A new Challenge Broader lessons Cold War from quiet …...2 hours ago · cooked up sausage pasta...

Publ

icat

ions

Mai

l Agr

eem

ent #

4006

8926

Publ

icat

ions

Mai

l Agr

eem

ent #

4006

8926

BY ABBAS RANA

With the Conservative leader-ship election in the home

stretch and Peter MacKay leading

BY MIKE LAPOINTE

CBC Ottawa News anchor Adrian Harewood has been

involved in the fight against systemic racism in the media for nearly 30 years, a fight that’s been accelerated in recent weeks

BY ABBAS RANA

With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau yet again on the

defensive dealing with the fallout

from the We Charity controversy, some Liberal MPs are “upset,” “outraged,” and “disappointed,”

BY BEATRICE PAEZ & PALAK MANGAT

In a span of fewer than six months, the pandemic has

upended, encroached, and transformed just about every facet of life. The months ahead may help set the course for how society adapts to the conditions unleashed by the pandemic, as governments turn their focus

BY MIKE LAPOINTE

“Glaring” under-representation of visible minorities in the

upper echelons of the federal public service—Canada’s largest employer with more than 280,000 employees—continues to be something the Liberal government

Caucus endorsements ‘valuable indicator’ of who MPs, Senators think could best lead party to power, says a leading pollster

‘I must speak, I have no choice but to speak’: CBC’s Adrian Harewood talks about his decades-long fight against systemic racism in the media

It doesn’t require a ‘social revolution’: pandemic reshaping what’s possible, say experts

Feds recognize ‘there’s more work to be done on diversifying the public service,’ says Liberal MP Alghabra

‘Nobody calls out the prime minister’: WE Charity scandal ‘a truly systemic error,’ say some Liberal MPs who also wonder about PM’s advisers

Continued on page 16Continued on page 6 Continued on page 17

Continued on page 4Continued on page 7

NewsNews

NewsNews News

THIRTY-FIRST YEAR, NO. 1748 Canada’s PolitiCs and Government newsPaPer MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020 $5.00

Some Liberal backbenchers say they’re frustrated that their own government has lost goodwill over the WE Charity scandal, and Ipsos pollster Darrell Bricker says Canadians are now questioning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s judgment and his government’s ability to do its job in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hill Climbers

p.19

A new Cold War with China?

Probably not

Gwynne Dyer p. 13

Challenge of security cooperation in COVID-19

world Jennifer

Welsh p. 15

Broader lessons from quiet diplomacy

Greg McClinchey p. 14

Rose LeMay

p.10

MichaelHarris

p.12

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologized for not recusing himself from cabinet's decision to award a $900-million contract to WE Charity, which has now been cancelled, and he is on the defensive dealing with the fallout from the issue. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Last week in a rare move that will place Canada’s prime minister in the par-

liamentary hot seat and just days before his two-term finance minister admitted to repaying an outstanding $41,366 to WE Charity, the organization at the centre of a controversy surrounding the federal gov-ernment, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepted an invitation to appear before the House Finance Committee. At the time of publication, the PMO had not nailed down a time to meet the group that met twice last week, on July 21 and 22.

The WE Charity controversy has dogged the government in recent weeks, after Mr. Trudeau and Bill Morneau‘s ties to the organization came to light and the group pulled out of the government’s sole-sourced $900-million contract to adminis-ter the troubled Canada Student Service Grant. Prime ministerial appearances be-fore committees are rare, though ministers often do so to discuss their departmental spending estimates, to push for legislation they have tabled, or to brief and update MPs on decisions within their respective departments. The last such prime ministe-rial appearance was in 2006, when then-prime minister Stephen Harper appeared before a special Senate reform committee in the Red Chamber. Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Harper have turned down other com-mittee invitations during their tenure.

Katie Telford, Mr. Trudeau’s chief of staff, will also testify before the committee, which joins the House Ethics Committee in probing the matter.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, Lametti cooks up a storm for Mendicino

Justice Minister David Lametti, 57, (LaSalle-Émard-Verdun, Que.), while in Ottawa last week for the House sittings, cooked up sausage pasta and rapini for Im-migration Minister Marco Mendicino, 46, (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.), Monday night and tweeted about it. “In Ottawa for Parlia-ment. Marco Mendicino coming for dinner: sausage pasta and rapini alla mamma!” Mr.

Lametti’s happy tweet was liked by 277 sausage-pasta-loving people.

Top military commander resigns After five years on the job, the Ca-

nadian Armed Forces’ chief of defence staff announced last week that he will be stepping down and handing over the reins “in the months to come.” Gen. Jonathan Vance tweeted a letter he to his troops on July 23, writing that he would “relinquish control” of the CAF and that a new per-son will be named at a date decided by the government. “Remember, you mean everything to Canada, you are important to the success of this nation than most will ever know, and I am so very proud to be counted among your ranks.” Gen. Vance spent 39 years with the CAF and was in his sixth year in the top role, after being

appointed by Mr. Harper in 2015. His years were marked by high-profile efforts by the military to address sexual misconduct within its ranks and usher in the Liberals’ defence policy.

Mr. Trudeau said in a statement that the government would begin its recruitment process immediately, meanwhile, Gen. Vance will serve in his role until a replace-ment is named. “In his five years as chief of the defence staff, General Vance has served with distinction during a challenging period, leading the Canadian Armed Forces as they served at home and around the world, from Mali to Ukraine to Iraq,” said Mr. Trudeau in a release. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Gen. Vance had helped usher in “transformative change” guiding the Liberals’ defence policy, relief efforts at home in disasters like floods and forest fires, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Ac-cording to CBC and Global News, the feds said last week that they would not nomi-nate Gen. Vance for the role of chairman of NATO’s military committee, which is expected to become available next year. It has not been held by a Canadian for more than 15 years.

MacKay gets former premier’s nod Conservative leadership hopeful Peter

MacKay earned former Ontario pre-mier Bill Davis’ endorsement last week. “My friend Bill Davis sent me this email and asked me to share it with all of you,” tweeted Mr. MacKay on July 20. In a note to the former Harper-era cabinet minister, Mr. Davis, who will turn 91 on July 30, wrote that having worked closely with him “in the successful effort to unify Conserva-tives in 2003, I know you are the candi-date best able to unite our party and this country.” Mr. Davis was Ontario’s premier from 1971 to 1985, after first being elected in 1959 where he served as a backbencher in Leslie Frost‘s Progressive Conservative provincial government.

He served as one of the negotiators for the Progressive Conservatives when it and the Canadian Alliance joined forces to unite the right in 2003, to create the new Conservative Party of Canada. At the time, Mr. Harper led the Canadian Alliance while Mr. MacKay led the PCP. On July 20, Mr. MacKay was in Brampton for a cam-paign stop, where Mr. Davis grew up and has since called home. The former premier was unable to meet Mr. MacKay because he was at his cottage with his family.

Former Progressive Conservative MP John McDermid, who served under Brian Mulroney’s federal government (1984-1993) for the riding of Brampton-Georgetown, reacted to the news. Mr. Mulroney won two back to back majorities in 1984 and in 1988 before the Progressive Conservatives were almost wiped out in 1993 winning only two seats. “Great to have Bill’s support for your candidacy. That’s two old Bramptonians in your court,” Mr. McDermid tweeted. “Look forward to see you win the leadership and go on to give this country honest leader-ship.”

Harper to lead British think tank’s commission

Speaking of former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, he was named last week to lead the British think tank, the Policy Exchange’s new international commission on the Indo-Pacific region. The Policy Exchange will tap into diplomats, politicians, and civic and military leaders from the U.K., U.S., India, Japan, Australia and Singapore for its commission, which will write a “blueprint for a new strategic approach to the region, examining ques-tions of trade, diplomacy, politics, defence and security that centre on the Indo-Pa-cific,” noted a July 20 release. It is the first such U.K.-led effort, and the group argues that “isolated positions are vulnerable places” in today’s world.

The commission will “help position Britain” as a new focus for “alliance-building among independent states committed to the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific,” and of-fer policy briefings, analytical reports, and backgrounders for policymakers. Led by Mr. Harper, it also features Ely Ratner, a former deputy national security adviser to former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden. Mr. Harper tweeted on July 21 that he was “pleased” to chair the group. “Looking forward to col-laborating with the commission’s global membership of policy-makers on a strategic approach for maintaining rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific century,” he wrote.

Son marks late Jack Layton’s 70th Toronto councillor Mike Layton marked

what would have been his late father’s 70th birthday last week, sharing a selfie with one of his daughters by the waterfront statue of former NDP leader Jack Layton, which was decked out with a mask and an orange and white polka dotted party hat.

“Happy 70th birthday dad!!!” tweeted Mr. Layton on July 18. Sculpted by artist David Pelletier, the life-size bronze sculpture was unveiled in 2013 and features the late leader on a tandem bike at the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal, which links the Toronto Islands to the city. Olivia Chow and Jack Layton had married at that spot in 1988, and the couple bought each other a tandem bike as a wed-ding present. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, himself an avid bike enthusiast, marked the eighth anniversary of Layton’s death last summer by joining Ms. Chow at the spot on Aug. 22, 2019. The late leader died from can-cer in 2011 at the age of 61. Nycole Turmel was named interim leader of the party after his death, and Tom Mulcair won the leader-ship soon after.

[email protected] The Hill Times

MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020 | THE HILL TIMES2

by Palak Mangat

Heard on the Hill

Liberals to remain in hot seat over WE Charity controversy as Trudeau, Telford prepare for House committee probe

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford, pictured at a Liberal event in 2014, will testify before the House Finance Committee about the WE Charity controversy. The Hill Times file photograph

What’s cooking: Justice Minister David Lametti in his kitchen in Ottawa. Photograph courtesy of David Lametti’s Twitter

Chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance, pictured April 30, said last week he would be stepping down from the role he has held since 2015. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Former Ontario premier Bill Davis, pictured in 2014, is endorsing Peter MacKay for the Conservative leadership race. Photograph courtesy of Alex Guibord’s Flickr

Former prime minister Stephen Harper, pictured at a campaign stop in New Brunswick on October 2015, has been tapped by a British think tank for work on the Indo-Pacific region. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Toronto councillor Mike Layton, the son of Jack Layton, rang in the late NDP leader’s 70th birthday last week with one of his daughters. Photograph courtesy of Mike Layton’s Twitter

In rural parts of Canada, like Flin Flon, the essential nature of connectivity – and the downsides of not having reliable, high speed broadband access and high-quality wireless services – have been magnified through the pandemic.

Rural Canada is a dynamic and essential part of Canada’s economy, making valuable contributions to the tourism, mining, high-tech and manufacturing sectors. Ten million Canadians live outside of metropolitan areas and 30 per cent of the country’s GDP is generated in these areas.

According to figures from the CRTC, 40.8 per cent of households in rural Canada have access to basic broadband (defined by the CRTC as 50 mbps download and 10 mbps upload), compared to 85.7 per cent in urban areas. An astounding two million Canadians cannot access a reliable internet connection.

This must change. Our rural communities have so much potential to drive our economy forward but are being left in the dust because of shortsighted policies. Access to broadband internet and wireless matters not just for the quality of life and social connections of Canadians living in rural areas, but for the long-term viability of the rural Canadian economy.

To its credit, the federal government understands the importance of broadband to the economic viability of rural communities. In 2019, it appointed Canada’s first ever Minister for Rural Economic Development and announced a plan to connect 95 per cent of Canadians to broadband internet by 2026, and all by 2030. What’s more, the promise of 5G technology will transform how our country connects.

And recently, Minister for Rural Economic Development Maryam Monsef said that she considers reliable broadband and wireless connectivity “an essential service.” And with recent discussions of the widespread deployment of a COVID exposure tracking smartphone app, reliable wireless service will play a direct role in public health protection.

However, the pace of network expansion into rural Canada has come into question. Central to the issue is a year-old decision by the CRTC to dramatically reduce the rates facility-based telecommunications companies –

those that build, maintain and expand broadband networks – have to charge resellers, or the companies that sell access to the larger telcos’ networks. The rate change will essentially provide resellers with access at rates below cost. In turn, the telcos will have less to invest in maintaining, improving and expanding broadband internet to underserved parts of rural Canada.

These resellers, though, are not the companies investing in the network infrastructure we need. If allowed to compete for broadband internet custom-ers by repackaging and reselling existing networks, there will be little incen-tive for the network owners to build, expand, and upgrade connectivity for rural Canadians – at the precise time when we need them to invest further in their networks to bring 5G services to Canada.

Unsurprisingly, following the August 2019 CRTC decision on wholesale rates, several telcos announced that they were curtailing plans to expand broadband into rural areas. This means that thousands of rural Canadians will now have to wait even longer for the digital amenities other Canadians enjoy, and that rural businesses won’t be able to access the digital infrastructure to compete.

Further, Canadians in urban areas will benefit from price reductions, almost exclusively, since the resellers typically focus almost all of their resources in the most populous and well served parts of the country, such as southern Ontario and southern Quebec, and invest almost nothing in rural areas.

While wholesale price reductions could give more urban Canadians cheaper internet, it must be balanced with policies that ensure high speed internet is available to all Canadians, including mining camps, small business owners and others who proudly call Flin Flon and other parts of rural Canada home.

The federal cabinet is now reviewing the CRTC’s wholesale internet rate change, and rural Canadians are counting on the government to make the right decision. Network expansion and affordability are complex issues, but one thing is clear: we have to strike a balance that doesn’t leave rural Canada behind. We need an approach that will give all people in Canada the opportu-nity to connect with the world and build their future. Our federal government can, and must, deliver it.

The future of my community depends on high speed internetCal Huntley, Mayor, The City of Flin Flon

Sponsored by Shaw Communications

1https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-may-26-2020-1.5584823/minister-of-rural-development-open-to-internet-access-becoming-public-utility-1.5585095

ADVERTISEMENT

4

onto recovery efforts while also bracing for another onslaught of outbreaks.

The confluence of crises, from staggering job losses and a re-cord-setting deficit to a reckoning with racial injustice—which have exposed pre-existing inequities to the broader society—have poten-tially set the stage for abandoning the status quo.

But the adoption of once-unthinkable policies is not a fore-gone conclusion, even as many rally behind the common refrain to “build back better.”

Minority Parliament expands what’s possible, says former Senator

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, a longtime propo-nent of universal basic income, said it will take “political courage” from the government to usher in ambitious policies such as UBI.

Since the pandemic forced massive layoffs, leading the

government to spend $212-billion and counting in direct support to Canadians facing layoffs and furloughs, there’s been a resur-gence of interest and calls for the

government to test out a basic income program for those living beneath the poverty line.

Detractors of a national basic income argue that it creates dis-incentives for people to work, but proponents say there hasn’t been evidence to suggest diminished productivity.

British Columbia’s NDP gov-ernment is awaiting the release of a government-commissioned interim report on basic income from its expert panel, while Prince Edward Island, which is led by Progressive Conservative

Premier Dennis King, has struck an all-party committee to exam-ine the policy.

With the Liberals overseeing a minority Parliament, Mr. Segal said, it’s an opportune moment for the government—and the NDP—to follow B.C. and P.E.I.’s lead and give serious consider-ation to how it can be implement-ed on a national scale.

“I’m not at all discouraged about the prospects,” Mr. Segal said. He noted the Trudeau govern-ment doesn’t have to expend all of its political capital and instead can lean on the NDP for support—as both parties are bent on appeal-ing to the same set of voters—and buy-in from the public.

“Provided it’s prepared to show courage, I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t. If you think about who votes for them, look at those groups who are most overrepresented amongst low-income Canadians.”

Independent Senator Frances Lankin (Ontario), a former NDP Ontario cabinet minister, who co-

led an effort with fellow Ontario Independent Senator Kim Pate to issue a statement in support of a basic income earlier this year, said the need for such a program will only grow as the jobs of the future become more precarious thanks to the proliferation of con-tract and gig-economy work.

Fifty Senators signed their name to that document. Earlier this month, the Senate Finance Committee also released an interim report, recommending the government consider working with the provinces to implement a

long-term national basic income program.

Sen. Lankin said she senses some interest politically, but said it’s too soon to tell whether that will translate into concrete policy.

Interest at the level of the bu-reaucracy is also key, said Mr. Se-gal, who noted that most finance departments, regardless of who’s in office, have long resisted major policy shifts that would eat into the budget, thereby constrain-ing the government’s ability to pursue other policies.

“They don’t like the idea of a permanent, statutory requirement to people, because that dimin-ishes their freedom,” he said. “It’s their job to preserve the spend-ing freedom of their minister of government.”

Mr. Segal said the government doesn’t have to look far in devis-ing a program that could be scaled nationally, pointing to the two past experiments with UBI in Dauphin, Man., in the 1970s and most recently, in Ontario, under Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals. Both programs were cut after a change in government, when conservatives took office.

