Author Topic: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case  (Read 30866 times)

cavalryman, Jed, Larry Strong (+ 1 Hidden) and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 94,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,076
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2019, 10:56:35 »
A summation of some views from Quebec. I guess they have forgotten what has happened in Alberta, the source of some of the funds for equalization transfers.

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190214/textview

Quebec’s views on SNC-Lavalin starkly different
- 14 Feb 19
    Francophone pundits rush to defend firm

In the ongoing debate over the prosecution of SNCLavalin and what kind of “pressure” was put on exjustice minister Jody WilsonRaybould to prevent it, the pundit classes of Quebec and the rest of Canada are singing different songs. Since The Globe and Mail published a report last week alleging the Prime Minister’s Office pushed Wilson-Raybould to help the company avoid prosecution, a chorus of voices in Quebec has sought to defend the Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin, its importance to the provincial and national economy and the appropriateness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s desire to save some 8,600 Canadian jobs.

The opinion pages and panels of talking heads in English-Canadian media have largely focused on the question of whether a refusal to bow to undue “pressure” from Trudeau’s office led to Wilson-Raybould’s demotion to the veterans affairs file last month and ultimately her resignation on Tuesday. In Quebec, par contre, the commentariat is more critical of Wilson-Raybould. They are more concerned about why the then-justice minister wouldn’t push the Director of Public Prosecutions to allow SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement — a way for the firm to make amends for corruption charges incurred doing business in Libya without risking a long-term freeze on its ability to take public contracts. Liberals had inserted provisions for that kind of arrangement in the 2018 federal budget. Why then wouldn’t the provision be used, Quebec columnists wonder?

Here’s some of what they’ve been telling their readers and listeners.

The PMO may have done the right thing, Yves Boisvert argued in La Presse in the wake of the Globe’s report last week, saying a deferred prosecution agreement makes sense in this case. The same day came a take from L’actualité’s Alec Castonguay that it’s possible WilsonRaybould wasn’t a “heroine standing up to power,” and that Trudeau seemed to be advocating for something sensible.

Gérald Fillion argued in a Monday analysis for RadioCanada (CBC’s Frenchlanguage counterpart) that SNC-Lavalin is under siege, and in danger. The real question, he wrote, is why the government, why WilsonRaybould, wouldn’t use the tools Liberals had just put into place. Likewise Le Devoir’s Denis Saint-Martin said the absence of “pressure” by the PMO would’ve been more surprising than this so-called scandal, given SNC-Lavalin’s economic heft.

The next day, on RadioCanada’s news program Le télé journal, an expert on public and private governance, Michel Nadeau, defended the prime minister. “He told Quebecers, ‘Look, with SNC-Lavalin, I did what I had to do,’” Nadeau said in French, paraphrasing Trudeau. “’And those who had something to say about it could have raised their hands, or come to me. But Wilson-Raybould didn’t present herself.’” The real mystery, he said, was why bureaucrats would obstruct an agreement for SNC-Lavalin when the same is done for multinational companies across the world, and in light of the company’s role in “building modern Quebec.”

On Tuesday Michel Girard, for the Journal de Montréal, added his voice to the mix to declare “mortal consequences” if SNC-Lavalin is prosecuted and convicted. Opposition leaders, he wrote, should be asked why they won’t support SNCLavalin like Quebec Premier François Legault does — a pertinent question for Quebecers in a federal election year.

On his TVA Nouvelles program Monday, television personality and former provincial party leader Mario Dumont said no one is denying the company engaged in corruption. But he offered an explanation of the issue that outlined how SNC-Lavalin, under a deferred prosecution agreement, would still have to pay significant fines, and how similar agreements have been used in other countries including the United Kingdom and United States. In a column for the Journal Wednesday, he further argued that Trudeau’s actions to help secure such a thing were “serious and responsible,” what one would expect of a head of government. The only error, he said, was that Trudeau had done all this in secret.

