Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
Jarnhamar said:
We’ve had corruption scandals before and we will again. The difference between us and them is our media is free to report on it or not. People like JWR can can take a stand against the leader and the most that happens is get demoted in cabinet and possibly thrown out of caucus and not have to fear that her family or her might disappear. That we have a police force that can independently investigate our leaders if they do commit crimes. That our opposition parties can publicly chastise our sitting government.
It is embarrassing but we are no where even near what those countries are. Comparing us to them I see hyperbole at best. No different that the Trump/dictator comparisons.
What I will agree on though is that Trudeau and his gang have given those countries something to point back at with despite the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCa6QGs31w
EXPLAINED: Why should you care about the Justin Trudeau/ SNC Lavalin Affair? | Michelle Rempel
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-investigation-obstruction-quetions-1.5037252
As RCMP lies in wait, legal minds ponder whether SNC-Lavalin scandal warrants criminal probe
'It's not clearly not obstruction,' says an Ottawa-based defence lawyer
Catharine Tunney CBC News Posted: Mar 01, 2019 4:00 AM ET
<snip>
According to the Criminal Code, obstructing justice covers "everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner ... to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice."
In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she faced intense political pressure and veiled threats related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, and was warned directly by Trudeau about the negative consequences if the company faced prosecution. SNC-Lavalin was facing corruption charges for contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a remediation agreement as an alternative to criminal prosecution.
Former Conservative justice minister Peter MacKay said there's enough from Wilson-Raybould's testimony to warrant further examination - either through a public inquiry or a criminal investigation.
"What's happened here is that somebody in the office gave her the impression there would be consequences if she was not to follow the instructions, and when that didn't happen we know that she did lose her job," he said.
"I come back to the definition of the Criminal Code section which speaks of perverting justice, it speaks of interference, it speaks of in some way trying to shape the outcome of a prosecution, and the elements appear to be there."
Criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger said an obstruction of justice charge wouldn't be hard to prove in court. He pointed to a meeting Gerry Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, had with Wilson-Raybould's trusted chief of staff Jessica Prince where he allegedly said, "There is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference."
"If that is not a smoking gun when it comes to actual interference and obstruction, I don't know what is," said Neuberger.
"This has stepped over the bounds of inappropriate; it has certainly crossed into the realm of criminal conduct."
Spratt said he doesn't think the case is a "slam dunk," for police and prosecutors, but "it's starting to sound a lot like obstruction."
Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Michael Bryant, who in the first few days of the scandal called for a police investigation, now says this issue isn't as clear cut.
"The evidence for obstruction of justice requires evidence of intent. So you need to have evidence of the prime minister intended to obstruct justice, and we didn't hear any of that," he said Thursday.
<snip>
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/01/four-important-questions-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html
Four important questions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal
By Chantal Hébert Fri., March 1, 2019
MONTREAL-Another week of political drama on Parliament Hill finds the SNC-Lavalin affair no closer to closure. In the aftermath of Jody Wilson-Raybould's appearance at the Commons justice committee, even the future of the prime minister as Liberal leader has become fair game for speculation.
If anything, the former attorney general's testimony has left many Canadians with more questions than definitive answers.
Here are four more:
1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?
To this day, her successor, David Lametti, along with the prime minister, has kept open the option of issuing a directive to spare the engineering firm the risk of a criminal conviction and a 10-year ban on bidding for federal contracts by offering it a deferred prosecution agreement in lieu of a trial.
This is a difference of opinion at least as fundamental to the understanding of this saga as each side's view of the pressures that attended Wilson-Raybould's refusal to take the route of a negotiated plea.
Inasmuch as she did not or could not share her rationale for declining to redirect the course of the federal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and for resisting all overtures to reconsider her decision, it is hard to come to an informed judgment as to whether her thinking on this file was as unassailable as she makes it out to be.
One can doubt that it was and still find that the political lobbying she was subjected to was inappropriate.
2. The SNC-Lavalin file commanded an impressive amount of high-level political attention. But would an NDP or Conservative government have been any less responsive to the firm's lobbying?
It is no accident that in their French-language interviews, Conservative and New Democrat MPs from Quebec have been at pains to stress that their parties are not on a vendetta against SNC-Lavalin.
With 9,000 Canadian jobs potentially on the line, any responsible federal government would have taken the time to carefully weigh the option of mitigating the possible damage to the firm's future following a criminal conviction.
That is not to say a Conservative or an NDP government would have come to the same conclusion as Trudeau. But until allegations of political interference surfaced and even as they had been apprised by SNC-Lavalin of its efforts to secure a remediation agreement, neither party had shown any appetite for a fight with the Liberals over the issue.
<snip>
https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/
March 1, 2019 4:18 pm
Lametti says he didn't know Wilson-Raybould rejected cutting SNC-Lavalin a deal when he took over
By Amanda Connolly
Attorney General David Lametti says he didn't know that his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, had already made a decision not to cut SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid criminal trial when he took over the post and began learning about the matter before him.
He was also mum on whether knowing that would keep him from reversing the decision. (Reversing the decision would not look good for the Liberals. This is the second trap that they have set for themselves, not including the scandal and cover-up themselves. The first was Jody Wilson-Raybould, in that Trudeau cannot eject her from caucus without the appearance of further vindictiveness and meanness, yet she will still be there to taunt him [even by doing nothing] and possibly building support for herself within the ranks of Liberal MPs. - Loachman)
<snip>
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/caught-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal-canadas-top-civil-servant-should-help-us-understand-his-job-expert-says.html
By Alex Boutilier Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019
OTTAWA - Canada's top public servant should explain how he balances his role as the non-partisan head of the bureaucracy and the prime minister's deputy, according to one expert on the country's public service.
Prof. Donald Savoie, one of Canada's preeminent scholars on the public service, said that following reforms initiated in 1989, the role of the Privy Council clerk - the nation's top bureaucrat - has changed and he or she now walks a delicate line between public service neutrality and responsibility to the government of the day, whatever its stripe.
Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick - who has faced allegations of partisanship and opposition calls for his resignation over his testimony and role in the SNC-Lavalin affair - should tell Canadians how he manages to strike that balance, Savoie said.
"I think he owes it to the public service to explain how he squares the ... roles," Savoie, who teaches public administration at the Université of Moncton, told the Star on Thursday.
