Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau, and SNC-Lavalin

427 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

If Jane Philpott doesn't have confidence in Justin Trudeau, why should anyone else?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/philpott-resignation-1.5042965

NorthReport

500 people showed up for a feast to celebrate and support Jody Wilson-Raybould in Campbell River today. My hunch there was plenty of salmon to munch on.

 

The Wei Wai Kum First Nation in Campbell River offers a variety of programs and services that support community wellbeing. These include programs for youth and elders, health care, recreation, and social development. The Nation also has an emergency response plan to guide its response to major emergencies.

 

  •  

https://weiwaikum.ca/members/language-and-culture/kwanwatsi-big-house/

 

quizzical

oh i have been in CR's Longhouse for a potlach. 

NorthReport

This is a very simple story

SNC wanted to avoid being prosecuted so Trudeau included some new legislation to help them 

JWR wore 2 hats but the AG’s hat was not supposed to be politicized 

Trudeau attempted to politicize it, JWR said no, so he fired her

JWR knew what she was dealing with the likes of Trudeau so she made a recording to protect herself from the lies such as the Wernick never told Trudeau BS

 

 

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

This is a very simple story

SNC wanted to avoid being prosecuted so Trudeau included some new legislation to help them 

JWR wore 2 hats but the AG’s hat was not supposed to be politicized 

Trudeau attempted to politicize it, JWR said no, so he fired her

JWR knew what she was dealing with the likes of Trudeau so she made a recording to protect herself from the lies such as the Wernick never told Trudeau BS

 

 

That seems like a perfect summary of events. 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

This is a very simple story

SNC wanted to avoid being prosecuted so Trudeau included some new legislation to help them 

JWR wore 2 hats but the AG’s hat was not supposed to be politicized 

Trudeau attempted to politicize it, JWR said no, so he fired her

JWR knew what she was dealing with the likes of Trudeau so she made a recording to protect herself from the lies such as the Wernick never told Trudeau BS

That seems like a perfect summary of events. 

Except the recording proves nothing about Trudeau and it was her responsibility to go to Trudeau with her concerns. She should have gone to Trudeau and said "This is what Wernick told me and I feel like I am being threatened". She isn't some low level worker. 

Her reasons for not using the tool seemed to be political in the sense that is the only reason she personally has given that I know of. She didn't want to do it because it would be in the Gazette. 

NorthReport

JWR didn't want it to be documented publicly because it would have discredited Trudeau which she clearly mentioned on her secret tape. Thank goodness she made that recording, so all Canadians can judge for themselves, as opposed to nonsense that is being spewed out all over.

NorthReport

I am intrigued by Pam Palmater however as she was on a CBC panel this week and I felt she had some things of consequence to say, particularily in relation to the Manitoba judge.

https://www.ryerson.ca/politics/about-us/personnel/faculty/palmater-pamela/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Her reasons for not using the tool seemed to be political in the sense that is the only reason she personally has given that I know of. She didn't want to do it because it would be in the Gazette.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements aren't the default, even if this seems like the sort of situation they were created for.

Warning tickets were created so that police officers would have an alternative to charging a driver under the Highways act, but that doesn't mean that any driver is entitled to one, even if they feel it would be ideal for their circumstance.  Nor does an officer have any obligation to give their reasons for not choosing a warning over a fine -- the warning is not "opt out", it's "opt in".

Similarly, I don't feel that JWR has any obligation to tell us why she didn't choose to let SNC Lavalin slide.   As I understand it, they didn't fully meet the conditions necessary for a DPA.  Is that incorrect/insufficient?

Pondering

No she doesn't have to share her reason, but she did share it voluntarily and she made it public. She didn't want her name associated with using the directive for the first time to be in the Gazette. 

Having given that as her reason I'd say she does need to flesh it out.

voice of the damned

^^ And how much can we really read into JWR's professed fear of a DPA ending up in the Gazette? She was speaking off the top of her head, and people sometimes use that sort of phrase as a synechdoche for saying "That would be really inappropriate".