Franco-Quebec coverage of the situation hasn’t been without its skeptics. For La Presse, François Cardinal wondered Wednesday why so many commentators had made their beds on the issue before having all the facts, and urged that Wilson-Raybould should be allowed to say her piece.

Another La Presse columnist, Patrick Lagacé, noted that SNC-Lavalin created this mess in the first place by engaging in corrupt activities. “I must have slumbered in a deep hibernation to have missed the moment when we collectively decided that corruption and collusion on a grand scale isn’t so bad,” Jonathan Trudeau wrote for the Journal Wednesday.

But underlying many of the arguments is a fundamental sense that English Canada is biased against Quebec and its companies. Why punish thousands of workers when those who engaged in corruption are now outside of the company, Jean-Robert Sansfaçon asked in Le Devoir Tuesday? Why not allow for a solution that will prevent the dismantlement of such an important Quebec entity?

“I can’t help but wonder whether English Canada’s punditocracy would be as indignant if the prime minister’s office had seemingly been trying to save a Toronto or Calgary-based multinational corporation instead of a Quebec one,” wrote Lise Ravary, in English, for the Montreal Gazette on Tuesday. “SNC-Lavalin is Canada’s largest engineering firm. Not just Quebec’s.”
« Last Edit: February 14, 2019, 12:31:21 by Rifleman62 »
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 689
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2019, 12:13:50 »
So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 101,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,139
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2019, 14:06:00 »
So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?

And maybe that is the point.  The LPC want QC votes next election.  The LPC is seen protecting SNC at all costs including ethics breaches and possible obstruction of justice so as to garner that province's votes. 
Optio

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 276,561
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,510
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2019, 15:41:32 »
Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?

This won't sink the Liberals. In a week or two there will be some other story popping up that the media (same ones that just got a whole bunch of money from the Liberals) will go into a frenzy about doing their best to change the topic away from snc.

Trudeau might get found guilty of another ethics violation, he'll maybe pay a small fine?  Throw some tax money around, ban handguns and call it a day.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 101,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,139
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin casehat
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2019, 17:19:37 »
Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?

This won't sink the Liberals. In a week or two there will be some other story popping up that the media (same ones that just got a whole bunch of money from the Liberals) will go into a frenzy about doing their best to change the topic away from snc.

Trudeau might get found guilty of another ethics violation, he'll maybe pay a small fine?  Throw some tax money around, ban handguns and call it a day.

Maybe, maybe not.  Time will tell if it does damage them.  It will depend on when and if Wilson Raybouod says anything.  One thing is that they will not be able to say they do things different, are the feminist option or true friends of the native community.  They gave up those mantles with what looks like a cover up and punishing her for refusing to go along.
Optio

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2019, 17:57:03 »
Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.

I reckon BC will go tribal again and revert to the NDP where it doesn't go Tory.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 94,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,076
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2019, 18:39:26 »
From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.

Quote
Liberal MP says Wilson-Raybould might have lost justice post because she doesn’t speak French
 
Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP who will chair hearings into the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, told a Montreal radio station today that Ms. Wilson-Raybould might have been moved out of the roles of attorney general and justice minister because she does not speak French. As Steven Chase reports this afternoon, Mr. Housefather was addressing allegations that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was moved out of the justice portfolio over her refusal to shelve a prosecution against Montreal construction giant SNC-Lavalin. He said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the right to choose who is in what cabinet post and there could be several reasons why people are shuffled. “For example ... there’s a lot of legal issues coming up in Quebec and the Prime Minister may well have decided he needed a justice minister that could speak French,” Mr. Housefather said.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 101,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,139
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2019, 19:08:34 »
From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.

More like finding sad excuses. This is getting sad.

The PMO is really bad at damage control.
Optio

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,243
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2019, 19:15:28 »
Telford and Butts need to go.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2019, 22:43:11 »
But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 689
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2019, 23:21:55 »
The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,243
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2019, 05:18:26 »
But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?

