- Reaction score
- 1,036
- Points
- 1,060
I like the shovel and pick lapel pin for Butts, however a hammer and sickle might be more appropriate.
Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
- Thread starter Loachman
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,873
- Points
- 1,260
Cloud Cover said:
I noticed that too, is there significance to that ? I thought about a homage to his coal mining roots in CB maybe ?
- Reaction score
- 1,036
- Points
- 1,060
Turns out it’s worthy of national news: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/put-a-pin-in-it-did-you-notice-what-butts-wernick-wore-on-their-lapels-at-the-snc-lavalin-hearing
- Reaction score
- 5,405
- Points
- 1,040
Wow, kind of feel this is almost an inept enough handling of the situation to be a satire.
Butts was Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines (and exactly the kind of bureaucrabro policy wonk you expect to find in the PMO, ADM, or DM offices). Think he would have been better not volunteering to testify as he was not credible. Wernick came off as a Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines, but glad MP Raitt is on the committee.
This is the most unconvincing whitewashing I've seen outside of a Britcom, brutal. They are a cunning plan away from being a Blackadder plot.
Still not Brexit parliament dysfunctional, but this story is all over the UK press too. Think there was an article posted already, but there is a pretty funny opinion piece in the Guardian about watching Trudeau get hit by this is like watching a unicorn get run over by a car.
Butts was Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines (and exactly the kind of bureaucrabro policy wonk you expect to find in the PMO, ADM, or DM offices). Think he would have been better not volunteering to testify as he was not credible. Wernick came off as a Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines, but glad MP Raitt is on the committee.
This is the most unconvincing whitewashing I've seen outside of a Britcom, brutal. They are a cunning plan away from being a Blackadder plot.
Still not Brexit parliament dysfunctional, but this story is all over the UK press too. Think there was an article posted already, but there is a pretty funny opinion piece in the Guardian about watching Trudeau get hit by this is like watching a unicorn get run over by a car.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-imagine-trudeaus-befuddlement-as-his-brightest-recruits-threaten-his-demise
Chris Selley: Imagine Trudeau's befuddlement as his brightest recruits threaten his demise
These clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently
Chris Selley
March 5, 2019 1:27 AM EST
<snip>
We’ve become inured to it: To enter politics behind the scenes is to check your principles, if any, at reception. To enter it as a member of a legislature is all but to consent to lobotomy. Never mind your degrees and your doorstop of a CV: A warren of far-too-intense 23-year-old weirdos has written talking points for you and, damn it, you’re going to read them.
This is what makes the resignations from cabinet of successful lawyer Jody Wilson-Raybould and, on Monday, successful family doctor Jane Philpott so stunning. One can understand the PMO’s frustration as it explained the thousands of jobs implicated in a potential conviction for SNC-Lavalin, only to be rebutted with something as arcane as “the rule of law.” But at least they could badmouth the not-universally-popular Wilson-Raybould to friendly reporters. One can scarcely imagine the PMO’s befuddlement when the all-but-universally-respected Philpott decided she couldn’t be associated with it any longer. Does this woman not know what’s at stake?
Indeed, the “it’s them or Andrew Scheer” desperation among Liberal partisans reached a new crescendo on Monday. Maybe Wilson-Raybould and Philpott realize that’s not actually the dividing line between civilization and Thunderdome that the Liberals would have us believe. Or maybe they realize that sacrificing one’s principles is not excused when negative consequences are indicated. Some would argue that’s the only time when sticking to them really matters.
Either way, these clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently. “When you add women, please do not expect the status quo,” Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who’s not running in 2019, tweeted on Monday after Philpott’s resignation. “Expect us to make correct decisions, stand for what is right and exit when values are compromised.”
That is just savagely on point. If nothing else, Trudeau can hang his hat on some very talented recruits. It’s entirely fitting they are now making life miserable for this simpering charlatan of a prime minister.
Edit to remove inappropriate emphasis of part of the article text.
Chris Selley: Imagine Trudeau's befuddlement as his brightest recruits threaten his demise
These clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently
Chris Selley
March 5, 2019 1:27 AM EST
<snip>
We’ve become inured to it: To enter politics behind the scenes is to check your principles, if any, at reception. To enter it as a member of a legislature is all but to consent to lobotomy. Never mind your degrees and your doorstop of a CV: A warren of far-too-intense 23-year-old weirdos has written talking points for you and, damn it, you’re going to read them.
This is what makes the resignations from cabinet of successful lawyer Jody Wilson-Raybould and, on Monday, successful family doctor Jane Philpott so stunning. One can understand the PMO’s frustration as it explained the thousands of jobs implicated in a potential conviction for SNC-Lavalin, only to be rebutted with something as arcane as “the rule of law.” But at least they could badmouth the not-universally-popular Wilson-Raybould to friendly reporters. One can scarcely imagine the PMO’s befuddlement when the all-but-universally-respected Philpott decided she couldn’t be associated with it any longer. Does this woman not know what’s at stake?
Indeed, the “it’s them or Andrew Scheer” desperation among Liberal partisans reached a new crescendo on Monday. Maybe Wilson-Raybould and Philpott realize that’s not actually the dividing line between civilization and Thunderdome that the Liberals would have us believe. Or maybe they realize that sacrificing one’s principles is not excused when negative consequences are indicated. Some would argue that’s the only time when sticking to them really matters.
Either way, these clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently. “When you add women, please do not expect the status quo,” Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who’s not running in 2019, tweeted on Monday after Philpott’s resignation. “Expect us to make correct decisions, stand for what is right and exit when values are compromised.”
That is just savagely on point. If nothing else, Trudeau can hang his hat on some very talented recruits. It’s entirely fitting they are now making life miserable for this simpering charlatan of a prime minister.
Edit to remove inappropriate emphasis of part of the article text.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Bourque News Watch has been up for more years than I can remember. I usually check it first thing in the morning and again in the evening.
http://www.bourque.com/nates.html
Natterings @ Nate's
Wednesday, March 6
Trudeau mulls resignation
A well-known Trudeau insider pops into Nate's to grab some takeout. With Butts this morning, then Wernick this aft, it's been a long, long, long day.
While he's waiting for his smoked meat platter with extra fat, bucket of slaw, quiver of pickle spears, and meddley of verenekas & latkes, a pal who's been there in the trenches with the team walks up. Let's call him Mike, it doesn't matter. The other guy, the insider, shall remain nameless. It is best that way.
Mike asks the obvious, "so, how's it going ?"
Nameless furrows his brow. He really doesn't want to get into it. But he knows he can't brush Mike off with a platitude. So he scans the room for danger. Sensing none, he relaxes a bit, exhales, and answers.
"Not good", says Nameless.
"That bad, eh", offers Mike.
"Worse", says Nameless.
Mike gets a bit closer, lowers his voice.
"How bad ?", he asks.
"Resignation is not out of the question", Nameless admits.
Mike is stunned. It's the last thing he expected to hear. But he holds out hope.
"Who's ?", he asks, "Telford ? Wernick ? The Bimbo Boys ?"
Nameless shrugs, waves an arm limply, then shakes his head.
"No, the boss", he admits.
