Tag Archives: SNC-Lavalin

The SNC-Lavalin Affair- Part II

 

Gerald Butts testimony before the House of Commons Justice Committee

The House of Commons Justice Committee is not a court of law.

This is obvious to everyone who has watched the recent testimony before that body.  Because the Committee is a political body, it is an extension of the ruling party, and it’s deliberations are not a search for the truth.  It is a Liberal dominated Committee hell-bent on  establishing political cover for the actions of the Liberal government.

The Committee however has some of the trappings of a court of law.  It calls witnesses and hears testimony but at the end of the day it does not reach any conclusions or make any rulings.

In short it is a political exercise.

The role of Mr. Butts at the Committee

If one were to draw parallels between the Committee hearings and a court of law it might look like this.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould was the complainant,  the prime witness for the prosecution.  She testified as to the alleged wrong doing perpetrated  by the Prime Minister, the PMO, the Clerk of the Privy Counsel and others in their attempt to interfere with her duties as the Attorney General in an attempt  influence the course of justice.

Mr. Butts appeared for the defence, in this case his own defence and defence of the government and its officials and most importantly in defence of the Prime Minister.

As in a court of law the defence does not need to prove that they (the accused) did not do what they are accused of.

All they need to do is raise a reasonable doubt and that was what Mr. Butts was there to do.

In the case of Mr. Butts all he needed to do was muddy the waters.  Because of the political realities he took great case not to attack Jody Wilson-Raybould, an Indigenous woman.  He nibbled around the edges and attempted to raise doubts, to muddy the waters.

In a court of law if reasonable doubt is raised the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

In the case of the Justice Committee there is no true trier of fact so at the end of the day, no ruling was rendered.

Members of the Justice Committee on all sides essentially have their minds made up and can be expected to arrive at conclusions drawn along party lines.

 

Was doubt raised

From the press coverage of the Prime Minister’s subsequent comments to the media it would appear that he is convinced that his friend Mr. Butts succeeded in raising sufficient doubt and he is now parroting Mr. Butts’ mantra of confusion and misunderstanding, but no wrongdoing.   Mr. Butts muddied the water and the Prime Minister is the straw now stirring the muddied water in an attempt to  ensure the sediment does not settle.

Mr Butts was a competent witness and performed well in terms of adding confusion to the issue.  However,  it will not take long for the sediment stirred up by Mr. Butts to settle to the bottom.  In my view this attempts at muddying the water succeeded but only on a  temporary basis.  As he stated in his testimony  “facts are stubborn things”.

Facts  are indeed stubborn things and the facts presented by the former Attorney General  stand tall and speak for themselves, untarnished, untainted and powerful.

They will survive the current Liberal onslaught and survive in the minds of Canadians who in this case are the true triers of fact.

Canadians will render their decision on this matter on October 21st. 2019.

The Lavalin Affair: The letter that was never written

Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould

 

As was the case with many Canadians, last Wednesday I couldn’t get any work done.  I sat glued to my 70 inch television watching the riveting testimony of former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould as she testified before the House of Commons Justice Committee.  I was so convinced that her testimony would be ground breaking that I set my PVR to record both the testimony and the following commentary by pundits on both channels that were broadcasting the historic event.

And the former Attorney General did not disappoint.  Many had speculated that in her testimony Wilson-Raybould would  ‘nibble around the edges’ and perhaps create a weak ‘he said-she said’ scenario.

Wrong, there was no nibbling around the edges.  Wilson-Raybould got right to the heart of the matter.

Less than 10 seconds into her opening statement, Wilson-Raybould hit us with this statement:

“For a period of approximately four months, between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada, in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.”

Of note is that she did not say in her role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, rather, just in her role as the Attorney General.

This made it very clear that she had a firm grasp of her postion and the difference between her dual roles.  On one hand she was the Minister of Justice, a member of the cabinet;  on the other, she was the Attorney General, two very separate and distinct roles.  Two very distinct roles that dictated two very different types of communication and interaction that cabinet colleagues, the Privy Council office, the PMO and the Prime Minister himself could have with her.  As the minister of Justice they could communicate with her politically, however in her role as the Attorney General the communication needed to be on a legal basis as outlined by law and convention.

It would appear that this distinction was lost on the Prime Minister,  the Clerk of the Privy Council and political staffers in the PMO.  Not only did they blur the lines, they obliterated them.

There is one point that I’ve thought a lot about since I watched Ms Wilson-Raybould’s testimony and listened to endless commentary and the opinions expressed in the subsequent media coverage.

Much has been made of the fact that the former attorney general would not take into consideration the so called ‘additional information’ being pushed forward by SNC-Lavalin through the Prime Minister and other political entities.

The fact is, Ms Wilson-Raybould did provide the opportunity for SNC-Lavalin to advance their legal argument in an appropriate manner.

During her September 19th 2018 meeting with the Prime Minster, also attended by the Clerk of the Privy Council, she made the following offer:

I offered that if SNC were to send — I offered to the clerk, if SNC were to send me a letter expressing their concerns, their public interest arguments, it would be permissible, and I would appropriately forward it directly to the director of public prosecutions.

This offer was never followed up on by SNC-Lavalin.

The question is, why not? The answer is:  the former attorney general made an offer to SNC-Lavalin to mount a legal argument.

The reason SNC-Lavalin did not respond is that in all likelihood they understood that they did not have a strong legal argument to make, in favour of a deferred prosecution agreement.

SNC-Lavalin through their pressure on government wanted the government to arrange a  political solution to a legal problem.

The Prime Minister, the PMO and the Clerk of the Privy Council  through their “sustained effort”  to “politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion” attempted to deliver exactly what SNC-Lavalin wanted: a political solution for a legal problem.

But for the resolve, courage and integrity displayed by Jody Wilson-Raybould, they might have succeeded.