Former federal finance minister Bill Morneau says that when it came to COVID-19 pandemic aid policy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the top advisers in his office favoured “scoring political points” over policy rationales, leading to him feeling like a “rubber stamp” ahead of his “inevitable” resignation.
“My job of providing counsel and direction where fiscal matters were concerned had deteriorated into serving as something between a figurehead and a rubber stamp,” he writes in his new book, out on Jan. 17.
In a one-on-one interview with CTV News’ Chief Political Correspondent Vassy Kapelos on her debut episode of CTV’s Question Period, Morneau opened up about the behind-the-scene tensions in the lead-up to his high-profile departure, and spoke to some of the most revealing portions in the book, titled ‘Where To from Here: A Path to Canadian Prosperity.’
“It became unsustainable,” Morneau said in reference to what was behind his decision in August 2020 to resign both as finance minister and Toronto Centre MP. This move came six months into the federal government’s COVID-19 aid rollout and amid the WE Charity controversy.
At the time, despite assertions from the prime minister that Morneau had his confidence, there were leaks from sources suggesting a growing rift with Trudeau, in part over how the federal government was handling COVID-19 economic stimulus programs. Programs Morneau now thinks the Liberals “probably” overspent on.
“The differences of opinion, they led us to have conclusions around whether we could work together that were mutual. So, whether it was about leaks, or whether it was about that difference in vision, I think it was pretty inevitable that five years for me was a great run, but it was time to move on,” Morneau said in the interview.
As the book reveals, Morneau felt that Trudeau’s government and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) became preoccupied with how things were perceived at the expense of good policy, and how this led to one of the worst moments of his political life.
He writes that while he’s impressed with how many positive policy decisions were taken “on the fly” in the early pandemic days, as the federal government faced pressure to react to the 24/7 news cycle and to be seen to be responding to the needs of key voter demographics such as seniors, “policy rationales were tossed aside in favour of scoring political points.”
“We lost the agenda. During the period when the largest government expenditures as a portion of GDP were made in the shortest time since the advent of World War II, calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest,” he writes.
Asked about this, Morneau told Kapelos that, to be fair to both sides, what Trudeau and his team were trying to do was appropriately ensure that Canadians had the confidence that they could weather the health and economic challenges of COVID-19, while finance officials were thinking about how to get the economy through the pandemic.
“I think one of the important threads in my book… is that the challenge of our modern-day government in the 24/7 news cycle is something that people have an incentive to react to… And when you do that, your ability to focus on the long-term, your ability to focus on growth in the economy, your ability to focus on the energy transition, your ability to focus on not just a one-year solution for health care, but an enduring solution for a generation is challenged,” he said.
Morneau said that’s a view he shared while he was around the cabinet table, and is a challenge that every government is facing.
“What I want to say is that good policy can be good politics… It is an enduring challenge, and it requires strong leadership.”
WAS TENSION WITH TRUDEAU THE ‘ENTIRE TIME’
The former finance minister starts his book off with a chapter called “Conversation in an Empty Room,” in which he details the conversation he had at Rideau Cottage with the prime minister in the summer of 2020 when he told Trudeau that he’d be leaving.
He writes it was one of the “very few” times the two had discussed something in private without any other advisers or sources of counsel in the room which “simply didn’t happen” in Trudeau’s world.
“Virtually any topic you wanted to discuss with the prime minister—official or informal, strategy or gossip—had to be shared in the presence of members of his staff,” he writes.
Morneau writes that he was “walking away from a job I had loved,” but that the “differences” between the two became too much to surpass. He suggests in the book that had the pair had a more “robust relationship” to fall back on, perhaps things could have been different.
In the interview, Morneau said that there was a “healthy tension”— as he thinks there should be between the finance minister and prime minister— “during the entire time” they were in office together. But, once they entered the “pressure cooker” of the pandemic, those tensions frayed further.
Morneau said in the early days of the government’s COVID-19 response, the two were “very aligned” in agreeing on the need to support Canadians who were out of work. But, as the COVID-19 waves continued, he and the Department of Finance were interested in trying to plot out how the multibillion-dollar aid programs could be tapered off.
“So, that was quite a difference of opinion, and really led to a situation where the sustainability of our relationship was, was not there.”
‘ONE OF THE WORST MOMENTS OF MY POLITICAL LIFE’
One of the examples of differences of opinion Morneau cites in his book is how the Liberals handled the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).
He writes that the night before the program was unveiled, he had presented a package of research done by his department and himself, and felt that there was an agreement with Trudeau about how to proceed.