If someone suggested to me that I should scream racist obscentities at my students when they make mistakes, and I reply with "Uh no, the Korean media would have a field day if THAT went viral", I don't think it would be fair to conclude that the only reason I don't scream racist obscentities at my students is because I'm afraid of  the video hitting YouTube.  

quizzical

why in hell should she take the fall for the boys????

answer she shouldn't.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

If someone suggested to me that I should scream racist obscentities at my students when they make mistakes, and I reply with "Uh no, the Korean media would have a field day if THAT went viral", I don't think it would be fair to conclude that the only reason I don't scream racist obscentities at my students is because I'm afraid of  the video hitting YouTube.  

No, but if you recorded the conversation because you expected it to be questionable then whatever you said was your reason would be questioned. 

She knew she was being recorded. She made the recording public. In that recording she gave two reasons. Not having her name in the Gazette over it and protecting Trudeau. The second seemed as much a veiled threat as anything said to her. 

I'm willing to hear her other reasons but the first two should not even have been a consideration.  

swallow swallow's picture

 

The tape states that she did not want to interfere with prosecutorial independence.

Yet again, Pondering, a DPA is not the automatic position. The burden of proof lies on those who say there should be one. JWR did not feel the burden had been met sufficiently for her to interfere. 

NorthReport

And let’s put to rest the reference to Kim Campbell / Brian Mulroney BS

Anyways it just goes on and on these attacks against Indigenous women as if they are not qualified to make important decisions

And if Trudeau is so above board with his governing why not hold a public inquiry He hasn’t been and that is why a public inquiry will never ever see the light of day

https://mobile.twitter.com/AKimCampbell/status/1112374802726084608

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not having her name in the Gazette over it and protecting Trudeau.

I'd be curious to know what else, beyond just her name, she would have needed to publish in the Canada Gazette.

If she didn't feel that a DPA was warranted, or if SNC-L didn't fully meet the criteria, then anything more than "Jody Wilson-Raybould" and "Use DPA for SNC-Lavalin" would have involved lying.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to not want to have to lie, publicly. 

And I doubt she could have just told the truth and said "I don't think this is appropriate, but the PMO won't stop badgering me, so that's my reason for directing the Prosecution to choose a DPA".

NorthReport

Most of us here know where it is but this thread should be in the Candian Politics section and hopefully when it is closed for length it can be reopened there. 

NorthReport

Defiant and unbowed, Wilson-Raybould ‘absolutely ready’ for next salvo in SNC-Lavalin affair

 

CAMPBELL RIVER, B.C.—A defiant Jody Wilson-Raybould has no regrets about her actions as attorney general and still wants to speak about events since her removal, she said in an exclusive interview Saturday in her B.C. First Nation.

Speaking to the Star after a Kwakwaka’wakw ceremony and feast in her honour on Saturday evening, the former cabinet minister said she is “absolutely ready” for whatever comes next in the SNC-Lavalin affair and still intends to run again as a Liberal candidate.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/31/defiant-and-unbowed-wilson-raybould-absolutely-ready-for-next-salvo-in-snc-lavalin-affair.html

NorthReport
Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not having her name in the Gazette over it and protecting Trudeau.

I'd be curious to know what else, beyond just her name, she would have needed to publish in the Canada Gazette.

If she didn't feel that a DPA was warranted, or if SNC-L didn't fully meet the criteria, then anything more than "Jody Wilson-Raybould" and "Use DPA for SNC-Lavalin" would have involved lying.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for her to not want to have to lie, publicly. 

And I doubt she could have just told the truth and said "I don't think this is appropriate, but the PMO won't stop badgering me, so that's my reason for directing the Prosecution to choose a DPA".

I have no idea but if putting it in the Gazette were lying than her whole judgement would be a lie because I am sure she would have had to justify it in whatever papers she prepared for it to happen. 

It matters to me why she didn't think it was appropriate to use the tool available to her. Is there any situation in which she would consider it valid to use the tool or does she consider the tool itself invalid? If she were prosecutor would she have come to the same decision as the prosecutor did? 

I wonder why the press haven't delved into the prosecutor's judgement. Could it still be confidential? 