I guess we would see.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 25,532
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 372
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2019, 09:10:30 »
Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.

I reckon BC will go tribal again and revert to the NDP where it doesn't go Tory.

It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 101,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,139
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2019, 11:10:02 »
It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.

Maybe a few yes.

But:  Doug Ford's move to eliminate the French language commissioner and not fund a francophone university did some damage to the conservative brand.  Franco Ontarians and Quebecers will associate that with the federal CPC despite Scheer's protests and attempts to distance themselves.  Only a few concentrated seats in Ontario but still.

Also Doug Ford has pissed off a few other groups, teachers, autism advocates etc that might be vocal enough to demonstrate buyer's remorse.  It also depends on what else he might do.  Vote rich Toronto is likely not going to go CPC this time around given the spat with Ford. Plus Ford has his own problems with ethics with the whole OPP commissioner thing and the latest with Lisa Macleod

I realise that it is provincial vs federal but many voters won't see it that way.   
Optio

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,398
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2019, 11:13:24 »
The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.

I didn't think of that... But yeah, they just gave a big 'frig you' to potential constituents in B.C. Wilson-Raybould is well respected there.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC - 5320.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
    • Army.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #90 on: February 15, 2019, 11:19:04 »
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 199,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,398
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #91 on: February 15, 2019, 11:35:51 »
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

Not a bad guess. They'll probably keep that up their sleeve until JW-R's 'last move' is made, e.g. if she crosses or does something else significant.

She hasn't spoken yet, clearly her lawyer is taking her time. Clearly they've gotta be bracing for that and preparing a countermove- probably not directly against her, but rather something to divert attention after a couple days.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,635
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2019, 08:57:07 »
Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

That would be the lowest hanging fruit.  However, faster and more politically visible than C-71, a ban would be the quickest to implement and would give hem the boost they need to regain their majority poll numbers.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,092
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,342
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #93 on: February 16, 2019, 12:11:45 »
I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,092
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,342
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #94 on: February 16, 2019, 13:16:06 »
https://theprovince.com/opinion/john-ivison-for-mishandling-wilson-raybould-and-snc-lavalin-trudeau-has-nobody-to-blame-but-himself/wcm/9bb90740-098b-452d-82d0-443dd72a9fb6

John Ivison: Trudeau has nobody to blame but himself for mishandling Wilson-Raybould and SNC Lavalin

Published: February 15, 2019

The buck stops with any prime minister. He is the public face of those decisions - and in the SNC affair, he has become a figure of public derision

It’s never good for a politician when they’re being laughed at. Justin Trudeau’s claim that Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be justice minister if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned from politics quickly became a social media meme.

“If Scott Brison had not stepped down, Erik Karlsson would still be an Ottawa Senator,” wrote one hockey fan.

Brison’s spouse, Max St. Pierre, joined in the fun. “It’s ok, I usually blame my husband for everything too,” he tweeted.

The internet nearly blew up under the pressure of political nerds pointing out that Brison leaving his job as Treasury Board president did not necessarily mean Trudeau had to shuffle Wilson-Raybould. Rather, it offered him an opportunity to move a minister who was proving too independent for the prime minister’s liking.

"For those of you doubting the PM's excuse this morning that he had to shuffle Wilson-Raybould because Brison resigned, I can only assume you have not read the British North America Act as closely as some of us. This is a well known quirk of our constitution. #cdnpoli"
pic.twitter.com/RjU16RfFDq - ted laking (@tedlaking) February 15, 2019

<snip>

When Wilson-Raybould had asked if he was going to direct her to take a particular decision, he said he told her it was her decision. “I had full confidence in her role as attorney general to make the decision,” he said.

But then he stepped all over his message by declining to say whether he had expressed a preference - which strongly suggests he had indeed offered an opinion in SNC’s favour.

