Tag Archives: David Lametti

Roundup: Trudeau played chicken, and lost

Posted on by

There was no presser for the prime minister yesterday, as he was instead at Carleton University delivery commencement addresses in both official languages for university graduates across the country. When the House of Commons did meet first for the usual COVID committee, it was a spectacle of Andrew Scheer making disingenuous attacks about the Auditor General’s budget, and Trudeau responding by trying to shame Scheer into supporting their bill later in the afternoon – a tactic he also tried with the attacks by the other opposition leaders.

And so, when the committee ended for the day and there was a brief pause for the Commons to transition to an actual (abbreviated) sitting, things degenerated. The government tried to pass a motion to do their usual tactic of passing the bill at all stages with a couple of hours for speeches, and that was defeated. They tried again, this time splitting out the disability portions of the bill to pass them swiftly first before going back for the rest, and that failed. Andrew Scheer tried to move a motion to suspend and reconvene a short while later, presumably so that they could engage in further negotiations, and that didn’t pass. And then the Bloc moved their own motion to suspend until such time that the House leaders signalled that they had come to an agreement. And that too failed. Out of options, the Speaker decided that since they couldn’t agree on how to conduct the day’s business, that the House would suspend until the next scheduled sitting day – next Wednesday, when they plan to pass the Estimates in one fell swoop. It was like watching some kind of farce film, but all too real.

The government played political chicken, in their presumption that one of the opposition parties would blink because this was about disability payments (for only about 40 percent of disabled Canadians, if the figures are to be believed, because this was the only real mechanism that the federal government had access to because disability supports are largely an area of provincial jurisdiction). Pablo Rodriguez says they’re still negotiating, but the Conservatives want the House of Commons to have proper sittings (though they are reticent about remote voting – quite rightly); the NDP want more support for people with disabilities and the CERB fraud penalties taken out; the Bloc are demanding a fiscal update, a first ministers’ meeting on health transfers (without strings or conditions of course) – because the weekly teleconference with premiers isn’t enough – and a ban on political parties taking the wage subsidy. I do, however, object to this being dismissed as “partisan sniping” because six months ago everyone was falling all over themselves to rave about how great hung parliaments were because they force parties to work together, and well, this is the result – everyone has priorities they want to advance and everyone thinks they have leverage, and the government tried to play chicken rather than meaningfully engaging at least one of those groups, hoping that the banner of “helping people with disabilities” would be enough to make the opposition roll over like they have been over the course of this pandemic. So no, it’s not sniping – it’s MPs doing their jobs (well, partially anyway), and we shouldn’t be dismissive of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Testing names in the field

Posted on by

Over the weekend, I got a call from a public opinion research company who was doing a survey on the Conservative leadership race. While many of the questions were fairly loaded or leading when it came to things like carbon pricing, and there were a lot of questions relating to just how progressive one thinks a future Conservative leader should be, I was most fascinated by the testing about potential candidates. There was an open-ended opportunity to provide a name that one might think could entice voters to switch to the Conservative party, followed by a list of names where one was invited to rank how much it would make you switch your vote for the Conservatives. That list: Gerard Deltell, former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, Jean Charest, Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt, Pierre Poilievre, Erin O’Toole, and Christy Clark. The inclusion of Carney is a head-scratcher considering that there was a Big Deal a few years ago about his apparently sniffing around the Liberals about a possible future leadership bid, while the fact that Michael Chong was left out despite his previous leadership run and the fact that he has stated he is seriously considering another go of it. So anyway, make of the list what you will, but those are the names that someone is testing.

Meanwhile, the first “official” declared candidate is Bryan Brulotte, a one-time Progressive Conservative staffer and failed candidate, who is pitching a negative income tax and “luxury tax” in lieu of a carbon price. Pierre Poilievre is also planning to announce his candidacy today, with John Baird chairing his campaign – though one wonders if that will conflict with his post-mortem report on how the party botched the election.

