To What Extent Does Wilson-Raybould's Recording Change Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin Problem?

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym
To What Extent Does Wilson-Raybould's Recording Change Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin Problem?

The url below contains Jody Wilson-Raybould's recording of her conversation with former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick. It supports her justice committee testimony about repeatedly warning the clerk and through him the PM that their attempt to intefere in the judicial process is inappropriate and "political interference" in the judicial process, as well as the veiled threats to her job if she does not change her position. 

– Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould was cautioned about a potential “collision” with the prime minister over the SNC-Lavalin file, by outgoing Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick, a newly-released audio recording reveals. According to an audio recording of a conversation that the pair had, submitted to the House Justice Committee by Wilson-Raybould, Wernick said he was worried what might happen if Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould remained at “loggerheads” about whether or not to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to the Quebec engineering firm. In the audio, Wilson-Raybould can be heard issuing repeated and stern warnings that senior officials’ pressuring of her in regards to the SNC-Lavalin case was “going to look like nothing but political interference,” if it had been successful and the Quebec engineering company was granted the deal that many had been lobbying for.

She said she was absolutely confident in her decision and in response, Wernick said he was “worried about a collision then because he is pretty firm about this. I just saw him a few hours ago and this is really important to him.” The 17-minute audio file has been provided to all members of the House Justice Committee, as part of the new and supplementary evidence related to the SNC-Lavalin scandal that she handed over days ago. ...

The 43-pages of additional material also includes a written statement, as well as well as screen shots of text messages and copies of emails that she referenced during her initial testimony. The evidence has been uploaded to the committee's website. Chair of the committee, Anthony Housefather, has said that "no redactions have been made" to Wilson-Raybould’s submission by the committee, though there are portions of the submission that appear to have been redacted by Wilson-Raybould before it was submitted. ...

The conversation ended with Wilson-Raybould saying that she was “waiting for the other shoe to drop,” and that "I am not under any illusion how the prime minister has and gets things that he wants. I am just stuck doing the best job that I can."

In her written submission Wilson-Raybould said she recorded the conversation because she “I had reason to believe that it was likely to be an inappropriate conversation.” She said she had never done this before, and has not done so since. “I did this simply to ensure that my notes were accurate and given the ongoing pressure and attempts to interfere in this case, the nature of conversations that had occurred… and my strong suspicion that this matter would continue to escalate in even more inappropriate ways,” she wrote.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wernick-warns-wilson-raybould-of-a-colli...

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I just listened to the 17 minute phone call between Wernick and Wilson-Reybould, and it is stunning. Wernick is the ultimate cynical politico, and JWR is the principled believer in the rule of law. Wow.

swallow swallow's picture

The audio without ad interruptions is at https://ourcommons.azureedge.net/data/ConversationJWRandWernick-e.m4a

 

cco

With no disrespect to jerrym, Michael Moriarty, swallow, or NorthReport: Do we need another two or three threads on this issue?

NorthReport

No disrespect felt, and no we don't.

swallow swallow's picture

No we don’t need another thread, ideally these threads would all be merged. Just found the CTV audio with ads annoying so shared a direct link.

Sean in Ottawa

The problem for the Liberals is that the more this continues the more the healthy skeptism of Liberal politicians will change into active disbelief.

At some point, nothing he says will matter. He can call Brian Mulroney and ask what that feels like.

Pondering

It is really hard to judge right now but I don't think this recording is going to change anything. 

Werlick italized 

JWR underlined

The recording is between Wernick and JWR. He resigned and said he did not brief Trudeau on what was said. JWR didn't brief Trudeau either. 

So it seems to be real and not a bluff. Um, there is another rising anxiety as you can imagine about a signature firm and job loss and all that coming after the Oshawa thing and what is going on in Calgary and what not. So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used. And I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that.

tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox 

An indicator that Trudeau doesn't want Wernick or anyone else to behave in an illegitimate manner. 

And I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that.

Wernick expressing his opinion of Trudeau's mood and intentions. 

he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used

Not an unreasonable request. 

 l am just- um – issuing the strongest warning I can possibly issue that decisions that are made by the independent prosecutor are their decisions. We gave her, and them, the tools – the additional tools – I made it very clear at the cabinet table and other places that these tools are at the discretion of the prosecutor – and everybody agreed to that and that there was no guarantee that there would be a DPA in this or any other case. 

But by law the AG can overrule the public prosecutor. The PP does not have the final word.

 I am not the lawyer in any of these conversations – and Elder and others is – um – it is not interference – the statute specifically has these other provisions in it that allow you to ask questions of the OPP and that is provided for and that is not interference …

But I would have to issue a Directive, I would have to Gazette this…The Prosecutor – the director – whom I know and understand after having several conversations with her about another directive on HIV that I issued – she is a by-the-book person. If this is Gazetted – this will be – and I hear you on the jobs and wanting to save jobs – I mean we all want to do that – this goes far beyond saving jobs – this is about the integrity of the prime minister and interference – there is no way that anybody would interpret this other than interference – if I was to step in.