Mike noisily lets out all the air in his lungs.He skips a beat, deflated.
"Wow". That's all he can offer up, stunned.
The takeout arrives at the counter, Nameless pays for it, waves at someone from Bluesky walking by, opens up his bag of food, pulls out the pickles, grabs one for himself, and offers one to Mike, who takes one to munch along with his pal. They both munch and crunch for a moment, and then Mike asks a question.
"So, is it a done deal ?"
"Can't say, I can't because I can't. And because there are a couple other options", says Nameless.
"Like what, for instance ?"
Nameless sucks on his pickle for a couple seconds.
"Well, for instance, like scorched earth."
"Scorched earth ?", Mike asks, "you mean more heads rolling ?"
"Maybe. Telford, Wernick, the Bimbo Boys. Maybe. A clean slate .. followed by a public repudiation of SNC-Lavalin by the PM and an apology to the nation for having let the nation down."
Mike is stunned to the point that he grabs for another pickle wedge without even being offered.
"Will that work .. or will that only fuel the scandal ?" It's a valid question and a valid concern. Mike knows that people come and go in politics and sometimes you need to dump those closest to you before the masses have your own head. It's the old adage that the people who got you to the PMO are not necessarily the people who keep you in the PMO.
Nameless looks unconvinced.
"That's the problem", he admits, "there is no insight into what impact that will have".
"So then what ?", asks Mike.
Nameless furrows his brow.
"Justin may take the blame and resign, it's the honourable out."
Mike is stunned, shocked, disillusioned.
"That's insane !"
Nameless shakes his head slowly. He fishes into his bag of food, pulls out the latkes, offers one to Mike, who takes one.
"We feel we are losing the public's trust", admits Nameless, as he takes a big bit out of his latke.
The two ponder the ramifications for a moment while they eat.
"If not Justin, then who will lead us into the election ?", Mike asks.
"We'd need an interim leader, a Herb Gray", says Nameless
Mike gives that some thought, then offers up some names.
"Garneau ? Goodale ? McGuinty ? Freeland ? Morneau ? Mckenna ?" Mike is right on some, but grasping at straws with others.
Nameless bobs his head left and right.
"Morneau is a non-starter, he's tainted by that secret French villa nonsense. And we think Freeland & McKenna would want to run for the leadership. Goodale & McGuinty would be great placeholders, but the inside line would go to Garneau. We'd want you on board to help make that happen, Mike. We wouldn't be able to make it happen without you"
Mike is flattered, but surprised at the foresight. He loves Garneau the way he loved Dryden back in the day. He's interested.
"I'm interested", he admits.
Nameless nods, then leans in. Mike can smell the garlic on his breath
"We don't know which way things will go. We may get Calgary Grit to do a focus group. There's also the idea we'll simply dig in, hunker down, fight back, and drag this scandal out as long as we can, keeping the status quo until the election in the fall. Rag the puck, so to speak."
Mike nods, does the zipper signal across his lips. Mum's the word.
"Wow", concludes Mike.
"I know", Nameless nods. It is what it is. At this point, there's not much else that can be added.
The two finish their latkes, then head for the exit.
Developing.
http://www.bourque.com/nates.html
Natterings @ Nate's
Wednesday, March 6
Trudeau mulls resignation
A well-known Trudeau insider pops into Nate's to grab some takeout. With Butts this morning, then Wernick this aft, it's been a long, long, long day.
While he's waiting for his smoked meat platter with extra fat, bucket of slaw, quiver of pickle spears, and meddley of verenekas & latkes, a pal who's been there in the trenches with the team walks up. Let's call him Mike, it doesn't matter. The other guy, the insider, shall remain nameless. It is best that way.
Mike asks the obvious, "so, how's it going ?"
Nameless furrows his brow. He really doesn't want to get into it. But he knows he can't brush Mike off with a platitude. So he scans the room for danger. Sensing none, he relaxes a bit, exhales, and answers.
"Not good", says Nameless.
"That bad, eh", offers Mike.
"Worse", says Nameless.
Mike gets a bit closer, lowers his voice.
"How bad ?", he asks.
"Resignation is not out of the question", Nameless admits.
Mike is stunned. It's the last thing he expected to hear. But he holds out hope.
"Who's ?", he asks, "Telford ? Wernick ? The Bimbo Boys ?"
Nameless shrugs, waves an arm limply, then shakes his head.
"No, the boss", he admits.
Mike noisily lets out all the air in his lungs.He skips a beat, deflated.
"Wow". That's all he can offer up, stunned.
The takeout arrives at the counter, Nameless pays for it, waves at someone from Bluesky walking by, opens up his bag of food, pulls out the pickles, grabs one for himself, and offers one to Mike, who takes one to munch along with his pal. They both munch and crunch for a moment, and then Mike asks a question.
"So, is it a done deal ?"
"Can't say, I can't because I can't. And because there are a couple other options", says Nameless.
"Like what, for instance ?"
Nameless sucks on his pickle for a couple seconds.
"Well, for instance, like scorched earth."
"Scorched earth ?", Mike asks, "you mean more heads rolling ?"
"Maybe. Telford, Wernick, the Bimbo Boys. Maybe. A clean slate .. followed by a public repudiation of SNC-Lavalin by the PM and an apology to the nation for having let the nation down."
Mike is stunned to the point that he grabs for another pickle wedge without even being offered.
"Will that work .. or will that only fuel the scandal ?" It's a valid question and a valid concern. Mike knows that people come and go in politics and sometimes you need to dump those closest to you before the masses have your own head. It's the old adage that the people who got you to the PMO are not necessarily the people who keep you in the PMO.
Nameless looks unconvinced.
"That's the problem", he admits, "there is no insight into what impact that will have".
"So then what ?", asks Mike.
Nameless furrows his brow.
"Justin may take the blame and resign, it's the honourable out."
Mike is stunned, shocked, disillusioned.
"That's insane !"
Nameless shakes his head slowly. He fishes into his bag of food, pulls out the latkes, offers one to Mike, who takes one.
"We feel we are losing the public's trust", admits Nameless, as he takes a big bit out of his latke.
The two ponder the ramifications for a moment while they eat.
"If not Justin, then who will lead us into the election ?", Mike asks.
"We'd need an interim leader, a Herb Gray", says Nameless
Mike gives that some thought, then offers up some names.
"Garneau ? Goodale ? McGuinty ? Freeland ? Morneau ? Mckenna ?" Mike is right on some, but grasping at straws with others.
Nameless bobs his head left and right.
"Morneau is a non-starter, he's tainted by that secret French villa nonsense. And we think Freeland & McKenna would want to run for the leadership. Goodale & McGuinty would be great placeholders, but the inside line would go to Garneau. We'd want you on board to help make that happen, Mike. We wouldn't be able to make it happen without you"
Mike is flattered, but surprised at the foresight. He loves Garneau the way he loved Dryden back in the day. He's interested.
"I'm interested", he admits.
Nameless nods, then leans in. Mike can smell the garlic on his breath
"We don't know which way things will go. We may get Calgary Grit to do a focus group. There's also the idea we'll simply dig in, hunker down, fight back, and drag this scandal out as long as we can, keeping the status quo until the election in the fall. Rag the puck, so to speak."