On that note, here’s Jess Morgan’s argument why he would be the absolute worst thing, while Paul Wells sizes up what we know of the race to date, and what kinds of choices the party faces in the process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Look at all the chimeric ministers

Posted on by

With the usual bit of pomp and circumstance, the Cabinet has been shuffled in advance of Parliament being summoned. It is bigger by two bodies, there are seven new faces, a few new portfolios – and baffling ones at that – a few being folded back into their original ministries, and yes, gender parity was maintained throughout. The Cabinet committees are also getting a shuffle, which gives you a glimpse at what they see the focus will be, and spoiler alert, it’s very domestic and inward-looking – not much of a surprise in a hung parliament where there are few plaudits or seats to be won on foreign affairs files. It’s also no surprise that it’s Quebec and Ontario-heavy, and largely representing urban ridings, because that’s where the Liberals won their seats.

And thus, the biggest headline is of course that Chrystia Freeland has been moved from foreign affairs to intergovernmental affairs, but with the added heft of being named deputy prime minister – the first time this title has been employed since Paul Martin, and Freeland assures us that it’s going to come with some heft and not just be ceremonial. She’s also retaining the Canada-US file, so that there remains continuity and a steady hand on the tiller as the New NAFTA completes the ratification process. It also would seem to indicate that it gives her the ability to keep a number of fingers in a number of pies, but we’ll have to wait for her mandate letter to see what specifics it outlines, though the expectations that she will have to manage national unity in this somewhat fractious period is a tall order. Jonathan Wilkinson moving to environment has been matched with the expected talk about his upbringing and education in Saskatchewan, so as to show that he understands the prairies as he takes on the environment portfolio. Jim Carr is out of Cabinet officially, but he will remain on a Cabinet committee and be the prime minister’s “special representative” to the prairie provinces, which is supposed to be a less taxing role as he deals with cancer treatments (though I don’t see how that couldn’t be a recipe for high blood pressure, but maybe that’s just me). Two other ministers were demoted – Kirsty Duncan, who will become deputy House Leader, and Ginette Petitpas Taylor, who will become the deputy Whip – though it should be noted that both House Leader and Whip are of added importance in a hung parliament.

The opposition reaction was not unexpected, though I have to say the Conservatives’ talking point was far pissier than I would have guessed – none of the usual “we look forward to working together, but we’ll keep our eyes on you,” kind of thing – no, this was bitter, and spiteful in its tone and language. Even Jason Kenney was classier in his response (but we all know that lasts about five minutes). That’ll make for a fun next few years if they keep this up.

As for some of my own observations, I was struck by the need to name a new Quebec lieutenant, given that Trudeau used to say that they had a Quebec general (meaning him), so no need, and lo, did the Conservatives had meltdowns over it. Likewise, there was thought under the previous parliament that they would eliminate all of those regional development ministers and put them all under Navdeep Bains (whose ministry has rebranded again from Industry, to Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and is now Innovation, Science, and Industry), which kept a lot of the kinds of nepotism that was rampant in those regional development agencies at bay. Now Trudeau has hived off the economic development portfolio into its own ministry, to be headed by Mélanie Joly, but she’ll have six parliamentary secretaries – one for each development agency region, which feels like the whole attempt to break those bonds is backsliding. Science as a standalone portfolio was folded back into Bains’ domain, but the very specific project that Kirsty Duncan was tasked with when she was given the portfolio four years ago was completed, so it made a certain amount of sense. Democratic Institutions is gone, folded back into Privy Council Office and any of its functions Dominic LeBlanc will fulfill in his role as President of the Queen’s Privy Council (which is a role that is traditionally secondary to another portfolio). Trudeau continued to keep his Leader of the Government in the Senate out of Cabinet, which is a mistake, but why listen to me? (I’m also hearing rumours that Senator Peter Harder is on his way out of the job, so stay tuned). The fact that David Lametti got a new oath as minister of justice and Attorney General to reflect the recommendations of the McLellan Report was noteworthy. But overall, my biggest observation is that Trudeau is doubling down on the kinds of chimeric ministries that tend to straddle departments, which makes for difficult accountability and confusing lines of authority on files. The most egregious of the new portfolios was the “Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity,” which is a fairly bullshit title to attach to the fact that she’s also the Associate Minister of Finance, which should have been significant in the fact that it’s the closest we’ve been to a woman finance minister at the federal level, but dressing it up in this performative hand-waving about the Middle Class™ (which is not about an actual class but about feelings) is all the kinds of nonsense that keeps this government unable to communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, and it’s just so infuriating.

