Tag Archives: The Senate

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 →

Roundup: Getting Trudeau to committee

Posted on by

The political theatre around the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair will again be back in full force today as the Conservatives are moving a Supply Day motion to have Justin Trudeau appear before committee to answer questions, which is procedurally awkward given that the Commons shouldn’t be dictating the business of committees, but that’s theatre for you. Of course, if Trudeau appeared, it would be doing so in order to answer for the conduct of his staff (given ministerial responsibility), but we’ll see if there is any appetite to make the committee process even more of a partisan gong show. (I’m guessing there won’t be, but stranger things have happened). Jody Wilson-Raybould is expected to be at committee either Tuesday or Wednesday, depending on her schedule, but maybe she’ll treat this like she did a Senate committee summons and simply refuse to show up.

What revelations did we get over the weekend? That Wilson-Raybould needed to make her pitch to Trudeau directly last Tuesday morning before he would let her address Cabinet; that Wilson-Raybould is a prodigious note-taker, forcing PMO to review their own notes about meetings with her; and that hey, Cabinet ministers are friends outside of work and sometimes get together socially. Shocker!

Meanwhile, Philippe Lagassé goes through the various Canadian politics tropes that this whole affair has been playing into – and are being challenged by – and what people should take away from them as the situation has unfolded. He’s also got a couple of other words of wisdom to take away from Michael Wernick’s testimony about his concern that people are losing faith in the government.

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099709688478744577

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099712261046689792

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1099713329050734592

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clashes made apparent

Posted on by

I think we’re reaching that point in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair that we get breathless about non sequiturs that don’t actually add to the piece, while pundits circle the same point fruitlessly. To wit, the Globe and Mail released a story last night that cited that Jody Wilson-Raybould was trying to “depoliticise” judicial appointments and was butting against the PMO along the way. But reading the piece, I’m having a hard time finding where the scandal is here. Reforming the judicial appointment process was an early priority of Wilson-Raybould’s, and sure, plenty of people I spoke to at the time said that it was necessary, but it wasn’t handled well, took way too long to get up and running, and more to the point, it took Wilson-Raybould over eight months to appoint the judicial affairs advisor to run this system, while vacancies mounted. The Globe article spoke to said advisor, whom Wilson-Raybould wanted to be “apolitical” and sure, that’s fine, as with not looking to consider a potential judicial appointment’s political history as a factor – also fairly expected in this day and age where their political donation history is the first thing opposition research digs up when the appointment is announced. But the story starts to fall apart when they describe the “clashes” that Wilson-Raybould started having with PMO over the amount of information she was giving them when recommending candidates. Remember that these appointments are Governor-in-Council, meaning that the Governor General names them on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, meaning that Cabinet is politically responsible for them. If information is being withheld from them that could affect their own vetting process once the recommendation has been made, that should be a problem because they are being held to account for the decisions that get made in their name – not the Justice Minister alone. So yeah, it wouldn’t be a surprise if PMO got rankled by this kind of behaviour from Wilson-Raybould, and I’m not sure that this puts her in the kind of best light that the Globe seems to think. In fact, as is pointed out below, it adds to the reasons as to why she was shuffled in the first place.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1099116598382669824

In other related news, here is a deeper exploration of the apparent conflict between Wilson-Raybould and Carolyn Bennett over the Indigenous rights framework legislation that has been derailed, and Michael Wernick’s comments on it during his committee testimony. It also sounds like the top staffers in the PMO had conversations with Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff over the SNC-Lavalin file, but they insist they were perfectly appropriate.

For context, here’s a look at how SNC-Lavalin didn’t get everything they were looking for in the deferred prosecution agreement legislation, particularly because it requires admission of liability. (SNC-Lavalin, incidentally, says they’re tired of being a “pucks in a political hockey game” and will defend themselves in court). This thread by lawyer Adam Goldenberg puts nuance around the idea that the legislation forbids economic considerations from being a factor in whether or not to grant a DPA – particularly given that it’s the whole point of DPAs in the first place. University of Ottawa law school dean Adam Dodek explains why the practice of combining the minister of justice and attorney general is an impossible task for a single person to properly take on.

In punditry, there was a flurry of thinkpieces decrying the tone of Michael Wernick’s testimony, from Colby Cosh, David Akin, David Moscrop, and Stephen Maher – none of which I found convincing, but what the hell. On the other side, Christie Blatchford thought Wernick was fantastic, for what it’s worth. Chantal Hébert, meanwhile, tries to take a step back to evaluate if the Liberals will be able to put any of this behind them anytime soon.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wernick calls out Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

Thursday in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair was much more explosive, on a couple of fronts. First, the Globe and Mail reported that Jody Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet that she was improperly pressured, which raises some real questions as to who the Globe source is, and also raises the question as to why Wilson-Raybould didn’t resign in protest at the time. (It also said that SNC-Lavalin is threatening to relocate their headquarters to the UK, which would be the first company looking to move there in the midst of Brexit chaos). And then, after a forgettable appearance by David Lametti at the Commons justice committee, where he could not guarantee that the solicitor-client privilege issue would be solved by the time Wilson-Raybould appears at committee, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick let blew up the media cycle, not only with his very frank introductory comments, but also his belief that not only did any improper pressure not happen (going so far as to call the original Globe story false and “defamatory”), but that none of this should be covered by Solicitor-Client privilege because it was not discussed in Cabinet, and no legal advice was given. (Full text here).

