Tag Archives: RCMP

Roundup: Hunkering down in the PMO

Posted on by

The Double-Hyphen Affair took a bit of a breather yesterday, but will be back in full gear today as Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick testify at the justice committee. It will be interesting to see how they try to refute (or at least nuance) Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony last week, without trying to cast her as the villain or the problem. Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau cancelled an appearance in Regina yesterday and returned to Ottawa to hunker down, and his office is floating the news that he’s going to try for a more conciliatory tone – with some new lines that he tested out at the Toronto audience on Monday night. Elsewhere, Liberal MP Steve MacKinnon had to walk back his comments that SNC-Lavalin was “entitled “ to a deferred prosecution as a poor choice of words (no kidding), but said that they remain a candidate for one. More Cabinet ministers are giving their reassurances to the media, such as Chrystia Freeland did yesterday, including the assurance that yes, Trudeau is still a feminist leader. Also making the rounds was former Liberal deputy prime minister Sheila Copps, who took the aggressive line that Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were unused to the rough and tumble of government because they hadn’t spent any time in opposition, and she urged Trudeau to kick them out of the party (which I think would be an even bigger mistake, but what do I know?) We also learned that David Lametti has asked for outside legal advice on “issues raised” by the current Affair – but not the question of the deferred prosecution agreement itself, in case anyone thinks this is him buckling to the kind of pressure that Wilson-Raybould was alleging.

For context, Tristin Hopper talks to a number of legal and constitutional experts about what has transpired in the Affair, and lo, this is largely a political issue that will have a political solution. Imagine that. Here’s an examination of how the playing field remains tilted against Wilson-Raybould because of her status as an Indigenous woman in what has been a field dominated by white men. Here’s a look at how the Liberals could turf Trudeau (but seriously, if you want a better discussion on this, read my book).

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt wonders why Trudeau keeps finding himself surprised by these recent events, particularly the resignations. Jason Markusoff warns that the Liberals appear to be gearing up to use “the other guys suck” as their campaign platform. While there is no hint of a backbench revolt (no, seriously), Kady O’Malley nevertheless games out how such a revolt could bring down the government. Philippe Lagassé expands on his previous post to talk about how this whole Affair proves that our system of parliamentary accountability is actually working. My column assesses the state of play for Trudeau, and how his way out of this Affair is going to be extremely tough to achieve.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A small shuffle

Posted on by

The practical fallout from Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation played out with a minor Cabinet shuffle yesterday morning, but rather than simply picking another backbencher to slot into the veterans affairs portfolio, Justin Trudeau moved Lawrence MacAulay from agriculture to put him in veterans, moved Marie-Claude Bibeau from international development to agriculture, and gave the international development portfolio to Maryam Monsef in addition to her status of women portfolio. There are a couple of calculations here – MacAulay held the veterans file over twenty years ago, so he’s not completely new, and he’s someone who is running again and has held his seat forever, so he looks like a steady hand in the department (and as a bonus, the department headquarters is in Charlottetown, and he’s a PEI MP). Bibeau, meanwhile, gets the distinction of being the country’s first woman agriculture minister, but she herself pointed out that she’s from a rural Quebec riding with a lot of dairy farmers, and she knows their issues well, and that’s a constituency that this government is keen to placate after concessions made in TPP and New NAFTA. And Monsef? She’s got a track record of good work in the portfolio’s she’s held, and can handle the added responsibility, as well as it reinforce the whole “feminist foreign policy” line of the government (not that you’d know it from how they’re funding it, but whatever).

In other SNC-Lavalin/Wilson Raybould Affair news, the opposition parties demanded that Parliament be recalled next week to keep this issue going, but Trudeau refused (and it’s worth remembering that the justice committee will still be meeting over the constituency weeks). Former Conservative and NDP Attorneys General have also written to the RCMP to demand an investigation (no political interference here), while former Liberal ones say there’s no clear criminal case. New Attorney General David Lametti says he wasn’t aware that Wilson-Raybould had already made the decision on the SNC-Lavalin file when he took over the portfolio, and that he’s still getting all of the facts on the situation.