https://twitter.com/sproudfoot/status/1197239923100856321

In hot takes, Chantal Hébert sees the move of Freeland as the defining one of this shuffle, and notes that it could either be just what they need, or it could be a kamikaze mission for Freeland. Susan Delacourt sees the composition of the new Cabinet as one that corrects past mistakes and of taking on lessons learned. Robert Hiltz points to the two polarities of this Cabinet – the farce of the Minister of Middle Class™ Prosperity, and the menace of putting Bill Blair in charge of public safety. Paul Wells makes the trenchant observation that carving up ministries across several ministers has the effect of creating multiple redundancies that will make more central control necessary – and I think he’s right about that. (Also, for fun, Maclean’s timed the hugs Trudeau gave his ministers, which didn’t compare to some from 2015).

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1197245638548869120

Continue reading →

Roundup: Media rounds and brand damage

Posted on by

Freed from the expectation that they needed to stay quiet(er) in order to not jeopardise their chances of remaining in caucus, both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott hit interview circuit, the former in Maclean’s and the Globe and Mail, the latter also in Maclean’s and on CBC Radio and Power Play. And there is no doubt that both of them thought they were doing the right thing, but I’m not sure they quite grasp some of the political realities that the prime minister is grappling with. They kept saying that if Trudeau had just apologised from the start, this all could have been avoided, but that would have meant admitting that he was in the wrong, and that’s both a problem on every level for him to do, and I get the impression that nobody thinks they were trying to interfere or apply inappropriate pressure. And because they both think they’re right, we’re in the situation we’re in. Philpott did tell Don Martin that she’s aware of other conversations that are still relevant to what happened, but she’s not going to dangle them out there (err, she just did) because everything that people need to know is already public, but she didn’t say that she thought the prime minister was lying. In her interview with the Globe, Wilson-Raybould admitted to clashing with Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous Rights framework, but it was her comments to Maclean’s that really made me pause, where she said she didn’t really understand the Liberal Party anymore, and it makes me wonder if she actually understood them to begin with, given how the party morphed itself as the cult of Trudeau after his messianic leadership campaign, and that many of the new MPs are as a result of that rather than stalwarts who stood with the party through the lean opposition years. Oh, and Wilson-Raybould also sorta disputed that there were negotiations regarding ending the tiff with Trudeau, and some confusion as to whether that was before she quit Cabinet or in the weeks that followed, and we got a bit of clarification.

Speaking of Trudeau, there has been a lot of focus on the damage to his brand, in particular his Feminist™ brand in the past few weeks, and with the ouster of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott (not to mention Celina Caesar-Chavannes’ decision to leave caucus of her own accord). In particular, the symbolism of the whole Affair crashing down around the Daughters of the Vote event was a darkly ironic for the prime minister, with one of his former youth delegates calling his rhetoric hollow. Add to that, there has been an expectation built up around him that his “doing politics differently” led people to believe that when push came to shove that he wouldn’t act like a politician, in spite of all of the symbolism he invested in. (There is probably a lesson in there too about filling in the blanks when someone says they’ll be different, but won’t specify how). Over on Twitter, Moebius Stripper reminds us not to confuse the actual good feminist work of this government with its Feminist™ branding.

