On a gloomy Thursday, neither Justin Trudeau nor Andrew Scheer were present for the proceedings. Mark Strahl led off, raising the end of the Mark Norman trial, alleging interference by the government, to which Bill Blair assured him that the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service are independent of government. Strahl railed about the documents that were allegedly withheld in the process, and Blair took umbrage with his characterisation of the RCMP. Strahl amped his rhetoric and his volume, to which Blair asserted that none of that was true, and he reiterated the independence of the process. Alain Rayes picked up on that in French, with some added allegations that the government was apparently trying to “destroy” Davie shipyard (no, seriously), and Blair asserted that people deserved better than slander and innuendo. Rayes trie again, and got Blair reading that all obligations were followed for document disclosure. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and he demanded the government adopt his plan to build half a million new homes, to which Jean-Yves Duclos thanked him for the opportunity to talk about the government’s national housing strategy. Singh asked again in French, and Duclos repeated his response. Singh then pivoted to the Norman trial, and demanded an independent investigation into what happened, and Blair repeated that he found it offensive that someone would rise and impugn the conduct of the RCMP of the Public Prosecution Service. Singh repeated the question in English, and got the same answer.
Tag Archives: Mark Norman
Roundup: The Norman trial collapses
As expected, Crown prosecutors announced yesterday that they were staying the breach of trust charges that had been laid against Vice Admiral Mark Norman regarding the leaks of cabinet confidences related to a shipbuilding project, and people who don’t pay attention to details decided that the timing was suspicious and spun a number of conspiracy theories, many of them around the fact that Andrew Leslie was due to “testify against” the government. (Reality check: Leslie agreed to be a character witness for Norman months ago, and PMO was fully aware and there were no indications that they tried to dissuade him from doing so). With that out of the way, Norman made a statement about bias and presumption of guilt by senior levels of government, and his lawyer, the formidable Marie Henein, threw shade at PMO – stating that while the prosecutors acted independently, she felt PMO was withholding documents for far too long in the process – and the suggestion is that some of the Harper-era documents were what eventually exonerated him (though the Crown attorneys said there was no one piece of evidence that was responsible). As this was happening, Harjit Sajjan announced on his way into caucus that the government would pay Norman’s legal expenses. Norman later met with the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, who said that with this out of the way, that Norman would be returning to duty soon, though we’ll see if it will be back as vice-chief of defence staff, as the role has since been filled by someone else. There are lingering questions – lots of them – about what happened here, but there aren’t likely to be many answers anytime soon given that the trial for the bureaucrat also charged with leaking information is coming up.
And great Cyllenian Hermes, were there a lot of hot takes on the end of the Norman trial today. Christie Blatchford described Norman’s ordeal, while Andrew Coyne has so many questions. Susan Delacourt and Matt Gurney both point out that this could remove one controversy from Justin Trudeau’s plate before the election, but both point to the lasting reputational damage that this has helped to inflict on Trudeau.
I have a few comments of my own that nobody seems to have brought up – one of them is to point out that the RCMP unit that investigated the leak was apparently the same one who investigated Senator Mike Duffy, and so ballsed up that investigation that we all know how it ended. Perhaps we should question whether this investigative unit is very good at their jobs. The other thing that bothers me in this whole affair was less about the leak than it was about what appears to be a high-ranking military official who balked when Scott Brison, the Treasury Board president, put the process on pause so that they could examine the sole-source contract granted by the previous government (as is the official version of events). Remember that this contract was granted after the House of Commons rose for the summer (and before the election call), and when Senators raised it while they still sat, the government offered no clarity or details, so there was no proper scrutiny at the time. That matters. But whether Brison paused the process to examine it, or to possibly open it for tender, it shouldn’t have been for Norman to work his contacts to try and pressure the government to resume the process (as is the allegation), because that undermines the civilian control of our military. Nobody is talking about his angle, which I think needs a better airing in all of this.
