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

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

As you say Liberals always find a way.

They really do. People simply grow tired of conservative governments, Liberal governments give people reasons. 

[Ryan Strome]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

They really do. People simply grow tired of conservative governments, Liberal governments give people reasons. 

Honestly had Chretien and his team if you will not have been sabotaging Paul Martin I bet Martin could have been PM for at least 8 years.

 

People were touting him prior to becoming leader as the next greatest PM.

 

Biggest issue the liberals have is they believe they have the right to govern. I thought 2011 would fix that problem for them but I don't think it did.

[JM_]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Honestly had Chretien and his team if you will not have been sabotaging Paul Martin I bet Martin could have been PM for at least 8 years.

 

People were touting him prior to becoming leader as the next greatest PM.

 

Biggest issue the liberals have is they believe they have the right to govern. I thought 2011 would fix that problem for them but I don't think it did.

true, but I do recall Harper borrowing that one too 

 

For me, i care about trade, multiculturalism, smart taxation and the Charter. That used to be the PCs. I still feel like my party left me when they joined up with the Reformers. The current version of the Liberals are closer to the older PCs on the things i care about. 

[Ryan Strome]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

true, but I do recall Harper borrowing that one too 

 

For me, i care about trade, multiculturalism, smart taxation and the Charter. That used to be the PCs. I still feel like my party left me when they joined up with the Reformers. The current version of the Liberals are closer to the older PCs on the things i care about. 

I hate taxation, period. I don't think Harper borrowed I think it's the truth. Good lord they attempted a coalition with the sepratists to steal power. Even while third party cbc and ctv treated liberal guests as if they were the opposition. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I hate taxation, period. I don't think Harper borrowed I think it's the truth. Good lord they attempted a coalition with the sepratists to steal power. Even while third party cbc and ctv treated liberal guests as if they were the opposition. 

we don't speak of the dark time in this house 

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we don't speak of the dark time in this house 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

The trailer trash are weighing in on the debate:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/wernicks-hate-mail-over-snc-lavalin/ar-BBUvxvM?li=AAggNb9

Quote

"Your garbage pal. If you don't want to be calked name like treason and traitor then don't indulge in it then, you (expletive) idiot goofs!" said one.

"You should be ashamed of yourself for the comments about assinations! Arrogant! Get a real job you (expletive) deadbeat," said another.

 

If anyone needs translation, I'm pretty sure Ryan speaks Albertan....

[JM_]

3 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The trailer trash are weighing in on the debate:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/wernicks-hate-mail-over-snc-lavalin/ar-BBUvxvM?li=AAggNb9

If anyone needs translation, I'm pretty sure Ryan speaks Albertan....

Ugh. I wish the media would stop giving goofballs on twitter so much power. We need to ignore them all. 

[Ryan Strome]

5 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The trailer trash are weighing in on the debate:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/wernicks-hate-mail-over-snc-lavalin/ar-BBUvxvM?li=AAggNb9

If anyone needs translation, I'm pretty sure Ryan speaks Albertan....

That guy immigrated from Prince Rupert.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

That guy immigrated from Prince Rupert.

I'm not surprised.....we don't have very many trailer parks around here.....

[JM_]

Liberal base is coming back.

 

 

 

[JM_]

 

[kingofsurrey]

Real Leaders have to make tough decisions.

 

My hat goes off to Justin Trudeau who is thinking about what is best for Canadians and our countries economy.

[VanGnome]

 

 

There's nothing new in this recording aside maybe from the illustration of the NUMBER of attempts Wernick made to alter JWR's decision on the matter. What it does bring to the table is the clear nature of the narrative that Wernick was driving. It seemed absolutely unclear to him the fundamental nature of the ask that was coming ostensibly from the PM.

Regardless of a specific directive from the PM, it was clear that what was required was either interference in the independence of the office of the DPP at worst, or at best a significant undermining of JWR in her role as both Minister of Justice and Attorney General. It seems as though JT made some backroom nudge nudge wink wink promises to SNC-Lavalin (despite the public denouncement of any such reasoning for a DPA, mostly in an effort to establish a counter narrative in the event that a DPA is ultimately entered into) that now cannot be kept. And because it was a prominent firm in Quebec, there's real weight to the whisper campaign that could and probably will be levied against JT "can't get it done, too inexperienced, unfit to lead" etc.

The reason this issue was so damn important is because it was in his interest for it to go the way he wanted, which if that is indeed the case JT is far beyond compromised that he cannot in good conscience remain as leader of the Liberal party, or PM of the country.

Regardless of the optics of a covert recording, one thing is clear -- this recording came at the tail end of what was a significant campaign to change her mind, and even though it was done not in good faith (by giving an opportunity to Wernick to reschedule the call if he felt uncomfortable being recorded), given the context surrounding it, it was also in part for her protection.

This really is not good for the entire LPC, and I'm pretty certain we will see a reversal of the 2015 election with the CPC gaining a pretty solid majority. I'm not entirely thrilled with that prospect either because imo the CPC is just as tainted when it comes to pomp, circumstance and the desire and willingness to employ hidden agendas. Our entire political system needs extensive overhauling, and firstly we need more proportional representation and getting rid of the first past the post electoral system.

