Tag Archives: Maxime Bernier

Roundup: Resurrecting sham “elections”

Posted on by

As part of his ongoing fit of pique against the federal government, Alberta premier Jason Kenney has decided to revive one spectacular bit of political bullshit theatre that some of us had hoped was now dead and buried – the sordid practice of Alberta’s “consultative elections” for senators. The whole notion is unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court didn’t explicitly rule against the provinces setting up their own “elections” as part of the Senate reference, it was certainly implicitly in there, both in the notion that a consultative “election” creates an expectation of legitimacy, but the logic behind it was also completely blasted during the hearing, when Justice Thomas Cromwell asked if a consultative election is fine, why not a consultative auction? Not to mention that the entire election process in past elections has been little more than the electoral equivalent of a show trial – a sham that resembles electoral democracy but is simply designed to return only candidates from a certain party to then form an illegitimate demand that they be appointed. Kenney’s attempt to say that this gives them “accountability” is ludicrous on its face because they don’t face re-election, so there is no actual accountability that can be exercised. The whole farcical exercise has more in common with the sham elections held in communist countries than it does with the actual electoral practices in the rest of Canada, and the fact that Kenney is looking to resurrect this demented kabuki is just more of his campaign of snake oil and lies whose only point is to keep stoking the irrational anger of Albertans and hoping that it won’t blow up in his face. It inevitably will, however, and the whole country will pay the price for Kenney’s arrogance in believing he can manage the monster he created.

In other news of Kenney’s political bullshit theatre, his piece by Chris Turner dismantles the whole raison d’être of Kenney’s so-called “war room,” by pointing to the literal conspiracy theories that underpin the whole thing, and the mythology that Kenney is trying to spin around why capital has left Alberta’s energy sector. And it’s complete myth, but it gets repeated uncritically constantly, and it goes unchallenged by the media, and yet Kenney is creating this $30 million spin machine to further reinforce this mythology and conspiracy theorism, because again, it feeds the anger of his base, telling them that it’s not the fault of the world price of oil that their fortunes have changed, but rather that it’s the sinister forces of dark foreign money that is really behind it all. Without putting too fine of a point on it, this is the kind of thing that fuels the kinds of populist movements that breed fascists. But Kenney doesn’t care, because he thinks he can control it.

Meanwhile, Kenney has suddenly changed his story about the incident where he handed out earplugs during that debate in the Alberta legislature, and it’s gone from it being “light-hearted morale-boosting” to “one of my MLAs has tinnitus and was being shouted at,” which the video clearly didn’t show, and it’s just one more example of Kenney’s smile-and-lie show that he puts on for media interviews, and you can’t help but feel sorry for the interviewers because trying to disentangle his egregious lies is a Sisyphean task.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A six-point sham

Posted on by

Over the weekend, Andrew Scheer went to Calgary to further outline his “economic vision,” which included a short-term six-party plan which…does nothing about the economy. Those six parts are to scrap the federal carbon price, repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48 and end any tanker ban in northern BC, establish timelines for project approvals, end the “foreign interference” in project approvals, and invoke the constitutional authority to build major projects. Do you see a pattern here?

To be clear, these six proposals are all, well, hot air. Ending the federal carbon price won’t get energy projects built – most oil and gas companies are in favour of it. Repealing Bill C-69 won’t help because the 2012 environmental assessment legislation the Conservatives put into place just wound up in litigation, and that will continue if he reverts to it. Ending the tanker ban won’t have any measurable impact because there are no pipelines in the area, no plans for any, and if he thinks he can revive Northern Gateway then he didn’t pay attention to the reasons why the Federal Court revoked its approval. Establishing timelines for approvals? Again, nice in theory, but without a framework behind it (like Bill C-69 would ostensibly provide), it will likely mean yet more litigation. That “foreign interference” in project approvals is largely the conspiracy theories that the conservative movement is clinging to (ignoring the foreign funds that go into their own thinktanks like the Fraser Institute). And that “constitutional authority” is not a magic wand, and would only sow confusion because any project that crosses a provincial boundary is already a federally regulated project, so there’s nothing to invoke. So Scheer’s “six point plan” should perhaps better be called a “six point sham.”