QP: The Mark Norman conspiracy theories get airtime
While Justin Trudeau was in town, he was not in QP today for some reason, while every other leader was. That also meant no proto-PMQs today, so take that for what you will. Andrew Scheer led off, wondering why anyone who says no to the prime minister winds up with a target on his back. David Lametti knew exactly what this referred to — the stay of prosecution in the Mark Norman case — and stated that the Public Prosecution Service made its own decisions to prosecute and stay the proceedings. Scheer spun a wild conspiracy theory and wondered what was so damaging in the documents, while Lametti assured him that all documents were disclosed and the Public Prosecution Service was independent. Scheer switched to French to accuse the government of scapegoating Norman, and Lametti repeated his assurances in French. Scheer switched to English to say it was too bad that Trudeau didn’t have the fortitude to answer the questions himself, and Lametti repeated his response in French. Scheer repeated that Trudeau didn’t have the backbone or fortitude to answer for this, and accused them of trying to interfere in the case. Lametti kept up his response in French to assure him that there was no role for the Privy Council in this affair. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he worried about the loss of biodiversity and the apparent lack of action. Catherine McKenna assured him that they were engaged, not only domestically by protecting more areas, but also internationally. Singh switched to French to lament the plan to go ahead with Trans Mountain, to which Patty Hajdu assured him that they were carrying forward with meaningful Indigenous consultations. Singh then raised the Norman trial, alleging PMO interference, and Lametti repeated that the government played no role in the prosecution. Singh repeated the allegation in English and demanded an independent investigation into the matter. Lametti repeated that there was no interference, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions stated so herself.
Called it. https://t.co/Qqvvu4NQA0
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 8, 2019
Roundup: Green wins, and the AG’s report
After the Green Party won their second seat in Monday night’s by-election in Nanaimo–Ladysmith, it was inevitable that we would be subjected to a litany of hot takes about what this means for the upcoming federal election, most of which I’m not going to bother reading because frankly, I’m not sure it means anything at all. The Greens have been doing well provincially on Vancouver Island, where this riding is, and more than that, this particular candidate was once an NDP candidate who was booted from the party (apparently for views about Israel), and when the Greens picked him up, he won for them, while the NDP vote collapsed. Add to that, Green wins in BC, New Brunswick and PEI were also predicated by incumbent governments who had been in place for a long time (well, in New Brunswick, it was a constant PC/Liberal swap), and that’s not necessarily the case federally. While Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh tried to spin this as “proof” that Canadians care about the environment (for which both will try to tout their party policies on the same) we can’t forget that Canadians want to do something about the environment in the same way that they want a pony – it’s a nice idea that nobody has any intention of following up on because it’s a lot of effort and mess. This has been proven time and again. I would also caution against the notion that this means that “progressive” votes are up for grabs, because the Greens, well, aren’t all that progressive. If you read their platform, it’s really quite socially conservative, and they had whole sections essentially written by “Men’s Rights Activists” because they have little to no adult supervision in their policy development process. So any hot takes you’re going to read about the by-election are probably going to be full of hot air (quite possibly this one as well).
https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1125798043905818624
Auditor General’s Report
The big news out of the Auditor General’s report was of course the backlog that the Immigration and Refugee Board faces regarding asylum claimants in Canada. The Conservatives, naturally, have jumped on this to “prove” that the current government has somehow broken the system, but every single expert that was cited over the day yesterday said that the Liberals inherited a system that was already broken (some went so far as to say that the Conservatives deliberately broke it in order to force a crisis that would allow them to adopt more draconian measures – though those backfired in a spectacular way, worsening the backlog), and that they have taken steps to increase the IRB’s resources. I wrote about some of these issues a while ago, and the IRB was starting to streamline some of their processes and start making use of technology like email (no, seriously) that cut down on some of the bureaucracy they were mired in – but as with anything, these kinds of changes take time to implement and have an effect. But expect the narrative of the “broken” system to continue in the run up to the election. Meanwhile, here are the other reports:
- Half of Canadians who call a government call centre can’t get through, which is blamed on technology that was allowed to go obsolete
- The RCMP are still not adequately prepared to deal with active shooter situations.
- Our tax system hasn’t kept up with e-commerce and needs modernization
- The mechanism to prevent governments from doing partisan advertising has little documentation and rigour.
