Deferred Scandal Agreement
February 17, 2019 7:13 AM Subscribe
Between 2001 and 2011, Canadian engineering giant SNC Lavalin spent a lot of money on bribes in Libya, which resulted in criminal charges in Canada. As the charges slowly made their way through the courts, SNC Lavalin lobbied hard to have Canada introduce the same sort of deferred prosecution agreements which allow companies avoid prosecution in the U.K. and U.S. The lobbying effort succeeded in changing the law, but SNC Lavalin hadn't counted on Jody Wilson-Raybould.
SNC Lavalin expressed disbelief and disappointment at not getting a deferred prosecution agreement despite all their lobbying. The government was disappointed, too.
"Unnamed officials" have been working to undermine Wilson-Raybould in media reports, which has drawn some strong responses:
The Liberal Party's cozy relationships with industry have caused it electoral problems in the past.
SNC Lavalin expressed disbelief and disappointment at not getting a deferred prosecution agreement despite all their lobbying. The government was disappointed, too.
The Globe and Mail reported [paywalled] that members of the Prime Minister’s Office had urged then Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC avoid prosecution but she refused. The story did not name the PMO staffers. In January, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould to the Veterans Affairs file.Wilson-Raybould resigned from Cabinet a few days ago. She's not saying much yet, but has retained a former justice of the Supreme Court to advise her on what she's allowed to say.
SNC is by extension a major player in Trudeau’s lofty infrastructure ambitions, with plans to spend $186.7 billion over 12 years to expand the country’s roads, bridges and telecommunication lines. The firm is set to build a number of the projects funded under the plan, including the $6.3 billion REM light rail development in Montreal.
"Unnamed officials" have been working to undermine Wilson-Raybould in media reports, which has drawn some strong responses:
Statements from senior staffers and officials perpetuate a damaging and sexist image of Minister Wilson-Raybould as someone who was “a thorn in the side of cabinet,” “difficult to get along with,” and “known to berate fellow cabinet members at the table.” It has been reported by insiders of your government that she was someone “who others felt they had trouble trusting” and has reportedly “been in it for herself” such that “everything is very Jody-centric.”Prime Minister Trudeau made an unfortunate visual choice while addressing the issue: While standing in front of buses in Winnipeg, he threw Wilson-Raybould under the bus.
These disingenuous statements are cowardly, low blows aimed at discrediting the staunch work ethic Minister Wilson-Raybould has maintained. They perpetuate colonial-era, sexist stereotypes that Indigenous women cannot be powerful, forthright, and steadfast in positions of power, but rather confrontational, meddling and egotistic.
The prime minister adopted an almost fatherly tone as he talked about how disappointed he was about Wilson-Raybould's decision to resign, and the trouble it was causing him. His tone suggested Wilson-Raybould was being unfair, even irrational.Canadians have not found Trudeau's response convincing. With an election due in October, the ethics commissioner is investigating the conduct of the prime minister's office.
The Liberal Party's cozy relationships with industry have caused it electoral problems in the past.
It's worth noting here that SNC wasn't cleaning up it's act because they suddenly decided to be good corporate citizens, but because they realized it was the ONLY way they were going to get any part of this infrastructure-building pie.
posted by Paladin1138 at 7:23 AM on February 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Paladin1138 at 7:23 AM on February 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
It's a little bit telling to see this happen to Canada's highest profile indigenous female politician.
posted by mikek at 7:33 AM on February 17, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by mikek at 7:33 AM on February 17, 2019 [23 favorites]
It's worth turning the audio on for the first minute of the standing in front of buses link. Trudeau's tone might've helped the government if it had been Wilson-Raybould who was being accused of ethical lapses, but it's a disaster when he appears to be saying that the government wouldn't have done anything wrong if only Wilson-Raybould had spoken up but she didn't therefore it's her fault. (But we didn't do anything wrong but if we did it's still her fault.)
posted by clawsoon at 7:39 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 7:39 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
“difficult to get along with”
Every time.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:53 AM on February 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
Every time.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 7:53 AM on February 17, 2019 [20 favorites]
Why Jody Wilson-Raybould was destined to speak truth to power would've been a good link for this story if it wasn't paywalled.
posted by clawsoon at 7:58 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 7:58 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
A bit of background on SNC Lavalin.
It's one of the few very large companies headquartered in Quebec, of which we've lost a few in the past decade (Aluminium giant Alcan was sold to Rio Tinto, and home improvement chain Rona was sold to Lowe's). Quebec's current prime minister, François Legault, is the founder of another Quebec success story, Air Transat.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 8:01 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
It's one of the few very large companies headquartered in Quebec, of which we've lost a few in the past decade (Aluminium giant Alcan was sold to Rio Tinto, and home improvement chain Rona was sold to Lowe's). Quebec's current prime minister, François Legault, is the founder of another Quebec success story, Air Transat.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 8:01 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
Thanks for posting this. I feel sick at the things the government is saying about Wilson-Raybould (or Jody as Trudeau keeps saying. Would he consistently refer to a man by his first name in circumstances like this?). I hope she gets to speak soon.
posted by Valancy Rachel at 8:05 AM on February 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by Valancy Rachel at 8:05 AM on February 17, 2019 [5 favorites]
This Internet Archive cache of the Why Jody Wilson-Raybould was destined to speak truth to power link seems to work, at least in the US.
posted by xedrik at 8:06 AM on February 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by xedrik at 8:06 AM on February 17, 2019 [4 favorites]
Jody Wilson-Raybould's father, speaking to Pierre Trudeau about both of his daughters wanting to be Prime Minister.
posted by clawsoon at 8:14 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 8:14 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
Justin Trudeau is a goddamned prick and I hope this costs him the election.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:34 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by mrjohnmuller at 8:34 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
I will give SNC one small bit of credit in all this, which is that every single person who's been directly implicated in their series of scandals over these kinds of corruption isn't with the company any longer. In the states, they would be promoted, get huge bonuses, or better yet if they did exit the company they'd be in government themselves by the next cycle.
Still, this is all shameful and Trudeau's handling of the situation lately has been ridiculous.
posted by trackofalljades at 8:51 AM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Still, this is all shameful and Trudeau's handling of the situation lately has been ridiculous.
posted by trackofalljades at 8:51 AM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Justin Trudeau is a goddamned prick and I hope this costs him the election.
Yes to the first part, but considering the NDP doesn't seem to be doing much these days other than pissing into their own mouths and show no inclination to do otherwise, maybe it should just cost him a minority government. If the silly knob had followed through on electoral reform he probably wouldn't be in the position of becoming a one-stroke joke.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:56 AM on February 17, 2019 [21 favorites]
Yes to the first part, but considering the NDP doesn't seem to be doing much these days other than pissing into their own mouths and show no inclination to do otherwise, maybe it should just cost him a minority government. If the silly knob had followed through on electoral reform he probably wouldn't be in the position of becoming a one-stroke joke.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:56 AM on February 17, 2019 [21 favorites]
"If Scott Brison had not stepped down from cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada," Mr. Trudeau told reporters Friday after a technology funding announcement with BlackBerry in the Ottawa suburb of Kanata.
A likely story. You're telling me BlackBerry still exists? And they're still making mobile phones with keyboards? Come up with something more plausible, Mr. Trudeau.
posted by sfenders at 8:57 AM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
A likely story. You're telling me BlackBerry still exists? And they're still making mobile phones with keyboards? Come up with something more plausible, Mr. Trudeau.
posted by sfenders at 8:57 AM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Justin Trudeau provides yet more evidence that nepotism is a bad idea.
posted by fredludd at 8:59 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by fredludd at 8:59 AM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
Once again the incompetence of a Liberal government is going to get fascists elected.
Meanwhile old people refuse to vote for the NDP because... god knows... and well and truly don't give a damn if the world burns, since they'll be dead.
posted by Yowser at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
Meanwhile old people refuse to vote for the NDP because... god knows... and well and truly don't give a damn if the world burns, since they'll be dead.
posted by Yowser at 9:02 AM on February 17, 2019 [11 favorites]
Can we somehow convince the Liberals to replace Trudeau with Wilson-Raybould before the election? I feel like this would solve a lot of problems.
I'm ready for Trudeau to receive his hard-earned comeuppance, but boy howdy do I not want Nightmare Prime Minister Scheer.
posted by rustyiron at 9:15 AM on February 17, 2019 [23 favorites]
I'm ready for Trudeau to receive his hard-earned comeuppance, but boy howdy do I not want Nightmare Prime Minister Scheer.
posted by rustyiron at 9:15 AM on February 17, 2019 [23 favorites]
Cat Lake First Nation: We're fuckin' dying here.
Trudeau: But we lifted that drinking water advisory.
Cat Lake First Nation: We're talking about black mould.
Seamus O'Reagan: Sorry, busy with PR tour. Maybe I'll visit sometime to see if you're making this up or not! Meanwhile, bask in the radiance of my capacity for being an incompetent jackoff. But hey, male privilege has ensured I'm gonna be alright in this here cabinet.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:18 AM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
Trudeau: But we lifted that drinking water advisory.
Cat Lake First Nation: We're talking about black mould.
Seamus O'Reagan: Sorry, busy with PR tour. Maybe I'll visit sometime to see if you're making this up or not! Meanwhile, bask in the radiance of my capacity for being an incompetent jackoff. But hey, male privilege has ensured I'm gonna be alright in this here cabinet.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:18 AM on February 17, 2019 [9 favorites]
SNC Lavalin has a distinguished history of lawless behaviour. I'm astonished that the Libs are dumb enough to play footsie with them.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 11:12 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 11:12 AM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
"difficult to get along with” translated from the original "reminds us we're breaking laws and ethical codes and isn't gonna let us slide by like we're used to doing"
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:58 AM on February 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:58 AM on February 17, 2019 [7 favorites]
Paywalled articles can usually be read by passing the URL with http://outline.com in front of it, and it also creates a shortcut URL, so the G&M article for example becomes:
https://outline.com/Rh4rNP
This should work with both the G&M and WSJ at a minimum.
posted by northtwilight at 12:00 PM on February 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
https://outline.com/Rh4rNP
This should work with both the G&M and WSJ at a minimum.
posted by northtwilight at 12:00 PM on February 17, 2019 [8 favorites]
Whoops apologies, the URL example was for the last G&M article, sorry for being unclear
posted by northtwilight at 12:02 PM on February 17, 2019
posted by northtwilight at 12:02 PM on February 17, 2019
As an employee of a multi-national company that stresses the critical importance to the business of lawful behavior, and imposes mandatory training on avoiding bribery and other illegal/unethical behavior for all employees, even those with no direct exposure to affected business practices, the very existence of a company like SNC appalls me.
Actually, I'm not sure which I'm more appalled by: the company or the way Wilson-Raybaud was treated.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by either.
posted by lhauser at 12:33 PM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
Actually, I'm not sure which I'm more appalled by: the company or the way Wilson-Raybaud was treated.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by either.
posted by lhauser at 12:33 PM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
The excellent newish CBC podcast Front Burner has two episodes (and probably more to come!) on this scandal that offer a succinct introduction to what is going on:
* Catching up on the SNC-Lavalin Liberal Scandal (aired Feb 11th)
* A widening scandal and SNC-Lavalin's history of alleged corruption (aired Feb 13th)
posted by kmkrebs at 1:52 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
* Catching up on the SNC-Lavalin Liberal Scandal (aired Feb 11th)
* A widening scandal and SNC-Lavalin's history of alleged corruption (aired Feb 13th)
posted by kmkrebs at 1:52 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile old people refuse to vote for the NDP because... god knows
I'm not that old (born in the 70s), but refuse to vote federal NDP 100% because of their stance on pipelines and the energy industry. We can leave Canadian oil in the ground, but we're still going to consume 2 million barrels a day (with all the GHG emissions that entails), we'll just be enriching some other country while doing it. I'm not employed in that industry or dependent on it, but I do live in Alberta.
Pharma/dental/eyecare, subsidized daycare, higher taxes, all the rest of it - sign me up.
Next election I will probably grit my teeth and vote for the barely electable Liberal Kent Hehr. I will probably end up with a Conservative MP.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:13 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'm not that old (born in the 70s), but refuse to vote federal NDP 100% because of their stance on pipelines and the energy industry. We can leave Canadian oil in the ground, but we're still going to consume 2 million barrels a day (with all the GHG emissions that entails), we'll just be enriching some other country while doing it. I'm not employed in that industry or dependent on it, but I do live in Alberta.
Pharma/dental/eyecare, subsidized daycare, higher taxes, all the rest of it - sign me up.
Next election I will probably grit my teeth and vote for the barely electable Liberal Kent Hehr. I will probably end up with a Conservative MP.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:13 PM on February 17, 2019 [2 favorites]
The Liberal stance on pipelines isn't much better than the NDP's, given that the Liberals bought a pipeline project last year to make sure it got built.
posted by clawsoon at 2:16 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 2:16 PM on February 17, 2019 [1 favorite]
To be clear, I agree with the Liberals and want it built.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:25 PM on February 17, 2019
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:25 PM on February 17, 2019
Ah, fair enough. Seems like Singh is 50/50 on pipelines at this point.
posted by clawsoon at 2:30 PM on February 17, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 2:30 PM on February 17, 2019
God, will these fucking idiots never learn? Should have had such an easy ride and they're just handing it to the conservatives.
posted by rodlymight at 6:03 PM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by rodlymight at 6:03 PM on February 17, 2019 [3 favorites]
An interesting connection here. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is currently on trial for leaking information regarding shipbuilding contracts. He's been arguing in court that the PMO's office is effectively overseeing his prosecution. Given the SNC-Lavellin scandal the idea that the PMO's office is trying to run prosecutions got a lot more credible.
Also relevant: I wonder who runs the Canada file in China? Because I'd be horribly tempted to put out a sharply worded note about the Meng Wanzhou case, as it looks like Justin's rhetoric about the rule of law may be a weeeeee bit hypocritical, if the PMO's office is trying to directly run every politically significant prosecution.
posted by Grimgrin at 6:40 PM on February 17, 2019
Also relevant: I wonder who runs the Canada file in China? Because I'd be horribly tempted to put out a sharply worded note about the Meng Wanzhou case, as it looks like Justin's rhetoric about the rule of law may be a weeeeee bit hypocritical, if the PMO's office is trying to directly run every politically significant prosecution.
posted by Grimgrin at 6:40 PM on February 17, 2019
Seriously? I'm horrified by the silence (silencing?) of Wilson-Raybould, and I badly want her to talk. But I'm skeptical of much of the reading of this, because 1) this feels less like corruption and more like the classic back-room politicking that goes on under every Canadian government of any stripe and 2) because the Conservative take on this REALLY reminds me of their hyping of the Gomery report -- the !!SCANDAL!! that brought down the Martin government and then promptly disappeared, leaving us with a decade of Harper.
I've heard this particular overture before, and it doesn't sound any better the second time.
posted by jrochest at 8:39 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
I've heard this particular overture before, and it doesn't sound any better the second time.
posted by jrochest at 8:39 PM on February 17, 2019 [6 favorites]
I wouldn't say that AdScam "disappeared". Two people went to prison. Heads of multiple federal agencies were fired.
Gomery was kinda biased against Chretien and kinda biased toward Paul Martin, and the courts recognized that. Other than that minor caveat, it was a scandal.
posted by clawsoon at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Gomery was kinda biased against Chretien and kinda biased toward Paul Martin, and the courts recognized that. Other than that minor caveat, it was a scandal.
posted by clawsoon at 7:00 AM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Butts leaves PMO immediately.