He also said Canada has the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, which gives low-income seniors a monthly cheque, as a guide. “It already has a model they can use, which does not re-quire either rocket science or any social revolution.”

Sen. Lankin said she and other proponents in the Senate haven’t been “prescriptive” in their pitch for basic income, explaining that it would be up to the government to design a program that establishes the reduction thresholds, which would adjust the benefit dispensed in relation to the individual’s income.

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux’s of-fice recently costed a six-month program, estimating it could cost between $47.5-billion and $98-bil-lion, depending on the program’s eligibility and reach. There’s also a request before the PBO to see what cost savings may be reaped if a ba-sic income program were to offset the need for other social-welfare programs or to redistribute funds, according to Sen. Lankin.

Sen. Lankin said when the Senate returns in the fall, she

hopes debate can resume on her motion to examine the future of workers in the gig economy—a study that could further furnish support for a basic income.

“The Senate is a great place for [this] work to be done. We can start to unearth the data, and to start to promote some of the solu-tions,” she added.

Statistics Canada’s 2021 census, and other censuses going forward, will for the first time collect comprehensive data on the gig economy.

‘A lack of conviction’As proposals to reshape how

society functions, especially in the face of a looming climate crisis, pile up, it’s not a foregone conclusion that the government is listening and willing to act.

“We’re experiencing an inter-est in the green recovery, but a lack of conviction to make it happen,” said Catherine Abreu, executive director of Climate Ac-tion Network. “There’s perhaps an uneven amount of interest in the green, just recovery in cabinet.”

Green recovery has become the catchall term that encom-passes efforts to aggressively cut emissions, whether through fund-ing clean-energy projects or tying “green strings”—such as commit-ments to curb emissions—to loans and other financial support for the fossil fuel industry.

Ms. Abreu said there’s a disconnect between the gov-ernment’s rhetoric on climate and how it’s actually allocated funding since the pandemic, adding there may be a tension at play between cabinet ministers who want to go all in on a green recovery and those who want to “double down on the status quo,” because it’s perceived to be the safer route.

“What we’ve learned is the status quo is not safe,” she said.

According to the energy policy tracker, a tool developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development that tracks G20 countries’ pandemic spending, Canada has committed to spend at least US$12-billion in

It doesn’t require a ‘social revolution’: pandemic reshaping what’s possible, say experts The confluence of crises have potentially set the stage for abandoning the status quo.

News

MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020 | THE HILL TIMES

Continued from page 1

Continued on page 5

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, pictured July 16, 2020, is steering the country at a time of great upheaval, with experts and politicos from various fields saying it's an opportune time to rethink how society functions. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, pictured July 21 at West Block, is in a position to continuously push for the adoption of a national basic income, says former Senator Hugh Segal. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

5

support of fossil fuel energy, with an estimated US$10.14-billion of which is unconditional support. The tool indicates that at least US$222.78-million was ear-marked for clean energy.

Reached for comment, Ian Cameron, a spokesperson for the natural resources minister, said in an email the government “stands by the measures it enacted to sup-port Canadians during COVID-19, such as funding for critical air services to Northern and remote communities, one of the many support measures which this re-port has characterized as a fossil fuel support policy.”

Vanessa Corkal, an energy policy analyst with IISD, said in an email that the tracker specifies that the $17.3-million earmarked for air services to the North, along with other measures for Northern and remote communi-ties, have also been identified as critical.

“We would like to stress that these amounts are a very small portion of the overall funding that has been allocated,” she said.

Dr. Ivetta Gerasimchuk, IISD’s project lead, also said in an email the “tracker classifies policies based not on their greenness, but purely on the types of energy they benefit.” Measures tagged as “fossil unconditional” include those that aren’t attached with requirements to “reduce negative impacts on the environment and potentially compete with cleaner mobility options.”

Amara Possian, campaigns director with 350.org, a climate-advocacy group that aims to mobilize youth, said the economic recovery led by the government doesn’t have to rely on resource extraction.

“There are many things that we have been told weren’t pos-sible for a long time that are actually possible once they’re prioritized,” she said.

She said it’s not too late for the government to shift away from the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, as the costs will likely increase further due to the pan-demic. The costs of the expansion had already risen to $12.6-billion in February, from $7.4-billion in 2017, she noted.

“The cost of building this pipeline is going to increase. If you compare that to something like during World War II, Canada created 28 new Crown corpora-tions,” she said. “What if, after the pandemic, we do something similar? But we create a Crown corp. that is run by Indigenous communities.”

That corporation could assume more responsibility for ending boil water advisories and bring-ing more Indigenous communi-ties onto solar energy, among other things, she said. Another suggestion is nationalizing shut-tered manufacturing plants like General Motors’ plant in Oshawa, Ont., and reopening and retooling them to produce more environ-mentally friendly products like electric vehicles.

Ms. Abreu and other climate advocates have also been calling on the government to legislate a climate-accountability framework, similar to B.C.’s, which would schedule both firm and interim targets on slashing emissions the government would have to meet.

The government’s release of new targets for 2030 under the Paris climate accord may be delayed because of COVID-19, along with legislation that would enforce five-year targets, as much of its pre-pandemic legislative agenda has stalled.

In an email statement, Moira Kelly, press secretary to Environ-ment Minister Jonathan Wilkin-son (North Vancouver, B.C.) said, the government remains commit-ted to “exceeding our 2030 Paris target and getting Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050.” She said the new target will be released at or before the next global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2021. COP26 was scheduled to convene in November, but the pandemic derailed those plans.

Most of the government’s cabi-net committees, save for the full cabinet, Treasury Board, and the COVID-19 group, haven’t been able to meet since March “due to the pandemic,” and have yet to

return to “regular scheduling,” ac-cording to Alex Wellstead, press secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office.

If Canada had this legislative framework, including a 2030 tar-get in place before the pandemic hit, Ms. Abreu said, it wouldn’t be playing catch-up as it finds itself consumed with mitigating the economic fallout from COVID-19.

“If we already had climate accountability, it would be ex-tremely helpful on a variety of fronts. We would have a sched-ule already in place, we would know who was responsible for advising on the determination of those targets,” she said. “It’s about providing that predictability, giving enough leeway in terms of timelines.”

Renewing attention on the passage of UNDRIP

Bob Joseph, founder and presi-dent of Indigenous Corporate Training, said he anticipates there will be renewed calls for the gov-ernment to enshrine the UN Dec-laration on the Rights of Indig-enous Peoples into law, as it had promised to in the Throne Speech. Legislation would have been tabled in February, according to CBC, but the rail blockades in solidarity with some Wet’suwet’en demonstrators delayed its rollout.

Mr. Joseph said he wants to see politicians of all stripes lend their support to the aspirational document in hopes of moving “more toward the consent model” when it comes to the approval of development projects. UND-RIP includes a clause that calls for “free, prior, and informed consent” from Indigenous people around development projects on their unceded land.

In the post-pandemic recovery, there may be a rush to finance en-ergy and resource projects, and, in turn, an obligation on the part of the government to ensure it has the support it needs from the Indigenous communities affected before it moves forward.

“When you look at Canada, it really is [still] a resource-extrac-tion country,” he said, pointing to the country’s continued reliance on forestry, mining, oil and gas. “They’re going to want to push their attention to those things, and that puts UNDRIP and the truth and reconciliation work that we’re going to do, right on a collision course, because they’re going to want to do it fast.”

For many Indigenous advo-cates, having UNDRIP in place would go a long way in providing certainty for the industry. In the absence of securing the consent required, energy projects—includ-ing most notably, the Trans Moun-tain pipeline expansion proj-ect—have experienced numerous legislative hurdles.

“I’ve always heard [commu-nities] say, ‘We’re not against development, but it can’t be development at all costs. We’ve got to protect the fish, forests, animals,’ so there are ways to conduct adequate and meaningful consultation,” he said. “In Cana-dian law, that’s fairly narrowly defined, whereas in [UNDRIP], the guidance is there.”

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, former prime minister Brian Mulroney called on the prime

minister to implement the recom-mendations outlined in the 1996 re-port from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The commission calls for restorative justice, allowing Indigenous nations to govern their own lands, resources, and affairs, while giving more control over education and child welfare.

Pushing for the establishment of a ‘reparation committee’

Wesley Crichlow, who chairs a taskforce on racial equity at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, said the government should set up a permanent reparation committee to study how Canada can make amends for its part in not adequately address-ing the enduring systemic racism faced by Black Canadians.

“Reparation is not just going to happen in the form of giving mon-ey, but reparation comes in many forms,” he said. “We have been kept out of the system for more than 500 years, and a committee that lasts two years is not going to undo 500 years of systemic and structural anti-Black racism.”

Prof. Crichlow said the Black Parliamentary Caucus’ statement, a document released June 16 that made wide-ranging recommenda-tions on justice, public safety, arts and culture, fell short in not sug-gesting that Canada apologize for the enslavement of Black people.

The statement notes that its release comes at a “fitting” time, given the caucus was formed dur-ing the United Nations Decade of People of African Descent, which spans from 2015 to 2024. In February 2017, Canada officially recognized the decade, and that

fall, a UN panel recommended that Ottawa “issue an apology and consider providing reparations to African Canadians for enslave-ment and historical injustices.”

An official apology has yet to be made. When asked in June if an apology would be coming, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) sidestepped reporters’ questions.

The Black caucus’ recommen-dations were also sparked in part by the death of George Floyd, an African-American man in Minne-apolis, who died while in police custody. His death was captured in a chilling video that later galvanized protesters worldwide to demand racial justice. The officers who were dispatched are facing charges. In Canada, his death rekindled attention on police reform, and helped il-luminate other recent deaths and incidents involving Indigenous and Black people’s interactions with police.

“Now that we are in a moment, we must reimagine Black justice in a way that begins to ground its history from one of colonization and slavery, to begin to be brave enough to say, ‘Anti-Black racism is real; it is embedded in the DNA of this country, and therefore, we need to apologize for slavery, be-cause it’s an active injustice toward Black people,’ ” said Prof. Crichlow.

Similar to the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, Prof. Crichlow said, the government should con-sider establishing a specific body for Black youth. (The council is currently accepting new applica-tions until Aug.17).

The council aims to inform the prime minister on issues affecting youth.

“You can’t have these things in meaningless ways. It cannot be performance optics, it has to be one in which you accept Black youth for who they are but provide more mentoring,” he said. “If you don’t provide mentoring, these youth are doomed to fail. Mentoring is a major part of all reparation, because in reparation, we have to have access to the echelons of power.”

Such groups could go a long way in ensuring there are other bodies that push for things like mandatory mentoring programs for young Black students, he said. Prof. Crichlow said the council should work to bring together diverse politi-cal voices, not just left-leaning youth.

“We need all voices because they complement each other and help each other see the whole picture.”

[email protected]@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

News

THE HILL TIMES | MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020


Independent Senator Frances Lankin, pictured in January 2020, says it would be up to the government to devise a scheme for delivering a basic income program on a national scale. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, pictured in February 2020, and his fellow cabinet members have yet to decide whether they will be releasing new 2030 targets this year or in 2021 at the next climate summit. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Bob Joseph, president of Indigenous Corporate Training Inc., says he expects there to be a renewed push for the government to implement UNDRIP. Photograph courtesy of Bob Joseph

Liberal MP Greg Fergus, chair of the Black Parliamentary Caucus, pictured July 22, 2020, led the push to develop recommendations on addressing systemic racism faced by the Black community. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

6

and months as much of the Ca-nadian media landscape is now contending with a rising chorus of voices within the journalis-tic community calling for more diversity in both newsrooms and boardrooms—particularly after the death of 46-year-old George Floyd at the hands of a Minne-apolis police officer in May.

Mr. Harewood said he spoke out for the first time with regard to CBC, Canada’s national broad-caster, “in a very public way” in 2016, and has recently increased his commentary on the state of Canadian media more generally, notably with a series of tweets in early May that touched on why mainstream media in Canada “still has a systemic problem in its newsrooms and boardrooms.”

“Part of it is that it’s my responsibility—I know that there’s a problem and I know that it needs to be addressed,” said Mr. Harewood in an interview with The Hill Times last week. “I have a little bit of power, I have a little bit of confidence, and I feel as if I can speak, and that I must speak, and that I have no choice to speak.”

“Sometimes you have to take risks in order to make change—change just doesn’t happen by spontaneous generation, change happens because people are will-ing to take a chance and they’re willing to apply pressure, to jeopardize things that maybe are important to them, but the issue

is important enough that they’re willing to jeopardize it,” said Mr. Harewood. “When you know that there’s a problem it’s incumbent on you to act and to use your voice, and to use your power, and so that’s why I suppose I did it.”

Mr. Harewood has deep ties to Ottawa, having attended high school at Ashbury College before becoming involved in community radio at Carleton University’s CKCU as well as at the University of Ottawa’s CHUO. After study-ing political theory and history at McGill University in Montreal, Mr. Harewood made his way into journalism with CBC, eventually hosting All In A Day on CBC Ra-dio One in Ottawa before making the move to journalism.

The veteran journalist recalled a Canadian University Press conference in the early 1990s in Quebec when he was a contribu-tor to the McGill Daily.

“I remember at that time, the matter of systemic racism, the matter of lack of representation within the student media was an issue, and it was something that we were focusing a lot of attention paid to that matter during that conference,” said Mr. Harewood, who noted some of the people attending became prominent Canadian journalists, including Naomi Klein, Stepha-nie Nolen, Doug Saunders and Nahlah Ayed.

“This is something that we’ve been talking about for a very, very long time—this is not something that’s new, it’s not something that just appeared on the scene, and it goes back even prior to that,” said Mr. Harewood. “I think I’ve been pretty consistent—as I’ve said before, this is something that many people have been thinking about and talking about for a very long time.”

Mr. Harewood’s parents were educators at university and com-munity college, but were also journalists who wrote for the main Black English-language newspaper Contrast in the 1970s.

“One of the reasons why people like my parents [wrote] for the Black newspaper, is because

they believed that stories about the Black community needed to be amplified and the story of the community needed to be told, and they felt that they had a responsibility to do that,” said Mr. Harewood. “But I’d also say that there just wasn’t space in the mainstream media at that time in Canada. A lot of these newspa-pers, media organs, were relative-ly closed shops, and if you were a person of colour, it was difficult for you, in spite of the fact that you had the chops, the ability, and you’d been to the same universi-ties as your colleagues.”

‘A lot of folks have lost their fear’

When asked about feedback he’s received in past weeks and whether or not reaction to his statements has been nega-tive or positive—both from the public and from colleagues, Mr. Harewood said he’s “really been heartened” and that “a lot of folks have lost their fear.”

“A lot of folks, who for what-ever reason might have been reluctant to speak, maybe three months ago, four months ago, two years ago, four years ago, now they’re speaking and they’re speaking because we’re living in a particular historical moment,” said Mr. Harewood.

The May 25 killing of 46-year-old George Floyd, a Black man, by a police officer in Minneapolis, which sparked outrage and mass demonstrations across both the United States and in Canada—including on Parliament Hill on June 5—was an event that has “really reverberated around the world,” said Mr. Harewood.

“It’s been a thunderclap, and it’s forced many institutions to reckon with their past and to reckon with their present, and I think Canadian media is no dif-ferent,” said Mr. Harewood. “I’ve been heartened at how a lot of my colleagues have responded, particularly Indigenous col-leagues, Black colleagues, and colleagues of colour,” said Mr. Harewood. “I’ve been heartened at how brave people have been and how courageous they’ve been in sharing their stories. I’ve been inspired in how willing they are to expose some of the contradic-tions that exist within their own institutions.”

“Many people are taking real risks in speaking up, so that’s re-ally inspired me,” said Mr. Hare-wood, who also noted that a lot of his white colleagues within CBC are also speaking up and also rec-ognize that things need to change.

“It’s as much their responsibil-ity to speak up as it is their col-

leagues of colour, because we are all citizens; we all belong to this place, and we have a responsibil-ity to make sure that everyone can realize their full potential as human beings, so I think I’ve been heartened by that as well,” said Mr. Harewood.

In terms of Canada’s national broadcaster, Mr. Harewood said he’s noticed there has been some movement at CBC, and that his sense is that the senior leadership is listening.

“They are recognizing that if CBC wants to remain relevant, and if it wants to reflect the country back to itself, which is its mandate, then it has to change, and so I think that steps are being taken to realize that,” said Mr. Harewood. “It can never happen fast enough for me, but I do think that there has been some prog-ress.”

Susan Marjetti, CBC’s gen-eral manager for news, current affairs and local programming, addressed diversity in CBC’s newsrooms in a June 22 interview on CBC’s Metro Morning.