Keith Beardsley, who was deputy chief of staff for issues management in Stephen Harper’s government, said Trudeau and his advisers don’t seem to have a firm grasp of what their message is, “as if they expect Trudeau’s charisma to see them through.”

But a prime minister who was unflappable for much of his first three years in office now looks nervous, as if he’s not confident his mouth won’t spit out bloopers, like a broken slot machine. The Liberals’ prime asset has become their biggest liability.

Beardsley said he doesn’t see anyone playing the “What if…?” game - simulating how various talking points might play out in the media and beyond.

He pointed out the Trudeau Liberals were clearly not prepared for the public scrutiny around the SNC affair, or for the prospect Wilson-Raybould might quit.

The assumption seems to have been that she would do what she was told and accept the demotion to become veterans’ affairs minister, and that they would be able to replace her with a minister who would do the prime minister’s bidding on the SNC file.

Wilson-Raybould was offered the department of Indigenous services and turned it down, sources said. But she could have been moved sideways into a more high-profile position. Even as she was shuffled to veterans’ affairs, Trudeau failed to frame it as a necessary move to give direction to a department that needed a strong minister. In his press conference last month, Trudeau was sparing in his praise for a minister he needed to keep onside, merely saying she had “demonstrated tremendous skill” on her files.

Even prior to her demotion, Wilson-Raybould had made it clear she did not feel she received the respect she deserved. In a speech at a conference on Indigenous women and the law in Ottawa in October, she said “no matter what table one sits around, or what position, or with what title and appearance of power and influence, the experience of marginalization can still carry with you.” She went on to say that justice for Indigenous people could not be achieved by “half measures, good intentions or lofty rhetoric.”

Since those are Trudeau’s Three Graces, he could hardly be unaware that he had on his hands a minister who was less than enamoured about the state of the nation, or her place in it.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that what happened next was petty and vindictive. She was demoted, maligned by anonymous Liberals after she quit cabinet and blamed by the prime minister for not raising with him any concerns she had on the SNC file.

“They tried to strip her of her dignity but this is a proud, accomplished woman. You can’t do that and not expect blow back,” said Beardsley.

One Liberal suggested the prime minister has pulled the pin on a grenade that has exploded in the government’s face. He suggested a stronger prime minister would have publicly made the case for intervening in the SNC case, rather than operating in the shadows.

Just as it seemed things could not get worse for the Liberals, an emergency meeting of the justice committee made it appear there was a concerted cover-up.

The five rookie Liberal MPs on the committee offered a bunch of ham-fisted excuses for not calling key witnesses like Wilson-Raybould and Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

Calling “random people” would be a “fishing expedition,” said MP Ron McKinnon, as if the opposition were instructing the committee clerk to wander onto Sparks Street and corral the first people he met.

A more professional operation would have put all the Liberal MPs in a room to discuss in detail how they planned to proceed and develop talking points that made sense, said Beardsley. The comments made subsequently by committee chair Anthony Housefather - that Wilson-
Raybould may have been shuffled because she didn’t speak French - should have been shot down straight away by the PMO.

It amounts to a catalogue of self-inflicted wounds that have made the worst of a bad situation. There has been a failure to act nimbly and snuff out emerging bad news - it took the PMO nearly a week to come out and call anonymous comments criticizing Wilson-Raybould “unacceptable.”

Some of this may be attributed to a high degree of turnover in staff in the issues management function in PMO. But the missteps can also be attributed to too little preparation and direction from the centre - a counterintuitive assertion, given the the prevailing wisdom of an omnipotent Prime Minister’s Office.

Conservative MP Erin O’Toole called for Butts to be the next person shuffled because he creates a “divisive environment.”

“Time for Trudeau to show his Svengali the door,” he tweeted.

It’s a sentiment with which a large number of Liberals sympathize. Butts controls access to the prime minister and has such a close relationship with Trudeau that they have been likened to Siamese twins. Inevitably, such an affinity creates resentment among people outside the relationship.

