Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

[Loachman]

The PM has waived attorney client privilege.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440

One wonders what changed his mind.

Another article, now rendered, at least in part, stale by Remius' previously-posted one:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jody-wilson-raybould-has-trudeau-in-checkmate/

Jody Wilson-Raybould has Trudeau in checkmate

Andrew MacDougall: If the former AG adds credible colour to the story being told by anonymous sources this week, it will be a devastating day for Trudeau

by Andrew MacDougall

Feb 24, 2019

"Is Jody Wilson-Raybould going to burn my government to the ground?"

It's the question Justin Trudeau must surely be asking as his former attorney general and justice minister prepares to "speak her truth" this week at the justice committee on the question of SNC-Lavalin.

If the dribs and drabs of information appearing on the front pages of The Globe and Mail over recent weeks turns out to be accurate foreshadowing, Trudeau might not be able to survive Wilson-Raybould's truth, let alone handle it.

As "did not direct" Wilson-Raybould has morphed into a "vigorous debate" on the question, and then to an admission of "pressure" from the Clerk of the Privy Council, but of the "lawful advocacy" kind, not the 'do as you're told' vintage, Team Trudeau has, to date, succeeded only in lighting itself on fire when it comes to SNC-Lavalin. Now it's time to see if Wilson-Raybould rocks up to committee with the final keg of kerosene.

If you're Trudeau, it's hard to envision an appearance in which Wilson-Raybould doesn't burn everything - Trudeau included - to the ground.  There has been some serious red-on-red action on the nation's front pages in the past few days, and only one side can survive.

Wilson-Raybould and the forces aligned with her have been putting out a narrative of undue pressure on the non-partisan attorney general over the criminal prosecution of SNC, a Liberal-loving Quebec behemoth. And they're making a compelling case.

Despite the independent director of public prosecutions saying 'no' to SNC on Sept. 4 of last year, Trudeau, his office, and the clerk - we now know, after initial denials - continued to revisit the issue with Wilson-Raybould and her office until Dec. 19, i.e. a few short weeks before she was shifted out of the attorney general role. It turns out 'no means no' meant nothing in Trudeaupia, at least when it came to SNC.

<snip>

The one meeting we still don't know much about is the one that might hold the key - and produce the most fireworks at Wilson-Raybould's testimony: the Dec. 18 meeting between the PMO's Gerry Butts and Katie Telford and Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's Chief of Staff. Wernick mentioned it briefly, but the PMO didn't offer up any information on the substance of their conversation when media outlets started asking questions about it. But if their chat wasn't about SNC, it stands to reason the PMO would have said so in order to shut down another unwanted avenue of inquiry.

<snip>

Then again, if Trudeau wanted Wilson-Raybould to speak he would have encouraged her to do so the second Robert Fife's first phone call went into the PMO on the matter. Trudeau has fought Wilson-Raybould every step of the way, likely for a reason.

<snip>

If Wilson-Raybould adds credible colour to the skeleton version of events outlined by the anonymous sources in the Globe it's going to be a brutal day for Trudeau.

And if Wilson-Raybould backs up her claims up with physical evidence (she is reputed to be a copious note-taker), or offers up a witness or two who can offer supportive contemporaneous accounts (hello, Jessica Prince!), it's going to be cataclysmic. Who knows, if the Dec. 18 meeting is indeed the one in which Butts told Wilson-Raybould to take matters up with the Clerk, it would mean Wilson-Raybould was prepared to be leaned on by Wernick over SNC in their call the following day. A penny for a tape of that conversation, anyone?

If it does prove to be the darkest day for Team Trudeau, the Liberals will be forced to contemplate what - and who - comes next. After all, if Gerry Butts, Katie Telford, and Michael Wernick are all telling an independent attorney general to go one way on an open criminal prosecution like SNC, it's hard to paint the picture that it wasn't with Trudeau's knowledge, or at Trudeau's request. Trudeau would find it very hard, if not impossible, to recover.

At best, Trudeau would be hanging by a very thin thread. If Butts had to walk over "pressure" on SNC, what does that mean for Telford should Wilson-Raybould credibly accuse her of the same? And what of Wernick, who told the committee he was sure Wilson-Raybould was feeling the pressure to "get it right" before implying to her that her caucus colleagues were still worried she had it wrong.