"I would be careful, however, to say that Wernick became partisan. I don't think we can accuse Wernick of being partisan … but I would say, though, I'm sure he has an explanation," Savoie added.
"So let's hear it, how he squares the role of deputy minister to the prime minister with his other … responsibilities."
<snip>
Because his testimony largely matched the Liberal government's version of events at the time, and because he suggested a Conservative senator should be condemned for using violent political imagery in a speech, pundits accused him of partisan support for the Trudeau government.
But the modern position of clerk actually combines three roles, Savoie said: the secretary of cabinet, the head of the non-partisan public service, and the deputy minister - or top bureaucrat - to the prime minister.
The three roles were combined into one position in the Public Service 2000 under reforms initiated by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1989 - part of a reimaging of the role and function of the public service that took place in the United States and the United Kingdom around the same time.
It was a monumental shift that public governance researchers are still writing about today. One of the criticisms of the reforms was it encouraged senior public servants to engage in "promiscuous partisanship" in the words of the late scholar Peter Aucoin - a blurring of the line between the rough-and-tumble of politics and the dispassionate execution of the government's vision.
Savoie said he didn't agree with the changes in 1989 and he doesn't agree with them now.
"I'm not sure it was ever tenable" for the three responsibilities to rest with one person, Savoie said.
<snip>
EXPLAINED: Why should you care about the Justin Trudeau/ SNC Lavalin Affair? | Michelle Rempel
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-investigation-obstruction-quetions-1.5037252
As RCMP lies in wait, legal minds ponder whether SNC-Lavalin scandal warrants criminal probe
'It's not clearly not obstruction,' says an Ottawa-based defence lawyer
Catharine Tunney CBC News Posted: Mar 01, 2019 4:00 AM ET
<snip>
According to the Criminal Code, obstructing justice covers "everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner ... to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice."
In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she faced intense political pressure and veiled threats related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, and was warned directly by Trudeau about the negative consequences if the company faced prosecution. SNC-Lavalin was facing corruption charges for contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a remediation agreement as an alternative to criminal prosecution.
Former Conservative justice minister Peter MacKay said there's enough from Wilson-Raybould's testimony to warrant further examination - either through a public inquiry or a criminal investigation.
"What's happened here is that somebody in the office gave her the impression there would be consequences if she was not to follow the instructions, and when that didn't happen we know that she did lose her job," he said.
"I come back to the definition of the Criminal Code section which speaks of perverting justice, it speaks of interference, it speaks of in some way trying to shape the outcome of a prosecution, and the elements appear to be there."
Criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger said an obstruction of justice charge wouldn't be hard to prove in court. He pointed to a meeting Gerry Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, had with Wilson-Raybould's trusted chief of staff Jessica Prince where he allegedly said, "There is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference."
"If that is not a smoking gun when it comes to actual interference and obstruction, I don't know what is," said Neuberger.
"This has stepped over the bounds of inappropriate; it has certainly crossed into the realm of criminal conduct."
Spratt said he doesn't think the case is a "slam dunk," for police and prosecutors, but "it's starting to sound a lot like obstruction."
Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Michael Bryant, who in the first few days of the scandal called for a police investigation, now says this issue isn't as clear cut.
"The evidence for obstruction of justice requires evidence of intent. So you need to have evidence of the prime minister intended to obstruct justice, and we didn't hear any of that," he said Thursday.
<snip>
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/01/four-important-questions-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html
Four important questions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal
By Chantal Hébert Fri., March 1, 2019
MONTREAL-Another week of political drama on Parliament Hill finds the SNC-Lavalin affair no closer to closure. In the aftermath of Jody Wilson-Raybould's appearance at the Commons justice committee, even the future of the prime minister as Liberal leader has become fair game for speculation.
If anything, the former attorney general's testimony has left many Canadians with more questions than definitive answers.
Here are four more:
1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?
To this day, her successor, David Lametti, along with the prime minister, has kept open the option of issuing a directive to spare the engineering firm the risk of a criminal conviction and a 10-year ban on bidding for federal contracts by offering it a deferred prosecution agreement in lieu of a trial.
This is a difference of opinion at least as fundamental to the understanding of this saga as each side's view of the pressures that attended Wilson-Raybould's refusal to take the route of a negotiated plea.
Inasmuch as she did not or could not share her rationale for declining to redirect the course of the federal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and for resisting all overtures to reconsider her decision, it is hard to come to an informed judgment as to whether her thinking on this file was as unassailable as she makes it out to be.
One can doubt that it was and still find that the political lobbying she was subjected to was inappropriate.
2. The SNC-Lavalin file commanded an impressive amount of high-level political attention. But would an NDP or Conservative government have been any less responsive to the firm's lobbying?
It is no accident that in their French-language interviews, Conservative and New Democrat MPs from Quebec have been at pains to stress that their parties are not on a vendetta against SNC-Lavalin.
With 9,000 Canadian jobs potentially on the line, any responsible federal government would have taken the time to carefully weigh the option of mitigating the possible damage to the firm's future following a criminal conviction.
That is not to say a Conservative or an NDP government would have come to the same conclusion as Trudeau. But until allegations of political interference surfaced and even as they had been apprised by SNC-Lavalin of its efforts to secure a remediation agreement, neither party had shown any appetite for a fight with the Liberals over the issue.
<snip>
https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/
March 1, 2019 4:18 pm
Lametti says he didn't know Wilson-Raybould rejected cutting SNC-Lavalin a deal when he took over
By Amanda Connolly
Attorney General David Lametti says he didn't know that his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, had already made a decision not to cut SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid criminal trial when he took over the post and began learning about the matter before him.
He was also mum on whether knowing that would keep him from reversing the decision. (Reversing the decision would not look good for the Liberals. This is the second trap that they have set for themselves, not including the scandal and cover-up themselves. The first was Jody Wilson-Raybould, in that Trudeau cannot eject her from caucus without the appearance of further vindictiveness and meanness, yet she will still be there to taunt him [even by doing nothing] and possibly building support for herself within the ranks of Liberal MPs. - Loachman)
<snip>
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/caught-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal-canadas-top-civil-servant-should-help-us-understand-his-job-expert-says.html
By Alex Boutilier Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019
OTTAWA - Canada's top public servant should explain how he balances his role as the non-partisan head of the bureaucracy and the prime minister's deputy, according to one expert on the country's public service.