But then, the next morning he watched the prime minister unveil “with great pride” that “the amount of money made available to individual businesses via CEWS… a figure significantly higher than we had agreed was the highest we should go the previous evening!”
Morneau called it “one of the worst moments of my political life.”
“In a moment where I saw us taking decisions that were more significant than I thought we needed, it was frankly, extremely frustrating,” Morneau said in the interview. “I think in that moment, you know, it started to sow the seeds of a challenge. That we just weren’t going to be able to recover.”
The wage subsidy program ended up being the most expensive of the suite of COVID-19 financial assistance programs, with a recent Auditor General report putting the price tag at $100.7 billion.
Ultimately, as he writes in the book, Morneau felt that his job “had deteriorated into serving as something between a figurehead and a rubber stamp.”
“That’s not why I wanted the position of finance minister, and it’s not why it was created in the first place,” he writes.
REGRETS OVER HANDLING OF WE CHARITY?
In the interview, Morneau was also asked about whether he had regrets about how he handled another major political controversy that was at play in the lead up to his departure: the WE Charity matter.
After paying back more than $41,000 in travel expenses for two trips his family took with the charity, and apologizing for not recusing himself from cabinet conversations about having WE administer an eventually-axed $912-million student grant program, in 2021 federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion found that Morneau had placed himself in a conflict of interest “on several occasions,” in connection to the contract.
As he did at the time, Morneau said that the government’s motivations were to find a way amid the chaos of COVID-19, to support students, but he is sorry that he didn’t walk out of the room when the program came up.
“For sure, I should have recused myself… I was clear then, I am clear in the book… I wish I had done differently then,” he said. “There were a lot of things going on, but we can always do better. And I think it’s important to remember that in government, that responsibility is you know, an enduring responsibility.”
IS HIS TIME IN POLITICS OVER?
Asked whether now, after looking back, he’d consider returning to politics, Morneau was noncommittal, but appeared to indicate that at this stage, he’s focused on finding ways to have impact from the private sector.
“Let me just say, I really enjoyed my time in office. It’s exciting to be at the centre of what’s going on in the country. But more importantly, it’s really meaningful to be able to have a big impact on the country. So I very much enjoyed the time doing that. I think that right now the things that I can do, I think I can add more value outside of that life,” he said.
Kapelos followed up, asking whether that means never, or just not now.
“Politics is all about timing. And I think the timing for me now is to be back in the private sector, to find a way to make an impact there,” Morneau said in response.
CTV’s Question Period reached out to Trudeau’s office for comment on Morneau’s accusations and as of publication has not received a response.
With files from CTV News’ Chief Political Correspondent Vassy Kapelos
MONTREAL – A Quebec political party has voted to support one of its members facing backlash for saying that racialized people are regularly disparaged at the provincial legislature.
Québec solidaire members adopted an emergency resolution at the party’s convention late Sunday condemning the hate directed at Haroun Bouazzi, without endorsing his comments.
Bouazzi, who represents a Montreal riding, had told a community group that he hears comments every day at the legislature that portray North African, Muslim, Black or Indigenous people as the “other,” and that paint their cultures are dangerous or inferior.
Other political parties have said Bouazzi’s remarks labelled elected officials as racists, and the co-leaders of his own party had rebuked him for his “clumsy and exaggerated” comments.
Bouazzi, who has said he never intended to describe his colleagues as racist, thanked his party for their support and for their commitment to the fight against systemic racism.
Party co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois said after Sunday’s closed-door debate that he considers the matter to be closed.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 18, 2024.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Democrats who control both chambers of the Virginia legislature are hoping to make good on promises made on the campaign trail, including becoming the first Southern state to expand constitutional protections for abortion access.
The House Privileges and Elections Committee advanced three proposed constitutional amendments Wednesday, including a measure to protect reproductive rights. Its members also discussed measures to repeal a now-defunct state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and ways to revise Virginia’s process to restore voting rights for people who served time for felony crimes.
“This meeting was an important next step considering the moment in history we find ourselves in,” Democratic Del. Cia Price, the committee chair, said during a news conference. “We have urgent threats to our freedoms that could impact constituents in all of the districts we serve.”
The at-times raucous meeting will pave the way for the House and Senate to take up the resolutions early next year after lawmakers tabled the measures last January. Democrats previously said the move was standard practice, given that amendments are typically introduced in odd-numbered years. But Republican Minority Leader Todd Gilbert said Wednesday the committee should not have delved into the amendments before next year’s legislative session. He said the resolutions, particularly the abortion amendment, need further vetting.
