Tag Archives: Mali

QP: Counting down to the budget release

Posted on by

The benches were fairly empty today, as many MPs were preparing for their budget reactions, leaving a reduced presence in the Chamber. After a moment of silence for both Portapique and the anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, Luc Berthold led off, worrying about a “secret trial” that took place in Quebec. David Lametti noted that the was concerned about the reports but prosecutions remain independent of government, and he couldn’t speak more about the issue due to proceedings underway. Berthold then switched to the budget, and was worried about reports that Jagmeet Singh received a briefing on its contents, and wondered if he was sworn to secrecy about it. Mark Holland assured him that no secret information was released. Berthold insisted that there must have been a briefing based on media comments, and worried that leaked details could affect the stock market, and Holland repeated that no secret briefings were had. Kyle Seeback took over in English to worry that carbon prices would mean higher food prices, and that both the environmental and economic policies were a failure. Steven Guilbeault read off investments the government has made and corrected him that emissions have gone down by 30 million tonnes. Seeback chuckled at his own lame joke about how government spending only drove housing prices up—missing a few of the steps to that logic—and Randy Boissonnault denounced the Conservatives delaying the vote on Bill C-8 and the supports therein.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and was outraged that the prime minister was chosen by the UN to promote sustainable development and an hour later approved Bay du Nord, insisting that this made Canada a rogue state. Guilbeault said he was confused by the Bloc being outraged over a provincial decision, a wondered if they wanted federal interference in the Third Link project in Quebec City. Therrien insisted that there was no place for new oil projects, for which Guilbeault reminded him of Yves-François Blanchet’s decision to approve drilling provincially when he as a minster in Quebec.

Alexandre Boulerice appeared for the NDP by video, and he too railed about the Bay du Nord approval. Guilbeault assured him that he read the IPCC report, and that the project was as low-carbon as possible. Laurel Collins repeated the condemnation in English, and Guilbeault repeated his response, and assurances that they would reduce Canada’s emissions by the level required in the report, and that the report did admit that fossil fuels would still be used.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Some real repercussions of the post-Trump era

Posted on by

There was a Canadian Press piece over the weekend that took a cursory look at how the end of the Trump era may help Canadian conservatives, given that he can’t really be a bogeyman to beat them over the head with. The problem, however, is that this was just a cursory look, and didn’t get into any of the more profound cultural changes within politics that have come out of the Trump era, which the Conservatives in this country have taken full advantage of.

Some of this is the culture war stuff that the Conservatives have been very much keen to dive right in with, and you can see Erin O’Toole very much embracing that as he tweets about “cancel culture” (when it’s very much not about cancel culture), or his refusal to give a proper reckoning to historical injustices rather than complaining that this is about “erasing history” – mostly because it’s historical conservative figures who are the targets of such actions. Some of this has to do with ways in which he is trying to target working-class votes in a way that is essentially twisting himself into pretzels in order to reconcile with is past record and that of his party – populism doesn’t encourage ideological consistency after all.

More than anything, however, the piece doesn’t grapple with some of the broader legacy, which is that it made it permissible to lie constantly in politics – especially because they have learned that the media will only both-sides everything and not call them out on it. And more to the fact, they have learned that they can attack the media with impunity, and will face no rebuke or suffer no damage from doing so. They have learned that they can coarsen politics and crank up divisive rhetoric and that it will get a rise out of people more than civil dialogue and discourse will, and more than anything, they have learned that they can largely get away with it because the mainstream dialogue has shifted to make it acceptable. This is the real legacy of the Trump era that will be harder to dissipate once Trump is out of the picture, because the underlying sentiments remain, and here in Canada, while they may not be as pronounced as they are in the States, they are nevertheless still there, and they are festering because we broadly ignore them by assuring ourselves that we’re nothing like the Americans so we have nothing to worry about. But we should worry that the state of our discourse has moved, and we need to call it out for what it is, which few people seem to be willing to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Equalization and Spending

Posted on by

Over the long weekend, one of the best things that I read was an exploration by economist Trevor Tombe about Alberta’s misplaced anger over the so-called “unfairness” of equalization, as the real issue is the fact that they have disproportionately higher salaries (and fiscal capacity) than everyone else in the country. Meanwhile, Tombe also has a good thread on the history of federal transfers to and from Alberta, and it’s interesting to get some of that perspective.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the McKinnon Report on public expenses was released yesterday, detailing that there needs to be some $600 million in cuts if the budget is to be balanced between 2022-23, and while it notes that it the province needs more stable revenues (*cough*sales tax*cough*), though it didn’t get into their revenue problems, as it wasn’t their mandate. That means that there are going to need to be cuts to healthcare and education. Here are three surprising tidbits from the report (but also ones that I think need to be drilled down into – for example high public servant salaries are not because of cost of living, but competition with the private sector, and high college drop-out rates are likely to do with jobs in the oil patch). More in this thread from Lindsay Tedds.

