The SNC-Lavalin Scandal - Jody Wilson-Raybould Refuses to leave Office

[Shift-4]

On 2/12/2019 at 8:12 PM, xereau said:

Vote of non confidence is in order.

Queen Amidala has spoken   

[canuckster19]

So if I understand, a company bribed Libyan officials, the Liberal government tried to sweep it under the rug, this Jody Wilson Raybould wouldn't follow Liberal orders and this is where we are?

[DonLever]

1 hour ago, canuckster19 said:

So if I understand, a company bribed Libyan officials, the Liberal government tried to sweep it under the rug, this Jody Wilson Raybould wouldn't follow Liberal orders and this is where we are?

Trudeau wanted Jody Wilson Raybould to make a deal with SNC-Lavalin instead of pursuing criminal charges.   She refused apparently.  We don't know for sure because Jody has not spoken publicly about it.

 

If criminal charges were filed and SNC-Lavaline was convicted, the company would be barred from government procurement contracts for 10 years.   In Quebec, the company is very big with thousands of employees.  The Liberals would hate to see jobs losses in Quebec.if the company was convicted.   Plus there are close ties between SNC and the Liberals as they gave plenty of donations to the Liberals in the past.    So there hints of corruption in this scandal.

[Gurn]

51 minutes ago, DonLever said:

We don't know for sure because Jody has not spoken publicly about it.

So maybe people should wait and form an opinion when the facts are actually known?

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

So maybe people should wait and form an opinion when the facts are actually known?

what fun is that?

 

 

[JM_]

55 minutes ago, DonLever said:

Trudeau wanted Jody Wilson Raybould to make a deal with SNC-Lavalin instead of pursuing criminal charges.   She refused apparently.  We don't know for sure because Jody has not spoken publicly about it.

 

If criminal charges were filed and SNC-Lavaline was convicted, the company would be barred from government procurement contracts for 10 years.   In Quebec, the company is very big with thousands of employees.  The Liberals would hate to see jobs losses in Quebec.if the company was convicted.   Plus there are close ties between SNC and the Liberals as they gave plenty of donations to the Liberals in the past.    So there hints of corruption in this scandal.

Both things are actually fine to do, legally. Assuming that there were no sort of threats, e.g., to her career if she didn't. If it was more of a conversation, like "is it possible to consider remediation?" then this is a nothing burger, particularly since she didn't choose that option. 

 

The "hints of corruption" aren't proof of anything, but they are what Scheer thinks is his 'sponsorship moment'. 

 

We simply have to wait for her side. 

[DonLever]

21 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Both things are actually fine to do, legally.

The remediation law was introduced in 2018 after lobbying by the company.   Just shows the Federal Liberals are just as crooked as the BC Liberals.  Or any political party for that matter.  Like the BC NDP with ridesharing blocked by the Taxi companies who donate money to the NDP.   All political parties have the hand in the till one way or another.

 

From the BBC:

 

Quote

 

SNC-Lavalin, which has declined to comment on any of the reports about alleged PMO interference, has been open about wanting to enter into a remediation agreement, saying it has changed its ways.

The agreement - similar to regimes in the US and the UK - essentially suspends prosecution while allowing a firm to sign on to an agreement that could see it face alternative terms or conditions, like penalties or enhanced compliance measures.

 

The fact the Liberal government brought in the remediation agreement regime in 2018 as part of a massive budget bill - following lobbying efforts by the company - has not helped with optics.

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, DonLever said:

The remediation law was introduced in 2018 after lobbying by the company.   Just shows the Federal Liberals are just as crooked as the BC Liberals.  Or any political party for that matter.  Like the BC NDP with ridesharing blocked by the Taxi companies who donate money to the NDP.   All political parties have the hand in the till one way or another.

 

From the BBC:

 

 

sure they lobbied for it, but to suggest it was brought in just for SNC is wrong, it was coming anyway. 

 

 Its not like the NDP having a taxi owners son on the committee overseeing ride sharing, at all. 

 

Our law has a key difference between the US and UK versions, which makes ours more transparent. 

 

Canada's remediation agreement regime will be comparable to the statute-based regime in place in the U.K., and different from the U.S. regime in one fundamental respect - an agreement entered into in Canada will require judicial approval to ensure that it is in the interests of justice and its terms are fair, reasonable, and proportionate

 

https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2018/canada-moves-forward-with-remediation-agreement/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, gurn said:

So maybe people should wait and form an opinion when the facts are actually known?

How can we do that? The PM won't let her talk and the people that will be discussing weren't even involved in it. You sure you aren't a liberal supporter?

[Gurn]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

The PM won't let her talk

got proof of this assertion?

 

off to work I go.

Edited February 15, 2019 by gurn

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

How can we do that? The PM won't let her talk and the people that will be discussing weren't even involved in it. You sure you aren't a liberal supporter?

Thats not technically true. She signed a confidentiality agreement to be in cabinet, and the SNC case is ongoing. It makes sense to take time and make sure that she doesn't say something that hurts the SNC case, or breaches confidentiality. I doubt she would want to do either of those things, thats why she retained her own lawyer (and to send a message to Gerry to back off i suspect). 