For context, here’s a profile of Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff, Jessica Prince. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner can really look into the whole matter. Here’s a look at the government’s reconciliation agenda in the lens of Wilson-Raybould’s demotion and resignation, and why her Indigenous world-view may have informed her decision not to go ahead with insisting on a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin. Here’s a look back at the measures the Conservatives put in 13 years ago to separate the role of the Crown Prosecutor from the Department of Justice, creating the Public Prosecution Service, which was one of their measures when they rode in on the white horse of accountability. In light of Michael Wernick’s testimony, here’s a look back reforms Brian Mulroney made to the role of Clerk of the Privy Council, which may create untenable contradictions in his role. Here are five possible scenarios for the future of SNC-Lavalin if the trial goes ahead, which includes decamping for the UK, or a foreign takeover.

And for pundit comment, Chantal Hébert has four questions about the ongoing situation. Andrew Coyne is not convinced it’s time for a prime ministerial resignation or an RCMP investigation, but that a rethink of our governing culture nevertheless is what will ultimately be needed. My weekend column contemplates the damage to Brand Trudeau™ after the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to draw the line of appropriateness

Posted on by

I think it’s fair to say that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony at the Commons justice committee was far more explosive than most of us anticipated. Several of us had anticipated to be something that was going to be sufficiently vague so that everyone could read they wanted into it, and we’d be no better off than before. Well, that didn’t happen. Right off the start, she detailed how she was inappropriately pressured by several senior staffers, and a four-month campaign to get her to change her mind on the question of SNC-Lavalin, and the line for her was when they tried to make the case that SNC-Lavalin packing up their headquarters for London either in the middle of the Quebec election or six months before a federal election would be bad news for everyone, and saying that the prime minister made the point that he’s a Montreal MP. She also stated that she didn’t feel the need to resign but would have if they overrode her and published a direction in the Canada Gazette to the Director of Public Prosecutions (no kidding), but toward the end, she did say that nothing illegal happened (despite the fact that the Conservatives have spent the past two weeks trying to make the case that criminal obstruction of justice happened). Oh, and she refused to say whether she still has confidence in the prime minister. (More highlights here). While the opposition questions were, well, less questions than assertions that they believed her version of events and for her to elaborate on just how pressured she felt (and they asked the same thing over, and over, and over, for the entire four-hour hearing), while the Liberals made a somewhat concerted effort to poke holes in where she drew the line of what was inappropriate, and of her loyalty to the prime minister as party leader. Also noteworthy was that very few of the MPs who were involved in questioning were regular members of the committee – the Liberals somewhat inappropriately pulling in a parliamentary secretary for finance, Jennifer O’Connell, along with Ruby Sahota, to be their lead questioners, while the Conservatives pulled in Lisa Raitt and Pierre Paul-Hus as their “heavy hitters.” (The NDP also brought in Charlie Angus and Nathan Cullen to delivery sanctimony in the later rounds, once regular committee member Murray Rankin, had asked his questions).

When it was all over, Andrew Scheer rushed to a microphone to declare that Justin Trudeau needed to resign and the RCMP needed to open up an investigation, immediately overplaying his hand. Jagmeet Singh in turn demanded a public inquiry, but then again, there is nothing that doesn’t demand a national public inquiry. And Trudeau? He came out and said that he completely disagrees with Wilson-Raybould’s characterization of things, that they never crossed a line, and went back to his line about standing up for jobs while respecting the rule of law.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100977251351515138