Mike nods, does the zipper signal across his lips. Mum's the word.
"Wow", concludes Mike.
"I know", Nameless nods. It is what it is. At this point, there's not much else that can be added.
The two finish their latkes, then head for the exit.
Developing.
- Reaction score
- 2,612
- Points
- 1,260
:nod:Chris Pook said:
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Points
- 1,140
It appears Mrs Telford has deployed one of her Op-ed writers.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,855
- Points
- 1,160
Chief Engineer said:
What will be get?
The tears and sobbing pm (with a cleverly picked out lapel pin) saying sorry and he will stay on to make things right?
Or will he decide that the testimony put any thoughts of impropriety to bed and he's deciding Canada will move on ?
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,701
- Points
- 1,140
Jarnhamar said:
Given Wernick's clear irritation with having to testify, yet again, to others who just don't "get it" that nothing wrong was done, and Butt's bringing much needed clarity to a misunderstood "public policy issue", I think we'll see the "working man's PM", again stress that everything was done appropriately to protect Québec jobs and Canada's economy. And he'll bring up the specter of "Harper's Conservatives" at least once.
- Reaction score
- 2,612
- Points
- 1,260
op:- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-services-cabinet-shuffle-wilson-raybould-1.5045932
Trudeau's offer of Indigenous Services to Wilson-Raybould like 'asking Nelson Mandela to administer apartheid'
Social Sharing
B.C. regional chief says suggested move shows Trudeau favours symbolism over substance
Jorge Barrera CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:59 PM ET
The prime minister's attempt to move Jody Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous Services portfolio was a 'deeply humiliating' proposal and shows a lack of understanding and disconnect from First Nations' world view, say Indigenous leaders and analysts.
Gerald Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, testified before the House of Commons justice committee Wednesday that the former cabinet minister was moved to Veterans Affairs from Justice after refusing to take on the Indigenous Services portfolio, and that the shuffle had nothing to do with her refusal to intervene on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.
It was concern over maintaining the reconciliation momentum that led Trudeau to move Wilson-Raybould from Justice to Indigenous Services, said Butts.
Jane Philpott, who was an admired Indigenous Services minister, had to be moved to Treasury Board to replace the outgoing Scott Brison, and, in Trudeau's mind, Wilson-Raybould was the perfect fit to replace her, said Butts.
<snip>
Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University, said he sees a sub-narrative embedded in Butts' testimony, along with Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick's statements before the committee earlier this month.
"They are, I think, framing Wilson-Raybould's resistance [to SNC-Lavalin intervention] as being wrapped up in her Indigenous politics," said King.
"This is a part of narrative that they are trying to package.... I think they are trying to convey to Canadians something here about trouble-making Indigenous people."
https://globalnews.ca/news/5029335/analysis-trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-about-politics/
March 6, 2019 9:43 pm
ANALYSIS: Despite protests from top Trudeau aide, Wilson-Raybould was right - SNC-Lavalin is about politics, not jobs
By David Akin
<snip>
The government that likes to tell you it's all about 'evidence-based policy' has no evidence that "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" were hanging in the balance. They've just been spitballing that number.
"Did you seek independent evidence or any evidence that there was a threat to jobs?" Green Party MP Elizabeth May asked Butts Wednesday. "Based on the 2018 audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin, they currently have $15 billion in back orders." She's right. "They have a very secure financial situation with gross revenues of $10 billion." She's right again.
"Is there any evidence that jobs were actually at stake by letting this go through the courts?" May asked Butts.
"I can't recall anything specific," Butts replied. He mumbled something about some briefings he got from the folks at the federal department of finance. These finance officials would be the same gang, one assumes, that once advised the Trudeau government it would be a good idea to raise taxes on small business owners like farmers, dentists, doctors, insurance brokers and so on because they were, after all, tax cheats. Once bitten, twice shy, I'd say, about any advice I got from the federal finance department.
In any event, Butts could not point to a single report, document, statistic, prognostication, or written record where someone said "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" was out the window if Wilson-Raybould did not do as encouraged.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-circus-comes-to-parliament-hill
Christie Blatchford: The circus comes to Parliament Hill
And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not
Christie Blatchford
March 6, 2019 8:10 PM EST
You know how, when the circus comes to town, or a big fair, it's always tricky deciding where to go first: The ferris wheel, or the games of chance? The haunted house, or the roller coaster? Cotton candy or the little doughnuts?
So it was with the justice committee Wednesday, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary Gerry Butts and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, in round two at the committee, duelled for the attention and regard of Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, as the PM is so fond of saying.
<snip>
Butts was shocked, he said.
Why, he'd never seen such a thing before. JWR said she had spent her life fighting the Indian Act and couldn't now be in charge of programs administered under it.
He gave his best advice to Trudeau, told him he couldn't allow a minister to dictate where she would or wouldn't go; that would lead to chaos. Thus, she was briefly moved to veterans affairs, from whence she resigned from cabinet.
<snip>
Anyway, he certainly accepts "that two people can experience the same event differently"; if ever you wondered where the PM's explanation of the Kokanee grope came from, you may now know.
<snip>
In reply to one of the committee's best questioners, Conservative Lisa Raitt, and after he'd referred to texts and messages he sent JWR or she him, Butts allowed that he "acquired the ability" through his lawyer to get access to his phone.
Compare that, if you will, to the accused former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Mark Norman, whom this government is so avidly prosecuting. His lawyers have been asking for access to his emails and texts since October. Thus far, no access.
<snip>
When his toughest questioners dared interrupt him, Wernick pushed back. "Excuse me sir! Excuse me sir!" or appealed to the chair. At one point, he said, "I know many members (of the committee) said they believed every word" of JWR's testimony, and reminded them that "part of what she said was that nothing veered into criminal" conduct.
To which, the non-Liberal members of the committee cried, "That's the bar? It's not criminal?"
And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-it-was-wilson-rayboulds-decision-to-make-as-long-as-she-decided-it-their-way?video_autoplay=true
Andrew Coyne: It was Wilson-Raybould's decision to make, as long as she decided it their way
There's a way to sort this out: subpoena all communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority voted not to do so
More than once in the course of his testimony to the Commons justice committee Gerald Butts said that he was not there to call anyone names or to cast aspersions on the character of Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Which is why the prime minister's former principal secretary confined himself to depicting her as sloppy, closed-minded and unco-operative, while heavily implying the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada was a serial fabulist who said nothing to anyone about attempts to interfere with her authority over criminal prosecutions until after she was shuffled out of her "dream job" in January. Otherwise he might have gotten really nasty.
And yet he offered little that contradicted what she had earlier told the committee - that she was pressured to overrule the decision of the director of public prosecutions to proceed with charges of fraud and corruption against SNC-Lavalin, rather than to offer it the remediation agreement it had sought.
To be sure, on the specific charge against him, that he had told her chief of staff in a meeting on Dec. 18 that "there's no solution that doesn't involve some interference," he had "a very different recollection." Variations on that theme were to be heard later from the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick, who had "no recollection" of a variety of statements attributed to him - that SNC-Lavalin would move its headquarters from Montreal if it did not get its way, or that something unfortunate might happen to her career if she kept crossing the prime minister.
