to Information Act because on the whole, they made most of the changes that they promised to, but they failed to uphold one promise, which was to make the Act apply to the PMO and minister’s offices. And yes, We The Media let them know how displeased we were about it.

Part of the problem here is that like so many of their other election promises, it may have been a stupid one – kind of like their promise around electoral reform. Why? Because it was always going to be problematic to promise access to cabinet documents, and there’s a very good reason for that, because much of that information should remain private because it will otherwise damage the ability for there to be unfettered advice to ministers or between cabinet colleagues, and they need to have space to make these kinds of deliberations, otherwise the whole machinery of government starts to fall apart.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/876947458118623234

Like Philippe Lagassé says, the better discussion would have been to have specific proposals as to what falls under cabinet confidence. Currently the Information Commissioner has some determination around that, and with the changes in this bill, the onus will be reversed – the government will need to convince her (and if that fails, the courts) that information should remain secret, as opposed to her having to take the government to court to get that access. That’s significant.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/876900009605820416

There is a lot of good in these changes, but I fear that it will be lost amidst the grumbling that it didn’t go far enough. And let’s face it – sometimes We The Media are our own worst enemies when we use Access requests for cheap outrage stories rather than meaningful accountability, and then wonder why the government suddenly clamps down and turns to message control, and worst of all, nobody wants to talk about that problem. That may wind up making things worse for everyone in the end.

Continue reading →