If Trudeau's staff had just let her be he could have waited a couple of months after her decision and switched her out of the position so accomplished his aim without pressuring her. 

quizzical

May is asking who told Wernick to call JWR too...I guess she doesn't believe the bs about Trudeau not being informed.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1AfdqeUE8pY

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

May is asking who told Wernick to call JWR too...I guess she doesn't believe the bs about Trudeau not being informed.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1AfdqeUE8pY

 

Didn't Wernick tell JWR that he was breifing the PM "tonight" after their conversation? Or words to that effect?

But for some strange reason he didn't breif the pm? I don't think the fact that it gives the Pm deniability is lost on anyone. Liberals really think Canadians are stupid.

swallow swallow's picture

Pondering wrote:

It matters to me why she didn't think it was appropriate to use the tool available to her. Is there any situation in which she would consider it valid to use the tool or does she consider the tool itself invalid? If she were prosecutor would she have come to the same decision as the prosecutor did? 

Yet again, Pondering: the burden of proof is on those who think the new "tool" should have been used and prosecutorial independence over-ridden. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It matters to me why she didn't think it was appropriate to use the tool available to her. Is there any situation in which she would consider it valid to use the tool or does she consider the tool itself invalid? If she were prosecutor would she have come to the same decision as the prosecutor did? 

Yet again, Pondering: the burden of proof is on those who think the new "tool" should have been used and prosecutorial independence over-ridden. 

I agree, swallow. Neither JWR nor the prosecutor needs to "prove" why they didn't use the DPA tool.

But - we don't know why the prosecutor decided against a DPA. That would surely be helpful. In fact, I wonder whether JWR knows the prosecutor's analysis? This may have been raised in some of the evidence or elsewhere, but I confess I haven't read every word of everything that's gone by.

Badriya

Unionist, the transcript of the conversation between JWR and MW on December 19 answers your question.  JWR was well aware of the prosecutor's rationale, the "section 13", and the PMO and the PCO should have been aware of it, but claimed they had either not received it or noty heard about it.

JWR: …The prosecutor sent me what is called a section 13 [Memorandum for the Attorney General pursuant to section 13 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act], you told me that you hadn't seen it before , but I read it and 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.

MW:  ... The section 13 response from Kathleen, you're saying Elder [Marques] has that or had a version of that?

JWR: The Prime Minister's Office has had it since September, since I've had it.

MW: Since September. OK that is important, that is new to me so. OK. Alright. Um...

JWR: They'll tell you that they haven't received a copy of it. Elder and Mathieu [Bouchard] said it to me when they came to my office, um, but we have documented evidence in terms of emails etcetera where that has been provided. So they do have it, maybe they have misplaced it. I can send it back over to them but I know that Jessica asked the other day when she was over at the PMO's office...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-committee-documents-audio-1.5077533

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

This is the meta discussion about the decision, but not the decision itself.  I am wondering if this is something that is not released as it will maybe discuss actual trial strategy or analysis that should not be public knowledge.

Unionist

***

Trying to have a conversation without getting flooded out by links to articles.

***

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This whole affair boils down to the Liberal's appointing the wrong person to the job. There is no doubt that any AG appointed by the Conservatives would not have hesitated to play by the old boys rules. When the Liberal inner circle appointed JWR as AG they misread how much of a team player she was. Liberal politicians with ethics are a rare breed although apparently not extinct.

NorthReport

NDPers wake up and smell the roses!

 

Trudeau's own pride is taking him down

 

Which explains why Trudeau’s PMO was conniving to keep giving lucrative federal contracts to Quebec’s SNC-Lavalin, suggests Kouvalis: “Their only hope to get another Liberal majority is to steal away NDP seats in Quebec — they need 25 to 30. And that’s why Quebec’s SNC-Lavalin is so important to them.”

So, how does Trudeau do that? How does he extinguish the five-alarm dumpster fire that now threatens to raze his one-term government to the ground?

Three ways.

One, call an election now. Don’t wait for Scheer and Jagmeet Singh to get better-funded and better-prepared. The polls in October may well be worse — and the August trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is almost guaranteed to be another raging front-page Trudeau scandal.