“CBC is 84 years old this fall, so we have to work hard, like many organizations and insti-tutions across this country, to make sure that we have a range of voices and perspectives right at the story meeting table, right at the decision-making levels across this organization,” said Ms. Marjetti. “It’s key and core and critical if we’re going to remain relevant to a changing Canada, and I call this a demo-graphic wake-up—not even a de-mographic make-up, in terms of what has happened and changed in Canada over the last number of years.”

“At the end of the day, we need more representation by a diverse group of people in positions

of power, in decision-making positions,” said Mr. Harewood. “If those changes aren’t made, ultimately we will not achieve what we need to achieve in order to ensure that CBC is living up to its mandate.”


‘I must speak, I have no choice but to speak’: CBC’s Adrian Harewood talks about his decades-long fight against systemic racism in the media ‘At the end of the day, we need more representation by a diverse group of people in positions of power, in decision-making positions,’ says Adrian Harewood.

News



CBC Ottawa News anchor Adrian Harewood says 'I have a little bit of power, I have a little bit of confidence, and I feel as if I can speak, and that I must speak, and that I have no choice but to speak.' Photograph courtesy of CBC

7

is looking to address, according to Liberal MP and parliamen-tary secretary for public service renewal Omar Alghabra, with Canada’s first African Canadian appointed to the Senate call-ing for the establishment of a “Department of Diversity” to be headed by a Black deputy min-ister.

As of July 21, 2020, there were 80 individuals within the deputy minister community in the federal public service; of which, 36 oc-cupy deputy minister roles and 44 occupy associate deputy minis-ter roles according to Stéphane Shank, spokesperson for the Privy Council Office in an emailed state-ment to The Hill Times.

“Privacy legislation prohibits the release of personal informa-tion of governor-in-council appoin-tees, including deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers,” according to Mr. Shank. “Releasing statistics related to the self-iden-tification of deputy ministers and/or associate deputy ministers risks disclosure of personal information when the representation is below 10 per cent.”

Mr. Alghabra (Mississauga Centre, Ont.), who was ap-

pointed parliamentary secretary to the prime minister for public service renewal by Prime Min-ister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) in December 2019, told The Hill Times that “there is a recognition that there’s more work to be done on diversifying the public service.”

“Certainly this issue has been part of our work with govern-ment since our first mandate, and undoubtedly since George Floyd received a heightened sense of urgency and attention [on the is-sue],” said Mr. Alghabra.

Mr. Alghabra said the point of disaggregating data around visible minorities is “certainly a pivotal one,” and there is an ongoing conversation to provide that data—but said he was not in a position to confirm or share the actual data of visible minorities for privacy reasons.

“But you’re accurate in point-ing out that when you rise higher, especially at an executive level, the under-representation is much more glaring, and that is some-

thing our government is focused on and continues to be focused on,” said Mr. Alghabra.

Mr. Trudeau has tasked Clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart for increasing attention to this is-sue, according to Mr. Alghabra, as well as ministers within their own departments.

Richard Sharpe, founder of the Federal Black Employee Caucus (FBEC), who works with Public Services and Procure-ment Canada (PSPC), and also belongs to the Canadian Associa-tion of Professional Employees (CAPE), told The Hill Times he’s been working on an interchange in community for the last year-and-a-half, working on the UN International Decade of People of African Descent.

“I’ve been doing this work for about 25 years, I started off as an AS-2, and realized pretty quickly that I would have no chance of ever getting hired at a higher level,” said Mr. Sharpe. “I think it really has a lot to do with the nature of what leadership is in Canada, I think there’s the con-scious and unconscious percep-tions of what leadership is, and it’s invariably white and invari-ably male,” said Mr. Sharpe.

The FBEC recently concluded a data collection initiative in collabo-ration with independent researcher Gerard Etienne to better under-stand the experiences of Black federal public service employees, according to the FBEC website. Re-sults from the survey, which closed on July 8, are still being analyzed.

“We had about 2,300 em-ployees from 63 departments take part in the survey [and] we had about 1,000 employees in the Natoinal Capital Region fill out that survey,” said Mr. Sharpe. “More than 60 per cent of respondents state that there is discrimination where they work, and more than half of the respondents have stated they have not recievied a promotion in the last six years.”

Around three-quarters of re-spondents “strongly agreed” with the question around if “prejudice exists where I work” as well.

Former Nova Scotia Conserva-tive Senator Donald Oliver, who served in the Upper Chamber from 1990 to 2013 and was the first African Canadian appointed to the Senate, highlighted the

Employment Equity Act that was passed by the government in the early 1980s that outlined four classes of Canadians that need special measures because they are not being treated equally.

“Those four groups are the dis-abled, women, Indigenous people, and something they called visible minorities,” said Mr. Oliver in an interview with The Hill Times last week. “One of the things that have happened with the government is that they’ve been able to hide behind this great big broad word, and say, ‘Look, in our department X,’ we’ve got 11.5 per cent visible mi-norities,’” said Mr. Oliver. “And when you walk through that department, there’s not one Black face.”

“So I feel very, very strongly, and I’ve been suggesting for a while that the federal government has got to go back to that old stat-ute and revise it and take people of African descent, or Black people, out of the category called ‘visible minority’ because it’s do-ing damage to them and they’re not being afforded a fair opportu-nity to compete in Canada,” said Mr. Oliver.

In an earlier piece that ran in The Hill Times, Mr. Oliver sug-gested that the country needs a new federal government Depart-ment of Diversity headed by a Black deputy minister, and that “the upper echelons of power in Canada must reflect the diverse faces of Canada.”

“Once the will is there to make a change, the prime minister has to say to his deputy who happens to be the clerk of the Privy Coun-cil and secretary to the cabinet, ‘I want this to happen,’” said Mr. Oliver. “These things happen all the time, when senior bureaucrats stay late into the night working on things and getting it done.”

Independent Senator Rose-mary Moodie (Ontario), who is a member of the Parliamentary Black Caucus that was estab-lished in 2015, told The Hill Times that “any discussion that at this time helps us to review the parameters around equity in the workplace, particularly in our public service and in areas of leadership across our public service, should be something that we should seriously consider doing.”

“I’m sure that the Senate would be supportive of discus-sions if they were to come our way,” said Sen. Moodie.

One of the calls made by the Black Parliamentary Caucus in a June 16 statement, of which Sen. Moodie is a member, is for the establishment of an “indepen-dent champion for Black federal employees through the creation of a national public service institute.”

“It is one of the things that could be done, and I would con-cur that that is definitely some-thing that could be done, and I think it should be done with the appropriate processes in place to select such a person, but that amongst other initiatives could be done within our public service,” said Sen. Moodie.


Feds recognize ‘there’s more work to be done on diversifying the public service,’ says Liberal MP Alghabra Former Nova Scotia Senator Donald Oliver says the government should re-visit the Employment Equity Act and take people of African descent, or Black people, out of the category called ‘visible minority.’

News



Liberal MP Omar Alghabra says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has tasked Clerk of the Privy Council Ian Shugart for increasing attention to diversity within the federal public service, as well as ministers within their own departments. The Hill Times photograph by Cynthia Münster

Richard Sharpe, founder of the Federal Black Employee Caucus (FBEC), who works with Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), and also belongs to the Canadian Association of Professional Employees (CAPE), told The Hill Times he’s been working on an interchange in community for the last year-and-a-half, working on the UN International Decade of People of African Descent. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Former Nova Scotia Conservative Senator Donald Oliver, who served in the Upper Chamber from 1990 to 2013 and was the first African Canadian appointed to the Senate, highlighted the Employment Equity Act that was passed by the government in the early 1980s that outlined four classes of Canadians that need special measures because they are not being treated equally. The Hill Times file photograph by Jake Wright

8

Yet again, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plunged himself, his

party, and his government into another major ethical scandal.

The latest scandal involves a now can-celled, sole-sourced $1-billion contract to WE Charity to manage the federal govern-ment’s student grants volunteer program. If the organizations had received the $900-mil-lion contract, the international charity would have also received about $43.53-million to administer it. The Trudeaus have family ties to the charity that date back years; Mr. Trudeau in the past has volunteered for the organization, his mother, Margaret, and brother, Alexandre, have received about $300,000 over the years in speaking fees for the organization’s events, and his wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, is an official am-bassador for the charity and hosts a podcast for it. The prime minister’s wife received a $1,500 honorarium for hosting an event for the charity in 2012.

The WE Charity scandal is the third major controversy since Mr. Trudeau formed government, excluding his black-face/brownface controversy that landed in the midst of the high-stakes 2019 elec-tion campaign and almost dethroned the Liberals from power. Prior to this scandal, Mr. Trudeau broke ethics laws by vaca-tioning at the Aga Khan’s private island. Also, last year, the SNC-Lavalin scandal shook the foundation of the Liberal gov-ernment when it became public that the prime minister and his top advisers had tried unsuccessfully to interfere in the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution case in order to get a deal for the Montreal-based international construction company facing corruption charges. As a result

of that scandal, the government lost two top-notch cabinet ministers, the country’s top bureaucrat, and a top PMO adviser. The whole fiasco also proved to the public that any promises of transparency and honesty were just claims and that Liber-als hadn’t learned a thing, even after staying in the penalty box for a decade after the Jean Chrétien-era sponsorship scandal.

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Bill Morneau told the House Finance Com-mittee last week that he paid back more than $41,366 in expenses that the WE Charity had paid for him and his family’s international travel to Kenya and Ecuador to see the organization’s work in 2017. The minister paid it back the same day he appeared before the committee to answer questions about his involvement in the scandal. One of Mr. Morneau’s daughters works for WE. Mr. Morneau and his fam-ily also donated $100,000 to the charity.

Despite the close family ties of the two most powerful people in govern-ment, both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau took part in cabinet discussions to award the contract to the charity. It appears no cabinet minister raised objections. Some Liberal MPs, meanwhile, tell The Hill Times that they’re frustrated that there appears to be no one at the highest level of government willing to speak up or offer unvarnished, critical advice to the prime minister.

It’s in the best interest of Mr. Trudeau to have a cabinet and top advisers who can speak the truth to him whenever he’s about to make a mistake. Otherwise, he will keep getting into political hot water.

The Hill Times

The claims that Gov. Gen. Julie Payette has engaged in workplace harassment

should be carefully reviewed. As a lead-ing figure in our democracy, she should be leading by example and all people who work for her should be treated respect-fully.This work principle must never be ignored. The governor general should be someone who enhances Canada’s core values. I recall paying a visit to the gover-

nor general’s premises during Ramadan and I was treated as an equal citizen. To me, the governor general should repre-sent equality and be open to the full par-ticipation of all employees and visitors. There really should be no debate about our tradition of good Canadian behaviour by the governor general.

Roman MukerjeeOttawa, Ont.

So far, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologized for not recusing him-

self from the sole-sourced awarding of an almost $900-million contract to We Char-ity which had paid his mother, brother, and wife hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years; he has apologized for “Elbowgate,” an incident in which he physically contacted two opposition Members of Parliament in the House during a parliamentary skirmish; he has apologized for wearing racist blackface on more than one occasion when he was younger; he has apologized for attempted interference in the justice system during

the SNC-Lavalin criminal investigation; he has apologized for accepting an all-ex-penses paid vacation from the Aga Khan whose foundation receives many millions from the federal government, which cost Canadian taxpayers more than $215,000 for transportation and security; he has apologized for “mis-speaking” after he said “We can’t shutdown the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out;” and he apologized in 2000 to a reporter who alleged he had groped her at a music festival in 2000.

Mike PriaroCalgary, Alta.

Re: “Forty-nine days of racism in the news,” (The Hill Times, July 13, by

Rose LeMay). Racism isn’t merely a matter of an individual person having a conscious dislike of another individual or a group. To quote Dr. Robin Dian-gelo, racism is “a default system that institutionalizes an unequal distribution of resources and power between white people and people of colour. This system is historic, taken for granted, deeply embedded, and it works to the benefit of whites.”

While most people will focus on the present, I would like to suggest we fix a historical injustice. Under Canada’s Brit-ish Westminster parliamentary system, we never adopted an equivalent of their House of Lords, or their Upper House. The House of Lords developed from the “Great Council” that advised the king. When Europeans came to Turtle Island

there were already people here with their own traditions and governance. When a new government was formed it should, at a minimum, have included some of that governance in the Upper House through an Indigenous council similar to the “Great Council.” The membership of this Indigenous council would be decided by Indigenous people, with non-Indigenous persons disallowed influence. Instead, we have seen hundreds of years of op-pression of those who preceded the Europeans. The racist “Indian Act” still exists rather than an Indigenous council capable of sending back to the federal or provincial Lower Houses any laws which require a sober second (including non-racist) thought.

I am a European descendent born in Canada.

Russell McOrmond Ottawa, Ont.

PM Trudeau needs cabinet ministers, top PMO advisers who will give him honest

advice without fear of consequences

Our Governor General should treat all employees with respect: Mukerjee

Prime Minister Trudeau’s apologies are piling up, writes Calgary reader

Canada needs a ‘Great Council,’ similiar to Upper House, made up of Indigenous peoples who would review all federal, provincial laws

Editorial Letters to the Editor


PUBLISHERS Anne Marie Creskey, Jim Creskey, Ross Dickson GENERAL MANAGER, CFO Andrew Morrow

PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY BY HILL TIMES PUBLISHING INC.246 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E4

EDITOR Kate MalloyMANAGING EDITOR Charelle EvelynDEPUTY EDITORS Peter Mazereeuw, Laura RyckewaertASSISTANT DEPUTY EDITOR Abbas RanaDIGITAL EDITOR Beatrice Paez

EDITORIALNEWS REPORTERS Aidan Chamandy, Mike Lapointe, Neil Moss, Samantha Wright Allen, and Palak MangatPHOTOGRAPHERS Sam Garcia, Andrew Meade, and Cynthia MünsterEDITORIAL CARTOONIST Michael De AdderCOLUMNISTS Cameron Ahmad, Andrew Caddell, Andrew Cardozo, John Chenier, Sheila Copps, Éric Couture, David Crane, Jim Creskey, Murray Dobbin, Gwynne Dyer, Michael Geist, Dennis Gruending, Phil Gurski, Cory Hann, Michael Harris, Erica Ifill, Joe Jordan, Amy Kishek, Rose LeMay, Alex Marland, Arthur Milnes, Tim Powers, Mélanie Richer, Susan Riley, Ken Rubin, Evan Sotiropoulos, Scott Taylor, Lisa Van Dusen, Nelson Wiseman, and Les Whittington.

ADVERTISINGVICE PRESIDENT MARKETING AND MULTIMEDIA SALES Steve MacDonaldDIRECTORS OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Craig Caldbick, Erveina Gosalci, Martin Reaume, Ulle Baum

PRODUCTIONPRODUCTION MANAGER Benoit DeneaultSENIOR GRAPHIC, ONLINE DESIGNER Joey SabourinDESIGN MANAGER Serena MasondeWEB DESIGNER Jean-Francois LavoieASSISTANT WEB DESIGNER Ian Peralta

CIRCULATIONDIRECTOR OF READER ENGAGEMENT Chris RivoireDIRECTOR OF MARKETING Leslie DicksonSUBSCRIPTIONS AND LICENSING EXECUTIVE Darryl Blackbird, Lakshmi KrishnamurtiVICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT LICENSING SALES Sean HanselCIRCULATION MANAGER Dan Lahey

ADMINISTRATIONHUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Tracey Wale

Published every Monday and Wednesday by Hill Times Publishing Inc.

246 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E4(613) 232-5952 Fax (613) 232-9055Canadian Publications Mail Agreement No. 40068926 www.hilltimes.com

CMCAAUDITED

Please send letters to the editor to the above street address or e-mail to [email protected]. Deadline is Wednesday at noon, Ottawa time, for the Monday edition and Friday at noon for the Wednesday edition. Please include your full name, address and daytime phone number. The Hill Times reserves the right to edit letters. Letters do not reflect the views of The Hill Times. Thank you.

2012 Better Newspaper Winner

DELIVERY [email protected]

Publications Mail Agreement No. 40068926RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: CIRCULATION DEPT. 246 Queen Street Suite 200, Ottawa, ON K1P 5E4

9

OTTAWA—By the time this column is published, Finance

Minister Bill Morneau could well be toast.

In the best-case scenario, he will have decided to step aside and take one for the team.

What started out as a potential logistical glitch in the speedy roll-out of government COVID-based aid is turning into a massive headache that could cause perma-nent damage to the government.

In a minority situation, the Liberals are not in a position to tough it out, as they did dur-ing the Jody Wilson-Raybould debacle.

The opposition parties are hungry for a trophy, the resig-nation of a senior, high-profile minister.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the finance minister tried to contain the damage by apologiz-ing for their clumsy refusal to recuse themselves from the cabi-net vote on a sole-source manage-ment contract for the WE Charity, notwithstanding their families’ ties with the company.

