Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
To expand on what is going on I note a few things.
Was JWR acting as a lawyer for the government? It seems to me yes. She herself claimed that solicitor client privilege prevented her from going into details. If so then yes there is definitely an ethical breach although not an illegal one. As far as I can tell. Lawyers recording conversation in secret is frowned upon by most of the legal community as far as I know.
However...
That issue of ethical standards should be viewed in a vacuum and does not diminish what was said, by whom and when and where.
The fact (brought up by a pundit whose point I agree with) that most of the Liberal mouth pieces are more concerned about the recording of the conversation and not the content is telling.
Was JWR acting as a lawyer for the government? It seems to me yes. She herself claimed that solicitor client privilege prevented her from going into details. If so then yes there is definitely an ethical breach although not an illegal one. As far as I can tell. Lawyers recording conversation in secret is frowned upon by most of the legal community as far as I know.
However...
That issue of ethical standards should be viewed in a vacuum and does not diminish what was said, by whom and when and where.
The fact (brought up by a pundit whose point I agree with) that most of the Liberal mouth pieces are more concerned about the recording of the conversation and not the content is telling.
- Reaction score
- 6,000
- Points
- 1,160
Considering the ethics violations this liberal leader gets away with, how can anyone else even think about saying it about JRW? It is a business norm for the party. The PM has made a mockery of ethics.
Definitely throwing rocks from the balconies of their glass houses.
Two faced hypocrites. The most unethical government ever, preaching ethics :rofl:
Definitely throwing rocks from the balconies of their glass houses.
Two faced hypocrites. The most unethical government ever, preaching ethics :rofl:
- Reaction score
- 1,682
- Points
- 1,090
If the tape completely exonerated the PM, then the Liberals would be shouting it from the rooftops. That they're not, speaks volumes. Add in the shooting the messenger campaign, and it makes them look more culpable than before.
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
By the way of something and nothing -
I note that the whole idea of "party" seems to be taking a bit of a beating these days. Frankly, I think that is not a bad thing.
But looking at the number of "rebels" against the party line in the US, in Britain, and in Canada, it seems to be coming entrenched that the Whips may as well be Floggers.
It is particularly interesting that in The Mother of Parliaments, that the Government can't even keep its Ministers in line. Some Ministers have resigned, honourably, to oppose the Government, but apparently many others find the cause more important than their honour.
Curious days.
I note that the whole idea of "party" seems to be taking a bit of a beating these days. Frankly, I think that is not a bad thing.
But looking at the number of "rebels" against the party line in the US, in Britain, and in Canada, it seems to be coming entrenched that the Whips may as well be Floggers.
It is particularly interesting that in The Mother of Parliaments, that the Government can't even keep its Ministers in line. Some Ministers have resigned, honourably, to oppose the Government, but apparently many others find the cause more important than their honour.
Curious days.
- Reaction score
- 27,218
- Points
- 1,090
Hmm... who is the Whip for the Government right now?
- Reaction score
- 6,257
- Points
- 1,040
Remius said:
Good to know, thanks! Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and it wasn't any thing logical, so maybe it was the tv soundbite mannerisms that set my teeth on edge. I mean, he is a politician, so they are all inherently starting from a position of untrustworthiness, but had no specific good reason to like/dislike him.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,672
- Points
- 1,160
Just to put some specifics on the issue of whether or not it is permissible for a lawyer to record a conversation, here are the entries from the CBA Professional Code of Conduct for the Law Societies of Ontario and BC:
Ontario
BC
Note while the second BC annotations says "anyone" note as well that section 7.2-3 specifically identifies other lawyers and the client who shall not be recorded without notice.
This begs several questions: Does the clerk of the privy council constitute part of the client? Do the actions of the PCO/PMO's members indicate an intention to commit a criminal offence?
I'll leave it to others to play with that. For me I'm satisfied that whatever she did pales in light of what the PM was doing. The Liberals piling on her now is simply a case of killing the messenger rather dealing with the wrongdoings of the PM/PMO/PCO.
:cheers:
Ontario
BC
Note while the second BC annotations says "anyone" note as well that section 7.2-3 specifically identifies other lawyers and the client who shall not be recorded without notice.
This begs several questions: Does the clerk of the privy council constitute part of the client? Do the actions of the PCO/PMO's members indicate an intention to commit a criminal offence?
I'll leave it to others to play with that. For me I'm satisfied that whatever she did pales in light of what the PM was doing. The Liberals piling on her now is simply a case of killing the messenger rather dealing with the wrongdoings of the PM/PMO/PCO.
:cheers:
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,138
- Points
- 1,140
FJAG said:
This comment probably fits in the Gun Control 2.0 thread, but in a similar vein at the municipal level, a Cambridge are Councillor reacted to the stabbing of a local gun store owner with a sort of "Wait, woah... there's a gun store downtown?".