The level of nervousness in the PMO right now cannot be overstated, as evidenced by a series of leaks over the weekend designed to evacuate damaging disclosures (disputes over judicial appointments & the admission that Telford met with Justice on SNC). The ground is being prepared for everyone but Trudeau to have to go.

Even then, Trudeau's continued presence in the Prime Minister's Office would be a stretch. People might buy that Trudeau's aides and his deputy minister were a little overzealous in making SNC's case. But they won't buy that anyone other than Trudeau agreed to tuck SNC's preferred legislation into the Liberal budget, or forced Wilson-Raybould out of her post as attorney general, because only the Prime Minister has those powers.

<snip>

Could the cloud cover over sunny ways make for a viable alternative for Liberals, most of whom were elected because of Trudeau's coattails? Or would they shudder at the thought of serving for Canada's version of Frank Underwood?

It remains to be seen. At this point, Trudeau would like an ending as far away from House of Cards as possible. Right now, he'd much rather prefer a Newhart, one where he wakes up and none of this ever happened.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-wernicks-alarmist-words-are-the-politics-of-fear/

Michael Wernick's alarmist words are the politics of fear

Wesley Wark

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published February 25, 2019

The politics of fear has just made an extraordinary appearance on Parliament Hill. The man who gave unexpected voice to it was none other than Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ottawa's top bureaucrat. Clerks are not usually public Cassandras, and for good reason.

Mr. Wernick, before he launched into his riveting testimony last Thursday on the SNC-Lavalin affair, told the House of Commons justice committee that he had something else on his mind. That something else was the national security of Canada.

Mr. Wernick was speaking, he said, personally. From his bully pulpit, he told parliamentarians, "I'm deeply concerned about my country right now, its politics, and where it is headed." His statement left many shaking their heads, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later signalled his full support.

His catalogue of fears for Canada was extensive and shocking. It included foreign interference in the upcoming election, "the rising tide of incitements to violence," the prospect of political assassination and killings in a election year, the besmirching of public reputations, the "vomitorium" of social-media discourse and a trend toward people losing faith in the governance of Canada.

<snip>

 

[Loachman]

Michelle Rempel in Parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5CBbXQKAA

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thanks for posting, Loachman.

Two thoughts come to my mind after watching:

1) If her French is any good at all, we may have found our Canadian "Margaret Thatcher".  :nod:

2) Why don't excellent points made in the house outside of question period ever make it in the news so everyone can see actually good work by M.P.'s?

 

[Loachman]

My pleasure.

I do not believe that she speaks French.

It might be good for the Country if more of this was shown on the news. Most speeches like these are too long for normal news programmes, though. I prefer to get more detail on the subjects that interest me, and different viewpoints where applicable. One has to look for that, but it's usually available somewhere.

One interesting opinion about Trudeau's sudden reversal about allowing Jody Wilson-Raybould to speak, and I am waiting to see if anybody else picks up on this:

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/02/25/report-facing-massive-pressure-trudeau-partially-lifts-solicitor-client-privilege-but-theres-a-huge-exception/

REPORT: Facing Massive Pressure, Trudeau Partially Lifts Solicitor-Client Privilege, But There’s A Huge 'Exception'

Spencer Fernando February 25, 2019

The Trudeau government has issued an order in council, apparently 'waiving' solicitor-client privilege.

Yet, the Trudeau government has not given Jody Wilson-Raybould blanket permission to speak freely, and there are in fact some exceptions to what she is allowed to discus.

Here's the Order in Council (exception noted in bold):

"Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

    (a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

    (b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office."

    "However, in order to uphold the integrity of any criminal or civil proceedings, this authorization and waiver does not extend to any information or communications between the former Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning SNC-Lavalin."

That’s a big exception.

For example, if a communication took place between a member of the Trudeau PMO, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the same time, that information would not be allowed to be discussed. If emails cc'd the Director of Public Prosecutions, that information would not be allowed to be discussed.

As a result, under the guise of 'waiving' privilege, there could be a ton of relevant information that is still blocked from being shared.

Also, why did it take the government two weeks to do this?

What happened in the meantime?

As many have noted, any part of the communications that relate to the current court cases against SNC-Lavalin would not be allowed to be discussed. Of course, that's a huge part of all of this.

But there's also another huge exception:

Note how it keeps referring to 'directly communicated' with the Former Attorney General.

That means, conversations or pressure from Trudeau's PMO staff put onto Jody Wilson-Raybould's staff would not be able to be discussed.