[Toews]

Has JWR put forth a legal position as far as why she refused to consider a DPA? I am sure through all the meetings and phone calls, her cabinet members were able to convey to her the consequences of a guilty verdict which according to the latest reporting is 6500 jobs. What is her legal justification for refusing to consider an alternative that would have lessened the impact on ordinary employees? If she has none then this whole thing has been a sham from the start. A claim of "political interference" just tells me that she was wholly unprepared to do this job which requires one to work closely with politicians. By definition anyone discussing anything with her in the capacity of her position could be accused of political interference. It seems JWR thought her job entailed that she call the shots without input from anyone else. I wonder how much her appointment had to with meeting that quota of 50% female cabinet members. How much was she vetted for this job? IMO her appointment is the biggest indictment on Trudeau, as is his meekness throughout all of this. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Toews

[Hamhuis Hip Check]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

Has JWR put forth a legal position as far as why she refused to consider a DPA? I am sure through all the meetings and phone calls, her cabinet members were able to convey to her the consequences of a guilty verdict which according to the latest reporting is 6500 jobs. What is her legal justification for refusing to consider an alternative that would have lessened the impact on ordinary employees? If she has none then this whole thing has been a sham from the start. A claim of "political interference" just tells me that she was wholly unprepared to do this job which requires one to work closely with politicians. By definition anyone discussing anything with her in the capacity of her position could be accused of political interference. It seems JWR thought her job entailed that she call the shots without input from anyone else. I wonder how much her appointment had to with meeting that quota of 50% female cabinet members. How much was she vetted for this job? IMO her appointment is the biggest indictment on Trudeau, as is his meekness throughout all of this. 

Maybe the fact that they actually did thr crimes alleged, and jobs by the letter of the law cannot be considered when deciding on matters like this

[BPA]

24 minutes ago, Hamhuis Hip Check said:

Maybe the fact that they actually did thr crimes alleged, and jobs by the letter of the law cannot be considered when deciding on matters like this

Pretty sure that JWR could have chosen the renumeration route.  SNC would have paid a big fine, be on probation, etc.  AND the jobs probably would have been protected/safe.

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/pm-wasnt-briefed-on-wilson-rayboulds-concerns-due-to-holiday-break-says-wernick/ar-BBVrbCJ?ocid=spartandhp

"

Canada's top civil servant says he didn't brief Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a secretly recorded phone conversation with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin because everyone "went on holidays the next day" and when they returned, it wasn't the most pressing issue.   

The statement released on Saturday by the lawyer for Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, comes a day after the House of Commons justice committee released an audio recording made by Wilson-Raybould of a Dec. 19 call between herself and Wernick.

Wernick — who was not aware he was being recorded in the 17-minute call — is heard warning Wilson-Raybould that Trudeau was "quite determined" to prevent SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial from leading to job losses.

 

 

Sponsored Video

See More Sponsored by Transat

Wernick said Trudeau wanted to know why the then-justice minister hadn't used a new legal tool to allow the Quebec-based engineering giant to avoid a criminal trial on corruption-related charges. 

Wilson-Raybould is heard repeatedly stating that she thought the conversation with Wernick was inappropriate and that she wanted to protect the prime minister and the integrity of the government.

Conflicting claims

In contrast to Wilson-Raybould's testimony on Friday where she alleged Trudeau was set on stopping the criminal prosecution, Wernick said the PM was not aware of her concerns, and the SNC case was not a priority for the PMO.

In the statement from lawyer Frank Addario, Wernick said he raised the issue with the then-attorney-general "as part of his job to manage relations between the PM and his cabinet ministers." 

Wernick said he didn't brief Trudeau on Wilson-Raybould's concerns because, following their phone conversation, "everyone went on holidays the next day."

Wernick's statement appears to shed some light on how Trudeau could have been left in the dark about Wilson-Raybould's concerns.

Trudeau's spokesperson, Cameron Ahmad, said the Prime Minister's Office was unaware of the full contents of the audio recording until it was played to lawmakers on Friday.

"When everyone returned at beginning of January, the first burning issue was the [Scott] Brison resignation and a Cabinet shuffle," Wernick's statement said.

"The SNC issue never made it back to the top of the discussion list."

The statement said Wernick "never discussed SNC again with the PM or PMO until someone leaked the story to the Globe and Mail in early February."

Wernick will be leaving his post as Canada's top civil servant before the federal election this fall. 

[VanGnome]

17 hours ago, Toews said:

Has JWR put forth a legal position as far as why she refused to consider a DPA? I am sure through all the meetings and phone calls, her cabinet members were able to convey to her the consequences of a guilty verdict which according to the latest reporting is 6500 jobs. What is her legal justification for refusing to consider an alternative that would have lessened the impact on ordinary employees? If she has none then this whole thing has been a sham from the start. A claim of "political interference" just tells me that she was wholly unprepared to do this job which requires one to work closely with politicians. By definition anyone discussing anything with her in the capacity of her position could be accused of political interference. It seems JWR thought her job entailed that she call the shots without input from anyone else. I wonder how much her appointment had to with meeting that quota of 50% female cabinet members. How much was she vetted for this job? IMO her appointment is the biggest indictment on Trudeau, as is his meekness throughout all of this. 