Prof. Donald Savoie, one of Canada's preeminent scholars on the public service, said that following reforms initiated in 1989, the role of the Privy Council clerk - the nation's top bureaucrat - has changed and he or she now walks a delicate line between public service neutrality and responsibility to the government of the day, whatever its stripe.
Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick - who has faced allegations of partisanship and opposition calls for his resignation over his testimony and role in the SNC-Lavalin affair - should tell Canadians how he manages to strike that balance, Savoie said.
"I think he owes it to the public service to explain how he squares the ... roles," Savoie, who teaches public administration at the Université of Moncton, told the Star on Thursday.
"I would be careful, however, to say that Wernick became partisan. I don't think we can accuse Wernick of being partisan … but I would say, though, I'm sure he has an explanation," Savoie added.
"So let's hear it, how he squares the role of deputy minister to the prime minister with his other … responsibilities."
<snip>
Because his testimony largely matched the Liberal government's version of events at the time, and because he suggested a Conservative senator should be condemned for using violent political imagery in a speech, pundits accused him of partisan support for the Trudeau government.
But the modern position of clerk actually combines three roles, Savoie said: the secretary of cabinet, the head of the non-partisan public service, and the deputy minister - or top bureaucrat - to the prime minister.
The three roles were combined into one position in the Public Service 2000 under reforms initiated by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1989 - part of a reimaging of the role and function of the public service that took place in the United States and the United Kingdom around the same time.
It was a monumental shift that public governance researchers are still writing about today. One of the criticisms of the reforms was it encouraged senior public servants to engage in "promiscuous partisanship" in the words of the late scholar Peter Aucoin - a blurring of the line between the rough-and-tumble of politics and the dispassionate execution of the government's vision.
Savoie said he didn't agree with the changes in 1989 and he doesn't agree with them now.
"I'm not sure it was ever tenable" for the three responsibilities to rest with one person, Savoie said.
<snip>
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/trudeau-scandal-snc-lavalin.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=World
By Catherine Porter and Ian Austen
March 1, 2019
TORONTO - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada promised a fresh approach to politics, one that was based on openness, decency and liberalism.
Now he is embroiled in a scandal involving accusations of back-room deal-making and bullying tactics, all to support a Canadian company accused of bribing the Libyan government when it was run by the dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Canadian newspapers are filled with outrage and opposition parties are calling for a resignation. Elections are still seven months away, but some members of Mr. Trudeau's own governing party fear the scandal has armed opposition parties with rich campaign fodder against its leader, who promised "sunny ways" in politics.
"This is a huge, huge blow to Justin Trudeau's personal brand and Justin Trudeau's promise of doing politics differently," said Shachi Kurl, the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a nonprofit polling firm based in Vancouver.
<snip>
But so much of politics is appearances, and the optics are terrible - of a self-described feminist, who had promised a new, open and transparent way of governing, sending aides described as his henchmen to gang up on an Indigenous woman in efforts to bend her will.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould's appointment to justice minister had seemed proof to many that Mr. Trudeau was serious about correcting the country's wrongs against its Indigenous population and treating Indigenous people as respected partners in the country, as he had promised during the election.
Now, that legacy is in question because of Ms. Wilson-Raybould's demotion to the post of veterans affairs minister, which she quit last week.
"Reconciliation also means respecting the voices of Indigenous people," said Sheila North, a former Indigenous leader in northern Manitoba. "This whole display has shown, in the end, money and power is more important than building reconciliation."
<snip>
Many of Mr. Trudeau's opponents are saying that the entire controversy proves that Mr. Trudeau, who appointed the country's first gender-balanced cabinet, is a "fake feminist" who uses women instead of supporting them.
"Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the prime minister's resignation?" said Michelle Rempel, a Conservative member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
<snip>
"People who are predicting the demise of Justin Trudeau or the Liberals are not making safe bets," said Emmett Macfarlane, a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. Much depends on what happens over the next few months and whether the prime minister's office is able to ward off a full-blown public inquiry into the scandal.
"If the election was next month, it would probably be devastating and it would directly shape the campaign," Professor Macfarlane said. "It's hard to say if this will be on Canadians' minds in August or September."
Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau has seven months to regain what he can of his reputation and hope the scandal fades from voters' minds by the time they return to the polls.
"He has to stop any pretense and veneer that he's the 'sunny ways' guy or Mr. Clean," said Ms. Kurl, the executive director of the nonprofit polling firm.
She added, "Now he'll have to compete in the old-style politics."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin.html
Who's Investigating Justin Trudeau - and What Do They Hope to Find?
By Ian Austen
March 1, 2019
<snip>
Here's a look at who's seeking answers, what they could uncover, and who else might still take a peek:
What's Already Underway
- Parliamentary hearings: The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice is where Ms. Wilson-Raybould finally broke her silence this week. It's also where other key players are set to appear, notably Gerald Butts, Mr. Trudeau's friend who stepped down last month as his top political adviser amid the scandal.
But the justice committee isn't set up to run a full-scale investigation. It has neither a team of people digging up evidence, nor the power to order up internal government documents.
And, as the opposition has repeatedly pointed out this week, the Liberals control the committee. This makes it unlikely that anything the panel does will inflict much harm on Mr. Trudeau.
- An ethics investigation: After a request from two New Democratic Party lawmakers, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, is also on the case. But by law, he can only look for possible conflicts of interest.
Simply applying pressure for political advantage doesn't amount to such a conflict, earlier commissioners have ruled. Past investigations by the ethics commissioner's office have dragged on for more than a year, and the office has no power to order serious sanctions.
What May Come Next
- A criminal investigation: The Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and others have asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to look into possible obstruction of justice. The police force, citing standard policy, will not confirm whether it's started an investigation or plans to do so.
And there's a good chance that we'll never know whether the Mounties made Mr. Trudeau the target of an investigation. The reason goes back to 2005, when the force sent a fax to a New Democratic member of Parliament confirming that it was investigating then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in connection with illegal stock trading. Arriving in the midst of a federal election campaign, the fax exploded like a bomb. Mr. Goodale was cleared; a public servant in the finance department later pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.
An investigation later found no fault with the police force, but the Mounties were widely criticized as having meddled in politics. They have been more circumspect about politically sensitive investigations since then.
