Tag Archives: Chrystia Freeland

Roundup: Denials and special committees

Posted on by

The pace of news out of the Double-Hyphen Affair fallout slowed somewhat yesterday – finally – but there were incremental developments starting with yet another interview by Jody Wilson-Raybould, in which she was somewhat more categorial about her insistence that she would never try to have the prime minister direct her successor (and yet she kept saying she wouldn’t respond to anonymous leaks, even though this whole Affair was touched off by anonymous leaks to the Globe and Mail, and she responded to those). There nevertheless remains some incredulity at the notion that an issue that supposedly cuts at the heart of prosecutorial independence in this country could have been smoothed over with an apology. Also, apparently the Vancouver–Granville riding association is staying in place and not resigning out of protest, so that is also a significant development.

Meanwhile, SNC-Lavalin is going to appeal the decision that denied them judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision not to grant them a DPA. They’re saying that they have new evidence that has come to light during this whole Affair – things like information on when decisions that were taken that don’t line up with information that the company provided to the DPP, about conditions that supposedly weren’t met for eligibility, and what they consider an abuse of process. They’re not likely to get very far with the appeal, but it’s a lifeline for them nevertheless.

On another front, there is now a live debate in the Senate regarding Senator Pratte’s motion to create a special committee to look into the issues surrounding the Affair, particularly separating the Attorney General from the justice minister, as well as the role of remediation agreements. It’s fairly fraught in part because there are a lot of unknowns in what he is proposing, given that it would establish a special committee rather than go through one of the established committees, and its known quantities in terms of membership. Nevertheless, the fact that his proposal has defined aims that are less likely to be read as partisan will mean that it’s more likely to get the support of the Independents, which is what will be important in getting the needed votes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Common ground on “secularism”

Posted on by

There was some small respite in news coverage yesterday and a chance for all of the federal party leaders to come to agreement on an issue – their mutual disdain for Quebec’s now-tabled “secularism” legislation that forbids the wearing of religious symbols for anyone in a position of authority, which includes teachers and police officers. Never mind that it’s not actually about secularism and that it specifically targets minority communities – this is about “solving the problem” in Quebec about their not knowing how to accommodate these minorities, so says one particular Quebec MNA who went on English Canadian television to try to sell the plan. It was as distasteful as it sounds, because hey, who needs to protect minority rights when the majority of voters feel uncomfortable with them?

As for the reactions of party leaders, they may have been uniformly opposed to the bill, but they did it in very different ways – Trudeau forceful in denouncing laws that legitimize discrimination. Jagmeet Singh gave personal perspectives on being othered as a child because he was different and how this legislation reinforces that. Andrew Scheer, however, was true to form and gave an insipid line about freedom of religion and individual rights, but didn’t actually denounce discrimination. Oh, and he promised he wouldn’t introduce similar legislation federally, which I suppose is small progress from the moral panic over veiled voting that his party stirred up while in government.

Chris Selley, meanwhile, brings some fire to this “debate,” and finds hope in the province’s youth, who are rejecting the underlying anxieties that led to this kind of legislation in the first place.

The interminable Double-Hyphen fallout

Yesterday’s Double-Hyphen Affair fallout stories included The Canadian Press following-up on the story of that wrongful conviction that Jody Wilson-Raybould sat on for 18 months. Documents were also obtained to show that SNC-Lavalin indeed told the Public Prosecution Service that if they didn’t get a deferred prosecution agreement that they would move their headquarters to the US, cut their Canadian workforce to 3500 and eventually wind-up their operations here. Justin Trudeau told the media that he condemned the leaks about the Supreme Court of Canada appointment process and insisted that his office “would never leak.” Jody Wilson-Raybould’s submission to the justice committee is expected to be ready for public release later this afternoon. In advance of this, the Stargot a copy of a legal opinion from the justice department to Wilson-Raybould saying that any decision regarding remediation agreements haven’t been tested in Canada and that she could get outside legal advice on it – and it meshes with the timeline of what we know.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A ham-fisted attempt at undermining