Two, beg Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to come back. Stop attacking them. Don’t kick them out of the Liberal caucus — that’ll simply elevate them to martyr status. Apologize to them, and Canadians, publicly and sincerely.

Three, make real changes. Get rid of the so-called deferred prosecution agreements SNC-Lavalin was after. And tell the company it needs to fight for its future in open court, with lawyers — not in backrooms, with lobbyists.

Will Trudeau do any of these things?

Not a chance. And that’s mainly why he’s losing.

He’s too proud to admit he’s in real trouble.

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-trudeaus-own-pride-is-taking-him-down

 

 

 - dated March 10

 

https://www.campaignresearch.ca/single-post/2019/03/13/Prime-Ministers-approval-rating-plunges-in-wake-of-SNC-Lavalin-Affair

Pondering

There must be some grey area. It is legitimate for the government to question prosecutorial judgement. For example the government has been criticized for spending over 100 thousand to fight a case against covering dental treatmeat work 6K for an indigenous girl. I have no problem with the government intervening in that case and telling the prosecutor not to fight it. 

The PM does judge the work of his ministers and does have the right to shuffle portfolios if they are dissatisfied with their performance. On what basis would a PM not be satisfied with the performance of the AG? 

NorthReport

SNC-Lavalin scandal embodies the failure of Justin Trudeau’s government

https://globalnews.ca/news/5118093/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal/

NorthReport

Liberals consider emergency meeting to decide whether to drop Wilson-Raybould, Philpott from caucus

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-wilson-raybould-philpott-1.5079404

NorthReport
Unionist

***

NorthReport

You would think the Liberals would welcome a public inquiry that Jagmeet Singh has been calling for since Day 1 of the SNC scandal if the Liberals have nothing to hide, eh!

Conservative hijacks federal budget debate to push for SNC-Lavalin hearings

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/04/01/conservative-hijacks-federal-budget-debate-to-push-for-snc-lavalin-hearings.html

NorthReport

Here's what Liberals are asking you to believe about the SNC-Lavalin saga

There are Liberals out there who insist they can listen to the Wernick phone call and not see what’s going on

 

The shoe dropped a few weeks later, when she was ousted from her job, then resigned to make clear her differences with Trudeau. The prime minister’s version of her departure is that it resulted from an “erosion of trust” of which he was entirely unaware, in spite of the events of the previous three months, the warnings she issued, the stark alert issued to Wernick and the concerns raised by Philpott.

Maybe it’s possible that the prime minister really was caught off guard, that his aides and advisers failed to bring the danger to his attention. But if that’s the case, you have to ask yourself whether a government that could make so many errors in judgment, could miss so many signs of trouble, could press ahead with a bad idea even when one of its senior members is waving her arms and shouting “stop!” — you have to ask yourself whether a government so clumsy, myopic and accident prone has any business running the country.

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-heres-what-the-liberals-are-asking-you-to-believe-about-the-snc-lavalin-saga

NorthReport

Great news!

SNC-Lavalin buys Trans Mountain project from feds

Firm says it will extend pipeline under Pacific to reach Asian markets

 

https://biv.com/article/2019/04/snc-lavalin-buys-trans-mountain-project-feds

Pogo Pogo's picture

I hope the deal is completed by next April 1st.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Great news!

SNC-Lavalin buys Trans Mountain project from feds

Firm says it will extend pipeline under Pacific to reach Asian markets

 

https://biv.com/article/2019/04/snc-lavalin-buys-trans-mountain-project-feds

April Fools!?!

Unionist

Badriya wrote:

Unionist, the transcript of the conversation between JWR and MW on December 19 answers your question.  JWR was well aware of the prosecutor's rationale, the "section 13", and the PMO and the PCO should have been aware of it, but claimed they had either not received it or noty heard about it.

Thanks for that, Badriya. That certainly answers my question as to whether JWR knew the prosecutor's rationale.

But two more things:

1. As Pogo points out, we (the people) still don't know the rationale - perhaps for good reasons, because of confidential aspects of the case or strategy.

