Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: In the testimony’s aftermath

Posted on by

Yesterday was the day for performative outrage, as the Conservatives demanded – and got – an “emergency debate” on their call for Justin Trudeau to resign. Of course, given the reality of how our parliament works these days, “debate” is a term to be used very loosely, and it was more like several late-night hours of stilted speeches being read to one another for the sake of looking tough. Woo. On the committee front, Gerald Butts offered to testify on his own behalf, which was accepted, and both Michael Wernick and the deputy minister of justice are on their way back for another round, though none of the other staffers mentioned by Wilson-Raybould are (though that is also because they shouldn’t appear before committee, under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility – it’s for ministers and deputy ministers as accountability officers to appear as they are responsible for them). Ministers of the Crown were also doing the media rounds, including Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland, and most of them were offering variations of the line that while they thought that Jody Wilson-Raybould was telling the truth as she saw it, they also believe the PM in that he would never be inappropriate or cross a line, which made most of the pundit class’ heads implode – never mind that the crux of this whole matter is that it’s a subjective test as to what kind of pressure is or is not appropriate. (On a related note, the Liberals really, really need to put Carla Qualtrough out more. She is easily one of the best communicators that they have in Cabinet, but she never gets out there enough on items other than Phoenix, which is too bad because they desperately need someone with her communications skills out in public). And we’ll see how this continues to play out in the caucus as well, given that the usual suspects are not remaining so silent, and the not-so-usual suspects have openly stated things like “sour grapes” (before being made to apologise).

https://twitter.com/WayneLongSJ/status/1101160075023011840

For context, here is a comparison between what Wilson-Raybould said, and what Michael Wernick testified before the committee. Here’s a look at whether the Ethics Commissioner really can get to the bottom of this whole mess. Here’s the who’s who of everyone Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony. Here’s a roundup of how the Quebec press is treating Wilson-Raybould’s testimony.

In punditry, Susan Delacourt looks at how nervous the Liberal caucus seems by this whole affair, and what that disaffection may be doing to the party in the longer term. Robert Hiltz suggests that Trudeau take a long, hard look at himself and his government, given what this situation has revealed about them. Chris Selley points out that the Liberal treatment of not being Stephen Harper as a virtue is going to be something that ends up costing them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flippant suggestions stepping on the message – again

Posted on by

There weren’t any official new developments in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould controversy yesterday, but we did get a few more drips of information, like how prime minister Justin Trudeau had a one-way teleconference call with the caucus in the wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s departure, with the main message being that he still wished her well and didn’t want her booted from caucus. Not helpful was justice committee chair Anthony Housefather who somewhat flippantly suggested that perhaps Wilson-Raybould was replaced because she didn’t speak French at a time when a great many legal issues are coming up in Quebec – only to apologise later and clarify that he said it in relation to the baseless speculation that is rampant, not because it was a serious suggestion (except he did repeat it in a couple of different interviews, but I’m sure it sounded good in his head at the time). Because this party never ceases to stop stepping all over its own message, and can’t communicate their way out of a wet paper bag. Every. Single. Time.

In the absence of any new developments in the story was looking at where various Liberals are starting to align themselves in relation to Wilson-Raybould’s current status, but that hasn’t stopped the anonymous Liberals from trying to give takes about “crossed wires” and “revisionist feelings” with benefit of the doubt going to Trudeau – or not, in other cases. Northwest Territories MP Michael McLeod points out that Wilson-Raybould’s departure means there is no longer Indigenous representation in Cabinet (expect this to be a factor in the upcoming shuffle). New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long continues to break ranks and say he wants more answers, and good for him for doing his job as a backbencher properly. Oh, and PMO now apparently condemns the smack talk of other anonymous Liberals besmirching Wilson-Raybould’s record following complaints from Indigenous groups that said it was sexist and racist. Elsewhere, a number of Indigenous senators published a letter of support for Wilson-Raybould but also noted that this shouldn’t derail reconciliation, which is more than the work of one minister. (Senator Brazeau was not among them and is trying to make more hay of this).

