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

As the national conversation around the Double-Hyphen Affair carries on interminably, and both sides of the dispute continue to draw blood without a decisive blow, while everyone else keeps demanding a smoking gun that doesn't exist, there is a part of this conversation that only gets referred to in snide asides the sarcastic refrain of "so much for doing politics differently."  Indeed, it's also something that Jody Wilson-Raybould keeps going back to herself in her own written statements about her future, as she justifies her actions throughout the whole Affair.  But how much of this is really about doing politics differently, or how differently can politics be done, particularly in a country like ours?

A lot of the fallout of this Affair has been the Trudeau Liberals laying in the bed that they made for themselves, given how they constantly made a point of how virtuous they were.  Gender-balanced cabinets were not only because "it's 2015," but it was also articulated as an affirmative action program for mediocre men.  "Add women, change politics," was a slogan that is now being repeated back to them because apparently, they did change politics.  "Nines hire tens" was another phrase that should also be thrown in their faces given some of the incompetence we've seen in how they've handled themselves throughout.

Don't get me wrong to a certain extent, they are doing things differently than the previous government did.  There are two-fold problems with this, however one is that they think it's enough and they can rest on those laurels, and the other is dealing with the expectations they've created.  After all, "doing politics differently" is vague enough that it lets people conjure up a unicorn that will never be achievable in real life.  And yet, there is so much high-mindedness by this government that it quickly reached a point of arrogance, which also explains why they're so bad at issues management and communications.  They refuse to communicate like human beings, or to properly deal with the problems they've created for themselves because they appear to be too good to do so and that's a problem for them.  I'm not sure that this is the kind of "doing politics differently" that would endear them to anyone.  And yet here we are.

Part of the problem with thinking that you can (or should) approach politics or governing from a standpoint of being so performatively principled is that reality gets in the way and there is a lot of hard reality to governing in Canada.  There are a myriad of provincial, linguistic, and cultural interests that are difficult to bridge at the best of times, which are compounded by the other realities of the country, such as the oligopolistic nature of so much of the business community, which makes it difficult for governments to deal with them in a way that is different from any previous government, which is why this collision with SNC-Lavalin, or another major corporation, was in many ways inevitable.  And a government that is high on its own virtues will deal with them in a way that means well trying to protect jobs being the obvious example.  Going out of their way, in fact, to try and do so, and look at where it got them.

Amidst this, I have to wonder where "doing politics differently," with adding women to change politics, and all of those kinds of slogans, butts up against reality.  At what point to we expect the dose of cynicism to come in?  At what point do we expect compromises in order to deal with some crisis, real or imagined, in order to get things done?  And that's partly where I think this whole Affair starts to get messy for people was it unfair to expect strong, principled women like Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, who had little previous political experience, to accept some of that cynicism then they were promised a different way of doing things?  After all, so much of politics deals with horse-trading and compromises particularly when you are balancing as many competing interests as we have in Canada.  How much of the conversations over SNC-Lavalin had to do with trying to find compromises, and was that interpreted by Wilson-Raybould as pressure or interference?  Experienced ministers and staffers insist that their jobs deal with pressure, but did this rise to the level of inappropriate pressure?  There is no bright line for this, and I am forced to wonder if this too didn't get compounded by the expectations of doing politics differently, creating an interpretation of the events for Wilson-Raybould that didn't mesh with those of the others?

I go back to that open letter that Wilson-Raybould put out where she dismissed the "old, cynical view" of the way things get done, and talks of "doing politics differently" in particular, in a less-partisan and more open manner, striving for consensus, and rejecting the "increasing culture of conflict, empty partisanship, and cynical games."  As part of her submission to the justice committee, she added that she looks forward to a future "where we truly do politics differently."  She sees herself as a truth-teller and has these principles that I wonder whether they are able to survive the intractable, grimy realities of politics particularly given that Wilson-Raybould resorted to breaching her own ethical obligations by recording that conversation with Michael Wernick, and gave a performance on the tape that was recognizable to someone like me, who does interviews on tape for a living, as directing the conversation and asking leading questions in the hopes of getting a "gold" quote for future use.  Recording that call, making it public, and ensuring that she won't be trusted by her colleagues in the future is certainly doing politics differently but probably not in the way she espouses, which is unfortunate.

In a way, it's good that Canada can have this conversation at a time when other countries are dealing with existential crises of their own.  But perhaps it should behove us to temper our expectations, and that while "better is always possible," as Trudeau keeps saying, "doing politics differently" is a loaded term.  But the bottom line is that this government can't just rely on assuring everyone that they're virtuous that has clearly blown up in their faces, and it's time to return to a dose of reality.