As you can see, all the headlines saying privilege was 'waived' are exactly what the Trudeau Liberals want. They're trying to look like they are allowing her to speak freely and get the truth out, but under the surface, the exceptions are huge.

Make no mistake, there still seems to be a cover-up going on here.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/25/justin-trudeau-is-following-instead-of-leading-on-snc-lavalin.html

Justin Trudeau is following instead of leading on SNC-Lavalin

By Susan Delacourt National Columnist

Mon., Feb. 25, 2019

Leadership strife is not at the root of the current troubles plaguing Justin Trudeau’s government.

Or is it? While Jody Wilson-Raybould’s split with the Prime Minister’s Office is not apparently linked to any leadership ambitions, it is abundantly clear now that the former justice minister is driving the bus in this whole saga over SNC-Lavalin.

So while Wilson-Raybould is not the leader or even a would-be leader of her party, she definitely has forced Liberals to follow her — if only to try to anticipate her next move.

On Monday, on the eve of her much-anticipated appearance at the Commons justice committee, Raybould demurred, issuing instead a long letter setting out the conditions under which she intended to speak.

Once again, without uttering a word about the specific grievances, Raybould is forcing everyone around her to react. Last week, she managed to get a hearing from cabinet and caucus - and this of course came after the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

That’s pretty impressive clout for a rookie politician, new to cabinet and government a little over three years ago and a relative newcomer to the Liberal party.

<snip>

It is striking to see the ways in which Trudeau and his team have just left the slate blank in this whole tale, banking on the conviction that Canadians will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Each day in the Commons, this is basically what Trudeau says - that Canadians know his government is balancing concern for jobs and the law. “Trust us,” he says, while the government fans out, looking for experts and allies to attest to Trudeau’s integrity and hoping that the mess will go away.

Sometimes scandals do blow themselves out; sometimes ministers - or angry presidents - just go away, and governments carry on in their absence.

Nothing in this nearly three-week-old saga over Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin gives any indication of following that pattern. Trudeau and his government aren’t leading themselves out of the controversy - they’re following and reacting - and Wilson-Raybould is doing the leading.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-liberals-already-had-a-plan-b-for-snc-lavalin-so-why-did-they-even-bother-risking-a-scandal?video_autoplay=true

John Ivison: The Liberals already had a plan B for SNC Lavalin, so why did they even bother risking a scandal?

Why did Trudeau apply ‘relentless pressure’ to get Wilson-Raybould to change her mind? The only answer that makes any sense is: because he could

John Ivison

February 25, 2019 7:49 PM EST

There is no calm for the Liberals as the storm of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s upcoming appearance at the justice committee rumbles towards them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons Monday he has waived solicitor-client privilege, freeing the former justice minister to talk about “relevant matters” as long as she does not touch on two court cases involving SNC Lavalin.

Meanwhile, Wilson-Raybould said in a letter to the committee chair that she is willing to testify at the “first opportunity,” but wants to make sure there is clarity on possible constraints on what she can say - which suggests it may not be in the next couple of days.

While we don’t know when Wilson-Raybould will appear at committee, we do know she wants 30 minutes for an opening statement. You don’t need half an hour to say that the whole SNC Lavalin saga, and recent allegations of political interference in the justice system, are just a big misunderstanding.

<snip>

On Monday afternoon the committee heard from a former Saskatchewan judge who has gone on record as saying the affair should be investigated by the RCMP. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has said a police investigation is necessary to restore public confidence in the administration of justice, calling the prospect of the attempted influence over a prosecution “not only immoral, (but) illegal.”

The adjudicator of whether Wernick, and perhaps even the prime minister himself, crossed any lines will be the ethics commissioner. If prosecutors agree with Turpel-Lafond, the affair may even end up before the courts and be settled by a judge.

But what perplexes me is why Wernick, the prime minister, and senior advisers Gerald Butts and Katie Telford even discussed a remediation agreement for SNC after Wilson-Raybould made clear she was not disposed to negotiate one, when a perfectly sound plan B was already being worked on.

As my colleague Gabriel Friedman revealed in the Post on Saturday, the department of Public Services and Procurement is finalizing changes to the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy under the Integrity regime. This word salad governs whether corporations convicted of crimes can bid on federal projects.

But the changes being contemplated by the government could reduce the ineligibility period from the automatically mandated 10 years to a debarment at the government’s discretion.

This policy change has been in the works for years — the public was invited to comment back in fall 2017 and the government says the update is being “studied and finalized.” A statement in the revised policy consultation said it is expected to take effect in “early 2019.”