But that’s really where this all winds up, doesn’t it – the subjective line of what constituted “inappropriate” pressure. And this is where the utility of any kind of investigation will fail – the Commons committee certainly won’t be able to come up with a definition because of partisan interest (and no, the Senate would not really do any better, nor do they have the time to devote to their own study of this issue because they are facing a crisis on their Order Paper). The Ethics Commissioner doesn’t have the ambit to deal with this kind of situation. A public inquiry would be led by a former jurist, but this is not a legal question – it’s one of subjective ethical considerations. That’s why this isn’t some black-and-white issue with regard to being on Trudeau or Wilson-Raybould’s side, because there isn’t a clear line. Was the amount of pressure the PMO was putting on her inappropriate? Probably, if her version of events is to be believed (and the description of trying to get an eminent legal mind to provide a third party opinion they could use did stick in my craw, though you will recall that Stephen Harper did the same thing in his attempt to put Marc Nadon on the Supreme Court), but they will be quick to justify it with political considerations (which, let’s face it, are not insignificant for any party). I fully expect Trudeau and the Liberals to try and nuance the hell out of this in the coming days – once you give them the requisite 36 to 48 hours to finally stop stepping all over their message and come up with a coherent line – and there may be another resignation or two from the PMO, but it won’t be from Trudeau. When the committee inevitably recommends that the government split the role of minister of justice and Attorney General into two separate roles, I would imagine that Trudeau would be all over that as a demonstration of good faith, but remember that would require a legislative change, and we’ll see if there’s enough time for that to pass in the remaining weeks of this parliament, or if it becomes an electoral promise (from all parties) to tackle first thing in the next parliament. We’ll have to see.

In hot takes – and there were so, so many, Andrew Coyne calls it a full-out crisis for the PMO and Wilson-Raybould’s testimony to be “damning evidence”, while Chantal Hébert suspects that Trudeau will cling to the line that no laws were broken. Colby Cosh calls it the most compelling event in our Parliament in ages which doesn’t paint a pretty picture of “business as usual,” while Susan Delacourt says that this demonstration of the hard cynicism of power makes it difficult for Trudeau to run on “sunny ways” again this fall. There were a number of columnists that started writing Trudeau’s political obituary, but I frankly didn’t bother with them because seriously, we are a long way from that, particularly if Quebec takes the position that he was standing up for them and their jobs. Paul Wells pens a scorcher about pressure, partisanship, and the particular moral morass that the Liberals find themselves in after this whole affair.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1100964053092950016

Continue reading →

Roundup: Calling Wilson-Raybould’s bluff?

Posted on by

We may be finally reaching the climax in the whole SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair, as Justin Trudeau formally waived solicitor-client privilege and Cabinet confidence when it comes to Jody Wilson-Raybould appearing at the justice committee in order to clear the air on the whole situation. The limitation is that she can’t reveal any information or communications about her and the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding SNC-Lavalin – but that’s not what’s at stake, so it shouldn’t be an issue (though the Conservatives spent all afternoon decrying that Trudeau wasn’t sufficiently unmuzzling her before they knew the terms of the waiver). Of course, as soon as Trudeau announced that there was no issue with her speaking at committee, Wilson-Raybould released a letter saying that she was still consulting with her attorney, but she really wanted to appear at committee, but she eventually does, she wants a full thirty-minutes uninterrupted off the top to tell her side of the story. In other words, she’s still trying to control the situation.

This having been said, it is starting to feel like Trudeau is calling Wilson-Raybould’s bluff, after Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick called her out at committee when he stated that there could be no privilege because no legal advice was given, and it was never discussed at Cabinet. Which makes me also wonder if Wilson-Raybould will overplay her hand given that she’s going to have to be very careful what she says if she wants to remain a Liberal for much longer. As for the committee, the Liberals defeated the Conservatives’ demand that the PM be ordered to appear before them, and they heard from legal experts on the Shawcross Doctrine.