“No one who is still serving remembers it being done in this way ever,” Gilbert said after the meeting. “Certainly not for something this important. This is as big and weighty an issue as it gets.”
The Democrats’ legislative lineup comes after Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, to the dismay of voting-rights advocates, rolled back a process to restore people’s civil rights after they completed sentences for felonies. Virginia is the only state that permanently bans anyone convicted of a felony from voting unless a governor restores their rights.
“This amendment creates a process that is bounded by transparent rules and criteria that will apply to everybody — it’s not left to the discretion of a single individual,” Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, the patron of the voting rights resolution, which passed along party lines, said at the news conference.
Though Democrats have sparred with the governor over their legislative agenda, constitutional amendments put forth by lawmakers do not require his signature, allowing the Democrat-led House and Senate to bypass Youngkin’s blessing.
Instead, the General Assembly must pass proposed amendments twice in at least two years, with a legislative election sandwiched between each statehouse session. After that, the public can vote by referendum on the issues. The cumbersome process will likely hinge upon the success of all three amendments on Democrats’ ability to preserve their edge in the House and Senate, where they hold razor-thin majorities.
It’s not the first time lawmakers have attempted to champion the three amendments. Republicans in a House subcommittee killed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights in 2022, a year after the measure passed in a Democrat-led House. The same subcommittee also struck down legislation supporting a constitutional amendment to repeal an amendment from 2006 banning marriage equality.
On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 16-5 in favor of legislation protecting same-sex marriage, with four Republicans supporting the resolution.
“To say the least, voters enacted this (amendment) in 2006, and we have had 100,000 voters a year become of voting age since then,” said Del. Mark Sickles, who sponsored the amendment as one of the first openly gay men serving in the General Assembly. “Many people have changed their opinions of this as the years have passed.”
A constitutional amendment protecting abortion previously passed the Senate in 2023 but died in a Republican-led House. On Wednesday, the amendment passed on party lines.
If successful, the resolution proposed by House Majority Leader Charniele Herring would be part of a growing trend of reproductive rights-related ballot questions given to voters. Since 2022, 18 questions have gone before voters across the U.S., and they have sided with abortion rights advocates 14 times.
The voters have approved constitutional amendments ensuring the right to abortion until fetal viability in nine states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Vermont. Voters also passed a right-to-abortion measure in Nevada in 2024, but it must be passed again in 2026 to be added to the state constitution.
As lawmakers debated the measure, roughly 18 members spoke. Mercedes Perkins, at 38 weeks pregnant, described the importance of women making decisions about their own bodies. Rhea Simon, another Virginia resident, anecdotally described how reproductive health care shaped her life.
Then all at once, more than 50 people lined up to speak against the abortion amendment.
“Let’s do the compassionate thing and care for mothers and all unborn children,” resident Sheila Furey said.
The audience gave a collective “Amen,” followed by a round of applause.
___
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.
___
Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative.
NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump says he will nominate anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, putting him in charge of a massive agency that oversees everything from drug, vaccine and food safety to medical research and the social safety net programs Medicare and Medicaid.
“For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social site announcing the appointment. Kennedy, he said, would “Make America Great and Healthy Again!”
Kennedy, a former Democrat who ran as an independent in this year’s presidential race, abandoned his bid after striking a deal to give Trump his endorsement with a promise to have a role in health policy in the administration.
He and Trump have since become good friends, with Kennedy frequently receiving loud applause at Trump’s rallies.
The expected appointment was first reported by Politico Thursday.
A longtime vaccine skeptic, Kennedy is an attorney who has built a loyal following over several decades of people who admire his lawsuits against major pesticide and pharmaceutical companies. He has pushed for tighter regulations around the ingredients in foods.
With the Trump campaign, he worked to shore up support among young mothers in particular, with his message of making food healthier in the U.S., promising to model regulations imposed in Europe. In a nod to Trump’s original campaign slogan, he named the effort “Make America Healthy Again.”
It remains unclear how that will square with Trump’s history of deregulation of big industries, including food. Trump pushed for fewer inspections of the meat industry, for example.
Kennedy’s stance on vaccines has also made him a controversial figure among Democrats and some Republicans, raising question about his ability to get confirmed, even in a GOP-controlled Senate. Kennedy has espoused misinformation around the safety of vaccines, including pushing a totally discredited theory that childhood vaccines cause autism.
He also has said he would recommend removing fluoride from drinking water. The addition of the material has been cited as leading to improved dental health.
HHS has more than 80,000 employees across the country. It houses the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the National Institutes of Health.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, currently has a lawsuit pending against a number of news organizations, among them The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy took leave from the group when he announced his run for president but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