The recusal question did not stir much public interest. Most Canadians do not understand the arcane rules of government operations and couldn’t care less about recusals.

But the same cannot be said for free trips.

The revelation late last week that Morneau and his family joined two WE-sponsored fact-finding trips as potential donors would have been fine in the private sector.

As a government minister, it is a no-no. Morneau must be very regretful of his decision to voyage with WE in 2017.

But he also knows that the rules that apply in the private sector do not pass the smell test in politics.

Take the issue of speakers’ fees. One of the most vociferous critics of the so-called WE scan-dal is journalist Andrew Coyne. He recently wrote a column call-ing the situation a “a rat’s nest of mutually beneficial relationships between the Liberals, the Trudeau family and WE.”

The only involvement of the Trudeau family was speech pay-ments.

The $312,000 for Margaret Trudeau sounds staggering to the ordinary citizen.

But that was for 28 events.According to Speakers’ Spot-

light, they advertise speaker fees between $5,000 and $10,000.

But Margaret Trudeau was paid an average of $11,142 per ap-pearance.

The payment is certainly in the ballpark of what constitutes stan-dard rates for Canadian celebrity speakers.

The WE exposé started as a front-page news story on speak-ers’ fees, but that narrative did not appear to stir up public anger.

The fateful family trip on the WE dime served to elevate this saga from a summer blip to a full-blown crisis.

Morneau will shortly be fac-ing a resolution which could confirm that he has lost the confidence of the House of Com-mons. The Conservatives have made it very clear they want his head.

More information on the details of WE voyages and the confusion around who was pay-ing for them will be continual, featured fodder for the opposition parties.

Even as Morneau claimed he paid for the trips but mislaid his receipts, WE officials were issuing a statement saying they regularly offered free trips to potential donors in the hopes of securing ongoing financial sup-port.

The Morneau family followed up their experience with a dona-tion of $50,000 to WE Interna-tional work and a second $50,000 pandemic support cheque in June. The 2017 trips were obviously not an attempt to get something for nothing.

But it certainly throws doubt on the finance minister’s ca-pacity to deal objectively with funding decisions that involve WE.

This is not the first time the minister has suffered a lapse in judgment concerning government reporting rules.

His failure to include a family home in France in his parliamentary declaration was another mistake for which he apologized and pleaded no mali-cious intent.

Morneau survived that mis-take relatively unscathed, but the increasing number of complaints about his family relationships with WE are too numerous to ignore.

Trudeau and his team will have to move quickly to staunch the bloodletting on this issue. That leaves few options beyond convincing the finance minister to step aside.

Morneau would do everyone a favour if he decided to take one for the team.

It may not be fair, but in the world of politics, this growing problem will not go away until a senior member of the govern-ment pays a heavy price by resigning.

The firing of a finance minister would cause turmoil in markets during a time when Canada can-not avoid more financial hits.

But a personal decision to step aside would help the government and restore Morneau’s personal reputation.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister.

The Hill Times

OAKVILLE, ONT.—Now that the Conservative Party

leadership race is (at long last) heading into its end game, I

think we can all finally admit the truth.

And the truth is this: the Con-servative leadership candidates are a lot like a kid on a street corner playing “Pop Goes the Weasel” on a harmonica, while just down the road the Canadian philharmonic orchestra is belting out a rousing rendition of Richard Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyrie.”

In other words, with all the noisy and dramatic diversions going on in the world right now—global pandemics, scandals, stock market collapses, $300-billion deficits, Murder Hornets, the latest episode of Tiger King—it’s extremely easy for the Conservative leadership race to get lost in the sauce.

Indeed, sometimes the Con-servatives even managed to sabo-tage their own news cycle.

Just a few weeks ago, for instance, lame duck Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer probably made more news than all the leadership candidates combined when he was caught not wearing a mask in an airport.

Mind you, even without all those distractions, it’d still be dif-ficult to get too excited about this current version of the Conserva-tive Party leadership race.

Keep in mind that, for a while there, the big news about the

Conservative contest was how leadership candidate Peter MacK-ay may have posted controversial tweets about railway blockades or about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s yoga expenses.

Hardly scintillating stuff, right?

Of course, I suspect the race’s front-running candidates actually don’t aspire to be all that scintil-lating.

As a matter of fact, the strate-gies of MacKay and of his main rival, Erin O’Toole, are likely deliberately designed to create campaigns that fly under the mainstream public’s radar.

Take MacKay, for example, his campaign seems to be all about avoiding any controversy involv-ing ideology or policy or party dogma; boiled down to its core essence, his message is basically, “Vote for me, because I’m a non-scary, non-threatening guy who wouldn’t dream of doing anything remotely considered radical.”

A safe approach, but not one that’s going to gain much atten-tion.

O’Toole, on the other hand, is more or less concentrating on winning over the party’s hard-core, issues-oriented, ideological base, an approach which makes sense from a tactical perspective,

but which means he’s pushing issues that don’t necessarily inter-est your average run of the mill voter.

In short, O’Toole is purposely targeting a small subset of the Canadian population.

Meanwhile, the other leader-ship candidates—Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan—have even more tightly focused messag-ing strategies, as they’re basi-cally appealing to a subset of O’Toole’s targeted subset.

Another factor limiting the Conservative leadership race’s popular appeal, is its lack of a “celebrity candidate.”

Yes, as a former high-ranking cabinet minister, MacKay does have somewhat of a national profile, but I’d argue his long ab-sence from the political scene has diminished his “name recognition” to the point where he can’t really be considered a “star.”

Certainly, he’s no Kevin O’Leary, a TV celebrity who, remember, was a candidate in the last Conservative leadership race.

So, my point is, the battle for the Conservative Party’s top spot is essentially an in-house affair.

Not that this is bad. For one thing, it means all the

feuding and fighting and insult-exchanging that’s been going on between the candidates for the past year, probably won’t leave a negative impression with the public, precisely because no one is paying attention.

Indeed, only after the race is over and a new leader is selected, will the Conservatives actually need to concentrate on winning over a wider audience.

That’s when they’ll have to start exciting Canadian voters.

Gerry Nicholls is a communi-cations consultant.

The Hill Times

Opinion


Morneau could well be toast

Conservatives show how to camouflage a leadership race

What started out as a potential logistical glitch in the speedy rollout of government COVID-based aid is turning into a massive headache that could cause permanent damage to the government.

It’s extremely easy for the Conservative leadership race to get lost in the sauce. Indeed, sometimes the Conservatives even managed to sabotage their own news cycle.

Conservative leadership candidates Peter MacKay, Erin O’Toole, Leslyn Lewis, and Derek Sloan, pictured. All the feuding and fighting and insult-exchanging that’s been going on between the candidates for the past year, probably won’t leave a negative impression with the public, precisely because no one is paying attention, writes Gerry Nicholls. The Hill Times photographs by Andrew Meade

Gerry Nicholls

Post-Partisan Pundit

Sheila Copps

Copps’ Corner

10

OTTAWA—It’s been five years into reconciliation and there’s

been a lot of talk and not enough action. It’s time to start naming performative action as the barrier to real change.

Performative action is doing just enough to avoid recrimina-tion but not enough to affect real change. For example, the federal government has expressed super-ficial support and public hand-wringing over missing and mur-dered Indigenous women, but has no plan or work to affect change. That’s performative action.

Performative action is do-ing the easy work for the public accolades, but without undertak-ing the harder work that leads to change. Performative action is when governments and organiza-tions support Black Lives Matter in public, but don’t put money into hiring Black employees, ex-ecutives, and board members.

Performative action fills the space with white Canadians’ transitory outrage at racism, but doesn’t force real change and nothing really happens after it. This is not about your outrage, Cana-dians. This is about the risks that Indigenous people face in driving while brown, walking down the street while brown, shopping while brown, being sick while brown. We don’t want yet another study on racism, which will cost who knows how much time and money and no action. This is the most offensive kind of performative action.

When challenged on performa-tive action, the performative actor is able to claim that he or she really did something. Performa-tive action is like apologizing for a conflict of interest or repaying the money just before a Hill hearing, therefore giving one the ability to claim that some redress is done. But it’s not enough, is it? Perfor-mative action is never enough.

The complexity of performative action is that the same action could be a step in the right direction if it exists within a larger consistent pattern of acting to fix the problem. Outrage at the problem of racism is expected but it has to lead to something. Support for Black Lives Matter is needed but then things need to change so Black Canadi-ans can feel safe walking to work. Commitment to reconciliation is required, but action is required to change systems so Indigenous peo-ple are valued in this country. But performative action fills the space with moral outrage without action. Performative action is smothering the work of reconciliation.

What does authentic action look like?

Authentic action is putting se-rious money towards the problem,

including hiring Indigenous and Black Canadians in governments and organizations. It is certainly about damning the myth that poli-cymaking and HR are colourblind when we can count, on one hand, the number of Indigenous people and Black Canadians in executive positions.

It’s calling out people in real time when subtle or blatant racism occurs. Use your voice, and name it as racism. If you are against racism, then act on it.

It’s ongoing learning about one’s own values and beliefs and how they align with your actions. If you believe in equity and inclu-sion then learn how to do better, even when an Indigenous person or Black Canadian calls you out on unconscious bias. Choose to learn.

It’s hard work. It’s about acknowledging white privilege and choosing to use it to elevate those who have less privilege. An example of white privilege is not needing to have “the conversation”

with your kids on how to survive an encounter with police.

Authentic action is about changing ourselves. This change is not done “on others” through policy or program. This change must happen within governments, large health organizations, cor-porations, tribunals, and police forces.

Authentic action will include the public recognition that Can-ada is built on legislated racism, and the significant work to do better. We can’t have one without the other.

Rose LeMay is Tlingit from the West Coast and the CEO of the Indigenous Reconciliation Group. She writes twice a month about Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation. In Tlingit world-view, the stories are the knowl-edge system, sometimes told through myth and sometimes contradicting the myths told by others. But always with at least some truth.

The Hill Times

CHELSEA, QUE.—Why do so many people—media, pundits,

pollsters, and casual followers of politics—assume that Conserva-tives are the default governing party when the Liberals wobble? What has this bad-tempered,

shrinking coalition of warmed-over Thatcherites and grumpy social conservatives done to earn serious consideration?

To some extent, Conserva-tives are still living on the fumes of past victories and past lead-ers—the most recent, of course, being Stephen Harper. Harper held massive grudges (he often seemed inspired by no grander ambition than to crush Liberals), but he also held tight to certain neo-conservative ideas that flour-ished in the 1970s and 1980s and were mostly imported from the United States. Small government, low taxes (Harper once said there are no good taxes), a strong mili-tary, faith, family and fie on Pride Parades and federal deficits.

These were not novel ideas, but they were recognizably con-servative and they were, and are, shared by a portion of the popula-tion. Fair enough. But how large a portion is an interesting question. How many voters, newly disil-lusioned with the Liberals, are genuinely excited by the Conser-vatives and how many are merely expressing general discontent with politics?

Certainly, the party Harper left behind is a shadow of its former self. No one of stature wanted to risk running for the leadership in his wake, so Andrew Scheer—by turns awkward and angry and indisputably second-string—won the job.

He has performed more miser-ably than his most acerbic critics could have guessed. He is largely silent, or vague, on the large is-sues—climate change, whether to reform the RCMP, how to handle irregular asylum seekers (espe-cially in wake of a recent court decision); not mention Indig-enous reconciliation, or relations with China, of which he broadly disapproves, or with Donald Trump. And he is compromised on ethics questions by his own

evasions: the secret party fund for his children’s’ schooling, his dual Canadian-American citizenship, his resumé padding concerning his short life before politics.

Instead of offering a refur-bished Conservatism for the times—more inclusive, honest and closer to mainstream social values—he functions like a sniper, constantly on the lookout for Liberal misdeeds.

The Liberals, of course, have been co-operating. Lately, Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau have been caught in a scandal of their own making thanks to their close relationship with the WE Charity. They have ended up looking, at best, like inattentive prigs, and, at worst, like craven fixers trying to lend their buddies, the Kielburg-ers, a hand.

Accident-prone doesn’t begin to describe Liberal follies under Trudeau. In fact, putting a spoke in his own wheels is getting to be a pattern. Liberals were reduced to a minority last time, partly because of the prime minister’s treatment of former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, notably for his refusal to admit that she was right in defending prosecutorial

independence when it came to SNC-Lavalin’s shady past behav-iour, and that he was wrong.

Blackface, the India tour, the sojourn with the Aga Khan, the whole vapid, worthiness of Trudeau’s public pronouncements have wearied all but the most loy-al. Then came COVID-19 and the prime minister, and his ministers, showed up. In collaboration with an electrified public service, they spent money quickly and mostly effectively. Trudeau’s pandemic advice at daily news conferences was sound and sane.

He was rewarded with soar-ing poll numbers and a mostly subdued opposition. The lack of bickering, the inter-party co-op-eration, was a blessing to a fretful nation—until it finally unravelled completely with the WE scandal.

Trudeau isn’t in imminent danger of being replaced—the pandemic isn’t anywhere near over—but more voters are shop-ping around with an eye to the future. And, inevitably, as Liberal fortunes sink, Conservative pros-pects rise.

Opinion


Work of reconciliation and anti-racism held back by performative action

Time for new thinking about old parties

Authentic action will include the public recognition that Canada is built on legislated racism, and the significant work to do better. We can’t have one without the other.

Some eternal verities are not so eternal after all—and that includes the present-day Conservative Party as a dominant force in federal politics. Increasingly, it speaks for a disappearing Canada. Some day the polls may catch up.

Indigenous demonstrators, pictured in Ottawa on Feb. 24, 2020. This is about the risks that Indigenous people face in driving while brown, walking down the street while brown, shopping while brown, being sick while brown. We don't want yet another study on racism, which will cost who knows how much time and money and no action, writes Rose LeMay. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Rose LeMay

Stories, Myths, and Truths

Susan Riley

Impolitic

Continued on page 19

COVID-19 adding

weight to crushing financial

pressures on BC fruit

growers

Our growers love to grow the food needed to sustain Canadians. Agricultural production is at risk due to COVID-19, and the BC Fruit Growers’ Association (BCFGA) is asking government to step in and help producers maintain food production.

More than 64 per cent of BC apple and cherry farmers say they will reduce fruit production as a result of uncertainties and risks created by COVID-19, according to a member survey from the BCFGA.

The BCFGA survey demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic now has producers facing additional costs and labour shortages this year that will magnify an already weak financial picture.

Time to address financial risk management programs in the agriculture industry

The BCFGA appreciates the COVID-related emergency measures provided by the Canadian and BC governments.

But the government must address the inadequacies in the agriculture industry risk management programs as well as the cost-price squeeze and impact of retailer consolidation - so that food security is truly addressed in times of pandemic and a new international order.

BC’s interior tree fruit industry represents 800 growers operating orchards that will generate $118 million in wholesale revenue and contribute $776 million in economic activity, and directly employs 1,500 person years at the grower, packer and processor level.

Four in five (82.2%)producers say they are concerned about being able to cover the additional costs associated with following all COVID-19 related public health guidelines.

Four in five (82.5%)producers are concerned they will not have enough hired labour to bring in their crops.

70%of Canadians believe that prices will likely rise if government doesn’t prioritize Canada’s food, beverage and consumer products industry.

On behalf of the BC tree fruit growers, we extend our appreciation to the dedicated farm workers (from home and abroad), servers, delivery drivers, production staff, and others, who have worked throughout the pandemic to serve our communities and make sure that our products reach

the marketplace. The food supply and the chain between grower and consumer is an essential service, critical to our food security.

Be Calm, Be Kind, Be Safe

Apple price, by variety 2016-2018 with 2019 estimate ($/pound).

Grower Price ReceivedAmbrosiaGalaMcIntosh

Spartan

Moderate

Low

2016 2017 2018 2019

Cost ofProduction0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0

12

HALIFAX—Canada’s salesman of hope, the man on the top

of the political wedding cake, is learning that Camelot has a way of turning into a seedy tenement building as time goes by.

Long before WE Charity became a household word, a lot of the shine was off the prime minister.

Playing Mr. Dress-Up in India, shuffling off to the private island of a billionaire for a free vaca-tion, defenestrating two of his best cabinet ministers for standing up

for justice, when he was trying to improperly massage it—it all added up in 2019 when Trudeau’s majority government vanished in a poof of electoral disenchantment.

The stakes are even higher today for the Liberals. The government bet the farm that an immense economic aid package to fight COVID-19 would make them golden with voters. Every-thing else being equal, it probably would have. But everything is not equal these days. The PM’s next loss could be the government.

