THIS is a "scandal?" In the U.S., this would get a good governance award.
13
The problem for the Government lies in the optics and the odour. Both are not going away soon. In "normal" times there is NO taint on the PM, the PMO, the Clerk or even Parliament itself. This is different. Insiders are fighting. This is not only a "he says, she says" squabble. This matter also revolves around perhaps the old fashioned concept of TRUTH. Why should this be important to the Liberals? Because NOW the Executive appears complicit and Parliament is unable to do its work effectively. It seems we can't handle the truth.
1
The beautiful irony in all of this is the PM is about to find out what real feminism looks like. Release the hounds, ladies.
3
In our American language - it's called "too big to fail."
After 2008 Great Recession - our government led by a man much loved on these pages and many commenting below - did not send one banker to jail or held any well known bank to account.
And none yet - after almost a decade has gone to jail.
If anything - we bailed them out with huge amount of TARP.
Ok. Some paid fine - exactly what the prime minister was wanting in this case.
I give Mr Trudeau high marks in that no personal gains were achieved.
And as has been reported by NYT earlier - this so called pressure had amounted to one email a month - over 5 months. Not exactly a pressure.
I am not a Canadian - but you would think AG would bring up the matter direct with the Prime Minister.
Or even send a smoke signal via our modern system of email.
And get him on the record that he wishes a forgone conclusion.
My only beef is I wish he had not mentioned his father because it simply distracts from his own achievements.
2
I am a dual US/Canadian citizen. I tried to explain to my curious U.S. relatives how this is a scandal and they were all incredulous. The Canadian news media must be jealous of the huge profits for the U.S. news media due to the daily outrages from Trump. I am not a big fan of the Liberals but the thought of the Conservatives (some of whom are dabbling with Trumpism) returning to power due to this "scandal", while Trump is still wreaking havoc, makes me ill.
13
Trudeau did nothing legally wrong as the law permits deferred prosecutions for the national good.
But some here are saying that if SNC-Lavalin were to be prosecuted and barred from government contracts for ten years, other companies would replace them.
And as engineers are in high demand, those losing their jobs with SNC could easily find jobs in other companies (although I'm not sure that applies to staff who are not engineers).
2
There are a number of layers in this but the bottom line for me is after two years of developing and passing legislation to allow deferred prosecution agreements, how could any competent leader be unaware that one of his senior cabinet ministers was not in favour of applying this legislation to SNC Lavalin - the company for whom it was implemented.
Didn't they discuss this at Cabinet? Wouldn't the Prime Minister want to know if his Justice Minister and Attorney General had reservations about a policy initiative? And now even the Chinese have picked up on this fiasco as an excuse to further harass Canadian interests.
3
@Jim Thomson
Thank you, Jim; I have been a feeling a bit torn as to why I am not outraged as some are at what Trudeau did. You penned why for me:
"Didn't they discuss this in Cabinet and Wouldn't the Prime Minister want to know if his Justice Minister and Attorney General had reservations about the policy initiative."
The above seems to be crux of it.
He was wrong I think to continue to pressure her when her mind was made up, it did amount to undue influence. The DPA (Deferred Prosecution Agreement) solution he was pressuring for is a regulation lobbied by the company that seeks to benefit from it.
He succumbed to outside pressures, was weak and showed he is not above less than transparent backroom manoeuvring, and was exposed. He did not do anything illegal though and his motivation was to save Canadian jobs.
So there is some stink to to all of this but not a full out stench and why I am not outraged.
And the crux of the matter seems to me to be the PM and his Minister were not on the same page on the issue.
3
For me, it's much adieu about what I suspect happens more frequently in politics than we were aware of before. It was the P.M.'s ineptness and poor decision to remove Wilson-Raybould as A.G. that turned it into such a debacle. Whether the level of pressure on her was inappropriate, for me, comes down to whether you believe Wilson-Raybould or Butts' version of events. My view of Wilson-Raybould is that she's also an inexperienced politician and was in over her head and not a team player. I'm loathe to even consider that we could end up with Andrew Scheer and his ominous agenda as P.M. over this.
14
"Inappropriate pressure" ....pressure none the less, and she was demoted/moved out of her job when she did not comply.
Yes, the protection of jobs is his job but he passed a law that when it came to criminal actions, financial considerations do not apply.
He is the PM of Canada not just Quebec & the considerably more job losses in Alberta, have not drawn his attention nor any federal government action whatsoever.