Okay, so it seems the prosecutor is a by the book person so is opposed to using the new agreement tool. (I wonder if they are a Conservative which also carries implications.) It seems like JWR is concerned about her own reputation and that she isn't considering the job losses. If she decided that the OPP, due to being a stickler, ruled against the DPA, it would be perfectly valid and legal for her to interfere. It would in no way impact the PM. It seems she is almost making a threat herself. That if she were to do it she would blame the PM. 

He is asking her why she is against the DPA.  What is her reasoning. That the OPP is a stickler or that it would look bad politically is not a valid answer. She, in her position as AG, made a decision that the DPA was inappropriate. She is refusing to consider it. Why?

 this is about the integrity of the government and recognizing that there is the ability to issue a directive under the act…um…it is still irrespective of the ability that I have to do that – 1. it has never been done before but 2. this is going to look like nothing but political interference by the prime minister, by you, by everybody else that has been involved in this politically pressuring me to do this.

That it would be the first time a directive is being used is not a reason not to use it. Part two sounds like a threat to me. The only reasons she is giving for not using the directive is that it hasn't been done before and it would look bad. Those aren't reasons. 

The prosecutor sent me what is called a Section 13
– you told me that you hadn’t seen it before – but I read it and I have reread it – and the Prime Minister’s Office has a copy of it. She explains in it why she is not doing it in this case – we have to, I have to be – unless it is something outrageous – comfortable with the decision – recognizing it is the first one likely and obviously I am confident wasn’t entered into lightly – made the decision not to enter into a DPA with respect to this case. And she explained why.

I wish somebody would tell us on what the prosecutor based her decision not to offer a DPA. Does it align with the motives of the legislation in creating the DPA? Did the prosecutor base her decision on not liking the DPA because she is a stickler or is there some other reason the DPA was refused? Is JWR refusing to intervene because she agrees with the OPP or refusing because she wouldn't like it on her resume? 

If it is because she agrees with the OPP, I want to know the reasoning used. 

swallow swallow's picture

Why should the public prosecutor offer a DPA?

Bearing in mind that “jobs” is not a reason permitted in law.

After the attorney general has made a final decision (one that the clerk says is “clear” in that conversation) how many times is she required to repeat that she leaves the decision to the public prosecutor before the continued mentions of the PM’s mood constitute pressure?

Is it really in order for the clerk to be talking about getting “Bev” (as he calls the former Chief Justice of Canada) to step in and provide new advice when the attorney general has made her decision? 

How many times does a woman need to say “this is inappropriate” before the call stops?

 

quizzical

and still many Quebecers seem to have no issue with this. I.e. pondering.

shows how the first name using bullies just don't accept "no".

Ben Chin needs to be fired.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

JWR is a Conservative operative low life. Who do you think is going to benefit the most? Answer? Not the NDP.

If SNC Lavalin moved out of Canada, the Liberals would pay a political price and conspiring to keep those jobs in Canada also faces a political price.

If JWR had any sense of not betraying her party and not handing the next election to Scheer, I'd be the first one to defend her. There is a rumour that she was on her way out of the Justice Minister portfolio and 'demoted' to another ministerial position. Sour grapes?

So enjoy yourselves noiw because this fall we get Stephen Harper back with an Orange streak. If you want to celebrate that, don't bother complaining when we end up with a Trumpian majority.

quizzical

fkn nonsense Alan.

Trudeau and his groupies brought this all on themselves.

pretty fkn juvenile trying to blame anyone else.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I appreciate Pondering's post on this and I do not live in Quebec. I don't get the MO for any of Jody Wilson-Raybould's actions. She's not uncovering Watergate. I also find her outrage for being offered the Indigenous Services portfolio somewhat disengenuous. Her biggest ally, Philpott, was the Minister in charge of administering the odious Indian Act.  And I believe her partner has been a consultant to First Nations who may or may not have been involved with projects receiving funding from INAC aka Indigenous Services.

Unionist

laine lowe wrote:

I appreciate Pondering's post on this and I do not live in Quebec. I don't get the MO for any of Jody Wilson-Raybould's actions. She's not uncovering Watergate. I also find her outrage for being offered the Indigenous Services portfolio somewhat disengenuous. Her biggest ally, Philpott, was the Minister in charge of administering the odious Indian Act.  And I believe her partner has been a consultant to First Nations who may or may not have been involved with projects receiving funding from INAC aka Indigenous Services.

I appreciate your questions as well as Pondering's analysis. Some of the same questions have occurred to me. When I listened to the audio of the phone call (17 minutes I will never get back), I heard what sounded to me like righteous indignation, read from a script, over and over. I guess when someone decides to record a private phone conversation without alerting the other party, one has time to jot down some prepared comments. Something doesn't feel right here.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

fkn nonsense Alan.

Trudeau and his groupies brought this all on themselves.

pretty fkn juvenile trying to blame anyone else.

Get a life quiz. Or at least be consistent and whine at laine lowe.

Is he/she juvenile as well?

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

JWR is a Conservative operative low life. Who do you think is going to benefit the most? Answer? Not the NDP.

If SNC Lavalin moved out of Canada, the Liberals would pay a political price and conspiring to keep those jobs in Canada also faces a political price.

If JWR had any sense of not betraying her party and not handing the next election to Scheer, I'd be the first one to defend her. There is a rumour that she was on her way out of the Justice Minister portfolio and 'demoted' to another ministerial position. Sour grapes?