Photo Credit: CTV News

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 Order Paper crisis in the Senate went nuclear on Tuesday afternoon, as Leader of the Government in the Senate err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder, tabled an unprecedented seven-page programming motion in the Senate Chamber, which for all intents and purposes was a declaration of procedural war against the opposition.  More than that, it's an absolute admission of failure by Harder that his refusal to do his own job to negotiate the passage of bills through the Chamber, and the subsequent crisis on the Order Paper that he created, led him to take the nuclear option well before it should have even been necessary to contemplate.  It's gross incompetence, and is going to leave lasting damage to the institution.

There has never been such a programming motion in the Senate before, and certainly not one of this magnitude, which covers eleven different bills, all of them at different stages some still at Second Reading, some in committee.  This goes beyond simple time allocation the rules of the Senate stipulate that it can only be used for one stage of one bill per motion.  To say that this programming motion is unprecedented is an understatement it actively undermines all of Harder's own high-minded rhetoric on the deliberative work of the Senate.

In the hours since the motion was tabled, Harder put out a press release and tweeted some self-aggrandizing justification for doing so, citing that he was "proposing a schedule that will allow Canadians to better follow the Senate's work, with organized debates and votes."  That's, to be frank, dishonest claptrap.  Saying you're doing this to "organize" debates is just imposing time allocation using the excuse of televised proceedings as a fig leaf.  In the press release, Harder said that some of these bills were moving too slowly.  The problem there, however, is that it's his own fault that things are not proceeding because he refuses to do his job.  He cited Bill C-57 as an example of Conservative obstruction, but they were obstructing because they were trying to force negotiations on other bills, and when they did get an agreement on moving forward on that bill, Harder overplayed his hand and was ready to move time allocation when the Conservatives were about to pass it.

Harder wrote that a programming motion was used to organize the debates and votes on the cannabis bill, so it's just fine.  That was a motion on one bill that was done in agreement by the various caucuses.  Using a motion for eleven bills at various stages is not even in the same universe as the motion on C-45.

"Given past practice and ongoing delay, we just can't be sure that the Opposition wants to give these bills fair and timely consideration," Harder quoted himself in his release.  "Canadians expect Senators to respect public business, and to do their work in both a thorough and diligent fashion."

The Opposition has been asking for negotiation on timelines on bills.  They had an agreement on two bills that Harder wanted to move forward on Tuesday morning and were ready to fast-track them (one bill to a committee with an overloaded docket, one that they were fully in support of) and he went back on his word and moved ahead with the programming motion.  This after his going back on a previous agreement around C-57.  This is how he expects to manage the agenda in the Senate?  Really?

Trying to blame these delays on the Opposition is frankly dishonest.  Nearly every single prime minister since Confederation has had to deal with a Senate where the opposition was the majority at one point, and things still got done.  Bills got passed, and the government's agenda (largely) got through because the two sides could negotiate something Harder refuses to do.  It's not helped by the fact that the Independent Senators Group refuses to engage in the necessary horse-trading of getting stuff done because they are under the mistaken impression that it's "partisan."  Harder has been trying to call for a business committee to time allocate all debates going forward on his behalf, so that he can do even less work than he is currently, and it's been suspected that he's engineered this Order Paper crisis in order to make the case for it.  This heavy-handed and ham-fisted programming motion is quite likely a salvo in that campaign, which shows the apparent "need" for such time allocation because the Bad Opposition is being partisan, and that's bad.  That he'll use the excuse of organizing debates for the sake of television just adds to the flimsy excuses that he won't do his own job.

And because he's taken this action, he has effectively declared war on the Conservatives, and they are having none of it.  You can expect them to take every procedural tactic they can in the coming weeks to frustrate Harder's agenda to make a point, and if that means needing bells for all proceedings, or having their leader give four-hour-long speeches on bills, then they are fully prepared to do so.  I can't imagine that the Senate Liberals are going to go for any of this either, particularly because this is such an unprecedented and ham-fisted manoeuvre.  That leaves the Independents.  I've heard that Senator Woo, the ISG "facilitator," is going to wait to listen to the debate on Harder's programming motion before he comes to any conclusion one way or the other, and Harder will only get his way if he can bring the Independents on-side.  But they need to realize that this is about giving Harder the power to impose the most draconian version of time allocation in Senate history, simply because he has refused to do his job to negotiate with the various caucuses to get his agenda through.

