Be sure to read part 1 of this saga that provides all the background information before reading this article so you can fully understand the issue. You can read part 1 here if you have not done so already. While the first part of my post discusses how we got to where we are today with SNC-Lavalin in general, this part will focus on the current scandal that surrounds the Trudeau government. Whether SNC-Lavalin deserves a DPA is only part of the issue, the other part focuses on whether Justin Trudeau, his office and others inappropriately pressured Jody Wilson-Raybould.

The Pressure and Shuffle

This is the part of the controversy where things become less clear and aren’t just simple facts. It has become a game of he said, she said and there are many conflicting points between what Jody Wilson-Raybould has said versus what Justin Trudeau and his office have said. There is however also some common ground between both sides. Both sides agree that there were discussions between the PMO and Jody-Wilson-Raybould about offering SNC-Lavalin a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). They also agree that there were talks about obtaining the opinion of a former Supreme Court Justice although both sides seem to disagree on who’s idea this was. The hardest part to decide is at what point do these discussions become inappropriate pressure and if this line was crossed did the Prime Minister know it was being crossed.

“I do not believe it is inappropriate to have conversations about job losses, about SNC in the early stages where ministers can raise these issues with the attorney general. What is inappropriate is the long, sustained discussions about the job losses after it is very clear that I had made my decision and was not going to pursue a DPA.” – Jody Wilson-Raybould

Of course, both sides disagree whether it was just simple discussions or if it was inappropriate pressure. In my opinion, there are three really key points where the stories differ beyond the simple fact of if there was undue pressure or not.

A Final Decision

  • Gerald Butts and Justin Trudeau say that they were unaware that Jody Wilson-Raybould had made a final decision and this is why they continued discussions with her.
  • Jody Wilson-Raybould says that she had made it very clear her decision had been made and was final. She says she also warned them by continuing to talk to her about it, it could be considered political interference.

Former Supreme Court Justice Consultation

  • Gerald Butts and Justin Trudeau insist that most of their discussions have been about obtaining an outside opinion from a former Supreme Court Justice to help Jody Wilson-Raybould make her decision. This implies if there has been any pressure it hasn’t been to offer a DPA to SNC-Lavalin but instead to seek out advice on whether it would be appropriate to do so. They say they did make the case for a DPA but once Jody Wilson-Raybould said she felt it would not be appropriate for her to intervene this is what they have been recommending. Something Gerald Butts said in his testimony was her idea in the first place. They also say that they have been focussed on protecting jobs and it is in the best public interest to offer the company a deal.
  • Jody Wilson-Raybould, on the other hand, contends that the pressure has been to offer a DPA to SNC-Lavalin and a solution must be found in any way possible. She says consulting a former Supreme Court Justice was the idea of Gerald Butts and they have only been pushing this on her because they want to change her mind about offering SNC-Lavalin a DPA. She also says that most of their pressure has still been that the company should be offered a deal not only because it is in the best interest of the country but also because of political reasons.

The Cabinet Shuffle

  • Gerald Butts and Justin Trudeau say that the only reason Jody Wilson-Raybould was moved out of her position was that Minister Brison stepped down from his position as President of the Treasury Board. This required a cabinet shuffle to take place and the Prime Minister wanted to move some key ministers including Jody Wilson-Raybould. He wanted her to be the next Minister of Indigenous Affairs as this was a key part of his agenda and he felt she would handle it well. She refused this position and was thus moved to Veteran Affairs instead as Gerald Butts said this could create bad precedent if she was left in her current position so she was moved to a different position.
  • Jody Wilson-Raybould says she believes she was shuffled out of her position as Minister of Justice and Attorney General because she did not do what the Prime Minister wanted in regards to SNC-Lavalin. She says she was told that one way or another the Prime Minister would get what he wanted and this is why she believes her being shuffled was meant to punish her for not complying. Many agree with her turning down the position of Indigenous Affairs and some say it could even be considered offensive offering it to her. Others say that as an Indigenous person herself, she would have done a great job running this department.

This short video highlights four key points where the stories differ by showcasing different parts of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Gerald Butts testimonies. This video touches on the three points I mentioned while providing more detail and context to these points. The video also brings up some additional relevant points.