So enjoy yourselves noiw because this fall we get Stephen Harper back with an Orange streak. If you want to celebrate that, don't bother complaining when we end up with a Trumpian majority.

What the fuck lol

You're one of the Canadians who would defend Trudeau after he murdered a hockey bag full of puppies aren't you?

You're worried about JWR betraying her party? How about thinking about Canada first? Stop voting for parties because of identity politics dude.

Worried about a Trumpian majority, from the guy who wants to murder Canadians with an AR15 to prove a point lol

Awesome sauce.

quizzical

ya i feel the same way about e1 who is busy smearing JWR.

no respect for the shills of corruption because it benefits them.

Unionist

 

Jody Wilson-Raybould doth protest too much

Quote:

Did Wilson-Raybould voice her dissent on grounds of principle when the Liberal government refused to relinquish its $14-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, a country responsible for the starvation of countless Yemenite children?

Did she protest when her government spent "$110K in legal fees fighting a First Nations girl over [a] $6K dental procedure"?

Did she contest the government's decision to take the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to Federal Court "over a ruling last month that linked the suicide deaths in a northern Ontario First Nation with Ottawa's inaction on implementing total equity in health-care delivery for Indigenous children"?

cco

The mentality that says "the public knowing about something that would embarrass me is handing the election to my opponent, who would govern so much worse than I do that telling the public is really betraying them" is behind all of the worst political scandals in democratic history, including Watergate. When regular voters (not employed political operatives) get mad at someone for revealing the truth, it's a sign of how deeply that mentality has infected the country. It's the exact same logic that leads cardinals to cover up pedophile priests, because if people knew, those souls would be lost to Satan.

None of this requires canonizing JWR. But blaming her for Scheer is a sign something's gone completely off the rails.

Pondering

I'm not saying I approve. I'm saying I have questions. 

I think both in Harper's PMO and Trudeau's PMO they have staff between them and ministers to protect themselves who are expected to fall on their swords. I naively thought cabinet ministers had direct access to Trudeau if not on the instant within a few days. 

She keeps repeating nothing illegal happened, it was just "inappropriate" pressure. What the hell does that mean? Either it is legal or not. Inappropriate is a judgement call. The DPA was created for exactly this type of situation so why wasn't it applied? Seems like a straightforward question. She said the prosecutor's reasoning was sent over to the PMO but again that is the prosecutor's reasoning not JWR's.  She seems to be taking the position that unless the prosecutor made an error in law that she can't interfere but that isn't so. There is a mechanism for her to interfere. That wouldn't exist if the only reasoning was a matter of law. 

She may be an indigenous woman but she also claims to be a dyed in the wool Liberal. If what happened was so egregious why isn't she becoming an independent? 

I could understand the argument "I joined the Liberals because they can win and I want to change the system from within" but she isn't doing that. She isn't talking about the firewall between PMs and everyone else that is there expressedly so inappropriate pressure can be applied or payoffs made without involving the PM. 

That part isn't even a topic of conversation and to me it is a good deal more important than the specifics of SNC-Lavalin. 

Pondering

And why didn't she say, by the way Wernick, I don't have a note-taker present so I am recording this call.

It would seem to be the polite thing to do.

quizzical

bs pondering the specifics of it all matters.

if they hadn't been pressuring JWR and the DPP wrongly and snuck the DPA into an omnibus bill in the first place none of this would've happened.

let's face it you don't care about truths you care about your pension funds.

ETA she owed Wernick sfa. 

swallow swallow's picture

Pondering, why do you think the deferred prosecution option should have been chosen?

cco

Pondering wrote:

The DPA was created for exactly this type of situation so why wasn't it applied?

It wasn't created for this "type" of situation. It was created for this particular situation: to give the AG the ability to reward SNC-Lavalin's illegal campaign donations with immunity from prosecution. That is, in point of fact, the problem. It can be spun as a "tool" all the Liberals want, but it's a tool for corruption.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

bs pondering the specifics of it all matters.

if they hadn't been pressuring JWR and the DPP wrongly and snuck the DPA into an omnibus bill in the first place none of this would've happened.

let's face it you don't care about truths you care about your pension funds.

ETA she owed Wernick sfa. 

I do care about the truth and so far I am not hearing it. I have yet to hear JWR's reasoning for refusing the DPA nor the prosecutors.

I'm against omnibus bills but they can be openly read by all concerned including the press and they are. Other countries also have DPAs specifically for cases like this in which the company is under new management or has been sold so the people who were involved are gone. 

I personally think that SNC Lavalin should be broken up and I want an inquiry into why the criminals ended up walking away with the money but that is not the issue at hand. 

I have heard talk that the Minister of Justice position and the AG positions should not be held by the same person because what is inappropriate to say to the AG is different from what is inappropriate to say to the MoJ. 

And again, if it isn't illegal then inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder. 

There were many conversations so I can't judge just from this but it seemed to me that JWR was saying she thought it would look bad politically on HER if she instructed the prosecutor to apply the DPA. That isn't a valid reason to me. Does she have another reason? 

