• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

I'm not inclined to "shift focus" yet but Conrad Black has an interesting take on JWR.

Conrad Black: SNC-Lavalin is a sideshow to the real Wilson-Raybould issue
Throughout her tenure as justice minister, she tied the government’s hands in responding to suits from Aboriginal organizations

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-snc-lavalin-is-a-sideshow-to-the-real-wilson-raybould-issue?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BdMM2bjXcFl85j4oDHALMeelvAedRZ7DchhNAfvQa6ALGlVv_Cu_qLCY#Echobox=1552679080

Funny thing about people.  They don't have to be wrong all the time.  Occasionally they can be right as well.

And sometimes they do the right things for the wrong reasons.

 
I'm thinking this probably fits best here.
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/15/facing-possibility-of-rcmp-probe-trudeau-his-staff-are-hiring-lawyers/?fbclid=IwAR0kwdfsFPU17ccRqLX4kKptoxeXOrBWgslIaBc8mRsUTGwDi9FhAlH1L3M

    Facing Possibility Of RCMP Probe, Trudeau & His Staff Are Hiring Lawyers
SpencerFernando
March 15, 20190
Trudeau Scandal Response

Report indicates how worried the PMO is about the continuing scandal.

The Globe & Mail is reporting that Justin Trudeau and top PMO officials have hired private lawyers, as they face the possibility of an RCMP probe.

    “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior officials in his office have retained outside legal counsel in case of an RCMP investigation into allegations of political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group.

    Mr. Trudeau’s communications director, Cameron Ahmad, told The Globe and Mail on Friday that Treasury Board rules allow for hiring of outside counsel when government officials are either sued, threatened with a suit, charged with an offence or under threat of being named in a legal action.”

    Additionally, “A senior government official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said an outside law firm has been hired to represent Mr. Trudeau, and another law firm will handle staff in the Prime Minister’s Office. The second law firm will act on behalf of Mr. Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, Quebec adviser Mathieu Bouchard and senior adviser Elder Marques, the official said.”

At this point neither the government nor the RCMP have said whether an investigation is taking place.

However, the opposition has been pushing for an investigation, especially considering how corrupted the ‘justice’ committee has become.

Without an independent investigation free of political influence, Canadians can’t get the truth, because the Trudeau Liberals are now in full cover-up mode.

Additionally, the fact that the PMO is retaining lawyers shows how big of a scandal this is. After all, why would they be lawyering up for a story that’s ‘false?’

Spencer Fernando  [ /quote]
 
Admiral Norman, who is probably Innocent,was refused legal aid at government expense.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Admiral Norman, who is probably Innocent,was refused legal aid at government expense.

Given the nature of the alleged offense, not a chance he would be indemnified at crown expense.

I’ve received legal coverage under the same policy. It’s intended to cover employees/agents of the crown who in the good faith exercise of their duties and up on the wrong side of legal action, which happens quite a bit.

This is governed by the Treasury Board Secrerariat policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification.

“6.1.5 Three basic eligibility criteria: In considering Crown servants for legal assistance or indemnification, determining whether the Crown servant:

- acted in good faith;
- did not act against the interests of the Crown; and
- acted within the scope of their duties or course of employment with respect to the acts or omissions giving rise to the request.”

So, without opining on the merits or lack thereof in this particular prosecution, *if* the nature of an alleged offense is such that it falls outside the scope of duties or was not in good faith or was against the interests of the crown, legal assistance won’t be provided.

I’m adding this only for the sake of clarity on that point, since I’ve had the dubious fortune of experiencing it firsthand.
 
It seems to me that much of that can only be tested at trial.

I can understand the accused having to reimburse costs if found guilty.  I have difficulty with bureaucrats deciding the merits of a case in advance of a case being tried.
 
No different than when the Crown comes after legal gun owners. The Crown expects a foregone conclusion that all guns will be seized and the legal owner ruined for life. Occasionally, they get suprised.
 
Brihard said:
Given the nature of the alleged offense, not a chance he would be indemnified at crown expense.

I’ve received legal coverage under the same policy. It’s intended to cover employees/agents of the crown who in the good faith exercise of their duties and up on the wrong side of legal action, which happens quite a bit.

This is governed by the Treasury Board Secrerariat policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification.

“6.1.5 Three basic eligibility criteria: In considering Crown servants for legal assistance or indemnification, determining whether the Crown servant:

- acted in good faith;
- did not act against the interests of the Crown; and
- acted within the scope of their duties or course of employment with respect to the acts or omissions giving rise to the request.”