4
@Hilda She was moved to another portfolio for diferent reasons. Did nobody listen or read Butts' extremely detailed testimony on the matter yesterday? It's on the public record - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/read-gerald-butts-full-opening-statement-1.4324615
3
@isaac c Did you listen to hers? And did you take into consideration in what he had to say the fact that the Liberals nixed any sworn testimony???
2
Let me see if I got this right: Trudeau, and people in his circle, leaned on the AG to push for financial penalties instead of criminal ones in this case. Their aim was not personal lucre, but protecting Canadian jobs (and their own support among voters). The AG felt pressured, but the pressure did not sway her, and she did what she thought was right. She herself says no laws were broken, and there was no serious retaliation against her.
So we learn that Trudeau is not a saint, but a politician (how dare he!), that nobody acted out of personal profit, and that the company did not go unpunished.
With your permission, I think I will continue to envy Canada's political life!
181
@astaritt
Uhh. how do you explain why she was fired from her job and transferred to a different agency. If this was trump you'd be screaming for impeachment.
13
@astaritt Thank you!!!!! This has been blown way out of proportion. JWR has her perspective - but if you listened to the testimony yesterday from Butts and the clerk of the PC - it was the normal course of business in politics - which JWR seems to be a neophyte in - discuss fully and explore all options on a matter that relates to public policy and jobs,. In the end there was no deal. Enough already. If we end up with a PC government because of this nonsense that will be the real scandal.
45
I don’t envy graft with a kind face. I’d rather see it in all its bold face glory.
2
This is a political scandal? While I fail to see it, congratulations to the Canadians--for if this is a scandal, their political system is in infinitely better shape than any other in the world.
121
@Jim R. Completely agree. This feel like much ado about nothing. Anybody who doesn't believe that these kinds of discussions happen routinely, especially when there are 9000 Canadian jobs at stake, doesn't understand the normal operation of government. Are these decisions, especially around a large Quebec-based company political? Of course they are. Its politics. The Canadian system continues to work well, and by & large represent the interests of its people properly. When we compare ourselves to the perpetual gridlock south of the border, we come out smelling like roses.
35
@Jim R. Agreed. Just compare what Trudeau has done to what Trump has done, and continues to do every day.
10
@Jim R.
Don't you wish we had their problems? Sigh.
7
If Trudeau did something different from Obama deciding in concert with Eric Holder to not prosecute Wall Street crooks, I fail to see it.
3
There are many different ways of punishing the infringement of law.
Fine, change of senior management,
monitoring future contracts could
have been enough punishment.
Barring the company for 10 years
and jeopardizing thousands of jobs
( employees who had no part in Libyan
business) was too harsh. Ms Jody Wilson
(JWR) was too sensitive to interpret
the alternative propsals as "pressure",
"houding" and "inappropriate". Her way
was the only way.She had no business
of depriving people of earnings. Punish
senior managers who make this kind of decisions.
5
This affair proves the wisdom of the adage credited to the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck: there are two things that should be hidden from the public—the making of policy and of sausage. The revelations concerning Lavalin have tarnished the image of Justin Trudeau, the great feminist brought down by two female members of his cabinet, and one indigenous. One would expect a little loyalty.
7
It is refreshing to read these comments that are far more balanced and realistic than the media coverage in my own country.One of the comments used the phrase 'manufactured outrage' and it is most apt
14
This entire affair seems much ado about nothing. Even the woman who claimed to have been pressured admitted it was entirely proper for Canadian employment issues to be raised with her and she was never told to halt the prosecution.
10
Headline says "unapologetic" yet abstract says Trudeau acknowledged "I should have been" more aware--that sounds not exactly unapologetic to me.
6
This scandal -- it is, and should be considered a scandal -- makes me sad for Canada's democracy. I have voted Liberal for most federal elections, and will likely vote Liberal again in October, because I respect my own Member of Parliament. But I'd prefer to see a housecleaning at the top of the party.
This Prime Minister's inner circle bullied a competent AG out of her job as punishment, and replaced her with an inexperienced yes-man who will almost certainly tow the line on forgiving gross corporate malfeasance. All to save votes in their own power centre (downtown Montreal).
The "saving jobs" excuse is a complete misdirection. SNC-Lavalin could pick up and leave the day after paying their softball fine. Just as GM has pulled out of key communities, gutting Canada's working class, after decades of preferential treatment by successive governments. This is not about jobs; it's about maintaining power and control for a small group of privileged men.
