Tag Archives: Nigel Wright

Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails

Posted on by

Nothing too explosive in the Duffy trial yesterday, but more those emails from Monday are certainly creating a bit of a stir, showing the PMO ignored the scandal for the first while, how Harper’s lawyer ended up disagreeing with Harper on the residency questions, and how Duffy didn’t want to repay anything because it would have made him look guilty, which he certainly didn’t think he was. Most of those players in the emails are still around Harper today. Incidentally, Pamela Wallin’s travel claims also come up in the emails. Andrew Coyne meanwhile has sorted through them and come to a conclusion on his own, so I’ll let him:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987013223325696

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680

https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631999339955666944

Continue reading →

Roundup: The PMO’s invisible levers in the Senate

Posted on by

One of the big things that emerged from the Duffy trial yesterday was a raft of new emails released from Nigel Wright, along with Wright’s testimony. While none of it was particularly damning to the prime minister, a number of pundits and journalists were baying over the Twitterverse and elsewhere that “this proves that the PMO is controlling the Senate! Where’s the independence?” and so on, I’m going to get everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. Yes, the PMO has been playing the Senate leadership – not the Senate itself – like its own private pawn. I’m not going to dispute that fact. But I am going to offer some context. First of all, Stephen Harper broke the Senate with his petulant refusal to make appointments from 2006 to 2008, and then made mass appointments, which damaged the chamber. (Refresher read here). He had a Senate leader who did his bidding without question, which is a problem. Because said Senate leader had so many newbie senators under her wing who did her bidding without question, it set up a power dynamic that allowed the PMO to exercise power levers that don’t actually exist. Wright complained about this lack of levers at times in his correspondence, and we also know that the Senate staff, including committee clerks, were pushing back against this PMO control, even to the point of threatening legal action. (And to that point, this BuzzFeed headline is wrong – they weren’t “rogue staffers,” they were Senate staffers instead of political ones). This makes it a problem of actors instead of institutions. As it is designed, the Senate is already a bastion of institutional independence – appointed Senators have absolutely nothing preventing them from speaking truth to power, because they are protected right up to a retirement age of 75, which in turn protects them from needing to curry favour with the PM to get a post-Senate appointment to a board or tribunal. The system is designed to ensure that they can be fully independent – the problem is that the current crop of Conservative senators has chosen not to be, whether it’s out of ignorance of their role, sentimentality for the prime minister who appointed them, or the fact that they sincerely believe he knows what’s best, so they’ll do what he asks. I can’t think of any way to tinker with the system to prevent that. As a rule, senators get better with age, and when a party leadership changes, they tend to get really independent in a hurry, but until that point, this remains a problem of political actors instead of institutions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A marginal, ineffective drug announcement

Posted on by

A pattern is quickly emerging from the Conservatives as they roll out policy in this election – it’s all marginal, and it’s all populist, with little to no actual sense in the real world. First it was peanuts worth of tax credits for home renos (with zero economic justification), then a promise to ban “terror tourism” (with no real workable way to do it that would meet the Charter test). Yesterday was little different, with a lame announcement about tough-on-drugs, claiming that their anti-drug strategy is “working” (Really? How?), misrepresenting the issue of legalisation (with rhetoric that suggested that if they criminalise smoking that’ll help stop the problem), and throwing a bit or money at a fairly useless measure while ignoring proven steps like safe-injection sites, which not only reduce harm but do help get addicts into treatment. So with that, I’ll leave it to Dan Gardner to eviscerate this proposal:

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631237498203561984

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631238055802736640

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631243919854964745

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631244615224569857

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631245901890199552

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631246164130566145

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/631247495054671872

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dubious travel bans

Posted on by

As a new policy announcement yesterday, Stephen Harper said that if the Conservatives were to continue to form government after the election, they would introduce legislation to curb “terrorist tourism,” all of which is an entirely ridiculous plan, whether it’s as an issue of mobility rights, of letting the RCMP or CSIS determine who is a “professional journalist” or humanitarian organisation, or the fact that this betrays any shred of libertarianism that the Conservatives profess to hold. (But then again, we already knew that they’re not an ideological party, but rather right-flavoured populists, right?) Justin Trudeau says this is just a distration from economic issues and that Harper has to answer more questions about limiting rights, while Thomas Mulcair doubted the move’s efficacy (while continually repeating that they’re not going to be against any move that reduces terrorism). Anyway, Paul Wells demolished the whole thing in a series of tweets.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499372606877696

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630499578689814529

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630500563919204352

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630502075395346433

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630503234944241664

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630505023206752256

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509157045661700

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/630509646487359488

Continue reading →

QP: Like a greatest hits package 

Posted on by

All of the leaders were present today, for probably the last time in the 41st parliament. And hey, government computer systems were under a cyberattack as it went off, so that was exciting. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about General Lawson’s comments on “biological wiring” as it relates to sexual harassment in the military and what the government would do about it. Harper denounced the comments and noted that Lawson apologised immediately and that they would implement the recommendations of Justice Deschamps. Mulcair asked again in English, demanding a personal commitment by the PM to changing the culture of the military, but Harper repeated his response but cautioned Mulcair against slurs against all members of the military. Mulcair then changed topics to the RCMP deletion of those gun registry records and wondered about the PMO role in encouraging them to do so. Harper insisted that they acted under the law. Mulcair then brought up the Senate audit, and wondered about the residency of Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen (who was not named in said audit). Harper, a bit testy, brought up the NDP satellite offices. Mulcair turned to another senator’s mileage claims, to which Harper said that they were inventing things and reminded them of the satellite offices again. Justin Trudeau was up next, returning to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, and wondered why the PM would not immediately dismiss the Chief of Defence Staff for comments that he himself condemned. Harper returned to his previous response, following a dig at Trudeau. A second round in French got the same response again, and for his final question, Trudeau touted his plans for a revised Supreme Court appointment process, and rhetorically asked why the PM doesn’t commit to appointing bilingual judges. Harper insisted that the institution was already bilingual, and not every member was required to be.