- Reaction score
- 4,258
- Points
- 1,260
ballz said:
The former is a Member of Cabinet, subject to Cabinet Confidence, and expected to reflect the political interests of the caucus. The latter is a politically independent element of the judiciary. While it would be ideal to separate the two positions, others have managed just fine with the distinction.
- Reaction score
- 1,361
- Points
- 1,160
An article I agree with.
http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190402
What Liberals want you to believe about SNC-Lavalin - National Post - 2 Apr 19 - KELLY MCPARLAND
HOW IS IT THAT NEITHER BUTTS NOR TRUDEAU REALIZED SOMETHING WAS BADLY AMISS
In order to believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s version of his dispute with his former attorney general, you have to accept that an astonishing series of missteps, misunderstandings and lost opportunities were entirely innocent.
You have to believe that when Jody Wilson- Raybould told Trudeau in September that she had made up her mind and would not interfere with the decision to proceed with a prosecution against SNC -Lavalin, he either didn’t grasp what she was saying, or didn’t accept how serious she was.
You have to trust that none of the numerous complaints she made over the ensuing weeks, warning that the pressure being exerted was inappropriate and had to stop, made it through to Trudeau.
You have to consider it wholly believable that Gerald Butts, the political whizz-kid and guru considered the brains behind the throne, likewise missed or misinterpreted the signals, and didn’t alert his boss that they had a real problem.
You have to find nothing odd in the fact none of the supposedly highly- skilled and politically adept people surrounding Trudeau appreciated the severity of the warning Wilson- Raybould was making: that if Trudeau used his office to muscle a subordinate to interfere in the independence of the public prosecutor, he was racing headlong towards a cliff and was taking his government with him.
Even though Wilson- Raybould says she has “documented evidence” to the contrary, you have to believe that the Prime Minister’s Office never received the formal explanation — known as a Section 13 — outlining the reasoning for going ahead with the Lavalin prosecution, and that, in all the months of back- and- forth among ministers, their staff and the PMO, no one took the time to acquaint Trudeau with the contents of that report.
If you want to agree with complaints that the whole affair has been overblown, you need to accept at face value the apparent inability of Michael Wernick, supposedly among the top minds in the civil service, to understand why Wilson- Raybould refused to use the “tools” she had at her disposal to halt the prosecution of SNC, even after she made crystal clear in their 17- minute phone conversation that using those tools would inevitably explode in the face of the government. And you need to take seriously Wernick’s claim that he didn’t pass on the message to Trudeau, despite specifically telling Wilson- Raybould he had to “report back,” because everyone left town the next day on a holiday.
This is the same Wernick, remember, who opened the conversation by warning that time was of the essence, that Trudeau was eager to find a solution, and had earlier testified that if she had concerns, the minister could have contacted Trudeau any time, at any hour, because he was always available.
It’s a lot to accept. But there’s even more to digest. For instance, how is it that neither Butts nor Trudeau realized something was badly amiss when Jane Philpott told them Wilson- Raybould might feel that shuffling her out of her job was punishment for refusing to cave to Trudeau’s demands? And how could they be shocked when Wilson- Raybould demurred from accepting a transfer to Indigenous Services, a post she’d made known she could never accept?
Is it really feasible that no one in the Liberal hierarchy foresaw that imposing limits on Wilson-raybould’s ability to testify before the justice committee would strike a negative chord with Canadians, or that letting Liberal MPS peremptorily shut down the committee in the wake of her testimony would only make things worse?
There are Liberals out there who insist they can buy the whole package, that accept Trudeau’s bland assurances over the minister’s detailed evidence. Somehow they can listen to the Wernick phone call and not see what’s going on: a minister being strong- armed by a powerful messenger armed with warnings that the boss is “going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.” They argue that Trudeau would never act in such a threatening manner, that it’s out of character.
But the truth is, it’s entirely in character, and the proof has been there all along, in multiple examples of Trudeau’s response to situations that try his patience. Such as when he elbowed his way across the Commons to berate a member of the opposition. Or the moment in Edmonton when he sarcastically suggested a woman use the term “peoplekind” rather than “mankind.” Or his determination to block students from summer jobs unless organizations employing them signed a statement attesting to support Liberal values.
Or his snarky response just last week to an inconvenient intruder at a Liberal fundraiser who tried to draw attention to the ongoing health problems at Grassy Narrows, a First Nations community long troubled by mercury poisoning. Over more than three years of working closely with Trudeau, Wilson- Raybould has had plenty of time to learn what lies beneath the pleasant image the prime minister works so hard to project. “I am not under any illusion how the prime minister … gets things that he wants,” she tells Wernick in their recorded phone call.
“I am having … thoughts of the Saturday Night Massacre here, Michael,” she confesses, alluding to Richard Nixon’s desperate effort to save himself from Watergate by taking a buzz saw to his justice department. “I am waiting for the … other shoe to drop.”