But as Harper’s former chief of staff Ian Brodie pointed out, accountable government means the boss is responsible for the staff.

Trudeau is no political neophyte. He has been an MP for more than a decade.

Nobody made him wear a Sherwani when he was in India, or dance the bhangra.

Nobody forced him to manhandle the Conservative whip and elbow an NDP MP on the floor of the House of Commons because he was frustrated at the slow passage of government legislation.

No one compelled him to describe Fidel Castro as a “larger than life leader, a legendary revolutionary and orator.”

Neither was the prime minister coerced into the helicopter that whisked him off to a vacation on the Aga Khan’s Caribbean island, in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act.

He was not bound to pay Omar Khadr $10 million in compensation or to defend the government’s court case against veterans “because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”

The principles of open and accountable government mean the prime minister is responsible for organizing cabinet and providing the direction necessary to maintain unity. He sets the general direction of government policy and establishes standards of conduct. He is not a cog in something turning - he operates the machine.

The buck stops with any prime minister, but this one in particular has been more forceful than most in inserting himself into every crisis. He is the public face of those decisions - and in the SNC affair, he has become a figure of public derision.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 214,092
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,342
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #95 on: February 16, 2019, 13:30:55 »
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeau-and-wilson-raybould-shouldnt-even-have-been-talking-about-snc-lavalin?video_autoplay=true

Andrew Coyne: What could Trudeau properly have discussed with Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin?

Whether the PM or his officials crossed the line, or just tiptoed up to it, isn’t really the issue: they shouldn’t have come anywhere near it

February 15, 2019 9:32 PM EST

Consider solicitor-client privilege officially waived.

The prime minister has spent the last several days disclosing, line by tendentious line, the contents of his discussions with the former attorney general in September of last year. First we were informed that he “never directed” Jody Wilson-Raybould to put a stop to the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Next, that he told her “the decision” was “hers alone” to make. Only latterly did we learn that this was in response to a question from her: are you directing me?

If he is permitted to discuss what was said between them, plainly so is she. Perhaps, indeed, that is what the prime minister anticipates. The strategy would appear to be to reduce the whole business to the murky ambiguities of private conversations. (Maybe she thought she was being pressured, but I didn’t think I was pressuring her!) (Loachman: Where have we heard something like that before)

And yet this is something of a red herring. It doesn’t much matter whether she was directed or pressured or badgered or cajoled, if the action being discussed was out of bounds to begin with.

Suppose, that is, the prime minister did no more than politely ask whether she might consider - though of course it’s entirely up to you - prevailing upon the director of public prosecutions to set aside fraud and corruption charges against the Quebec construction giant in favour of the newly minted alternative of a remediation agreement. That would still be highly improper. Because she would have been asked to do something she could not legally do. And if she could, the DPP could not legally act as ordered.

Let’s take the last point first. The director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, it has been widely reported, decided not to offer SNC-Lavalin the remediation agreement it had so feverishly, and successfully, lobbied for. But in fact she may have had no choice. The relevant provision (sect. 715.3) of the Criminal Code sets out a long list of “conditions” that must be present and “factors” prosecutors must consider before they can even enter negotiations on such an agreement; another list sets out the “mandatory contents” of the agreement itself.

First, prosecutors “must” consider “the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities,” in the service of one of the legislation’s key objectives, “to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing.”

But SNC-Lavalin didn’t voluntarily disclose that it allegedly paid bribes of $48 million to Libyan government officials and defrauded various organizations in the country of $130 million. The matter only came to light after a lengthy police investigation.

Second, the agreement must include “the organization’s admission of responsibility” for the alleged offence. Has SNC-Lavalin explicitly admitted corporate responsibility in the Libyan affair? A lawyer friend who has closely followed the case can find no example of it, in any public statement. It has dismissed the charges against it as “without merit,” insisting any alleged crimes were the work of a few rogue executives “who left the company long ago.” Perhaps that weighed heavily in the director’s deliberations.