This issue seem to be getting worse and more confusing. I have a bad feeling about how it's going play out in the next election.
posted by sardonyx at 11:18 AM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
This issue seem to be getting worse and more confusing. I have a bad feeling about how it's going play out in the next election.
posted by sardonyx at 11:18 AM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
The portents are ominous.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:08 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 1:08 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Is there an equivalent to Butts LOL, but with a nauseating mixture of fury and deep dread instead of the LOL?
posted by maudlin at 1:20 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by maudlin at 1:20 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Andrew Scheer's bedtime prayer right about now: "Dear Jesus, Please keep the mouths of my candidates shut so they don't say stupid shit and we can win the next election by default. But, dear Lord, if the prince of evil tempts any of them to open their mouths, please move them with Your Spirit to join Maxime's party first. In Your Name, amen."
posted by clawsoon at 1:23 PM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 1:23 PM on February 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
minority government on the way, I suspect, whoever "wins". Which is what should have happened last time. And, if we're all way luckier than we deserve, a coalition forms around mandated electoral reform.
posted by philip-random at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2019
posted by philip-random at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2019
An interesting connection here. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is currently on trial for leaking information regarding shipbuilding contracts. He's been arguing in court that the PMO's office is effectively overseeing his prosecution. Given the SNC-Lavellin scandal the idea that the PMO's office is trying to run prosecutions got a lot more credible.
Recall also that Scott Brison remains entangled in the Norman affair, and that fact may or may not have contributed to his resignation earlier this year. While I think that Trudeau and the PMO's horrible treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould will the most politically damaging in terms of popular opinion, it may yet be the Norman trial that ultimately gets the PMO into the most legal trouble.
posted by Kabanos at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2019
Recall also that Scott Brison remains entangled in the Norman affair, and that fact may or may not have contributed to his resignation earlier this year. While I think that Trudeau and the PMO's horrible treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould will the most politically damaging in terms of popular opinion, it may yet be the Norman trial that ultimately gets the PMO into the most legal trouble.
posted by Kabanos at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2019
Oh, and – can we just have new leadership conventions for all three parties please?
posted by Kabanos at 2:32 PM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 2:32 PM on February 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
I wonder who runs the Canada file in China? Because I'd be horribly tempted to put out a sharply worded note about the Meng Wanzhou case, as it looks like Justin's rhetoric about the rule of law may be a weeeeee bit hypocritical
China doesn't even have to be the one to point out the connection. They can just reprint Canadian editorials and cartoons. It will be a minor PR victory for China (though I don't think it will move the dial on Canada's position on Wanzhou).
posted by Kabanos at 2:48 PM on February 18, 2019
China doesn't even have to be the one to point out the connection. They can just reprint Canadian editorials and cartoons. It will be a minor PR victory for China (though I don't think it will move the dial on Canada's position on Wanzhou).
posted by Kabanos at 2:48 PM on February 18, 2019
Also relevant: I wonder who runs the Canada file in China?
Well McCallum is out... and also McCallum tweeted some praise for the work Wilson Raybould did with Philpott.
posted by chapps at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2019
Well McCallum is out... and also McCallum tweeted some praise for the work Wilson Raybould did with Philpott.
posted by chapps at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2019
Alvy Ampersand: "If the silly knob had followed through on electoral reform he probably wouldn't be in the position of becoming a one-stroke joke."
Yep. An agreement to split a little power with the NDP would have given the Liberals the sort of lock on the government they think they deserve instead of alternating power at best with the "bad-ists" on the right.
posted by Mitheral at 5:30 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yep. An agreement to split a little power with the NDP would have given the Liberals the sort of lock on the government they think they deserve instead of alternating power at best with the "bad-ists" on the right.
posted by Mitheral at 5:30 PM on February 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Butts leaves PMO immediately.
Put another way, Butts just got tossed out on his ass.
posted by New Frontier at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2019
Put another way, Butts just got tossed out on his ass.
posted by New Frontier at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2019
Mitheral: Yep. An agreement to split a little power with the NDP would have given the Liberals the sort of lock on the government they think they deserve instead of alternating power at best with the "bad-ists" on the right.
As anyone who lived through the '90s knows, the Liberals are not naturally a party of the left. They are a party of the centre, wherever that centre might be in a given decade.
posted by clawsoon at 5:33 AM on February 19, 2019
As anyone who lived through the '90s knows, the Liberals are not naturally a party of the left. They are a party of the centre, wherever that centre might be in a given decade.
posted by clawsoon at 5:33 AM on February 19, 2019
So Butts quit so that he could... better defend himself? speak more freely? I guess? ...but isn't the reason that nobody is speaking up supposedly solicitor-client privilege, and if Butts leaves the PMO doesn't that mean he has to respect the confidentiality of the PMO and won't be able to speak up?
Like, if he were to reveal Cabinet or PMO secrets now, without being part of an internal agreement to reveal them, wouldn't that be a major breach of trust?
None of this was thought through very well. Paul Wells was on the radio yesterday saying that this government prides itself on its talent at communication, but they now have their first moderately complicated story and they keep falling on their faces in the communication department. They've never had to deal with a communication challenge like this before, and they have no idea what they're doing.
It's like they watched Chretien and they know they have to give somebody a Shawinigan Handshake to make this all go away, but they just don't know who.
posted by clawsoon at 5:54 AM on February 19, 2019
Like, if he were to reveal Cabinet or PMO secrets now, without being part of an internal agreement to reveal them, wouldn't that be a major breach of trust?
None of this was thought through very well. Paul Wells was on the radio yesterday saying that this government prides itself on its talent at communication, but they now have their first moderately complicated story and they keep falling on their faces in the communication department. They've never had to deal with a communication challenge like this before, and they have no idea what they're doing.
It's like they watched Chretien and they know they have to give somebody a Shawinigan Handshake to make this all go away, but they just don't know who.
posted by clawsoon at 5:54 AM on February 19, 2019
Headline award to Macleans:
The hole that Gerry Butts leaves behind
posted by Kabanos at 6:38 AM on February 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
The hole that Gerry Butts leaves behind
posted by Kabanos at 6:38 AM on February 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
clawsoon: "As anyone who lived through the '90s knows, the Liberals are not naturally a party of the left. They are a party of the centre, wherever that centre might be in a given decade."
Sure, wasn't meaning to imply they were anything but. But being the party of the centre they would naturally be everyone's second choice. IE: hard to imagine a lot of NDP voters checking the PCs as their second choice and vice versa.
posted by Mitheral at 12:37 PM on February 19, 2019
Sure, wasn't meaning to imply they were anything but. But being the party of the centre they would naturally be everyone's second choice. IE: hard to imagine a lot of NDP voters checking the PCs as their second choice and vice versa.
posted by Mitheral at 12:37 PM on February 19, 2019
Mitheral: But being the party of the centre they would naturally be everyone's second choice. IE: hard to imagine a lot of NDP voters checking the PCs as their second choice and vice versa.
Interesting. I guess growing up in rural Alberta, where the Liberals were anathema, both the NDP and the... let's call it the Diefenbaker wing of the PCs, or the Reform Party - were seen as populist, anti-elitist options. It wasn't so much that the Liberals were in the centre between the PCs and the NDP as that the Liberals represented Eastern bankers and industrialists and bureaucrats. I guess that has changed to some degree lately, as the Conservatives have captured virtually all of the Prairie populist vote.
posted by clawsoon at 1:26 PM on February 19, 2019
Interesting. I guess growing up in rural Alberta, where the Liberals were anathema, both the NDP and the... let's call it the Diefenbaker wing of the PCs, or the Reform Party - were seen as populist, anti-elitist options. It wasn't so much that the Liberals were in the centre between the PCs and the NDP as that the Liberals represented Eastern bankers and industrialists and bureaucrats. I guess that has changed to some degree lately, as the Conservatives have captured virtually all of the Prairie populist vote.
posted by clawsoon at 1:26 PM on February 19, 2019
Paul Wells was on the radio yesterday saying that this government prides itself on its talent at communication, but they now have their first moderately complicated story and they keep falling on their faces in the communication department. They've never had to deal with a communication challenge like this before, and they have no idea what they're doing.
They are honestly garbage at communicating (Almost as bad as Harper, who didn't communicate at all) only most of Canadian media spent the Liberal's first year jerking off over socks so they never really noticed. Then Trump was elected so they spent the second year jerking off over our crazy Southern cousins. Plus for almost half of this Parliament both major opposition parties were neutered by leadership races, so there was very little real accountability to be found anywhere on Parliament Hill.
The Liberals are the political equivalent of me coasting through school because I had a relatively good vocabulary, so shit, I must have been a smart kid with substance, right?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:10 PM on February 19, 2019
They are honestly garbage at communicating (Almost as bad as Harper, who didn't communicate at all) only most of Canadian media spent the Liberal's first year jerking off over socks so they never really noticed. Then Trump was elected so they spent the second year jerking off over our crazy Southern cousins. Plus for almost half of this Parliament both major opposition parties were neutered by leadership races, so there was very little real accountability to be found anywhere on Parliament Hill.
The Liberals are the political equivalent of me coasting through school because I had a relatively good vocabulary, so shit, I must have been a smart kid with substance, right?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:10 PM on February 19, 2019
clawsoon: " Liberals were anathema"
Ya, the National Energy Policy has lost Alberta for the Liberals for at least a couple generations (Albertans who weren't even born during that period have a serious hate on for it and the Liberal party). Electoral reform isn't going to change that one way or another.
It's all the races elsewhere in the country where the conservative candidate received 40% of the vote but won that the Liberals could be picking up (or at least denying to the Conservatives with an NDP win).
posted by Mitheral at 10:54 PM on February 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
Ya, the National Energy Policy has lost Alberta for the Liberals for at least a couple generations (Albertans who weren't even born during that period have a serious hate on for it and the Liberal party). Electoral reform isn't going to change that one way or another.
It's all the races elsewhere in the country where the conservative candidate received 40% of the vote but won that the Liberals could be picking up (or at least denying to the Conservatives with an NDP win).
posted by Mitheral at 10:54 PM on February 19, 2019 [1 favorite]
I am not a Trudeau fan but I'm not clear how this was a scandal to begin with. For political/economic/big picture reasons the PM wanted to give SNC-Lavalin a deal. It isn't in his direct authority to do so and he leaned on the AG, and by extension the Director of Public Prosecutions, to get this deal and they decided to stay firm. He then shuffled the AG out to Veterans Affairs which he can do. I don't know if he's tried to get the new AG to give SNC-Lavalin a deal but as PM he can rotate out AGs until he finds one that is willing to play ball.
I also don't get the need to give SNC-Lavalin a deal. I'd imagine that if they are convicted and banned from government contracts then a good chunk of their workforce will just be acquired by some other big engineering company and the work will still get done.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:30 AM on February 20, 2019
I also don't get the need to give SNC-Lavalin a deal. I'd imagine that if they are convicted and banned from government contracts then a good chunk of their workforce will just be acquired by some other big engineering company and the work will still get done.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:30 AM on February 20, 2019
he leaned on the AG, and by extension the Director of Public Prosecutions
That's the part which, if it happened, is the scandal. The executive should not be leaning on prosecutors in specific cases.
It would've been worse if they had caved, but even the attempt to influence is not good. Like, if one person offers a bribe, and the other person refuses it, you've still got somebody offering bribes.
posted by clawsoon at 12:18 PM on February 20, 2019
That's the part which, if it happened, is the scandal. The executive should not be leaning on prosecutors in specific cases.
It would've been worse if they had caved, but even the attempt to influence is not good. Like, if one person offers a bribe, and the other person refuses it, you've still got somebody offering bribes.
posted by clawsoon at 12:18 PM on February 20, 2019
I wouldn't compare it to a bribe though. The Liberals enacted legislation to allow these deals to happen, seemingly with SNC-Lavalin in mind. Then after going through all of the legislative legwork Trudeau gets rebuffed by his own AG. The AG, Wilson-Raybould, should have told Trudeau that she wasn't going to give SNC-Lavalin a deal much earlier on in the process so that he could, for example, appoint an AG who would. For all I know she did and Trudeau decided against dropping her then because he thought he could win her over. This still doesn't come across as a scandal to me, just poor execution.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:42 PM on February 20, 2019
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:42 PM on February 20, 2019
The law wasn't passed so much "with SNC-Lavalin in mind" as it was that SNC-Lavalin lobbied hard for this law, dozens of meetings (though none, apparently, with the justice department), and assurances to their shareholders that the law was coming and would save them.
There an interesting extended discussion here (video, TVO, about 30 minutes long) with multiple perspectives on the law and on SNC-Lavalin. One of the most interesting bits is from the comment section:
posted by clawsoon at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
There an interesting extended discussion here (video, TVO, about 30 minutes long) with multiple perspectives on the law and on SNC-Lavalin. One of the most interesting bits is from the comment section:
One of the mysteries about this case is that SNC Lavalin laboured so mightily to get the Trudeau regime to stick deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) legislation into the federal budget, but that the actual law did not seem to help them avoid prosecution. To qualify for a DPA a corporation might voluntarily provide the information that would lead to its prosecution, but SNC Lavalin didn’t do that in the Libya case, which involved it in paying $48M in bribes to Libyan officials and defrauding Libyan organizations of $130M. Nor has it accepted corporate responsibility for these actions, also a condition for a DPA. Finally, its size as Canada’s largest engineering and construction firm is of no help to it as the law specifically excludes the “national interest” as a consideration for the prosecutor in deciding whether to offer a DPA.Interesting that you don't see political interference in the judicial process as a problem. Were you raised in a different legal tradition, where that isn't seen, as it is in most Western judicial systems, as a very bad thing?
posted by clawsoon at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
I also don't get the need to give SNC-Lavalin a deal. I'd imagine that if they are convicted and banned from government contracts then a good chunk of their workforce will just be acquired by some other big engineering company and the work will still get done.
The problem is that the new firm won't be based in Montreal and led by French Canadians; I don't think there's another Quebec firm large enough to take over SNC-Lavalin. This will cause much angst in Quebec, because it reminds us of the pre-Quiet Revolution days, when almost all large businesses in the province had English-speaking owners and leaders. Quebec, inc. is an important constituent for the Liberals and for the Quebec government, so threats to one of its "crown jewels" is going to be taken very seriously.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2019
The problem is that the new firm won't be based in Montreal and led by French Canadians; I don't think there's another Quebec firm large enough to take over SNC-Lavalin. This will cause much angst in Quebec, because it reminds us of the pre-Quiet Revolution days, when almost all large businesses in the province had English-speaking owners and leaders. Quebec, inc. is an important constituent for the Liberals and for the Quebec government, so threats to one of its "crown jewels" is going to be taken very seriously.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2019
Where do laws come from? Does Justin Trudeau wake up one morning and say to himself "I think corporations in Canada should be able to enter into deferred prosecution agreements like they do elsewhere"? No, he gets lobbied. Just like he was lobbied when he decided to make marijuana legalization a campaign promise (which seems like a pretty clear case of political interference in whatever marijuana prosecutions were underway as well as decisions to lay charges). He likely already wasn't against these laws and I'm sure he ran it by his people and did some polling on it to make sure it wouldn't tank his electability but lawmaking is by and large a lobbying-driven process. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the DPA legislation so Parliament had the authority to enact it. That it didn't serve its intended purpose speaks to poor execution.
Interesting that you don't see political interference in the judicial process as a problem. Were you raised in a different legal tradition, where that isn't seen, as it is in most Western judicial systems, as a very bad thing?
I'm going to read this as charitably as possible because we're all Mefites here and as a non-white lawyer I should be used to comments like that. I was born in Toronto and grew up in its suburbs so this is the tradition I've always known. I'd like to think I'm aware of how our judicial process works too. Thinking of it as something impartial existing outside of politics and political interference doesn't match my experience of it but then what would I know.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
Interesting that you don't see political interference in the judicial process as a problem. Were you raised in a different legal tradition, where that isn't seen, as it is in most Western judicial systems, as a very bad thing?
I'm going to read this as charitably as possible because we're all Mefites here and as a non-white lawyer I should be used to comments like that. I was born in Toronto and grew up in its suburbs so this is the tradition I've always known. I'd like to think I'm aware of how our judicial process works too. Thinking of it as something impartial existing outside of politics and political interference doesn't match my experience of it but then what would I know.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2019 [1 favorite]
any portmanteau in a storm: "which seems like a pretty clear case of political interference in whatever marijuana prosecutions were underway as well as decisions to lay charges"
If that sort of thing is wrong it seems like a politician could never have repealing a law as a policy plank. That's a pretty scary road to head down as I'd like to see pull back on a lot of issues.
posted by Mitheral at 10:03 PM on February 20, 2019
If that sort of thing is wrong it seems like a politician could never have repealing a law as a policy plank. That's a pretty scary road to head down as I'd like to see pull back on a lot of issues.
posted by Mitheral at 10:03 PM on February 20, 2019
any portmanteau in a storm: I'm going to read this as charitably as possible because we're all Mefites here and as a non-white lawyer I should be used to comments like that. I was born in Toronto and grew up in its suburbs so this is the tradition I've always known. I'd like to think I'm aware of how our judicial process works too. Thinking of it as something impartial existing outside of politics and political interference doesn't match my experience of it but then what would I know.