<snip>
Just so, she was told: the decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was the "final decision-maker." Only the decision was also "never final." She could make it, that is, but she would have everyone from the prime minister on down coming back to her again and again - not because there was any fresh evidence, but just because they could - all the while implicitly questioning her judgment, in the sly form of that repeated suggestion that she seek an outside legal opinion.
This last is a distraction. The attorney general has available to her all the legal advice she requires. The only point of demanding she seek a second opinion was because they did not like the first. In any case, whether to seek outside advice is, again, the attorney general's decision to make, in the same way as it is her choice whether to seek the advice of her colleagues - as opposed to the unsolicited advice that Butts, Wernick and others were pressing upon her.
Ah, but if she felt this was interference, Butts wondered aloud, why didn't she tell anyone? If she had made up her mind, why didn't she say anything?
According to her testimony, she did: to the prime minister, at their Sept. 17 meeting ("I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC"); to the clerk, at the same meeting; to the finance minister on Sept. 19 ("I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate"); to Matthieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, officials in the PMO, on Nov. 22 ("I said NO. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop – enough"); and to Butts himself, on Dec. 5 ("I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate").
Yet Butts told the committee he only learned that she considered her decision final during her testimony before the committee last week. Not only did he not recall her telling him, but neither the prime minister nor the clerk nor the finance minister nor the two PMO officials who reported to him breathed a word. Or was the problem, as he said at another point, that she did not tell the prime minister "in writing"?
Well, there's one way to sort this out: subpoena all emails, texts and other communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority on the committee voted not to do so. OK, then invite Wilson-Raybould back to testify, as Wernick was, and this time let her speak to the conversations surrounding her demotion from Justice - as Butts did at some length. No again, said the Liberal majority. Fine, well at least let's hear from some of the other players, starting with Bouchard and Marques. They are as yet not on the witness list.
On the other hand, the prime minister is reported to be weighing whether to make a statement of contrition. I suppose that will have to suffice.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-so-who-is-misremembering-butts-or-wilson-raybould?video_autoplay=true
Colby Cosh: So who is 'misremembering' - Butts or Wilson-Raybould?
Of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her account of events. No no no
Colby Cosh
March 6, 2019 5:20 PM EST
<snip>
The Liberal government's SNC situation clearly has a traplike nature. Until the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin are heard in a trial and resolved, or until they are abandoned, the thing will remain news, and Liberals will suffer.
The government's line is that it was inappropriate for former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to make a final commitment to leaving her Director of Public Prosecutions alone and to living with the decision not to enter a plea-bargaining process with SNC-Lavalin. Her successor in the office, David Lametti, will not make such a commitment now. We will never get the reassurance of hearing that the matter is closed. The professed view of cabinet, what's left of it, is that it would be wrong to close it.
The government has tried to explain its belabouring of Wilson-Raybould as being perfectly appropriate. She was supposed to verrrry carefully consider the fate of 9,000 SNC-Lavalin jobs and a head office in Quebec, and then consider it again, and then consider it again. Butts tells us that they weren't looking for a particular politically convenient answer, mind you.
They just stayed after her to keep reconsidering the answer she kept giving, explicitly or implicitly. They reassured her at every turn that the decision was hers. And then they got rid of her and made it someone else's.
<snip>
But of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her factual account of events. No no no. Butts was not in a position to say in plain English that Wilson-Raybould had told untruths; that would look bad.
He is, whether he intends to, creating a pretext for Liberal surrogates in the media to say that Wilson-Raybould probably revised or obfuscated her memory of late 2018. Who knows who's telling the truth, really. But it looks like maybe Wilson-Raybould is bent on some kinda demented kamikaze revenge. Or maybe an undemocratic takeover of the Liberal party. See if we don't hear people saying all these things, and more.
In any events, the Butts story is that the January cabinet shuffle precipitated by Scott Brison's resignation was pure bad luck. Why Wilson-Raybould's position as justice minister would necessarily be involved in the shuffle at all was poorly explained. But Butts wants us to believe that the initial offer to transfer Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous services ministry was actually a sign of the prime minister's high regard for her.
She balked, as an Indigenous person who did not want to be in the position of having anything to do with the Indian Act. This is a pretty common attitude, one might even say a prevalent one, among our First Nations. Butts admits he ought to have known that Wilson-Raybould might feel this way, although he does not say that the catastrophic aftereffects of the request - given that he and the PM couldn't just leave her the hell alone at Justice - were the reason he resigned. (Why not? It seems like as good a reason as any. Isn't this an instance of privilege-induced blindness causing harm?)
In theory, if you wanted to get rid of a truculent justice minister who won't put a thumb on the scales of justice, offering her a job you know she will never, ever take seems like a good way to set about doing that. But this is just an unhappy coincidence, and we are not to draw inferences from it. I would conclude that "The Liberal government undoubtedly meant well," but saying this sarcastically has, I am afraid, already become a Canadian cliché.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/06/justin-trudeaus-snc-lavalin-explanation-cant-come-soon-enough.html
Justin Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin explanation can't come soon enough
By Chantal HébertStar Columnist Wed., March 6, 2019
When Gerald Butts appeared in front of the House of Commons justice committee on Wednesday, he did not to try to topple Jody Wilson-Raybould from her truth-teller pedestal in the SNC-Lavalin affair - almost certainly an impossible mission - but he did chip away at its base.
From the same basic facts, Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary wove a strikingly different narrative of the interactions that took place between the prime minister, his inner circle and the former attorney general over the handling of the judicial file of the Montreal engineering firm.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-near-certainty-of-liberal-wrongdoing-now-reduced-to-a-nagging-suspicion?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=recommended_articles
John Ivison: The near certainty of political interference now reduced to a nagging suspicion
Despite its shortcomings, Gerald Butts' account was the first coherent counter-narrative to the one offered by Wilson-Raybould
John Ivison
March 6, 2019 6:42 PM EST
Gerald Butts' testimony at the justice committee did not present any exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the Trudeau government from allegations that it engaged in a pattern of interference in the independence of the attorney general.
But he may have placed doubt in the minds of the jury.
Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary made clear he was not going to engage in a mud-slinging contest with Jody Wilson-Raybould over her testimony before the same committee last week. Instead, he gave a calm counter-argument to many of the points she raised.
However, his powers of persuasion were lacking when questions moved to exchanges between the former attorney general and members of the prime minister's staff, and the clerk of the Privy Council – conversations in which Butts was not directly involved and about which he was reduced to offering robust character references.
<snip>
n one curious episode, Butts said he learned just last week in her testimony that Wilson-Raybould made her final decision not to overrule the DPP on September 16 – even though in her testimony she said she told Trudeau she had made up her mind during their meeting on September 17.
It seems inconceivable that this information was not passed on to Butts, but this blissful ignorance allowed him and others in the PMO to continue to urge Wilson-Raybould to take another look at the file.