Meanwhile, here’s some further analysis of Scheer’s decision to back away from his pledge to eliminate the deficit in two years, whether it’s because of Liberal warnings of austerity, the unpopularity of Doug Ford’s cuts playing out in Ontario, or the desire to try and deprive the Liberals of their talking points. But it does also take the wind out of Scheer’s own rhetoric about the evils of deficits, particularly those that are small and sustainable like the ones we’re seeing right now.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1131728209018380288

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta sends the wrong (price) signals

Posted on by

It was Throne Speech day in Alberta, and sure enough, it contained an ambitious laundry list of upcoming legislation designed to undo much of what the NDP had put into place as a means of “restoring” the mythical Alberta Advantage. (Full speech here). Shortly thereafter, the promised Bill 1 to repeal the province’s carbon levy was introduced – pretty much guaranteeing that the federal carbon price will be imposed once the bill is enacted. It doesn’t repeal all of the carbon prices in the province, however – it merely shifts them to the largest polluters, which does nothing about the demand side of carbon consumption, and won’t shift consumer behaviours, nor will it do enough for those large emitters, because for all of Kenney’s talk about looking to protect the energy sector, he just shifted the bulk of the burden onto them. (It also won’t really help consumers because poorer households will be worse off now).

Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach to explain why Kenney’s repeal of the carbon price is handing a rhetorical victory to Ontario, and why the reliance on magical technology from the future to reduce emissions won’t happen if there aren’t proper price signals to spur its development.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rationalizing a deciding vote

Posted on by

Yesterday, Independent Senator Paula Simons wrote a piece for Maclean’s to explain her vote last week that essentially ensured that the Senate’s transport committee would not vote to report Bill C-48 (the west coast tanker ban) back to the Senate without amendments. It’s a mere delay to the bill, ultimately, and it’s likely that the full Senate will vote to reject the committee report and may entertain another amendment or two at Third Reading, but I would be mighty surprised if this bill didn’t get pass largely unmolested. But as much as I do respect the good Senator, I will take exception to a few of the things she wrote in her piece.

The biggest thing I will always, always object to is when senators say that it’s not their job to defeat bills passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. That’s false – it’s absolutely their job under the Constitution – that’s why it has an unlimited veto. The question is when they should use it, and I’m not sure that this is a good example of a bill, because it doesn’t fail any particular constitutional tests (Jason Kenney’s nonsense rhetoric aside). But for as much as Simons prevaricates on the question of how appropriate it is to block bills in the newly empowered “independent” mindset of the Senate (insert more back-patting about the lack of whips here), she then says that the other tradition is to defend her region, which she did. I have reservations about this line of thinking, because it gives rise to parochialism and some of the flawed thinking that gave rise to a bogus school of thought that believed that a “Triple-E” Senate could somehow force the hand of a government with a majority in the Commons (rather than just become a repository for 105 new backbenchers). If she really were defending her region, she should remember that her region includes BC, whose northern coast the bill is intended to defend. As well, her concerns ignore the process that Trans Mountain has been undergoing for the past year – just because it hasn’t started construction doesn’t mean it won’t, and trying to provide an alternate route that was proved far more problematic in the past – witness the Federal Court of Appeal decision regarding Northern Gateway – I’m now sure that she’s doing anyone any favours by letting the rhetoric of Kenney and the oil industry dominate her thinking.

In the meantime, we should brace ourselves for another round of obnoxious talk about the “Salisbury Convention” (which doesn’t apply to Canada and never has), and about the original intent of the Senate. It won’t be edifying.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1130956002029916162

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Norman trial collapses

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A victory for carbon prices

Posted on by

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.

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.

Continue reading →

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: Objections to the waiver

Posted on by

At first it seemed like today was going to be the big day. Jody Wilson-Raybould had agreed to meet the justice committee to tell “her truth.” On his way into Cabinet, Justin Trudeau said he was “pleased” that she would be able to appear at committee. The committee agreed to give her the thirty minutes she requested off the top instead of the usual five or ten for an opening statement. Some MPs wanted to try and get the hearing moved from after QP to beforehand (never mind that it’s when all of the parties hold their caucus meetings) in order to be able to ask the PM any questions that might arise from the testimony. And then, surprising probably nobody who paid attention, Wilson-Raybould sent another letter to committee, expressing her “concerns” that the Order in Council that waived solicitor-client privilege wasn’t enough for her to tell the full story.

At this point, it’s starting to feel like a game – that Wilson-Raybould’s attempt to keep controlling the narrative is running out of runway, given that Michael Wernick called her out and Justin Trudeau went and waived solicitor-client privilege (unnecessarily, if you listen to some of the legal commentary out there), and now she’s trying to sow doubt that she’s still not completely free to speak, in order to keep up the narrative that she’s the victim or the hero, distracting from her poor record as justice minister. And it’s starting to feel like the more song and dance that she keeps putting up in order to keep from speaking, the less there is to what she has to say. But maybe I’m getting cynical after a decade on the Hill.