Apologies for my comment, and you obviously know more about the judicial process than me. If you were a prosecutor, and you were called up by the mayor and asked to go light on his buddy because his buddy runs an important business, wouldn't that seem wrong to you? Or is that the normal course of business and I have a naive Boy-Scout view of all this?
posted by clawsoon at 4:26 AM on February 21, 2019
Apologies for my comment, and you obviously know more about the judicial process than me. If you were a prosecutor, and you were called up by the mayor and asked to go light on his buddy because his buddy runs an important business, wouldn't that seem wrong to you? Or is that the normal course of business and I have a naive Boy-Scout view of all this?
posted by clawsoon at 4:26 AM on February 21, 2019
(Or is that hypothetical not an equivalent to what the PMO is alleged to have done?)
posted by clawsoon at 5:39 AM on February 21, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 5:39 AM on February 21, 2019
In your mayor example it does seem wrong to me*. It just doesn't seem equivalent because the DPA legislation was passed in Parliament. At that point it isn't a backroom deal anymore.
I'd love to know when the AG decided she wouldn't go along with the PM on this. If she had argued against DPAs from the get-go then this whole "scandal" is entirely down to the PM because he should have dropped her well before it became a problem. If she went along with things and then decided not to give a deal at the very end then it is a pretty big F-you to the PM - which I could understand because I can only imagine how tough it must be for her to answer to a lightweight like Justin Trudeau.
*Of course our former mayor was seen on video smoking crack and known to drive while intoxicated but no prosecution came out of it. Our newspaper of record alleged that our current premier was a drug dealer and nothing came of that either. If Michael Bryant wasn't who he is would his case have at least gone to trial? There very much is one rule for the powerful and another for the rest of us.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:13 PM on February 21, 2019
I'd love to know when the AG decided she wouldn't go along with the PM on this. If she had argued against DPAs from the get-go then this whole "scandal" is entirely down to the PM because he should have dropped her well before it became a problem. If she went along with things and then decided not to give a deal at the very end then it is a pretty big F-you to the PM - which I could understand because I can only imagine how tough it must be for her to answer to a lightweight like Justin Trudeau.
*Of course our former mayor was seen on video smoking crack and known to drive while intoxicated but no prosecution came out of it. Our newspaper of record alleged that our current premier was a drug dealer and nothing came of that either. If Michael Bryant wasn't who he is would his case have at least gone to trial? There very much is one rule for the powerful and another for the rest of us.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:13 PM on February 21, 2019
any portmanteau in a storm: In your mayor example it does seem wrong to me*. It just doesn't seem equivalent because the DPA legislation was passed in Parliament. At that point it isn't a backroom deal anymore.
To me it seems like if you want a law to apply to a specific company, you write that company into the law, and that gets debated in Parliament. If you don't write a specific company in, you're passing a law for the judicial system to apply equally* to all.
If she went along with things and then decided not to give a deal at the very end then it is a pretty big F-you to the PM
As I understand it, her department wasn't lobbied at all, and it isn't clear how much (or whether) she was consulted on it in the first place. It didn't go through any justice committees, and was put into a budget bill along with a whole bunch of other stuff.
I've been wondering if she was seen as "difficult to work with" all along by the mutual-back-scratch types in the PMO, and they knew not to bring up "we expect you to apply this to SNC-Lavalin" until the law was passed and they figured they had a fait accompli. That's pure speculation on my part. I can see that if you're making the opposite speculation - that she was in on the game all along - it would lead you to very different conclusion about her actions.
*With your caveat about how equal the judicial system actually is.
posted by clawsoon at 1:14 PM on February 21, 2019
To me it seems like if you want a law to apply to a specific company, you write that company into the law, and that gets debated in Parliament. If you don't write a specific company in, you're passing a law for the judicial system to apply equally* to all.
If she went along with things and then decided not to give a deal at the very end then it is a pretty big F-you to the PM
As I understand it, her department wasn't lobbied at all, and it isn't clear how much (or whether) she was consulted on it in the first place. It didn't go through any justice committees, and was put into a budget bill along with a whole bunch of other stuff.
I've been wondering if she was seen as "difficult to work with" all along by the mutual-back-scratch types in the PMO, and they knew not to bring up "we expect you to apply this to SNC-Lavalin" until the law was passed and they figured they had a fait accompli. That's pure speculation on my part. I can see that if you're making the opposite speculation - that she was in on the game all along - it would lead you to very different conclusion about her actions.
*With your caveat about how equal the judicial system actually is.
posted by clawsoon at 1:14 PM on February 21, 2019
New info from the Globe and Mail, via northtwilight's outline.com trick:
Once prosecutors decided in early September to move to trial, Ms. Wilson-Raybould told cabinet she felt it was wrong for anyone – including the Prime Minister, members of his staff and other government officials – to raise the issue with her, the source said. Another source added that Ms. Wilson-Raybould would not budge from her position at the cabinet meeting.posted by clawsoon at 3:00 PM on February 21, 2019
To me this seems a pretty critical question of whether AG/prosecutorial independence was compromised. It would certainly be scandalous if we find out politicians are directing prosecutions!
There is nothing wrong with the DPA law, but companies fighting charges are not automatically entitled to a DPA. In this case it seems SNC may not even qualify under the rules of the DPA law, but even if they do, it's at the Prosecutor's discretion (not the AG's, and certainly not the PMO's or PM's) whether to enter into such an agreement. If they the AG wanted to overturn the prosecutor's decision, she would have to do so publicly in writing (from what I understand). I think it has been a very rare occurrence.
A couple of good links:
Craig Forcese, a law prof at U of Ottawa, lays out in some detail some of the legal issues at play here. It's from Feb 9th, so a fair bit has happened since then, but it's still worth a read. He describes explains AG and prosecutorial independence, and describes how how critical it is that they operate with full independence from the political pressures of the government. A post on SLAW by Patricia Hughes is also a worthwhile read that looks a bit more of the bigger picture.
Both make the interesting point that if inappropriate pressure or direction was given, an AG's response would be expected to be resignation, and it's curious why JWR chose not to do that until after the cabinet shuffle. I'm eager to hear from JWR on what happened and why she chose a different route.
posted by Kabanos at 3:00 PM on February 21, 2019
There is nothing wrong with the DPA law, but companies fighting charges are not automatically entitled to a DPA. In this case it seems SNC may not even qualify under the rules of the DPA law, but even if they do, it's at the Prosecutor's discretion (not the AG's, and certainly not the PMO's or PM's) whether to enter into such an agreement. If they the AG wanted to overturn the prosecutor's decision, she would have to do so publicly in writing (from what I understand). I think it has been a very rare occurrence.
A couple of good links:
Craig Forcese, a law prof at U of Ottawa, lays out in some detail some of the legal issues at play here. It's from Feb 9th, so a fair bit has happened since then, but it's still worth a read. He describes explains AG and prosecutorial independence, and describes how how critical it is that they operate with full independence from the political pressures of the government. A post on SLAW by Patricia Hughes is also a worthwhile read that looks a bit more of the bigger picture.
Both make the interesting point that if inappropriate pressure or direction was given, an AG's response would be expected to be resignation, and it's curious why JWR chose not to do that until after the cabinet shuffle. I'm eager to hear from JWR on what happened and why she chose a different route.
posted by Kabanos at 3:00 PM on February 21, 2019
A longer quote from the newest Globe and Mail article:
posted by clawsoon at 3:11 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
According to a source with knowledge of the cabinet discussions, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said the director of the prosecution service rejected a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin based on how the law applies to the company’s case. The Liberal government had changed the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecutions in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Under Canada’s new deferred-prosecution agreement law, prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company.Bob Fyfe must have a very friendly friend in the Liberal caucus to get this info out of the confidential meeting they had on Tuesday.
Mr. Trudeau has acknowledged he raised concerns about the economic impact that a conviction could have on SNC-Lavalin when he met privately with the then-justice minister and attorney-general on Sept. 17, two weeks after the director of public prosecutions decided to move toward a trial.
The fact that prosecutors had already informed the Quebec company of its decision before the meeting between Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould meant the only remaining question was whether the attorney-general would override federal prosecutors and publicly instruct them to cut a deal. When Ms. Wilson-Raybould asked the Prime Minister to clarify if he was directing her to order a settlement, Mr. Trudeau said he told her the decision to direct prosecutors to settle with SNC-Lavalin was hers alone to make.
A Liberal source, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said SNC-Lavalin was looking for a way out of the prosecution and warned on Sept. 18 that the Montreal-based engineering and construction giant might have to move to Britain or that it could face a takeover bid.
The discussions about the fate of SNC did not end for weeks. The Prime Minister’s former principal secretary, Mr. Butts, who had met with representatives of SNC-Lavalin, also discussed the possibility of a deferred prosecution agreement with Ms. Wilson-Raybould on Dec. 5 in the restaurant of the Château Laurier hotel.
Once prosecutors decided in early September to move to trial, Ms. Wilson-Raybould told cabinet she felt it was wrong for anyone – including the Prime Minister, members of his staff and other government officials – to raise the issue with her, the source said. Another source added that Ms. Wilson-Raybould would not budge from her position at the cabinet meeting.
The Liberal source said government officials had also proposed an outside panel of legal experts to recommend a solution to the SNC-Lavalin issue, but Ms. Wilson-Raybould rejected the suggestion.
SNC-Lavalin mounted an intense campaign to persuade the Liberal government to reach a deferred-prosecution agreement after the director of public prosecutions decided on Sept. 4, to continue with a criminal prosecution over the company’s business dealings in Libya.
The day after the Prime Minister’s meeting with Ms. Wilson-Raybould, SNC-Lavalin representatives met Finance Minister Bill Morneau and chief of staff Ben Chin. They also met separately with Michael Wernick, the Privy Council Clerk, the country’s top civil servant.
posted by clawsoon at 3:11 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
Hey clawsoon, I'm coming around to your idea that the PM didn't really raise SNC-Lavalin with the AG* when they were drafting the legislation and just figured she'd go along with things once it was in place. Stupid. If he went to her first and said "this is the result we need for SNC-Lavalin, how do we get there?" then if she gives him a solution he's set because it already satisfies whatever requirements she has and so it'll be a certainty to go through (unless she decides to screw him at the end) and if she doesn't give him one then he can shuffle her off a year ago while it is all in the realm of hypotheticals.
*She still had to have known that was what the DPA legislation was for but maybe she was hoping to kick the issue further down the road just like the PM was.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2019
*She still had to have known that was what the DPA legislation was for but maybe she was hoping to kick the issue further down the road just like the PM was.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2019
Summary timeline:
September 4th, director of public prosecutions decides to proceed with prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. Wilson-Raybould tells her colleagues that it's now wrong for them to raise the issue with her.
Next four months: "What if 'no' really means 'maybe'?"
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
September 4th, director of public prosecutions decides to proceed with prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. Wilson-Raybould tells her colleagues that it's now wrong for them to raise the issue with her.
Next four months: "What if 'no' really means 'maybe'?"
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
The PM's stance that he didn't direct the AG reminds me of how men will dance on the edge of sexual assault or harassment but not do the specific thing to actually cross the line. And then the woman will get blamed for whatever she does.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:30 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:30 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
I was about to say, "It would be interesting to know what signals she gave about the legislation and SNC-Lavalin as it was being drafted," but then, yeah... "She led us on! She didn't promise anything, but she was totally giving off signals!" would fit that ugly script a bit too well. Hopefully now that Trudeau has apologized for not condemning the sexism of the earlier anonymous insider smears he'll be awake enough to not go down that route.
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 4:42 PM on February 21, 2019 [1 favorite]
Public testimony from Michael Wernick, Privy Council Clerk:
Canada's most senior bureaucrat is disputing the allegations that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office pressed former minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to drop a criminal prosecution against SNC-Lavalin, saying that while it's likely she could have felt pressured, the question is whether it was "inappropriate."posted by clawsoon at 5:03 PM on February 21, 2019
...
For his part though, Wernick—who has been a public servant under both Liberal and Conservative governments over the last three decades—said he did not witness or exercise any inapropriate pressure, adding that he is quite confident that his view of the conversations he had with Wilson-Raybould on the matter were "lawful and appropriate," and part of vigorous debate internally.
He also offered that had she felt undue pressure, Wilson-Raybould could have gone to Trudeau, or the ethics commissioner, and she didn't.
If I'm reading this correctly, not only did they put pressure on her that they shouldn't have, they put pressure on her to violate the law they had just finished passing by urging her to take national economic considerations into account when the law specifically prohibits that.
If you want to think of this in terms of poor execution, there's some poor execution right there. Did the SNC-Lavalin lawyers who were rumored to havewritten advised on the law put "must not" into the wording when they meant to write "must"? Their whole lobbying and public relations push has been about how not getting a DPA will harm the national economic interest, which is the one thing that prosecutors must not consider.
Maybe their post-law-passage lobbying effort was so intense because they realized what a big boo-boo they'd made in the wording of the law.
I guess we'll see which view of the law the courts agree with once SNC-Lavalin's legal challenge over not getting a DPA is concluded.
The decision to replace Wilson-Raybould as Attorney General remains the murkiest part of this. The Globe and Mail doesn't seem to have anybody inside that inner circle who's willing to spill the beans.
posted by clawsoon at 3:01 AM on February 22, 2019
If you want to think of this in terms of poor execution, there's some poor execution right there. Did the SNC-Lavalin lawyers who were rumored to have
Maybe their post-law-passage lobbying effort was so intense because they realized what a big boo-boo they'd made in the wording of the law.
I guess we'll see which view of the law the courts agree with once SNC-Lavalin's legal challenge over not getting a DPA is concluded.
The decision to replace Wilson-Raybould as Attorney General remains the murkiest part of this. The Globe and Mail doesn't seem to have anybody inside that inner circle who's willing to spill the beans.
posted by clawsoon at 3:01 AM on February 22, 2019
Wernick's point is that policy discussions aren't improper and aren't covered by the prohibition on influencing prosecutions. JWR alone has an avenue to instruct the chief of prosecution to change their prosecutororial approach, by a public letter that has to go into the Canada Gazette. The AG retains the sole discretion to use that power. They cannot be instructed to do so by cabinet.
As far as I can tell from the testimony we have so far, as opposed to the media reports, the PMO (prime minister's office, lead by Butts) and the PCO (the Privy Council Office, lead by Wernick) went right up to that line, but did not cross it. I am not convinced that there is any evidence of a crime, indeed anything less than proper functioning of government in this exchange. This is elbows up politics, but it's not wrong, either criminally or ethically. When justice and economics clash, both sides can be considered, but ultimately the decision is the AG's. And that's what happened according to testimony so far.
Is there dirty politiking here? It seems so, obviously yes, from both the JWR and the JT/PMO factions. It's pretty clear to me that JT demoted her as a result of her decision. JWR or a close staffer then decided to go scorched earth and leak to G&M. JWR then resigned cabinet and claimed privilege. Which, I think, surprised the JT/PMO camp because, as this wasn't discussed at the cabinet table, they didn't think she had privilege.
We'll find out more when JWR testifies next week. I think she's honorable by her own lights and will certainly give her version of events, as she sees them. But I don't think we've seen actual evidence of wrong-doing at this point, as opposed to speculation and hot-house opinions.
posted by bonehead at 7:03 AM on February 22, 2019
As far as I can tell from the testimony we have so far, as opposed to the media reports, the PMO (prime minister's office, lead by Butts) and the PCO (the Privy Council Office, lead by Wernick) went right up to that line, but did not cross it. I am not convinced that there is any evidence of a crime, indeed anything less than proper functioning of government in this exchange. This is elbows up politics, but it's not wrong, either criminally or ethically. When justice and economics clash, both sides can be considered, but ultimately the decision is the AG's. And that's what happened according to testimony so far.
