LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

ody Wilson-Raybould won't talk about her role in the SNC-Lavalin controversy.  And others are being very guarded

Did you hear the news?  A Canadian politician has decided to say nothing on a particular issue.  That's right absolutely nothing!

Whoa!  Take it easy, ladies and gentlemen.  Put the party hats and streamers back in the box, keep the champagne on ice and tell the marching band to take five and then some.

I realize a silent public office holder may sound like music to soothe a savage political beast, but that's not always the case.  When a politician says nothing, it actually speaks volumes.

Which brings us to Jody Wilson-Raybould.

She's a Liberal MP representing the B.C. riding of Vancouver Granville and a former Crown prosecutor.  In November 2015, she became the first Indigenous person to be minister of Justice and the attorney general of Canada.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau named her chair of the cabinet-based Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples.  She's also worked on government files related to marijuana, national security, criminal justice and euthanasia.

That's quite a hefty load for a first-term MP.  One has to assume Trudeau and his senior advisers had great faith in Wilson-Raybould's abilities, work ethic and loyalty.

So when the news came down that she had been shuffled to minister of Veterans Affairs last month, more than a few mouths were left agape.  It's still a relevant cabinet post but it was seen as a significant political demotion by Ottawa insiders.

No one could point to a specific event, altercation, discussion or controversy that would have caused this.  It didn't make any sense and even less so after Wilson-Raybould's Jan. 14 statement that provided no clues.

"I was directed in my mandate letter to pursue and achieve a broad, progressive, and ambitious agenda," she wrote, "and I am tremendously proud of our accomplishments.  There is very little, if anything, in my mandate letter we have not done or is not well under way to completing, and we have also achieved much beyond it."

At the time, it was chalked up to a domino effect that often occurs during a cabinet shuffle.  Then-Veterans Affairs Minister Scott Brison retired from politics, so a few Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers, including Wilson-Raybould, were affected.

As for her puzzling statement, maybe it was just a way to save face.

This perception has dramatically changed.

On Feb. 8, the Globe and Mail produced a bombshell report into SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.  The paper alleged the prime minister's office had unsuccessfully tried to influence Wilson-Raybould to intervene in a criminal proceeding involving the Montreal-based engineering and construction company.

It goes without saying that the federal government must not flex its political muscle in any legal or criminal matter.  Any politician who overstepped this understood boundary would be in jeopardy of getting fired and a government's reputation would be immediately shattered.

Trudeau has denied the Globe story and claimed he'd never "directed" Wilson-Raybould to intervene in this case.  Still, there's a big difference between directing someone to do something and having what's now being called a "vigorous debate" in the PMO about it.

While several Liberals have attempted to shift focus, neither the PM nor PMO has made this distinction to date.  They were even hesitant to go along with the opposition parties in terms of launching a full inquiry into this matter.  (The federal ethics commissioner will now probe the PMO.)

Wilson-Raybould is staying away from this topic, too.  She's claimed solicitor-client privilege is the reason behind her decision against issuing a comment.  (But her successor, David Lametti, was pleased to speak with CTV last weekend about it.)

Her statement is also key to understanding the SNC-Lavalin controversy.  Wilson-Raybould is bound by confidentiality and/or solicitor-client privilege.  But there are a few things she could discuss (or allude to) in a couched fashion without any legal or political ramifications.  Yet she won't do it.

What does her silence mean?  Loyalty, integrity, cabinet solidarity or an unwillingness to change a current political narrative?

Think about it as the political volume continues to rise.

Photo Credit: Yahoo News

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube was a speechwriter for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


I've been thinking a lot lately of what a Congresswoman Alexandria Occasio-Cortez-style platform would look like in Canada, and in Ontario in particular.

I've written previously that the idea of "centrism" is being used as a misnomer; the public has moved to the left on issues like a $15 minimum wage and taxing the ultra-rich.  An objective definition of "centrism", therefore, would reflect the fact that the Overton window has moved to the left.  Instead, when people say "centrism" they seem to mean "socially liberal enough to be acceptable at Rosedale cocktail parties, but really fiscally conservative so I can buy whatever I want", which does not seem to have a constituency outside of elite, technocrats, like Howard Schultz.

With that in mind, what would a bold, aggressively progressive agenda look like?  Even if the policies might seem impractical, the goal of an AOC-style approach to politics seems to be based less on legislation than inspiration: goal-setting and pushing further than might even seem possible gets things done.  Being bold can move mountains.

As the Ontario Liberal Party rebuilds, setting out the vision is as important as selecting the leader (former Government House Leader John Milloy sets this out rather well in a column).

Ontario Liberals need to stand for opportunity, equality and justice for all in an era of stagnated wages and rising inequality.

Let's start with how to pay for our goals, rather than the goals themselves.  It's important Ontario Liberals recognize we need to rehabilitate our brand on fiscal responsibility — but we need to do it in contrast to Premier Doug Ford's slash-and-burn approach.  I'm all for sensible penny-pinching, but we need to talk about revenue as well.

I've written previously that Ontario needs a robust strategy to optimise its real estate assets; I'm excited by this possibility, whether through air rights above subway stations or coffee shops inside them, or advertising options on government land: whatever brings in passive income.

But beyond that, I can think of no better manner to address income inequality than by strategically increasing our taxation of the ultra-rich in order to finance programmes to lift up the working- and middle-class families and seniors who work hard to build our society — and who decide elections.

Pollster Frank Graves suggests nearly 70% of Canadians support a 2% "wealth tax" on all assets over $50 million.  More than that, Canada is the only G7 nation without any form of estate or inheritance tax (Ontario just uses relatively minor probate fees).