QP: The Auditor General’s report on the IRB gets play
While Andrew Scheer was off in Montreal to give a foreign policy speech, Justin Trudeau was present — as was a beaming Elizabeth May. Lisa Raitt led off, asking about the planned loss of jobs for people with developmental disabilities at Library and Archives, and Trudeau read a script about the Accessibility Act, and at the end, Trudeau noted that the contract was extended. Raitt then moved onto the Auditor General’s report on the backlog in the immigration system, and Trudeau responded that the system had been broken the previous government and that his government had invested in it, cleared the legacy backlog, and were transforming the system. Raitt called the Roxham Road irregular border crossing an “express entry” system, and Trudeau called out her fear-mongering before noting that migration was up across the world and Canada is committed to a fair process. Pierre Paul-Hus repeated Raitt’s question in French, and Trudeau read the French version of his first response. Paul-Hus went with the angry follow-up, calling the system “broken,” and Trudeau repeated that in the face of fear and division, Canada was doing what it could. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and in raising the recent report on the loss of biodiversity, he demanded the NDP’s environmental bill of rights be adopted. Trudeau stated that while the NDP were all talk, his government was taking action. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau repeated his response. Singh then read about a catastrophic drug case in Ontario, demanding immediate action on pharmacare, and Trudeau read about the planned Canada Drug Agency in the budget. Singh repeated the question in English, and got a same response from Trudeau in English.
OK, so PMO clarifies that this program is still being axed next year following an earlier extension, but that the disabled workers will now be offered different jobs elsewhere. Still seems like brutal optics. https://t.co/lDpLj0hS8L
— Don Martin (@DonMartinCTV) May 7, 2019
QP: Torquing the Leslie issue
Despite it being a Monday, many of the seats in the Commons were vacant, and neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were present. Candice Bergen led off, and tried to make hay of Andrew Leslie being a character witness at the Mark Norman trial. David Lametti assured her that the department of Justice has cooperated and released all documents. Bergen disputed this, and repeated the demand to turn over documents, and Lametti repeated that all obligations were being upheld. Bergen trie a third time, got the same response, and then Alain Rayes took over in French to ask the same question,impressing upon the Chamber that this had to do with Davie Shipyard. Carla Qualtrough stood up to list the contracts that Davie was getting, and when Rayes tried again, Lametti gave the French assurances of cooperation. Jagmeet Singh led off for the NDP, and he demanded an end to fossil fuel subsidies, fo which Jonathan Wilkinson repeated that they were phasing them out by 2025 and would meet their international obligations. Singh repeated the question in French, and read the French version of his response. Singh wants more action on climate change, got more bland assurances from Wilkinson. In English, Singh demanded a return to 30-year mortgages, and Kirsty stood up to praise the national housing strategy.
Roundup: Performative outrage and scapegoating
A couple of headlines this weekend made me roll my eyes, and they’re on a related subject. The first was Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe lamenting that federal-provincial legal battles are the “new normal” in Canadian intergovernmental affairs. The problem? That pretty much 99 percent of these cases are frivolous and examples of provincial governments throwing tantrums – and this is not just the various court references about the carbon price backstop, but also BC’s initial challenge to say that they have the power to regulate what goes through a federally-regulated pipeline. They’re futile bids that are the equivalent of shaking one’s fist at the clouds in order to performatively look like they’re being tough, and all it does is waste time, resources, and throw uncertainty into the business climate. If anything, being performative for populist reasons is the “new normal” and the courts are just pawns in the whole affair, which is really unfortunate.
The second headline was a Calgary professor who says that the anger in Alberta is being dismissed as “alienation” when it’s “abuse” by the federal government toward the western provinces – which is patently absurd. Most of Alberta’s problems are related to the collapse in the world price of oil (which has to do with a global supply glut), and the fact that the province has long refused to adequately diversify their economy (because oil money is so addictive). But when things like pipeline projects are being made to respect the constitutional obligations to properly consult Indigenous peoples – as opposed to simply bulldozing over their rights as what used to be the case – that’s “abuse”? Really? That the imposition of a federal carbon price that oil companies have been asking for as part of a market-based solution for the serious climate crisis this planet is facing is “abuse”? Seriously? No, it’s not abuse. The province has obligations to live up to, and scapegoating Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau for the problems stemming from the world price of oil is populist bilge, and professors who rationalize it are part of the problem.
Roundup: A victory for carbon prices
In a 3-2 decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal carbon price backstop is not only constitutional, but it also qualifies as a regulatory charge and not a tax, which means that the way it’s being applied is also constitutional. Predictably, Scott Moe has vowed to take this to the Supreme Court of Canada (and a 3-2 decision made this a certainty if the political element wasn’t there already), while Catherine McKenna, predictably, called it a victory for the planet.