Today, as Mr. Trudeau's public safety minister, Mr. Goodale oversees the Mounties.
- An independent public inquiry: Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democrats, was the first to push for an independent special commission to look into the affair, and the idea has support from other opposition parties.
Mr. Trudeau has taken the position that the Justice Committee hearings and the conflict of interest investigation are all that's needed. (For the very reasons stated above, no doubt. - Loachman)
An inquiry is the least appealing option for the Liberals, who remember all too well the Gomery Commission. Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin meant for it to clear the air around the Liberals after a corruption scandal involving the previous Liberal government. But it backfired. Evidence presented at the inquiry only highlighted the corruption, and Mr. Martin's loss in the 2006 election was widely attributed to the hearings.
Any inquiry into the current scandal is unlikely to be finished before October's vote. But the hearings would certainly provide the kind of publicity the Liberals don't want leading up to, and during, an election campaign.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/trudeau-refuses-opposition-demand-to-recall-parliament-to-debate-snc-lavalin-affair.html
Trudeau refuses opposition demand to recall Parliament over SNC-Lavalin affair
By Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019
OTTAWA - The Trudeau government has refused an opposition demand to recall Parliament to deal with the SNC-Lavalin affair, and is setting the stage to counter Jody Wilson-Raybould's allegations of improper political meddling in the company's criminal trial.
<snip>
By Catherine Porter and Ian Austen
March 1, 2019
TORONTO - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada promised a fresh approach to politics, one that was based on openness, decency and liberalism.
Now he is embroiled in a scandal involving accusations of back-room deal-making and bullying tactics, all to support a Canadian company accused of bribing the Libyan government when it was run by the dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.
Canadian newspapers are filled with outrage and opposition parties are calling for a resignation. Elections are still seven months away, but some members of Mr. Trudeau's own governing party fear the scandal has armed opposition parties with rich campaign fodder against its leader, who promised "sunny ways" in politics.
"This is a huge, huge blow to Justin Trudeau's personal brand and Justin Trudeau's promise of doing politics differently," said Shachi Kurl, the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a nonprofit polling firm based in Vancouver.
<snip>
But so much of politics is appearances, and the optics are terrible - of a self-described feminist, who had promised a new, open and transparent way of governing, sending aides described as his henchmen to gang up on an Indigenous woman in efforts to bend her will.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould's appointment to justice minister had seemed proof to many that Mr. Trudeau was serious about correcting the country's wrongs against its Indigenous population and treating Indigenous people as respected partners in the country, as he had promised during the election.
Now, that legacy is in question because of Ms. Wilson-Raybould's demotion to the post of veterans affairs minister, which she quit last week.
"Reconciliation also means respecting the voices of Indigenous people," said Sheila North, a former Indigenous leader in northern Manitoba. "This whole display has shown, in the end, money and power is more important than building reconciliation."
<snip>
Many of Mr. Trudeau's opponents are saying that the entire controversy proves that Mr. Trudeau, who appointed the country's first gender-balanced cabinet, is a "fake feminist" who uses women instead of supporting them.
"Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the prime minister's resignation?" said Michelle Rempel, a Conservative member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
<snip>
"People who are predicting the demise of Justin Trudeau or the Liberals are not making safe bets," said Emmett Macfarlane, a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. Much depends on what happens over the next few months and whether the prime minister's office is able to ward off a full-blown public inquiry into the scandal.
"If the election was next month, it would probably be devastating and it would directly shape the campaign," Professor Macfarlane said. "It's hard to say if this will be on Canadians' minds in August or September."
Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau has seven months to regain what he can of his reputation and hope the scandal fades from voters' minds by the time they return to the polls.
"He has to stop any pretense and veneer that he's the 'sunny ways' guy or Mr. Clean," said Ms. Kurl, the executive director of the nonprofit polling firm.
She added, "Now he'll have to compete in the old-style politics."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin.html
Who's Investigating Justin Trudeau - and What Do They Hope to Find?
By Ian Austen
March 1, 2019
<snip>
Here's a look at who's seeking answers, what they could uncover, and who else might still take a peek:
What's Already Underway
- Parliamentary hearings: The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice is where Ms. Wilson-Raybould finally broke her silence this week. It's also where other key players are set to appear, notably Gerald Butts, Mr. Trudeau's friend who stepped down last month as his top political adviser amid the scandal.
But the justice committee isn't set up to run a full-scale investigation. It has neither a team of people digging up evidence, nor the power to order up internal government documents.
And, as the opposition has repeatedly pointed out this week, the Liberals control the committee. This makes it unlikely that anything the panel does will inflict much harm on Mr. Trudeau.
- An ethics investigation: After a request from two New Democratic Party lawmakers, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, is also on the case. But by law, he can only look for possible conflicts of interest.
Simply applying pressure for political advantage doesn't amount to such a conflict, earlier commissioners have ruled. Past investigations by the ethics commissioner's office have dragged on for more than a year, and the office has no power to order serious sanctions.
What May Come Next
- A criminal investigation: The Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and others have asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to look into possible obstruction of justice. The police force, citing standard policy, will not confirm whether it's started an investigation or plans to do so.
And there's a good chance that we'll never know whether the Mounties made Mr. Trudeau the target of an investigation. The reason goes back to 2005, when the force sent a fax to a New Democratic member of Parliament confirming that it was investigating then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in connection with illegal stock trading. Arriving in the midst of a federal election campaign, the fax exploded like a bomb. Mr. Goodale was cleared; a public servant in the finance department later pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.
An investigation later found no fault with the police force, but the Mounties were widely criticized as having meddled in politics. They have been more circumspect about politically sensitive investigations since then.
Today, as Mr. Trudeau's public safety minister, Mr. Goodale oversees the Mounties.
- An independent public inquiry: Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democrats, was the first to push for an independent special commission to look into the affair, and the idea has support from other opposition parties.
Mr. Trudeau has taken the position that the Justice Committee hearings and the conflict of interest investigation are all that's needed. (For the very reasons stated above, no doubt. - Loachman)
An inquiry is the least appealing option for the Liberals, who remember all too well the Gomery Commission. Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin meant for it to clear the air around the Liberals after a corruption scandal involving the previous Liberal government. But it backfired. Evidence presented at the inquiry only highlighted the corruption, and Mr. Martin's loss in the 2006 election was widely attributed to the hearings.