She said she was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well that is what I'm waiting for. This is not new information. It backs up her original testimony but it isn't new. If this is all there is to it there is no "next".  Trudeau is insulated. 

I think JWR felt losing the AG position looked bad on her and she was concerned about her reputation. So far her accusations are doing nothing for Canadians. Only for herself. What does she want to have change? She certainly won't get her position back as AG.  She isn't even going to stop the DPA as the new AG is getting cover to push it through. 

As to the recording, it would be the polite thing to do if you are not trying to entrap someone to let them know they are being recorded. Recording and saving conversations is not the norm. When one person knows they are recording they get to protect themselves and guide the conversation to make themselves look good and the other person look bad. 

JWR is not naive. This is all calculated. Why is she presenting this stuff just now? Why didn't she present it right away? 

If she felt what was happening was inappropriate why didn't she resign? If she was being subject to veiled threats it seems to me she issued a veiled threat herself when she referenced Watergate given that by her own account nothing illegal was happening. 

As a feminist I have been enamoured by JWR and Philpott but I am beginning to feel like I've been had. They are still poweful Liberal politicians with a capital L.  Would they be this protected and getting this much support if they were men? Would they not have been expelled from caucus by now?

P.S. If JWR said something illegal happened she would be implicating herself too. 

quizzical

pondering if you haven't heard the reasoning for the refusal it's because you're being willfully obtuse.

now whose being dishonest?

anyway done with you would have to respect you to put anymore effort into dialogue 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Pondering, why do you think the deferred prosecution option should have been chosen?

I don't know that it should have been chosen. I just want to know the reasoning it wasn't. Without making a value judgement on the legislation or the morally of it one way or another the DPA seems to have been created for this exact situation. One in which punishing the company would accomplish nothing because the guilty are long gone. 

So, if it is in the public interest for that to be denied to SNC there must be a reason. If the reason is that the prosecutor is a stickler for the rules that doesn't seem valid to me. That would be a reason to overturn the prosecutor's judgement. 

The House of Commons and the Senate are the law-makers and the law is supposed to be applied evenly. A law was specifically created to allow for DPAs when in the public interest, to save jobs or to save an important company. 

If the prosecutor took the decision because they are a stickler, that is contrary to the intent of the law. The prosecutor's personal judgement concerning DPAs is not a valid reason. JWR's contention that it would look bad politically is not a valid reason to deny a DPA.  

The company has no right to a DPA but the public does have a right to know the reasoning behind a judgement that will have a substantial negative impact on innocent people.

You think I am concerned about my pension funds but my pension won't be impacted. It means taxes will make up the difference. It is the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan. 

I've been a working person. Losing a job is traumatic. It is not that easy to replace and even once it is the worker can have taken a serious economic hit that doesn't just go away once they are employed again. They can be forced to move, children forced to change schools. 

If there is a reason that it is important that the company face criminal charges then so be it.  Sometimes the families of criminals suffer terribly but it has to be so. We can't let criminals off because their families will be hurt. Likewise if there is a reason conviction is important in the SNC case because it would let someone off, or encourage other companies to do it, then unfortunately that has an unavoidable impact on workers. I would accept it. 

I just want to know the reasoning. If it's just hell and brimstone righteousness that isn't good enough. 

If I were one of the impacted workers I would be feeling tossed around like a political football. Right now it seems like they are the only ones who will suffer. Nobody else. 

So, if JWR has a reason she thinks the workers must suffer for the greater good I want to know it. Right now her reason seems to be that she thinks it would look bad on her to overrule the prosecutor. 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering if you haven't heard the reasoning for the refusal it's because you're being willfully obtuse.

now whose being dishonest?

anyway done with you would have to respect you to put anymore effort into dialogue 

The only reasoning I have heard is that it would look bad politically. That is not a good reason. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

JWR is a Conservative operative low life. Who do you think is going to benefit the most? Answer? Not the NDP.

If SNC Lavalin moved out of Canada, the Liberals would pay a political price and conspiring to keep those jobs in Canada also faces a political price.

If JWR had any sense of not betraying her party and not handing the next election to Scheer, I'd be the first one to defend her. There is a rumour that she was on her way out of the Justice Minister portfolio and 'demoted' to another ministerial position. Sour grapes?

So enjoy yourselves noiw because this fall we get Stephen Harper back with an Orange streak. If you want to celebrate that, don't bother complaining when we end up with a Trumpian majority.

What the fuck lol

You're one of the Canadians who would defend Trudeau after he murdered a hockey bag full of puppies aren't you?

You're worried about JWR betraying her party? How about thinking about Canada first? Stop voting for parties because of identity politics dude.

Worried about a Trumpian majority, from the guy who wants to murder Canadians with an AR15 to prove a point lol

Awesome sauce.

Hey douche. If you were to check out my comments in the past 10 years I have made myself clear. ANYBODY BUT the Conservatives at all costs.

I'm not pro Liberal,, I'm ANTI-conservative. I could care less who sits in the driving seat in the House of Commons as long as it is not the Conservatives or the People's Party of Canada.

I AM  putting my country first. Trying at all costs to stop the CPC, I try to get people to realize that the alternative is the worst case scenatio. That the Liberals ARE different than the Cons, hands down a better government than we'd ever get from the CPC.