In related news, it was also found that the as part of the same consultations that led to the deferred prosecution agreements legislation, the government is also considering other changes to the integrity regime (as part of the two-year review that was part of said regime when it was implemented), which would empower an arm’s length officer in Public Procurement to offer more flexible debarrments to companies that have been found guilty of corporate malfeasance (such as SCN-Lavalin and the ten-year ban they could face), and which Carla Qualtrough says offers them more flexibility to deal with corporate bad behaviour. Meanwhile, a group of SNC-Lavalin shareholders are planning a class-action lawsuit against the company for not disclosing that they were denied a deferred prosecution for over  a month, while the lack of convictions for wrongdoing by the company’s former executives has people questioning whether the RCMP and the Crown prosecutors are up to the task of dealing with corporate crime.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt notices that while Wilson-Raybould is driving the Affair right now, it’s odd that it seems to be done absent leadership ambitions, which creates a different dynamic. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column reviews the whole Affair to date to offer suggestions as to where Parliament could strengthen its accountability measures to prevent a future repeat occurrence. Professor Jonathan Malloy lays out why this whole Affair is not a classic political scandal by any measure (which is also why Scheer calling it “textbook corruption” is also very odd).

Continue reading →

QP: On Butts and Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

The first day back after a week of bombshells and self-inflicted wounds, the House of Commons was buzzing for the show that was about to begin. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he led off in French about Gerald Butts’ resignation, saying it was about the “bribery and corruption scandal,” and wondered why the resignation was accepted if nothing happened. Trudeau gave praise for Butts, and that his respect for the office was why he resigned. Scheer asked again in English, and Trudeau repeated his same point extemporaneously. Scheer tried again, and this Trudeau praised the institutions of Parliament including the independence of committee members, which resulted in a number of jeers. Scheer insisted that he allow Wilson-Raybould to speak (never mind that she’s the one who won’t speak, not that Trudeau hasn’t said that she can’t), and Trudeau noted the values of judicial independence and respect for the rule of law, and said that he was getting advice on waiving solicitor-client privilege so as to ensure there were no unintended consequences. Scheer changed tacks slightly and wondered how many times Butts met with Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau noted that all ministers met on Tuesdays and that his staff was engaged with them. Guy Caron was up next, demanding that solicitor-client privilege be waived, and Trudeau reminded him they were getting advice on that. Caron demanded an independent inquiry — the subject of their Supply Day motion, to which Trudeau said they had confidence in the Ethics Commissioner and that he wouldn’t prejudge the work of the committee, which was the master of its own destiny.  Charlie Angus was up next to repeat the question in English with added sanctimony, and Trudeau repeated both points. Angus demanded that he let Wilson-Raybould speak, and Trudeau reiterated that they welcomed any inquiry from the Ethics Commissioner. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: The drip, drip, drip of details

Posted on by

At a press event yesterday morning, Justin Trudeau tried to offer some reassurances around Jody Wilson-Raybould, and only seemed to complicate matters – which didn’t help that everyone seemed to read meaning into what he said that I don’t think was at all was intended. To recap, Trudeau said that back in September, at a time when there was a lot of discussion about the SNC-Lavalin, and the jobs and economic repercussions, Wilson-Raybould asked him if he intended to direct her on how to deal with the issue, and he said no, it was her call; in October, the Public Prosecution Service rejected the notion of giving SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. He also said that if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned that she would still be in justice, but things get moved around when you start shuffling Cabinet pieces around (which is fair – there are a lot of considerations). This of course turned into a childish game over Twitter about “blame Scott Brison,” which is not only ridiculous, but completely misrepresents what he said. (Note that regarding her poor performance managing her department, Brison’s departure may have been the opportunity to deal with it, but that it was considered manageable until the next election, but I can’t say that I’m privy to those determinations). Oh, and Trudeau also said it was unacceptable for people to be taking shots at Wilson-Raybould, but this was also about eight days after the anonymous grousing started appearing in media reports.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1096465016100777986