Any inquiry into the current scandal is unlikely to be finished before October's vote. But the hearings would certainly provide the kind of publicity the Liberals don't want leading up to, and during, an election campaign.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/trudeau-refuses-opposition-demand-to-recall-parliament-to-debate-snc-lavalin-affair.html
Trudeau refuses opposition demand to recall Parliament over SNC-Lavalin affair
By Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019
OTTAWA - The Trudeau government has refused an opposition demand to recall Parliament to deal with the SNC-Lavalin affair, and is setting the stage to counter Jody Wilson-Raybould's allegations of improper political meddling in the company's criminal trial.
<snip>
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down
Rex Murphy: The Trudeau virtuecrats come tumbling down
Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Liberal government was supposed to be about
March 1, 2019 3:04 PM EST
Justin Trudeau has the look of the high school hero who's just fallen off his snowboard in front of all the twirling cheerleaders.
It's been a hard week for Mr. Trudeau. It must have been even harder for the Gender Analytics Team down in the boiler room of the Department of Public Works (it's next to the Deliverology stables, just past the Memorial to Proportional Representation). They've had to parse Jody Wilson-Raybould's fierce testimony and sequence it with the government's equity-feminism.
No one has sung hymns to strong, independent women more fervently than Mr. Trudeau. It doesn't wear well that the strongest and most independent woman in his entire cabinet no long feels she can, with honour, sit in that same cabinet room with him.
There'll be no more roundtables with Tina Brown and Gloria Steinem. Ivanka Trump will cross the street when she sees him coming.
It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman, determined to secure the mast of the rule of law, is put under siege for months by a train of flacks and aides, principal secretaries and chiefs of staff - supplemented by the Black Knight of the Clerk of the Privy Council - to work a deal, to finesse, to go around that rule of law because "… there's an election in Quebec ... (and) I'm the member for Papineau." It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman was subject to threats, veiled and not-so-veiled, effectively harried and harassed because she refused to politically oblige the big boys in the PMO. The Feminist-in-Chief took a massive hit.
Mr. Trudeau scooted past the "Kokanee Grope," but that involved a mere reporter. And besides, as he so grandly assured the world at the time, that incident provided us with a "collective awakening" that different "people experience things differently," an insight into human psychology locked in darkness until that very moment. This was Jordan Peterson-level mentoring.
But the Jody Wilson-Raybould clash, as we used to say at home, is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here was no allegedly wandering hand, but a "consistent and sustained … inappropriate effort" to warp a decision of the attorney general of Canada in a matter of criminal charges against a Quebec company.
When her principles came up against his expediency, what was a male-feminist Galahad to do? Why he acted like the oldest, white-haired, cigar-chomping boy in the oldest boys' club that was. He demoted her. And during the interval, when she was bound to silence, he went about variously telling her story for her - even to the point of (I hate the term, but it's a nugget in Mr. Trudeau's set) "mansplaining" that her staying in cabinet "spoke for itself."
Hours later, she left. That, too, spoke for itself. Ever so much clearly. Ironically, her departure might be the prelude to and necessary condition for the prime minister's own.
Now in an ordinary government, none of this would matter. In a business-as-usual, this-is-how-we've-always-done-politics, principles-be-dammed, we've-got-work-to-do government, who'd care? But this is a Trudeau government, where feminist values and the purest sensitivity to women are as sparkling diamonds in the firmament of righteousness and sanctimony.
This is a government that lives and thrives on its profession of vast moral pretensions. It is the government forever preaching of values, of moral aspiration, of doing things differently, of real gender equity, of promoting feminism, of openness and transparency, of nourishing the Earth and all her fuzzy creatures; this is a government of every tender, soft, progressive value known to peoplekind. Mr. Trudeau is its brand and the brand is everything.
This is a government of virtuecrats, or it is nothing. That's the problem. Live by the image, die by the image. Play by the symbol, fall by the symbol.
Four hours of testimony on Wednesday afternoon went like a torpedo through a castle of glass. The details are known and in a hundred columns by now. Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Trudeau government was supposed to be about.
She is a superbly accomplished woman. If role models mean anything, she has to be a luminous star for every young girl and boy in every First Nation in the country. For she has soared to the highest pinnacle of political power of any, ever, of her community. She sat, till last week, in the chair Lester Pearson offered to Pierre Trudeau to bring that sultan into the national story. To coin a phrase, a fearful symmetry indeed.
Truth and Reconciliation is going to be a hard sell if a government leadership that came to power preaching feminism and the utter moral urgency of Aboriginal concerns works now to bring the greatest exemplar of both categories down. There will be two messages if it does. That feminism counts only when it doesn't get in the way of politics. And that respect for Aboriginals works as a brand but not as a practice.
If the attempt is made, it will not be an easy glide down for Mr. Trudeau. For Jody Wilson-Raybould has shown her qualities.
There is more steel in that woman than ever came out of Hamilton. Her mind is keen, her will is her own, her moral centre assured and determined. These qualities are the very anti-matter of spin-doctors and crisis-management shops, kryptonite for the bleating flacks and the sweating elves of the PMO talking-points foundry.
Mr. Trudeau has spoken of Wilson-Raybould's presentation to the justice committee. "I have taken knowledge of her testimony..." - an odd locution, sounding like something from the Book of Exodus as translated by the Kielburger brothers. "... but there are still reflections to have on next steps" - which is, we must hope, his way of saying he disagrees.
But really, it's just mush anyway you look at it. Much like Chrystia Freeland's comment "I believe … she spoke her truth," (accent on "her" you can be sure), which is a precious piece of equivocation even for a diplomat. Does no one in this government know what a real sentence sounds like?
Mush won't melt steel. Wilson-Raybould has facts, details, specifics and principles. A deadpan face and urgently low-voiced platitudes will not prevail against them.
The fate of the Trudeau government now hangs on a contest between character and image. I expect they've already put out the call for all the king's horses and all the king's men ....
Rex Murphy: The Trudeau virtuecrats come tumbling down
Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Liberal government was supposed to be about
March 1, 2019 3:04 PM EST
Justin Trudeau has the look of the high school hero who's just fallen off his snowboard in front of all the twirling cheerleaders.
It's been a hard week for Mr. Trudeau. It must have been even harder for the Gender Analytics Team down in the boiler room of the Department of Public Works (it's next to the Deliverology stables, just past the Memorial to Proportional Representation). They've had to parse Jody Wilson-Raybould's fierce testimony and sequence it with the government's equity-feminism.