In related matters, here’s a look at how the way in which the Ethics Commissioner undertook his examination (note that he didn’t investigation) of the matter could mean that he can end it at any point without a public report, and it’s not clear that he really has the scope to undertake such an investigation to begin with. The premier of Quebec is calling for SNC-Lavalin to get that deferred prosecution agreement, surprising no one. Here’s a look at SNC-Lavalin’s history of lobbying on the issue, and why Quebec sees the company as an asset in spite of their poor history.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt thinks there are lessons from #MeToo that Trudeau should be drawing from in handling this whole mess, particularly as silence remains on half of the tale. Jen Gerson thinks that it’s time to stop treating SNC-Lavalin with kid gloves, and that their demise may actually benefit a number of other companies who don’t have a history of corruption.

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 →

Roundup: To travel or not to travel?

Posted on by

There’s a battle brewing in the Senate over Bill C-69, and some of it seems like a concern trolling on the face of it. Given that the bill – which aims to reform the environmental assessment process – is contentious among certain sectors, and has been subject to a misinformation campaign by the Conservatives (who have dubbed it the “no more pipelines bill” based on zero actual evidence), there is a push by Conservative senators to have the Senate’s energy and environment committee take hearings on the road. You know, to hear directly from those affected. The bill’s sponsor, government whip – err, “liaison,” Senator Mitchell, resists that, and it looks like he’s got the leader of the Independent Senators Group, Senator Woo, more or less backing him, Woo saying that travel is unnecessary when you can videoconference.

The Conservatives are looking to delay the bill, likely to death, given that the number of sitting days in this parliament is rapidly dwindling. Never mind that many affected industries are behind the bill, or that most others say that they would rather see amendments at this stage than a whole new process because that just increases the uncertainty (and it should be pointed out that the current system, which the Harper government implemented, has not worked and has resulted in a number of court challenges). And to add to that fact, the senator who chairs the committee is inexperienced (and many will openly say that she doesn’t know what she’s doing), and the Conservatives on that committee haven’t been cooperative in getting the hearings up and running because they are protesting the fact that she appears to be taking dictation from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Harder. So, this is all turning into a giant mess. And did I mention that the number of sitting days is rapidly dwindling? I suspect this is going to get ugly.

Continue reading →

Roundup: McCallum’s gambit

Posted on by

A political firestorm kicked off yesterday when it was revealed that our ambassador to China, John McCallum, held a media availability with Chinese-language media on Tuesday and didn’t inform Canadian media, and then he made comments about how Meng Wanzhou had a “strong case,” and laid out some reasons why, including the fact that Donald Trump politicised her arrest. There seemed to be some genuine confusion among the Canadian foreign affairs community about what exactly was going on here, including whether McCallum was freelancing or going on a limb, but during his own media availability later in the day, Trudeau didn’t distance himself from the comments – though he certainly danced around them a fair bit (though parliamentary secretary Arif Virani later went on Power & Politics to say that the government stood behind McCallum). And then the reaction – Erin O’Toole accusing McCallum of throwing the Americans under the bus, and Andrew Scheer insisting that he would fire McCallum if he was prime minister (for what good that would do).

It’s worth remembering that our extradition system always has the element of political discretion, in that the minister of justice has the final say once the court processes are over and have determined whether the case is viable. (Full explanation of the process here). Also, here’s a video of lawyer Michael Spratt explaining the process.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne says that McCallum put doubt into peoples’ minds about the rule of law, and will be seen to indicate a preference for the outcome, before wondering if McCallum was just freelancing or buying time with the Chinese. Given the swift media reaction in China, there may be more of the latter than the former in the calculation, but it’s hard to know at this point.

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088187071204941827

https://twitter.com/StephanieCarvin/status/1088095085886140416

Continue reading →

Roundup: An unexpected shuffle

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Cabinet shuffle came with a few surprises, but the biggest was probably the decision to move Jody Wilson-Raybould from justice to veterans’ affairs – a move which can only be interpreted as a demotion, despite both prime minister Justin Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould making the argument that it was insulting to veterans to think of them as a lesser consideration. Added to that, Wilson-Raybould got defensive and put out a lengthy press release that said she wouldn’t discuss why she was moved, as that’s the prerogative of the prime minister (true), but then went on to laud all of her accomplishments as justice minister (which she bizarrely abbreviated as MOJAG – Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the first time I can recall such an abbreviation being used). The problem, of course, is that there was a lot of talk about how things were not going well in her office. I personally heard from a number of people in the legal community about their concerns about the managerial competence within Wilson-Raybould’s office, particularly around staffing key positions such as the Judicial Affairs Advisor – necessary for the appointment of judges, and a post that was left vacant for months at a time, as the number of vacancies began increasing, and still have a significant backlog in place. There was also a lot of staffing churn within her office, which should be a warning sign that not all is well. And more reports came out yesterday that there had been some tensions around the Cabinet table when it came to Wilson-Raybould, so the fact that she penned a defensive release probably speaks volumes.