Is there dirty politiking here? It seems so, obviously yes, from both the JWR and the JT/PMO factions. It's pretty clear to me that JT demoted her as a result of her decision. JWR or a close staffer then decided to go scorched earth and leak to G&M. JWR then resigned cabinet and claimed privilege. Which, I think, surprised the JT/PMO camp because, as this wasn't discussed at the cabinet table, they didn't think she had privilege.
We'll find out more when JWR testifies next week. I think she's honorable by her own lights and will certainly give her version of events, as she sees them. But I don't think we've seen actual evidence of wrong-doing at this point, as opposed to speculation and hot-house opinions.
posted by bonehead at 7:03 AM on February 22, 2019
Just a minor (but important) point that JWR didn't manufacture privilege where it did not exist before. With solicitor-client privilege, it's a privilege that belongs only to the client (Government/Trudeau), and he alone can waive it, not her. He has insisted on not waiving either solicitor-client privilege or cabinet confidentiality to date, though he is supposedly consulting with the new AG about the extent of of that privilege. Trudeau also points out (rightly I think) that a complete waiving of privilege could unveil information that would certainly be used by SNC in their legal fight.
Not every single conversation that JWR had with others about SNC will be covered by s-c privilege. It will be interesting to see what advice she gets from her own counsel in this regard, and what she feels will be (1) legal to disclose, but also (2) appropriate to disclose, given that she would presumably not want to compromise the SNC case either. Another interesting question is whether Trudeau and Wernick's public comments to date in effect waive any portion of the confidentiality.
posted by Kabanos at 8:33 AM on February 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
Not every single conversation that JWR had with others about SNC will be covered by s-c privilege. It will be interesting to see what advice she gets from her own counsel in this regard, and what she feels will be (1) legal to disclose, but also (2) appropriate to disclose, given that she would presumably not want to compromise the SNC case either. Another interesting question is whether Trudeau and Wernick's public comments to date in effect waive any portion of the confidentiality.
posted by Kabanos at 8:33 AM on February 22, 2019 [2 favorites]
A decent timeline, based on what we have heard in terstimony in the CanadaPolitic subreddit here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/atigld/the_snc_scandal_a_potential_timeline/
My read is that this was fairly consistent with events. JT and JWR had an understanding about events, but Butts could well have have fucked everything up. That's why he resigned.
I suspect that there is an honest misunderstanding between Wilson-Raybould and the rest of cabinet between what was covered by privilege and what wasn't. Or at least enough of a grey area that reasonable people could disagree. And I think that's why she's being so careful here. My read though is that Cabinet and JT in particular were genuinely surprised by the initial claim.
Again, I think testimony next week by JWR will be really helpful in understanding all this.
posted by bonehead at 8:44 AM on February 22, 2019
https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/atigld/the_snc_scandal_a_potential_timeline/
My read is that this was fairly consistent with events. JT and JWR had an understanding about events, but Butts could well have have fucked everything up. That's why he resigned.
I suspect that there is an honest misunderstanding between Wilson-Raybould and the rest of cabinet between what was covered by privilege and what wasn't. Or at least enough of a grey area that reasonable people could disagree. And I think that's why she's being so careful here. My read though is that Cabinet and JT in particular were genuinely surprised by the initial claim.
Again, I think testimony next week by JWR will be really helpful in understanding all this.
posted by bonehead at 8:44 AM on February 22, 2019
Butts' resignation remain a puzzle as well.
My own unsubstantiated guesses are that he's either avoiding some future potential problems with either the SNC or Normal affair, or he realizes that he would get bogged down in that stuff regardless and will now be free to focus on strategy for the upcoming federal election.
If I'm in a really pessimistic mood I might think that, as a private citizen now, any further communications he makes about the SNC and/or Norman issues might not be as easy to subpoena? I'm not quite sure how that works.
posted by Kabanos at 8:45 AM on February 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
My own unsubstantiated guesses are that he's either avoiding some future potential problems with either the SNC or Normal affair, or he realizes that he would get bogged down in that stuff regardless and will now be free to focus on strategy for the upcoming federal election.
If I'm in a really pessimistic mood I might think that, as a private citizen now, any further communications he makes about the SNC and/or Norman issues might not be as easy to subpoena? I'm not quite sure how that works.
posted by Kabanos at 8:45 AM on February 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Butts, I think, is the architect of much of this mess. He's a smartish advisor on policy but he's a complete ass when it comes to communications. He's been a loose cannon on twitter for a while now, which is beyond stupid. I'd put much of the problems JT personally has been having with the media in general at Butt's feet. JT isn't half as clever as he thinks he is with the media generally, but Butt's overly partisan influence has not helped at all. I think this just may have been the latest in a series of problems he's caused.
posted by bonehead at 8:55 AM on February 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by bonehead at 8:55 AM on February 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Oh hey, a policy change that has been underway for some time may give SNC another out. Their lawyers and lobbyists must be paid extremely well.
Public Services and Procurement Canada is reviewing and finalizing changes to the ‘Ineligibility and Suspension Policy’ under the Integrity Regime — which governs whether corporations convicted of crimes can bid on federal projects. The proposed changes would give the government greater discretion to decide on whether a ban makes sense, and if so, an appropriate length of time.posted by Kabanos at 10:22 AM on February 22, 2019 [1 favorite]
Under current policy, SNC faces a possible 10-year ban from bidding on federal projects if convicted. … The PSPC said the updated policy is “being studied and finalized” and acknowledged there was no minimum period of suspension mandated under the proposed changes.
This DPA issue goes back a long time.
A few years ago HP was found guilty in the US of fraud and bribery in Russia. They were about to get a 10-year ban on contracting with the government, though they did manage to avoid that in the end. I'm not sure what deal was cut here, but HP is and was a major tech supplier to the government. Loss would have been crippling and very costly. They were also involved in a very shady deal with Defence in 2004, but avoided penalties then too.
SNC is hardly the first and certainly won't be the last company affected by this. The DPA laws (And similar penalties like the PSPC procurement policy) have been a longtime coming as the alternative historically is that companies generally avoid penalties all together, even with applicable laws and policies in place.
posted by bonehead at 10:59 AM on February 22, 2019
A few years ago HP was found guilty in the US of fraud and bribery in Russia. They were about to get a 10-year ban on contracting with the government, though they did manage to avoid that in the end. I'm not sure what deal was cut here, but HP is and was a major tech supplier to the government. Loss would have been crippling and very costly. They were also involved in a very shady deal with Defence in 2004, but avoided penalties then too.
SNC is hardly the first and certainly won't be the last company affected by this. The DPA laws (And similar penalties like the PSPC procurement policy) have been a longtime coming as the alternative historically is that companies generally avoid penalties all together, even with applicable laws and policies in place.
posted by bonehead at 10:59 AM on February 22, 2019
bonehead: A few years ago HP was found guilty in the US of fraud and bribery in Russia. They were about to get a 10-year ban on contracting with the government, though they did manage to avoid that in the end. I'm not sure what deal was cut here, but HP is and was a major tech supplier to the government. Loss would have been crippling and very costly.
I've been idly thinking about ways in which corporations have filled in for medieval aristocrats, and this is another one of them: Some of them are too important to the working of the system to be punished to the full extent of the law, so some way must be found to absolve them of their crimes after a token penance.
posted by clawsoon at 6:29 AM on February 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
I've been idly thinking about ways in which corporations have filled in for medieval aristocrats, and this is another one of them: Some of them are too important to the working of the system to be punished to the full extent of the law, so some way must be found to absolve them of their crimes after a token penance.
posted by clawsoon at 6:29 AM on February 24, 2019 [1 favorite]
The way this has played out so far reminds of the standard course of messaging about unethical U.S. intelligence programs:
Stage 1: Of course we didn't do that. Anyone who says we did is crazy.
Stage 2: We didn't do this other highly specific and completely illegal related thing which is not actually what we're being accused of.
Stage 3: Of course we did it. It was in the national interest. Anyone who says we shouldn't have is an idiot.
We reached Stage 3 with Wernick in a couple of weeks, as opposed to the years or decades this sort of messaging shift usually takes.
posted by clawsoon at 6:30 AM on February 24, 2019
Stage 1: Of course we didn't do that. Anyone who says we did is crazy.
Stage 2: We didn't do this other highly specific and completely illegal related thing which is not actually what we're being accused of.
Stage 3: Of course we did it. It was in the national interest. Anyone who says we shouldn't have is an idiot.
We reached Stage 3 with Wernick in a couple of weeks, as opposed to the years or decades this sort of messaging shift usually takes.
posted by clawsoon at 6:30 AM on February 24, 2019
One thing that has endeared me a bit to Trudeau in this is that he seems like he has no idea what he's doing when it comes to realpolitik and character assassination. He seems uncomfortable with it, something that he doesn't want to learn despite all the pressure that has no doubt been put on him by more experienced, cynical operatives. Even when he was throwing Raybould-Wilson under the bus, all he could manage was to repeat lines that had been fed to him by others.
That's a nice contrast from Harper, who had the political instincts of a mob boss.
posted by clawsoon at 7:34 AM on February 24, 2019
That's a nice contrast from Harper, who had the political instincts of a mob boss.
posted by clawsoon at 7:34 AM on February 24, 2019
The Globe and Mail keeps digging: Wilson-Raybould sought to limit PMO involvement in judicial appointments:
Jody Wilson-Raybould tried to limit the role of the Prime Minister’s Office in the judicial appointment process, sources have told The Globe and Mail, adding to an already tense standoff between the then-justice Minister and Justin Trudeau’s inner circle over the prosecution of engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.posted by clawsoon at 9:01 AM on February 25, 2019 [1 favorite]
After being named justice minister in 2015, Ms. Wilson-Raybould set about depoliticizing the way judges are appointed in Canada, giving greater independence to the seven-member screening committees, which rank candidates based on an extensive new questionnaire. Her judicial adviser until February of last year, Katie Black, said she was hired to bring a non-partisan point of view to the appointment process.
...
Ms. Black said Ms. Wilson-Raybould wanted to see judicial appointments based on merit, over the entire course of someone’s legal career, and not on political connections.
“What’s that person’s political background was never considered in the selection process,” she said.
But other sources said the PMO took exception to Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s decision to restrict the amount of information that was shared within the government on the various lawyers looking for a position on the bench. A specific point of contention was whether the PMO should have access to the confidential assessment of candidates provided by sitting judges, including the chief justices of the courts with vacancies to fill, the sources said.
Looks like Trudeau's better instincts finally won out:
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:posted by clawsoon at 4:24 AM on February 26, 2019
(a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and
(b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office.
However, in order to uphold the integrity of any criminal or civil proceedings, this authorization and waiver does not extend to any information or communications between the former Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning SNC-Lavalin.
I swear between the snow and the Cohen hearing and the upcoming Wilson-Raybould appearance before the committee, I'm not getting a darned thing done today. Apparently coverage starts at 3:30 Eastern if anybody wants to watch.
posted by sardonyx at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by sardonyx at 10:58 AM on February 27, 2019 [1 favorite]
Wow... WOW.
I don't if anyone was expecting quite this.
Wislon-Raybould is burning it all down. Cohen is backpage news in Canada tomorrow.
I think there will certainly be some more resignations around the PM. And even after that he will remain on shaky ground. I never thought I'd say this, but I hope they get more lawyers into those fresh vacancies in the PMO. This is shockingly sloppy behaviour (to lay the least), and regardless of party preference, for the sake of Canada we need some adults to come into the PMO and reinstitute some professionalism and integrity.
posted by Kabanos at 2:03 PM on February 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
I don't if anyone was expecting quite this.
Wislon-Raybould is burning it all down. Cohen is backpage news in Canada tomorrow.
I think there will certainly be some more resignations around the PM. And even after that he will remain on shaky ground. I never thought I'd say this, but I hope they get more lawyers into those fresh vacancies in the PMO. This is shockingly sloppy behaviour (to lay the least), and regardless of party preference, for the sake of Canada we need some adults to come into the PMO and reinstitute some professionalism and integrity.
posted by Kabanos at 2:03 PM on February 27, 2019 [3 favorites]
There she is schooling everyone on canadian law and indigenous law and ethics and damn can she just be in charge of everything please.
My respect for her escalates with every step she takes on this.
posted by chapps at 2:49 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
My respect for her escalates with every step she takes on this.
posted by chapps at 2:49 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
But also Randy Boissonnault (Liberal) is basically victim blaming right now on the stand. Dude. Have you not seen the the public reaction to previous comments like that from the Libs yet??
posted by chapps at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2019
posted by chapps at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2019
(for those not on the stream, he is saying "Did you not have a responsibility to tell the prime minister you were being pressured ... you disagreed ... etc" and (rudely) "My quesion is not why you did resign, my question is why didn't you resign before?")
posted by chapps at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2019
posted by chapps at 2:54 PM on February 27, 2019
Robert Benzie, Queen's Park Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star, points out in a tweet that Pierre Trudeau's walk in the snow was 35 years ago tomorrow.
posted by Kabanos at 2:55 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 2:55 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
If anyone is looking for more background and discussion the excellent podcast on Canadian criminal law, The Docket, has done two episodes on this so far and I'm sure will do another after today. They also deconstruct a lot of the spin that has been going on around DPAs.
On a side note, they also in this and previous episodes have gone into why JWR's time as Justice Minister has led to not much, and to some bad legislation. However, now that the extent of micro-managing and interference coming from the PMO has been revealed publicly I really wonder what has been going on behind the scenes on other policy issues.
posted by lookoutbelow at 5:49 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
On a side note, they also in this and previous episodes have gone into why JWR's time as Justice Minister has led to not much, and to some bad legislation. However, now that the extent of micro-managing and interference coming from the PMO has been revealed publicly I really wonder what has been going on behind the scenes on other policy issues.
posted by lookoutbelow at 5:49 PM on February 27, 2019 [2 favorites]
In case anyone is still looking here:
Specifically on the spin - this opinion piece in the Financial Post by Jennifer Quaid (law professor) and Emilie Taman (host of The Docket, former prosecutor, NDP candidate) discusses the misconceptions being pushed about the DPAs/remediation agreements.
In particular, they reiterate:
- the national interest (i.e. jobs jobs jobs) is barred as a consideration under the legislation for whether to grant an agreement (I wish the endless mob on Twitter stating that it is entirely appropriate for the PMO to intervene to protect jobs would contend with this. If they wanted to consider it, they should have put it in the law!)
- there was no consultation specifically on the remediation agreements, and the committees in the house felt unable to scrutinize the measures as they were buried in a budget bill
- there are a number of deficiencies in the legislation that could have been avoided with more scrutiny
Andrew Coyne, who is typically strong on the institutional aspects of Parliament, had a straightforward take on why this is so damning.
I saw Lisa Raitt (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) and Murray Rankin (NDP justice critic) vociferously agreeing on Power and Politics yesterday that the issue is not whether their parties support a remediation agreement for SNC but that that decision is supposed to be made by prosecutors in their independent discretion based on the law. Not only are they right, but the fact that they agree so strongly is indicative of the fact that this is serious. Both have been very strong on the Justice Committee questioning.
It's also important to note that despite ENDLESS claims by Liberal hacks (and the Prime Minister) that this is all a matter for the ethics commissioner, this is beyond the ethics commissioner's purvue. The ethics commissioner focuses on conflict of interest, specifically on parliamentarians' own economic interests. For all the boring details, see this academic article from March 2018 on the role of the ethics commissioner. Additionally, even if the ethics commissioner makes findings of facts on the matter, it will be ages before that happens, they are notoriously slow. We need a public inquiry.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:32 AM on February 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Specifically on the spin - this opinion piece in the Financial Post by Jennifer Quaid (law professor) and Emilie Taman (host of The Docket, former prosecutor, NDP candidate) discusses the misconceptions being pushed about the DPAs/remediation agreements.
In particular, they reiterate:
- the national interest (i.e. jobs jobs jobs) is barred as a consideration under the legislation for whether to grant an agreement (I wish the endless mob on Twitter stating that it is entirely appropriate for the PMO to intervene to protect jobs would contend with this. If they wanted to consider it, they should have put it in the law!)
