Tag Archives: China

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: Procedural warfare denied (for now)

Posted on by

If the Conservatives were hoping for procedural tactics to try and delay the budget speech on Tuesday, well, they were outplayed by the government, who used their ability to control the timing of those Estimates votes to Wednesday instead of Monday. If you recall, the plan was for the Conservatives to force line-by-line votes on the Supplementary Estimates, so that they could delay the budget speech, which I will also remind you is a tactically stupid move, and doesn’t prove any point. And yet here we are. This having been said, I fully expect them to try some kind of dilatory tactics including a privilege motion of some variety on Tuesday in order to move the budget speech, because they’ve tried it before in the past, but once again, we’re a long way from the times that people who were good at this kind of thing were in charge.

Meanwhile, you can expect the next two days to be replete with bleating admonishing that the Liberals are going to try to use a “shock and awe” budget to drown out the Double-Hyphen Affair, as though the past five weeks of breathless reporting will evaporate in a single night. Come on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Republic of the Northwest wank-off

Posted on by

With an election soon to be called in Alberta, we’re going to start seeing all manner of ludicrous stories related to it, and lo, Maclean’s brings us an imagining of the future history of the “Republic of the Northwest,” which is apparently what a would become of a future Alberta-Saskatchewan-Manitoba-parts-of-BC-and-the-North seccession from Canada. The piece should have instead come with a mature content warning, as it’s basically the two authors jerking one another off to the masturbatory fantasy of a “more prosperous, freer, and more patriotic” future that is never going to be. Why? Because they simply glossed over all of the hard things that such a future would entail, the biggest and most obvious obstacle being the fate of the Indigenous populations. Sure, all of their environmental concerns are just “Laurentian Canadian” bureaucratic meddling. Apparently once Ottawa was out of the way, this new Republic (and curious that such a “patriotic” imagined country would not retain the Crown, if this is supposed to be some kind of small-c conservative fantasy that doesn’t involve being immediately swallowed up by the US), all kinds of pipelines could get built in mere months, with no obstacles whatsoever! Sure, the tidewater is all in Northern BC because the southern coast wouldn’t separate with them, but that won’t affect things! There weren’t any domestic environmentalists in this new country – they were apparently either all figments of Ottawa that were rained upon them, or they were all subject to mass arrest in this “freer” country. There were no Indigenous protests. There were no concerns about actual economic viability of these pipelines with relation to future capacity, or the fact that there is an ongoing global supply glut of oil and dumping more Alberta crude into the world economy wouldn’t be subject to yet more price declines because of basic laws of supply and demand. Nope – it’s all just freedom and prosperity!

And that’s not even to talk about how much they glossed over in terms of what separation would actually mean for the country, from fiscal arrangements, armed forces (do you think they’d just let them take half of the fighter fleet and a chunk of the Navy for their strip of Northern BC Coast line?), and again, the reality of treaties with Indigenous peoples with the Crown of Canada. Honest to Hermes, my eyes could not stop rolling the entirety of this piece. And the worst part is that there is a cohort of Albertans who think this is a plausible vision of the future. They all need to give their heads a shake, and the pair who wrote this piece need to wake up to reality.

On a related note, Jen Gerson digs into the looming problem of Alberta not really preparing for a future with a decreased oil demand, as they prefer instead to keep waiting on the next oil boom. (As the bumper sticker says, “Please God, give us another boom, and I promise not to piss it away this time.”) Yes, the province’s economy has diversified somewhat, but it’s still very dependent on oil revenues. That said, the Bank of Canada did note that the share of GDP that the oil sector is responsible for has diminished a fair amount since the 2015 oil shock, and it’s now less than IT services. The big problem the province is going to have is what to do with all of its under-educated young men, who either quit school or barely got their high school diploma while counting on lucrative oil sector employment. Those days are dwindling, and there will need to be plans to help them transition, sooner than later.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The OECD is watching