Wernick’s comments were praised by some, criticised by others – particularly the Conservatives – with a lot of concern trolling going on about the perception that they were partisan (despite the fact that Wernick praised both the Harper government’s work as well as Trudeau’s). As John Geddes points out, the testimony also gave a glimpse as to how he interacts with power in this city, going so far as to leave an NAC gala to avoid being near SNC-Lavalin executives.

In related news, it looks like Wilson-Raybould didn’t renew her law licence in BC in 2016, which could mean that she’s not a practicing lawyer, which might also invalidate her claim to solicitor-client privilege. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ also tests Trudeau’s assertion that waiving solicitor-client privilege may impact the other two ongoing court cases involving SNC-Lavalin.

In pundit reaction, Susan Delacourt lays out how Wernick’s testimony is a direct challenge to the version of events that the Globe and Wilson-Raybould’s silence has allowed to develop, which puts pressure on Wilson-Raybould to confirm or deny his testimony. Jen Gerson doesn’t see Butts’ resignation as solving any of the Liberals’ problems. Robert Hiltz says that more than anything, this whole affair puts a lie to the government’s promise of being “real change” in doing politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No inquiry (for now)

Posted on by

Another day, and a few more incremental pieces to add to the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould Affair. There were reports that Justin Trudeau met with Jody Wilson-Raybould about the company two weeks after the Public Prosecution Service declined to offer them a deferred prosecution agreement (but we have no details). Wilson-Raybould attended caucus, and Trudeau apologized to her for not forcefully condemning the remarks about her, or the political cartoons that portrayed her bound and gagged. (We also heard that when it came to Wilson-Raybould addressing Cabinet on Tuesday, she apparently waited outside for two hours while some ministers argued that she be allowed to be heard. So that’s curious – and pretty unprecedented). Later in the day, the Liberals voted down the NDP’s Supply Day motion to call for an independent inquiry on the whole affair – the party line being that they don’t think it’s necessary at this time with the Ethics Commissioner and justice committee processes in place – but two Liberals did break ranks to vote for it. It should be no surprise that it was Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long (but could We The Media quit framing these kinds of things as “cracks in party unity” or nonsense like that? That’s why parties develop iron fists). After the vote, Wilson-Raybould stood up to put on the record that she abstained because the vote was about her personally, and she didn’t want to be in perceived conflict (which immediately created cries from the opposition that the PM should also have abstained), but she said she wanted to “speak her truth” as soon as she could. So that got more tongues wagging, naturally.

Emerging from this whole issue are the metaphysics of how the federal justice minister has a separate hat as Attorney General, and how the two roles can sometimes clash, particularly when it comes to political consideration. To that end, Colby Cosh delves further into this dichotomy and why that may be part of the cause of this whole affair to begin with. There are also a couple of worthwhile threads to read on it – one from Adam Goldenberg (one-time Liberal staffer and former law clerk to then-Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin) that argues that the Act requires a political consideration for deferred prosecutions in order for political accountability, while another litigator, Asher Honickman, disputes that – but agrees that the situation has a lot of nuance.

For context, here is an exploration of the role that Gerald Butts played in Trudeau’s PMO. Here’s the updated timeline of events as we know them so far. Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column explores how a Commons committee could run an investigation into an affair like the current one, but notes they’re not well suited to do so, and also details where it would break down into a partisan sideshow.

In punditry, Chantal Hébert makes the salient point that Wilson-Raybould is more in charge of the current situation than the prime minister is, which is an interesting dynamic.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exit Butts, leaving uncertainty in his wake

Posted on by

So, mid-Family Day when most people in most provinces of this country were enjoying a day off (federal workers excluded), the latest bombshell in the SNC-Lavalin/Wilson-Raybould drama dropped – that the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, resigned his position. In his resignation letter, he vigorously denied any wrongdoing but was removing himself from the office to defend himself and to keep from being a distraction. Of course, the Conservatives cheered, but insisted that this was the sign of a PMO in crisis, and they would continue to get to the bottom of things at the Justice Committee (despite the fact that they’re limited in what they’re actually able to look into, and they are apparently going to go beyond the bounds of what procedure allows). The NDP, meanwhile, will be using their Supply Day to move a motion to demand an independent inquiry into the whole matter – because what government would welcome a Gomery-style inquiry that has the potential to spin out of control and blow up in their faces?