Meanwhile, former litigator Andrew Roman takes a deeper look into the portents of doom for SNC-Lavalin if they were subject to prosecution and even a ten-year ban from federal contracts, and finds them to be less dire than advertised, which makes any alleged wrongdoing by the government to protect them all the more baffling.

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: A hard Wilson-Raybould exit

Posted on by

The day got off to a quiet start, with news of an emergency Cabinet meeting (via teleconference), followed by the news that Jody Wilson-Raybould had resigned from Cabinet (but not caucus), and retained a former Supreme Court of Canada justice as a lawyer to figure out what she’s able to say. Trudeau’s office later said that she informed him last night, and that Harjit Sajjan would be temporarily taking over the Veterans Affairs file until someone new can be put into the position. And people noticed that Trudeau didn’t thank Wilson-Raybould for her contributions after the fact either.

When he did face the media later in the day, Trudeau said that he was surprised and disappointed by Wilson-Raybould’s decision, and that he couldn’t understand why she made it. But as is his usual way of doing things, it was all a bit rehearsed, because he repeated those words almost verbatim in response to reporters’ questions. But he also said that if Wilson-Raybould felt like rules weren’t being followed that she should have come to him, and she didn’t. He did also say that he’s trying to figure out the options around what they can say under solicitor-client privilege because they don’t want to have unintended consequences for the two other ongoing court cases related to the SNC-Lavalin matter, which is fair and valid, but he’s already given flat denials about what was reported in the Globe and Mail initially. (Here is a more in-depth explanation of the restrictions she is under when it comes to Cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, neither of which have a time-limit).

The next battleground is going to be the justice committee, which meets today, and the question is how the Liberals are going to decide to go. Trudeau is publicly saying he’s not directing them because that would be against their parliamentary role (and I will say it was mighty galling for Candice Bergen to go on TV yesterday to say that the Liberals direct what happens at committees when they are far more hands-off than the Conservatives ever were, given that they had ministers’ staff directing their committee members when they were in government). The chair, Anthony Housefather, says that he is leaning toward hearing from witnesses on the issue, but he is more likely to do so under an amended motion rather than the one the Conservatives and NDP tabled (in part because of the suggested witness list), not to mention the fact that he’s wary of the whole exercise turning into a partisan gong show rather than a non-partisan way to get some answers. But with this in mind, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make this a partisan exercise, from Andrew Scheer tweeting out the phone numbers and email addresses of the Liberals on the committee so that people can “demand” they agree to their motion, and the fact that they are putting Pierre Poilievre on the committee as one of their “replacement” members, because “logistics” with the snow storm. It would almost sound to me like they want to do as much as they possibly can to annoy the Liberals and to turn them off from holding any kind of hearings so that the Conservatives can claim they’re participating in a cover-up. Because they would never engage in that kind of concern trolling. (Note that Scheer has also demanded that they “preserve all records” on this, because he is also pushing the narrative that the same Liberals from Queen’s Park who destroyed the gas plant files are now in Ottawa).

As for Wilson-Raybould’s departure, some of the reporting is getting a bit cringe-worthy, particularly how they keep reaching out to her father for comment. I can think of no other ministerial demotion or resignation that sought comment from their parents, for what it’s worth. As well, the fact that the reaction from Indigenous leaders as this being some kind of betrayal also leaves me a bit unsettled because it was no secret that things were not being well managed in Wilson-Raybould’s office in Justice, and the narrative seems to reinforce the notion that it’s not the quality of the job being done, only the symbolism of the person holding the office. That particular lens on what has taken place over the past few days seems to be absent, while Wilson-Raybould is tactical in her silence. Meanwhile, some Cabinet and caucus colleagues are tweeting support for Wilson-Raybould, while others try very much to walk the line.

It’s worth adding that SNC-Lavalin is in the midst of yet another criminal investigation in Quebec regarding their bid for the Cartier Bridge. This while every newspaper in Montreal is running columns wondering why the opposition wants the federal government to let SNC-Lavalin fail – something that will have impacts come the election.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095350523933278208

Meanwhile, Anne Kinston parses Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter, while Susan Delacourt notes the weight of the silence on what has taken place – and offers us some new information about the shuffle and the discussions with Wilson-Raybould that took place at the time. Paul Wells looks at all of the behind-the-scenes work done by SNC-Lavalin through the past few years, and the way in which they attempt to exert influence in Ottawa, and shows that this seems to be the underlying way things work in Ottawa amidst the government’s talk of a new way of doing things.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095517895205871617

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095519163601154048

Continue reading →