By Vivian Bercovici
Sunday, April 07, 2019
Justin Trudeau confounded Canada’s pundit class by taking
the leadership of the near-dead federal Liberal Party (which held only 35 of
338 seats in the House of Commons) and blitzkrieging to a smashing majority
victory in October 2015.
The son of Canada’s longtime prime minister, Pierre,
Trudeau’s brand was “sunny ways.” He sold himself as unwaveringly feminist.
His good looks, political pedigree, and platitudinous
slogans won hearts and minds the world over. Rolling Stone anointed him the “free world’s best hope” in a July
2017 cover story; two months earlier, Vogue
graced its cover with a steamy photo of Trudeau gazing into the eyes of his
wife, hand firmly planted on her behind, sheathed in a form-fitting dress.
Liberal Americans swooned, seduced especially by his talk about his
gender-balanced cabinet.
Among them was Jody Wilson-Raybould, an aboriginal woman
of the We Wai Kai First Nation, representing a neighborhood in downtown
Vancouver. A seasoned prosecutor, she was sworn in to one of the most powerful
cabinet positions in the new government: minister of justice and attorney
general. The first indigenous woman to be so honored, Wilson-Raybould lent
gravitas and credibility to the PM’s oft-repeated commitment to address
longstanding reconciliation issues with Canadian aboriginals. And, of course,
she was a woman.
Wilson-Raybould distinguished herself as a highly
competent, smart, and forceful cabinet minister. She forged a particularly
strong professional and personal relationship with another cabinet heavyweight,
Dr. Jane Philpott. A physician who held the Health and newly created Indigenous
Services portfolios, Philpott was well respected for being brilliant,
hard-working, and principled.
There were whisperings of discord at the cabinet table
regarding the approach to aboriginal issues, but they were largely contained
until January 2019. Prompted by the unexpected resignation of another minister,
there was a limited cabinet shuffle—which featured the surprising demotion of
Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs and Philpott being moved to Treasury Board.
Three weeks later, the Globe and Mail published the story that may yet bring down the
Trudeau House of Cards. It appears that Wilson-Raybould had been punished for refusing
to be corrupted by naked political considerations. In September 2018, she
refused to overturn the decision of the top prosecutor in her ministry—that a
major Canadian engineering company called SNC-Lavalin face a criminal trial on
multiple charges.
SNC-Lavalin has been criminally charged in Canada with
one count each of fraud and corruption stemming from years of engagement with
the Qaddafi regime in Libya. In addition to more than $150 million of alleged
bribe payments, the company is also alleged to have procured and paid for
prostitutes when Qaddafi’s son Saadi visited Canada in 2008.
The company is not a first-time offender, having been
found guilty of a rather sordid string of offenses by various authorities
around the globe, including the World Bank.
If convicted, SNC-Lavalin faces the possibility of a
10-year prohibition on bidding for federal-government contracts. But a new and
untested law in Canada has authorized a form of “deferred prosecution” for a
corporation in legal trouble (such a system also exists in the United States).
However, Canadian law places limits on deferred prosecutions—and the director
of public prosecutions in Canada determined that under the law’s provisions,
SNC-Lavalin did not qualify.
Wilson-Raybould carefully reviewed the matter in
September and agreed with the findings, electing not to override the
recommendation of her top prosecutor.
At this point, SNC-Lavalin went to work to change things.
From September through December 2018, SNC-Lavalin officials and registered
lobbyists knocked on many doors, including those of the prime minister, the
minister of finance, senior staffers in Trudeau’s office, and key ministries.
The company offered up various scenarios: The loss of
government business due to a conviction would bankrupt it; it would be forced
to move its headquarters to London, England; 9,000 jobs in Canada, mostly in
Quebec, would disappear.
All are bunk. Only 15 percent of SNC-Lavalin business is
with the Canadian federal government, hardly a bankruptcy scenario. The company
has just renovated its office space in Montreal and signed on to a 20-year
lease, making a move to pricey London a bizarre proposition. And not a shred of
evidence has been provided to support the notion that the Quebec-based jobs
would evaporate.
You might think that Trudeau, every bit the progressive,
would respond to this pressure with populist outrage at the efforts of an evil
corporation to manipulate the government. Hardly. Senior advisers in the Prime
Minister’s Office repeatedly urged Wilson-Raybould to find a more “reasonable”
approach to the impasse. She was pushed to consider “new evidence” and rely
upon that to reconsider her decision. Problem is, there was no new evidence.
Wilson-Reybould repeatedly reminded officials that
political considerations were not only irrelevant for her to consider but also
constitutionally inappropriate. To no avail.
What was going on here? SNC-Lavalin knew a provincial
election was upcoming in Quebec, and a national vote would take place in
October 2019. And it decided to play the Quebec card.
The slightest threat of discontent from vote-rich Quebec
terrifies most sitting prime ministers and leads them to capitulate to whatever
demands are made by the province.