<snip>
(This opinion piece is not being well-accepted in the comments section - Loachman)
Trudeau's offer of Indigenous Services to Wilson-Raybould like 'asking Nelson Mandela to administer apartheid'
Social Sharing
B.C. regional chief says suggested move shows Trudeau favours symbolism over substance
Jorge Barrera CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:59 PM ET
The prime minister's attempt to move Jody Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous Services portfolio was a 'deeply humiliating' proposal and shows a lack of understanding and disconnect from First Nations' world view, say Indigenous leaders and analysts.
Gerald Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, testified before the House of Commons justice committee Wednesday that the former cabinet minister was moved to Veterans Affairs from Justice after refusing to take on the Indigenous Services portfolio, and that the shuffle had nothing to do with her refusal to intervene on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.
It was concern over maintaining the reconciliation momentum that led Trudeau to move Wilson-Raybould from Justice to Indigenous Services, said Butts.
Jane Philpott, who was an admired Indigenous Services minister, had to be moved to Treasury Board to replace the outgoing Scott Brison, and, in Trudeau's mind, Wilson-Raybould was the perfect fit to replace her, said Butts.
<snip>
Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University, said he sees a sub-narrative embedded in Butts' testimony, along with Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick's statements before the committee earlier this month.
"They are, I think, framing Wilson-Raybould's resistance [to SNC-Lavalin intervention] as being wrapped up in her Indigenous politics," said King.
"This is a part of narrative that they are trying to package.... I think they are trying to convey to Canadians something here about trouble-making Indigenous people."
https://globalnews.ca/news/5029335/analysis-trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-about-politics/
March 6, 2019 9:43 pm
ANALYSIS: Despite protests from top Trudeau aide, Wilson-Raybould was right - SNC-Lavalin is about politics, not jobs
By David Akin
<snip>
The government that likes to tell you it's all about 'evidence-based policy' has no evidence that "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" were hanging in the balance. They've just been spitballing that number.
"Did you seek independent evidence or any evidence that there was a threat to jobs?" Green Party MP Elizabeth May asked Butts Wednesday. "Based on the 2018 audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin, they currently have $15 billion in back orders." She's right. "They have a very secure financial situation with gross revenues of $10 billion." She's right again.
"Is there any evidence that jobs were actually at stake by letting this go through the courts?" May asked Butts.
"I can't recall anything specific," Butts replied. He mumbled something about some briefings he got from the folks at the federal department of finance. These finance officials would be the same gang, one assumes, that once advised the Trudeau government it would be a good idea to raise taxes on small business owners like farmers, dentists, doctors, insurance brokers and so on because they were, after all, tax cheats. Once bitten, twice shy, I'd say, about any advice I got from the federal finance department.
In any event, Butts could not point to a single report, document, statistic, prognostication, or written record where someone said "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" was out the window if Wilson-Raybould did not do as encouraged.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-circus-comes-to-parliament-hill
Christie Blatchford: The circus comes to Parliament Hill
And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not
Christie Blatchford
March 6, 2019 8:10 PM EST
You know how, when the circus comes to town, or a big fair, it's always tricky deciding where to go first: The ferris wheel, or the games of chance? The haunted house, or the roller coaster? Cotton candy or the little doughnuts?
So it was with the justice committee Wednesday, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary Gerry Butts and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, in round two at the committee, duelled for the attention and regard of Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, as the PM is so fond of saying.
<snip>
Butts was shocked, he said.
Why, he'd never seen such a thing before. JWR said she had spent her life fighting the Indian Act and couldn't now be in charge of programs administered under it.
He gave his best advice to Trudeau, told him he couldn't allow a minister to dictate where she would or wouldn't go; that would lead to chaos. Thus, she was briefly moved to veterans affairs, from whence she resigned from cabinet.
<snip>
Anyway, he certainly accepts "that two people can experience the same event differently"; if ever you wondered where the PM's explanation of the Kokanee grope came from, you may now know.
<snip>
In reply to one of the committee's best questioners, Conservative Lisa Raitt, and after he'd referred to texts and messages he sent JWR or she him, Butts allowed that he "acquired the ability" through his lawyer to get access to his phone.
Compare that, if you will, to the accused former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Mark Norman, whom this government is so avidly prosecuting. His lawyers have been asking for access to his emails and texts since October. Thus far, no access.
<snip>
When his toughest questioners dared interrupt him, Wernick pushed back. "Excuse me sir! Excuse me sir!" or appealed to the chair. At one point, he said, "I know many members (of the committee) said they believed every word" of JWR's testimony, and reminded them that "part of what she said was that nothing veered into criminal" conduct.
To which, the non-Liberal members of the committee cried, "That's the bar? It's not criminal?"
And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-it-was-wilson-rayboulds-decision-to-make-as-long-as-she-decided-it-their-way?video_autoplay=true
Andrew Coyne: It was Wilson-Raybould's decision to make, as long as she decided it their way
There's a way to sort this out: subpoena all communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority voted not to do so
More than once in the course of his testimony to the Commons justice committee Gerald Butts said that he was not there to call anyone names or to cast aspersions on the character of Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Which is why the prime minister's former principal secretary confined himself to depicting her as sloppy, closed-minded and unco-operative, while heavily implying the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada was a serial fabulist who said nothing to anyone about attempts to interfere with her authority over criminal prosecutions until after she was shuffled out of her "dream job" in January. Otherwise he might have gotten really nasty.
And yet he offered little that contradicted what she had earlier told the committee - that she was pressured to overrule the decision of the director of public prosecutions to proceed with charges of fraud and corruption against SNC-Lavalin, rather than to offer it the remediation agreement it had sought.
To be sure, on the specific charge against him, that he had told her chief of staff in a meeting on Dec. 18 that "there's no solution that doesn't involve some interference," he had "a very different recollection." Variations on that theme were to be heard later from the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick, who had "no recollection" of a variety of statements attributed to him - that SNC-Lavalin would move its headquarters from Montreal if it did not get its way, or that something unfortunate might happen to her career if she kept crossing the prime minister.
<snip>
Just so, she was told: the decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was the "final decision-maker." Only the decision was also "never final." She could make it, that is, but she would have everyone from the prime minister on down coming back to her again and again - not because there was any fresh evidence, but just because they could - all the while implicitly questioning her judgment, in the sly form of that repeated suggestion that she seek an outside legal opinion.
This last is a distraction. The attorney general has available to her all the legal advice she requires. The only point of demanding she seek a second opinion was because they did not like the first. In any case, whether to seek outside advice is, again, the attorney general's decision to make, in the same way as it is her choice whether to seek the advice of her colleagues - as opposed to the unsolicited advice that Butts, Wernick and others were pressing upon her.
Ah, but if she felt this was interference, Butts wondered aloud, why didn't she tell anyone? If she had made up her mind, why didn't she say anything?
According to her testimony, she did: to the prime minister, at their Sept. 17 meeting ("I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC"); to the clerk, at the same meeting; to the finance minister on Sept. 19 ("I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate"); to Matthieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, officials in the PMO, on Nov. 22 ("I said NO. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop – enough"); and to Butts himself, on Dec. 5 ("I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate").