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1097580024742531073

It’s not hard to note that this leaves a gap in Trudeau’s office – Butts was his long-time friend and one of the architects of his success. But he was also seen by opponents as this puppet-master figure (RIP all of those “PM Butts” Twitter accounts), and among other observers of politics that he and Katie Telford may have also been a bit of a bottleneck for decisions. We’ll see who Trudeau replaces him with, and if the management style in the PMO changes as a result. We’ll also see if the mood in the caucus changes as well, and it’s been theorized that it’s another reason for the departure – that MPs have been getting restless with the amount of control that Butts has (cue the stories about MPs disgruntled about the way that caucus meetings are being handled, and that they’re afraid to air their views there for fear of being insulted). There are several months before the election, so perhaps this will give them time to right the ship in time. Maybe.

In terms of reaction columns, Susan Delacourt reflects on the Trudeau-Butts power dynamic within the party, and the uncertainty that is left in the wake of the departure. Chantal Hébert notes that Butts’ resignation may deflect the internal friendly-fire, but could leave Trudeau vulnerable on the eve of the election campaign (which is still eight months away!). Likewise, John Ivison hears that there may have been a “riot” at Liberal caucus on Wednesday had Butts not resigned, and this move makes him something of a scapegoat. Paul Wells regales us with the role Butts played as the “senior Liberal insider” in media stories, and how this central role in the PMO was probably not suited to federal politics, which will mean a way of reforming how Trudeau’s government operates.

Amidst this, there are two threads from Philippe Lagassé that you need to read – the first questions the critique that there are too many political staffers running things and that Parliament would work just great if they were gone. (I too find this a problematic assertion given that the bigger problem is the way in which our bastardized leadership contests have inflated the leader and his or her office in the first place). The second is a corrective to the specious lines about the “unelected” nature of the PMO and the power it wields, as people forget that we don’t elect prime ministers or Cabinet – they are appointed positions. Only the House of Commons is elected.

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: Committee performance

Posted on by

Well, yesterday’s justice committee meeting was about as performatively partisan as could possibly be expected. The Liberals had their own counter-motion to propose, delivered by Randy Boissenault, who insisted that this was done independent of the government, but then behaved as though it was, especially when he began throwing around terms like “witch hunt.” (What did we say about this gang not managing to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag?) While the Conservatives wanted nine witnesses, the Liberals proposed three – though, the key crossover witness was the Clerk of the Privy Council – though the Liberals were open to others, though they wanted to have an in cameraplanning meeting for witnesses and timetable as is standard in any committee. The Conservatives railed that they didn’t want anything in camera, which is utterly galling if anyone recalled how they ran committees when they were in government and everything went in camera, all the time. Nathan Cullen proposed a compromise with three more witnesses, but the Liberals voted it down, and in the end, the Liberal motion won the day.

At this, everyone is filled with sanctimonious outrage. Why isn’t Jody Wilson-Raybould testifying? Well, because she says she can’t say anything, so calling her to say that she can’t say anything is a waste of everyone’s time, and oh, right – she can’t be compelled to testify because she’s a sitting MP. As for those key PMO staffers like Katie Telford and Gerald Butts, well, they still might, but I am also a bit unsure how their appearance would fit into the rubric of ministerial responsibility (though good luck getting the PM to testify). The Conservatives, however, are gleefully shitposting about the “Liberal coverup” because this is exactly what they wanted, gathering as many clips of Pierre Poilievre doing his usual schtick that will be all over their social media channels. Because that’s the game these days.

If you need to catch up with everything that’s happened to date, Kady O’Malley has a timeline here for you. Chrystia Freeland went on the radio to talk about handling pressure on files and bringing matters up with the PM, which is an interesting but subtle rebuke of what is being alleged about what Wilson-Raybould did or didn’t do. Here’s a rundown of what the Quebec media has been saying on the issue, and it’s a very different conversation than English Canada is having, focused on protecting SNC-Lavalin. Speaking of SNC-Lavalin, one of its former executives wants the bribery and fraud charges thrown out over court delays. (Yeah, don’t think that’ll happen). Incidentally, SNC-Lavalin never came up during debate or testimony on implementing the deferred prosecution agreements, for what that’s worth.

Meanwhile, Chantal Hébert says that Trudeau risks isolating himself if he continues to try to undermine Wilson-Raybould in public, while Stephen Maher enumerates the miscalculations in demoting Wilson-Raynould in the first place, and says that someone in Trudeau’s inner circle should pay the price for it. Chris Selley has a very salient look at how Trudeau’s focus on identity politics symbolism has backfired on him as all of Wilson-Raybould’s critics for her failure as justice minister are now singing her praises because she’s an Indigenous woman, not because she was good at her job.

Continue reading →