Finally, there is sect. 715.32 (3) of the Code, under the heading “Factors not to consider.” For offences under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it reads - SNC-Lavalin was charged with one count of corruption under sect. 3(1)(b) of the act, along with one count of fraud - “the prosecutor must not consider,” inter alia, “the national economic interest.” (This is not only a matter of domestic law. It is a virtual word-for-word transposition of our obligations under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.)

So its defenders’ stated rationale for sparing SNC-Lavalin from prosecution - the dire consequences for jobs and the economy should the company be convicted, and presumably collapse - is not only economically suspect (SNC-Lavalin is not the only employer in the construction industry, nor would the work for which it has contracted disappear just because the company did) and morally dubious. It’s expressly precluded in law.

The DPP was not only within her rights, then, to refuse to negotiate a remediation agreement.. She would arguably be breaking the law if she did.

Suppose that were not true. Could the attorney general order her to? That, too, is far from clear. Under the law the attorney general is required to sign off on a prosecutor’s decision to negotiate a remediation agreement. But the prosecutor needs no such consent to decline to negotiate; neither is there anything in the law that says the attorney general can order her to.

<snip>

If the attorney general can’t instruct the DPP to go easy on SNC-Lavalin, and if the DPP declines to do so on her own, what on earth was there for the prime minister and the attorney general to discuss? This is especially pertinent in light of the general obligation on all public office-holders, as described in the federal Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code: that they should not merely obey the law, but “perform their official duties … in a manner that will bear the closest scrutiny.”

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #96 on: February 16, 2019, 13:36:27 »
Snap Loachman!

You just beat me to it.

I was going to highlight this bit.

Quote
Finally, there is sect. 715.32 (3) of the Code, under the heading “Factors not to consider.” For offences under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it reads - SNC-Lavalin was charged with one count of corruption under sect. 3(1)(b) of the act, along with one count of fraud - “the prosecutor must not consider,” inter alia, “the national economic interest.” (This is not only a matter of domestic law. It is a virtual word-for-word transposition of our obligations under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.)

So its defenders’ stated rationale for sparing SNC-Lavalin from prosecution - the dire consequences for jobs and the economy should the company be convicted, and presumably collapse - is not only economically suspect (SNC-Lavalin is not the only employer in the construction industry, nor would the work for which it has contracted disappear just because the company did) and morally dubious. It’s expressly precluded in law.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,635
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #97 on: February 16, 2019, 16:40:44 »
I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.

I'll fire off one comment then abandon this tangent in this thread.

Two analysts from Hill-Knowlton Strategies, quoted in March 2018, stated "Gun control presents an untapped opportunity for Justin Trudeau and his team to grow and solidify the voting base that gave them a majority in 2015".  The significant emotionally driven and generally uninformed support for a ban in most major urban centers (above and beyond Bill C-71's provisions) is not lost on Trudeau.

Even if C-71 is stalled in committee, i'd watch for a series of prohibition orders and/or OICs converting all restricted firearms to prohibited status to come in the next few months. Bill C-71 may die on the order table when the writ is dropped, but Trudeau will have his "safer Canadian communities" in time for October.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,817
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #98 on: February 16, 2019, 22:44:07 »
Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,635
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #99 on: February 17, 2019, 12:06:01 »
Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?

Okay... last comment on this tangent.. I promise.  IF Bill C-71 passes and become law, the power to reclassify firearms will be taken away from the government and rest in the hands of the RCMP.

And I don't believe for a minute that the Conservatives will form a majority government.  The Liberal campaign machine is very, very good at what it does and their "leader" is far more charismatic than either Scheer or Bernier.  The NDP will falter under Singh and be forced to more closely align themselves with the Liberals to survive.  These "scandals" will soon be buried and forgotten when the money taps open and the social engineering policy changes begins to shape the election battlespace in Trudeau's favour as long as his urban millennial support base doesn't look up from their phones long enough to see what he's really up to.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.