Yet Butts told the committee he only learned that she considered her decision final during her testimony before the committee last week. Not only did he not recall her telling him, but neither the prime minister nor the clerk nor the finance minister nor the two PMO officials who reported to him breathed a word. Or was the problem, as he said at another point, that she did not tell the prime minister "in writing"?
Well, there's one way to sort this out: subpoena all emails, texts and other communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority on the committee voted not to do so. OK, then invite Wilson-Raybould back to testify, as Wernick was, and this time let her speak to the conversations surrounding her demotion from Justice - as Butts did at some length. No again, said the Liberal majority. Fine, well at least let's hear from some of the other players, starting with Bouchard and Marques. They are as yet not on the witness list.
On the other hand, the prime minister is reported to be weighing whether to make a statement of contrition. I suppose that will have to suffice.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-so-who-is-misremembering-butts-or-wilson-raybould?video_autoplay=true
Colby Cosh: So who is 'misremembering' - Butts or Wilson-Raybould?
Of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her account of events. No no no
Colby Cosh
March 6, 2019 5:20 PM EST
<snip>
The Liberal government's SNC situation clearly has a traplike nature. Until the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin are heard in a trial and resolved, or until they are abandoned, the thing will remain news, and Liberals will suffer.
The government's line is that it was inappropriate for former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to make a final commitment to leaving her Director of Public Prosecutions alone and to living with the decision not to enter a plea-bargaining process with SNC-Lavalin. Her successor in the office, David Lametti, will not make such a commitment now. We will never get the reassurance of hearing that the matter is closed. The professed view of cabinet, what's left of it, is that it would be wrong to close it.
The government has tried to explain its belabouring of Wilson-Raybould as being perfectly appropriate. She was supposed to verrrry carefully consider the fate of 9,000 SNC-Lavalin jobs and a head office in Quebec, and then consider it again, and then consider it again. Butts tells us that they weren't looking for a particular politically convenient answer, mind you.
They just stayed after her to keep reconsidering the answer she kept giving, explicitly or implicitly. They reassured her at every turn that the decision was hers. And then they got rid of her and made it someone else's.
<snip>
But of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her factual account of events. No no no. Butts was not in a position to say in plain English that Wilson-Raybould had told untruths; that would look bad.
He is, whether he intends to, creating a pretext for Liberal surrogates in the media to say that Wilson-Raybould probably revised or obfuscated her memory of late 2018. Who knows who's telling the truth, really. But it looks like maybe Wilson-Raybould is bent on some kinda demented kamikaze revenge. Or maybe an undemocratic takeover of the Liberal party. See if we don't hear people saying all these things, and more.
In any events, the Butts story is that the January cabinet shuffle precipitated by Scott Brison's resignation was pure bad luck. Why Wilson-Raybould's position as justice minister would necessarily be involved in the shuffle at all was poorly explained. But Butts wants us to believe that the initial offer to transfer Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous services ministry was actually a sign of the prime minister's high regard for her.
She balked, as an Indigenous person who did not want to be in the position of having anything to do with the Indian Act. This is a pretty common attitude, one might even say a prevalent one, among our First Nations. Butts admits he ought to have known that Wilson-Raybould might feel this way, although he does not say that the catastrophic aftereffects of the request - given that he and the PM couldn't just leave her the hell alone at Justice - were the reason he resigned. (Why not? It seems like as good a reason as any. Isn't this an instance of privilege-induced blindness causing harm?)
In theory, if you wanted to get rid of a truculent justice minister who won't put a thumb on the scales of justice, offering her a job you know she will never, ever take seems like a good way to set about doing that. But this is just an unhappy coincidence, and we are not to draw inferences from it. I would conclude that "The Liberal government undoubtedly meant well," but saying this sarcastically has, I am afraid, already become a Canadian cliché.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/06/justin-trudeaus-snc-lavalin-explanation-cant-come-soon-enough.html
Justin Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin explanation can't come soon enough
By Chantal HébertStar Columnist Wed., March 6, 2019
When Gerald Butts appeared in front of the House of Commons justice committee on Wednesday, he did not to try to topple Jody Wilson-Raybould from her truth-teller pedestal in the SNC-Lavalin affair - almost certainly an impossible mission - but he did chip away at its base.
From the same basic facts, Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary wove a strikingly different narrative of the interactions that took place between the prime minister, his inner circle and the former attorney general over the handling of the judicial file of the Montreal engineering firm.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-near-certainty-of-liberal-wrongdoing-now-reduced-to-a-nagging-suspicion?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=recommended_articles
John Ivison: The near certainty of political interference now reduced to a nagging suspicion
Despite its shortcomings, Gerald Butts' account was the first coherent counter-narrative to the one offered by Wilson-Raybould
John Ivison
March 6, 2019 6:42 PM EST
Gerald Butts' testimony at the justice committee did not present any exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the Trudeau government from allegations that it engaged in a pattern of interference in the independence of the attorney general.
But he may have placed doubt in the minds of the jury.
Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary made clear he was not going to engage in a mud-slinging contest with Jody Wilson-Raybould over her testimony before the same committee last week. Instead, he gave a calm counter-argument to many of the points she raised.
However, his powers of persuasion were lacking when questions moved to exchanges between the former attorney general and members of the prime minister's staff, and the clerk of the Privy Council – conversations in which Butts was not directly involved and about which he was reduced to offering robust character references.
<snip>
n one curious episode, Butts said he learned just last week in her testimony that Wilson-Raybould made her final decision not to overrule the DPP on September 16 – even though in her testimony she said she told Trudeau she had made up her mind during their meeting on September 17.
It seems inconceivable that this information was not passed on to Butts, but this blissful ignorance allowed him and others in the PMO to continue to urge Wilson-Raybould to take another look at the file.
<snip>
(This opinion piece is not being well-accepted in the comments section - Loachman)
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-butts-testimony-have-i-mentioned-the-9000-jobs/
The Butts testimony: Have I mentioned the 9,000 jobs?
Paul Wells: Someone close to the PM finally explained their thinking around this scandal. It revealed a political operation whose judgment was hard to admire.
by Paul Wells
Mar 6, 2019
<snip>
Does it seem to you that I'm depicting those two imperatives in a way that makes it seem the jobs were more important to Butts and his colleagues than the prosecutor's independence? Well, I'm stuck with the material. Check out the very next thing he said. "So, it was and is the attorney general's decision to make. It would, however, be Canadians' decision to live with. [My emphasis - pw] Specifically, the 9,000-plus people who could lose their jobs, as well as the many thousands more who work on the company's supply chain."
I read this as Butts saying they were being careful to protect the AG's right to be catastrophically wrong and ruin thousands of people's lives. The weird tedious Cape Breton theatre Butts indulged in throughout his appearance-look, I've testified before a parliamentary committee, and I didn't turn it into Sarnia Reminiscences Hour-was part of this. I come from a land too well acquainted with grief, he seemed to be saying. I don't know why this fancy-pants AG from Vancouver was deaf to the voices of the precariously employed.
Wilson-Raybould has testified that, when informed on Sept. 4 that public prosecutor Kathleen Roussel had decided to prosecute instead of negotiating a DPA, she "immediately put in motion… a careful consideration and study of the matter." By Sept. 16 she had decided "that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions."