In reaction, Jason Markusoff points to the fact that the report’s conclusions were predetermined, given that it was created specifically to find cuts as raising revenues was not an option they were allowed to present, and it bears reminding once again that Alberta is in deficit because it chooses to be so – they could raise their revenues and not rely solely on oil royalties anytime they wanted, but they don’t want to (so all of those pundits taking this report as proof that the province has a spending problem are being a bit too cute about it). On a broader perspective, Max Fawcett argues that if Alberta wants to send a message that if they really want to have their issues taken seriously, they need to stop voting Conservative – and then enumerates all of the ways in which the federal Conservatives have taken the province’s votes for granted as they did things that disadvantaged them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flashbacks about prorogation

Posted on by

It was a day of flashbacks to 2008, as Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue the Parliament in Westminster, and social media had erupted with cries of “coups,” “dictatorships,” and wannabe constitutional scholars ignoring nearly two centuries of Responsible Government as they tried to implicate the Queen in granting Johnson’s request. Of course, there are some fundamental differences between now and the 2008 prorogation, such as the fact that there will still be a “washing up period” of a few days, as is traditional with UK prorogations, and time where the opposition can still try to move some kind of motion to try and stop a no-deal Brexit, though I’m not sure what mechanism they would use. A private member’s motion would be non-binding (and would carry only the symbolic weight of the Chamber), while a private members’ bill would try to impose some kind of negative obligation on the government – even if it could be sped through in those final days – and if there is no no-deal option on the table, it would then impose the necessity to have some kind of deal, which the Commons has already rejected. There is also the option of moving a non-confidence motion in those remaining days, which could topple Johnson’s government, ostensibly. The prorogation is also for a couple of weeks, and will return Parliament by October 14th, which still leaves it time to do something about Brexit before the October 31stdeadline. Johnson’s move may be dubious – and a dick move – but it could have been much worse. It’s not a coup. It’s not demolishing democracy. And it’s not eliminating parliament as an obstacle to Johnson – in fact, it may have only made it worse, as the move signals his desperation.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166695661108105216

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166717156140244992

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166680410392289280

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1166683151588057089

All of this being said, we need to also remember that some of the received wisdom of the 2008 prorogation crisis needs to be challenged. For example, people keep insisting that Michaëlle Jean was wrong to grant Harper the prorogation (ignoring that if she refused the advice of her prime minister, he would have been obligated to resign, which would have created a whole other constitutional crisis), that an opposition coalition would have been able to take over. The problem is that said coalition was never really viable, and pretty much everyone knew it. And this was proven correct by the fact that it did not survive the prorogation period. Had it done so, had they banded together and moved a motion of non-confidence, then formed a coalition, then sure, it would have proven that it was viable, and it would have reinforced that the system was working (as it did in when Sir John A Macdonald did not survive a prorogation to avoid a confidence vote around the Pacific Scandal). But the coalition fell apart, proving that Jean was right to simply grant the prorogation – making Harper stew about it for a few hours – and doing her job in acting on the advice of a first minister. But you’re going to hear a rehash of the coalition fanfic of the day, and we need to remember that it was only that – fiction.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers her thoughts on the prorogation, the disconnect between parliaments and the outside world, and the idle speculation about whether Stephen Harper’s 2008 prorogation may have inspired Johnson.

Continue reading →

Roundup: On feeding the loons

Posted on by

I try not to do that hackneyed “slow news day?” thing, however I am forced to question the editorial judgment at Global’s Calgary bureau after they reported on a supposed new “separatist” group meeting in Alberta, who are shaking their fist at clouds – err, I mean throwing a temper tantrum about some perceived slights. The apparent “newsworthiness” of this event is the fact that there was a bullshit poll out last week that said that as many as a quarter of Albertans could support separation, and Jay Hill, one-time Alberta separatist, says that Justin Trudeau being re-elected could make that fifty percent.

That sound was my eyes rolling so hard. And then again when John Ivison tweeted this gem.

What could possibly different about Scotland than Alberta? Could it be that Scotland once used to be its own country? Could it be that they have a distinct language and culture? That they already field their own sports teams in international competitions? That they’re not landlocked? Colby Cosh wrote about this not two weeks ago – there is no coherence in the argument for Alberta separatism, and they can’t even take their own argument seriously.

Let’s call this what it is – extortion, blackmail, and a campaign of lies fomented by the likes of Jason Kenney who is stoking it to keep his base angry, because the moment they realize that they’ve run out of external enemies to blame their problems on, the moment they’ll turn on him because he hasn’t been able to deliver on any of his snake oil promises. And Kenney is using these swivel-eyed loons as a straw man – the whole “I’m not a separatist, but Justin Trudeau is stoking the sentiment” defence. It’s just more lies, and We The Media don’t have to keep giving them oxygen. We don’t have to pay attention to these loons – especially if they’re going to call themselves moronic things like “Wexit Alberta.”