The WE Charity fiasco is the sort of thing beloved by all op-position parties. For starters, they get to ask for a minister’s resigna-tion. Regardless of what the PM does, they win. If he axes a senior member of his government, it is proof of corruption and bad judg-ment. If the PM defends his min-

ister, it is proof he too is corrupt by covering up for a colleague for purely partisan reasons. Which is to say that if the stain is not removed, it spreads.

This brings me to Finance Minister Bill Morneau. He is now a major liability for the govern-ment.

Ordinary people might believe he was sincere when he apolo-gized for not recusing himself from the cabinet decision that would have paid WE $43-mil-lion to run a $912-million federal grant program.

Ordinary people might not get their shirts in a knot over the fact that one of Morneau’s kids worked for WE.

Ordinary people might even think that Morneau’s large per-sonal contributions to WE show he is just a generous if forgetful guy, whose heart is in the right place.

But ordinary people will never believe that Morneau lost track of the fact that WE had paid more than $41,000 of the minister’s travel costs related to the charity. A lot of people don’t make that much in a year. As NDP MP Char-lie Angus said, it’s time Morneau read the Conflict of Interest Act.

Boasting about writing a cheque to pay the money back to WE after the whole mess became public won’t work. Remember, this is the same guy who didn’t think he needed a blind trust for his personal assets when he took over the country’s finances.

Predictably, the Conservatives are calling for Morneau’s resigna-tion. Under normal circumstances, that request should have led to some serious soul-searching in the PMO.

No mistake about it. There is obviously a huge downside to dumping a finance minister. Next

to the PM himself, the finance miniser is the face of the govern-ment, a symbol of stability and confidence. But if the public starts believing that the guy handling the nation’s cash is shaky, the PM has a much bigger problem than merely dropping or demoting a single cabinet minister, no matter how much power he has.

The public could easily switch from not trusting the finance minis-ter to not trusting the entire govern-ment when it comes to ethical mat-ters. Circling the wagons around a member of cabinet who, on the face of it, has egregiously violated the rules carries that danger.

But here is the catch. In the current circumstances, Justin Trudeau can’t fire Bill Morneau. That’s because he is facing the same calls for his resignation as his finance minister—and for some of the same reasons.

WE paid speaking fees to Trudeau’s mother and brother to the tune of $250,000. Trudeau’s wife delivered a paid speech for WE back in 2012. Like Morneau, Trudeau failed to recuse him-self when cabinet chose WE to run the grant program. And like Morneau, Trudeau apologized for his “mistake.” So how can he fire Morneau and stay in office himself?

Despite the ever-hyperbolic Pierre Poilievre, the official op-position claim that WE got a huge government plum because of its personal ties to Trudeau and Mor-

neau is at the very least plausible. In politics, what is plausible is often enough to bring a govern-ment to grief. That is especially true when the Conservatives have asked the RCMP to conduct a criminal investigation into the PM’s links to WE.

A lot of what happens next depends on the ability of parlia-mentary committees and the ethics commissioner to get to the bottom of this mess. It was wise of Bill Mor-neau to agree to come before House Finance Committee, under the able chairmanship of Liberal MP Wayne Easter, and face the music.

It was also wise of the PM to agree to appear before the same body. It would very unwise if Trudeau impedes any of these investigations the way he did dur-ing the SNC-Lavalin Affair—all under the guise of unprecedented cooperation.

And just ahead, there is more white water for the Trudeau government. Another one of his major appointments, Gov.-Gen. Julie Payette, has been accused of gross workplace harassment. One of the dozen sources the CBC in-terviewed for the piece that broke the story said that under Pay-ette, working in Rideau Hall has turned into a “house of horrors.”

Although Payette’s secretary put out a memo promising to im-prove the working environment, Assunta Di Lorenzo did not flatly deny the story.

Why is this a problem for the PM? Two reasons.

First, Trudeau has always been an implacable opponent of workplace bullying, and a cham-pion of workers’ dignity. Second, although it is true that harassed Rideau Hall staff can complain to Human Resources, those com-plaints end up in the hands of Di Lorenzo and the GG herself. In other words, the accused would be the judges in their own cause.

Thankfully, the Public Service Alliance of Canada which repre-sents the 80 employees at Rideau Hall called for an “independent” examination of the claims. The

Privy Council Office has now launched a “thorough, indepen-dent, and impartial” workplace probe into harassment and verbal abuse in the Office of the Gover-nor General of Canada.

Trudeau and his finance min-ister under investigation? Now the Queen’s representative and Trudeau’s personal choice for GG probed by the PM’s own depart-ment for abusing staff?

That’s not how things are sup-posed to work in Camelot.

Michael Harris is an award-winning journalist and author.

The Hill Times

Opinion


This is not how things are supposed to work in Camelot Justin Trudeau and his finance minister are under parliamentary scrutiny over the WE Charity controversy and now the Queen’s representative and Trudeau’s personal choice for GG is being probed by the PM’s own department for abusing staff.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, pictured at his daily press conference at the Rideau Cottage June 4, 2020. Canada’s salesman of hope, the man on the top of the political wedding cake, is learning that Camelot has a way of turning into a seedy tenement building as time goes by, writes Michael Harris. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

And just ahead, there is more white water for the Trudeau government. Another one of his major appointments, Gov.-Gen. Julie Payette, has been accused of gross workplace harassment. The Hill Times file photograph by Jake Wright

Michael Harris

Harris

Finance Minister Bill Morneau is now a major liability for the government. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

LONDON, U.K.—Is there going to be a new Cold War with China? Probably

not. Consider the case of Huawei.Mike Pompeo swept into London on

July 21 like an overweight Darth Vader, while his local satrap, Boris Johnson, waited nervously in Downing Street for judgment. People swore they could hear Pompeo’s cloak swish as he strode through the door. But it was all good: the British prime minister had done enough to ap-pease the overlord.

The subject at issue was Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications firm whose equipment has been selling to governments throughout the West because there are no comparable Western products available at a competitive price.

The U.S. response has therefore been political, not commercial. It demands that its allies ban Huawei on “security” grounds.

The first U.S. strike was in late 2018, when it got Canada to arrest Meng Wan-zhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer, as she was changing planes on her way to Mexico. She is still in Canada fighting extradition, while two Canadians are held in Chinese prisons effectively as hostages for her release. The initial U.S. charge was breaking sanctions against Iran, but she’s now accused of stealing American trade secrets.

Britain had agreed to involve Huawei heavily in building its new 5G network well before Johnson became prime minister, but he stuck to the deal, despite mounting U.S. pressure to cancel because he is taking Britain out of the European Union and into what is potentially a very grim future.

More than half Britain’s trade is with Europe, but a free trade deal after it has left looks increasingly unlikely. What countries could pick up at least part of the slack? Only the U.S. or China, so Johnson desperately wanted to keep both of those options open. Washington, of course, want-ed him to foreclose the Chinese option.

Johnson stuck to his guns right down through the past year, reassured by Brit-

ain’s own security services that the Huawei technology posed no threat, but eventually the U.S. pressure became irresistible. Hua-wei was told that it would not be partici-pating in Britain’s 5G phone network, and that all its technology in the 2G, 3G and 4G networks would have to come out by 2027.

Only days later, however, British of-ficials whispered in Huawei’s ear that all was not lost. Britain might reconsider its decision next year. Nobody said explicitly “after the U.S. election,” but obviously Britain would be keen to bring Huawei back on board if Donald Trump loses that election in November (as he now seems quite likely to).

Word about this reached Washington in microseconds. (When will they learn that in the modern communications en-vironment, anything you say to anybody instantly becomes known to everybody?) So Johnson was understandably anxious as he awaited the arrival of the American viceroy. Sorry, secretary of state.

But it was all right with Pompeo. John-son would only be disloyal if Trump loses, and Trump won’t lose because he’s going to start a new Cold War. That’s the plan —but it won’t work.

It won’t work because none of America’s allies, not even one as desperate as Johnson, believes that China is a threat grave enough to justify a 40-year military confrontation. Or even a five-year confrontation.

They are not naive about the current Chinese regime’s flaws. It is a nasty, cor-

rupt dictatorship, intolerant of dissent and oppressive towards its minorities. But it is not territorially expansionist except in its own immediate neighbourhood (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South China Sea), and it is not ideologically attractive even to its own citizens.

The only ideological tool available to Xi Jinping is nationalism. He would deploy it if necessary to defend his own power, just as Trump is doing now, but for a sustain-able cold war there needs to be a more credible sense of threat than is currently available to either party.

The idea that China is “the central threat of our times,” as Pompeo put it on July 21, is laughable. It’s a formidable competitor economically (although demographically speaking it has feet of clay), but it’s simply not interested in a classic military confron-tation.

China does not bother, for example, to maintain a strategic nuclear force remotely comparable to America’s or Russia’s. It truly believes that nuclear deterrence makes that kind of war insane, and keeps only enough missiles to deter a crazed attacker. The border dispute with India is remote and petty, and will not be allowed to escalate by either side.

The other major powers, including the EU, are simply are not buying into the Trump-Pompeo vision of a world divided into two hostile and militarized blocs like 1945-89. Even Boris Johnson, for all his sub-Churchillian pretensions, can’t take

the notion seriously and instantly hedges his bets after he has to give it lip-service.

“Don’t defend Trump—attack China!” said the instructions sent to the Republican Party’s senatorial candidates, but it doesn’t work outside the United States. It probably won’t work inside either.

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Grow-ing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work).’ This column was released on July 22.

The Hill Times

13

CommentA new Cold War with China? Probably not The idea that China is ‘the central threat of our times,’ as Mike Pompeo put it on July 21, is laughable. It’s a formidable competitor economically, although demographically speaking it has feet of clay, but it’s simply not interested in a classic military confrontation.


356 Preston St. • 613-749-7490lafavoritapreston.com

Order a Romantic Italian Dinner

The only ideological tool available to Xi Jinping is nationalism. He would deploy it if necessary to defend his own power, just as Donald Trump is doing now, but for a sustainable cold war there needs to be a more credible sense of threat than is currently available to either party, writes Gwynne Dyer. Photograph courtesy of the Kremlin/Flickr

Gwynne Dyer

Global Affairs

14

TORONTO—Rebuilding our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic

will not be easy. We will need an economy that can deliver good jobs, produce high-value products and services the rest of the world wants to buy and we will need to create

the wealth to pay down pandemic deficits while sustaining invest-ments in health, education, and the other public goods we value—and to do all of this in a way that also results in a fairer economy.

None of this will be possible unless we reinvigorate our largely stagnant manufacturing industry by recharging it as a highly innovative advanced manufacturing industry.

There are many opportunities facing us, but also many chal-lenges. The economic platform that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has set out—with truly massive investments in technology, infrastructure, research, clean energy and skills training combined with strict Buy American rules—shows the kind

of competitive world we face. Eu-rope, China, Japan, South Korea and India are all like-minded.

We will have to be much more focused on how we target infra-structure and innovation spend-ing and how to concentrate on se-lected areas where we must make some big bets and major commit-ments. While circumstances have forced the Trudeau government to invest more in innovation, infra-structure and clean energy, much of this effort is spread too thinly to deliver the results we need. And many programs seem to be based on little analysis and little

evidence they are addressing the most important problems.

In this, a reinvigorated manu-facturing industry will be essential. But it will have to be a manufactur-ing industry that is based much more on the digital world—what we call advanced manufacturing. Canada’s manufacturing industry, though, has lagged and has lost competitiveness. There are some exciting exceptions where Cana-dian companies have developed highly sophisticated technologies. But they stand out as exceptions.

Canada has a massive trade deficit in manufactured goods.

And before the pandemic we were barely ahead of where we were be-fore the Great Recession of 2008 hit. In Ontario, for example, manufac-turing value-added—the Canadian content in what we produce—has stagnated. In 2018, it was only 12 per cent higher than it was a decade earlier, in 2007. And manufacturing employment in Ontario in 2019 was just 83 per cent of the 2007 level, with a loss of 143,048 jobs.

Yet while we have programs that assist manufacturers, we don’t have what might be called a manufac-turing strategy. For example, the automotive industry is our most important manufacturer of durable goods (food is a non-durable good). Yet it is a shrinking industry and there appears to be no real effort to ensure that Canada is a player in the industry transition to electric vehicles (batteries and fuel cells), or other transformative technologies. The government-industry Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, which exists to develop strategies to grow the industry, did meet in February though the last entry on its website is dated Aug. 31, 2016.

In a 2018 report, the Advanced Manufacturing Strategy Table, a federally appointed group of Canadian and foreign-owned tech-based manufacturers, described a manufacturing sector that, with some exceptions, was, in their words “stagnant.” They called for “a National Manufacturing Strategy

STRATHROY, ONT.—In 1969, prime minister Pierre El-

liott Trudeau met with then U.S. president Richard Nixon and, while Trudeau praised our national partnerships, he also described the nature of Canada-U.S. relations in a way that remains relevant even today. He said, “Living next to you is in some ways like sleep-ing with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered … one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” Recent comments made in The Hill Times by Liberal MP Wayne Easter, chair of the House Finance Committee, and Conservative MP Randy Hoback, his party’s trade critic, underscore that relations between Canada and our closest neighbour are a nuanced and delicate balance that requires constant effort and care-ful attention.

Canadian diplomacy with the U.S. has always been relationship dependent. Parliamentarians, re-gardless of partisan stripe, know that our geographic placement beside one of the planet’s military and economic superpowers, means that regular interaction is essential, but little is easy. Of course, there have been times when the relationship between our leaders has been warm. For example, few of us would argue that the Bush/Mulroney years, and the Clinton/Chrétien years,

produced favourable interactions between Ottawa and the White House. There have also been frosty times in our history, most notably, the Nixon/Trudeau years when chiding and name calling often set the tone between our governments.

To most Canadians, the former is more the norm than the latter but, in reality, divided governance has long been a struggle for our two nations. This has certainly been the case when it comes to the management of binational re-sources like the Great Lakes, and especially during the pre-1955 efforts to control the invasive sea lamprey predator that nearly col-lapsed fish stocks and obliterated that particular resource sector in Ontario, Quebec, Minnesota, Wis-consin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York. At that time, Canada, On-tario, and Quebec, were unable to resolve serious policy differences with the U.S. federal government and the eight Great Lakes states. As the crisis loomed, govern-ments reached across the line, and established the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) to bring heft and structure to collab-orative and binational manage-ment of the Great Lakes fisheries and invasive species control.

In the decades since, the GLFC has helped to manage the multi-billion-dollar binational resource, with a consensus approach, for our shared benefit, regardless of the ebbing and flowing of national politics, by fostering an array of cross-border relationships on which to draw when the tone and tenor of more prominent linkages becomes fractured. This model for trust-base, issue-focused, cross-bor-der collaboration has been success-fully used in a number of instances including, the GLFC, the Interna-tional Joint Commission, and the International Boundary Commis-sion. Each of these groups are somewhat unique in their mandate but they all rely heavily on work-ing relationships that are rooted in a genuine sharing of resources and goodwill in pursuit of common and reasonable national objectives.

Just as MPs Wayne Easter’s and Randy Hoback’s comments recognized the critical impor-tance of both “official and unof-ficial circles” when it comes to affecting trade policy, so too did the treaty drafters involved in the creation of the cited commissions. Clearly, most individual MPs and Senators know that any effective diplomatic effort must be pre-mised on good relationships that are built and strengthened over

time but, too few of our current institutional mechanisms and structures permit or facilitate this type of exchange.

In an age when politics are fraught, perhaps there are broad-er lessons to be learned from our past successes when it comes to quiet and off-the-side diplomacy. The approach has kept relation-ships strong on the Great Lakes and, in so doing, has bolstered their multi-billion-dollar econom-ic impact, and maintained more than 240,000 Canadian jobs.

In this spirit, if Canada is to be diplomatically successful in this the age of Trump and Twit-ter, sourcing, maintaining, and building opportunities for candid, yet respectful, dialogue would seem to be the coin of the realm. Whether leveraging existing agencies and commissions, or refocusing, and retooling less for-mal groups such as the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, history confirms that col-laborating across lines, partisan and geographic, allows Canadian interests to resonate most effec-tively. At the very least, learning to manage when the elephant grunts or twitches continues to be far more fruitful than binational one-upmanship or retreat to within our national bunkers.

Greg McClinchey is a former Parliament Hill staffer of 25 years and North Huron (Ontario) mu-nicipal councillor who now works for the treaty-based Great Lakes Fishery Commission as a legisla-tive liaison in Canada and the United States.

The Hill Times

Opinion


Greg McClinchey

Opinion

Rebuilding our way out of COVID-19 pandemic won’t be easy

Broader lessons to be learned from our quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy

We will need an economy that can deliver good jobs, produce high-value products and services the rest of the world wants to buy and create the wealth to pay down pandemic deficits while sustaining investments in health, education, and the other public goods we value.