- there was no consultation specifically on the remediation agreements, and the committees in the house felt unable to scrutinize the measures as they were buried in a budget bill
- there are a number of deficiencies in the legislation that could have been avoided with more scrutiny
Andrew Coyne, who is typically strong on the institutional aspects of Parliament, had a straightforward take on why this is so damning.
I saw Lisa Raitt (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) and Murray Rankin (NDP justice critic) vociferously agreeing on Power and Politics yesterday that the issue is not whether their parties support a remediation agreement for SNC but that that decision is supposed to be made by prosecutors in their independent discretion based on the law. Not only are they right, but the fact that they agree so strongly is indicative of the fact that this is serious. Both have been very strong on the Justice Committee questioning.
It's also important to note that despite ENDLESS claims by Liberal hacks (and the Prime Minister) that this is all a matter for the ethics commissioner, this is beyond the ethics commissioner's purvue. The ethics commissioner focuses on conflict of interest, specifically on parliamentarians' own economic interests. For all the boring details, see this academic article from March 2018 on the role of the ethics commissioner. Additionally, even if the ethics commissioner makes findings of facts on the matter, it will be ages before that happens, they are notoriously slow. We need a public inquiry.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:32 AM on February 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
- the national interest (i.e. jobs jobs jobs) is barred as a consideration under the legislation for whether to grant an agreement (I wish the endless mob on Twitter stating that it is entirely appropriate for the PMO to intervene to protect jobs would contend with this. If they wanted to consider it, they should have put it in the law!)
THIS. I've been annoyed at how often the press reports someone's comments about the goal of protecting jobs, without also pointing out that that has been never an appropriate reason, under the current law, to take the DPA route.
Separate from a public inquiry, some have suggested that a criminal investigation is also appropriate (even those apart from Sheer, because of course he would). I'm not sure which would actually be better for the country.
posted by Kabanos at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2019
THIS. I've been annoyed at how often the press reports someone's comments about the goal of protecting jobs, without also pointing out that that has been never an appropriate reason, under the current law, to take the DPA route.
Separate from a public inquiry, some have suggested that a criminal investigation is also appropriate (even those apart from Sheer, because of course he would). I'm not sure which would actually be better for the country.
posted by Kabanos at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2019
What would be the criminal element of this? It seems like they went right up to the edge of that but not over. Wilson-Raybould said as much in her testimony. The system in that regard seems to have worked: JWR stood her ground, and that stuck.
There's some really nakedly self-serving politics that were revealed, and a nasty fight happening in cabinet, but I don't, as yet see evidence for criminal wrong-doing.
posted by bonehead at 11:48 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
There's some really nakedly self-serving politics that were revealed, and a nasty fight happening in cabinet, but I don't, as yet see evidence for criminal wrong-doing.
posted by bonehead at 11:48 AM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
There's been some interesting legal analysis elsewhere, on the Canadian subreddits.
The Shawcross Doctrine, is, of course, the heart of this, but the SCC opinion in Kreiger v Law Society of Alberta seems to also apply:
There is, IMO, a definite case for a constitutional argument here, as outlined by the Court above, but it's hard to find a criminal statue that might apply.
posted by bonehead at 1:46 PM on March 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Shawcross Doctrine, is, of course, the heart of this, but the SCC opinion in Kreiger v Law Society of Alberta seems to also apply:
The quasi-judicial function of the Attorney General cannot be subjected to interference from parties who are not as competent to consider the various factors involved in making a decision to prosecute. To subject such decisions to political interference, or to judicial supervision, could erode the integrity of our system of prosecution. Clearly drawn constitutional lines are necessary in areas subject to such grave potential conflict.Full decision here.
There is, IMO, a definite case for a constitutional argument here, as outlined by the Court above, but it's hard to find a criminal statue that might apply.
posted by bonehead at 1:46 PM on March 1, 2019 [3 favorites]
IANAL, but some ex-attorneys general (mostly conservatives mind you) have suggested a couple of possible criminal acts worth investigating:
posted by Kabanos at 2:17 PM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
“Per section 139(2) of the Criminal Code, it is prohibited to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice,” the letter read.
“We believe there are reasonable and probable grounds to suspect that the conduct of the Prime Ministers’ Office has crossed that threshold.”
The group also cited 423.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits attempts to intimidate the Attorney General.
posted by Kabanos at 2:17 PM on March 1, 2019 [1 favorite]
This is Scheer's argument, of course: "I was sickened and appalled by [Wilson-Raybould's] story of inappropriate and, frankly, borderline illegal pressure brought to bear on her by the highest levels of Justin Trudeau's government."
The smart thing to do probably would be to call in the RCMP to give an opinion on this, given that I suspect they don't think they've done anything criminally wrong. Let's see if they do it.
posted by bonehead at 2:35 PM on March 1, 2019
The smart thing to do probably would be to call in the RCMP to give an opinion on this, given that I suspect they don't think they've done anything criminally wrong. Let's see if they do it.
posted by bonehead at 2:35 PM on March 1, 2019
The significance of Jody Wilson-Raybould invoking Indigenous 'Big House' laws:
Rarely are Indigenous laws invoked on Parliament Hill, but that's exactly what happened this week when Jody Wilson-Raybould cited core values shaped by "a long line of matriarchs" in front a House of Commons justice committee.posted by clawsoon at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2019
Observers say it's resonating deeply in Indigenous communities, with some including legal scholar Christina Gray suggesting Wilson-Raybould's assertion of First Nation principles as her guidepost is a "pivotal" moment in Indigenous-Canadian relations.
"All lawyers are talking about this right now and definitely Indigenous people are talking about this from all different walks of life," says the masters of law candidate at the University of Victoria, a Ts'msyen member of Lax Kw'alaams near Prince Rupert, B.C., who was born and raised in Vancouver.
"There's not an Indigenous person that's not thinking about this issue right now."
An interview with former judge, etc. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond:
...there were Liberal members of the committee blaming her, somehow, for having an ethical lapse, when she actually stood up for the rule of law and was fired. This is a case of a removal of a prosecutor. This isn't a cabinet shuffle. This is firing your prosecutor because your prosecutor won't go along with you and your team that feels a particular case should go another way.Another interview with her:
It's unprecedented in Canada.
What I did hear her say was that after the company took a case and filed it in the court to review the decision of the prosecutor, and then they continued to aggressively lobby her, at that point it may have crossed the line into obstruction of justice under the Criminal Code. I'm not saying it did; I'm saying it may have crossed the line.On the question of whether she should've resigned if she felt she was being put under inappropriate pressure:
If she stepped down because of the pressure, then she would give way to the pressure, and that's not appropriate. You need to stand up in defense of the rule of law. It would appear to me - it seems rational based on what we've heard - that she in fact was fired as our chief prosecutor. So the idea that she should've resigned, well, why should she have resigned? It's her job to actually defend the rule of law. Which she apparently did, and she was removed. ...posted by clawsoon at 4:49 PM on March 3, 2019 [2 favorites]
The idea that she had to resign - that's not really consistent with the legal principles at play here. I understand it would be for another cabinet minister, but not when you are in fact the one defending the rule of law...
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond also mentioned the Shawcross Doctrine in the second interview I linked:
Every public official has to point to the lawful authority for their conduct. They pointed to this obscure British doctrine called the Shawcross Convention. I don't think it's a very reliable basis to cover what they've done. I think it's pretty flimsy, in fact.posted by clawsoon at 4:57 PM on March 3, 2019
bonehead: The smart thing to do probably would be to call in the RCMP to give an opinion on this, given that I suspect they don't think they've done anything criminally wrong. Let's see if they do it.
At this point they're probably not sure themselves whether they followed the law (though they'd never admit that - can you imagine a politician saying "maybe I broke the law?"), and calling the RCMP in is a pretty big gamble to take in an election year.
But what's not a gamble for the Liberals right now?
posted by clawsoon at 5:02 PM on March 3, 2019
At this point they're probably not sure themselves whether they followed the law (though they'd never admit that - can you imagine a politician saying "maybe I broke the law?"), and calling the RCMP in is a pretty big gamble to take in an election year.
But what's not a gamble for the Liberals right now?
posted by clawsoon at 5:02 PM on March 3, 2019
Wilson-Raybould said in her testimony that the government kept raising the idea that she might be "nervous" and "not be sure" and why doesn't she get an eminent person to advise her and we can line up editorials so that everybody will say you did a good job, and she kept saying, no, I know what I'm talking about and I've made my decision. They were asking her to treat herself as a child who needed hand-holding from adults.
There's so much history of women and Indigenous people being treated as children that it's like they didn't even pause to think about their unconscious biases. Of course she'll be nervous and unsure, they seemed to be thinking, that's the default state of children being given a big important job, and we'll have to reassure her and calm her down (and if that doesn't work we just bulldoze her), as obviously she has no idea how to confidently wield power. They didn't think to themselves that maybe they were making that assumption because of centuries of women being treated as the child sex and Indigenous people being treated as child races.
They definitely didn't think to themselves that she would dynamite that assumption in testimony to the justice committee. There is a power to facts stated calmly and principles adhered to firmly, and KABOOM she wielded that power with confidence.
I was struck by her statement about the importance to herself as an Indigenous person of the fair application of the law because so many Indigenous people have been harmed by the unfair application of the law. To the PMO, it was about "debating legalities" and getting in the way of a "finding a solution". To Wilson-Raybould, it was about fragile, critical lines that protect the weak from the strong.
Is it weird to say that I found her testimony inspiring?
posted by clawsoon at 3:25 AM on March 4, 2019
There's so much history of women and Indigenous people being treated as children that it's like they didn't even pause to think about their unconscious biases. Of course she'll be nervous and unsure, they seemed to be thinking, that's the default state of children being given a big important job, and we'll have to reassure her and calm her down (and if that doesn't work we just bulldoze her), as obviously she has no idea how to confidently wield power. They didn't think to themselves that maybe they were making that assumption because of centuries of women being treated as the child sex and Indigenous people being treated as child races.
They definitely didn't think to themselves that she would dynamite that assumption in testimony to the justice committee. There is a power to facts stated calmly and principles adhered to firmly, and KABOOM she wielded that power with confidence.
I was struck by her statement about the importance to herself as an Indigenous person of the fair application of the law because so many Indigenous people have been harmed by the unfair application of the law. To the PMO, it was about "debating legalities" and getting in the way of a "finding a solution". To Wilson-Raybould, it was about fragile, critical lines that protect the weak from the strong.
Is it weird to say that I found her testimony inspiring?
posted by clawsoon at 3:25 AM on March 4, 2019
No, I did too, clawsoon. For nothing else than the fact that someone in a position of trust and power decided to hold firm to a principle of the laws applying to everyone, and that the justice system should run independent of politics (it feels refreshing, actually; it shouldn't, but there it is). Our institutions are only as good as the people running them - we are watching the proof of that in the States - and to see someone make a clear stand and statement feels good.
This is a hell of a weird scandal, really, in that we're talking about the removal of a cabinet minister for her position on whether or not a prosecution should move forward. I think Yaffe really overstates things in her column here, but she also has a point - JWR's decision has stood, SNC-Lavalin is still facing prosecution (and frankly, I think it would be even more of an act of political suicide to defer things now), and the Prime Minister has a right to have who he wants in cabinet and JWR has a right to decide if she wants to be in that cabinet. Really, though, this isn't about the decision, but the fact that it looks like the pressure was more about the political consequences for the Liberal party than anything else is what makes this stink.
Back when the election happened, I remember thinking that while it was good to have the Conservatives out of power, but that the Liberals have their own history of arrogance and corruption. Silly me, I figured we'd get at least through the next election cycle before that started biting them on the ass.
posted by nubs at 10:54 AM on March 4, 2019
This is a hell of a weird scandal, really, in that we're talking about the removal of a cabinet minister for her position on whether or not a prosecution should move forward. I think Yaffe really overstates things in her column here, but she also has a point - JWR's decision has stood, SNC-Lavalin is still facing prosecution (and frankly, I think it would be even more of an act of political suicide to defer things now), and the Prime Minister has a right to have who he wants in cabinet and JWR has a right to decide if she wants to be in that cabinet. Really, though, this isn't about the decision, but the fact that it looks like the pressure was more about the political consequences for the Liberal party than anything else is what makes this stink.
Back when the election happened, I remember thinking that while it was good to have the Conservatives out of power, but that the Liberals have their own history of arrogance and corruption. Silly me, I figured we'd get at least through the next election cycle before that started biting them on the ass.
posted by nubs at 10:54 AM on March 4, 2019
Jane Philpott just resigned from Cabinet.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:15 PM on March 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 12:15 PM on March 4, 2019 [3 favorites]
Wow.
I had the same thoughts about Liberal history, nubs, but I think Philpott's letter gets it in a way that Yaffe's column doesn't. This isn't a scandal where people are dying or envelopes of cash are being exchanged, true. It's closer to a constitutional crisis. More King-Byng than Walkerton. The unwritten parts of the constitution that are mentioned in the 1867 BNA are being wrestled over here. In some ways less serious than dirty money or dirty water; in some ways more serious.
posted by clawsoon at 12:34 PM on March 4, 2019
I had the same thoughts about Liberal history, nubs, but I think Philpott's letter gets it in a way that Yaffe's column doesn't. This isn't a scandal where people are dying or envelopes of cash are being exchanged, true. It's closer to a constitutional crisis. More King-Byng than Walkerton. The unwritten parts of the constitution that are mentioned in the 1867 BNA are being wrestled over here. In some ways less serious than dirty money or dirty water; in some ways more serious.
posted by clawsoon at 12:34 PM on March 4, 2019
Yeah, I didn't like Yaffe's column - she's right in terms of what the details about the concrete things that have happened or not happened are, but she misses the larger question, which is around the integrity of the system. It's not the surface details that matter here, at all, and I think the overall reaction shows that.
posted by nubs at 12:41 PM on March 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by nubs at 12:41 PM on March 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Liberal backbencher says he’s purchased new smartphone just in case Trudeau’s call didn’t go through. (Walking Eagle News)
posted by Kabanos at 1:07 PM on March 4, 2019
posted by Kabanos at 1:07 PM on March 4, 2019
Jane Philpott resigned from her job as Treasury Board president. A few weeks ago, Scott Brison resigned from exactly the same job. There is no evidence that the two resignations are connected, but that still seems a little weird.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on March 4, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on March 4, 2019
Steven MacKinnon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility, manages to drop a quotable line on TV that SNC Lavalin is "entitled" to a DPA. I get that he was trying to say something a little different, that SNC ought to have access to DPAs the way similar companies do in other countries. But that still misses the larger point/problem. And "entitled" is what will be repeated now in the headlines, reinforcing the opposition's narrative. The PMOs messaging is just an ongoing car wreck.
posted by Kabanos at 3:46 PM on March 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Kabanos at 3:46 PM on March 4, 2019 [1 favorite]
Oof. I'm sure that after a couple of years of friendly and persuasive SNC Lavalin lobbying there are a lot of people in the government who sincerely do believe that SNC is entitled to it, and who have no idea how bad it sounds to the rest of us.
I forget in which of the links it was mentioned, but somebody said that the international standard for DPAs is - as with Canada's - to make national economic interest invalid as a consideration so that countries aren't tempted to let their own companies off the hook while punishing foreign companies. The Liberals seem to be having trouble with the spirit, letter, and constitutional niceties of this law.
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on March 4, 2019
I forget in which of the links it was mentioned, but somebody said that the international standard for DPAs is - as with Canada's - to make national economic interest invalid as a consideration so that countries aren't tempted to let their own companies off the hook while punishing foreign companies. The Liberals seem to be having trouble with the spirit, letter, and constitutional niceties of this law.