So to make myself clear, as I have for 10 years over here, No Conservative government at ALL COSTS. And if that means supporting the Liberals, that's how it's got to be. Because I AM standing up for Canada by doing whatever I can to stop the fascist Coinservatives from gaining power.

It's that simple. And mosr people here know exactly my politics,I hide nothing,I've said I am an anti- Conservative over and over again. Perople don't likre that. I don't give a damn about partisan shit that will lead to PM Scheer. THey must never get behind the wheel of the HoC. Got it?

swallow swallow's picture

There was no compelling reason to grant SNC Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. 

End of story. The burden of proof would be on those who think the tool should have been used. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

.

 

Worried about a Trumpian majority, from the guy who wants to murder Canadians with an AR15 to prove a point lol

Awesome sauce.

I just noticed this. Sorry. Question. What the fuck are you talkintg about? YOU are the resident gun nut here. I think assault rifles should be banned. And murdering Canadians? WTF?

So I don't know what you've been smoking but I  bet it's white crumbling rocks.

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

pondering if you haven't heard the reasoning for the refusal it's because you're being willfully obtuse.

now whose being dishonest?

anyway done with you would have to respect you to put anymore effort into dialogue 

The only reasoning I have heard is that it would look bad politically. That is not a good reason. 

Quizzical is correct that the information is out there.  Here is a good summary of why SNC-Lavalin was likely not eligible for a DPA.  It failed to meet at least five of eight conditions for eligibility.  If JWR in her role as AG over-rode the DPP, she would have to publish her reasons in the Gazette, which would definitely look bad politically.  

The new Canadian law states that, in considering whether it is appropriate to enter into DPA negotiations, the prosecutor must consider eight factors. While none of us are privy to the facts in the hands of the RCMP and now of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, available information suggests that SNC-Lavalin failed at least five of the conditions: the circumstances in which the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities (Swiss authorities reportedly began the probe in May 2011); the nature and gravity of the offence; the degree of involvement of senior officials of the company; whether the company or any of its representatives have been convicted or sanctioned for similar offences in the past; and whether the company or any of its representatives are alleged to have committed any other offences.

But what about the 9,000 Canadian jobs that are said to be at risk? Well, that is the darnedest thing: Even though the new legislation states that one of the purposes of a DPA is to reduce negative consequences for innocent individuals – such as employees who were not involved in the wrongdoing – the legislation explicitly prohibits the prosecutor from considering Canada’s “national economic interest” as a factor when deciding whether to offer a DPA in foreign bribery cases. ... And, on Monday, the OECD issued a press release on the SNC-Lavalin case, cautioning that a country’s national economic interest must not influence foreign bribery prosecutions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-inconvenient-reality-economic-interest-has-nothing-to-do-with-snc/

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

Hey douche.

Hello Alan.

Quote:
If you were to check out my comments in the past 10 years I have made myself clear. ANYBODY BUT the Conservatives at all costs.

True. Politicians love that. Unfortinuately I think you might be in for some disapointment this coming election. Conservative minority, if not majority.

Quote:
It's that simple. And mosr people here know exactly my politics,I hide nothing,I've said I am an anti- Conservative over and over again. Perople don't likre that. I don't give a damn about partisan shit that will lead to PM Scheer. THey must never get behind the wheel of the HoC. Got it?

Got it. I think the Liberals need to be stopped at all costs so I suppose I see where you're coming from.  I do respect your non-partisan, don't beat around the bushes approach.

alan smithee wrote:

I just noticed this. Sorry. Question. What the fuck are you talkintg about? YOU are the resident gun nut here. I think assault rifles should be banned. And murdering Canadians? WTF?

So I don't know what you've been smoking but I  bet it's white crumbling rocks.

Happy to enlighten you (get it?).

We were discussing a mass shooting and gun control and you said you hoped AR15 owners got shot (in the chest I think maybe?) with an AR15 to prove a point. I remember the conversation because it's a great example of how important saving lives are. As the "resident gun nut" it's doubly ironic to hear.

Pondering

Senior officials have all been changed. The 9000 jobs are performed by innocent employees. From what I have read the DPA was put in explicitly for SNC-Lavalin so it seems to me it was designed to apply to SNC-Lavalin. The OECD put their two cents in because JWR make her concerns public. 

I'm not saying JWR is wrong. I'm saying I have concerns over how it all went down. I don't think we would be hearing a word of this if JWR were still Justice Minister. Do you? 

She also keeps insisting nothing illegal happened. If something illegal happened and she didn't report it then she would be implicated. 

When this first came out I was all "isn't she wonderful". When Philpott came out in her defence I was all "aren't they wonderful".  

Now I am thinking, would I be so supportive and unsuspicious if they were men?  Where do they expect this to all go? 

According to JWR nothing illegal happened in that phone call. If Wernick issued a veiled threat so did JWR. 

If JWR in her role as AG over-rode the DPP, she would have to publish her reasons in the Gazette, which would definitely look bad politically.  

Maybe she would have looked bad politically. If that was a concern to her she should have resigned because how it impacts her politically is definitely not a reason to refuse to use a DPA.  She wasn't trying to protect the PM. 