The shoe dropped a few weeks later, when she was ousted from her job, then resigned to make clear her differences with Trudeau. The prime minister’s version of her departure is that it resulted from an “erosion of trust” of which he was entirely unaware, in spite of the events of the previous three months, the warnings she issued, the stark alert issued to Wernick and the concerns raised by Philpott.
Maybe it’s possible that the prime minister really was caught off guard, that his aides and advisers failed to bring the danger to his attention. But if that’s the case, you have to ask yourself whether a government that could make so many errors in judgment, could miss so many signs of trouble, could press ahead with a bad idea even when one of its senior members is waving her arms and shouting “stop!” — you have to ask yourself whether a government so clumsy, myopic and accident prone has any business running the country.
http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190402
What Liberals want you to believe about SNC-Lavalin - National Post - 2 Apr 19 - KELLY MCPARLAND
HOW IS IT THAT NEITHER BUTTS NOR TRUDEAU REALIZED SOMETHING WAS BADLY AMISS
In order to believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s version of his dispute with his former attorney general, you have to accept that an astonishing series of missteps, misunderstandings and lost opportunities were entirely innocent.
You have to believe that when Jody Wilson- Raybould told Trudeau in September that she had made up her mind and would not interfere with the decision to proceed with a prosecution against SNC -Lavalin, he either didn’t grasp what she was saying, or didn’t accept how serious she was.
You have to trust that none of the numerous complaints she made over the ensuing weeks, warning that the pressure being exerted was inappropriate and had to stop, made it through to Trudeau.
You have to consider it wholly believable that Gerald Butts, the political whizz-kid and guru considered the brains behind the throne, likewise missed or misinterpreted the signals, and didn’t alert his boss that they had a real problem.
You have to find nothing odd in the fact none of the supposedly highly- skilled and politically adept people surrounding Trudeau appreciated the severity of the warning Wilson- Raybould was making: that if Trudeau used his office to muscle a subordinate to interfere in the independence of the public prosecutor, he was racing headlong towards a cliff and was taking his government with him.
Even though Wilson- Raybould says she has “documented evidence” to the contrary, you have to believe that the Prime Minister’s Office never received the formal explanation — known as a Section 13 — outlining the reasoning for going ahead with the Lavalin prosecution, and that, in all the months of back- and- forth among ministers, their staff and the PMO, no one took the time to acquaint Trudeau with the contents of that report.
If you want to agree with complaints that the whole affair has been overblown, you need to accept at face value the apparent inability of Michael Wernick, supposedly among the top minds in the civil service, to understand why Wilson- Raybould refused to use the “tools” she had at her disposal to halt the prosecution of SNC, even after she made crystal clear in their 17- minute phone conversation that using those tools would inevitably explode in the face of the government. And you need to take seriously Wernick’s claim that he didn’t pass on the message to Trudeau, despite specifically telling Wilson- Raybould he had to “report back,” because everyone left town the next day on a holiday.
This is the same Wernick, remember, who opened the conversation by warning that time was of the essence, that Trudeau was eager to find a solution, and had earlier testified that if she had concerns, the minister could have contacted Trudeau any time, at any hour, because he was always available.
It’s a lot to accept. But there’s even more to digest. For instance, how is it that neither Butts nor Trudeau realized something was badly amiss when Jane Philpott told them Wilson- Raybould might feel that shuffling her out of her job was punishment for refusing to cave to Trudeau’s demands? And how could they be shocked when Wilson- Raybould demurred from accepting a transfer to Indigenous Services, a post she’d made known she could never accept?
Is it really feasible that no one in the Liberal hierarchy foresaw that imposing limits on Wilson-raybould’s ability to testify before the justice committee would strike a negative chord with Canadians, or that letting Liberal MPS peremptorily shut down the committee in the wake of her testimony would only make things worse?
There are Liberals out there who insist they can buy the whole package, that accept Trudeau’s bland assurances over the minister’s detailed evidence. Somehow they can listen to the Wernick phone call and not see what’s going on: a minister being strong- armed by a powerful messenger armed with warnings that the boss is “going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.” They argue that Trudeau would never act in such a threatening manner, that it’s out of character.
But the truth is, it’s entirely in character, and the proof has been there all along, in multiple examples of Trudeau’s response to situations that try his patience. Such as when he elbowed his way across the Commons to berate a member of the opposition. Or the moment in Edmonton when he sarcastically suggested a woman use the term “peoplekind” rather than “mankind.” Or his determination to block students from summer jobs unless organizations employing them signed a statement attesting to support Liberal values.