Posted on by

Another day of developments in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair fallout, and it’s beyond ridiculous. And yet here we are. To start the day, Justin Trudeau said that he had a “next steps” conversation with Jody Wilson-Raybould last Monday – you know, when Michael Wernick resigned and Anne McLellan was named a special advisor – and it was a “cordial” talk, and both she and Jane Philpott still want to run for the Liberals, and he’s looking forward to that. Oh, and he’s not going to extend any further waiver on confidences because the one he extended already covered the issue at hand, thank you very much. And he’s right about that part – we’re moving beyond SNC-Lavalin issues now into this intrigue about why Wilson-Raybould (and now Jane Philpott) resigned and the handling of the controversy rather than the actual issue of pressure, which has been aired and it’s up to peoples’ judgments as to where the line of inappropriate is. And yeah, this does actually matter if we’re paying attention to things. Also around this time, the CEO of SNC-Lavalin issued a correction that said that yeah, the whole job losses thing was discussed as part of a conversation about the public interest, and so on.

And then came the day’s “bombshell.” Two competing outlets each had a story about how Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had clashed over the last Supreme Court of Canada appointment, and she has wanted a more conservative judge from Manitoba which Trudeau balked at, and not only that, but she wanted to immediately elevate him to Chief Justice. That both outlets got the same story looks a lot like PMO engineered a leak, but did it in such a ham-fisted way that they neglected to mention that said judge also pulled out of the competition because his wife had breast cancer. Oops. And it’s pretty obvious that this was a way to try and draw attention to the fact that Wilson-Raybould was a pretty bad minister (the Canadian Press version of the story pointing out the clashes she had with caucus over her conservative positions on bills like assisted dying and genetic privacy – for which we should also remember that Trudeau stuck his neck out for her). Because as we’ve seen throughout this whole Affair that Trudeau or his staff haven’t been able to point to her record because she remained in the post for three years and Trudeau insists that she would still be in the position if Brison hadn’t resigned (which could also mean that they considered it a manageable situation). But if this PMO could be any more inept at handling this situation and stepping on yet more rakes, you’d almost feel embarrassed for them if this didn’t make it look like they were trying to politicise Supreme Court appointments. Cripes.

Meanwhile, the Ethics committee will be meeting today to discuss the Conservatives’ motion to try and hear testimony from Jody Wilson-Raybould at their committee instead, given that they have a Conservative chair. The problem there, however, is that the numbers are really against them – there are six voting Liberals on the committee to two voting Conservatives and one voting NDP MP. And even if the Conservatives could convince maverick MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, a permanent member of that committee, to vote with them, they’re still outnumbered by the rest of the Liberals. Even if by some miracle they agree to hold hearings on the matter, unless Trudeau offers yet another waiver (which he seems not inclined to), then we’re left with more silence from Wilson-Raybould, and we’ll be no better off. And then it’ll be a new round of Andrew Scheer screaming “cover up!” (Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column offers a look at what some of the possible outcomes of the day are.)

In punditry, Andrew Coyne delivers some not undeserved outrage at the tactic to try and take a shot at a sitting judge to try and discredit Wilson-Raybould. He also takes entirely correct umbrage with journalists braying for Wilson-Raybould and Philpott to be kicked out of caucus, and lo, here’s Tasha Kheiriddin doing just that, insisting that Trudeau looks “weak” the longer he keeps them in the fold. Because policing caucus loyalty is something that We The Media apparently excel at.