The approach has kept relationships strong on the Great Lakes and, in so doing, has bolstered their multi-billion-dollar economic impact, and maintained more than 240,000 Canadian jobs.


Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, pictured July 22, 2020, leaving the West Block on Parliament Hill. There are many opportunities facing us, but also many challenges in the post-pandemic future, writes David Crane. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

David Crane

Canada & the 21st Century

15

MONTREAL—In mid-June, Canada’s hopes of winning

one of the coveted UN Security Council seats was dashed—spark-ing hand-wringing and critical

reflection about our country’s standing in the world. But, given the performance of the Security Council during the COVID-19 pandemic and its general slide into paralysis over the past five years, the ritual of council elec-tions should also have prompted sober assessment of whether it can or will continue as the world’s “top table” for managing threats to international peace and security.

While some might argue that the Security Council’s inability to address COVID-19 is little cause for concern given that other bodies of the UN system (par-ticularly the WHO) are explicitly

tasked with global public health emergencies, council members fell spectacularly short even in their “core business” areas. In late March, Secretary General Antonio Guterres told member states that the virus was “the grav-est threat” to the UN since “the founding of this organization” and called for a global ceasefire to enable organizations working in conflict-zones to redirect their attention to fighting COVID-19. Council members could not negotiate a resolution in support. There was a stand-off between China and the U.S. over whether to mention the WHO in the text of the resolution and Russia insisted that a ceasefire could not apply to vital “counterterror-ism” operations (most notably in Syria). Similarly, the appeal from the secretary-general and his hu-man rights commissioner Michele Bachelet for the Security Council to ease its sanctions regimes on countries such as Iran—to facili-tate access to medical equipment and supplies to fight the spread of the coronavirus—saw very little

take-up from council members.Finally, in early July 2020, UN

Security Council members contin-ued their tense stand-off over the renewal of arrangements to main-tain cross-border humanitarian aid flows into Syria. The failure to agree at the eleventh hour (as the current arrangements were expir-ing) risked cutting off humani-tarian access to more than one million Syrians in the area north of Aleppo. But it also represents just one more incidence of UN Security Council disunity—sym-bolized by the regular casting of vetoes by permanent mem-bers—in the face of a decade-long civil war that has generated both widespread civilian suffering and mass migration.

Past evidence suggests that when the council is united and sends a message of its resolve, as it did, for example, over chemi-cal weapons in Syria in 2012 or in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it can have a profound impact on the behaviour of actors in conflict situations. Indeed, many believe that if Security Council members

had acted more decisively to support Guterres’ global ceasefire initiative, it could have made a significant difference.

COVID-19 thus appears to have amplified, rather than al-tered, the ongoing decline in both the performance and legitimacy of the UN Security Council. Every time it is “missing in action,” its credibility continues to drain away.

This trend is all the more trag-ic in light of the fact that the pan-demic is now beginning to spread more widely within conflict zones, with devastating conse-quences for civilian and displaced populations, but also because pro-jections suggest that the effects of the virus will tip a significant number of fragile societies into large-scale episodes of violence and civil war over the next two years. More worryingly, the coun-cil has a number of particularly difficult issues in its sights in the next few months, including the impending annexation of the West Bank, North Korea’s missile tests, and the on-going fate of the Iran nuclear deal.

Between now and 2022, we could see three main trends in global security cooperation.

First, the Security Council will continue to serve as a field upon

MONTREAL—This is what empowering a bully looks

like. The Canadian government is supporting Donald Trump’s ef-forts to starve Venezuelans.

Before dismissing what may sound like over-the-top rhetoric, hear me out.

The U.S. government has imposed a remarkable series of unilateral coercive economic measures on Venezuela—or as Trump boasted last week, “historic sanctions.” In a bid to oust the Venezuelan government, Washington has seized billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets effectively driving the country out of international financial markets. This has thwarted Venezuela’s ability to buy goods, including food, from abroad.

Sanctions imposed 18 months ago targeting Venezuela’s oil industry have choked its ability to refine its gigantic oil reserves. More recently, the U.S. launched a successful campaign to deter oil and gas shipping companies from working with Venezuela. Their strategy has been to pressure companies that insure and certify vessels to stop international ship-ping firms from delivering oil and gasoline to and from Venezuela.

Describing this aggressive strategy, Trump’s special envoy on Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, told Reuters, “there are people who don’t cooperate. …We’ll go after the ship, the ship owner, the ship captain.”

While less gasoline consump-tion is certainly desirable when it comes to the private automobile, oil does have other important uses. It’s needed for tractors on farms. It’s required to ship food into urban centres. A Bloomberg story last month titled “Venezuela on Brink of

Famine With Fuel Too Scarce to Sow Crops” reported, “oil fields across Venezuela have shut amid the U.S.’s relentless campaign to cut the nation off from global mar-kets. Evidence of fuel scarcity is everywhere. Ambulances can’t run, telecommunications networks are faltering and some farmers have given up altogether on machin-ery—using oxen instead.”

The damage caused by U.S. sanctions to Venezuela’s economy and health are immense. Before the strongest measures were introduced, a study by economists Jeffrey Sachs and Mark Weisbrot found U.S. sanctions responsible for 40,000 deaths between August 2017 and the end of 2018.

Yet Ottawa has not criti-cized the devas-tating U.S. sanc-tions. Quite the opposite. It has egged the bully on. Canada has imposed four rounds of its own unilateral sanctions on Venezuela. Can-ada has also of-fered important support to U.S. efforts to oust Nicolás Maduro through its role in establishing the Lima Group of countries op-posed to Venezu-

ela’s government in August 2017. At that time, the government contracted staunch pro-Wash-ington and pro-corporate former diplomat, Allan Culham, to act as a special adviser on Venezuela. A year later, Ottawa decided a marginal opposition politician was the legitimate president of Venezuela. Even after Juan Guaido was embroiled in a failed paramilitary incursion in May—dubbed the “Bay of Piglets” by a former U.S. diplomat—and a series of corruption scandals, Ottawa has continued supporting him as “president.” Foreign Af-fairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne directed his July 5

Venezuela Independence Day commemoration to Guaido and three days later tweeted, “Can-ada stands in support of Juan Guaido.”

Canadian officials claim to be promoting democracy and human rights in Venezuela, but they’ve partnered in their campaign with a Honduran president, Juan Or-lando Hernández, with far weak-er constitutional legitimacy than Maduro. Other members of the Lima Group include Haitian president Jovenel Moïse, who has faced unprecedented pro-tests over corruption and repres-sion, and Colombian president Ivan Duque, who oversees much greater human rights violations.

Questioning our policy towards Venezuela is part of an open letter calling for a “funda-mental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy” released following Canada’s recent United Nations Security Council defeat. Signed by David Suzuki, Naomi Klein, Stephen Lewis as well as four sitting MPs and numerous former MPs, one of its 10 questions asks: “Why is Canada involved in ef-forts to overthrow Venezuela’s UN-recognized government, a clear violation of the principle of non-intervention in other coun-try’s internal affairs?”

Canadians should debate this question. We must ask ourselves whether we will continue to accept our government’s par-ticipation in a Trump administra-tion regime change effort that effectively undermines the ability of ordinary Venezuelans to feed themselves.

Bianca Mugyenyi is an author, former co-executive director of The Leap and director of the Ca-nadian Foreign Policy Institute.

The Hill Times

Opinion


Jennifer Welsh

Opinion

Bianca Mugyenyi

Opinion

Meeting the challenge of security cooperation in a COVID-19 world

Canadian government’s supporting Trump’s efforts to starve Venezuelans

In the short-term, it is essential that more pragmatically-driven collectives of states come together to address both regional and global security challenges. In such a scenario, perhaps the sting of Canada’s loss in the Security Council election will feel a little less painful.

Ottawa has not criticized the devastating U.S. sanctions. Quite the opposite. It has egged the bully on. Canada has imposed four rounds of its own unilateral sanctions on Venezuela, writes Bianca Mugyenyi.


Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne, pictured in Ottawa on Feb. 6, 2020, directed his July 5 Venezuela Independence Day commemoration to Guaido and three days later tweeted, ‘Canada stands in support of Juan Guaido,’ writes Bianca Mugyenyi. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

16

in caucus endorsements, politi-cal insiders say public support from MPs and Senators does not guarantee a win for a candidate, but provides a good gauge of who MPs and Senators think has the best chance to lead the party to power in a future election.

“The number and quality of endorsements from caucus mem-bers would be indicative of not only how caucus viewed the abil-ity of the candidate but also the winnability,” said Frank Graves, president and founder of Ekos Re-search Associates, in an interview with The Hill Times. “This is impor-tant because it positions MPs for potential cabinet or secretary posi-tions. So caucus weighs support based on winnability and policy resonance. Therefore, having the most endorsements is a valuable indicator of what caucus thinks will be the outcome of both the leadership contest and any future election.”

Mr. MacKay, former leader of the now defunct federal Progres-sive Conservative Party and a former senior cabinet minister in prime minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet, is leading all the candi-dates in caucus endorsements. His campaign has the endorse-ment of 59 caucus members, including 45 MPs and 14 Sena-tors. Former cabinet minister and Conservative MP Erin O’Toole (Durham, Ont.) has the support of 38 MPs and three Senators. Toronto lawyer Leslyn Lewis has the support of seven MPs, but Conservative MP Derek Sloan (Hastings-Lennox and Addington, Ont.) does not have any support from his caucus colleagues.

With the exception of British Columbia, Mr. MacKay is either leading or running neck and neck with Mr. O’Toole in caucus sup-port in all regions of the country. Mr. MacKay has the support of 12 Alberta MPs, 16 Ontario MPs, three Saskatchewan MPs, two Manitoba MPs, four British Co-lumbia MPs, and two MPs from Atlantic Canada. He also has the support of six Senators from

Atlantic Canada, three Ontario, and two Quebec Senators and one Senator each from Nunavut, Sas-katchewan and British Columbia.

In contrast, Mr. O’Toole has the support of 10 MPs from Alberta, 12 from Ontario, eight from British Columbia, four from Saskatche-wan, three from Manitoba and one from Quebec. On the Senate side, all three Senators supporting Mr. O’Toole are from Quebec.

Ms. Lewis has the support of three MPs from Saskatchewan, and one each from Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Alberta. She does not have the sup-port of anyone in the Red Chamber.

Steve Outhouse, campaign manager for the Lewis campaign, said that caucus endorsements do not determine the outcome of a leadership campaign, but said MPs and Senators provide a great deal of support to their candidates in policy development, strategy, and organization, not only in their own ridings but also in their regions. Mr. Outhouse pointed out that caucus endorsements are not helpful if an MP or a Senator only declares his or her support. He said it’s more helpful if the caucus member not only campaigns for the candidate in their own riding, but also in other ridings. He said it’s even better when the MP or Senator provides feedback, takes part in strategy, and provides sup-port in policy development in their respective field of expertise. Mr. Outhouse said all seven MPs sup-porting Ms. Lewis’ campaign are helping out in all aspects of Ms. Lewis’ leadership campaign.

“They are helping us con-nect with voters in their ridings, they’re helping introduce Dr. Lewis to folks in Saskatchewan, for example, and in British Co-lumbia,” said Mr. Outhouse. “They are phone calling, encouraging people to vote for Leslyn, No. 1, and they give us advice that the campaign can use on various top-ics. They bring forward their ex-pertise; whether it’s Glenn Motz on firearms issues, Scott Reid on democracy, Cathay Wagontall on veterans, there’s no shortage.”

In the current campaign, Ms. Lewis and Mr. Sloan are the two social conservative candidates. Mr. MacKay has positioned himself as the progressive option and is con-sidered the front-runner, followed closely by Mr. O’Toole, a former cabinet minister and a former Air Force colonel who is running on the slogan of “True Blue Leader-ship.” Since the start of the contest, the O’Toole campaign has made a concerted effort to court the social conservatives and to be their sec-ond or third choice, if not first.

Prof. Richard Johnston, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, told The Hill Times that caucus endorse-ments are useful if they come from high-profile MPs or Senators who identify with a specific group of vot-

ers, and from an unexpected source. For example, he said, if Mr. MacKay receives an endorsement from a social conservative parliamentar-ian whose name resonates with the social conservative base, it would deliver dividends for the former cabinet minister’s leadership cam-paign. Or, he said, if a well-known progressive Conservative parlia-mentarian endorses Mr. O’Toole, it could prove helpful for the former Air Force officer’s campaign.

“I would look for the informa-tion value in the endorsement,” said Prof. Johnston. “And, in particular, is it an endorsement that comes from someone whom you would otherwise predict before the fact is not likely to give the endorsement.”

Mr. Outhouse said one factor that will decide the outcome of the leadership election is that candi-dates have to get all of their sup-porters to vote for them. He said no matter how many memberships leadership candidates sign up before May 15, the real test is how many vote for the candidates.

He said if a candidate signed up more members than other can-didates, the candidate would have an advantage in knowing who their supporters are and how to reach them, but the job isn’t done until the supporters cast their vote.

“The GOTV [get out the vote] is critically important,” said Mr. Outhouse. “It’s vital to the whole success of any campaign. You spend

all your energies, connecting with voters and identifying supporters and figuring out who’s going to vote for you. You want to make sure that every one of those ballots gets in the box. So GOTV is the crowning achievement of any campaign.”

Mr. Outhouse declined to get into the specifics of his cam-paign’s efforts, but said the field organizers are coordinating their efforts with hundreds of volunteers across the country to provide any help their support-ers need in the voting process. This includes creating places for people to drop off their ballots, to make photocopy, printing or scan-ning service available to support-ers who need it for identification purposes. In order to vote in the leadership contest, party mem-bers need to provide their driver’s licence or any other piece of ID along with the ballot paper.


Caucus endorsements ‘valuable indicator’ of who MPs, Senators think could best lead party to power, says a leading pollster All four leadership candidates are currently putting all their efforts in GOTV, as it’s ‘vital to the whole success of any campaign,’ says Steve Outhouse, campaign manager for the Leslyn Lewis campaign.

News


Peter MacKay Conservative MPs

1. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, Alta.)2. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.)3. Leona Alleslev (Aurora-Oak Ridges-Markham, Ont.)4. Dean Allison (Niagara West, Ont.)5. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, Ont.)6. John Barlow (Foothills, Alta.)7. Luc Berthold (Megantic-L’Érable, Que.)8. James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, Man.)9. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis, Que.)10. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer-Lacombe, Alta.)11. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, Ont.)12. Michael Cooper (St. Albert-Edmonton, Alta.)13. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, Alta.)14. Scot Davidson (York-Simcoe, Ont.)15. Chris D’Entremont (West Nova, N.S.)16. Todd Doherty (Cariboo-Prince George, B.C.)17. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe-Gray, Ont.)18. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, B.C.)19. Kerry-Lyne Findlay (South Surrey-West Rock, B.C.)20. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Ont.)21. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Que.)22. Joel Godin (Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, Que.)23. Jacques Gourde (Lévis-Lotbinière, Que.)24. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, Sask.)25. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, Alta.)26. Mike Lake (Edmonton-Wetaskiwin, Alta.)27. Ben Lobb (Huron Bruce, Ont.)28. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan, Sask.)29. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, Ont.)30. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, Alta.)31. Phil McColeman (Brantford-Brant, Ont.)32. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, N.B.)33. Marty Morantz (Charleswood-St. James-Assiniboia-Headingley, Man.)34. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, Que.)35. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, Alta.)36. Bob Saroya (Markham-Unionville, Ont.)37. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin-Caledon, Ont.)38. Doug Shipley (Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte, Ont.)39. Jasraj Hallan (Calgary Forrest Lawn, Alta.)40. Tim Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods, Alta.)41. Karen Vecchio (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Ont.)42. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon-Grasswood, Sask.)43. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, Alta.)44. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray-Cold Lake, Alta.)45. Bob Zimmer (Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies, B.C.)