As for the other ministerial changes, David Lametti (my Canadian Lawyer profile here) replaced Wilson-Raybould, who replaces Seamus O’Regan at veterans’ affairs, O’Regan moving to Indigenous services to replace Jane Philpott, who in turn replaced the departing Scott Brison. Trudeau added a new portfolio to the mix – rural economic development, under new minister Bernadette Jordan, who is now the Nova Scotian in Cabinet. That portfolio is another one without a ministry, and it looks like it’ll be housed within Innovation, Science and Economic Development, where all of the other regional development ministries are housed, but as with a growing number of portfolios under this government, it’s another minister without a line department of her own, which I find a bit concerning.

Meanwhile, there are so many hot takes on the shuffle, starting with Chantal Hébert, who says the few changes mean it’s steady-as-she-goes for Trudeau before the election. Likewise, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column says these changes highlight that there is little room for experimentation, this late in the current parliament. Mercedes Stephenson echoes the sentiment, with some added details on O’Regan’s time on the veterans file. Paul Wells brings the shade when it comes to the performance of this government, and the inability for any particular minister to make any meaningful changes in the face of bottlenecks of authority in the PMO, and a government too afraid to make any changes so close to an election. Mike Moffatt delivers a thread on the challenges of rural economic development, and why the portfolio might be a good idea after all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Feelings over civics

Posted on by

Over the course of the weekend, I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1 – the decision about expat voting rights – and I still can’t bring myself to conclude that they the majority got it right. I’ve read over the decision and found myself greatly annoyed by the fact that majority simply shrugged off the very real issue of constituencies and local elections, and that in his concurring reasons, Justice Rowe mentioned them but shrugged them off. And while people will criticise the reasoning and analysis employed by the dissent from Justices Coté and Brown, they at least did pay particular and necessary attention to the issue of constituencies as it relates to our system – and the rationale for the five-year limit (in that it is the constitutional maximum length of a single parliament). And I can’t let this go, because five of seven justices of the Supreme Court failed to properly understand the importance of constituency-based democracy (and I think the Attorney General’s office also bears a particular amount of responsibility for not making the case adequately either).

To reiterate – we vote for local representatives. We don’t vote for parties, or party leaders, no matter what we may have in mind when we go into the ballot box – we mark the X for the local candidate, end of story. For an expat, it’s not the connection to Canada that should be at issue – it’s the connection to the riding, because that’s how we allocate our votes. The dissenting judges got that, but the majority and virtually all of the commentary I’ve seen on the matter ignored it, despite it being the first principle of our electoral system. The Attorney General focused on the “social contract,” which the majority decision hewed to, and there was a lot of talk about feelings and “progressive enfranchisement,” but feelings are not how we allocate votes in this country. Ridings are, and as warm and fuzzy as you feel about Canada, it’s the riding that ultimately matters. I feel like we’re rewarding civic illiteracy on a grand scale with this decision.

To that end, here’s Leonid Sirota offering his analysis of the decision, and University of Ottawa law professor Mike Pal’s thoughts in this thread. And here’s Emmett Macfarlane to pick apart the decision further (though we will disagree on the outcome).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083740974008815617

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083743192225177601

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083744829278871552

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083745335044755456

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1083747918736023552

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poking at polarization

Posted on by

The new issue of Maclean’s is focused on political polarisation in Canada, with whole suite of stories and op-eds about the issue, starting with what is perceived to be the problems with the “left” (although this piece is more about the Liberals than the “left”) and the “right” in Canada, though I’m not sure how much relevance those particular classifications have any longer, as they’ve been so bastardised with a focus on populism that is either left or right flavoured (and lo, Anne Kingston makes that point here). And with polling showing that one in four hate their political opponents, and Trudeau especially, they made a point of trying to explore the divide.