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on March 4, 2019
One thing we know is that SNC-Lavalin has asked the courts to decide whether they are entitled to a DPA even though the DPP turned them down. That's something Wilson-Raybould mentioned a few times in her testimony. Does anybody have any idea where that part of the court case is at, or what evidence and arguments have been submitted on either side? I've had no luck finding anything so far.
posted by clawsoon at 4:34 PM on March 4, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 4:34 PM on March 4, 2019
Kabanos: "Walking Eagle News"
What a great name for an Indigenous satire paper. Though contrary to the Snopes link I've heard first nations people give some white guys the nick name "Walking Eagle"; though they generally aren't shy in that case from telling the nick name holder what it references. IE: it isn't a subtle in-joke rather full on mockery where they want the target to know.
posted by Mitheral at 5:10 PM on March 4, 2019
What a great name for an Indigenous satire paper. Though contrary to the Snopes link I've heard first nations people give some white guys the nick name "Walking Eagle"; though they generally aren't shy in that case from telling the nick name holder what it references. IE: it isn't a subtle in-joke rather full on mockery where they want the target to know.
posted by Mitheral at 5:10 PM on March 4, 2019
Any clue what the protesters were riled up about at Trudeau's speech today? I couldn't quite make out what they were shouting, and the one sign I did see didn't make any sense to me (I think it said pig trial--or something to that effect).
posted by sardonyx at 6:08 PM on March 4, 2019
posted by sardonyx at 6:08 PM on March 4, 2019
The effect on polling numbers has not been good for the Liberals, especially in the 905 swing ridings. In addition, 73 per cent of Liberals (!) agree that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate.
A couple of interesting thoughts on the importance of diversity:
Tristin Hopper: Ironically, the Trudeau government ended up providing a shining example of the importance of diversity this week. These scandals were much easier to get away with when cabinets were all Laurentian blue-bloods who had gone to the same university. JWR has a support network that is completely divorced from typical Liberal circles. She knows she can betray the party line without becoming a social and familial outcast. She spent last weekend among family in coastal BC, and they were presumably telling her to do the right thing. Imagine if her weekend had been spent in Montreal or Toronto dodging angry stares from high school friends.
Erin Tolley: If you’re going to recruit somebody into politics because they bring this different perspective, then you have to be prepared that they are going to push back against some of these conventions, and they might say things that aren’t always falling into line. Because (if you’re) going to capitalize on having diverse representation in your cabinet, having diverse representation in your caucus, really promoting all that you’ve done to get women and racialized people into politics, then you need to be prepared that the institution you are bringing them into is going to have to change a bit.
posted by clawsoon at 12:28 PM on March 5, 2019
A couple of interesting thoughts on the importance of diversity:
Tristin Hopper: Ironically, the Trudeau government ended up providing a shining example of the importance of diversity this week. These scandals were much easier to get away with when cabinets were all Laurentian blue-bloods who had gone to the same university. JWR has a support network that is completely divorced from typical Liberal circles. She knows she can betray the party line without becoming a social and familial outcast. She spent last weekend among family in coastal BC, and they were presumably telling her to do the right thing. Imagine if her weekend had been spent in Montreal or Toronto dodging angry stares from high school friends.
Erin Tolley: If you’re going to recruit somebody into politics because they bring this different perspective, then you have to be prepared that they are going to push back against some of these conventions, and they might say things that aren’t always falling into line. Because (if you’re) going to capitalize on having diverse representation in your cabinet, having diverse representation in your caucus, really promoting all that you’ve done to get women and racialized people into politics, then you need to be prepared that the institution you are bringing them into is going to have to change a bit.
posted by clawsoon at 12:28 PM on March 5, 2019
Apologies in advance, I'm not sure this is the right place to post this but the fucking fuck thread seems to be more for personal stuff and there really seems to be no other place to talk Canadian politics on the site. If this is the wrong place I'm happy to go elsewhere.
The SNC-Lavalin affair has convinced me of two things: first, that Justin Trudeau has no business running government, if for the sole reason that he's now painted an enormous target on the Liberals that will likely destroy them in the next election. Like, I'd argue that Kathleen Wynne didn't do this badly in Ontario and even Liberal supporters tended to agree that she'd put the party in a bad place. The second item is the corollary, which is that without the governing party able to win re-election and an NDP that seems to be slowly disintegrating, we are essentially doomed to government under a Conservative government that looked at the Harper era and thought, you know what we needed? More white supremacy.
Is there anything salvageable from this? I've heard some people float the idea of Trudeau resigning and the Liberals returning with Philpott or Chrystia Freeland as leader, but that seems borderline ridiculous to me even as it becomes the one hope I cling to. All I know for sure is there is no way SNC-Lavalin could ever have been worth this, to Trudeau, to Quebec, to anyone.
posted by chrominance at 4:38 PM on March 5, 2019
The SNC-Lavalin affair has convinced me of two things: first, that Justin Trudeau has no business running government, if for the sole reason that he's now painted an enormous target on the Liberals that will likely destroy them in the next election. Like, I'd argue that Kathleen Wynne didn't do this badly in Ontario and even Liberal supporters tended to agree that she'd put the party in a bad place. The second item is the corollary, which is that without the governing party able to win re-election and an NDP that seems to be slowly disintegrating, we are essentially doomed to government under a Conservative government that looked at the Harper era and thought, you know what we needed? More white supremacy.
Is there anything salvageable from this? I've heard some people float the idea of Trudeau resigning and the Liberals returning with Philpott or Chrystia Freeland as leader, but that seems borderline ridiculous to me even as it becomes the one hope I cling to. All I know for sure is there is no way SNC-Lavalin could ever have been worth this, to Trudeau, to Quebec, to anyone.
posted by chrominance at 4:38 PM on March 5, 2019
I am not yet convinced that the real story is the scandal -- I think we need more information to determine that there was real illegality in terms of pressure on JWR, or that she was demoted as punishment for refusing to yield. I think those things are likely, but we cannot make that call just as yet -- those who do know the inside story have taken it extremely seriously.
The story for me, as of this moment, is that the shine is definitely off Trudeau. We got a glimpse of how the sausage is made, and it was the same old same old. 'Sunny Ways' was nothing but a line, it's business as usual, Trudeau's professed feminism and commitment to indigenous peoples open to real question.
More than that, the deeper we get into this, it becomes ever clearer that Trudeau is not particularly skilled at his job. He's no master politician or tactician. There has only been a series of missteps, even when he still had Gerry Butts' help. It's an existential problem, going straight to the Tories' claim that 'he's just not ready'. The old partisan line is becoming truth. Does Justin have the skills of his father? Of Chretien? Of Mulroney? Hardly.
But all *that* said, the cawing of Scheer and the Tories is driving me absolutely bonkers. As if they wouldn't have been even more beholden to corporate interests, as if they would have the integrity to bring this out into the open to some degree.
I don't know where this is headed. Before Justin showed up, the extinction of the Liberal party was a real possibility. Perhaps he didn't revive it at all, perhaps he just gave it a second wind. Only a second wind never lasts.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:21 PM on March 5, 2019
The story for me, as of this moment, is that the shine is definitely off Trudeau. We got a glimpse of how the sausage is made, and it was the same old same old. 'Sunny Ways' was nothing but a line, it's business as usual, Trudeau's professed feminism and commitment to indigenous peoples open to real question.
More than that, the deeper we get into this, it becomes ever clearer that Trudeau is not particularly skilled at his job. He's no master politician or tactician. There has only been a series of missteps, even when he still had Gerry Butts' help. It's an existential problem, going straight to the Tories' claim that 'he's just not ready'. The old partisan line is becoming truth. Does Justin have the skills of his father? Of Chretien? Of Mulroney? Hardly.
But all *that* said, the cawing of Scheer and the Tories is driving me absolutely bonkers. As if they wouldn't have been even more beholden to corporate interests, as if they would have the integrity to bring this out into the open to some degree.
I don't know where this is headed. Before Justin showed up, the extinction of the Liberal party was a real possibility. Perhaps he didn't revive it at all, perhaps he just gave it a second wind. Only a second wind never lasts.
posted by Capt. Renault at 9:21 PM on March 5, 2019
Is there anything salvageable from this? I've heard some people float the idea of Trudeau resigning and
next election will hopefully leave us with a minority government. No clear winner. Young Justin will either show he's his father's son and find his resilience (feels unlikely) or there will be a new Lib leader before the end of 2019.
But what do I know?
posted by philip-random at 9:34 PM on March 5, 2019
next election will hopefully leave us with a minority government. No clear winner. Young Justin will either show he's his father's son and find his resilience (feels unlikely) or there will be a new Lib leader before the end of 2019.
But what do I know?
posted by philip-random at 9:34 PM on March 5, 2019
My guess is that the Liberals will delay the election for a year (shouldn't be difficult with a majority government, in spite of the hew and cry the opposition will raise, unless the party goes into total meltdown), beat the nothingburger drum for a while (they already have pundits on board for that), and hope that something else comes up and Canadians forget.
If they're lucky, the election will go back to the carbon fight that both Scheer and Trudeau were spoiling for before this came along.
If they're unlucky, Trudeau will remain fixated on the idea that SNC-Lavalin must have a DPA and ram something through that lets SNC-Lavalin off the hook. Lord help the Liberals if he does that.
===
The singularity will occur if they get the Trans Mountain pipeline construction started while simultaneously campaigning on lowering greenhouse gases; surely then the universe will divide by zero and give us Prime Minister Elizabeth May.
===
I remember reading during the last election that a lot of work was done with Trudeau to get rid of his speechifying voice and get him talking more naturally. I notice that the speechifying voice is back in full force with every statement he makes about SNC-Lavalin or Jody Wilson-Raybould. Has that been creeping back in for a while, or has this issue turned it on especially?
posted by clawsoon at 3:44 AM on March 6, 2019
If they're lucky, the election will go back to the carbon fight that both Scheer and Trudeau were spoiling for before this came along.
If they're unlucky, Trudeau will remain fixated on the idea that SNC-Lavalin must have a DPA and ram something through that lets SNC-Lavalin off the hook. Lord help the Liberals if he does that.
===
The singularity will occur if they get the Trans Mountain pipeline construction started while simultaneously campaigning on lowering greenhouse gases; surely then the universe will divide by zero and give us Prime Minister Elizabeth May.
===
I remember reading during the last election that a lot of work was done with Trudeau to get rid of his speechifying voice and get him talking more naturally. I notice that the speechifying voice is back in full force with every statement he makes about SNC-Lavalin or Jody Wilson-Raybould. Has that been creeping back in for a while, or has this issue turned it on especially?
posted by clawsoon at 3:44 AM on March 6, 2019
There's an argument that the Conservatives were tangled up in something just as dirty in the Norman affair that Grimgrin and Kabanos mentioned upthread. But instead of yelling about Conservative corruption, the Liberals "grudgingly approved the deal" a few weeks after they took office. I don't know what to make of that.
posted by clawsoon at 3:57 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 3:57 AM on March 6, 2019
Trudeau's verbal porridge and serene smile have carried him along. Until now: Neil Macdonald "He either doesn't think the public deserves a straight answer, or just isn't capable of delivering one."
Go on, Neil. Tell us what you really think.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:12 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Go on, Neil. Tell us what you really think.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:12 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
"...a lot of work was done with Trudeau to get rid of his speechifying voice and get him talking more naturally."
I prefer the speechifying voice, myself, as vapid as it is. When he talks naturally, he always sounds like the kid in seminar who didn't do the required reading, parroting the lines of everyone who did.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:33 AM on March 6, 2019
I prefer the speechifying voice, myself, as vapid as it is. When he talks naturally, he always sounds like the kid in seminar who didn't do the required reading, parroting the lines of everyone who did.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:33 AM on March 6, 2019
I just started listening to Butts. The question that May just asked suggests that Butts is saying that Wilson-Raybould lied. Something about how he doesn't believe what she said about Wernick because false things were said about him. Is that what he is arguing?
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on March 6, 2019
I think there's a lot of people at the G&M itching to take this government down. They broke the original story. Their editorial pages have kicked into high gear Nelson Muncing "Ha Ha!" for a straight week now. It really unusual to see all of their op-ed columnists saying exactly the same thing---there's clearly been an editorial call here. Even the PostMedia properties are taking more of a wait and see approach.
posted by bonehead at 9:24 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by bonehead at 9:24 AM on March 6, 2019
I just started listening to Butts. The question that May just asked suggests that Butts is saying that Wilson-Raybould lied. Something about how he doesn't believe what she said about Wernick because false things were said about him. Is that what he is arguing?
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on March 6
I only managed to catch about two minutes of this (thanks, deadline!) but that seems to be the approach he took to answering one of Lisa Raitt's questions as well. Not, so much that she was lying, but he didn't believe what she said happened actually happened, but since he wasn't there for it, he can't know for sure.
I'm really frustrated that I can't watch this live.
posted by sardonyx at 9:37 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 9:22 AM on March 6
I only managed to catch about two minutes of this (thanks, deadline!) but that seems to be the approach he took to answering one of Lisa Raitt's questions as well. Not, so much that she was lying, but he didn't believe what she said happened actually happened, but since he wasn't there for it, he can't know for sure.
I'm really frustrated that I can't watch this live.
posted by sardonyx at 9:37 AM on March 6, 2019
Here's Butts' opening statement, and a comparison between Butts' and Wilson-Raybould's accounts of the December 5 and December 18 meetings.
Butts describes the disagreement over SNC-Lavalin from his point of view: he says he was surprised to hear that from the Attorney-General's point of view, the final decision was made by September 16, and that it was improper for the rest of government to keep lobbying her about it.
When you don't know someone's motives, the Wikipedia guideline is "assume good faith." This was a pretty clear sign that the relationship had broken down - there was no trust.
So now it's in the court of public opinion. The former AG is saying that she was subjected to heavy pressure over SNC-Lavalin, and when she refused to change her mind, she was replaced as AG. The PM's former chief advisor is saying that he didn't know she regarded her decision on SNC-Lavalin as final, and that she misinterpreted Trudeau's motives in making the January cabinet shuffle.
(Disclaimer: I volunteered for Wilson-Raybould in Vancouver-Granville in 2015, and I strongly support Liberal policies, especially the national climate plan, so I find the current conflict pretty painful.)
posted by russilwvong at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
Butts describes the disagreement over SNC-Lavalin from his point of view: he says he was surprised to hear that from the Attorney-General's point of view, the final decision was made by September 16, and that it was improper for the rest of government to keep lobbying her about it.
I am not a lawyer, and cannot give legal advice. But I have extensive experience in government. When 9,000 people’s jobs are at stake, it is a public policy problem of the highest order. It was our obligation to exhaustively consider options the law allows, and to be forthright with people in explaining the Attorney-General’s decision, in order to be able to demonstrate that the decision was taken with great care in careful consideration of their livelihoods.His account of the January cabinet shuffle is particularly interesting, because to me, that's where things broke down. With Brison leaving, Philpott (vice-president of Treasury Board) needed to move from Indigenous Services to Treasury. Trudeau was worried about this being perceived as a downgrading of the indigenous file, so moving Wilson-Raybould from Justice to Indigenous Services was intended to be a signal that it was still vital.
We learned last week that the Director of Public Prosecutions made her decision not to pursue a remediation agreement on Sept. 4, and that the Attorney-General was out of the country until Sept. 12. In that version of events, the Attorney-General made the final decision after weighing all of the public interest matters involved in just 12 days.
Imagine for a moment that on Sept. 16, the day the former attorney-general told this committee the decision was made, firmly and finally, that she made a public announcement to inform Canadians of that decision. What would be the rationale?
There’s another important point here. I learned for the first time while watching the former attorney-general’s testimony that she had made a final decision on the 16th of September.
My understanding is that nobody in the PMO or PCO knew that at the time either. In fact, it is not to my knowledge how the law works. My understanding, which was informed by the public service and lawyers in the PMO, is that the Attorney-General’s power to direct the DPP extends until the time a verdict is rendered. My further understanding is that the Attorney-General is free to take advice on the decision until that point, and is obligated to bring fresh eyes to new evidence.
[Brison's departure] left us two large challenges that could not be solved with one person. We needed a Nova Scotia minister and a Treasury Board chair with ministerial experience. No Nova Scotian except Mr. Regan had been a minister before, and he is the Speaker of the House of Commons. All signs pointed to Minister [Jane] Philpott moving to Treasury Board. She had been vice-chair, so she had the experience to do the job.But Wilson-Raybould interpreted the shuffle as Trudeau replacing her as AG, because of the disagreement over SNC-Lavalin. Butts attempted to convince her otherwise (Wilson-Raybould referred to this in her appearance), but failed.