 

She'll speak on it once they figure out how she can. 

[Ryan Strome]

36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Thats not technically true. She signed a confidentiality agreement to be in cabinet, and the SNC case is ongoing. It makes sense to take time and make sure that she doesn't say something that hurts the SNC case, or breaches confidentiality. I doubt she would want to do either of those things, thats why she retained her own lawyer (and to send a message to Gerry to back off i suspect). 

 

She'll speak on it once they figure out how she can. 

A couple things, the PM can waive that and the PM has said there is nothing to hide and he also said the report is false.

[DonLever]

Quote

For her part, Wilson-Raybould has cited solicitor-client privilege when asked to speak publicly on the matter. She has hired former Supreme Court justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on what she can and cannot say publicly.

 

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Trudeau admits Wilson-Raybould challenged him on SNC-Lavalin

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeauadmits his former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould challenged her boss last fall to clarify if he was “directing” her to make a decision in the disputed bribery prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Trudeau refused Friday to say exactly what he told his former attorney general or whether he indicated his own preference to her.

 

Trudeau’s conversation with Wilson-Raybould — the only one he has said he had with her on the matter — happened Monday, Sept. 17, in Ottawa, according to his office.

That was nearly three weeks before the independent director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, on Oct. 9, 2018 rejected SNC-Lavalin’s entreaties that federal prosecutors negotiate a “remediation agreement” to settle the case.

Trudeau cited cabinet confidentiality for refusing to detail his side of the discussion. But he described, however, a full-court press by SNC-Lavalin, and a range of individuals including the current and former premiers of Quebec, François Legault and Philippe Couillard, MPs from Quebec and others concerned about the company’s fate.

 

“There were many discussions going on, which is why Jody Wilson-Raybould asked me if I was directing her or going to direct her to take a particular decision and I of course said no, that it was her decision to make and I expected her to make it,” Trudeau told reporters Friday.

“I had full confidence in her role as attorney general to make the decision.”

“Obviously as a government we take very seriously our responsibility of standing up for jobs, of protecting jobs, of growing the economy, of making sure that there are good jobs right across the country as there are with SNC-Lavalin, but as we do that we always need to make sure we’re standing up for the rule of law and protecting the independence of our justice system,” Trudeau told reporters at an announcement at Blackberry QNX facilities in suburban Ottawa.

When asked if he had expressed a preference, and if it is possible Wilson-Raybould felt his comments as pressure, Trudeau declined a direct answer.

Trudeau insisted, as he has several times since allegations surfaced eight days ago, that his government acted within the norms and rules in all its dealings on the matter.

He denounced what he called sexist and racist comments directed towards Wilson-Raybould in the aftermath of the whole affair, denied she was shuffled out of her job as attorney-general because she didn’t speak French, as the Liberal chair of the Commons justice committee speculated.

But did not say exactly why he moved her, only that “there are always a wide range of factors that go into making that decision.”

 

“If Scott Brison had not stepped down from cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general,” he said.

Trudeau again shifted blame onto Wilson-Raybould, as he has since Tuesday, saying it was her responsibility to tell him if she felt anyone had acted inappropriately in discussions with her.

“If the minister or anyone else felt undue pressure or felt that we were not living up to our own high standards of defence of the rule of law and our judicial system and judicial independence, it was their responsibility to come forward.”

When reporters asked the prime minister what exactly Wilson-Raybould told him was her reason for handing in her resignation on Monday night, Trudeau also dodged a direct answer. “She made her decision, I accept her decision even if I do not entirely understand it.”

Legault has made no secret publicly of his preference for a settlement of the SNC-Lavalin charges.

The Quebec premier also made that case privately to Trudeau in at least two official meetings, according to a senior government official.

The first was when were in Yerevan, Armenia for the summit of La Francophonie. Trudeau and Legault travelled there together on a Canadian Forces plane for a summit that was occurring the very week that Roussel’s office informed SNC-Lavalin of her decision.

Legault also raised the plight of the Quebec company with Trudeau in January when they met in Sherbrooke on the sidelines of a federal cabinet retreat, according to a senior government official who declined to discuss the content of their conversation.

Legault last fall and again this past week publicly expressed concern that SNC-Lavalin could be vulnerable to a takeover bid in the wake of a decision by the federal public prosecutor to refuse SNC-Lavalin’s request to strike a remediation agreement instead of going to court.

A spokesperson for Legault, Valérie Noel-Létourneau said the premier believes those who committed wrongdoing should face the charges, but believes a settlement should be reached that would allow SNC-Lavalin, to continue doing business, to resist a hostile takeover and keep its headquarters in Montreal, to protect its 8,700 Canadian employees, suppliers, and pensioners.

SNC-Lavalin, a Quebec-headquartered engineering and construction company with some 50,000 employees worldwide, is charged under the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act with bribery, and under the Criminal Code with fraud. The charges are in connection with alleged payments by former company officials to the former Libyan regime of Muammar Gadaffi between 2001 and 2011.