Trudeau promised a different kind of politics. Instead, he and his close circle of advisers delivered the same old same old. It is telling that the strongest and most authoritative criticism of this situation is coming from inside their own party. They clearly fooled a lot of their own colleagues as well.
7
@John Jody WIlson-Raybould was not bullied out of her job. She was offered the Aboriginal Services portfolio because Jane Philpott was being moved to Treasury Board (an obvious move), and Trudeau wanted someone prominent to head the Indigenous reconciliation file. You are not seeing the events in a balanced manner. Please read Gerald Butt's revelatory account yesterday of how the cabinet shuffle went down - https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/read-gerald-butts-full-opening-statement-1.4324615
8
I watched Mr. Butts’ testimony live. It was unconvincing, and delivered with a level of smarm I wish I could find surprising. Only partisan naiveté could make someone believe a demotion from AG and Justice Minister was not punishment for refusing a political play.
7
SNC is a corrupt company, they have broken the law internationally and nationally several times. When they break the law they have successfully lobbied the government to delay or drop the charges or reduce sentencing. They have successfully lobbied to change the law after the crime was committed. Now they lobby to have the new law applied to their past crimes. Thank you to the AG for standing up to this perverse form of justice.
10
What's the problem? He's still calling himself a feminist, still spending due attention to his hair, and he's scurrying off to apologize to the Inuits. He's a model liberal.
4
The article mentions that Trudeau is still trying to appear to be a feminist. Is this suggesting that Trudeau did what he did because she was a female? Is this why this whole thing is a scandal? Does she need to be treated with kid gloves, different from men? This is coming from a conservative. I don't see a scandal here.
8
One has to laugh at how this "scandal" compares to what's happening every hour of every day in the Trump administration...
8
When beholding Justin Trudeau at present, one observes a politician imprisoned by his own cynicism. His commitment to diversity, inclusion and open govt rendered disingenuous, if not counterfeit.Some Liberal supporters now depict JWR as a stubborn diva bent on revenge, yet it was Trudeau who created this alleged "gender" issue through his cynical embracing of feminism. While apparently assuming a posture of ethical absolutism, Trudeau's govt indulges in ethical relativism in applying different ethical standards in Quebec and the rest of Canada with reference to the law.
However much Americans find this amusing and quaint, Anglophone Canadians are increasingly deciding that ethics matter. At this point, any opposition party could adapt the following campaign slogan against Trudeau which would be appropriate: " It's integrity stupid!"
2
Canada's economy under team Trudeau is the best it has been in decades. The investments in innovative science and technology and its immigration policies have already made it a coveted destination for the best brains in the world. As a Prime Minister he has a responsibility to rule of law but at the same time resolve the SNC-Lavlin issue in a way that thousands of ordinary employees do not loose their jobs. It is silly to even attach the word "corruption" with this drummed up scandal. He has not benefited personally one bit and his actions were for the larger benefit of the country and the people of Quebec where he is likely to win more seats than last time.
12
@Freesoul More jobs were lost when Sears Canada folded recently than what were allegedly threatened by SNC-Lavalin leaving Canada, so the argument that Trudeau was ardently protecting Canadian jobs is somewhat bogus. You might well know that the majority of said jobs are located in Quebec, and that in meetings with the former AG, informed her that he's the Liberal MP for Papineau, a Montreal riding; in other words, this isn't as benign as many Canadian posters here are writing. Needless to add, I haven't mentioned Trudeau's insistence that his govt would respect court decisions regarding Trans-Mountain last year.
With his refusal to apologize for the manner in which he's comported himself, Justin is basically imitating his father, who infamously gave Canadians the middle finger; however, he also lacks his father's gravitas.
3
Canadians inherently see scandal where there is none and our opposition parties make hay of everything. In the US this wouldn’t have even elicited a shrug. Maybe a chuckle. I suppose we should be grateful that the bar is set so low in our country.
The problem is the opposition right now is cut from similar cloth as the US right. What passed for the progressive right died a couple decades ago.
10
I have to wonder where the NYT is going with this. The defecting Minister is an Aboriginal militant from BC, with deep hostility to Canadian sovereignty, added identity feminism, and a fixed idea of her own power to decide as she wished to.
Yesterday, NYT ran an opinion penned by an Alberta anti-Liberal, from deep in the heart of Canadian Trumpism (yes!). The piece was thinly veiled racism, all French-bashing, about how Quebec companies are uber-corrupt, corrupting the country, and holding it hostage. It falsely implied that the SNC firm was not going to pay for its far-away bribe in Libya. I really wonder what the NYT is thinking.