Posted on by

Because the Double-Hyphen Affair continues to roll along, the news yesterday was that the OECD is keeping an eye on the proceedings around the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, given that our anti-bribery rules are part of a concerted OECD effort to stamp out the practice, and much of the language in our laws – including the Criminal Code provisions around deferred prosecutions – contain OECD language. And lo, suddenly everyone was bemoaning this international attention, and it was a sign that we were all the more suspect, and so on. Err, except the OECD doesn’t have any regulatory jurisdiction over Canada, and they’re monitoring the processes ongoing already in Canada. You know, the ones that are examining the very issue. Almost as though the system is working.

On a related note, it was revealed that SNC-Lavalin signed a confidential deal with the government days after the Throne Speech in 2015, that allowed them to keep bidding on federal contracts while they would subject themselves to compliance monitoring for their ethical obligations, at their own expense. I’m not sure that we can consider this something nefarious, but certainly an acknowledgment that they were aware of their issues and were taking steps to deal with them in advance of any prosecution.

In today’s punditry on the matter, Matt Gurney suspects that the international attention will be harder for this government to shake off. Chantal Hébert details the coming crunch time for the main players in this whole Affair. Vicky Mochama writes that if we try to treat Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott, and Celina Caesar-Chavannes as paragons of virtue out of a sense of gender essentialism, that we diminish the action and rhetoric of women politicians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A policy without details, part eleventy

Posted on by

Earlier this week, the Conservatives unveiled a new election policy, which was about removing the GST on home heating. For those of you who remember, this used to be an NDP policy that never went anywhere. It’s populist in that its economically illiterate and won’t help those who need it most, but gives a bigger break to the wealthy. But over the past couple of days, economists have been digging into just what this entails, so I figured I would showcase some of that discussion, to get a better sense of a promise that comes with few details about implementation. (Full thread here).

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1104084449522638848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1104087784933928960

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1104089127048273925

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1104090148663255040

Double-Hyphen Affair developments

There was a slightly unexpected development in the Double-Hyphen Affair yesterday when the Federal Court decision on SNC-Lavalin’s request for judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to offer them a deferred prosecution agreement was released, and to the surprise of nobody who has paid the slightest bit of attention, it was denied because this isn’t something that is reviewable by the courts. So that means the prosecution goes ahead, barring the Attorney General issuing a directive that would override the DPP’s decision. In related news, here’s a deeper look at just who SNC-Lavalin was consorting with abroad, and for all of his demands for Justin Trudeau’s resignation, Andrew Scheer says he won’t introduce any non-confidence motion. Hmmm…

And because the hot takes are still coming on this, Chris Selley wonders whether there will be utility to prosecuting a company if it takes four years to even decide whether to prosecute, during which time the company has undergone an ethics and compliance overhaul. Andrew Coyne wonders why any company would bother with the courts when they can lobby as effectively as SNC-Lavalin has (but perhaps it’s because SNC just plays that game better than anyone else). Martin Patriquin supposes that Trudeau may be playing this whole Affair that will benefit him in the long term. Colby Cosh (rightly) clocks the Liberals’ supposed commitment to internationalism also taking a beating in light of the Affair given that it is centred on SNC-Lavalin’s corrupt practices in Libya.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No contrition

Posted on by

Despite the Liberals having floated that the notion that Justin Trudeau may be striking a more conciliatory tone over his handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, when he called an early morning press conference before getting on a plane to Iqaluit (and having to turn back because of weather), Trudeau was decidedly not conciliatory. Or apologetic. But he did say that they were always learning lessons, and this too was one more of them. Of course, I’m not really sure how conciliatory he really could be – he has basically boxed himself into a corner where he can’t admit wrongdoing, because that would mean he undermined the rule of law, but he also has to look like he’s sensitive enough as to why Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned while still trying to brazen it out. It’s one hell of a juggling act, but nobody seems to be buying it. And so, while mouthing words about leadership styles and trying to put forward the notion that Wilson-Raybould didn’t come to him with her concerns where the door was open, one of his soon-to-be departing MPs, Celina Caesar-Chavannes tweeted that she tried to do so, twice, and was apparently rebuffed (and then refused all media entreaties to clarify). So there’s that.