Or his snarky response just last week to an inconvenient intruder at a Liberal fundraiser who tried to draw attention to the ongoing health problems at Grassy Narrows, a First Nations community long troubled by mercury poisoning. Over more than three years of working closely with Trudeau, Wilson- Raybould has had plenty of time to learn what lies beneath the pleasant image the prime minister works so hard to project. “I am not under any illusion how the prime minister … gets things that he wants,” she tells Wernick in their recorded phone call.
“I am having … thoughts of the Saturday Night Massacre here, Michael,” she confesses, alluding to Richard Nixon’s desperate effort to save himself from Watergate by taking a buzz saw to his justice department. “I am waiting for the … other shoe to drop.”
The shoe dropped a few weeks later, when she was ousted from her job, then resigned to make clear her differences with Trudeau. The prime minister’s version of her departure is that it resulted from an “erosion of trust” of which he was entirely unaware, in spite of the events of the previous three months, the warnings she issued, the stark alert issued to Wernick and the concerns raised by Philpott.
Maybe it’s possible that the prime minister really was caught off guard, that his aides and advisers failed to bring the danger to his attention. But if that’s the case, you have to ask yourself whether a government that could make so many errors in judgment, could miss so many signs of trouble, could press ahead with a bad idea even when one of its senior members is waving her arms and shouting “stop!” — you have to ask yourself whether a government so clumsy, myopic and accident prone has any business running the country.
- Reaction score
- 16,918
- Points
- 1,010
ballz said:
Having listened to the tape, it was pretty clear JWR was speaking as the AG, not the Min Justice. Not sure how he figured otherwise.
As well, as the senior civil servant in Canada, he should have backed off and ended the call the second she warned him off the first time. Yes, it is the role of the civil service to sometimes have uncomfortable conversations with Ministers of the Crown, but he is not her cabinet colleague and she did most certainly not work for him. He should never have acted as messenger boy in this matter.
If the PCO has been this badly corrupted, what else has been corrupted by this government?
SeaKingTacco said:
The problem is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is three roles in one.
It was reformed into being not only the Senior Public servant but he is the PMs Deputy minister and the secretary to the cabinet. So it may well be that he was exactly the person that should have been the message boy in this matter.
The message though is a different matter.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
PPCLI Guy said:
Right, but Cabinet Confidence was waived on this issue, during this time period. And I was responding to FJAG's comment about whether or not the Clerk constituted a "client" in these circumstances (and therefore subject to Soliciter-Client Privilege).
SeaKingTacco said:
I would agree. I'm guessing he figured otherwise back when it was convenient for him to do so, as he testified in front of the Justice Committee and JWR was still gagged. I suspect he's changed his mind now as well....
As well, as the senior civil servant in Canada, he should have backed off and ended the call the second she warned him off the first time. Yes, it is the role of the civil service to sometimes have uncomfortable conversations with Ministers of the Crown, but he is not her cabinet colleague and she did most certainly not work for him. He should never have acted as messenger boy in this matter.
If the PCO has been this badly corrupted, what else has been corrupted by this government?
[/quote]
I agree with you, but I'll be honest (and I don't like Wernick... at all), in this instance I'm not overly upset with him. He was doing what he was getting paid to do. As far as I'm concerned, any "threats" from him in his message were simply a reflection of the Prime Minister... or Butts, whoever ran the show because I still can't figure that part out. The more I hear about this, the more the PM reminds me of a General who's rank has gone to head and expects his staff to blatantly violate every piece of policy in existence just because he has an irrational desire to effect something that is outside his job/control, and the poor SOB that is the COS is caught in the middle.
- Reaction score
- 1,949
- Points
- 1,160
Remius said:
I believe part of the reasons those 3 roles were consolidated into 1 was to prevent 3 powerful people from talking past each other. Now that 1 powerful person claims with some degree of duplicity that those he serves were talking past each other with inaccurate understandings of the issues and lack of knowledge of the legislative intent of a law that they themselves amended for the specific company in the centre of the issue, and in fact at the behest of that very same company.
To think that an AG would ever employ those "legislative tools" with a nudge and wink to "engineer" the outcome is somewhat of a startling assumption made by a career civil servant in country that supposedly experiences little in the way of federal political and judicial corruption. I'm actually starting to question that notion as well.
There are too many ex-Supreme Court justices swimming around like sharks in swamp for this matter. There is too much taken for granted as to how those ex-judges might behave in terms of tendering paid advice. Those judges do not live in a vacuum, their past decisions rule our laws and their opinions and advice in current/future advocacy are going to be accepted with much more weight than perhaps they should be given.
- Reaction score
- 6,000
- Points
- 1,160
I'm just going to skip all of the he said, she said, who's job is what or who initiated, ignored whatever.
This is all taking place because of one fact that is escaping the brouhaha.
The conversation between the two should never have happened in the first place. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are.
Just my :2c:
This is all taking place because of one fact that is escaping the brouhaha.
The conversation between the two should never have happened in the first place. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are.
Just my :2c:
Similar threads