8
Will this leave Justin Trudeau staggering through the summer? Hmmm. This involves the stirring up of the "we're sick of Quebec" symptom that hasn't been a part of things in this country for decades. I've been watching the Quebec media, and most of them seem to be strongly "with Trudeau" on this matter. The media in the rest of the country "aren't." The two cabinet ministers who have resigned are very much "liberal" members of the Liberal Party who are now being ironically praised by Conservatives across Canada. They couldn't stand each other beforehand - but Trudeau's special efforts for "la belle province" Quebec have brought them together. He thinks that SNC-Lavalin's corrupt business tactics in Libya involving millions of dollars are to be "forgiven" by Canada in order to maintain jobs in Quebec.
Another thing to note is that SNC-Lavalin is one of two companies that is now establishing a new local rail system in Canada's capital city Ottawa - which won't be ready anywhere near on-time. That company obviously lobbied the "municipal" government very well before winning that contract.
4
@Luke Fisher About half of SNC-Lavalin's 9000 employees are in Quebec but the rest are spread elsewhere in Canada. To make this a Quebec vs. Rest of Canada issue is ludicrous when the Liberal government recently spent $4.5 Billion on a pipeline for Alberta (certainly doesn't make the Liberals much friends elsewhere in the country). A deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin costs the government nothing -- in fact the fines will add to federal coffers.
5
It's like, when you're in a car, and the traffic bunches up, and you think, oh, there must be an accident, and everybody slows down, and then you drive by, and hey, there was no accident here, everybody was just slowing down. How strange is that?
That is what this supposed controversy is all about. It's Seinfeld, it's a show about nothing.
6
So Canadians think they have a "crisis" on their hands, Canadians please ask your selves one question, "what would Trump do?" In the course of your reflection you will find that you are indeed blessed.
It would not have been beyond the realm of possibilities for Trump to fire the Justice Minister and Attorney General and replace them with SNC-Lavalin's executive leadership.
8
Why anyone would believe Justin Trudeau about anything at this point is beyond me. Aside from a few welcome, but not major, accomplishments in changing the tax code to benefit lower income Canadians (though many new benefits now go to corporations and the rich), and some other benefits that are adjusted to go more to poorer people (child benefits, etc), he has been contemptibly hypocritical about policies dealing with Indigenous people, the environment, pipelines and more. When someone says that increasing oil output is part of a climate change strategy, you know it--and much of what he says--is a joke. The sad thing is that we'll now get saddled with a Conservative government and the last one of those showed 10 times the contempt for constitutional and parliamentary and democratic tradition than Trudeau has shown. The NDP will not get elected for centuries, since they have nothing to distinguish themselves from the Liberals since they abandoned any commitment to social democracy a number of years back, even though they would likely do more for the environment and the poor, as the newish NDP government in BC has done (though it too is not without its serious disappointments...)
The company in question and over one hundred of its subsidiaries top the world bank’s list of corrupt companies in the ENTIRE world. The Quebec pension fund owns over 20% of this companies stocks and the prime minister is a member of parliament from the province of Quebec. This company is also a huge donator to his political party. Nine thousand job would not be lost if this company was denied government contracts as those projects would still go ahead with companies hiring the same amount of employees to get the jobs done, no job losses which was the excuse for meddling inappropriately in legal prosecutions. When you skim the surface this looks like a controversy but when you even scratch the surface a little bit corruption becomes obvious.
4
Because the crux of this issue is "her truth" vs. "their truth," we'll never really have an entire story. Perceptions of what is pressure and what it is not will differ. It's odd that JWR remained in cabinet for months after she was transferred to another position before resigning. It strikes me that her "truth" would have been better served by a resignation as soon as that "demotion" occurred. No cabinet minister has a lock on his/her portfolio - they serve at the pleasure of the PM. Part of her problem may have been a very bruised ego. No money was involved in this "scandal," and JWR was asked to talk with another jurist as she weighed her options. She declined. She was firm in her opinion yet never bothered to tell that directly to the P.M.
7
What we are seeing is a case of manufactured outrage, which is becoming all to common. Folks need to simmer down and consider the realities of the situation, and what perhaps could be done differently in the future.
What I sense is the major source of anger, is that oil interests are arguing that if rule of law is fungible....what about us and our pipelines. Are the situations analogous ....I don’t know, you can decide for yourself I guess.
23
@Bard Why is it that when the left abuses their power they just "talk" it away? Yet when the right does so it is not only a scandal, it is unforgivable & a ruination of the persons stature & career?