One lawyer Friedman quoted said the debarment could conceivably be reduced to six months, a year or even no ineligibility at all. The proposed changes would widen the scope of offences that could lead to debarment, including human trafficking and environmental violations. The idea is that a one-size-fits-all punishment must be made more flexible if the range of offences is broadened.

SNC chief executive Neil Bruce has said the failure to secure a DPA would likely lead to three to four more years of court battles because the company considers itself not guilty.

But unless I’m missing something, a DPA would require an admission of culpability.

Under the new integrity regime, the company would also have to admit to wrongdoing before throwing itself on the mercy of the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services. But, in that event, the company could claim mitigating circumstances, because the executives who perpetrated the alleged corruption have left and steps have been taken to ensure there is no repeat of the errant conduct.

So if the government already had an alternative to a deferred prosecution agreement that is expected to become policy in the next month or so, why did the prime minister and his most senior advisors risk flirting with immorality, if not illegality?

As Conservative leader Andrew Scheer asked Monday, if the decision to grant or refuse a deferred prosecution agreement was Wilson-Raybould’s alone - as the prime minister maintains - why did he apply “relentless pressure” to get her to change her mind?

The only answer that makes any sense is: because he could.

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives". 

 

[Remius]

Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".

The simple answer to that is :  2 ministers and a PMO principle secretary do not resign over a difference of perspective.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.

 

[Remius]

I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.

senate seat or ambassadorship...

 

[Haggis]

I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.

I suspect you're right.  JWR will have received her vetted talking points and have been briefed on the consequences of straying from the script.  Whether she does so is the wild card in the deck.  That will depend on if the talking points are/are not factual.

 

[Navy_Pete]

senate seat or ambassadorship...

I don't think she seems like the type to care about either of those things. I think if they were trying, maybe some actual changes to the indigenous framework to get real change in there could be tempting, but she seems like she has the integrity to let them burn to the waterline instead of tossing herself under a bus for personal benefit.

Kind of weird to see in a politician, but haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise, and the reports about her 'not working well with others' seem to be more taking a firm position on things, fighting for what she believes in and not being pushed around to keep up political appearances and cronyism.

 

[Loachman]

Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould to testify at committee probing SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET

Jody Wilson-Raybould has agreed to testify at the Commons justice committee probing the SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday afternoon, after obtaining a broad waiver that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of the Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

The former justice minister and attorney general has been granted an extended, uninterrupted 30-minute period to deliver an opening statement to the committee.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today he's "pleased" that Wilson-Raybould will be able to "share her perspectives" on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

"It's important that people get an opportunity to testify, or share their point of view, at committee," Trudeau told reporters as he headed into the weekly Liberal cabinet meeting.

"As we said, waiving privilege, waiving cabinet confidentiality is something that we had to take very seriously, but I'm pleased that Ms. Wilson-Raybould is going to be able to share her perspectives."

(Hmmm... Not "Jody", now, like before? And I remain very suspicious about this sudden change of heart. - Loachman)

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/25/wilson-raybould-wants-to-tell-the-full-story/

Wilson-Raybould wants to tell the full story

By Charlie Pinkerton. Published on Feb 25, 2019 5:55pm

<snip>

At Monday’s meeting of the justice committee, Mary Condon, the interim dean of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Maxime St-Hilaire, a professor of law at the Université de Sherbrooke, agreed in their discussion with the committee that it is appropriate for the attorney general to discuss with his or her colleagues about potential decisions, but that their opinions should not influence the attorney general’s in specific cases.

On Thursday, Wernick told the justice committee that Wilson-Raybould was never inappropriately pressured by the prime minister or his staff. He also predicted that Wilson-Raybould would mention three separate occasions where she may have been concerned about pressure. This, Wernick described, was pressure to make the right decision (But by whose definition of "right"? And why did the pressure continue after she announced her decision? Was her decision not the "right" one? - Loachman) rather than pressure from PMO staff.

<snip>

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/02/25/pmo-ordered-review-that-spawned-measures-which-could-help-snc-lavalin-memo/#.XHW9PsR7laS


PMO ordered review that spawned measures which could help SNC-Lavalin: memo

By The Canadian Press - Feb 25 2019

OTTAWA - A newly disclosed memo says the Prime Minister's Office ordered public consultations on federal anti-corruption measures - a review that led to two policy moves that could end up helping embattled SNC-Lavalin.