In related content, some Indigenous and Métis leaders say that Wilson-Raybould could have effected real change had she taken over the Indigenous Services portfolio that she rebuffed. Here’s a list of outstanding questions we have after discrepancies between Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, and that of Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick. And since the opposition members of the justice committee have seen fit to recall the committee next week, they may have the opportunity to call past witnesses back…again. The National Postrounds-up the international and Quebec reactions to the ongoing story. And of course there are the premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta (and Brad Wall) whinging that this shows special consideration for Quebec-based jobs, while conveniently ignoring that Trudeau bought a pipeline and has been shovelling federal dollars into the energy sector of late. Here’s a look at what a 10-year ban on federal contracts could mean for SCN-Lavalin, as they are now lobbying for leniency if they are convicted, and updates to the integrity framework could be flexible enough that they could avoid debarment.

In pundit reaction, Chris Selley is having none of Butts’ explanations for the Cabinet shuffle math. Jason Lietaer offers suggestions as to how Trudeau could have fixed the situation (but that would mean showing contrition, which is risky for him to do). John Geddes makes the point about how Trudeau promised not to centralise power in his office, but certainly appears to have anyway. Robert Hiltz has a hard time figuring out just what lessons Trudeau says he’s learned, given that he seems oblivious to it all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hunkering down in the PMO

Posted on by

The Double-Hyphen Affair took a bit of a breather yesterday, but will be back in full gear today as Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick testify at the justice committee. It will be interesting to see how they try to refute (or at least nuance) Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony last week, without trying to cast her as the villain or the problem. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau cancelled an appearance in Regina yesterday and returned to Ottawa to hunker down, and his office is floating the news that he’s going to try for a more conciliatory tone – with some new lines that he tested out at the Toronto audience on Monday night. Elsewhere, Liberal MP Steve MacKinnon had to walk back his comments that SNC-Lavalin was “entitled “ to a deferred prosecution as a poor choice of words (no kidding), but said that they remain a candidate for one. More Cabinet ministers are giving their reassurances to the media, such as Chrystia Freeland did yesterday, including the assurance that yes, Trudeau is still a feminist leader. Also making the rounds was former Liberal deputy prime minister Sheila Copps, who took the aggressive line that Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were unused to the rough and tumble of government because they hadn’t spent any time in opposition, and she urged Trudeau to kick them out of the party (which I think would be an even bigger mistake, but what do I know?) We also learned that David Lametti has asked for outside legal advice on “issues raised” by the current Affair – but not the question of the deferred prosecution agreement itself, in case anyone thinks this is him buckling to the kind of pressure that Wilson-Raybould was alleging.

For context, Tristin Hopper talks to a number of legal and constitutional experts about what has transpired in the Affair, and lo, this is largely a political issue that will have a political solution. Imagine that. Here’s an examination of how the playing field remains tilted against Wilson-Raybould because of her status as an Indigenous woman in what has been a field dominated by white men. Here’s a look at how the Liberals could turf Trudeau (but seriously, if you want a better discussion on this, read my book).

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau keeps finding himself surprised by these recent events, particularly the resignations. Jason Markusoff warns that the Liberals appear to be gearing up to use “the other guys suck” as their campaign platform. While there is no hint of a backbench revolt (no, seriously), Kady O’Malley nevertheless games out how such a revolt could bring down the government. Philippe Lagassé expands on his previous post to talk about how this whole Affair proves that our system of parliamentary accountability is actually working. My column assesses the state of play for Trudeau, and how his way out of this Affair is going to be extremely tough to achieve.

Continue reading →