1
@Hilda
Left?? do you mean that as some sort of insult. Let me ask you something...if you had the power, how would you use it in this case? I suspect Mr Scheer would do the same thing, and I would support him on that.
There is a difference between using power and abusing it. In no way do I excuse SNC with this comment, but financial penalties would be a far more practical solution than operational penalties.
2
The AG is a cabinet minister who serves in that post at the invitation of the PM, not by a direct election. She is an elected representative of her Vancouver riding that supported the party in the last election. As Wilson-Raybould was not elected to the post of AG, her lack of agreement on the direction considered by the PM is ultimately solved by her resignation and replacement. As an elected representative, her defined role is the support of her local constituents as is the PM's to support his. Her cabinet position is subject to change in accord with party policy, That's the system.
24
Some important facts to know are that the Attorney General in Canada is filled by an elected politician who is a member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet and also the Justice Minister. They wear three "hats" (jobs), and it is a political position. They interact daily with politicians and report directly to the PM. It is not the same position as the AG in the US.
In September, Jody Wilson-Raybould said that she confronted the PM over him saying he was speaking to her as the MP of Papineau (one of his two "hats") and asked if he was illegally directing her, to which he said he was not. She testified that she took him at his word.
She implicated multiple people, from public servants with decades of services across multiple governments (Conservative and Liberal), to other cabinet ministers, to the PM. According to her, she is the only one who was correct. However, Wilson-Raybould agrees that nothing illegal took place, but "inappropriate pressure", calling it "hounding" and "harassment".
Other public servants have said that they operated within the law, consulting outside counsel before talking to her, and did not receive any written notice or otherwise that she felt this way until they read it in the news media in February, five months after she apparently felt contact was inappropriate.
The whole thing for me is nuts. It's not about belief but perspective. Seriously, in my opinion if it's not illegal or a major ethics violation it's not even a scandal. That's my take.
58
I've had two concurrent reactions to this unfolding scandal:
1. The federal Liberals seem incapable of not being corrupt.
2. Whatever their corruption, I find the Liberals infinitely preferable to whatever nastiness Andrew Scheer and the Tories might hatch upon Canada.
30
What nonsense. First: Trudeau's actions were appropriate; in fact, it would have been negligent of him not to share his view that larger principles, and a larger cost-benefit analysis, was in view.
Second: I'm a Canadian who has lived in the US for the last 25 years. What I wouldn't give for THIS to be the government scandal du jour! The contrast between the two countries' version of scandal tells you everything you need to know about whether this was a serious issue.
Finally: Trudeau's mistake was not consulting with his A-G to discuss this matter. Trudeau's mistake was appointing inexperienced cabinet members. The right contrast is not Pierre Trudeau, but Jean Chretien, who ran the Canadian government for ten years without a single scandal. His secret? Chretien's cabinet members were all seasoned, experienced managers.
47
@R.S.
Not a single scandal? The "sponsorship" scandal rocked Chetien's government and lead to a Liberal defeat in the 2006 election. Other than that...
4
@R.S.
Uhh.....
Were you being sarcastic?
Chretien had no scandals? Really now? Is a proof is a proof is a proof?
Also, the scandal is that PM Trudeau consulted with the AG over the use of a DPA with SNC-Lavalin too much, to the point that Jody Wilson-Raybould considered it inappropriate. Or rather, his office (and other ministers) did, and she considered it a conspiracy of sorts. They considered it doing their job.
The point is, SNC-Lavalin no matter what will either have a trial or have a DPA. They are still innocent until proven guilty. A DPA, by the way, is like a settlement deal for companies. They pay a fine and undergo conditions in exchange for deferred prosecution. It's a plea deal, essentially. It's not getting off scot free.
Suffice to say, this is not evidence of government corruption, but evidence of how government transparency works. There are open testimonies and lots of dialogue. That's democracy for you!
1
“Controversy” - not scandal or crisis. Glad to see the appropriate headline. As Trudeau stated today the justice minister has until the moment of sentencing to convert the sentence to a plea deal. There was no crisis here - just the normal operation of government weighing jobs and politics. A rookie member of parliament was nominated to have one of the most important jobs in cabinet and was shuffled out to another position when the normal opportunity happened. As the police officer says as you pass a site of a cleared accident with debris at the side of the road - “nothing to see here I- keep moving”.