Continue reading →

Roundup: In the testimony’s aftermath

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day for performative outrage, as the Conservatives demanded – and got – an “emergency debate” on their call for Justin Trudeau to resign. Of course, given the reality of how our parliament works these days, “debate” is a term to be used very loosely, and it was more like several late-night hours of stilted speeches being read to one another for the sake of looking tough. Woo. On the committee front, Gerald Butts offered to testify on his own behalf, which was accepted, and both Michael Wernick and the deputy minister of justice are on their way back for another round, though none of the other staffers mentioned by Wilson-Raybould are (though that is also because they shouldn’t appear before committee, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility – it’s for ministers and deputy ministers as accountability officers to appear as they are responsible for them). Ministers of the Crown were also doing the media rounds, including Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland, and most of them were offering variations of the line that while they thought that Jody Wilson-Raybould was telling the truth as she saw it, they also believe the PM in that he would never be inappropriate or cross a line, which made most of the pundit class’ heads implode – never mind that the crux of this whole matter is that it’s a subjective test as to what kind of pressure is or is not appropriate. (On a related note, the Liberals really, really need to put Carla Qualtrough out more. She is easily one of the best communicators that they have in Cabinet, but she never gets out there enough on items other than Phoenix, which is too bad because they desperately need someone with her communications skills out in public). And we’ll see how this continues to play out in the caucus as well, given that the usual suspects are not remaining so silent, and the not-so-usual suspects have openly stated things like “sour grapes” (before being made to apologise).

https://twitter.com/WayneLongSJ/status/1101160075023011840

For context, here is a comparison between what Wilson-Raybould said, and what Michael Wernick testified before the committee. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner really can get to the bottom of this whole mess. Here’s the who’s who of everyone Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony. Here’s a roundup of how the Quebec press is treating Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt looks at how nervous the Liberal caucus seems by this whole affair, and what that disaffection may be doing to the party in the longer term. Robert Hiltz suggests that Trudeau take a long, hard look at himself and his government, given what this situation has revealed about them. Chris Selley points out that the Liberal treatment of not being Stephen Harper as a virtue is going to be something that ends up costing them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to un-resign

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day that the Liberal drama in Burnaby South went completely sideways, as resigned candidate Karen Wang decided that she wanted to un-resign. And the Liberals said nope, and Wang’s attempt at a press conference turned into a gong show as she chose a location that she didn’t ask for permission from and they said nope. So, gong show. Wang later spent the day a) insisting she wasn’t racist, and this was all a mistranslation, and by the way a volunteer wrote the WeChat post anyway; and b) fending off the notion that she also tried to run for the Conservatives, by saying that the Conservatives had approached her after she ran for the provincial Liberals (remember the BC Liberals are more of a centre-right coalition than the federal Liberals are), and that she didn’t say yes to them. Oh, and she still supports the Liberals. And amidst this all, certain other anonymous voices in the local Liberal riding association are now saying that they warned the party that she was “difficult to handle.”

Meanwhile, this hasn’t stopped the utter lunatic notions floating around the national media that somehow the PMO engineered this whole incident in order to essentially hand the victory to Jagmeet Singh and the NDP, because the Liberals will ultimately benefit from his weak leadership carrying on, or something.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1085960409654255616

And then there are the NDP surrogates trying to insist that the Liberals are trying to spin this version of events, and trying to build the case that it’s really just racism that the Liberals and the mainstream media are to blame for Singh not having a seat or a national profile. And lest we not forget that Maxime Bernier’s candidate in the riding is polling higher than expected, which has people wondering if it’s Scheer who should watch out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hitting the one-year mark

Posted on by

Yesterday marked the one-year point before the next fixed election date, which is one of those things that I find terribly annoying because in a confidence-based system like ours, fixed election dates are anathema to how our system should work. And instead of providing some illusory “stability” for opposition parties to plan for an election when a government could theoretically call for a “snap” election at any point, all a fixed-election date has managed to do is shift the incentives for governments to back-load their programmes and has made the pre-writ period a year-long campaign (at least), much as the election calendar south of the border has done. So yay for that.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1054109748310601728

To mark the occasion, Andrew Scheer held a campaign rally to fire up his troops for said year-long campaign, and with it, he predicted it was going to “get nasty,” and repeated the usual canards that “The Media” and the pundits were on the Liberals’ side (which is both ridiculous and factually untrue, and hey, remember how all of those editorial boards endorsed the Conservatives last election? No?). Of course, it should also be remarked that Scheer has a propensity for untruth that is unparalleled in recent memory in Canadian politics, so his lying about the media should come as no surprise, while he spent the day shitposting disingenuous bullshit about the carbon price framework. But remember, it’s the other guys who will be “nasty.”