No one has sung hymns to strong, independent women more fervently than Mr. Trudeau. It doesn't wear well that the strongest and most independent woman in his entire cabinet no long feels she can, with honour, sit in that same cabinet room with him.
There'll be no more roundtables with Tina Brown and Gloria Steinem. Ivanka Trump will cross the street when she sees him coming.
It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman, determined to secure the mast of the rule of law, is put under siege for months by a train of flacks and aides, principal secretaries and chiefs of staff - supplemented by the Black Knight of the Clerk of the Privy Council - to work a deal, to finesse, to go around that rule of law because "… there's an election in Quebec ... (and) I'm the member for Papineau." It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman was subject to threats, veiled and not-so-veiled, effectively harried and harassed because she refused to politically oblige the big boys in the PMO. The Feminist-in-Chief took a massive hit.
Mr. Trudeau scooted past the "Kokanee Grope," but that involved a mere reporter. And besides, as he so grandly assured the world at the time, that incident provided us with a "collective awakening" that different "people experience things differently," an insight into human psychology locked in darkness until that very moment. This was Jordan Peterson-level mentoring.
But the Jody Wilson-Raybould clash, as we used to say at home, is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here was no allegedly wandering hand, but a "consistent and sustained … inappropriate effort" to warp a decision of the attorney general of Canada in a matter of criminal charges against a Quebec company.
When her principles came up against his expediency, what was a male-feminist Galahad to do? Why he acted like the oldest, white-haired, cigar-chomping boy in the oldest boys' club that was. He demoted her. And during the interval, when she was bound to silence, he went about variously telling her story for her - even to the point of (I hate the term, but it's a nugget in Mr. Trudeau's set) "mansplaining" that her staying in cabinet "spoke for itself."
Hours later, she left. That, too, spoke for itself. Ever so much clearly. Ironically, her departure might be the prelude to and necessary condition for the prime minister's own.
Now in an ordinary government, none of this would matter. In a business-as-usual, this-is-how-we've-always-done-politics, principles-be-dammed, we've-got-work-to-do government, who'd care? But this is a Trudeau government, where feminist values and the purest sensitivity to women are as sparkling diamonds in the firmament of righteousness and sanctimony.
This is a government that lives and thrives on its profession of vast moral pretensions. It is the government forever preaching of values, of moral aspiration, of doing things differently, of real gender equity, of promoting feminism, of openness and transparency, of nourishing the Earth and all her fuzzy creatures; this is a government of every tender, soft, progressive value known to peoplekind. Mr. Trudeau is its brand and the brand is everything.
This is a government of virtuecrats, or it is nothing. That's the problem. Live by the image, die by the image. Play by the symbol, fall by the symbol.
Four hours of testimony on Wednesday afternoon went like a torpedo through a castle of glass. The details are known and in a hundred columns by now. Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Trudeau government was supposed to be about.
She is a superbly accomplished woman. If role models mean anything, she has to be a luminous star for every young girl and boy in every First Nation in the country. For she has soared to the highest pinnacle of political power of any, ever, of her community. She sat, till last week, in the chair Lester Pearson offered to Pierre Trudeau to bring that sultan into the national story. To coin a phrase, a fearful symmetry indeed.
Truth and Reconciliation is going to be a hard sell if a government leadership that came to power preaching feminism and the utter moral urgency of Aboriginal concerns works now to bring the greatest exemplar of both categories down. There will be two messages if it does. That feminism counts only when it doesn't get in the way of politics. And that respect for Aboriginals works as a brand but not as a practice.
If the attempt is made, it will not be an easy glide down for Mr. Trudeau. For Jody Wilson-Raybould has shown her qualities.
There is more steel in that woman than ever came out of Hamilton. Her mind is keen, her will is her own, her moral centre assured and determined. These qualities are the very anti-matter of spin-doctors and crisis-management shops, kryptonite for the bleating flacks and the sweating elves of the PMO talking-points foundry.
Mr. Trudeau has spoken of Wilson-Raybould's presentation to the justice committee. "I have taken knowledge of her testimony..." - an odd locution, sounding like something from the Book of Exodus as translated by the Kielburger brothers. "... but there are still reflections to have on next steps" - which is, we must hope, his way of saying he disagrees.
But really, it's just mush anyway you look at it. Much like Chrystia Freeland's comment "I believe … she spoke her truth," (accent on "her" you can be sure), which is a precious piece of equivocation even for a diplomat. Does no one in this government know what a real sentence sounds like?
Mush won't melt steel. Wilson-Raybould has facts, details, specifics and principles. A deadpan face and urgently low-voiced platitudes will not prevail against them.
The fate of the Trudeau government now hangs on a contest between character and image. I expect they've already put out the call for all the king's horses and all the king's men ....
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,138
- Points
- 1,140
My predictions are:
1. that the new AG will order a DPA based on "revised legal advice provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions";
2. that the Gerald butts will testify there was no wrongdoing and Clerk of the Privy Concil will, once again stress that in light of the DPA being issued, it's clear that the influence exerted by the PMO et al on JWR has been shown to be wholly appropriate; and
3. by the time the House reconvenes, this will have been overtaken by events and the release of the pre-election budget full of goodies will have returned the shine to the Trudeau brand.
.... except for the wild cards of the Norman trial, China and JWR making a follow up statement.
1. that the new AG will order a DPA based on "revised legal advice provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions";
2. that the Gerald butts will testify there was no wrongdoing and Clerk of the Privy Concil will, once again stress that in light of the DPA being issued, it's clear that the influence exerted by the PMO et al on JWR has been shown to be wholly appropriate; and
3. by the time the House reconvenes, this will have been overtaken by events and the release of the pre-election budget full of goodies will have returned the shine to the Trudeau brand.
.... except for the wild cards of the Norman trial, China and JWR making a follow up statement.
Your first two predictions would not surprise me, but, with recent articles in the press about our rapidly-worsening financial situation, I don't think that there will be much ability to throw many "goodies" around, and many journalists will probably not speak/type kindly about such a hollow and withered carrot.
And on the matter at hand, I doubt that the press would just say "Right. Silly us. Everything's good now. Do carry on", though.
I'm pretty sure that he's lost them forever, at this point - and a good chunk of the general public as well.