This is a crucial paragraph, at least for me. pic.twitter.com/1BeatAvwLO
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) May 3, 2019
In terms of analysis, here is the long thread from economist Andrew Leach’s reading fo the decision, and his commentary on what the dissenting judges got wrong is particularly illuminating. As well, economist Lindsay Tedds’ wheelhouse is the whole difference between taxes and regulatory charges, so she has some comments here. I would note that the majority decision is going to be some of the precedent that Ontario’s Court of Appeal will look at as they’re drafting their own ruling on the Ontario reference, and if New Brunswick, Alberta, and Manitoba proceed with their own challenges, it will help to inform them as well. But with it headed to the Supreme Court of Canada – as Ontario’s will inevitably as well, and everyone knows it – it may not make any more sense for those other provinces to carry on their own challenges as it’s unlikely that they’ll make any more novel arguments, and it would seem to be swifter for all involved to let the SCC process happen sooner than later (though it certainly won’t happen before the next election, and there is a hope among opponents that a Conservative win will render the whole issue moot if they scrap the federal law beforehand).
Jason Markusoff notes that while the court victory is a modest win for the Liberals, the continued carbon tax crusading by Kenney and Ford isn’t winning them much applause from the blue-chip Toronto corporations that they’re looking to attract with their “open for business” shtick. (Here’s a hint: Stop creating uncertainty by cancelling established environmental plans and creating political risk by cancelling projects and immunizing yourselves from litigation). Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, asserts that the ruling is a victory for common sense – as well as the planet.
Roundup: Drawing the wrong lessons
At the time I’m writing this, it’s not looking too good for Rachel Notley and her NDP in the Alberta election (and sorry I couldn’t stay up late to track results, but StatsCan waits for no journalist). With that in mind, I wanted to just post a couple of thoughts about what this could bode – not just the immediate nonsense of Jason Kenney theatrically tabling a bill to repeal the province’s carbon tax (and immediately subjecting him to the federal backstop), or his threat to “turn off the taps” to BC when it comes to oil — something a court would strike down immediately because it’s utterly unconstitutional. Rather, I suspect that this will provide additional encouragement to Andrew Scheer to emulate Kenney’s tactics — fomenting anger, and selling people a steady diet of lies and snake oil, and hoping that he can find someone to blame when he’s unable to deliver on any of it should he get into power. Scheer’s problem will be that he doesn’t have another level of government he can cast too much blame upon, but that won’t dissuade him from the other tactics.
I also suspect that we’re going to get a renewed round of wailing and gnashing of teeth from “progressives” about how they couldn’t coalesce their votes around Notley and the NDP, and there will be all manner of blame being cast at the Alberta Party and the Alberta Liberals for splitting their vote (which is nonsense, of course, but we’ll hear it anyway).
Meanwhile, my column offers my personal loathing and dread about the way the election happened, and the problem with stoking anger and promising magic wands and snake oil.
QP: Concern trolling over perjury
The Thursday before the Easter break, and neither Justin Trudeau nor Andrew Scheer were present. That left Alain Rayes to lead off in French, and he demanded that the prime minister commence his legal action right away. Bardish Chagger said that Canadians heard the truth because the PM had the courage go waive any confidences, but the legal letter was sent because the leader of the opposition keeps speaking falsehoods. Rayes dared Chagger again, and Chagger reiterated that they took the first step with the letter. Mark Strahl took over in English, with added bluster, in demanded that the prime minister see his leader in court. Chagger reiterated her points in English, and so Strahl tried again, and again, not that the answer changed. Jagmeet Singh was up next, and he wanted assurances that the government would not interfere with the Director of Public Prosecutions, to which Chagger was concerned that Singh seemed to indicate a lack of confidence in the Ethics Commissioner of other institutions. Singh demanded a public inquiry in French, to which Marc Garneau stood up to say that Canada was cooperating with the OECD. Singh then asked about big banks’ sales practices and worried the government was only worried about big corporations, and Ralph Goodale reminded him that they introduced tougher penalties against banks giving misleading information. Singh tried again in English, and Goodale repeated his response with a tone of exasperation.