The Prime Minister agreed with this, but he was worried about the signal it would send to Indigenous people. This, to me, is the saddest part of this whole story. Indigenous people have been sent precisely the opposite message from the one the Prime Minister intended.
The most valuable thing in any government is the first minister’s time. The Prime Minister spends a lot of his on Indigenous issues. A lot. He cares about the relationship deeply, and he takes a strong personal interest in all aspects of the file. He was preoccupied with the fact that we had the Child and Family Services legislation coming up. He thought it would be one of the most important bills the government would pass.
He wanted a person in Indigenous Services who would send a strong signal that the work would keep going at the same pace, and that the file would have the same personal prominence for him. He also wanted to move someone who could be replaced from outside of cabinet, to keep the shuffle small and contained.
The right (and perhaps only) person who could do that was Minister Wilson-Raybould.
When you don't know someone's motives, the Wikipedia guideline is "assume good faith." This was a pretty clear sign that the relationship had broken down - there was no trust.
So now it's in the court of public opinion. The former AG is saying that she was subjected to heavy pressure over SNC-Lavalin, and when she refused to change her mind, she was replaced as AG. The PM's former chief advisor is saying that he didn't know she regarded her decision on SNC-Lavalin as final, and that she misinterpreted Trudeau's motives in making the January cabinet shuffle.
(Disclaimer: I volunteered for Wilson-Raybould in Vancouver-Granville in 2015, and I strongly support Liberal policies, especially the national climate plan, so I find the current conflict pretty painful.)
posted by russilwvong at 11:20 AM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
So, no-one had an issue with JWR's job as AG (they say), there was a vacancy on the Indigenous portfolio, JWR is asked to fill that vacancy, JWR (quite understandably) says no, so why move her from AG at all? How does she get to Veterans' Affairs? Why is she part of the shuffle if there's no issue with her performance?
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:33 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:33 AM on March 6, 2019
From Butts' opening statement:
posted by russilwvong at 11:39 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
The obvious question is why did the Prime Minister not leave the Minister in her old job if she turned down a new one? My advice on that matter had nothing to do with the Minister personally, and nothing to do with any aspect of her old or new job. It was this: If you allow a minister to veto a cabinet shuffle by refusing to move, you soon will not be able to manage cabinet. It was not possible in this instance for the Prime Minister to go further than additionally offering the Veterans Affairs post. Cabinet invitations are not the product of shared decision-making. It is the Prime Minister’s decision to make and his alone to make. My advice was that the Prime Minister should not set the precedent that a cabinet minister could refuse a new position, and effectively remain in one position for the life of the government.Given everything that followed, the decision to go ahead with the cabinet shuffle was obviously a major mistake. Talleyrand: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."
Over the next few days, Ms. Wilson-Raybould and I talked and corresponded many times. I knew from the course of those conversations and exchanges that trust had broken down between our office and the Minister. I was deeply concerned by what the Minister was saying. It was all a great and sad surprise to me that she could draw those sorts of conclusions about her colleagues, including myself. I tried to counter her misapprehensions with repeated, honest efforts. In the end, I was unable to do so. And here we are today.
posted by russilwvong at 11:39 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Aah. So she may not have been punished for her decision on SNC-Lavalin, but she may have been punished for not acceding to the Prime Minister's 'request'.
(Nevermind that asking an indigenous person to oversee the Indian Act -- a main tool of cultural subjugation -- is a problematic ask in the first place.)
At least it's clear that when Trudeau said that JWR's continued presence in cabinet spoke for itself (a statement I knew was a mistake as he was saying it), she really had no choice but to leave.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2019
(Nevermind that asking an indigenous person to oversee the Indian Act -- a main tool of cultural subjugation -- is a problematic ask in the first place.)
At least it's clear that when Trudeau said that JWR's continued presence in cabinet spoke for itself (a statement I knew was a mistake as he was saying it), she really had no choice but to leave.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:58 AM on March 6, 2019
Someone (I forget who) said that Wilson-Raybould didn't want Indigenous Affairs because she believes that the Indian Act is bad and didn't want to be the one responsible for administering a bad act. I don't know enough to know how large a part that would've played in her thinking.
In that version of events, the Attorney-General made the final decision after weighing all of the public interest matters involved in just 12 days.
More likely: The law as written excludes consideration of most of the public interest matters brought forward, making the evaluation simpler than Butts hopes to convince us it should be.
and is obligated to bring fresh eyes to new evidence.
From what I've heard so far, there wasn't any new evidence, just repetitions of the same (mostly inadmissible) evidence with more urgency.
Did Butts give any examples of what he would think of as crossing the line from appropriate to inappropriate pressure?
posted by clawsoon at 12:01 PM on March 6, 2019
In that version of events, the Attorney-General made the final decision after weighing all of the public interest matters involved in just 12 days.
More likely: The law as written excludes consideration of most of the public interest matters brought forward, making the evaluation simpler than Butts hopes to convince us it should be.
and is obligated to bring fresh eyes to new evidence.
From what I've heard so far, there wasn't any new evidence, just repetitions of the same (mostly inadmissible) evidence with more urgency.
Did Butts give any examples of what he would think of as crossing the line from appropriate to inappropriate pressure?
posted by clawsoon at 12:01 PM on March 6, 2019
Someone (I forget who) said that Wilson-Raybould didn't want Indigenous Affairs because she believes that the Indian Act is bad and didn't want to be the one responsible for administering a bad act.
Butts said this:
The legislation states that one of its objectives is to protect employees and customers who have not participated in wrongdoing:
Did Butts give any examples of what he would think of as crossing the line from appropriate to inappropriate pressure?
Not that I know of.
posted by russilwvong at 12:09 PM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
Butts said this:
She said she could not do it for the reason that, frankly, I should have thought she would say, and I probably would have, had we had more time. She said she had spent her life opposed to the Indian Act, and couldn’t be in charge of the programs administered under its authority.More likely: The law as written excludes consideration of most of the public interest matters brought forward, making the evaluation simpler than Butts hopes to convince us it should be.
The legislation states that one of its objectives is to protect employees and customers who have not participated in wrongdoing:
715.31 The purpose of this Part is to establish a remediation agreement regime that is applicable to organizations alleged to have committed an offence and that has the following objectives: ...What's disallowed, following the 1997 OECD convention against bribery, is consideration of the national economic interest. The House of Lords decision in the British case against BAE for bribing Saudi Arabia explains the reasoning:
(f) to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.
The clear effect of article 5 is to permit national investigators and prosecutors to act in accordance with the rules and principles applicable in their respective states, save that they are not to be influenced by three specific considerations: (i) national economic interest, (ii) the potential effect upon the relations with another state, and (iii) the identity of the natural or legal persons involved. It is obvious why the parties wished to prohibit the paying of attention to (i): a bribery investigation or prosecution may very probably injure commercial, and thus economic, interests. The reason for excluding consideration of (iii) is also obvious: investigators and prosecutors should not be deterred from acting by the high ministerial office or royal connections of an allegedly corrupt person. The ambit of consideration (ii) is more doubtful.So the AG can't consider the benefit to the Canadian economy when making a decision to prosecute a company for bribery (because a Canadian company which offers bribes will have an unfair advantage over its OECD competitors); but the AG can consider the unfairness of negative consequences for employees, customers, and pensioners of the company who did nothing wrong.
Did Butts give any examples of what he would think of as crossing the line from appropriate to inappropriate pressure?
Not that I know of.
posted by russilwvong at 12:09 PM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
More likely: The law as written excludes consideration of most of the public interest matters brought forward, making the evaluation simpler than Butts hopes to convince us it should be.
I'm still not entirely clear this aspect. And Butts, in particular, has confused me (intentionally or not). Butts repeated over and over about the danger of potential job losses, as something that should have been critical to the DPA decision.
Per one of the links above, "in the specific context of prosecutions under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (under which SNC is charged), the national economic interest is explicitly excluded as a relevant factor [to be considered at the time of inviting the company to negotiate]."
So my understanding is that "national economic interests" would include job losses, and so that could not be factor to consider, when deciding on the DPA option.
Yet we've heard Butts (and others) constantly referring to "the public interest" when talking about job losses.
Are "national economic interest" and "public interest" equivalent (as far as the law is concerned)??
posted by Kabanos at 12:12 PM on March 6, 2019
I'm still not entirely clear this aspect. And Butts, in particular, has confused me (intentionally or not). Butts repeated over and over about the danger of potential job losses, as something that should have been critical to the DPA decision.
Per one of the links above, "in the specific context of prosecutions under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (under which SNC is charged), the national economic interest is explicitly excluded as a relevant factor [to be considered at the time of inviting the company to negotiate]."
So my understanding is that "national economic interests" would include job losses, and so that could not be factor to consider, when deciding on the DPA option.
Yet we've heard Butts (and others) constantly referring to "the public interest" when talking about job losses.
Are "national economic interest" and "public interest" equivalent (as far as the law is concerned)??
posted by Kabanos at 12:12 PM on March 6, 2019
On preview, thank you for that additional info russilwvong.
posted by Kabanos at 12:15 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by Kabanos at 12:15 PM on March 6, 2019
Indeed, thanks for digging further into this. This part:
"while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing."
...is already moot, isn't it, with most of the charges against former SNC Lavalin execs being dropped because the court process took too long?
posted by clawsoon at 12:27 PM on March 6, 2019
"while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing."
...is already moot, isn't it, with most of the charges against former SNC Lavalin execs being dropped because the court process took too long?
posted by clawsoon at 12:27 PM on March 6, 2019
Looks like it. This Globe story summarizes three cases: former controller Stephane Roy (dropped), former VP Sami Bebawi (begins in April), and former CEO Pierre Duhaime (plea bargain).
Quebec Court Justice Patricia Compagnone on Tuesday stayed proceedings against Stéphane Roy, a former controller at the firm. She said delays created by the prosecution in the case were “an example of the culture of complacency” that the Supreme Court of Canada tried to correct with its 2016 Jordan decision, which set firmer time limits on criminal proceedings.posted by russilwvong at 12:35 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Mr. Roy was charged in 2014 with fraud over $5,000 and bribing a foreign public official in relation to SNC-Lavalin’s business with the regime of Libya’s late dictator, Moammar Gadhafi. ...
Last week, a judge threw out obstruction of justice charges against another former SNC executive, Sami Bebawi, and his lawyer, Constantine Kyres, on the grounds that it took too long to bring the case to trial. Mr. Bebawi had been accused of offering a $10-million bribe to have a key witness change his testimony in a fraud and corruption case against Mr. Bebawi. He is now the last remaining former SNC-Lavalin executive facing justice. His trial on charges of bribery and fraud in connection with SNC’s business in Libya is scheduled to begin in April.
Earlier this month, prosecutors struck a plea bargain with former SNC chief executive Pierre Duhaime just as his trial was set to begin on his role in the McGill University Health Centre superhospital corruption case. After Mr. Duhaime admitted to “willful blindness” while his underlings paid $22.5-million to two top hospital managers in exchange for information that would help the company win a contract to build the facility, prosecutors settled for an admission of guilt on lesser breach of trust charges and dropped 15 counts of fraud and using forged documents. He was sentenced to 20 months of house arrest.
I keep thinking about the pressure to get outside advice. Butts said that the suggestion was totally innocent: Wilson-Raybould needed expert advice because the law was new and complicated, and it was important to get it right. Wilson-Raybould's testimony - especially Butts' constant insistence on "finding a solution" and the part where she says he said, "there is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference" - makes it feel like Butts had someone with the "correct" answer lined up already.
Sleazy politics or high-minded public service?
posted by clawsoon at 1:03 PM on March 6, 2019
Sleazy politics or high-minded public service?
posted by clawsoon at 1:03 PM on March 6, 2019
The law was brand new and created by her department. Whose outside advice was she supposed to seek on a law she oversaw the development of and which had never before been tested in court?
posted by jacquilynne at 1:17 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by jacquilynne at 1:17 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
That's one thing I'm not clear on - was it her department that developed the law? I recall statements that in all their lobbying to get the law SNC-Lavalin never talked with Justice, and the consultations appear to have happened through Public Services and Procurement Canada. It should've gone through Justice, I assume. Did it?
posted by clawsoon at 1:33 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 1:33 PM on March 6, 2019
Whose outside advice was she supposed to seek -
Butts mentioned former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.
I found it interesting to read through the judicial review of the British case involving BAE bribes to Saudi officials. In the BAE case, the British AG initiated something called a "Shawcross exercise" to canvass the rest of government and collect their input. In the SNC-Lavalin case, it doesn't seem there was time for anything like that before the AG's decision.
That's one thing I'm not clear on - was it her department that developed the law?
Seems like it - the Department of Justice is responsible for drafting legislation. Other departments may be able to provide input, but they're not going to have the expertise to actually write legislation.
posted by russilwvong at 1:38 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
Butts mentioned former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin.
The second and final meeting I had on the file was with Jessica Prince, the Minister’s chief of staff, and Katie Telford. There was no urgency to attend that meeting. We said that Elder and Mathieu had discussed the issue in the spirit of helping us all defend the Minister’s decision, whatever it may be. I remember that meeting very, very differently than the account given last week. I remember Ms. Prince saying that the Minister didn’t want to consider “political factors” in the decision, and was worried about the appearance of political interference. I said that it is the Minister’s decision of course, but 9,000 people are not a political issue. It was a very real public policy issue, in my view. I said that we needed to provide a rationale either way she decided, and I could not see how having someone like Beverley McLachlin give the Minister advice constituted political interference.If we assume good faith, Butts' concern was basically making sure that due diligence had been done, so that the AG's decision could be defended in public, regardless of what the decision was.
I found it interesting to read through the judicial review of the British case involving BAE bribes to Saudi officials. In the BAE case, the British AG initiated something called a "Shawcross exercise" to canvass the rest of government and collect their input. In the SNC-Lavalin case, it doesn't seem there was time for anything like that before the AG's decision.
That's one thing I'm not clear on - was it her department that developed the law?
Seems like it - the Department of Justice is responsible for drafting legislation. Other departments may be able to provide input, but they're not going to have the expertise to actually write legislation.
posted by russilwvong at 1:38 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
It would seem to me that an amendment to the Criminal Code really should go through Justice (if it isn't a hard requirement) but that doesn't necessarily mean it made its way all the way up to the Minister.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:39 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:39 PM on March 6, 2019
We said that Elder and Mathieu had discussed the issue in the spirit of helping us all defend the Minister’s decision, whatever it may be.
I would like to assume good faith, but this has been contradicted by everything the government has said since this affair came into the open. I don't recall a single defense of the Minister's decision from the PMO or Cabinet, just repetitions of the reasons they think it was the wrong decision (jobs jobs jobs). Have I missed something?
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on March 6, 2019
I would like to assume good faith, but this has been contradicted by everything the government has said since this affair came into the open. I don't recall a single defense of the Minister's decision from the PMO or Cabinet, just repetitions of the reasons they think it was the wrong decision (jobs jobs jobs). Have I missed something?
posted by clawsoon at 1:46 PM on March 6, 2019
Good point. Butts says that he didn't even realize the AG had made a decision until her appearance last week.
posted by russilwvong at 1:48 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by russilwvong at 1:48 PM on March 6, 2019
Didn't she say that her department wrote and distributed a memo outlining the reasoning for her decision? Wasn't one of her repeated complaints that they never read it, despite her repeated reminders about it? That's another place where the two stories differ. (If they really wanted reasoning to help support her decision whatever it was, presumably reading that memo would've been high on their priority list.)
I'm very tired today, so I may be misremembering details. My notes are not as thorough as Wilson-Raybould's.
posted by clawsoon at 1:56 PM on March 6, 2019
I'm very tired today, so I may be misremembering details. My notes are not as thorough as Wilson-Raybould's.
posted by clawsoon at 1:56 PM on March 6, 2019
Here's what Wilson-Raybould said about her decision not to grant/impose a DPA:
posted by clawsoon at 2:09 PM on March 6, 2019
Further, my view had also formed at this point, through the work of my Department, my Minister’s office and I had conducted, that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the DPP in this case and pursue a DPA.Am I reading correctly that her decision was not based on the merits of the specific case, but on her belief that even if she thought a DPA should be granted it wouldn't be right for her to intervene?