The other grating thing about the year-long election campaign is that the obsessive interest in polls will only get worse, as the analyses of polls have already begun, never mind that a year is a very long time in politics, and campaigns matter. And yet, that’s where we are and will continue to be until We The Media start covering actual issues instead of polls in our usual flawed way (followed by the usual lamentation about how the polls didn’t predict the outcome and wondering what happened). Wash, rinse, repeat. It’s going to be a slog of a year.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “grand coalition” is a terrible idea

Posted on by

Over in New Brunswick, where there has been no movement on whether or not there will be a new government, we are being treated to such views as the suggestion that there should be a “grand coalition” between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives in the province to…rise above partisan interests? Erm, well, leaving aside the fact that there is a lot of bad blood between the leaders and it’s never going to happen, I find the suggestion in and of itself utterly offensive. Why? Because our system depends on there being an opposition to hold the government to account. That’s the whole point of parliament after all – to hold government to account, and while backbenchers are supposed to play that role as well as the opposition, in practice it often doesn’t work that well because the incentives are rarely there when there are Cabinet posts to distribute and the fact that we’ve bastardized our leadership system so as to neuter caucus’ ability to hold their leaders to account. Such a “grand coalition” would mean that the province has an opposition comprised of two three-member parties, which would have to fight over who gets to be the Official Opposition, and would have a hard time doing the job of holding a massive coalition government to account.

Now, I will add that New Brunswick and its peculiar political culture once returned a legislature that was 100 percent Liberal and had zero opposition members, and they managed to make it work. Sort of. But it’s not a situation that anyone should want to repeat, because it’s a Very Bad Thing for democracy and the practice of Responsible Government. Opposition plays an important role, and I know that people don’t like it because the adversarial nature can become both theatrical (witness Question Period), but if members don’t take that theatricality to heart, it can become embittering – especially if there are few avenues for cross-partisan bonding. I don’t know enough about how that part of the political culture works in New Brunswick, but the diminishing avenues for such bonding in Ottawa has created a less collegial parliament than it used to be in years past, and that’s a problem.

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052295726477312000

Meanwhile, the lieutenant governor is straying dangerously out of her lane in issuing statements warning the parties to come to a solution because she doesn’t think the province wants a new election, and that means also finding a Speaker. This shouldn’t be public, and I get that some people want transparency, but she shouldn’t be doing this – especially because it gives people the idea that she can boss around the premier, which she can’t actually do unless we want to undo 170 years of Responsible Government in this country. It’s especially bad if the parties are trying to play the LG and trying to force her hand in some way – which is the kind of gutless manoeuvre that we should expect from Canadian politicians who don’t like to be seen to be making unpopular decisions and will try to foist the blame onto someone else. This whole situation is distasteful, and everyone needs to grow up and behave like adults.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052316915140423680

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1052317982884425729

https://twitter.com/SkinnerLyle/status/1052335901366476800

Continue reading →

Roundup: Yet more dubious suggestions hosted by the GRO

Posted on by

Over on the Government Representative Office website, Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder has been hosting suggestions from former senators of late on how to “reform” the Senate. Because of course he has. And not all of the suggestions are particularly helpful, or good for the Senate in the long run. The latest example is from Senator Pierre De Bané, who was a senator for thirty years and an MP before that. De Bané seems to think that what the Senate needs more than anything is the independent oversight body that the Auditor General wants instituted before voluntarily neutering its powers by passing a motion to only use a suspensive veto. Because hey, if it’s good enough for the UK…

I’ve written numerous times that the notion of an independent oversight body risks the senate’s status as a self-governing parliamentary body. I would be okay with an audit committee that includes outside members but is still made up with a majority of senators in order to ensure that it remains in Senate control because it’s important that our parliamentary bodies retain self-governing status. Otherwise we might as well turn power back over to the Queen, because we obviously have no business governing ourselves. I’m also forever baffled by the notion that we should neuter the Senate’s ability to exercise hard power and defeat a bad government bill when necessary. It’s part of their necessary duties to hold government to account, and before you say that it’s good enough for the House of Lords, the Canadian Senate is a vastly different body than the Lords, with a very different history, and the Senate was never the primary legislative body as the Lords was for centuries. These are differences that can’t be papered over.