It's not just the corruption and pressure/bullying. It's also the sordid cover-up, which is still ongoing:
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-justin-trudeau-to-put-his-cards-on-the-table/
It's time for Justin Trudeau to put his cards on the table
Andrew MacDougall: Until everyone involved in the scandal testifies - not just Gerry Butts - this looks like a cover-up, not a transparent process
by Andrew MacDougall Mar 1, 2019
It's another day, and another defence for the Liberals on SNC-Lavalin.
For those of you who are algorithmically shielded from bad Liberal news, we've now moved from "false" after the story broke weeks ago to "yeah, well, you might think 11 people having multiple meetings or phone calls with the non-partisan attorney general or her staff over four months is pressure" after Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony.
Struggling to draw a line - any line - under the controversy, Trudeau and the Liberals are now pushing respect for the ethics commissioner and the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights like it's a new religion.
(As an aside: imagine how poorly things have to be going to point to an office that has already found you guilty of breaking the law once, over the Aga Khan vacation.)
Only they're not letting anyone preach.
Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.
You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.
But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony? If you were trying to prove to Canadians you weren't interested in getting at the truth, this would be a good way of doing it.
Not that questioning Butts is without value.
We still, for example, don't know why Butts suddenly quit his post on Feb. 18. There didn't appear to be anything lethal about his conduct in the public domain to that point. Indeed, his resignation letter went out of its way to admit no fault, although Wilson-Raybould's testimony later contradicted his take. After being warned by Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff, that his Dec. 18 intervention on SNC was "interference", the former attorney general has Butts allegedly replying: "Jess, there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference." Did he say that? And what does it mean (other than the obvious)?
Butts will surely rebut that point, but it would also be good to hear him on any conversations surrounding Wilson-Raybould's meeting with Trudeau the day ahead of her resignation from cabinet (presuming he was there). This is increasingly looking like an area that MPs on the committee must explore.
The circumstances surrounding her resignation certainly appear important to Wilson-Raybould. Once Trudeau signed the order-in-council allowing her to testify, Wilson-Raybould quickly issued a letter pointing out it didn't release her to speak about the events after her shuffle to veterans affairs. Why didn't Trudeau include that period? And what makes it so important to Wilson-Raybould? We don't know.
From committee testimony and/or the media, we do know Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice a few short weeks after her last conversations on SNC with Butts, Katie Telford and Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, who is alleged to have told Wilson-Raybould, "I think [Trudeau] is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that."
Well, getting rid of a recalcitrant attorney general is certainly a way to "get it done," isn't it?
And it doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to equate the final Dec. 19 'no' with the subsequent shuffle, as Wilson-Raybould herself did, despite Trudeau apparently telling her it had nothing to do with it.
That impression probably didn't last long. Especially as Wilson-Raybould later found out, her deputy minister at Justice, Nathalie Drouin, had been told by Wernick to prepare her successor, David Lametti, for a conversation with Trudeau on SNC. Reporting now also confirms Lametti met with senior PMO staff at the January cabinet retreat to discuss SNC. It hardly sounds like the centre was happy with the status quo.
Was Wilson-Raybould, as veterans affairs minister, aware her oft-challenged decision on SNC was about to be revisited and reversed? Is that why the first Globe story appeared? Until Wilson-Raybould is granted permission to speak about that period of time, we won't know. (But I suspect another exclusive might soon appear in the Globe and Mail should Trudeau choose to keep her under wraps.)
What light can Butts shine on this period? What light could Telford? Until they both speak - until they all speak - nothing we've yet heard can be placed in its proper context. Until they all speak it looks like a cover-up, and not trust in a transparent process.
It's simply not good enough for Trudeau to blather on about jobs and dismiss Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" without rounding out the picture himself. It's only a fraction of the story; she has played only the cards he's allowed her to play.
It's time for Trudeau to let everyone put their cards on the table.
The justice committee should begin by inviting everyone named in Wilson-Raybould's testimony. And then they should invite the former attorney general back to speak freely about her time at veterans affairs and her resignation from that portfolio.
Until Trudeau does that, anything that comes out of his mouth is a PR exercise meant to obscure the truth.
Edited to add further commentary in my opening reply to Haggis.
And on the matter at hand, I doubt that the press would just say "Right. Silly us. Everything's good now. Do carry on", though.
I'm pretty sure that he's lost them forever, at this point - and a good chunk of the general public as well.
It's not just the corruption and pressure/bullying. It's also the sordid cover-up, which is still ongoing:
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-justin-trudeau-to-put-his-cards-on-the-table/
It's time for Justin Trudeau to put his cards on the table
Andrew MacDougall: Until everyone involved in the scandal testifies - not just Gerry Butts - this looks like a cover-up, not a transparent process
by Andrew MacDougall Mar 1, 2019
It's another day, and another defence for the Liberals on SNC-Lavalin.
For those of you who are algorithmically shielded from bad Liberal news, we've now moved from "false" after the story broke weeks ago to "yeah, well, you might think 11 people having multiple meetings or phone calls with the non-partisan attorney general or her staff over four months is pressure" after Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony.
Struggling to draw a line - any line - under the controversy, Trudeau and the Liberals are now pushing respect for the ethics commissioner and the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights like it's a new religion.
(As an aside: imagine how poorly things have to be going to point to an office that has already found you guilty of breaking the law once, over the Aga Khan vacation.)
Only they're not letting anyone preach.
Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.
You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.
But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony? If you were trying to prove to Canadians you weren't interested in getting at the truth, this would be a good way of doing it.
Not that questioning Butts is without value.
We still, for example, don't know why Butts suddenly quit his post on Feb. 18. There didn't appear to be anything lethal about his conduct in the public domain to that point. Indeed, his resignation letter went out of its way to admit no fault, although Wilson-Raybould's testimony later contradicted his take. After being warned by Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff, that his Dec. 18 intervention on SNC was "interference", the former attorney general has Butts allegedly replying: "Jess, there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference." Did he say that? And what does it mean (other than the obvious)?
Butts will surely rebut that point, but it would also be good to hear him on any conversations surrounding Wilson-Raybould's meeting with Trudeau the day ahead of her resignation from cabinet (presuming he was there). This is increasingly looking like an area that MPs on the committee must explore.