JWR: Does he understand the gravity of what this potentially could mean? – This is not about saving jobs – this is about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions – this is like breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.

C: Well I don’t think he sees it as that…

JWR: No one is explaining that to him, Michael. Like this is…we can stand up in the House of Commons on Norman on – totally appropriately on Norman – on extradition and we can talk about the rule of law­ um… The cases are not dissimilar – the principle or the integrity of how we act and respond to the tools we have available and what we should and shouldn’t do -again…l just…l don’t know…

She was both Minister of Justice and AG. If she felt that Wernick's call was so questionable that she felt justified in recording the call without informing him was it not her responsibility to tell Trudeau what was going on? 

Tools were created by Harper and Trudeau for the AG to be able to act in this type of situation. 

The new AG is getting outside advice as cover. If he and the outside advice go ahead and give SNC a DPA then it is likely within the law to do so. 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/was-snc-lavalin-denied-a-deal-all-because-of-three-simple-but-misunderstood-words#comments-area

DPAs are available for prosecutors to use, and they are frequently used in the United States. It is, of course, entirely possible that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada had good reasons to not offer one to SNC-Lavalin. It is entirely possible those reasons have nothing to do with the interpretation of the words “national economic interest” as something to do with protecting jobs. But the reasons that prosecutors declined to offer a deal to SNC-Lavalin — and the reason the former attorney general chose not to overrule that decision — have not been revealed. Let’s hope, after so much uproar and scandal, that it was not simply because of a mistaken interpretation of the words “national economic interest.”

Donald Johnston is past Secretary General of the OECD and is a former federal Liberal cabinet minister.

Yup he's a Liberal, but so is JWR. JWR doesn't seem to give a shit about the jobs, only about how it would look on her politically. She did not get to where she is by being selfless. Nobody does. 

Pondering

Badriya wrote:

Quizzical is correct that the information is out there.  Here is a good summary of why SNC-Lavalin was likely not eligible for a DPA.  It failed to meet at least five of eight conditions for eligibility.  If JWR in her role as AG over-rode the DPP, she would have to publish her reasons in the Gazette, which would definitely look bad politically.  

"Likely reasons" are immaterial. She is available to state her reason and she was asked. The only reason she has given is that it would look bad politically and that she would have to publish in the Gazette. Well that is her job and it should not be impacted by political considerations of how it would look. 

The AG should be acting without political partisanship but they should also be applying law as lawmakers intended when creating the laws. She is rejecting a tool lawmakers created (her ability to override the prosecutor) not because it is illegal but because it would look bad politically. 

If she has another reason she should state it. 

quizzical

Badriya wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

pondering if you haven't heard the reasoning for the refusal it's because you're being willfully obtuse.

now whose being dishonest?

anyway done with you would have to respect you to put anymore effort into dialogue 

The only reasoning I have heard is that it would look bad politically. That is not a good reason. 

Quizzical is correct that the information is out there.  Here is a good summary of why SNC-Lavalin was likely not eligible for a DPA.  It failed to meet at least five of eight conditions for eligibility.  If JWR in her role as AG over-rode the DPP, she would have to publish her reasons in the Gazette, which would definitely look bad politically.  

The new Canadian law states that, in considering whether it is appropriate to enter into DPA negotiations, the prosecutor must consider eight factors. While none of us are privy to the facts in the hands of the RCMP and now of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, available information suggests that SNC-Lavalin failed at least five of the conditions: the circumstances in which the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities (Swiss authorities reportedly began the probe in May 2011); the nature and gravity of the offence; the degree of involvement of senior officials of the company; whether the company or any of its representatives have been convicted or sanctioned for similar offences in the past; and whether the company or any of its representatives are alleged to have committed any other offences.

But what about the 9,000 Canadian jobs that are said to be at risk? Well, that is the darnedest thing: Even though the new legislation states that one of the purposes of a DPA is to reduce negative consequences for innocent individuals – such as employees who were not involved in the wrongdoing – the legislation explicitly prohibits the prosecutor from considering Canada’s “national economic interest” as a factor when deciding whether to offer a DPA in foreign bribery cases. ... And, on Monday, the OECD issued a press release on the SNC-Lavalin case, cautioning that a country’s national economic interest must not influence foreign bribery prosecutions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-inconvenient-reality-economic-interest-has-nothing-to-do-with-snc/

there's no point in exposing the reality. Pondering, like many in Quebec, are only concerned with their pension plan holdings. bribery and corruption be damned. it doesn't matter to them.

Pondering

P.S. Trudeau totally knew what was going on just like Harper totally knew about the Duffy pay-off. Pressure was certainly being applied and she was shifted out of the position because she wouldn't budge on SNC-Lavalin. No question there. 

My point is that just because Trudeau is guilty doesn't mean she is entirely innocent and her motivation was rooted in the morality. 

This isn't just damaging to Trudeau and the Liberals. He may well still recover from this. It is damaging to Canada's reputation and to the workers who are dependent on SNC-Lavalin. It's easy to say they will get jobs elsewhere. 

If the new AG does intervene and SNC does get a DPA it will be because it is within the law. Canada will defend that position to the OECD. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Hey douche.

Hello Alan.