So, without opining on the merits or lack thereof in this particular prosecution, *if* the nature of an alleged offense is such that it falls outside the scope of duties or was not in good faith or was against the interests of the crown, legal assistance won’t be provided.

I’m adding this only for the sake of clarity on that point, since I’ve had the dubious fortune of experiencing it firsthand.

I've had some experience with that as well albeit as counsel for an individual who was given a s.13 notice under the Inquiries Act during the Somalia Inquiry. ss 12-13 read as follows:

Parties may employ counsel

12 The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this Act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of an investigation, to be represented by counsel.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 12.
Marginal note:Notice to persons charged

13 No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice has been given to the person of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and the person has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 13.

In effect a s. 13 notice for the Somalia Inquiry indicated to the witnesses that there is a likelihood that they will be found to have been involved on some misconduct that would reflect badly against them in the report and which might lead to some charges (although several of those given notices had already been tried by court martial).

Because there were so many of them it was not possible to furnish crown counsel (as well the crown was counsel for the inquiry) and therefore they were all directed to get outside private counsel which were paid for out of the public purse.

While there is a substantive difference to being charged in a civilian court and being a witness under the Inquiry Act, the basic character of the matter is the same: there is some form of alleged misconduct involved performed during the course of employment and a consequence serious enough that the member requires the aid of legal counsel.

I have trouble distinguishing the good faith element when comparing "negligent performance of duty" or "torture" or "unlawfully causing bodily harm" or even "murder" (as were the misconduct in the Somalia Inquiry) with "revealing cabinet confidences". If anything, IMHO, the allegations against Norman are much more likely to be defensible on the grounds of good faith than some of the Somalia ones.

To me the decision not to provide Norman with financial support seems arbitrary and mean spirited (and regrettably, consistent with how the Government seems often to be working these days.).

:cheers:
 
http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190316

Sorry Liberals – the ‘ jobs’ excuse won’t fly - National Post - 16 Mar 2019 - Rex Murphy

Whoever is masterminding the Liberal response to the SNC-Lavalin scandal is confusing the anchor and the life-jacket. To be clear, the life-jacket is the one that keeps you afloat … the anchor is the heavy thing. The justice committee Liberals — who are obviously not mariners — met Wednesday only to shut the committee down for a week, to stall on allowing Jody Wilson-Raybould back to complete her testimony, giving every indication possible that they weren’t really very interested in hearing from her at all anymore.

There is nothing opposition MPs could have done more effectively to juice up an already highly-charged saga than the five Liberals’ blatant and televised amputation of what a committee named justice ought to be doing. Which is to hear from the central character in this story — free to speak fully and without the restraint of various privileges — the full account of why she left cabinet, and why another senior minister, Jane Philpott, felt conscience-bound to leave in solidarity with her.

The same committee has also killed opposition efforts to call Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, PMO advisers Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard, the former chief of staff to Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Jessica Prince, and notably the only figure who really has the whole story, the prime minister himself. There is something in the Liberals’ behaviour touchingly reminiscent of the classic line from Dr. Strangelove: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the War Room.” Committee chairman Anthony Housefather: “Witnesses? You can’t call for witnesses here. This is the justice committee.”

That’s the tactic they’ve decided on. Close it down. Leave the full story untold. Use process to obscure truth. There’s a morbid irony in using control of the justice committee as the instrument to deny the function of the justice committee. If this were the Harper years they’d call it muzzling. The mores change with the tempores, I suppose. The first response to the charges of pressuring the attorney general on behalf of SNC-Lavalin was clear denial. Mr. Trudeau: “The allegations in the Globe story are false.”

They more or less dropped that one and moved on to a more slippery rationale. Yes, there was pressure, all those meetings, the PMO and Gerald Butts, the finance minister’s aide, the clerk of the Privy Council, JWR’s one-to-one with Mr. Trudeau, but it was good pressure, because, you know, SNC-Lavalin employed so many people, and they had to save 9,000 jobs. This was tacitly something of an admission, a conditional one. It said: If we did put the heat on, if we did — slightly — overstep our bounds, well, as Mr. Trudeau emphasized at least a hundred times, “we will always fight to protect Canadian jobs.” We’re the Trudeau government. Jobs are what we are. We protect Canadian jobs. We may have acted badly but our hearts were job pure.

