Remius said:The PM has waived attorney client privilege.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440
One wonders what changed his mind.
Another article, now rendered, at least in part, stale by Remius' previously-posted one:
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jody-wilson-raybould-has-trudeau-in-checkmate/
Jody Wilson-Raybould has Trudeau in checkmate
Andrew MacDougall: If the former AG adds credible colour to the story being told by anonymous sources this week, it will be a devastating day for Trudeau
by Andrew MacDougall
Feb 24, 2019
"Is Jody Wilson-Raybould going to burn my government to the ground?"
It's the question Justin Trudeau must surely be asking as his former attorney general and justice minister prepares to "speak her truth" this week at the justice committee on the question of SNC-Lavalin.
If the dribs and drabs of information appearing on the front pages of The Globe and Mail over recent weeks turns out to be accurate foreshadowing, Trudeau might not be able to survive Wilson-Raybould's truth, let alone handle it.
As "did not direct" Wilson-Raybould has morphed into a "vigorous debate" on the question, and then to an admission of "pressure" from the Clerk of the Privy Council, but of the "lawful advocacy" kind, not the 'do as you're told' vintage, Team Trudeau has, to date, succeeded only in lighting itself on fire when it comes to SNC-Lavalin. Now it's time to see if Wilson-Raybould rocks up to committee with the final keg of kerosene.
If you're Trudeau, it's hard to envision an appearance in which Wilson-Raybould doesn't burn everything - Trudeau included - to the ground. There has been some serious red-on-red action on the nation's front pages in the past few days, and only one side can survive.
Wilson-Raybould and the forces aligned with her have been putting out a narrative of undue pressure on the non-partisan attorney general over the criminal prosecution of SNC, a Liberal-loving Quebec behemoth. And they're making a compelling case.
Despite the independent director of public prosecutions saying 'no' to SNC on Sept. 4 of last year, Trudeau, his office, and the clerk - we now know, after initial denials - continued to revisit the issue with Wilson-Raybould and her office until Dec. 19, i.e. a few short weeks before she was shifted out of the attorney general role. It turns out 'no means no' meant nothing in Trudeaupia, at least when it came to SNC.
<snip>
The one meeting we still don't know much about is the one that might hold the key - and produce the most fireworks at Wilson-Raybould's testimony: the Dec. 18 meeting between the PMO's Gerry Butts and Katie Telford and Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's Chief of Staff. Wernick mentioned it briefly, but the PMO didn't offer up any information on the substance of their conversation when media outlets started asking questions about it. But if their chat wasn't about SNC, it stands to reason the PMO would have said so in order to shut down another unwanted avenue of inquiry.
<snip>
Then again, if Trudeau wanted Wilson-Raybould to speak he would have encouraged her to do so the second Robert Fife's first phone call went into the PMO on the matter. Trudeau has fought Wilson-Raybould every step of the way, likely for a reason.
<snip>
If Wilson-Raybould adds credible colour to the skeleton version of events outlined by the anonymous sources in the Globe it's going to be a brutal day for Trudeau.
And if Wilson-Raybould backs up her claims up with physical evidence (she is reputed to be a copious note-taker), or offers up a witness or two who can offer supportive contemporaneous accounts (hello, Jessica Prince!), it's going to be cataclysmic. Who knows, if the Dec. 18 meeting is indeed the one in which Butts told Wilson-Raybould to take matters up with the Clerk, it would mean Wilson-Raybould was prepared to be leaned on by Wernick over SNC in their call the following day. A penny for a tape of that conversation, anyone?
If it does prove to be the darkest day for Team Trudeau, the Liberals will be forced to contemplate what - and who - comes next. After all, if Gerry Butts, Katie Telford, and Michael Wernick are all telling an independent attorney general to go one way on an open criminal prosecution like SNC, it's hard to paint the picture that it wasn't with Trudeau's knowledge, or at Trudeau's request. Trudeau would find it very hard, if not impossible, to recover.
At best, Trudeau would be hanging by a very thin thread. If Butts had to walk over "pressure" on SNC, what does that mean for Telford should Wilson-Raybould credibly accuse her of the same? And what of Wernick, who told the committee he was sure Wilson-Raybould was feeling the pressure to "get it right" before implying to her that her caucus colleagues were still worried she had it wrong.
The level of nervousness in the PMO right now cannot be overstated, as evidenced by a series of leaks over the weekend designed to evacuate damaging disclosures (disputes over judicial appointments & the admission that Telford met with Justice on SNC). The ground is being prepared for everyone but Trudeau to have to go.
Even then, Trudeau's continued presence in the Prime Minister's Office would be a stretch. People might buy that Trudeau's aides and his deputy minister were a little overzealous in making SNC's case. But they won't buy that anyone other than Trudeau agreed to tuck SNC's preferred legislation into the Liberal budget, or forced Wilson-Raybould out of her post as attorney general, because only the Prime Minister has those powers.
<snip>
Could the cloud cover over sunny ways make for a viable alternative for Liberals, most of whom were elected because of Trudeau's coattails? Or would they shudder at the thought of serving for Canada's version of Frank Underwood?
It remains to be seen. At this point, Trudeau would like an ending as far away from House of Cards as possible. Right now, he'd much rather prefer a Newhart, one where he wakes up and none of this ever happened.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-wernicks-alarmist-words-are-the-politics-of-fear/
Michael Wernick's alarmist words are the politics of fear
Wesley Wark
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published February 25, 2019
The politics of fear has just made an extraordinary appearance on Parliament Hill. The man who gave unexpected voice to it was none other than Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ottawa's top bureaucrat. Clerks are not usually public Cassandras, and for good reason.
Mr. Wernick, before he launched into his riveting testimony last Thursday on the SNC-Lavalin affair, told the House of Commons justice committee that he had something else on his mind. That something else was the national security of Canada.
Mr. Wernick was speaking, he said, personally. From his bully pulpit, he told parliamentarians, "I'm deeply concerned about my country right now, its politics, and where it is headed." His statement left many shaking their heads, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later signalled his full support.
His catalogue of fears for Canada was extensive and shocking. It included foreign interference in the upcoming election, "the rising tide of incitements to violence," the prospect of political assassination and killings in a election year, the besmirching of public reputations, the "vomitorium" of social-media discourse and a trend toward people losing faith in the governance of Canada.
<snip>