12 Nov The premier’s role in the Andrew Younger mess

As I argued last week, the Andrew Younger mess points to the unintended consequences that arise when legislators and policy makers rush to solve real social problems by means of sweeping, arbitrary rules. Murky as the details of this case are, it serves as a useful thought experiment, since the gender stereotypes that gave rise to the iron-clad rules are reversed, making their application problematic, if not perverse.

Had events followed the course demanded by media scolds, the probable outcome would have seen a promising young woman’s career destroyed on an alleged point of “principle,” over a private matter neither party was inclined to pursue.

The deeper policy questions have been largely brushed aside in the media- and opposition-fueled uproar that followed Younger’s invocation of parliamentary privilege to avoid testifying in the ill-conceived prosecution of Tara Gault, and his apparent misrepresentation—intentional or otherwise—of the precise timeline around that decision.

This final, arcane detail is where the premier decided to hang his hat when media furor became too much to endure. Younger had to go, and the timeline confusion provided the pretext.

Late yesterday, Younger and his wife Katia sent the media a statement challenging the premier’s account of events. Perhaps because it was late arriving on a holiday when newsrooms operated with skeleton staffs, or perhaps because editors felt the Youngers had already made these points, no one used the statement. I include it here, for the record.

Contributed Editorial from Andrew & Katia Younger
November 12, 2015

Since we learned from Kirby McVicar, the Premier’s Chief of Staff, that Andrew was being removed from cabinet and caucus, we have been troubled that constituents and Nova Scotians have not been provided the full truth about this situation. We don’t feel it’s important for people to know each detail of our marriage. We have not felt comfortable being told by Premier’s Office to stay silent since December. We placed our trust in the Premier and his office. We allowed them to insert themselves in the conduct of our personal lives and how we managed public interest in it, despite our view all along it had nothing to do with Andrew’s ability to do his job.

It’s been suggested Andrew refused to testify outright and that we did not provide accurate information to the Premier’s Office. Neither of these is true.

In December the Premier did not make himself available to talk to either of us. Andrew was told to speak to Mr. McVicar and Katia’s contact to the premier with information and questions was not acknowledged. Even before charges were even laid or an arrest made, Mr. McVicar had detailed information about the assault and the investigation, including the long term health impacts Andrew has faced as a result. We were both there when Andrew offered by phone to step aside in December, only to be refused. Days later Andrew was told by Mr. McVicar to take a voluntary or forced leave of absence with explicit instructions to not talk publicly about the reasons.

We did not ask for charges to be laid. Andrew never once refused to testify. The subpoenas dated in March were delivered to us in July. We immediately inquired and were informed there would be no trial. The Thursday before trial, Andrew spoke to the new prosecutor. Even leaving that meeting it was expected the matter would conclude without trial. Katia was never once contacted prior to trial.

Hindsight is easy. We have much more information today than we did last week. On the Monday before trial, Andrew’s lawyer reviewed past court rulings, and advised the Crown it did not seem Andrew could appear in court. The Crown also reviewed this information and agreed. On Tuesday, they indicated they would seek an adjournment of the trial so the matter could be resolved.

Andrew called Mr. McVicar and gave him this information. Andrew raised with him that this issue would result in media interest. Mr. McVicar expressed no concerns. The next day the judge refused to grant the adjournment.

Andrew was not trying to avoid talking about personal issues or testifying.

Following the dismissal of charges, Mr. McVicar texted Andrew saying “Good news today.” This was followed by the Premier publicly indicating his trust in Andrew, reaffirming our faith in the Premier and his office, and the trust we had placed in him since December. It was a complete shock then, to receive the phone call hours later from Mr. McVicar to say Andrew was being removed from Cabinet and Caucus.

Our family did not begin the political journey for anything more than to help our community. Together we will continue on.

Andrew & Katia Younger

McNeil insisted Younger deal with McVicar on the Gault matter, not with himself. This was an apparent effort to give the premier cover—what communications advisers call “plausible deniability”—although only the credulous will fall for the denial.

I’m inclined to accept that the premier’s office—read, “the premier”—dictated Younger’s response to the Gault prosecution throughout the events of the last year, and McNeil’s last minute decision to cut Younger loose reflected a political calculation that the heat had become too much to bear, rather than any point of principle about alleged misrepresentations.

If so, it’s yet another depressing illustration of the way parliamentary traditions are debased by the iron grip first ministers have come to exercise over cabinet, caucus, and the civil service. This problem lay at the heart of much that was wrong with the Harper administration; it was a root cause of the Dexter Government’s downfall; it may eventually prove to be McNeil’s undoing. Canadian parliaments need to fix this.

Younger will return to the legislature later today to sit as an independent member—a role he professes to prefer over that of government backbencher. In a phone conversation with Contrarian, he said he is looking forward to Question Period, where the rules allow independent members to ask up to one question per day. He said his tentative plan is to serve out the existing term, then consider his options. He will not run for the vacant Dartmouth seat on council, having already promised to support another candidate for that position—support, he wryly acknowledged, that may not be worth much today.