We also can't forget that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau isn't blameless in all of this either.  His decision to completely divorce himself from the Senate is not a situation of benign neglect it's actual neglect, and his chosen "representative" is causing real damage to the institution, and will continue to cause damage the longer he goes unchecked.  This situation should never have happened, and yet here we are.  It's now up to the Independents to see if they'll let Harder abuse his authority and turn the chamber into the very rubber stamp that he accused it of being under the old regime.

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.


Tuesday night Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made clear who he is looking out for while he's in government.

Trudeau is a Liberal prime minister looking out for the Liberal Party, Liberal interests, but most importantly he is looking out for the vast corporate oligopoly which really holds power in this country.

In his speech to the Liberal caucus, Trudeau explained to them, and to us, why former ministers Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott were being kicked out of the party.

"Civil wars within parties are incredibly damaging because they signal to Canadians that we care more about ourselves than we do about them," he said. "That's why I made the difficult decision to remove Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Philpott from the Liberal caucus."

Trudeau continued a bit later: "Since the beginning I have approached this situation with patience and understanding, my rationale has been that real change is hard, and so it requires patience and it requires understanding."

And it's this invocation of "real change" that really caught my ear. Here is the prime minister invoking the central, aspirational pillar of his election, and wielding it like a lance to smite those who dare oppose him.

"Being a member of caucus comes with rights and* responsibilities," he said. "The team has to trust each other. And with Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, that trust has been broken."

And finally, the capstone to the speech, before he went into the part where he tries to change the channel to other topics, he got down to the real point of things.

"Our political opponents win when Liberals are divided. We can't afford to make that mistake. Canadians are counting on us," Trudeau said.

The through-line in all of this is the interests of the party are exactly equal to the interest of the public. It's this sort of political arrogance that finds its purest form in the Liberal Party.

What happened was these two former ministers were really a drag on morale around the caucus room, they had to go. For Wilson-Raybould the final straw was making a recording of what would be one of her final attempts as attorney general to push back against the, as she's described it, repeated and improper pressure by Trudeau and his staffers to overrule the decision of a public prosecutor because it might hurt the lumbering corporate behemoth that is SNC-Lavalin.

For Philpott it was that, well, she had to go too. They were friends and she resigned from cabinet over this issue, so that should be enough. It's been quickly forgotten what Philpott said when she resigned, so I'm just going to quote the same paragraph I have a couple times, because I think it puts things quite succinctly:

"Unfortunately, the evidence of efforts by politicians and/or officials to pressure the former attorney general to intervene in the criminal case involving SNC-Lavalin, and the evidence as to the content of those efforts have raised serious concerns for me," Philpott wrote. "Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised."

She wrote an entire letter laying out why she though the public interest was being suborned to the preferred political outcome of the prime minister and his surrogates in the PMO. But nobody gives a shit for principles in Ottawa, so that's all been put down the memory hole.

That's what the entire SNC-Lavalin affair comes down to. It's not principles, it's cold calculation. If a company has enough lobbyists, and has gotten enough public pensions to buy into its business, and can claim it supports enough jobs, the machinery of this government will rearrange it's cogs and gears on whatever notice is necessary to get that company anything it wants.

In this case, SNC-Lavalin wanted a deferred prosecution agreement, where they'd pay a fine and maybe admit guilt instead of face public charges of bribing Libyan officials to get contracts. They bent enough ears in cabinet and at the Prime Minster's Office to get DPAs inserted into the criminal code as part of an omnibus budget.

Of course, it's not just that SNC executives bribed officials in Libya. The company's former CEO, Pierre Duhaime, recently pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy, and forgery, in a case surrounding a bribery scandal that ultimately won SNC a contract to build and maintain a mega hospital here in Montreal. (They still have the management contract, and will for another 25 or so years, by the by.)

And other members have had charges stayed, not because they were innocent, but because their trials were delayed for years and that was unconstitutional.

It's darkly funny that the former justice minister who's just been turfed was unable to fix the justice system enough to make some of the specific individuals charged with crimes at SNC-Lavalin face final judgement. Irony, alas, comes for us all in the end, particularly for those in public life.

But for pushing back against this company getting out of a full-blown trial, Wilson-Raybould primarily, and Philpott by extension are no longer Liberals. They put something else before the team.

They stood on a point of principle in the public interest. In the end, that could not stand. The team was betrayed, the honour of this nation's C-suites was at stake.

So the next time Trudeau talks about fighting for the middle class, it's worth considering this moment. In the end, when the chips were down, and it was between the public and the corporation, he sided with the corporation.

Those are the real stakes for the next election.

***

*Emphasis the prime minster's.

Photo Credit: National Post

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.