 

15 hours ago, BPA said:

Pretty sure that JWR could have chosen the renumeration route.  SNC would have paid a big fine, be on probation, etc.  AND the jobs probably would have been protected/safe.

The decision was never JWR's to begin with. The decision to use a DPA rested SOLELY with the Department of Public Prosecutor, a completely separate office from the Attorney General.

The DPP reviewed all of the facts of the case and determined that SNC was not eligible to receive a DPA based on those facts. The only decision JWR had was whether to issue a specific directive overriding the DPP's decision, or to personally take over the case for prosecution -- neither of which have EVER been done in the 10 years since Harper put into law the framework to create the office of the DPP, so it would have been precedent setting. If you're unfamiliar with the weight of legal precedent, it's very significant. Essentially when something has been done for the first time, it is subsequently referred to in future cases as a justification of taking a particular action, even if the strength of the merits of that action is not as strong as those set forth in the precedent setting case.

JWR could have ONLY taken those actions if she felt that the DPP had made an incorrect assessment, and since she reviewed the facts and the case, and in the absence of any new evidence that would support the use of a DPA and came to the same conclusion, the tools at her disposal were effectively moot.

This is where this whole thing should have ended, but it did not. People in the PMO and the PM himself disliked that decision, and set forth with the intention of browbeating JWR into changing her mind, despite having no other justification other than partisan political motivations (election year, Quebec being an important lynch pin to securing a majority government) and economic interests (supposed job loss) NEITHER of which are acceptable for being considered as reasons to grant a DPA.

JT, the PMO et al had no new evidence that would support why SNC should receive the DPA, thus the independent decision of the DPP and the affirmation of the AG should have stood as the final answer. It did in the end, but not for lack of try. The ONLY reason this whole affair has not entered into clear criminality is because JWR expressly prevented that from occurring. It was she, and she alone that protected the sanctity of the judicial process and the integrity of the judicial system here in Canada.

The PM and members within the PMO acted highly improperly, and instead of owning up to this misconduct, the Liberals spin this to say that the "system works", SNC is going to trial, etc etc. Except when you look at the optics of this, that JWR was fired as AG (no need to do this as part of the cabinet shuffle) shortly after this phone call took place, and David Lametti was placed into the role of Minister of Justice and Attorney General who's riding just so happens to be one in the same as where SNC's headquarters are located. An individual who mind you was lobbied as part of the extreme push to make their case for a DPA.

With all of the testimony that's unfolded, this phone call recording and all other evidence, it is absolutely clear that the intent for the DPA was purely political, and thus if SNC DOES get a DPA from the new AG, it opens up potential criminality since as a byproduct of issuing a DPA specific sections of the law would have to be broken. SNC would not qualify according to the law as it's written.

What I can see happening, is the prosecution case being delayed until after the election. It's entirely plausible that the Conservatives will win a majority and with their consistent refusal to agree that a DPA is not eligible in this specific case, could in fact grant a DPA to SNC. Especially if they win a majority and rewrite some provisions of the law and slide it into a budget bill just as the Liberals did, they can reword the law such that the DPA would then be legal despite all of the context surrounding it.

Don't be surprised if SNC gets its DPA in the end, crony capitalism pretty much has a stranglehold on Ottawa and has been like this since the early 80s. The CPC are just using this as an opportunity to put the nail in the coffin of the Liberals because they want their kick at the can again. Personally I'm not voting CPC, people need to be informed and vote their conscience.

[BPA]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/snc-lavalin-a-look-at-the-attorney-generals-power-to-step-in/amp

 

The attorney general’s powers

Wilson-Raybould could have overruled the prosecution service, directing it to negotiate an agreement with SNC-Lavalin by virtue of a law that allows the attorney general to do so as long as the instruction is in writing and published in the Canada Gazette, the public registry of federal-government decisions.

 

Trudeau says he told Wilson-Raybould any such decision was hers alone. In the end, she did not overturn the prosecution service’s decision. She was shuffled to the veterans-affairs portfolio in January.

 

Given that a remediation agreement undergoes judicial scrutiny and requires court approval, an attorney general who directed the prosecution service to negotiate one would need to be satisfied the case was appropriate for an agreement, said Jennifer Quaid, an assistant professor of law at the University of Ottawa.

 

“An attorney general that’s not comfortable that this is appropriate is not going to do it, because they’re going to be exposed, ultimately,” Quaid said.

 

Having said this, there has not yet been a remediation agreement under the new system, so it is difficult to know exactly how the courts will interpret the law.

 

In addition, though, an upstanding attorney general mindful of ethical obligations who overrules the public prosecutor “must believe they’re doing it for the right reasons,” Quaid said.