The circumstances surrounding her resignation certainly appear important to Wilson-Raybould. Once Trudeau signed the order-in-council allowing her to testify, Wilson-Raybould quickly issued a letter pointing out it didn't release her to speak about the events after her shuffle to veterans affairs. Why didn't Trudeau include that period? And what makes it so important to Wilson-Raybould? We don't know.
From committee testimony and/or the media, we do know Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice a few short weeks after her last conversations on SNC with Butts, Katie Telford and Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, who is alleged to have told Wilson-Raybould, "I think [Trudeau] is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that."
Well, getting rid of a recalcitrant attorney general is certainly a way to "get it done," isn't it?
And it doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to equate the final Dec. 19 'no' with the subsequent shuffle, as Wilson-Raybould herself did, despite Trudeau apparently telling her it had nothing to do with it.
That impression probably didn't last long. Especially as Wilson-Raybould later found out, her deputy minister at Justice, Nathalie Drouin, had been told by Wernick to prepare her successor, David Lametti, for a conversation with Trudeau on SNC. Reporting now also confirms Lametti met with senior PMO staff at the January cabinet retreat to discuss SNC. It hardly sounds like the centre was happy with the status quo.
Was Wilson-Raybould, as veterans affairs minister, aware her oft-challenged decision on SNC was about to be revisited and reversed? Is that why the first Globe story appeared? Until Wilson-Raybould is granted permission to speak about that period of time, we won't know. (But I suspect another exclusive might soon appear in the Globe and Mail should Trudeau choose to keep her under wraps.)
What light can Butts shine on this period? What light could Telford? Until they both speak - until they all speak - nothing we've yet heard can be placed in its proper context. Until they all speak it looks like a cover-up, and not trust in a transparent process.
It's simply not good enough for Trudeau to blather on about jobs and dismiss Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" without rounding out the picture himself. It's only a fraction of the story; she has played only the cards he's allowed her to play.
It's time for Trudeau to let everyone put their cards on the table.
The justice committee should begin by inviting everyone named in Wilson-Raybould's testimony. And then they should invite the former attorney general back to speak freely about her time at veterans affairs and her resignation from that portfolio.
Until Trudeau does that, anything that comes out of his mouth is a PR exercise meant to obscure the truth.
Edited to add further commentary in my opening reply to Haggis.
- Reaction score
- 8,229
- Points
- 1,160
http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e577e6a7-4ba9-450a-848a-fa83f5c2d548__7C___0.html?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Internal+Share&utm_content=Screen
Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse
TRUDEAU ET LE « JODYGATE »
Short Form:
English Canadian media colleagues are working themselves into a lather because politicians discuss politics.
Trudeau's fundamental problem is that he appointed a rookie to an important position "because 2016".
Move along folks nothing to see here.
Oh, and by the way, we can continue to disregard Alberta and their "oleoducs". They're just reverting back to their conservative roots.
It's hard not to think that Hugh MacLennan is still worth a read.
PS. This will all blow over because Canadians will be voting on values ..... and given a choice between conservative and liberal values they won't choose conservatives. per Mme Gagnon.
Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse
TRUDEAU ET LE « JODYGATE »
Short Form:
English Canadian media colleagues are working themselves into a lather because politicians discuss politics.
Trudeau's fundamental problem is that he appointed a rookie to an important position "because 2016".
Move along folks nothing to see here.
Oh, and by the way, we can continue to disregard Alberta and their "oleoducs". They're just reverting back to their conservative roots.
It's hard not to think that Hugh MacLennan is still worth a read.
PS. This will all blow over because Canadians will be voting on values ..... and given a choice between conservative and liberal values they won't choose conservatives. per Mme Gagnon.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,695
- Points
- 1,160
Chris Pook said:
I thought that your summary was a bit strident until I read the actual article and found that you were actually very reserved in your interpretation. Gagnon's article drips with sarcasm and condescension. I don't think she has the mood of the country right on this, especially her view of Ontario:
Ontario (and the west) generally considers Liberal governments as self-serving and Quebec toadies but from time to time they get concerned that PCs are so secretive, authoritarian, draconian (pick your adjective) that they forget just how crooked the Liberals really are. Not so now. The true face of the extent to which Liberals will go to favour their Quebec base and the extent to which they will go to protect their self interest there is on wide open display. It's no small thing that they've thrown an aboriginal woman under the bus in the process.
My guess is that the Liberal's "strong roots" in Ontario will flee to the NDP and to a lesser extent to the Conservatives or simply not show up to vote.
:2c:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,701
- Points
- 1,040
>1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?
But we don't have "the same facts". We have heavily inflected facts, not the least because of all the "information" introduced to try and sway the decision made based on "the same facts" that were available at the time. Any new conclusion/exercise of discretion would be tainted by all that has happened since the decision was made.
But we don't have "the same facts". We have heavily inflected facts, not the least because of all the "information" introduced to try and sway the decision made based on "the same facts" that were available at the time. Any new conclusion/exercise of discretion would be tainted by all that has happened since the decision was made.
- Reaction score
- 1,361
- Points
- 1,160
I keep repeating, hopefully people now believe: The Liberals do what's best for the LPC, not what's best Canada.
Why doesn't a journalists ask the Liberals that if they wanted to save 9,000 jobs, why didn't they do anything for Alberta or, for that matter Sears?
A friendly op-ed.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/03/01/snc-lavalin-controversy-just-put-it-to-bed.html
SNC-Lavalin controversy? Just put it to bed - By HEATHER MALLICK - Star Columnist - March 1, 2019
Why doesn't a journalists ask the Liberals that if they wanted to save 9,000 jobs, why didn't they do anything for Alberta or, for that matter Sears?
A friendly op-ed.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/03/01/snc-lavalin-controversy-just-put-it-to-bed.html
SNC-Lavalin controversy? Just put it to bed - By HEATHER MALLICK - Star Columnist - March 1, 2019
I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
Old Sweat said:
I think that ship already sailed, sadly.
- Reaction score
- 8,229
- Points
- 1,160
Old Sweat said:
I think you're right OS.
They won't over ride the DPP.
They will just declare that a conviction shouldn't bar a company from dealing with the Government. After all that law wasn't a real law. It was only a Harper law brought in in 2015. A legality. It just doesn't matter ;D
https://globalnews.ca/news/5010714/liberals-inegrity-snc-lavalin/
Similar threads