The internal briefing note, released under the Access to Information Act, says the PMO directed Public Service and Procurement Canada to consult the public in 2017 on both the overall integrity regime and the possibility of introducing formal alternatives to prosecuting financial crimes.

Early last year, following the consultation, the government passed legislation to create what is known as a remediation agreement - a means of having a corporation accused of wrongdoing make amends without facing the potentially devastating consequences of a criminal conviction.

As a result of a second thread of the consultation, the government is also proposing to soften the penalty scheme for companies involved in wrongdoing by changing the process for determining how long an offending firm should be barred from getting federal contracts.

SNC-Lavalin, the Montreal-based engineering and construction giant, faces corruption and fraud charges over allegations it resorted to bribery while pursuing business in Libya.

It has pushed unsuccessfully for a remediation agreement, and the Trudeau government has been plunged into controversy over accusations it improperly pressured the former attorney general to make an agreement happen.

http://angusreid.org/snc-lavalin/

Trudeau government’s handling of SNC-Lavalin affair opens seven-point lead for CPC over Liberals

February 26, 2019 - As political watchers across the country await with bated breath testimony from former Attorney General and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, the latest public opinion poll from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows the SNC-Lavalin affair taking a toll on the fortunes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government.

While it remains unclear exactly how much - if any - pressure Trudeau and his staff put on Wilson-Raybould not to prosecute the Quebec-based engineering firm for fraud and corruption charges stemming from its business in Libya, most Canadians (66%) say they believe there is a deeper scandal in the Prime Minister’s Office. Moreover, a similar number (63%) say they believe SNC-Lavalin should be fully prosecuted under the criminal code, rather than allowed to negotiate a remediation agreement, as the PMO reportedly would have preferred.

These findings correspond with low marks for Trudeau himself. Fully six-in-ten Canadians (60%) say they have an unfavourable view of the Prime Minister, and a nearly identical 59 per cent say their opinion of him has worsened over the last month or so. While this is driven largely by the negative views of right-of-centre voters, it’s notable that three-in-ten (28%) who would vote for Trudeau’s Liberal Party in an election held tomorrow also say their view of the PM has worsened.

All of this creates a political landscape in which Trudeau’s Liberals would find themselves trailing Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party of Canada by seven percentage points (38% to 31%) in the event an election were held tomorrow.

(Details and graphs at the link above)

 

[Loachman]

Updated version of the last article that I posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould says PMO restricting her ability to 'speak freely' at justice committee

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET | Last Updated: 8 hours ago

Jody Wilson-Raybould wrote to the chair of the justice committee Tuesday evening to say that while she will agree to give testimony before MPs on Wednesday, she will not be able to speak freely because of constraints that still exist around what she can and can't talk about.

The former justice minister had obtained a broad waiver from the Prime Minister's Office that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

In an Order in Council (OIC) posted online Monday, the government said Wilson-Raybould - "and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin" - can report to the committee and to the federal ethics commissioner any cabinet confidences "in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office."

But in the letter to Anthony Housefather, Wilson-Raybould said those parameters will not allow her to "speak freely."

"The OIC addresses only my time as attorney general of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I had resigned," she said in the letter.

"I mention this simply to alert the committee to the fact that the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of attorney general."

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Wilson-Raybould's testimony will be "pivotal" and the committee probe must expand to call on testimony from officials in the PMO, including Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford and his former principal secretary Gerry Butts.

"It's a typical scandal. First they deny anything's here, then they admit the thing happened but the thing's not important. Then one by one the accusations become verified, and we need to hear from the principal actors," he said.

 

[OldSolduer]

Oh what a tangled web we weave.... I’m sure you all know the rest of the quote.

 

[PuckChaser]

Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:

The CBC definitely doesn't have $675-million reasons to be pro-Liberal 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well JWR is most definatly not pulling any punches.

Can she even stay in the party now ?  Would she be welcome ?

 

[brihard]

Oh man. Anyone who’s at all interested in this, find Mercedes Stephenson’s Twitter page; she’s posting JWR’s testimony in committee in real time. Suffice to say (as I remember I’m employed federally), a bus just got hijacked and is being driven back and forth over someone right now. I’m gobsmacked by her testimony.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Where do we go from here ?

 

[OldSolduer]

Where do we go from here ?

Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.

 

[ModlrMike]

Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.

Like that'll ever happen  :