Delving in further on the right, Andrew MacDougall looks at the Conservatives’ use of snark and shitposts to try and throw red meat to a base that stayed home in the last election, while Jen Gerson tries to equate the attempts made by Conservatives to tap into the current populist uptick as trying to tap a relief well to prevent a worse explosion – but they are playing a risky game that could infect their politics for a generation. On the other side, Andray Domise points to the “woke Olympics” and shifting social rules that alienate newcomers on the left, while Terry Glavin looks to the yellow vest protests in France (as opposed to Canada) as a sign that populism on the left is becoming indistinguishable from populism on the right.

But amidst this talk of polarisation, Paul Wells offers the piece that is probably most necessary – a reality-check as to the history of polarisation in this county, and how it’s always been there, in very blatant ways, and how we seem to be a country that is constantly battling amnesia as we clutch our pearls about losing our innocence. Not to say that some things haven’t changed, but it’s not like we’re wilting flowers being exposed to some new terrible new vitriol. (It’s like in Question Period, it’s the most behaved MPs have been in decades, possibly ever, and we’re still wringing our hands over it). That said, I think this was a good and timely package from Maclean’s, seeing as we’re entering into an election year and the nonsense on all sides is going to ratchet up to eleven really fast. Being clear-headed about where our politics are going is always a good thing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Duffy v privilege

Posted on by

As expected, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed Senator Mike Duffy’s attempt to sue the Senate for their disciplining him because the Senate is protected by parliamentary privilege. Privilege is what allows the Senate to be self-governing and as a body that is focused on holding government to account, it has complete institutional independence for very good reason – so that they can speak truth to power without fear of dismissal or reprisal. So imagine the utter gall of Duffy’s response to this ruling.

“The Charter of Rights applies to all Canadians, but the Court decision states that because of the centuries old concept of Parliamentary Privilege, the Charter doesn’t apply to Senators.” Oh dear me. No. You see, the only reason that Duffy still has a job in the Senate is because of parliamentary privilege. If he didn’t have the privilege afforded to him, he couldn’t have made the myriad of accusations about Stephen Harper and his operatives in the Senate Chamber on the eve of his suspension – not without fear of reprisal, particularly a lawsuit. That the Senate is self-governing and has institutional independence saved him from being summarily dismissed by the prime minister of the day when Duffy caused him a great deal of embarrassment. While I don’t dispute that Duffy was subjected to a flawed process that denied him the benefit of due process due to political expediency because, the fact that he received a suspension without pay that was eventually lifted, allowing him to resume his duties with full pay and serving enough time for his pension to kick in, means that he has pretty much escaped consequence for actions that he very likely would have been fired for in any other circumstance. That he then accuses the concept of privilege as stripping him of his Charter rights, when it has in fact protected him in every conceivable way, is utterly boggling.

Meanwhile, it seems clear that between this bit of self-pitying and the decision to pose with Senators Brazeau and Wallin while Brazeau tweeted that they “survived the unjustifiable bs [sic]” (since deleted), that there seems to be an insufficient amount of self-reflection at play, and that perhaps the three should continue to keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves, because the public has not forgotten them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Starting the Big Move

Posted on by

Yesterday was the final day that Centre Block was officially in operation. As of today, the big move starts happening, starting with the House of Commons chamber, and will be followed by the other major offices, like the Speaker, the prime minister and leader of the opposition, with the heritage furniture that will continue to be in use. And once that’s done and the building is empty, they can start to open up walls and ceilings to figure out the state of the building, and determine what needs to be done in terms of renovations and restorations, and from that point determine a price tag and timeline. At present, everything is just a guess, so we’ll have to stay tuned. (Here’s a photo gallery of the current House of Commons and Senate, and the new Commons).

The Senate, however, is a different story. Recent testing of the new chamber brought to light the fact that there are acoustic problems related to sound leakage that were first identified two years ago, and despite assurances from Public Works, it wasn’t addressed. That means they have to install new sound baffles which will delay the move by several weeks, which means that there will be even fewer weeks for the Senate to address its full Order Paper in the New Year. Committees can still meet in the meantime, but it seems the Conservatives have decided to engage in some gamesmanship over Bill C-69, which has the Independent senators are complaining about stall tactics.

Meanwhile, here is a lengthy thread looking at the new Senate building, and six facts about the building, its history, and the new renovations.

Continue reading →