18
@Bob
I agree, controversy is more like it. It may be "just the normal operation of government" but doesn't mean is completely right. I believe his attempt to influence the AG's actions went a bit too far, raise a concern once or twice but something like 10 times and it is obvious he was acting under pressure and was exercising undue influence and stepping on the toes of the AG's authority.
I believe Trudeau has learned his lesson and that he has sufficiently been reprimanded in the public arena. But he needs to come clean and fess up on the error and breach of public trust which he has started to do today.
@Karena
A big problem is that Deferred Prosecution Agreements are entirely new in Canada; this is the first time it has been raised as a possibility although DPAs are used fairly frequetly in the US, as well as Germany, Britain and other countries. It's not even clear if the head of prosecutions is even comfortable to use it. Moreover, it seems a better approach than criminal prosecutions of a corporation--companies are not people although SCOTUS seems to argue that they have virtually the same rights as persons!
The other thing is that ministers of the crown are always going to be subject to pressures as there are always competing interests in complex societies. The old adage is "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
10
@Wally Mills
Yes, the DPA is entirely new and it was revealed was implemented in part on the lobby of SNC.
The point is the AG already decided on the matter.
I am not naive I know government's and their leaders are lobbied relentlessly, the question is when does it cross a line in a leader's actions. There are laws, rules and procedures that govern such things.
3
No single corporation should imperil a countries economy so much that they hesitate to prosecute it for CRIMINAL ACTS.
In fact, the very idea that it is so important to the economy should *encourage* them to punish it to ensure more honorable and law-abiding corporations have the opportunity to fill in the gaps left by the law-breakers. This may cause some pain in the short-term, but that could be partly mitigated by giving any that lose their jobs part of the fines assessed on their former employers.
Why even have markets if you aren't going to use them for the exact purpose they were invented for. Sheesh.
8
@J c I don't disagree with you in principle that there should be consequences, but I do question whether the right way to address these things is to impose consequences like barring from a contract for 10 years. A corporation is a money making entity. Perhaps the best punishment IS money. For the individuals that engaged in illegal activity, jail is the right answer (if that's the punishment for the crime); for the box in which they work, taking some of the riches out of the box, so there is (1) an incentive to the owners of the box to pay attention and (2) so the box and its owners cannot profit, seems more appropriate.
10
@J c SNC doesn't imperil the economy of Canada itself, but it does imperil the economy of a few key communities. It would be difficult to prevent companies from reaching that kind of threshold.
3
@E
Sure, I'm open to other punishments, but to be clear, the company would not be barred from doing work, just would be barred from working for the government. Feels to me like not being convicted of a criminal offense is a pretty low bar that any corporation ought to be able to clear.
This kind of carefulness around destroying a corporation is just insane to me. The entire point of corporations is to create a system where the owners are protected from liability (via limited liability), so now we protect them even further? Seems just outright crazy to me.
2
It's easy to cast this issue as a breakdown of trust, now that the principled indigenous woman who held a key position of power has been shuffled off the stage.
6
Veteran’s Affairs is a powerful Cabinet position. She choose to resign from that position - she wasn’t shuffled off the stage.
14
There is no disputing SNC's guilt. The only debate is the form of punishment. It's been reported SNC payed 47 million in bribes to the Libyan gov't then turned around and defrauded the same gov't of 127 million. I can think of one world leader who is green with envy.
5
@RNS No disputing SNC's guilt? Let's wait and see if SNC Lavalin actually pleads guilty in the unlikely event this case does go to trial.
1
The same Justin Trudeau who is always ready, willing and able to criticize and lecture the United States and President Trump in particular, has now been shown to be nothing more than a phony, hypocritical politician who is willing to silence his own critics in order to pad the employment numbers of Canada. What goes around, comes around Mr. Trudeau.
31
@paul you cant even compare Trudeau's actions to those of Trump's. Trump is constantly undermining democracy , putting the world at risk with his relationships with dictators. He has put world trade at risk with his illogical tariffs and sanctions. He has failed at every trade agreement he has touched. Canadian steel is not a national security risk. Trudeau is guilty of a traffic ticket compared to Trump's crimes and ignorance.
98
@paul Trump had ethics scandals larger than this before he even took office, and the list grows longer by the week. I think you are a little too eager to equate them; Trudeau would have to get a lot of corruption and scandal done in the next 7 months to meet up with Trump.
27
@paul, in what way has Trudeau silenced anyone here? Has Ms. Wilson-Raybould been silent in some way that I missed?
33
So what to do?
The choice is to punish SNC Lavalin by operational sanctions or financial sanctions.