Quote:
If you were to check out my comments in the past 10 years I have made myself clear. ANYBODY BUT the Conservatives at all costs.

True. Politicians love that. Unfortinuately I think you might be in for some disapointment this coming election. Conservative minority, if not majority.

Quote:
It's that simple. And mosr people here know exactly my politics,I hide nothing,I've said I am an anti- Conservative over and over again. Perople don't likre that. I don't give a damn about partisan shit that will lead to PM Scheer. THey must never get behind the wheel of the HoC. Got it?

Got it. I think the Liberals need to be stopped at all costs so I suppose I see where you're coming from.  I do respect your non-partisan, don't beat around the bushes approach.

alan smithee wrote:

I just noticed this. Sorry. Question. What the fuck are you talkintg about? YOU are the resident gun nut here. I think assault rifles should be banned. And murdering Canadians? WTF?

So I don't know what you've been smoking but I  bet it's white crumbling rocks.

Happy to enlighten you (get it?).

We were discussing a mass shooting and gun control and you said you hoped AR15 owners got shot (in the chest I think maybe?) with an AR15 to prove a point. I remember the conversation because it's a great example of how important saving lives are. As the "resident gun nut" it's doubly ironic to hear.

WRONG> Never said such shit and candidly I will tell you when I think of people getting shot,. I don't think about chests I think about heads. Nevertheless I never said so. Find the quote and prove me  wrong.

As for a Conservative majority, it would prove Canadians are LOSERS. Especvially seeing how emboldened Conservative fascists have become in the era of Trump.

My message to sane people who aren't Tories that a lot of progress like legaliized cannabis,esponging cannabis records from people's records and a new housing strategy for the country. All GONE.

I may be a little selfish when it comes to cannabis but housing has been in crisis for over 20 years. I live in the city, I see the damage gentrification has done to our community.

Trudeau is much more intelligent then that SoCon weiner Scheer. Face it, Conservatives have been trying to KILL Canada for at least 30 years. So don't dare you tell me to stand up for Canada, I recognize the cancer and it's people like you and your fascist Tories.

Oh and I think you should pump your brakes. Bernier's new party is going to split the fascist vote so don't celebrate too hard yet.

jerrym

quizzical wrote:

there's no point in exposing the reality. Pondering, like many in Quebec, are only concerned with their pension plan holdings. bribery and corruption be damned. it doesn't matter to them.

Quizzical, I don't agree with Pondering either. However, there are already too many personal attacks on this site. That's why some people have quit posting here. Make your arguments based on facts, not character attacks.

 

blairz blairz's picture

I think it will discourage many Canadians from voting. This is going to be very  nasty and very partisan. The Libs will run against Scheer  as a puppet of Trump and Ford, while simultaneously winking at the racism in Quebec. The NDP have bailed on their leader. If voters in the middle feel their choice is between a liar and a racist, they may well punt in disgust. And that will result in a Conservative government.

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

This isn't just damaging to Trudeau and the Liberals. He may well still recover from this. It is damaging to Canada's reputation and to the workers who are dependent on SNC-Lavalin. It's easy to say they will get jobs elsewhere.

The "jobs" is misdirection.

The Liberals are excellent at publishing very subjective facts that don't hold up to scrutiny. The Liberals made it seem like if SNC was blocked from competing for federal contracts Canadians would suffer because of all the lost jobs. The truth is SNC employs people both federally and provincially. Some of those current contracts will be employing workings for years. They're also presently bidding on provincial and federal jobs so even if tomorrow SNC was banned from bidding on federal jobs they're already in the process for some now so those jobs are secure too.

The REAL jobloss would be due to scumbag SNC attempting to blackmail and coerce the government. Help SNC avoid punishment or else they would punish Canada (leaving the Liberals to explain job loss) by moving to the states.

It's generally not a good idea to give in to blackmail. SNC defenders say it's a whole new company under new leadership and they're better now. Threatening Canadian jobs and blackmailing the government isn't what I would consider the good guys.

Pondering

https://globalnews.ca/news/5107865/snc-lavalin-jobs-relocation/

The documents, part of a PowerPoint presentation obtained by The Canadian Press, describe something called “Plan B” — what Montreal-based SNC might have to do if it can’t convince the government to grant a so-called remediation agreement to avoid criminal proceedings in a fraud and corruption case related to projects in Libya.

Under that plan, SNC would move its Montreal headquarters and corporate offices in Ontario and Quebec to the U.S. within a year, cutting its workforce to just 3,500 from 8,717, before eventually winding up its Canadian operations.

If I am to believe the media the DPA was created specifically to apply to SNC. The DPA is designed for companies in which the executive has been criminally charged and replaced and there are jobs at stake. SNC meets that criteria. 

If the DPA was designed for SNC it seems odd that they don't meet the criteria to receive it. 

If JWR has a reason other than not wanting her name in the Gazette over this I would like to know what it is. For that matter I would like to know what the prosecutor's reasoning was. Not in general. Specifically. This type of judgement isn't confidential is it?

Why didn't JWR go to Trudeau and say I feel threatened, I'm not going to lose my job over this am I?  Was it not her responsibility to report to Trudeau if she felt the clerk was behaving in a questionable manner? 