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/611239298713698305

Continue reading →

QP: The Wright connection

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and everyone was present and ready to go. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking if the prime minister was planning an extension or expansion of the Iraq mission. Stephen Harper responded by first thanking the House for its support of the mission and then said that no decision had been made and he would let them know when it had. Mulcair asked again in French, and got the same response. Mulcair then switched to the topic of the Ethics Commissioner’s report on Diane Finley, and wondered about Nigel Wright’s role in the affair. Harper responded that she used her discretion while acting in good faith, and would take the advice of the Commissioner going forward. Mulcair pressed, but got the same response that she acted in good faith. Mulcair tried to push on the quote about Nigel Wright being asked to “sort out” the issue, but Harper tried to distance himself. Justin Trudeau was up next, and wanted the Prime Minister to explain to the half-million Muslims in the country how he found their faith to be “anti-women.” Harper responded by reading condemnations from Jewish groups about elements in Trudeau’s speech on Monday. Trudeau pointed out that Harper used to oppose Sihk’s wearing turbans in the RCMP, and Trudeau responded by reading some Muslim groups defending the no-niqabs-in-citizenship-ceremonies position. Trudeau then moved to Jason Kenney’s misleading photos on Twitter, to which Kenney doubled down, insisting we were in Iraq to protect women and girls from ISIS. So, no apology then.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Onward, One Party State

Posted on by

The One Party State known as Alberta has struck again, and consumed its own opposition. Floor-crossings to the government, the same government that has been in power for four decades, is a long-held tradition in that process, but never before has it been to this extent, in the history of confederation. Wildrose leader Danielle Smith resigned her position and took eight of her MLAs over the floor to join Premier Jim Prentice, and his revitalised Progressive Conservatives. The five remaining Wildrose MLAs will likely remain the official opposition (though there are rumours of another resignation on the way for health reasons), leaving five Liberal and four NDP MLAs to have some semblance of opposition, as shambolic as it is likely to be. Oh, and of those five Liberal MLAs, two of them will soon be jumping ship to run federally. So yeah – opposition? Who needs it? It’s amazing to witness this all-encompasing amorphous political culture in Alberta consume itself and its own best interests, and it’s galling to see Smith justify her decision as essentially declaring victory, that with Prentice in place there is a principled conservative at the helm that she can support, papering over some of the other inherent problems that were in her party, being the split between those who were able to be socially progressive as opposed to the regressive “Lake of Fire” crowd. Jen Gerson writes about Prentice setting himself up to be a generational premier, while Colby Cosh explores what it all means in the broader political culture of the province, and how the threat of falling oil prices may have pushed things forward.

Continue reading →

QP: Four new members

Posted on by

The first day back in the Commons kicked off with the four MPs who won by-elections at the start of the summer — two new Liberals and two new Conservatives. When things got underway at last, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking, in both languages in the same slot, how many members of the Canadian Forces were being sent to Iraq. Harper gave a general figure of Air Force members flying in supplies, and “several dozen” members of the Special Forces for an advisory role. Mulcair asked — again in both languages — why there wasn’t a vote on the deployment. Harper reminded him that a government that has the confidence of the Chamber can deploy Forces, and this wasn’t a combat mission. Mulcair switched topic to working parents with poverty, to which Harper reminded him that labour markets were largely provincial responsibility and there was no need to reinstate a federal minimum wage to create two classes of workers. When Mulcair tried to press, Harper reminded him of all the great things they were doing for families. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and without visibly reading, asked about why the EI tax credit offers more incentives to fire workers than to hire them. Harper insisted he didn’t know what Trudeau was talking about, and when Trudeau spelled it out, Harper fell back to the “45 day work year” canard.

Continue reading →

Roundup: NATO spending commitments

Posted on by

As that NATO summit gets set to get underway in Wales, it looks like the face-saving final communiqué will state that the 2 percent of GDP on defence spending that they hope members will achieve will simply be “aspirational,” since it’s not going to happen with some members like Canada (which would essentially doubling our current defence budget). Stephen Saideman explores why it’s wrong for NATO to focus solely on the spending levels of member countries than it is on capabilities. It also sounds like NATO members are going to discuss making cyberwarfare as much of a threat to member nations as bombs, which is quite true of the modern era. It also sounds like the attention will be split between the threats posed by Russia and ISIS. Michael Den Tandt notes that while Harper keeps sounding tough, there is no escaping that the Canadian Forces are badly under-resourced – possibly as bad as the “Decade of Darkness” – and we can’t have it both ways of doing good work on the cheap. Katie Englehart has more on the broader context of the situation here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Right vs privilege confusion

Posted on by

The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.

Continue reading →