But punished they will be.
Financial sanctions will hurt the company and its shareholders.
Operational sanctions will hurt the employees and their families by pushing thousands into unemployment and threatening the longer term viability of the company as a Canadian entity.
Trudeau was pushing for financial sanctions, recognising the high social costs to the country.
No responsible leader can allow high social costs particularly if other kinds of sanctions are available.
A real conundrum, but it should be remembered that to do justice is easy, but to do right is considerably more difficult.
95
@Riskstrategies This scandal really doesn't center on how SNC-Lavalin is punished. It's really about the pressure that the PM and his backroom operators applied to the Attorney General to convince her to change her mind on allowing Lavalin off with a financial penalty rather than a trial for bribery.
17
@David I disagree, this is how politics work. There will always been competing factions and concerns in government action and different stakeholders will push their agenda. It was a moment for the AG/Justice Minister to pushback, stand up to the PM, and establish a firm precedent for the independent of the justice ministry and system. Instead, she took politics personally and publicly.
I'm not wholeheartedly defending Trudeau here, perhaps his staff did cross the line in terms of pressure or tactics. But his intentions of making Canadian jobs a bigger consideration is justified. The AG/Justice Minister should have pushed back and told the PM to stop, in front of the cabinet if needed.
I'm reminded of a much more toxic interaction between Israel's Netanyahu and his AG over indicting the PM for corruption. Compared with what the Israeli AG endured (with grace), this is a tempest in a teapot.
37
@SBR Yes agree completely and utterly.
9
This is a great story about liberal open democracy. There's debate and transparency. I don't want my country to be a pollyanna about issues. Our politics is nothing like our southern neighbours. It's more moderate. More discussion based and less yelling based (from what I see and read) Ask yourself who you would prefer as a leader? Our PM or the southern neighbours? Who's better suited to running a government? 'Nuff said.
42
@Dreena
That isn't the question for Canadian Voters is it? You have to decide if Trudeau, Scheer, Bernier or whoever the NDP candidate is will be your leader. No one is voting for Trudeau or Trump remember? What will you do if its Bernierr? Or even Scheer? Here is your answer: you will do just fine even though you won't know it.
Your description of this scandal as "quaint" is apt. The root problem is in the structure of the federal cabinet where the attorney general and justice jobs are assigned to a single cabinet post. One of those roles is supposed to be free of political considerations while the other is not. There's nothing unseemly about the PMO trying to influence the outcome for political reasons. Besides that, even if this did go to a trial, there a high probability that it would be settled with a hefty fine and a promise from SNC not to do it again rather than a conviction. Teapot tempest if ever there was one.
32
1. In Canada, the AG is the top cop but remains a member of the "team", and as such, is expected to support the "team", providing that such actions are neither illegal or unethical. In this case, "pressuring" her to consider an existing legal alternative, is not great optics, but part and parcel of being a member of the party.
2. As AG, she should be aware that the PMO uses a wider lens to assess things. In this case that lens caught that SNC is a very important company with thousands of jobs dependant on its success either directly or indirectly. As well, the Caisse Depot, the pargest pension fund in Quebec, holds a huge number of SNC shares, and could take a huge hit if the stock tanked - a very real possibility if govt contracts were out of the loop.
3. The current leader of the tories, Sheer, sat mutely on the back bench while his former boss, Stephen Harper, prorogued the govt, and worse, went after a justice of the supreme court - a much more obvious and serious breach of parliamentary ethics.
Trudeau has handled this badly, and he underestimated the fury of this particular scorned woman.
But to me, this is a whirling tempest in a teacup.
The press, especially the Globe (who broke the story and is milking every last drop of milk from this sorry teat), need to move on.
NOT a card-carrying Liberal.
70
@johhnyb Couldn't agree more. There really is nothing to see here. This is how the sausage is made, folks.
5
So he basically said nothing this morning again?
8
The article apparently misstates the issue here, suggesting :” Mr. Trudeau and his top aides were accused of trying to get the justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to allow the company to avoid a conviction — which would bar it from government contracts for a decade — and instead negotiate a monetary penalty.”
It was not about “allowing” SNC to escape the law, but about applying a legal exception to the law to be applied in this case.
A different matter.
18
@John ¥—¥ Brews No, this issue is about applying pressure to the Attorney General - not the Justice Minister, who is a politician - to interfere in a criminal prosecution in a way which politically benefits the ruling party. It is about Liberal votes in Quebec in an election year, though it's being framed as being about jobs.