Butts finds it impossible to believe such a review could have been concluded in 12 days. He believes no decision could be final until "a verdict is rendered." He is, in fact, amazed to learn that Wilson-Raybould thought her final decision was… a final decision. He would prefer-he thought it was the case that-any decision to go to trial would not be final even after the trial had begun, or indeed, at any point until the end of the trial. There would, in this analysis, be nothing inappropriate about the finance minister's chief of staff checking in with Wilson-Raybould on the possibility of hoisting the SNC-Lavalin trial, say, today or this coming November or next Easter.
To put labels on the two viewpoints here, Wilson-Raybould obviously thought a decision by the AG to interfere in decisions about public prosecutions should be exceptional. Butts thinks it should be routine. Wilson-Raybould wants the independence of the director of public prosecutions to be robust. Butts wants that independence to be minimal.
This takes us to the cabinet shuffle that ended with Wilson-Raybould being moved to veterans' affairs. We don't flatter Butts if we take him at his word here, for he describes some very shaky political thinking.
Scott Brison tells Butts and Katie Telford on Dec. 12 he's leaving politics. With what I have learned is comically characteristic insouciance, they assume a grown man does not believe the simple sentences coming from his mouth, and they spend the rest of calendar year 2018 in denial. Brison comes back from Christmas break and it turns out he meant what he said. So now they have to rush a cabinet shuffle they could have considered at leisure.
They need a strong minister at Treasury Board. It can only be Jane Philpott. But she leaves a serious vacancy behind her, at Indigenous Services. Any number of "capable people and experienced lawyers" could handle Justice, but Wilson-Raybould is "perhaps [the] only" one who can handle Indigenous Services, so Trudeau offers it to her. [UPDATE: I've edited this paragraph and the next, to better reflect Butts's testimony – pw] And she says no. Because she's Indigenous, and the operating assumptions behind Indigenous Services are Indian Act assumptions, and she's spent her life opposing the Indian Act. "Frankly, I should have thought she would say" that, Butts admits, but he's amazed she would turn down any new assignment, and he and Trudeau quickly decide she must be given another post, pour encourager les autres. So she gets Veterans' Affairs, after Seamus O'Regan vacates it.
Wait. What? Indigenous Services is the Prime Minister's personal highest priority. And Seamus O'Regan - a broadcaster with two political science degrees who's fleeing Veterans' Affairs before its stakeholders chase him out-is the man for the job?
As I say, you don't even have to disbelieve any of that to be unimpressed.
But perhaps the most striking thing about Butts's testimony was his repeated refusal to answer MPs' repeated questions about Wilson-Raybould's repeated assertions that a cavalcade of PMO and other staffers, and the Prime Minister himself, warned her repeatedly that Liberals would lose their jobs in elections because of her decision.
That's important because of this passage from the Trudeau government's version of the Open and Accountable Government ethics handbook, which the Prime Minister invited every minister to read and take to heart when this government came to office. At section F.5 of that document, we can read the following. "The Attorney General and the DPP are bound by the constitutional principle that the prosecutorial function be exercised independently of partisan concerns."
The words that leap out at me from that sentence are bound, constitutional and partisan. The first means that as soon as partisan calculations enter the picture, they are bound-they no longer have any choice. The second elevates this consideration above merely routine or even legal considerations, to the highest plane of our law: that of constitutional principle. And the third is the tripwire. You cannot warn the attorney general of Liberal losses without binding her to protect the prosecutor's independence.
<snip>
Taken together, Butts's testimony adds up to a portrait of a governing inner circle that would not ever take a "no" from a director of public prosecutions as final. They would not ever take Jody Wilson-Raybould's refusal to correct the prosecutor as final. They could not believe an important decision could be made in a week and a half. They could not, themselves, manage a cabinet shuffle in a much longer span of time, except by making a mockery of its central strategic imperative. And they can provide no evidence for the jobs claim that, to this day, Gerald Butts still uses to browbeat anyone who would disagree with the government's behaviour throughout this saga.
This was Team Trudeau's best day since the saga began, because at least it featured somebody close to the Prime Minister speaking in complete sentences in a setting outside a campaign rally or a space-exploration news conference. I still found very little of it encouraging.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-acknowledges-erosion-of-trust-between-pmo-wilson-raybould-2/
Trudeau acknowledges 'erosion of trust' between PMO, Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin case
Steven Chase
Daniel Leblanc Parliamentary affairs reporter
Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief
Published 9 minutes ago
Prime Minster Justin Trudeau says he didn't realize there was an "erosion of trust" between his office and former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould over the fall of 2018 and admitted he should have realized this was taking place.
The Prime Minister used an early morning press conference in Ottawa to speak at length about the political crisis that has engulfed his government over the past month and triggered the resignation of one of his most senior aides and two cabinet ministers including Ms. Wilson-Raybould.
He offered no apologies for what has taken place, admitted no wrongdoing in what has unfolded since The Globe and Mail reported on Feb. 7 that officials in the Prime Minister's Office put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin.
Jody Wilson-Raybould testified to the Commons Justice Committee that she faced "consistent and sustained" political pressure from Mr. Trudeau and top officials when she was attorney-general, including "veiled threats" to shelve the criminal prosecution of the Montreal construction and engineering giant.
What Mr. Trudeau did acknowledge Thursday morning is that he should have paid more attention to growing friction between his staff and Ms. Wilson Raybould.
"What has become clear over the various testimonies is over the past months there was an erosion or trust between my office, my former principal secretary and the former attorney-general," Mr. Trudeau told reporters at the National Press Theatre.
"I was not aware of that erosion of trust. As Prime Minister and leader of the federal ministry, I should have been," he said.
He said he will be seeking outside advice on whether to separate the posts of attorney-general and justice minister as well as practices and operations of cabinet.
The Butts testimony: Have I mentioned the 9,000 jobs?
Paul Wells: Someone close to the PM finally explained their thinking around this scandal. It revealed a political operation whose judgment was hard to admire.
by Paul Wells
Mar 6, 2019
<snip>
Does it seem to you that I'm depicting those two imperatives in a way that makes it seem the jobs were more important to Butts and his colleagues than the prosecutor's independence? Well, I'm stuck with the material. Check out the very next thing he said. "So, it was and is the attorney general's decision to make. It would, however, be Canadians' decision to live with. [My emphasis - pw] Specifically, the 9,000-plus people who could lose their jobs, as well as the many thousands more who work on the company's supply chain."
I read this as Butts saying they were being careful to protect the AG's right to be catastrophically wrong and ruin thousands of people's lives. The weird tedious Cape Breton theatre Butts indulged in throughout his appearance-look, I've testified before a parliamentary committee, and I didn't turn it into Sarnia Reminiscences Hour-was part of this. I come from a land too well acquainted with grief, he seemed to be saying. I don't know why this fancy-pants AG from Vancouver was deaf to the voices of the precariously employed.
Wilson-Raybould has testified that, when informed on Sept. 4 that public prosecutor Kathleen Roussel had decided to prosecute instead of negotiating a DPA, she "immediately put in motion… a careful consideration and study of the matter." By Sept. 16 she had decided "that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions."