2. Why do you say "the PMO and the PCO should have been aware of it"? There is no requirement under the law to send it to either one of them. It's about prosecution - it goes only to the Attorney-General. In fact, why would either the DPP or JWR have copied the PMO or the PCO? I don't get it.

Badriya

Unionist, I said  "should have been aware of it" because, as the transcript showed, JWR sent a copy of the section 13 to the PMO in September, although the PMO staff, Elder and Bouchard, claimed they didn't have it.  JWR suggested "maybe they have misplaced it".  If they had it, they should have informed Trudeau, who presumably would have informed MW at the PCO.  I do not know if JWR was required to send them the document, but she did.  

It would obviously answer a lot of our questions if the section 13 were to be released publicly, but I don't think that will happen.  If the DPP listed how SNC-Lavalin did not fulfil the eight criteria for a DPA it might be damning for SNC-Lavalin's court case, not to mention their stocks.

 

NorthReport

SNC Lavalin's contribution to Canadian politics this year:

How many people have already lost their jobs - is it 4 so far?

Wernick

Butts

JWR

Philpott

Now JWR it appears is about to lose her Liberal party status for proving that she was telling the truth (recording of the phone conversation)

What's wrong with this picture?

‘Why would I resign?’: Wilson-Raybould not backing down on SNC-Lavalin scandal

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5118244/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-scandal-liberal-caucus/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It would obviously answer a lot of our questions if the section 13 were to be released publicly, but I don't think that will happen.

Interesting that that would be the question.

In legal cases, the public often asks "why did that judge sentence that rapist to only three months?", but you rarely hear "but why didn't that judge dismiss all charges when they have the power to do so?".  Unless we feel someone is genuinely innocent, we're not usually all that concerned with why the system didn't grant them a special reprieve.

WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This whole affair boils down to the Liberal's appointing the wrong person to the job. There is no doubt that any AG appointed by the Conservatives would not have hesitated to play by the old boys rules. When the Liberal inner circle appointed JWR as AG they misread how much of a team player she was. Liberal politicians with ethics are a rare breed although apparently not extinct.

Could be the other way around?

What the pmo did could actually be the extreme rareity. 

But we’ll never really know because of lawyer client confidentiality and particanship

WWWTT

The more I think of it, the more I’m inclined to believe that there’s really not much special with JWR. All she did was recognize and idiot  

Justin is a well proven one! he never even earned his seat 11 years ago. All he did was have the right father, that gave him an acting break from the cbc in 2007, and the rest is history. 

I seen right through this circus freek show clown way back when I started researching and found this stuff out. I warned posters here on babble not to have faith in this sack of hammers because in politics, at some point of time, you’re going to need to rely on intellect, not runway model looks. 

But for some reason beyond me, I was a way out there rambling freek that didn’t know shit because Justin was polling in strong majority numbers over a year ago. 

NorthReport

Of couse she should not be removed from Caucus. How stupid can Liberals be! Maybe they will come to their senses soon and not kick someone out who was telling the truth. Better late than never I presume.

Wilson-Raybould says she shouldn't be removed from caucus

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wilson-raybould-says-she-shouldn-t-be-removed-from-caucus-1.4360961

NorthReport
WWWTT

Port Elgin is a nice place, spent some time there. Sounds like he’s being dramatic. 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It would obviously answer a lot of our questions if the section 13 were to be released publicly, but I don't think that will happen.

Interesting that that would be the question.

In legal cases, the public often asks "why did that judge sentence that rapist to only three months?", but you rarely hear "but why didn't that judge dismiss all charges when they have the power to do so?".  Unless we feel someone is genuinely innocent, we're not usually all that concerned with why the system didn't grant them a special reprieve.

Yes and the employees are genuinely innocent and the people who committed the crimes are long gone. Unless you think inanimate objects can be guilty there is no one to punish but the innocent.

NorthReport

Unfortunately Butts is not being truthful as we heard subsequently have heard on the tape.

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/pmo-tried-to-persuade-wilson-raybould-not-intimidate-her-butts-1.4324202

Pages