In the phone conversation she says, "well then nobody is telling him" referring to Trudeau. As AG and Minister of Justice did she not have a responsibility to go to Trudeau and tell him whatever she thought wasn't being passed along?  Did she not have a responsibility to alert Trudeau that she felt Wernick was issuing veiled threats in his name?

It is beyond obvious that games are played at this high level and that people speak for the PM specifically to give them plausible deniability. It was still her responsibility to go to the Prime Minister directly to object if she felt the situation so serious that she had to start recording phone conversations without the knowledge of the person being recorded. 

Law societies like the Law Society of Ontario, of which Wilson-Raybould is an honourary member, prohibit lawyers from recording calls with clients without clients’ express permission.

The Canadian Bar Association code of conduct also prohibits lawyers from recording anyone without permission.

In her position as attorney general and justice minister, Wilson-Raybould was effectively the top lawyer for the Canadian government, prompting questions about whether her recording of a conversation with Wernick — the government’s top civil servant — constituted a breach of professional regulations on client-attorney conversations.

However, the controversy surrounding Wilson-Raybould’s decision to record the call has to do with the fact that she did so in her capacity as a lawyer and cabinet minister.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5114032/recording-phone-calls-canada-laws/

She was AG so I have to believe she knows about the above yet she went ahead and recorded anyway. If she thought the situation so dire as to breach her duty as a lawyer then it was dire enough for her to speak directly to the PM about it. 

quizzical

jerrym wrote:

quizzical wrote:

there's no point in exposing the reality. Pondering, like many in Quebec, are only concerned with their pension plan holdings. bribery and corruption be damned. it doesn't matter to them.

Quizzical, I don't agree with Pondering either. However, there are already too many personal attacks on this site. That's why some people have quit posting here. Make your arguments based on facts, not character attacks.

 

Jerry, i respect you lots but please do feel free to talk down to others who do flat out personal attacks  in this place as mine wasn't. just an observation of confirmation bias framing their thinking. 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Jerry, i respect you lots but please do feel free to talk down to others who do flat out personal attacks  in this place as mine wasn't. just an observation of confirmation bias framing their thinking. 

I let it pass but it was an insult and is inaccurate. My concern is that the people who actually committed the crimes go to prison. I don't see the point in punishing an inanimate object. If there is a point to it then I do want to hear it. For example if it would be a deterrent to other executives that would be a reason. 

swallow swallow's picture

I’m from Quebec and like many from Quebec I agree with you on this, quizzical. 

JWR said no. No means no, doesn’t it? Not in this case. She stated many times she would not administer the colonialism act, sorry Indian act, but Trudeau and his PMO cronies still offered it to her. These are not people who seem to enjoy listening. 

The “ingratitude” and “uppity” lines about JWR are on the increase in so many places, along with the partisanship and blind party loyalty and refusal to engage with the merits (eg as badriya stated the tests for a DPA were not met). 

Just beyond angry that by the way there Trudeau government, through its course of doing the bidding of one of the big Montreal companies, then trying to cover up the whole thing and communicating it so pathetically, has managed to destroy what was an easy re-election. Justin Trudeau has made PM Andrew Scheer, previously an absurdity, so much more likely. 

Pondering

Trudeau being in the wrong doesn't put JWR in the right. They can both be wrong on entirely different counts.

JWR (and the prosecutor) could be absolutely right in refusing the DPA.  I am not claiming otherwise.  I'm saying so far her stated reasons for SNC not getting a DPA (in a recording she made and she released) are:

The prosecutor is a stickler. She didn't want her name in the Gazette. She was protecting Trudeau politically.

None of those are valid reasons. The recording was a conversation so I am completely willing to believe she also had other reasons but the ones she stated shouldn't have even been a consideration at all. The prosecutor being a stickler would be a reason to overrule the decision not support it. 

Citing the law in general is not an answer. 

If she felt that Wernick was issuing a veiled threat in Trudeau's name did she not have a responsibility to report that to Trudeau as a member of cabinet, Minister of Justice and as AG? 

quizzical

tks swallow for making it clear there are many like you in QC.

oh man i've heard her called a bitch and a conservative treasonous traitor and am pissed. 

mealy mouthed people here are just as bad but they don't dare go so far to defame JWR.

meanwhile SNC-LAVALIN continued corruption takes no hits. they just lost a contract in Chile too.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Yet again, Pondering, a DPA is not the automatic position. The burden of proof lies on those who say there should be one. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
None of those are valid reasons.

She doesn't need a reason, "valid" or otherwise.  If she gave reasons that don't satisfy you then that's for you to deal with -- that doesn't put her on the hook to provide a reason you like.

Quote:
If she felt that Wernick was issuing a veiled threat in Trudeau's name did she not have a responsibility to report that to Trudeau as a member of cabinet, Minister of Justice and as AG?

What if she felt it was being issued not just in Trudeau's name, but by his direction?

That's like telling a woman that if she resents having strippers at the office Christmas party, she should tell the boss that secretly ordered them in the first place.  Seriously??  I don't think she's so stupid as to think that this pressure was coming from anywhere other than the PM himself.

swallow swallow's picture

“If she thought it was a toxic work place, why didn’t she tell the boss?”

NorthReport

Pages