The company denies guilt and says the two employees acted without its knowledge or consent. It wants to agree to a heavy fine, corporate reforms (which it’s already implemented) and a strict oversight regime but says Ottawa should agree to what’s called a “deferred prosecution.” It’s a new legal regime that would spare the company a criminal conviction which could lead to it being blacklisted from federal contracts. The agreement would have to be approved by a court and if the company failed to comply with it, the prosecution could be recommenced.

The Liberal government announced it would change the law to allow deferred prosecution agreements in its budget plan for 2018 under the heading of “corporate integrity.” Finance Minister Bill Morneau then inserted changes into his Budget Implementation Act. However the new regime went virtually unnoticed by media. They were examined by the finance committee, not the justice committee.

The law says that among other factors, the director of public prosecutions must decide if it is “in the public interest & appropriate” to negotiate such agreements in cases of white-collar crime.

However when it comes to cases where an organization is charged with an offence under section three or four of the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act, as SNC-Lavalin is, the director of public prosecutions must not consider national economic interest as a factor.

But national economic interest is the precisely the argument many, including Legault, are making.

Trudeau’s government is confronting its most serious controversy yet over the allegations he may have politically intervened to persuade Wilson-Raybould to direct the prosecutor to agree to a deal. If the attorney general were to direct the prosecutor, she would have to do so in writing, with reasons published in the government’s official record of decisions, the Canada Gazette.

Wilson-Raybould has remained silent over the whole affair, neither confirming nor denying the reports that she resisted political pressure to intervene in the prosecution. She says she is bound by solicitor-client privilege not to divulge her past communications as the government’s lawyer.

But she has hired a former Supreme Court of Canada judge as her lawyer to advise her on what public comments she can make.

Wilson-Raybould has not responded to the Star’s requests for comment.

She did not publicly back Trudeau’s version of events after the story first broke, three weeks after Trudeau had shuffled her to the veterans affairs post.

She resigned Monday night after Trudeau publicly suggested she was happy to remain in his cabinet.

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/02/15/wilson-rayboulds-cabinet-move-due-to-departure-from-team-says-trudeau.html

 

 

[JM_]

15 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

A couple things, the PM can waive that and the PM has said there is nothing to hide and he also said the report is false.

thats not an easy thing to do in Canada, we have some of the strictest federal confidentiality rules in the commonwealth. Anything said in cabinet meetings can't even be accessed under FOI laws e.g., Scheer knows that, but he's making it sound like its as easy as waiving your hand. 

 

Its way easier to extend confidentiality to an independent person like a former supreme court judge, who can then interview and gather info from all the players and then write a report on it - thats a good route to go for this as well I think, as it could be done pretty quickly given the small number of people involved. Anything that gets to the truth of it. 

 

JT has been "developing" his message all week on this, which is always a sign there's more to the story. 

[Ryan Strome]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats not an easy thing to do in Canada, we have some of the strictest federal confidentiality rules in the commonwealth. Anything said in cabinet meetings can't even be accessed under FOI laws e.g., Scheer knows that, but he's making it sound like its as easy as waiving your hand. 

 

Its way easier to extend confidentiality to an independent person like a former supreme court judge, who can then interview and gather info from all the players and then write a report on it - thats a good route to go for this as well I think, as it could be done pretty quickly given the small number of people involved. Anything that gets to the truth of it. 

 

JT has been "developing" his message all week on this, which is always a sign there's more to the story. 

It's not just Scheer, everyone with knowledge has stated the PM holds this power.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Ryan Strome

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's not just Scheer, everyone with knowledge has stated the PM holds this power.

sure but its not easy. Think about it - how do you control just one persons confidentiality in a multi-person conversation? do you then waive everyone's confidentiality and risk the SNC case? 

 

it makes far more sense to bring in someone independent and trustworthy to review it all. 

[Russ]

On 2/15/2019 at 2:52 PM, gurn said:

got proof of this assertion?

 

off to work I go.

CBC radio yesterday talked about it how she was seeking legal advice on what she's allowed to and not allowed to say. I don't know all these ins and outs I haven't followed this much, been to busy with my own stuff to really follow it. If it's true what Trudeau says and there's nothing to hide and he wasn't instructing her on how to do her job then there's no reason she shouldn't be able to talk. Be interesting to see how this plays out in the end.

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but its not easy. Think about it - how do you control just one persons confidentiality in a multi-person conversation? do you then waive everyone's confidentiality and risk the SNC case? 

 

it makes far more sense to bring in someone independent and trustworthy to review it all. 

Well that's happening, however that will likely take a year. It's not talking about the case at all Jimmy. Did the PMO pressure JWR to protect snc lavalin, yes or no? One question that's it.

[Guest]

This is completely stupid. Stop thinking politics and start thinking like people. 

 

Look at the numbers. This is a 50 000 person company worldwide, much of that is Canadian based. That’s a lot of people suddenly out of work but here’s more. About 20% of SNC’s shares are owned by the Quebec Teachers Pension, meaning they’re absolutely screwed if anything drastic happens. As well, banning a company for what happened in another country, with people who’re no longer members of said company because they’re all gone, dead or in jail, from many years ago, makes no sense. 

 

Think, please.