De Bané’s other suggestion is that the Senate start creating a series of special committees tailored to senators’ special interests to…do advocacy work, apparently. I’m not opposed to senators undertaking an advocacy role on issues that are of particular interest to them, I am less keen on the proliferation of special committees because I worry that it will draw the focus away from the actual legislative responsibilities of senators – especially in an environment with independent senators who are beholden to nobody and who aren’t able to be corralled into getting work done. We’re already having problems getting bills passed in a timely manner because the leadership within the Senate refuses to do things like negotiate with one another – now imagine that these senators are otherwise engaged with busywork of their own interest rather than with the boring work of scrutinising legislation or holding government to account. I do fear that creating an environment where personalized committees can proliferate will have a detrimental effect on the Senate overall, and I’m a bit surprised that a former senator doesn’t see this possibility.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Populist myths and the lies they tell themselves

Posted on by

The Nobel prize has been awarded to economists working on issues of climate change, who point to the need for carbon pricing to get markets to come to a consensus about finding solutions, and what do we get in Canada? Doug Ford going on tour to see Scott Moe and Jason Kenney to decry carbon taxation, and to lie to people about the efficacy of carbon taxes. They work, despite what Ford, Kenney, Scheer, et al. say, and we have the data to prove this.

The Ford/Kenney rally was apparently quite something, a demonstration of partisanship over politics, and a demonstration about what how this all relates to our recent discussions over populism, with the carbon tax as a wedge issue. But while this is being put against this notion that Stephen Harper is trying to put forward in his new book about how “conservative populism” is somehow trying to weed out the worst instincts of populists, but that can’t actually be true if the dog-whistling still goes on. In her piece about the Ford/Kenney rally, Jen Gerson relayed the anecdote about people attending the rally being asked to cover up their MAGA hats with oil sands stickers – but the MAGA hats are still there, even if they’re being literally papered over. Kenney and Ford still play semantic games around the same terminology that the xenophobes use (such as the use of “illegals”), and it’s still a dog-whistle. And it can’t be any surprise that because of all the dog-whistling that the Soldiers of Odin have started posing with UCP candidates in Alberta while wearing their badges and vests. You can’t simply say “Oh, it’s unacceptable these people show up to our events” when you keep inviting them with the dog-whistle language. (There’s a lesson in here for Maxime Bernier as well).

Meanwhile, John Geddes went through that excerpt of Harper’s book and deconstructed his arguments and his analysis about populism, and his nonsense construction of “Somewheres” and “Anywheres.” Aside from the fact that it’s deeply ironic that Stephen Harper, strong friend of Israel, is using the same “rootles cosmopolitan” argument used in Soviet propaganda to vilify Jews, it’s just trading on baseless mythology and trying to build an argument around it that doesn’t actually hold any water. But it also goes back to what Ford, Kenney and others are pandering to – they’re denying that problems exist, and then undermining the institutions that can help solve them. Such as with the looming climate crisis. We need a wake-up call.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new NAFTA

Posted on by

Apparently, we have a NAFTA deal. Or “USMCA,” as Trump wants to call it, because that’s so much better. After a weekend of negotiations and a 10 PM emergency Cabinet meeting last night, everything was The “senior sources” are saying that dairy access will be around what was negotiated for the original TPP (or maybe a little more) along with eliminating the “Class 7” pricing, but we managed to keep the cultural exemptions and dispute resolution mechanisms, so that’s something. What we apparently didn’t get were any new guarantees around those steel and aluminium tariffs, so that’s less of a good thing. More details are due to be announced this morning, for what it’s worth.

And now for the Conservative shitposts to begin, and Michelle Rempel has offered us a taste of what’s to come. Because remember, they’re the “grown-ups” in the room.

Continue reading →