An Underlying Issue

In Canada, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice are the same person. This is nothing new and it is how it has always been done in Canada but the same is not true in many countries. The reason that this is an issue is because this can create some conflict between the two roles. The Minister of Justice is a member of the cabinet and is free to discuss all sorts of matters including political ones, in a sense, this role is a political one. However, the same cannot be said for the Attorney General who serves as the chief law officer in Canada. This role is meant to be independent and non-partisan.  Thus, one could essentially say that Justin Trudeau is free to have all conversations and put all sorts of pressure on the Minister of Justice but not the Attorney General. The only problem is they are exactly the same person. Whether you believe Justin Trudeau’s side of the story or Jody Wilson-Raybould’s, most seem to agree on this point, even Jody herself.

“The two hats that the minister of justice and the attorney general wears here in our country are completely different, and I think there would be merit to talking about having those as two separate individuals” – Jody Wilson-Raybould

Although this issue has existed for many years, this recent scandal has brought it to light. Imagine being in this role yourself, you have to think about the politics, getting re-elected and other political issues as the Minister of Justice but as the Attorney General you have to remain completely non-partisan on these same issues. What if SNC-Lavalin employed thousands of people in the riding of the Minister of Justice. As the Minister of Justice, a member of Parliament (MP) and a cabinet member you want to make sure you serve your local riding well, consider constituent concerns and are re-elected. On the other side as Attorney General, you cannot give anyone special treatment just because of how it looks politically. The United States and the United Kingdom both have similar legal systems as ours but these two important roles are separated in the countries. If anything this scandal could finally split these two roles. Whether we follow the system of the United Kingdom where both roles are MPs but only the Minister of Justice sits in the cabinet, the United States where it is someone simply appointed by the President outside of Congress or create our own method this is something worth considering.

Current Situation

The current situation has been exacerbated by the way Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party originally responded when the accusations arose. When Justin Trudeau first spoke out, his answer was very scripted and precise and realistically barely answered the question at hand. As time has gone on, the answer itself has changed too. As came in more detail so did more confusion and contradictions. Furthermore, when Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from the cabinet and after her testimony, he went into attack mode. A much better approach would have been an apologetic and sympathetic approach which he has now started to drift towards. This is typically how he responds to situations so it was a little surprising to see the other side of him. Something more along the lines of I am sincerely sorry that Jody Wilson-Raybould felt she was being pressured, this was never my intent and then laying out his side of the story would have been much better than basically saying she was wrong.

 

“And so now, to come out and adopt this very conciliatory tone — acknowledging mistakes were made, we should have handled this better — it’s hard not to see that as damage control, as opposed to an authentic acknowledgement.” – Shannon Proudfoot

The situation continues to rapidly evolve so it’s hard to say where we will sit in a few days but hopefully we will have some more concrete answers soon. The bad news keeps piling up for Justin Trudeau as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has said they are concerned about these allegations of Trudeau potentially interfering the SNC-Lavalin case. The international organization, of which Canada is a member, is now keeping a close watch on the situation as it develops. Canada, all OECD countries and an additional eight countries signed a legally binding Anti-Bribery Convention in 1999. Although both Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott have resigned from the cabinet because of this scandal, both still remain in the Liberal caucus. In fact, Jody has even said she will be running as a Liberal in the upcoming election. Probably some of the only good news for Trudeau right now.

I am not going to tell you whether I think what Trudeau, the PMO, the PCO, Jody Wilson-Raybould or others did was right or wrong. That is your decision to make and hopefully, all the facts presented above and in part 1 will help you decide that. Let me know what you think in the comments below!

 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. 

Sources (Part 2): CPAC; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; BIV; CTV News; CTV News; CTV News; CNN; National Post; Global News; Global News; Global News; Huffington Post; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; YouTube;

Sources (Part 1): CPAC; CTV News; Global News; Financial Post; Financial Post; National Post; National Post; The Tyee; CBC News; CBC News; CBC News; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Globe and Mail; The Global and Mail; City News; The Star; Trading Economics; Yahoo Finance;