Amidst this, people have started taking a look back at the deferred prosecution portion of the budget implementation bill when it was being debated and studied back in the spring (*coughs*my story once again*coughs*), perhaps to prove that this was something the government snuck through to the benefit of all of that SNC-Lavalin lobbying. While Aaron Wherry finds a voluminous paper trail here, and the chair of the Commons finance committee, Wayne Easter, told Power & Politics that he personally questioned why that section wasn’t being sent to the justice committee, where things get really interesting is before the Senate’s legal and constitutional affairs committee, where those provisions were sent for study. It becomes exceedingly interesting that Wilson-Raybould refused to make herself available to testify on the issue – which is a very bad thing for a minister – and while Senator Serge Joyal, who heads the committee, says that in hindsight she may not have been comfortable with the subject matter if there was pressure (if that is indeed what was happening), we also need to remember that she refused to appear on other bills, which was holding them up because the committee (quite rightly) said no minister, no bill. Since she was shuffled, Lametti has agreed to appear before the committee on those bills. This kind of truculent behaviour should be taken into consideration when people think that she was doing a “great” job (she wasn’t), but even when she did appear to answer questions, the only thing she’d ever say was how proud she was of the job she was doing (another strike on her record).

Former BC premier Christy Clark affirmed Trudeau’s line that if Wilson-Raybould had a problem and was feeling unduly pressured that she had a duty to say something and resign, which she didn’t. And as a related note, here’s a closer look at the principles of Cabinet secrecy that Trudeau has noted are a consideration in what’s going on here, and how Trudeau has the prerogative to invoke it or not.

In other related news, a former SNC-Lavalin executive had his obstruction of justice charge stayed because it “timed out” under the Jordan principles outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. As for SNC-Lavalin’s pursuit of a deferred prosecution agreement, here is an explainer of what kind of process a company would need to go through for a prosecutor to consider granting them one, and why it’s not simply paying a fine.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne insists that because SNC-Lavalin couldn’t meet the tests necessary to even qualify for a DPA that there shouldn’t have been any reason for Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould to talk about one, while Paul Wells looks at the polling numbers on the issue, and finds Trudeau’s credibility lagging Wilson-Raybould’s on the issue.

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 →

Roundup: Scheer’s own personal Brexit idea

Posted on by

You may have heard the Conservatives making a big push over the past couple of weeks about promising that they would bow to Quebec’s wishes and let them have a single tax return (as in, surrender the federal authority to collect income tax in the province, as opposed to Quebec returning to the system that every other province uses by which the federal government collects all taxes and turns over their provincial share). While the Conservatives portray it as a simple administrative change, and that there wouldn’t even need to be any job losses – just put those 5000 CRA employees in Quebec to work on tax evasion! – it’s really a lot more complicated than that. While Alan Freeman wrote about the history and why it’s naked pandering to Quebec, tax economist Kevin Milligan walks through the complexity, and quite tellingly, notes that this is a Brexit-like proposal from Scheer – bold idea, no proposal of how to implement it. And yes, that is a problem.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093194511260442624

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093195511857704960

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093196146011385856

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093197692530974722

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093198624656306176

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093199538192433153

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093200551653736448

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093205332216541184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093230785094606848

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/1093259900912775168

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backbench lessons

Posted on by

Backbench Liberal MP Greg Fergus is learning the tough political lessons that just because the prime minister says something, it doesn’t mean that changes are necessarily happening. In this case, it’s the declaration by Justin Trudeau a year ago that the government would start to address the systemic barriers faced by Black Canadians, including anti-Black racism, but there has been negligible progress in the meantime, other than a commitment of funds. Fergus’ lesson – that lobbying can’t be a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort.

It’s certainly true, and he’s learning that the hard way – it’s easy to make a declaration, but you need to hold the government’s feet to the fire in order to ensure that things happen, particularly a sclerotic bureaucracy that doesn’t like to change the way it does things (and to be fair, you can’t just turn the way a bureaucracy does anything on a dime – it takes time, and it takes capacity-building, which can’t be done overnight). If anything, Fergus is getting a lesson in being a backbencher – that it’s his job to hold government to account, especially when it’s his own party in power. They can promise a lot of things, but you need to ensure that they actually do it, which is part of why Parliament exists, and why we need good backbenchers who want to do their jobs, and not just suck up to the prime minister in order to get into Cabinet. Hopefully we’ll see an invigoration in the way Fergus and others agitate to ensure that the government keeps its promises, because seeing the backbenchers doing their jobs is always a good thing in any parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The myth about the tweet

Posted on by

At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.

And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.

But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.

Continue reading →