This newfound emphasis on jobs was a strange sunrise, puzzling to very many, and a veritable revelation out in certain Western provinces. A social-justice warrior government, cast in the deepest shade of green, touting feminism, diversity, carbon taxes, equity for all, globalist in aspiration — was suddenly a Jobs First government. Now there was a costume change. You’re in the theatre, you’ve watched the first three acts of Hamlet, the curtain opens on Act 4, and it’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. (Enter Puck, with his cover letter and resumé.)

Building pipelines involves jobs. The oilsands involve jobs — tens of thousands of jobs. Northern Gateway involved jobs. The Energy East pipeline involved jobs. Oil companies cancelling projects involved jobs. The flight of headquarters from Calgary involved jobs. The still-stalled Trans Mountain pipeline involves jobs. The most massive jobs hit in the Canadian economy, involving an entire industry, did not get 1/100 the prime attention that a single company, with a dubious reputation, already sanctioned outside Canada, and under investigation within, received. Who can seriously believe the “we value jobs line?”

Did they hound and set siege to the National Energy Board with the same ferocity and frequency the attorney general was subjected to for the benefit of SNC-Lavalin? Was the dark lord of the Privy Council on the phone to the head of the NEB reminding the board that there were massive jobs involved in all these impeded and cancelled projects? Seeking to slacken the regulations, speed up the process, get the approvals out pronto?
Were they strong-arming the B.C. premier to lower his opposition to Trans Mountain? Were they back-dooring the legal system to hold off on nuisance lawsuits from environmentalists because … so many valuable Canadian jobs were at stake? Were they fighting the octopus green lobby’s relentless campaign against Canadian energy, speaking out in international forums against its propaganda? The answer to all these questions and a hundred similar ones is No.

A single company, SNC-Lavalin, owned all the machinery and might of the PMO and the prime minister himself. In contrast, an entire national industry with employees across the full spread of the country, was left to languish. Or worse, be entangled in new regulations, staring down Bill C-69, burdened by new and useless socalled carbon taxes, and hearing the prime minister declare, somewhat in exasperation, “we can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow.” I fear in the light of how employment in the energy sector has been valued that the “jobs are us” line is a bird that will not fly.

Note to Post readers: Two (or more) people may experience this column differently, but diversity is our strength.

THE OILSANDS INVOLVE JOBS — TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
 
Like I say. Construction workers don't lose jobs. They move to the work and stay employed. The job losses should be contained to the suits. No biggie there.
 
SNC-Lavalin is undeniably an important company in Canada. But its importance has been shrinking, at least in terms of employment. Since February, 2012, when SNC-Lavalin first disclosed it had discovered financial irregularities it couldn’t explain, namely undocumented payments later discovered to be bribes, the company’s payroll in Canada has declined by more than half, to roughly 8,500 people from 20,000. It currently employs about 2,500 people in Quebec, including 700 at its Montreal head office. Five times as many SNC-Lavalin employees work outside the country as in it.

International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
Canadian Employees = 8,500
Quebec Employees = 2,500
Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700

Actual Jobs at risk - IMHO - 700

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-justice-jobs-and-snc-lavalin-how-much-does-the-engineering-giant/



 
Chris Pook said:
International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
Canadian Employees = 8,500
Quebec Employees = 2,500
Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700

Actual Jobs at risk - IMHO - 700

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-justice-jobs-and-snc-lavalin-how-much-does-the-engineering-giant/
And if I were working for the company wanting to apply max QC pressure, I'd use the 2500+700 = 3200 figure for "here's how much it'll cost you in QC" card.
 
And just spotted this @ #NotYetBoughtMedia* Globe & Mail
Trudeau, PMO staff hired outside lawyers in case RCMP probes SNC-Lavalin affair
March 15, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior officials in his office have retained outside legal counsel in case of an RCMP investigation into allegations of political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group.

Mr. Trudeau’s communications director, Cameron Ahmad, told The Globe and Mail on Friday that Treasury Board rules allow for hiring of outside counsel when government officials are either sued, threatened with a suit, charged with an offence or under threat of being named in a legal action.

“As per the Treasury Board Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification, counsel has been retained to advise on the matter in question,” Mr. Ahmad said in an e-mail.

Mr. Ahmad would not provide further details or reveal the names of the law firms retained by Mr. Trudeau and staff in the Prime Minister’s Office, in response to a formal request last month for an RCMP investigation from Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.