...
I explained to him the law and what I have the ability to do and not do under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act around issuing Directives or Assuming Conduct of Prosecutions. I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the DPP. In response the PM further reiterated his concerns. I then explained how this came about and that I had received the section 13 note from the DPP earlier in September and that I had considered the matter very closely. I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the AG - and I am not prepared to issue a directive in this case - that it was not appropriate.
posted by clawsoon at 2:09 PM on March 6, 2019
Didn't she say that her department wrote and distributed a memo outlining the reasoning for her decision?
I don't think so - I think that memo described the independent role of the AG in making decisions on prosecution, not the decision on SNC-Lavalin specifically.
Jody Wilson-Raybould's opening statement includes the following, describing the November 22 meeting:
Am I reading correctly that her decision was not based on the merits of the specific case, but on her belief that even if she thought a DPA should be granted it wouldn't be right for her to intervene?
I don't think so. She describes the process by which she came to her decision, which would presumably have included the specifics of the case.
posted by russilwvong at 2:32 PM on March 6, 2019
I don't think so - I think that memo described the independent role of the AG in making decisions on prosecution, not the decision on SNC-Lavalin specifically.
Jody Wilson-Raybould's opening statement includes the following, describing the November 22 meeting:
I took [Bouchard and Marques] through the DPP Act – section 15/10 – and that prosecutorial independence was a constitutional principle. And that they are interfering. I talked about the Section 13 note – which they said they had never received – but I reminded them they received it in September.I'm not entirely sure which document the "Section 13 note" refers to. Most likely this one?
[On September 6] my Chief of Staff exchanged some emails with my MO Staff [Francois Giroux and Emma Carver] about this, who advised her that the Deputy Attorney General – Nathalie Drouin – was working on something (they had spoken to her about the issue), and that my staff [Emma Carver and Gregoire Webber] were drafting a memo as well on the role of the AG vis à vis the PPSC. ...I'm not entirely sure if the "s. 13 note" is referring to the memo drafted by Carver and Webber, or if it's referring to the initial Section 13 notice from the PPSC. Presumably the former.
On September 7, my Chief of Staff spoke by phone with my then Deputy Minister about the call she had received from Ben Chin and the Deputy stated that the Department was working on this. The Deputy gave my Chief a quick rundown of what she thought some options might be (e.g., informally call Kathleen Roussel, set up an external review of their decision, etc.). On the same day I received a note from my staff – on the role of the AG – a note that was also shared with Elder Marques and Amy Archer at the PMO.
Same day, Francois G. and Emma met with my Deputy Minister. Some excerpts of the s. 13 note were read to the DM, but the DM did not want to be provided with a copy of the s. 13 note.
Am I reading correctly that her decision was not based on the merits of the specific case, but on her belief that even if she thought a DPA should be granted it wouldn't be right for her to intervene?
I don't think so. She describes the process by which she came to her decision, which would presumably have included the specifics of the case.
[On September 4] I subsequently spoke to my Minister’s office staff about this decision and I did the standard practice of undertaking further internal work and due diligence in relation to this note – a practice that I had for many of the section 13 notices that I received as the Attorney General. In other words, I immediately put in motion, within my Department and Minister’s office, a careful consideration and study of the matter.And then by September 16, she had made the decision not to intervene ("my view had also formed at this point").
posted by russilwvong at 2:32 PM on March 6, 2019
By the way, despite the painful nature of the scandal, I also find it fascinating as a window into the decision-making process within government.
posted by russilwvong at 2:33 PM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by russilwvong at 2:33 PM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
I'm not entirely sure if the "s. 13 note" is referring to the memo drafted by Carver and Webber, or if it's referring to the initial Section 13 notice from the PPSC. Presumably the former.
There is no way that this entire transaction could not be tracked. These sorts of communications happen all the time in government and have entire systems devoted to tracking not just the memos, but all the metadata associated with them: when, to whom, from who, etc... the memo was communicated. This should be able to be located within minutes, frankly. These records are kept, meticulously, and should be accessible to all parties, including auditors and police.
posted by bonehead at 2:57 PM on March 6, 2019
There is no way that this entire transaction could not be tracked. These sorts of communications happen all the time in government and have entire systems devoted to tracking not just the memos, but all the metadata associated with them: when, to whom, from who, etc... the memo was communicated. This should be able to be located within minutes, frankly. These records are kept, meticulously, and should be accessible to all parties, including auditors and police.
posted by bonehead at 2:57 PM on March 6, 2019
I guess Butts would say that he couldn't defend Wilson-Raybould's decision because he didn't know that she had made one.
He seemed to be looking for a second no-decision escape hatch with the idea that the A.G.'s decisions are never final anyway until the court process is concluded.
posted by clawsoon at 4:01 PM on March 6, 2019
He seemed to be looking for a second no-decision escape hatch with the idea that the A.G.'s decisions are never final anyway until the court process is concluded.
posted by clawsoon at 4:01 PM on March 6, 2019
Trudeau just got asked if his aides talked about the election+SNC with Justice. He... did not answer the question. He just said "jobs" again. He seems to be letting Wilson-Raybould's testimony stand on that question.
posted by clawsoon at 5:19 AM on March 7, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 5:19 AM on March 7, 2019
The one positive point Trudeau made is that he has been more transparent than other PMs would've been, and that's true. His commitment to burying Wilson-Raybould was half-hearted at first and then left him altogether. It's the best part of his naivete in this whole mess.
posted by clawsoon at 5:53 AM on March 7, 2019
posted by clawsoon at 5:53 AM on March 7, 2019
I wasn't terribly awake for Trudeau's address this morning, but there wasn't much that really connected.
I think Canadians are looking for a straight answer. Maybe not even that, maybe we just want an acknowledgement of a problem so we can move past it.
If he had come out, went away from the prepared text to speak frankly and directly, that "Yeah, the way this was handled was not great, we're working to fix that going forward, decisions get pretty messy in the cabinet room, but we all want what's best for you, no-one's given up on the rule of law, come on", that would have resonated a lot more than another lecture.
The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests to me that differences in interpretation are at the heart of it. A moment of blunt talk could pop this ever-growing balloon.
There are substantive problems behind those differences in interpretation, of course. That this scandal has come forward and dominated the political landscape will bring needed awareness of those problems, which goes a fair ways to correcting them already.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:08 AM on March 7, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think Canadians are looking for a straight answer. Maybe not even that, maybe we just want an acknowledgement of a problem so we can move past it.
If he had come out, went away from the prepared text to speak frankly and directly, that "Yeah, the way this was handled was not great, we're working to fix that going forward, decisions get pretty messy in the cabinet room, but we all want what's best for you, no-one's given up on the rule of law, come on", that would have resonated a lot more than another lecture.
The more that comes out about this, the more it suggests to me that differences in interpretation are at the heart of it. A moment of blunt talk could pop this ever-growing balloon.
There are substantive problems behind those differences in interpretation, of course. That this scandal has come forward and dominated the political landscape will bring needed awareness of those problems, which goes a fair ways to correcting them already.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:08 AM on March 7, 2019 [4 favorites]
The Public Prosecution Service of Canada tweeted this morning:
posted by Kabanos at 10:09 AM on March 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
Prosecutorial independence is key to our mandate. Our prosecutors must be objective, independent and dispassionate, as well as free from improper influence—including political influence.With a link to their "About us" page. Throwing shade on JT/PMO? A sign of deeper troubles than we've seen? Or just them frustrated from hearing unaccurate opinions in the public and press about the proper role of the PPSC?
posted by Kabanos at 10:09 AM on March 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
PPSC twitter account is only from January, and didn't tweet until yesterday.
posted by Kabanos at 10:18 AM on March 7, 2019
posted by Kabanos at 10:18 AM on March 7, 2019
I think Canadians are looking for a straight answer. Maybe not even that, maybe we just want an acknowledgement of a problem so we can move past it.
Agreed. I thought Butts' appearance before the justice committee yesterday did a much better job of that than Trudeau's statement this morning.
As Butts described it, he was the one primarily responsible for the relationship between the PMO and the AG. Basically there was a breakdown of communication over SNC-Lavalin: from the AG's point of view, she'd already made the decision, while from Butts' point of view, the decision was still open.
And there was a breakdown of trust over the cabinet shuffle: from the PM's point of view, he wanted to signal that Indigenous relations were still a key priority for the government (despite Philpott's move to Treasury Board), while from the AG's point of view, he was replacing her because of the disagreement over SNC-Lavalin.
Even if Trudeau wasn't directly involved in the breakdown of the relationship, the buck still stops with him. After all, he made the final decision to move ahead with the disastrous cabinet shuffle.
From Butts' opening statement:
I still think a straight apology from Trudeau for failing to ensure that the PMO respected the independence of the AG (despite the apparent breakdown of communication), and then compounding the problem with the January cabinet shuffle (regardless of his actual motives), would have been far better. He's the PM; it's his responsibility.
Even when your motives are good, other people can't tell what your motives are. The reason that the Wikipedia guideline "assume good faith" exists is because very often, people don't assume good faith.
So telling people, "I acted in good faith, not for this other reason" isn't going to be very convincing. After all, they can't see into your heart, so they have no way of assessing your motives directly.
George F. Kennan's 1959 comment about foreign aid comes to mind:
posted by russilwvong at 11:05 AM on March 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
Agreed. I thought Butts' appearance before the justice committee yesterday did a much better job of that than Trudeau's statement this morning.
As Butts described it, he was the one primarily responsible for the relationship between the PMO and the AG. Basically there was a breakdown of communication over SNC-Lavalin: from the AG's point of view, she'd already made the decision, while from Butts' point of view, the decision was still open.
And there was a breakdown of trust over the cabinet shuffle: from the PM's point of view, he wanted to signal that Indigenous relations were still a key priority for the government (despite Philpott's move to Treasury Board), while from the AG's point of view, he was replacing her because of the disagreement over SNC-Lavalin.
Even if Trudeau wasn't directly involved in the breakdown of the relationship, the buck still stops with him. After all, he made the final decision to move ahead with the disastrous cabinet shuffle.
From Butts' opening statement:
The Prime Minister assured Minister Philpott that the shuffle had nothing to do with the [SNC-Lavalin] file, and asked her if she would help with the transition of her ministry to Minister Wilson-Raybould. She said that she would, but she was clearly worried about how Minister Wilson-Raybould would react to the news.Katie Simpson:
After that meeting, I spoke to the Prime Minister privately. He was clearly disturbed and surprised by what Minister Philpott had said. I said to him that he had to factor into his thinking the possibility that the assertion she made would be made publicly, however far-fetched it seemed. I advised him that he has to know in his heart that is not the reason he was moving Minister Wilson-Raybould. He replied that he knew that was not why he was moving her, and he would not change his mind.
I’m told the reason the PM did not apologize for the SNC-Lavalin affair is because he feels in his core he did nothing wrong. He’s put his version of events out there, Wilson-Raybould has her version of events out there, PM feels it is now up to Canadians to decide.So now it's in the court of public opinion.
I still think a straight apology from Trudeau for failing to ensure that the PMO respected the independence of the AG (despite the apparent breakdown of communication), and then compounding the problem with the January cabinet shuffle (regardless of his actual motives), would have been far better. He's the PM; it's his responsibility.
Even when your motives are good, other people can't tell what your motives are. The reason that the Wikipedia guideline "assume good faith" exists is because very often, people don't assume good faith.
So telling people, "I acted in good faith, not for this other reason" isn't going to be very convincing. After all, they can't see into your heart, so they have no way of assessing your motives directly.
George F. Kennan's 1959 comment about foreign aid comes to mind:
... foreign aid, to be really effective as a gesture of Christian charity, would have to be understood as such a gesture by the recipients as well as by the donors. But most foreign peoples do not believe that governments do things for selfless and altruistic motives; and if we do not reveal to them a good solid motive of self-interest for anything we do with regard to them, they are apt to invent one. This can be a more sinister one than we ever dreamed of, and their belief in it can cause serious confusion in our mutual relations.Butts did provide some counter-evidence against the charge that the government was unwilling to do anything that might lose votes in Quebec:
Asked about how the PMO might appropriately talk about provincial politics as a factor in important decisions, Mr. Butts brings up the behind-the-scenes discussions about the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the trade deal replacing the North American free-trade agreement. That deal opened the door to the protected Canadian dairy market, a contentious move for Quebec, the largest dairy-producing province. “That did not stop us from signing NAFTA,” Mr. Butts says.Another example would be the issue of Quebec collecting federal income tax, which would be terrible policy - Legault is pushing for it, Trudeau said no, Scheer said yes.
posted by russilwvong at 11:05 AM on March 7, 2019 [1 favorite]
Margaret Wente, serial plagiarist, on her soapbox:
It gives me no pleasure to say so, but after the week’s events I’ve concluded that this is a story not about a moral scandal but about government incompetence. Without fresh revelations, it will gradually fade away and join the sartorial gaffe in India as an unfortunate but non-fatal mishap. So let’s enjoy this moment of government discomfort while it lasts. They certainly deserve it.posted by bonehead at 4:38 PM on March 7, 2019
Well, that settles it. If Wente is on one side, then I have to be on the other. Doesn't matter what side she takes, as she's certainly wrong anyway.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:18 AM on March 8, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:18 AM on March 8, 2019 [4 favorites]
Sandy Garossino outlines in great detail the moral scandals of SNC and by extension the PMO.
posted by anthill at 8:44 AM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by anthill at 8:44 AM on March 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
Someone (I forget who) said that Wilson-Raybould didn't want Indigenous Affairs because she believes that the Indian Act is bad and didn't want to be the one responsible for administering a bad act.
The best take on this I saw was Mary Ellen Turprlle Lafond who said the request was akin to asking Nelson Mandela to administer apartheid. I think that sums it up.
posted by chapps at 10:21 AM on March 9, 2019
Officially, the issue is now on hold. Not that that will stop the ongoing debate.
posted by sardonyx at 10:48 AM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by sardonyx at 10:48 AM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
Wilson-Raybould affirms commitment to Liberals, says there’s ‘path forward’ to higher standard of government
One of the most curious parts of this to me is what JWR thinks that path might be. As long as JT's bunch are in power, I can't see as how she could ever expect to get back in cabinet or a senior committee post. So, I think her end game must be to dethrone Trudeau. Certainly the initial leak, her testimony and perhaps even Philpott's resignation were timed for maximum effect.
Perhaps she's waiting until after the election, and JT's/PMO defeat so that she and her faction would have a chance to remove him via a leadership convention and clean house. Perhaps she was hoping for more of a caucus revolt.
posted by bonehead at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2019 [1 favorite]
One of the most curious parts of this to me is what JWR thinks that path might be. As long as JT's bunch are in power, I can't see as how she could ever expect to get back in cabinet or a senior committee post. So, I think her end game must be to dethrone Trudeau. Certainly the initial leak, her testimony and perhaps even Philpott's resignation were timed for maximum effect.
Perhaps she's waiting until after the election, and JT's/PMO defeat so that she and her faction would have a chance to remove him via a leadership convention and clean house. Perhaps she was hoping for more of a caucus revolt.
posted by bonehead at 8:43 AM on March 15, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think her end game must be to dethrone Trudeau.
I don't think JWR's motives here are political. She was acting as a whistle-blower, drawing the attention of the public to a situation where the interests of SNC-Lavalin appeared to be outweighing the independence of the Attorney-General. If that means limiting her future political career, so be it.
My take, reading her letter to constituents, is that she's relying on the power of public opinion to raise the standard of government.
posted by russilwvong at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2019 [1 favorite]
I don't think JWR's motives here are political. She was acting as a whistle-blower, drawing the attention of the public to a situation where the interests of SNC-Lavalin appeared to be outweighing the independence of the Attorney-General. If that means limiting her future political career, so be it.
My take, reading her letter to constituents, is that she's relying on the power of public opinion to raise the standard of government.
posted by russilwvong at 4:58 PM on March 15, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older How to tune a bell | My Life at 47 Is Back to What It Was Like at 27 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:17 AM on February 17, 2019 [22 favorites]