SENATORS1. (Ontario) Sen. Salma Ataullahjan2. (Saskatchewan) Sen. Denise Batters3. (Quebec) Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu4. (Quebec) Sen. Claude Carignan5. (Newfoundland and Labrador) Sen. Norman Doyle6. (Nova Scotia) Sen. Michael MacDonald7. (Newfoundland and Labrador) Sen. Fabian Manning8. (British Columbia) Sen. Yonah Martin9. (New Brunswick) Sen. Percy Mockler10. (Ontario) Sen. Thanh Hai Ngo11. (Ontario) Sen. Victor Oh12. (Nunavut) Sen. Dennis Patterson13. (New Brunswick) Sen. Rose-May Poirier14. (Newfoundland and Labrador) Sen. David Wells

Erin O’Toole Conservative MPs

1. Michael Barrett (Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands-Rideau Lakes, Ont.)2. Bob Benzen (Calgary Heritage, B.C.)3. Kenny Chiu (Steveston-Richmond East, Ont.)4. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton-Griesbach, Alta.)5. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge, B.C.)6. Ranquel Dancho (Kildonan-St. Paul, B.C.)7. Eric Duncan (Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, Ont.)8. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent-Leamington, Ont.)9. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan, Alta.)10. Tracy Gray (Kelowna-Lake Country, B.C.)11. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rock Ridge, Alta.)12. Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.)13. Robert Kitchen (Souris-Moose Mountain, Sask.)14. Damien Kurek (Battle River-Crowfoot, Alta.)15. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary-Midnapore, Alta.)16. Phil Lawrence (Northumberland-Peterborough South, Ont.)17. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River Parkland, Alta.)18. Larry Maguire (Brandon-Souris, Man.)19. Dan Mazier (Dauphin-Swan River-Neepawa, Man.)20. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, Alta.)21. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, Que.)22. Eric Melillo (Kenora, Ont.)23. Robert Morrison (Kootenay-Columbia, B.C.)24. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, B.C.)25. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, Sask.)26. Blake Richards (Banff-Airdrie, Alta.)27. Lianne Rood (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Ont.)28. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, Ont.)29. Martin Shields (Bow River, Alta.)30. Alex Ruff (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Ont.)31. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, Ont.)32. Warren Steinley (Regina-Lewvan, Sask.)33. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, Alta.)34. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon-University, Sask.)35. David Sweet (Flamborough-Glanbrook, Ont.)36. Tako van Popta (Langley-Aldergrove, B.C.)37. Brad Vis (Mission-Marsqui-Fraser Canyon, B.C.)38. Gary Vidal (Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River, Man.)

SENATORS1. (Quebec) Sen. Leo Housakos2. (Quebec) Sen. Judith Seidman3. (Quebec) Sen. Larry Smith

Leslyn Lewis

Conservative MPs

1. Richard Bragdon (Tobique-Mactaquac, N.B.)2. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords-Lloydminster, Sask.)3. Tamara Jensen (Cloverdale-Langley City, B.C.)4. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton-Melville, Sask.)5. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Sask.)6. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat-Cardston-Warner, Alta.)7. Scott Reid (Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, Ont.)

Derek Sloan

No caucus endorsements

Who is Supporting Who in the Conservative Leadership Election


17

describing the scandal a “systemic error” where it appears no cabinet minister was willing to take the risk of telling the prime minister that he should recuse himself from the contract discussion because of his family ties.

“So essentially what it is, is that nobody calls out the prime minister,” said a Liberal MP who spoke to The Hill Times on a not-for-attribution basis in order to offer his candid opinion. “Because everybody in that [cabinet] room is dependent on him for their job. So is it a system issue? It is truly a systemic error. In other eras, we’ve had three or four or five people who didn’t give a rat’s ass whether they were a cabinet min-ister, [or in other positions], who called things the way they saw, you know. [Late] John Crosbie [in Brian Mulroney’s cabinet], kind of a classic example, Don Mac-donald [Pierre Trudeau cabinet] would be another example. These are the kind of people who gave you their unvarnished advice.”

The MP said he does not know anyone in the current cabinet who would offer his or her blunt advice and call out Mr. Trudeau when they saw anything inap-propriate at the cabinet table. Other MPs and senior Liberals interviewed said that, over the years and because of the ever-increasing tight control from “The Centre,” cabinet ministers and MPs, with some rare exceptions, have become afraid of calling out the leader as this is seen as

a “career limiting move.” They said that anyone who makes this “mistake” is seen as a non-team player and should essentially for-get about any future promotion in the government. They pointed out that former prime minister Stephen Harper took the control of the cabinet, caucus, and the party to a whole different level in his 10 years of power, and despite promises to the contrary during the 2015 campaign, nothing has changed under Prime Minister Trudeau.

David Herle, host of the popu-lar weekly The Herle Burly pod-cast and a veteran Liberal insider who has served as a top adviser and strategist to prime ministers and premiers in the past, said on his show last week that everyone who is familiar with how Mr. Trudeau operates, knows that the prime minister doesn’t like “dissent.”

“Anybody that’s worked with Mr. Trudeau would come to un-derstand how unwelcome dissent is,” said Mr. Herle in his July 21 show.

A PMO spokesperson de-clined to say whether any cabinet minister raised an objection to the presence of Mr. Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau (Toronto Centre, Ont.) in the cabinet when the cabinet deliber-ated on the issue. “From a PMO perspective, I will refer you to our past comments on this,” wrote PMO press secretary Chantal Gagnon, in an email to The Hill Times, last week. In a follow-up question, The Hill Times request-ed Ms. Gagnon to specify which comment she was referring to but never heard back.

Since the controversy became public earlier this month, almost all cabinet ministers have declined to comment on whether anyone raised any questions about Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau attend-ing the cabinet discussion while they discussed the WE Charity contract, citing cabinet confiden-tiality. Also, they have declined to say whether they knew the Trudeau family and Morneau fam-ily had close connections with the charity. The only exception as of deadline had been Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Cham-pagne (Saint Maurice-Champlain, Que.) who told Global TV’s The West Block, “I was not aware of the particular circumstances sur-rounding that [the closeness of the Trudeaus to the WE organization],” adding that the government has admitted it “made a mistake” with the process and is doing a “course correction.”

Deputy Prime Minister Chrys-tia Freeland (University-Rosedale,

Ont.) told reporters on July 16 that “everyone in cabinet” bears responsibility for the WE Charity controversy and that Prime Min-ister Trudeau has her “complete confidence.”

“I think all of us, everyone in our government, everyone in cabinet, bears responsibility for this situa-tion,” Ms. Freeland said at a press conference in Ottawa. “And I’d like to say, speaking for myself, that I accept responsibility and very much regret what has happened. And I’d like to say to Canadians, I’m really sorry. We have so many huge issues facing our country. Clearly, our government made a mistake. And I want to say to people we’re going to learn from it.”

The WE Charity scandal surrounds a now cancelled, untendered $900-million contract to manage the federal govern-ment’s student grants volunteer program that was awarded to the charity. If the contract had gone ahead, the charity would have earned about $44-million to administer it. The Trudeaus have family ties to the charity; Mr. Trudeau has volunteered for it in the past, his mother Marga-ret and brother Alexandre have received more than $300,000 over the years in speaking fees for WE Charity events, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, is an official ambassador for the charity and hosts a podcast for it. The prime minister’s wife received a $1,500 honorarium for hosting a WE Charity event in 2012.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau (Toronto Centre, Ont.) who was also present during the cabinet discussions for the contract did not recuse himself either although two of his close fam-ily members have been directly involved with the charity, one as a contractual employee. Last week, he told the House Finance Com-mittee that his family has donated $100,000 to the charity in the last two years and has recently paid back $41,366 for their family trips to Kenya and Ecuador to learn about WE projects overseas. The payment for trips was made the same day he appeared before the committee on July 22. The opposi-tion parties are now calling for Mr. Morneau’s resignation for not paying back the trip money until the day he appeared before the House Finance Committee.

On July 21, Ian Shugart, clerk of the privy council, told the same committee that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau had no option but to be present during the cabinet dis-cussions on the contract because of its size and significance.

“Given the importance of the issue to the government’s overall

efforts to deal with the impacts of the pandemic and given the scale of the contribution … I do not see a way that the prime minister or the finance minister responsible for public funds could not have had involvement in the policy development and in the approval of finances on this scale,” Mr. Shugart told the com-mittee.

Mr. Trudeau and his chief of staff Katie Telford have also agreed to appear before the committee but as of deadline last week the date was not finalized. The House Ethics Committee has also extended an invitation to Mr. Trudeau but it was not clear by press time if he has agreed to accept it.

Mr. Trudeau has said in his defence the decision to award the contract for the Canada Student Service Grant to the WE Char-ity was made by public servants, but it was also approved by the cabinet. Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau have apologized for failing to recuse themselves from cabinet discussions on this issue. Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion is currently investigating Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Morneau’s role in this affair.

This is the third ethics contro-versy that Mr. Trudeau has landed in. He also got into trouble for his family vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island and his attempts to influence the prosecu-tion of SNC-Lavalin on corrup-tion charges.

Former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson, who found Mr. Trudeau in violation of the Con-flict of Interest Act for vacation-ing at the Aga Khan’s private Island, told CBC recently that the prime minister seems to have a “blind spot” on ethical issues.

Meanwhile, Liberal MPs and former senior Liberals told The Hill Times that another concern that they have about the cabinet min-isters and the advice Mr. Trudeau is receiving from the top PMO staffers is that because everybody believes they have done a good job in managing the COVID-19 crisis, they are engaged in “group think” and are living in a bubble.

“Maybe they’re all com-pletely blind to the ethics of the issue and they’ve convinced themselves that we’re all doing good work,” said the MP. “And they responded [very well] to certainly the major crisis of the 21st century, and etc., etc. And everybody’s drinking their own Kool-Aid, and you live in kind of a self-isolated bubble. And the only people you talk to are people who think and talk just exactly like you do. You can get yourself into a group think that doesn’t allow any dissent.”

Another Liberal MP who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis for fear of retribution, said that up until the start of the WE scandal, all Liberal MPs were pleased with their government’s effective handling of the corona-virus. The MP said the govern-ment made spending announce-ments of more than $200-billion to help people deal with the crisis, gained the goodwill of millions of Canadians and then destroyed all that political capital with the last $900-million decision. The worst part, the MP said, is that the story is getting worse with each pass-

ing day and nobody knows where it will end.

“My God, this is unbelievable stuff,” said the second MP. “We’re losing all the goodwill on the last $1-billion spending.”

A former senior Liberal told The Hill Times that looking at the actions of the leadership, they “unfortunately” have to agree with Ms. Dawson’s opinion that Mr. Trudeau has a “blind spot” on ethical issues.

Prior to the start of the We Charity controversy, all national public opinion polls had sug-gested that if an election were to be held at that time, the Trudeau Liberals would win a majority. But now, some polls are suggest-ing that the Liberals have lost the momentum and have lost a chunk of the support. According to an Abacus Data poll released last week, the Liberals had the sup-port of 36 per cent of Canadians, the Conservatives 31 per cent, the NDP 16 per cent, and Green Party six per cent. The online poll of 1,500 was conducted between July 13 to July 16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Meanwhile, Ipsos pollster Darrell Bricker, in an interview with The Hill Times, said that when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Canada, all political leaders did their best to leave politics aside and help the federal and provincial governments deal with the crisis. But the WE contro-versy has brought partisanship back while the country is still dealing with the pandemic. He said that unlike the normal sum-mer season when people don’t pay attention to politics, this time Canadians are closely follow-ing the political developments because of the economic and health impacts of COVID-19, and are trying to figure out what this means for them going forward. If nothing else, Mr. Bricker said, the WE Charity scandal is reminding Canadians of the Liberal leadership’s past ethical lapses and how that pattern of behaviour still continues.

“The effect is really more on judgment,” said Mr. Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs. “Whether or not their judgment in circum-stances like this is as it should be. And when you start questioning a government’s judgment, that means they will have fundamen-tal issues with their [govern-ment’s] ability to do their job.”

Mr. Bricker, however, said that the good news for the Liberals is that when the next election happens, WE Charity will be one among many other issues that will be before Canadians as they decide which party they want to vote for, adding, “The thing that’s going to determine the outcome of the next election is probably how the coronavirus, particularly the economic recovery, is man-aged,” said Mr. Bricker.

“That’s what’s going to affect Canadians far more than any-thing that has to do with any of these ethical lapses or this particular scandal. So that offers them an opportunity to refocus people on things that are impor-tant and really matter to them in their day to day lives.”


‘Nobody calls out the prime minister’: WE Charity scandal ‘a truly systemic error,’ say some Liberal MPs who also wonder about PM’s advisers Some Liberal backbenchers say they’re frustrated that their own government has lost goodwill because of the WE Charity scandal and Ipsos pollster Darrell Bricker says Canadians are now questioning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s judgment and his government’s ability to do its job in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic.

News



18

to move the sector forward.”Now we have the Innovation Economic

Council, an association of nine players in Ontario’s innovation ecosystem dedicated to advancing Canadian industrial development policy which in a recent report—‘Factory For-ward: How Advanced Manufacturing is Retool-ing Ontario’s Industrial Heartland’—asserts that “manufacturing is not dead. Much of it is thriving, particularly the pockets focussed on high-value-added products, specialization and technology.” Yet this gung-ho report ignores many of the difficulties the industry faces.

Much of its attention is focused on the automotive industry which, it states, is “the backbone of Ontario manufacturing.” Yet in Ontario, it is an industry in seeming de-cline. Motor vehicle manufacturing value-added in Ontario in 2018 was $8.4-billion, compared to $10.7-billion in 2007, before the Great Recession hit.

There is some positive news out of the recently launched advanced manufacturing cluster, Next Generation Manufacturing Canada. It plans to invest $573.5-million in advanced manufacturing projects over the five years 2018-2023 (this includes $192-million of federal funding and the rest from industry, academia and provincial support). Magna International, Linamar, Toyota Canada, and Honda Canada were launching members of the cluster but Gen-eral Motors, Ford and Chrysler weren’t.

In its strategic plan the NextGen cluster makes the critical case for manufacturing.

Manufacturing, the plan underlines, is “the ultimate integrator of technology. The Internet of Things, sensors and microelectron-ics, next generation networks, cybersecurity, supercomputing, artificial intelligence, virtual modelling, simulation and testing, robotics, automation and advanced tooling, additive manufacturing and advanced materials all have applications in developing, producing and connecting products, processes and busi-ness and production systems across a wide variety of manufacturing sectors—from wood products, steel, and fabricated metals, to food and chemical processing to automotive, aero-space, machinery and equipment.”

But we have a problem. After adjusting for inflation, the value of goods produced by Canadian manufacturers has been running just slightly higher than in 2002 (nearly two decades ago). “Canada’s spending is down 10 per cent while investments in technol-ogy acquisition have fallen 24 per cent over the past 10 years. As a result, Canada’s productivity gap with the United States, not to mention other advanced manufac-turing powerhouses like Germany, Japan and South Korea, has widened.” The job of NextGen cluster is to narrow that gap.

While it can make an important contri-bution, it is hard to see how the cluster can accomplish its far-reaching goals without a much broader manufacturing strategy, starting with much better analysis of why our manufacturing is relatively weak. Spe-cial attention needs to be paid to the future of the automotive industry. Manufactur-ing has been neglected for too long—but without a healthy manufacturing sector we won’t rebuild a strong economy with the jobs and wealth creation we urgently need.

David Crane can be reached at [email protected].

The Hill Times

which global power dynamics play out, rather than as a body that delivers effec-tive management of peace and security challenges. This entails acting as one of the focal points for Sino-U.S. rivalry (alongside other institutions like the WTO), but also as a forum in which Russia—a declining power clinging onto its status—plays a dis-ruptive role with respect to security issues that implicate its core interests. To a lesser extent, we will also witness France striving to prove its continued relevance as the sole permanent member from the EU, particu-larly as “pen-holder” on peace operations mandates.

Indeed, the reconfiguration and draw-down of several UN missions—including the large-scale peace operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—is one of the few agenda items upon which council members will be forced to deliber-ate and expend political capital. But even here, we are more likely to see more short-term thinking on the part of the Security Council, obsessed with cost reduction and risk aversion, rather than the kind of stra-tegic engagement required to ensure that poorly managed transitions do not result in resumption of conflict.

Second, creative efforts to address the council’s abdication of its responsibility in addressing global insecurity and civil-ian suffering are likely to intensify. One example to build upon is the UN General Assembly’s creation of an accountability mechanism for war crimes committed in Syria. Alternatively, states could draw on precedents from the early 1990s, in which regional organizations in Africa empow-ered their members to use force collective-ly to address security challenges without prior authorization from the UN Security Council, to work around the prospect of continued deadlock among the Permanent Five.

Finally, rather than waiting for the hegemony to return to leadership, or for the traditional members of the UN Security Council to agree on forms of global coop-eration, states with common interests could independently create what international lawyers Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro have recently termed “global clubs.” These collectives would share the burdens and costs of a variety of goods, from vaccines to cyber security, while denying the benefits to “bad actors.” Although these so-called club goods are more difficult to provide in the realm of security, they are not impossible and some alliances and security organiza-tions already approximate their delivery.

In the short-term, it is essential that more pragmatically driven collectives of states come together to address both regional and global security challenges. In such a scenario, perhaps the sting of Canada’s loss in the Security Council elec-tion will feel a little less painful.

Jennifer Welsh is the Canada 150 Research Chair in Global Governance & Security at McGill University, and director of the Centre for International Peace and Security Studies. From 2013-2016, she was special adviser to the UN Secretary Gen-eral on the ‘Responsibility to Protect’.