Canada has over 10,000 people worth over $30 million, and their combined net worth is over $1.1 trillion.  In other words, 15% of Canada's wealth is owned by less than 0.4% of Canadians; of this, nearly 30% inherited their wealth, with 26% inheriting wealth from more than one generation back.  The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates, "Instituting a 45% estate tax on estates valued over $5 million, in line with the rest of the G7, would add $2 billion to federal revenue".

As political theorist David Moscrop wrote, "Today, democracy is up against the wall all over the world.  This is precisely the moment at which we should double down on including people…in the economic system…That means redistribution.  One fine way of doing that is taxing extreme wealth through an inheritance tax and using those funds to invest in something far more valuable than a vacation home or luxury yacht".

What could those far more valuable things be?

In no particular order, Liberals should champion:

Universal pharmacare for all.  Free preschool.  Not just restoring the OSAP "free tuition" programme but actually funding universities and colleges such that we could abolish tuition entirely.  Student-loan debt forgiveness.  A combination of a basic income or increases to welfare rates to ensure no one is living in poverty.  Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, indexed to inflation.  Public transit as free as our roads and highways, and massive investments to build more through a Green New Deal-style government mobilization to fight climate change.  (Indeed, major corporations are already paying more tax because they're doing so well — they can afford to pay a reinstated cap-and-trade programme, the proceeds of which could fund transit for average people.)

There are people in my Party who will cry havoc and say this is unabashed radicalism.  To that I say simply: sure, but it's popular.  Popular enough to win.  And win big.

Even those who want the Ontario Liberal Party to return to the "centre" will need to concede that these ideas are the centre.  The middle ground has shifted in the years since the 2008 crash.  It's time Canada's progressive politics catch up.

These are also necessary measures.  We are staring down both the real risk of the end of liberal democracy through such abject inequality and of advanced civilisation as we know it through climate change; our response cannot be small, incremental changes.  It's a bonus that these ideas are popular, but even if they weren't — they'd still be necessary.

Photo Credit: TVO

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


The governing Liberal Party is increasingly characterized by division within its own ranks.  Two sides are emerging, one backing the prime minister and one backing a former top cabinet minister who left their portfolio under unclear circumstances, and who happens to be the child of another influential and well-respected politician.  All this is happening while suspicions of special treatment for a well-connected firm based in Quebec are becoming stronger by the day, enough to spark calls for a commission of inquiry.  The Conservative Opposition, led by a relatively unknown quantity from the Prairies, is positively salivating over the goings-on, clearly believing they need no better argument than this in the upcoming federal election.

It sure is great to be back in 2005, isn't it?  I just wish they'd stop playing "Let Me Love You" on the radio every two hours.  But at least The Aviator will probably win Best Picture.

Depending on what emerges in the coming weeks about the biggest scandal of this electoral cycle whatever we're calling it: SNCGate? LavScam? Kickbackghazi? the Tories may be justified in their glee.  Canadians need not be up to speed on all the details of the government's dealings with SNC-Lavalin; like eHealth or ORNGE or gas plants, all anyone needs to do is drop the keyword, and voters will nod, knowing that the Grits got themselves embroiled in a big shady thing, again.  "Just Not Ready" is out.  "Same Old Liberals" is on the way in.

To recap: SNC-Lavalin, a worldwide provider of engineering services with a workforce of 50 thousand, has been repeatedly investigated and charged for paying bribes and kickbacks to officials in Libya and elsewhere.  In 2017, they called for a regime for remediation agreements, which allows companies accused of criminal wrongdoing to make an admission and pay fines, as opposed to facing prosecution.  The Liberals established this regime in an omnibus bill in June 2018, with authority to approve remediation in the hands of the Attorney General at the time, Jody Wilson-Raybould.  In October, her office announced that SNC-Lavalin would not get one.  Three months later, she was shuffled to Minister of Veterans Affairs, widely regarded as a demotion.  Not long after, The Globe & Mail reported that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had tried and failed to persuade her to allow remediation for SNC-Lavalin, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has denied.  Just this week, Wilson-Raybould left cabinet altogether.  With Parliament getting involved, some Liberals are describing this scandal as a "witch hunt" against Trudeau, while others are implicitly defending Wilson-Raybould, who has retained the counsel of a former Supreme Court justice to advise her on what she can say publicly about all this.  Got it?  Good.

For all their insistence that there is no fire, the Liberals have done little to clear away the smoke.  In a press conference that could only have had worse optics if it had taken place in a slaughterhouse, Trudeau accused Wilson-Raybould of neglecting to come to him when she received that alleged PMO pressure.  All she has said is that she is bound by solicitor-client privilege not to comment, which Trudeau has not waived.  The party of "openness and transparency" has further tried to block a parliamentary committee from investigating the thing that didn't happen, along with (anonymously) accusing Wilson-Raybould, Indigenous and female, of being untrustworthy, self-interested, and "difficult to get along with."

None of these small measures waiving Wilson-Raybould's solicitor-client privilege and not disparaging her in public would necessarily make LavScam go away.  But the Liberals' evasiveness has been so flagrant that their chances of quashing the scandal have all but disappeared.  With his own comments making headlines, Trudeau has made himself the face of the problem when, with a few well-placed leaks of e-mail screenshots, one or multiple PMO staffers could have become so.  His party's image was already inextricably tied to his own.  That won't be a positive this time.

All this, for what?  For SNC-Lavalin, which is hyperconscious of its own "crown jewel" status in Quebec's economy?  At least the province's other crown jewels are simply incompetent instead of deeply corrupt.  If the company's top priority was to protect its workforce, its executives should not have put themselves at risk to be barred from a decades' worth of federal contracts.  This is the only appropriate reaction from a government in "a nation of laws."

But at least this time, the Liberals weren't involved in paying or receiving kickbacks themselves.  I suppose that's real change.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Written by Jess Morgan

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.