Amidst the awfulness and brand-torching, Chris Selley recalls weeks ago when the Liberals floated a trial balloon to say that Trudeau would apologise for…something, didn’t, and now the claims that Wilson-Raybould tried to force an apology. Paul Wells, meanwhile, is in a Mood, and he (quite properly) lambastes this while Affair as another in a line of incidents that reveals the true heart of this government, and the ramshackle way in which they run this government (and if you looked at what they’ve done to the Senate alone, I would absolutely agree).

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: 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: 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 →

Roundup: A plan to run again

Posted on by

In her first media remarks since her testimony to the justice committee last week, Jody Wilson-Raybould told her local newspaper that she feels “overwhelmed and grateful” for the response from thousands of Canadians over the past week, and that she fully intends to run again for the Liberals in the fall. Mind you, people keep asking Trudeau if he’ll let her stay in caucus, and he says he’s still thinking about it, but Wilson-Raybould did secure her nomination last year. Granted, things have changed in the time since, and her riding association may feel differently about her now than they did then, which is certainly one danger from holding nominations too soon. This said, it’s a bit of a dilemma for Trudeau, who likely feels pressure from MPs who feel betrayed by her – though, as John Geddes discusses in this examination of the situation, it has been remarkably free of acrimony compared to previous examples of exits. Trudeau likely also feels the need to appear magnanimous and that there is room for dissent in the Liberal party. Of course, there was already one columnist who said over the weekend that if Trudeau lets her stay in, he appears weak – because why bother having a whip that enforces caucus discipline when you have the media to do it for you? Cripes.

Meanwhile, David Lametti says there may be contexts where it may be appropriate for a government to interfere in a criminal prosecution, but because it’s a TV interview, he didn’t explore that further, and that will likely be spun completely. It’s also being noted in Halifax that Lametti ordered a new trial for a Halifax man who was found to be falsely convicted for a murder he didn’t commit, but that Wilson-Raybould sat on the recommendation for a new trial for a year-and-a-half, whereas Lametti ordered the retrial within a month-and-a-half (and that re-trial lasted five minutes because the Crown had no evidence to offer).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wernick calls out Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

Thursday in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair was much more explosive, on a couple of fronts. First, the Globe and Mail reported that Jody Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet that she was improperly pressured, which raises some real questions as to who the Globe source is, and also raises the question as to why Wilson-Raybould didn’t resign in protest at the time. (It also said that SNC-Lavalin is threatening to relocate their headquarters to the UK, which would be the first company looking to move there in the midst of Brexit chaos). And then, after a forgettable appearance by David Lametti at the Commons justice committee, where he could not guarantee that the solicitor-client privilege issue would be solved by the time Wilson-Raybould appears at committee, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick let blew up the media cycle, not only with his very frank introductory comments, but also his belief that not only did any improper pressure not happen (going so far as to call the original Globe story false and “defamatory”), but that none of this should be covered by Solicitor-Client privilege because it was not discussed in Cabinet, and no legal advice was given. (Full text here).

Wernick’s comments were praised by some, criticised by others – particularly the Conservatives – with a lot of concern trolling going on about the perception that they were partisan (despite the fact that Wernick praised both the Harper government’s work as well as Trudeau’s). As John Geddes points out, the testimony also gave a glimpse as to how he interacts with power in this city, going so far as to leave an NAC gala to avoid being near SNC-Lavalin executives.

In related news, it looks like Wilson-Raybould didn’t renew her law licence in BC in 2016, which could mean that she’s not a practicing lawyer, which might also invalidate her claim to solicitor-client privilege. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ also tests Trudeau’s assertion that waiving solicitor-client privilege may impact the other two ongoing court cases involving SNC-Lavalin.

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt lays out how Wernick’s testimony is a direct challenge to the version of events that the Globe and Wilson-Raybould’s silence has allowed to develop, which puts pressure on Wilson-Raybould to confirm or deny his testimony. Jen Gerson doesn’t see Butts’ resignation as solving any of the Liberals’ problems. Robert Hiltz says that more than anything, this whole affair puts a lie to the government’s promise of being “real change” in doing politics.

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 →