A senior government official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, said an outside law firm has been hired to represent Mr. Trudeau, and another law firm will handle staff in the Prime Minister’s Office.

The second law firm will act on behalf of Mr. Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, Quebec adviser Mathieu Bouchard and senior adviser Elder Marques, the official said.

Former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould has said the three individuals, along with former principal secretary Gerald Butts and Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick as well as the Prime Minister, put repeated pressure on her to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

Mr. Wernick, the country’s top bureaucrat, told the House of Commons justice committee last week that he had “retained personal counsel because of Mr. Scheer’s letter to the RCMP.”

The RCMP has said it is reviewing Mr. Scheer’s letter and added in a statement Friday that it “generally does not confirm or deny if an investigation is under way unless criminal charges are laid.”

The Conservative Leader wrote to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki on Feb. 28 to request a criminal investigation into the Liberal government’s efforts to help the Quebec-based engineering and construction giant, which is facing bribery and fraud charges related to allegedly corrupt dealings in Libya ...
More @ link - if you want to swim thru the TB policy in question, be my guest :)

* - We'll (hopefully) find out more about who's bought by how much @ budget time later this month.
 
milnews.ca said:
And just spotted this @ #NotYetBoughtMedia* Globe & MailMore @ link - if you want to swim thru the TB policy in question, be my guest :)

* - We'll (hopefully) find out more about who's bought by how much @ budget time later this month.

Just skimmed through it but missed the part where it says they can deny financial support for lawyers for alleged misconduct against the Liberals a la Norman but have to grant it for alleged misconduct by Liberals.  :stirpot:

Maybe someone else found it.  :pop:

:cheers:
 
The reason the "job losses" red herring is raised is because the company may be ineligible to bid on federal contracts for a long time.

The government is free to identify all the planned work that was going to be sole-source awarded to SNC.  For the rest, some other bidder will fill the gap.  As long as the planned work goes forward, no jobs are lost.  If SNC has less work, maybe it sheds people.  The successful bidders either have spare capacity on hand (in which case, their jobs would be "lost" if SNC won the contracts) or will need to hire...perhaps from the same pool of people shed by SNC.

The key to "jobs lost" isn't whether SNC is eligible to bid.  The key is whether work (private or public) goes ahead or not.  The "jobs lost" are the ones which would have been filled on cancelled and delayed projects. If an accusation is to be leveled, level it against people who block projects or don't do enough to ensure projects go ahead.
 
FJAG said:
Just skimmed through it but missed the part where it says they can deny financial support for lawyers for alleged misconduct against the Liberals a la Norman but have to grant it for alleged misconduct by Liberals.  :stirpot:

Maybe someone else found it.  :pop:

:cheers:
There IS a bit about recovering funds if wrongdoing is found, or retroactive payments -- all good stuff :)
 
Chris Pook said:
International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
Canadian Employees = 8,500
Quebec Employees = 2,500
Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700

Actual Jobs at risk - IMHO - 700

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-justice-jobs-and-snc-lavalin-how-much-does-the-engineering-giant/

But those are most likley well paid Liberal supporters and donors, so it's "Double ungood"
 
Does this count towards the SNC job losses?


Another of the key Canadian government officials at the center of a controversy over SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. is leaving his post.

Michael Wernick announced his retirement Monday as clerk of the privy council, the highest-ranking position in Canada’s civil service and a key aide to Justin Trudeau. The prime minister named Ian Shugart, currently deputy minister of foreign affairs, to replace him.

Wernick said in a letter to Trudeau that “recent events” led him to conclude he couldn’t hold his post during the election campaign this fall. “It is now apparent that there is no path for me to have a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the leaders of the opposition parties,” he said, citing the need for impartiality on the issue of potential foreign interference. The exact date of his departure is unclear.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-s-top-bureaucrat-michael-wernick-to-retire-amid-snc-scandal-1.1230681



Trudeau is giving his loyal soldiers the Jason Bourne Treadstone treatment.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Trudeau is giving his loyal soldiers the Jason Bourne Treadstone treatment.
Well, he WAS appointed, if you believe this account by #NotYetBoughtMedia from 2016, to "come up with a better process to pick his own permanent replacement as the country’s top bureaucrat".

Just took him a bit longer than planned to find a replacement, I guess ...
 
I wouldn't say Canada is losing anything by having a hyper-partisan senior public servant step down.
 
Back
Top