The Hill Times

Opinion


Meeting the challenge of security cooperation in a COVID-19 world

Rebuilding our way out of COVID-19 pandemic won’t be easy



Canada’a federal Justice Minister David Lametti has seen some senior staff

changes in his office of late, including the recent promotion of Nicola Langille from policy adviser to director of criminal law policy.

As a policy adviser to the minister since November 2018, Ms. Langille had been Mr. Lametti’s lead on matters relating to criminal law. She was promoted to director at the beginning of June.

Before joining Mr. Lametti’s office almost two years ago, Ms. Langille was working as a staff lawyer, focused on crim-inal law, with the Legal Aid Commission of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife. She’s also a former associate with Henein Hutchison LLP in Toronto and previously spent a year as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clément Gascon.

Ms. Langille has a bachelor’s degree in political science and government from the University of Toronto and studied law at McGill University. While at McGill, she spent the summer of 2013 working for Lenczner Slaght LLP in Toronto and the next year was a summer student with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General’s criminal Crown law office.

In early June, Jim Kapches left Mr. Lametti’s office and his post as director of litigation to the minister after more than a year on the job.

Mr. Kapches had first joined the office in late February 2019, and before then spent a year as a policy adviser to National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. A member of the Law Society of Ontario, before enter-ing political work, Mr. Kapches worked as a lawyer with the federal department of justice, a job which saw him represent the Crown as counsel in a number of court cases.

He went on to become a legislative as-sistant to Toronto Liberal MP Julie Dab-

rusin, who was first elected in 2015, and in early 2017 joined then-international trade minister François-Philippe Champagne’s office as an Ontario regional affairs ad-viser and assistant to the minister’s parlia-mentary secretary.

In turn, Nicholas Daube is now director of policy and litigation to Mr. Lametti, and is overseeing litigation files along with the rest of Mr. Lametti’s policy team.

Mr. Daube has been director of policy in the office since November 2018, start-ing under then-minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Before then, he was working at Queen’s Park, last as director of Ontario U.S. rela-tions to then-premier Kathleen Wynne. He’s also a former senior policy adviser to then-Ontario finance minister Charles Sousa and briefly served as policy director to then-Ontario environment minister Glen Murray (who is now running as a candi-date in the federal Green Party’s leadership race).

Mr. Daube studied law at the University of Toronto, later getting a master of laws from Columbia University, and has worked as a lawyer for Adair Morse LLP and Nor-ton Rose Fulbright in Toronto.

Also currently tackling policy work for Mr. Lametti is adviser Olivier Jarda and special assistant for policy Nadia Kadri. There’s also François Giroux, judicial af-fairs adviser.

In other director-level news, Alex Stein-house will soon be returning to his post as director of parliamentary affairs in Mr. Lametti’s office.

Mr. Steinhouse was seconded to the Prime Minister’s Office in the spring to temporarily lend a hand as an adviser for issues management and parliamentary affairs.

A former lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Mr. Steinhouse first joined the justice minister’s office under Ms. Wilson-Raybould as a policy and parliamentary adviser and was promoted to director about two years ago.

He’ll return to a new member of the parliamentary affairs team: special assis-

tant Fatima Said, the most recent addition to Mr. Lametti’s team. She started this week as a special assistant for parliamen-tary affairs.

Ms. Said has spent the last two years (plus a few months) working for Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld, who’s been the MP for Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont. since 2015. Ms. Vandenbeld was appointed parliamen-tary secretary to the minister of national defence in December 2019, and during Ms. Said’s time in her office, which began in May 2018, she was a member of the House of Commons’ Access to Informa-tion, Privacy, and Ethics Committee, the Foreign Affairs and International Develop-ment Committee, and the National Defence Committee.

Before she landed a job in Ms. Vanden-beld’s office, Ms. Said had been working for the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre, last as a community health worker focused on youth economic devel-opment, as indicated on her LinkedIn pro-file. Ms. Said has a bachelor’s degree from Carleton University, with a double major in communications and media studies and applied linguistics and discourse studies. She’s also a former mentor, communica-tions, and media team lead with Youth Futures; a former community outreach specialist with Global Child Care Services; and a former communications officer for the Islam Care Centre, among other past jobs.

Mr. Lametti’s parliamentary affairs team includes: Lauriane Songuissa-Mou-langou, senior special assistant for issues management and parliamentary affairs; Léo Newman, regional and parliamentary affairs adviser; and Morgan MacDougall-Milne, special assistant for parliamentary affairs.

Elizabeth Normandeau-Bertrand, who first joined Mr. Lametti’s office in February as a part-time special assistant for com-munications, is now working in the office full-time.

She’s a former aide for Ensemble Montreal, a municipal political party led by former Montreal mayor and Liberal MP Denis Coderre, and is a former communi-cations co-ordinator for the Retail Council of Canada’s Quebec division.

Émilie Simard is director of commu-nications to Mr. Lametti, aided by press secretary Rachel Rappaport.

Rachel Doran continues as chief of staff to the minister.


But why? If Scheer was second-string, the two main contenders for his job—both white middle-aged men with so few policy disagreements their campaigns have had to invent some—are equally forgettable. Peter MacKay, the most widely known, is leading the pack but where, if he wins next month, would he lead the party?

He is foursquare in favour of developing fossil fuels, notwithstanding unmistak-able evidence of a changing climate. He reflexively supports the military, farmers, gun owners, legion halls and the usual right-wing constituencies. He would bring a more congenial personality to the job and considerable parliamentary experi-ence. But there is nothing about him that promises change and scant chance he will resurrect the red Toryism of the Brian Mulroney days: serious about climate, pro-immigration, frugal rather than mean, and small-business-friendly.

Former Quebec premier Jean Charest, another Mulroney-era moderate, bowed out of the race early, as did MP Michael Chong, because the post-Harper Conser-vative party has no room for them. It is now mostly-western based, anglophone, rural, white, male, and older. It represents, in fact, a dying demographic with no ap-parent interest in attracting new blood or new ideas.

Not that there aren’t younger Conser-vatives—like, for instance, federal MPs Pierre Poilievre and Michael Cooper who have been leading the prosecution against Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Trudeau in the WE controversy. What they lack in freshness and nuance, they make up for in ambition, innuendo and avidity. Their critiques of Liberals are so overdrawn—with Trudeau and Mor-neau, the “trust-fund twins” portrayed as moustache twirling, cartoon capital-ists—that their legitimate complaints are lost. (“Showered with luxury!” “An exotic vacation in Ecuador!” “Your villa in France.” “Bill Morneau has been hiding secrets for years. What is Justin Trudeau hiding?” “Both Trudeau and Morneau are law-breaking machines.”)

If these two are the future of the party, politics is headed for an even darker place.

The pandemic has undermined a lot of Conservative shibboleths: the alleged incompetence of the public service, the unvarying evil of deficits, the suppos-edly pernicious role of government in our lives. But is this period of churn enough to change the political landscape—to banish the once-mighty Conservative Party to the margins, while a new coalition of urban progressive and green voters moves into the void, and, perhaps, even nudges aside the Liberal Party?

The party that founded the country—the federal Progressive Conservatives—is no more. The Reform Party flourished then died. So did the Social Credit, the CCF, and countless small parties. Quebec is now led by a new party, the Coalition Avenir Qué-bec. The Bloc Québécois recently suffered a near-death experience. Even the mighty Liberals were relegated to third place be-fore Justin Trudeau led them back to power.

Some eternal verities are not so eternal after all—and that includes the present-day Conservative Party as a dominant force in federal politics. Increasingly, it speaks for a disappearing Canada. Some day the polls may catch up.

Susan Riley is a veteran political colum-nist who write regularly for The Hill Times.

The Hill Times


by Laura Ryckewaert

hill climbers

19

Director-level changes for Justice Minister Lametti

Time for new thinking about old parties

Nicola Langille is now director of criminal law to Mr. Lametti. Photograph courtesy of LinkedIn

Alex Steinhouse has been working on loan in the PMO in recent months. Photograph courtesy of LinkedIn

Fatima Said is the newest addition to the justice minister’s office. Photograph courtesy of LinkedIn

Elizabeth Normandeau-Bertrand is now a full-time aide to Mr. Lametti. Photograph courtesy of LinkedIn

After more than a year in the role, Jim Kapches recently exited his post as director of litigation to the justice minister.


Opinion

MONDAY, JULY 27House Sitting—The House has not met

regularly since mid-March, when it was sus-pended amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The regular summer recess was scheduled to begin on June 24, but MPs agreed to meet as a committee of the whole on July 8, July 22, Aug. 12, and Aug. 26. The House is then scheduled to return in the fall on Mon-day, Sept. 21, for three straight weeks, as per the original House sitting calendar.

Senate Sitting—The Senate, which had adjourned until Sept. 22, is scheduled to meet on Monday, July 27, at 12 p.m. “for the consideration of measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Senate Speaker announced last week.

THURSDAY, JULY 23—THURSDAY, JULY 30

Green Party Leadership Regional Town Halls—The Green Party of Canada leader-ship contest will host six regional online town halls across Canada starting on Monday. The nine contestants seeking the party leadership will respond to submitted questions and each event will feature two moderators. Three provincial Green Party leaders and one provincial deputy leader are among the moderators. The nine con-testants are (in alphabetical order): Judy N. Green (N.S.), Meryam Haddad (Quebec), Courtney Howard (N.W.T.), Amita Kuttner (B.C.), Dimitri Lascaris (Quebec), David Merner (B.C.), Glen Murray (Manitoba), Annamie Paul (Ontario), and Andrew West (Ontario). Atlantic: Thursday, July 23, 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. ADT; North: Monday, July 27, 7-8:30 p.m. CDT; British Columbia: Tuesday, July 28, 7-8:30 p.m. PDT; On-tario: Thursday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. EDT. Register at greenparty.ca.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29Brian Mulroney To Discuss His ‘Agenda

for Canadian Greatness’—The former prime minister will discuss his 10 big ideas for the future of Canada that address major social and economic challenges, including combat-ing racism, Indigenous equality and a free trade agreement for the Americas. Hosted by the Pearson Centre, the moderator will be Brian Gallant, a Pearson advisory board member and the former premier of New Brunswick. This webinar will take place at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 29. For more information: www.thepearsoncentre.ca

CPC Leadership Debate—The four candi-dates vying to lead the federal Conservative Party will face off in a live debate, hosted by the Independent Press Gallery. The debate will be streamed on independent-pressgallery.ca as well as by Independent Press Gallery members. The debate will be broadcast live from Toronto on Wednesday, July 29, starting at 7 p.m. EDT. Media availabilities for the candidates will follow and will also be carried live. The debate will be moderated by Independent Press Gallery member and True North fellow Andrew Lawton with an appearance by Gal-lery president Candice Malcolm. Questions about the debate or requests for accredita-tion can be sent to [email protected].

FRIDAY, JULY 31—SATURDAY, AUG. 8#CanadaPerforms at RBC Bluesfest

Drive-In—The National Arts Centre and RBC Bluesfest are pleased to announce they are coming together to present #CanadaPer-forms at RBC Bluesfest Drive-In, a summer weekend series of live concerts at the Place des Festivals Zibi site, by the Kitchissippi River (Ottawa River). Concert-goers, as small pods or families, will be encouraged to drive to the site and watch live concerts from their individual dedicated space. In order to safely welcome back audiences to watch live concerts, the Drive-In series will offer a physical distancing experience that respects reopening measures and protocols. Canadians will also be able to watch online the live-streamed concerts. Concerts will take place on Friday, July 31, Saturday, Aug. 1, Friday, Aug. 7, and Saturday, Aug. 8. Tickets on sale now. For the details,

including additional dates and performers, go to: canadaperforms.ottawabluesfest.ca/

THURSDAY, AUG. 675 Years Since the Nuclear Bombing of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: We Remember—Aug. 6 and 9 will mark 75 years since atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people. The Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW) will host a virtual event on Thursday, Aug. 6 from 2-3:30 p.m. EDT to honour the victims of this unspeakable act, and to consider new action to help rid the world of nuclear weapons. Featured speakers

include: bombing survivor Setsuko Thurlow; Douglas Roche, former senator, Ambas-sador for Disarmament; Alain Dondainaz, head of mission to Canada of the Interna-tional Committee of the Red Cross; Peggy Mason, former Ambassador for Disarma-ment and current president of the Rideau Institute; Ray Acheson, director of Reach-ing Critical Will, the disarmament program of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares; and Michel Duguay, former co-ordinator of the Let’s Move Quebec Out of Nuclear movement. CNANW chair Earl Turcotte will moderate. Register via Eventbrite.

FRIDAY, AUG. 21Conservative Party Leadership Contest—

The federal Conservative Party’s Leadership Election Organizing Committee, also known as LEOC, announced on April 29 that Aug. 21 is the deadline for mail-in ballots, after the leadership contest was suspended on March 26 due to the global pandemic. The party says the winner will be announced once the ballots can be safely counted.

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 243rd FIPP World Media Congress—Susan

Goldberg, editor-in-chief of National Geo-graphic and editorial director of National

Geographic Partners, is the latest speaker to be confirmed for the 43rd FIPP World Media Congress, which will take place online from Sept. 2-30. To find out more, www.fippcongress.com and online here.

MONDAY, SEPT. 21 House Sitting—The House is scheduled

to return in the fall on Monday, Sept. 21, for three straight weeks, as per the original House sitting calendar.

TUESDAY, SEPT. 22 Senate Sitting—The Senate is scheduled

to return in the fall on Tuesday, Sept. 22.

THURSDAY, OCT. 15PPF Testimonial Dinner and Awards—Join

the Public Policy Forum at the 33rd annual event to network and celebrate as the Public Policy Forum honours Canadians who have made their mark on policy and leadership. Anne McLellan and Senator Peter Harder will take their place among a cohort of other stellar Canadians who we’ve honoured over the last 33 years, people who have dedicated themselves to mak-ing Canada a better place through policy leadership and public service. The gala event will be held on Thursday, Oct. 15, at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, 255 Front St. W., Toronto.

SATURDAY, OCT. 24Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner—The

Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner happens on Saturday, Oct. 24, in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building on Wellington Street in Ottawa.

FRIDAY, OCT. 30CJF Awards Celebrating 30 Years of

Excellence in Journalism—The Canadian Journalism Foundation Awards will be held on Oct. 30, 2020, at the Ritz-Carlton, Toronto, hosted by Rick Mercer, former host of The Rick Mercer Report. The CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti will be honoured. Tables are $7,500 and tickets are $750. For more information on tables and sponsorship opportunities, contact Josh Gurfinkel at [email protected] or 416-955-0394.

TUESDAY, NOV. 3 U.S. Presidential Election—The U.S.

presidential election is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump is the Republican candidate and former vice-president Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic candidate. The winner is scheduled to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021.

THURSDAY, NOV. 12Liberal Party National Convention—The

Liberal Party of Canada announced the 2020 Liberal National Convention will be hosted in Ottawa, from Nov. 12-15. For more information, please contact: [email protected], 613-627-2384.

FRIDAY, NOV. 13Bridging Divides in Wake of a Global

Pandemic—The University of Victoria (UVic) and the Senate of Canada are bringing together change-makers at the Victoria Forum to help generate solutions to some of the world’s most divisive problems. The two-day virtual forum will be held Nov. 13-14 to examine issues that fall under the theme of “Bridging divides in the wake of a global pandemic.” The forum will draw on emerging trends and lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic through biweekly webinars. For more information or to regis-ter, visit www.victoriaforum.ca.

The Parliamentary Calendar is a free events listing. Send in your political, cultural, diplomatic, or governmental event in a paragraph with all the relevant details under the subject line ‘Parliamentary Cal-endar’ to [email protected] by Wednes-day at noon before the Monday paper or by Friday at noon for the Wednesday paper. We can’t guarantee inclusion of every event, but we will definitely do our best. Events can be updated daily online, too.

The Hill Times

Mulroney to discuss his ‘agenda for Canadian greatness’ on July

29 with Brian Gallant

More at hilltimes.com/calendar

Parliamentary Calendar

Toronto-area hip-hop artist Haviah Mighty performs at RBC Bluesfest Drive-In on Saturday, Aug. 1. Flickr photograph by Rhyan Correia

Say cheese: Former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, pictured on March 5, 2019, in Ottawa with some fans, will be discussing his 10 big ideas for the future of Canada that address major social and economic challenges, including combating racism, Indigenous equality and a free trade agreement for the Americas on Wednesday, July 29, at 3 p.m. Hosted by the Pearson Centre, the moderator will be Brian Gallant, a Pearson advisory board member and the former premier of New Brunswick. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

A new Challenge Broader lessons Cold War from quiet …...2 hours ago · cooked up sausage pasta...

Documents

Transcript of A new Challenge Broader lessons Cold War from quiet …...2 hours ago · cooked up sausage pasta...