Butts finds it impossible to believe such a review could have been concluded in 12 days. He believes no decision could be final until "a verdict is rendered." He is, in fact, amazed to learn that Wilson-Raybould thought her final decision was… a final decision. He would prefer-he thought it was the case that-any decision to go to trial would not be final even after the trial had begun, or indeed, at any point until the end of the trial. There would, in this analysis, be nothing inappropriate about the finance minister's chief of staff checking in with Wilson-Raybould on the possibility of hoisting the SNC-Lavalin trial, say, today or this coming November or next Easter.
To put labels on the two viewpoints here, Wilson-Raybould obviously thought a decision by the AG to interfere in decisions about public prosecutions should be exceptional. Butts thinks it should be routine. Wilson-Raybould wants the independence of the director of public prosecutions to be robust. Butts wants that independence to be minimal.
This takes us to the cabinet shuffle that ended with Wilson-Raybould being moved to veterans' affairs. We don't flatter Butts if we take him at his word here, for he describes some very shaky political thinking.
Scott Brison tells Butts and Katie Telford on Dec. 12 he's leaving politics. With what I have learned is comically characteristic insouciance, they assume a grown man does not believe the simple sentences coming from his mouth, and they spend the rest of calendar year 2018 in denial. Brison comes back from Christmas break and it turns out he meant what he said. So now they have to rush a cabinet shuffle they could have considered at leisure.
They need a strong minister at Treasury Board. It can only be Jane Philpott. But she leaves a serious vacancy behind her, at Indigenous Services. Any number of "capable people and experienced lawyers" could handle Justice, but Wilson-Raybould is "perhaps [the] only" one who can handle Indigenous Services, so Trudeau offers it to her. [UPDATE: I've edited this paragraph and the next, to better reflect Butts's testimony – pw] And she says no. Because she's Indigenous, and the operating assumptions behind Indigenous Services are Indian Act assumptions, and she's spent her life opposing the Indian Act. "Frankly, I should have thought she would say" that, Butts admits, but he's amazed she would turn down any new assignment, and he and Trudeau quickly decide she must be given another post, pour encourager les autres. So she gets Veterans' Affairs, after Seamus O'Regan vacates it.
Wait. What? Indigenous Services is the Prime Minister's personal highest priority. And Seamus O'Regan - a broadcaster with two political science degrees who's fleeing Veterans' Affairs before its stakeholders chase him out-is the man for the job?
As I say, you don't even have to disbelieve any of that to be unimpressed.
But perhaps the most striking thing about Butts's testimony was his repeated refusal to answer MPs' repeated questions about Wilson-Raybould's repeated assertions that a cavalcade of PMO and other staffers, and the Prime Minister himself, warned her repeatedly that Liberals would lose their jobs in elections because of her decision.
That's important because of this passage from the Trudeau government's version of the Open and Accountable Government ethics handbook, which the Prime Minister invited every minister to read and take to heart when this government came to office. At section F.5 of that document, we can read the following. "The Attorney General and the DPP are bound by the constitutional principle that the prosecutorial function be exercised independently of partisan concerns."
The words that leap out at me from that sentence are bound, constitutional and partisan. The first means that as soon as partisan calculations enter the picture, they are bound-they no longer have any choice. The second elevates this consideration above merely routine or even legal considerations, to the highest plane of our law: that of constitutional principle. And the third is the tripwire. You cannot warn the attorney general of Liberal losses without binding her to protect the prosecutor's independence.
<snip>
Taken together, Butts's testimony adds up to a portrait of a governing inner circle that would not ever take a "no" from a director of public prosecutions as final. They would not ever take Jody Wilson-Raybould's refusal to correct the prosecutor as final. They could not believe an important decision could be made in a week and a half. They could not, themselves, manage a cabinet shuffle in a much longer span of time, except by making a mockery of its central strategic imperative. And they can provide no evidence for the jobs claim that, to this day, Gerald Butts still uses to browbeat anyone who would disagree with the government's behaviour throughout this saga.
This was Team Trudeau's best day since the saga began, because at least it featured somebody close to the Prime Minister speaking in complete sentences in a setting outside a campaign rally or a space-exploration news conference. I still found very little of it encouraging.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-acknowledges-erosion-of-trust-between-pmo-wilson-raybould-2/
Trudeau acknowledges 'erosion of trust' between PMO, Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin case
Steven Chase
Daniel Leblanc Parliamentary affairs reporter
Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief
Published 9 minutes ago
Prime Minster Justin Trudeau says he didn't realize there was an "erosion of trust" between his office and former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould over the fall of 2018 and admitted he should have realized this was taking place.
The Prime Minister used an early morning press conference in Ottawa to speak at length about the political crisis that has engulfed his government over the past month and triggered the resignation of one of his most senior aides and two cabinet ministers including Ms. Wilson-Raybould.
He offered no apologies for what has taken place, admitted no wrongdoing in what has unfolded since The Globe and Mail reported on Feb. 7 that officials in the Prime Minister's Office put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin.
Jody Wilson-Raybould testified to the Commons Justice Committee that she faced "consistent and sustained" political pressure from Mr. Trudeau and top officials when she was attorney-general, including "veiled threats" to shelve the criminal prosecution of the Montreal construction and engineering giant.
What Mr. Trudeau did acknowledge Thursday morning is that he should have paid more attention to growing friction between his staff and Ms. Wilson Raybould.
"What has become clear over the various testimonies is over the past months there was an erosion or trust between my office, my former principal secretary and the former attorney-general," Mr. Trudeau told reporters at the National Press Theatre.
"I was not aware of that erosion of trust. As Prime Minister and leader of the federal ministry, I should have been," he said.
He said he will be seeking outside advice on whether to separate the posts of attorney-general and justice minister as well as practices and operations of cabinet.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
Folks, after a good start to the discussion on this issue, things have gotten wobbly. I went though and cleaned a few things up and issued a couple of warnings last night and now I’m having to play catch-up again... There is no reason for the decline in the level of discourse, bring it back to where it was.
Milnet.ca Staff
Milnet.ca Staff
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,660
- Points
- 1,160
Took me some time to find a copy of Trudeau's full speech this morning but finally found it here:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-erosion-of-trust-behind-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4325886
For some strange reason I had thought he might do the right thing today and take responsibility but, in short, all he is saying is that he unfortunately didn't know that Butts had "lost lost" in JWR and that he should have known this and further that it's too bad that she didn't come to him to tell him how she really felt. He never did say why he demoted her out of Justice/AG but I guess it's that "lost trust" thing.
Looking forward to many more weeks of disbelief by just about everyone.
:cheers:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-erosion-of-trust-behind-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4325886
For some strange reason I had thought he might do the right thing today and take responsibility but, in short, all he is saying is that he unfortunately didn't know that Butts had "lost lost" in JWR and that he should have known this and further that it's too bad that she didn't come to him to tell him how she really felt. He never did say why he demoted her out of Justice/AG but I guess it's that "lost trust" thing.
Looking forward to many more weeks of disbelief by just about everyone.
:cheers:
Similar threads