Continue reading →

QP: A dare and a denunciation

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for what promised to be a lot of back and forth over the libel suit. Andrew Scheer led off, and he dared Justin Trudeau to go ahead with the suit. Trudeau picked up a script to say that this was the party of Stephen Harper, that they backed down when threatened over statements about Navdeep Bains, and this was more misleading by the Conservatives. Scheer repeated the question in French, and got the same response from Trudeau but in French. Scheer demanded court proceedings commence, and Trudeau first said that Scheer wouldn’t denounce white supremacists, and raised Senator Housakos’ comments in committee saying he didn’t think it was a problem. Scheer dismissed this as a smear tactic, and stated that he always denounced white supremacists (possibly saying those actual words for the first time). From there, Trudeau went on a tear about Scheer misleading Canadians and pivoted to the environment, to which Scheer demanded Trudeau go on the record in court, and Trudeau kept on about the Conservatives’ lack of a plan. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and said that the OECD was watching Canada on the SNC-Lavalin file and demanded a public inquiry. Trudeau reminded him that the justice committee was master of its own destiny and he ensured everything was public. Singh tried again in French, got the same answer, and then Singh railed in French about Loblaws getting climate funds. Trudeau reminded him that the private sector has a role to play in fighting climate change and the government would partner with them, and when Singh tried again in English, and Trudeau said the problem with the NDP was that they were all talk, while they were taking action.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to make a garbage bill relevant

Posted on by

Over the past couple of weeks, Conservative MP Michael Chong has been trying to make “Fetch” happen – or rather, trying to make his Reform Act relevant again, first by taking to the Twitter Machine to outline the process outlined in the Act for ousting a party leader (as though the Liberals were seriously considering dumping Justin Trudeau), and later to insist that it laid out a process for expelling MPs from caucus. The problem? Well, there are several, but the most immediate one is that the Act requires each party to vote at the beginning of each parliament whether they will adhere to the provisions or not – and lo, none of the parties voted to. Not even Chong’s. It was always a garbage bill – I wrote a stack of columns on that very point at the time it was being debated – and it made things worse for parties, not better, and ironically would have made it even harder to remove a party leader by setting a public high bar that the pressure created by a handful of vocal dissidents or resignations would have done on its own. It also has no enforcement mechanisms, which the Speaker confirmed when Erin Weir tried to complain that it wasn’t being adhered to. But why did this garbage bill pass? Because it gave MPs a warm feeling that they were doing something to “fix” Parliament (and in the context of doing something about the “dictatorial” style of Stephen Harper under the mistaken belief that his caucus was searching for some way to get rid of him, which was never the case).  It had so neutered it in order to be palatable enough to vote on that it was a sham bill at best, but really it did actual harm to the system, but Chong was stubborn in determining that it should pass in its bastardized form rather than abandoning it for the steaming hot garbage bill that it was.

And now, with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott’s ouster from caucus, Chong has been trying to make the rounds to claim that the move was illegal without a vote – err, except no party voted to adopt the provisions, which is pretty embarrassing. And yet he keeps trying to sell it to the public as though this were a done deal.

Continue reading →

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: Wilson-Raybould emerges, is “proud”

Posted on by

While there were no actual bombshells in the ongoing SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair, there were an ongoing series of curiosities yesterday, starting with that Cabinet meeting that ran way, way overtime, and which Wilson-Raybould apparently requested to attend and said request was granted. And when she did speak to the press, she said that she was still working out with her lawyer about what she could say, and that she was still a Liberal MP – oh, and she was “proud.” Because that’s how she answers every question ever. The Justice committee also agreed to hear from her and a number of other witnesses to get a better grasp of the Shawcross Doctrine, but there was a lot of grumbling about the fact that they didn’t agree to hear from Gerald Butts or any other PMO staff (which we should recall is in large part because of how our parliamentary system works, and the issue of ministerial responsibility – we don’t haul staffers before committees because their minister is responsible for their conduct, as inconvenient as that may be sometimes).

For context, here’s a look at the very curiously similar language used by SNC-Lavalin in their in their representations to support the deferred prosecution agreement legislation, and that of other intervenors. Here’s a legal discussion about what constitutes solicitor-client privilege when you’re the Attorney General, while former litigator Andrew Roman goes through what could be constituted solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence in this situation, and doesn’t believe that either applies. Oh, and another SNC-Lavalin executive had fraud and bribery charges thrown out of court because they took too long to get to trial, with the judge admonishing the “culture of complacency” in the Crown’s office.

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt looks at Butts’ exit as an object lesson against concentrating too much power in the PMO – something Trudeau swore he wouldn’t do, and yet ended up doing anyway. Chris Selley looks at Butts’ departure as an opportunity for the PM to get some new advisors who are based in this reality. Andrew Coyne has questions about Butts’ resignation, and points to some key lines in his resignation letter that may provide clues as to what’s to come. My column wonders if Wilson-Raybould is playing us by keeping voluntarily silent and letting everyone else fill in the blanks.

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 →