It's also about avoiding a public trial for a notoriously corrupt company with deep political connections in Canada. So deep, for example, that the current SNC Lavalin board chair, who is a former Clerk of the Privy Council (the head of the Canadian civil service), felt free to call the current Clerk to ask him what could be done to change the AG's mind. Who is to say what potentially embarrassing, or damaging information about major Canadian public figures may come out in court, should it ever get that far?
1
@Stephen Austin That was not what the pressure was about. Even the former AG admits that they were trying to get her to pursue a second opinion, the rationale being that DPAs are a new instrument in Canada (though long-standing in the US, UK, and Germany) and the stakes were high. I believe the former AG herself said that the second opinion they were asking her to pursue was from an eminent jurist such as ex-Chief of the Supreme Court Beverly McLachlan. The advice is completely undeterminate since it was never pursued. This is an office cubicle dispute blown up by the bored Ottawa media and possibly JWB herself, let's face it. Either that, or Canadians are serious drama queens.
1
This is another tornado in a glass, a lot of rumors about who did what, nothing more nothing less...
14
Appreciate the accurate reporting. Thank you.
11
The corrupt practices of SNC-Lavalin is an affront to all decent Canadians and Mr. Trudeau needs to step up and honour Canadian values, however misguided or anachronistic they may be viewed by some in this post-modern world. The law calls for punishment and a monetary penalty, rather than being a deterrent against such abhorrent behaviour, sends a message to SNC-Lavalin that they can continue their bad practices without regard for the values of the country they call home.
19
@Eugene Why should innocent employees of SNV-Lavalin be punished too? A deferred prosecution agremeent is a form of punishment, an instrument that is frequently used in the US, UK, and Germany. See here - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/
1
@Eugene
Well said!
We should be so lucky, I suppose in a back-handed way, for such issues being so "quaint." Sorry, Canada, you cannot compete with our messes.
25
Ultimately it will prove to be a tempest in a tea pot. Trudeau is likely to survive this and perhaps come out stronger and a better person. The media's obsession with calling people around Trudeau as elites and the narrative that "shine" has come off the "sunny ways" of Prime Minister is also complete nonsense. He is not perfect and perhaps could have handled it differently, but he is still the most popular ,open, transparent and a decent human being a country can hope to have as a leader.
42
Except it took him weeks to only kind of half acknowledge his wrongdoing. That's not the mark of someone trying to be honest and transparent.
7
@Aaron Jean As we heard from Gerald Butts yesterday it really does not seem like he did anything wrong and whether 10 contacts over 4 months really constitutes inappropriate pressure is certainly a matter of judgment and reasonable disagreement. If the former AG did not make it clear that she had made up her mind -- and there is no evidence that she did except her word -- and given what is at stake, that does not seem to be extraordinary "pressure", if pressure at all, since by law, as we heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council yesterday, the decision of the AG is NEVER supposed to be final until a verdict is rendered, because publc interest has to be continuously accounted for. This was presumably Butts' and Trudeau's understanding of the law, and to suggest that bringing the issue up once or twice a month when 9000+ jobs and pensions may be at stake is actually kinda laughable to me at this point.
1
This “erosion of trust” mentioned by Justin Trudeau is based on the fact that Jody Wilson-Raybould was not responding to the pressure that he and others were putting on her to interfere in the SNC-Lavalin case.
So he removed her from her post.
I would argue that he intended to replace her with someone who would respond differently, the way he wanted the SNC-Lavalin case managed.
This issue is not going away.
41
@Ellen Buckley
Justin's behind the scenes maneuvers are much the same as his father's.
Trudeau Pere was more upfront ( "Why should I sell your wheat?" to farmers; and "Just watch me" at a crisis point). Trudeau Fils' messaging is more doublespeak, wishy-washy, often "verbal porridge".
This issue, with a loss of two competent cabinet ministers and Trudeau's highest-placed aide, is not going away.........not without more loss of credibility in Trudeau and those who do his bidding.
8
@Kelly, no competent cabinet member would ever behave as Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Do you really think that Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, Irwin Cotler, or even John Crosbie, would have behaved this way? Or handled the matter so ineptly?
15
@Kelly I am wondering why the newspaper that exposed and has driven the story since the beginning has such a "hate on" for the government. Their coverage has until the last few days been entirely one-sided. Their apparent disregard of the facts and their apparent - by elimination- partisan stance are other issues that are not going to go away. The reputation of the paper is taking a direct hit, at least with this long time reader.
8