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

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

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.

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. 

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.

fkn nonsense Alan.

Trudeau and his groupies brought this all on themselves.

pretty fkn juvenile trying to blame anyone else.

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 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.

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"?

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. 

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. 

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 [i]particular[/i] 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 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 

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. 

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. 

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/

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 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. 

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? 

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

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