Even Trudeau, who tends to see himself above the
day-to-day fray of governing—describing his role as prime minister as
“ceremonial in nature”—got deep into the muck. In a meeting in September with
Wilson-Raybould about the SNC-Lavalin case, he spoke about the imminent Quebec
elections. “I am an MP in Quebec,” he reminded her , “the member for Papineau.”
Wilson-Raybould refused all entreaties, steadfastly
reminding a revolving door of powerful men that she had done her work and that
continued lobbying for her to “reconsider” her position was inappropriate. Many
legal experts and journalists have expressed the view that this ongoing
pressure may have been illegal and could constitute obstruction of justice.
In January, Wilson-Raybould was demoted to the Veterans
Affairs portfolio. David Lametti, the member of parliament for the constituency
in which SNC Lavalin is located, got her job. He and his deputy minister were
instructed that he was to master the SNC-Lavalin file immediately and be
prepared to take a “fresh look.”
Initial leaks following Wilson-Reybould’s demotion
disparaged her as being “difficult” and “all about Jody.” Particularly coming
from a “feminist” government, that went over like a lead balloon. The Prime
Minister’s Office (to understand the term, think “the White House,” or “10
Downing Street”) changed its message daily, leaning heavily on the halo
effect—Trudeau’s glamor and Teflon—that had served it so well for three years.
Trudeau and his caucus uttered, robotically, lines about jobs and having done
nothing wrong, convincing no one and confusing everyone.
On Monday, February 12, in an ill-advised comment, the PM
confidently asserted that Wilson-Raybould’s continuing presence at the cabinet
table spoke for itself, affirming that all was well in the House of Trudeau.
The next day, Wilson-Raybould resigned from the cabinet.
A week later, Gerald Butts—Trudeau’s best friend from
university, alter ego, and his powerful principal secretary—resigned. A central
figure in the Wilson-Raybould intrigue, Butts told the nation that his presence
was distracting from the important business at hand and he wanted to be free to
defend his reputation—although, in the same breath he protested that he had
done nothing wrong.
For three weeks, Trudeau and other senior officials
clumsily offered what seemed to be increasingly panicked and disjointed
explanations as to what had and had not occurred. The star of this drama, Wilson-Reybould,
was silent, adhering to the confidentiality imposed on her by cabinet and
solicitor-client confidentiality. It was only after unrelenting media and
public pressure that Trudeau agreed to allow her to speak freely—but only about
what happened up to the date of the cabinet shuffle.
And when she spoke: Wow.
In late February, Wilson-Reybould appeared before the
House of Commons Justice Committee. She eviscerated Trudeau and his office with
devastating precision and lawyerly dispassion, laying bare their rather amateur
undermining of her authority and, more important, apparent ignorance, disregard,
or both, concerning the inviolable independence of the attorney general’s
office.
In the wake of her testimony and a day before Trudeau
intimate Gerald Butts was to appear before the committee, Jane Philpott
announced her resignation from the cabinet, stating: “The solemn principles at
stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system. It is a
fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that the AG should not be subjected to
political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial
discretion….Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with
this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised.”
Against this dramatic backdrop, Butts was understandingly
nervous when reading his statement to the committee.
He persisted in explaining that all he wanted to do was
protect jobs and for Wilson-Reybould to consider a second opinion. What he
seems not to understand is that many consider this very persistence to
undermine the independence and competence of the attorney general.
Among the many pleas made was one by senior Quebec
adviser in Trudeau’s office, Mathieu Bouchard, who reminded Wilson-Reybould’s
chief of staff in October: “We can have the best policy in the world but we
need to be re-elected.”
Other senior political officials pushed her to accept a
“second opinion” to be commissioned from retired Supreme Court of Canada Chief
Justice Beverley McLachlin, intended to provide the AG with the excuse needed
to provide “cover” for such action.
These efforts culminated with a meeting on December 18,
between Wilson-Reybould’s chief of staff, Jessica Prince, PMO Principal
Secretary Butts, and Katie Telford, another leading official from the Prime
Minister’s Office. According to Wilson-Reybould’s testimony, Butts told Prince:
“There is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.”
To which Telford is reported to have added: “We don’t
want to debate legalities anymore….We aren’t lawyers, but there has to be some
solution here.”
What was on display here was either a profound lack of
understanding or extreme disregard for the independence of the justice system
from political influence. This is anything but a partisan issue and speaks to
the integrity of the most basic democratic values.
Then, on Friday, March 8, a Federal Court of Canada
ruling on Wilson-Reybould’s decision was rendered. Justice Catherine Kane
unequivocally affirmed Wilson-Reybould’s position and its legal soundness.
The following day, the Globe and Mail published a withering editorial that stated, in
part: “If members of a government are free to approach an attorney-general on
other criminal cases—not to lobby, but just to, you know, share their
thoughts‚—we are no longer living in a rule-of-law country. Repeatedly
providing the attorney-general with ‘information’ and ‘context’ about how to
resolve a case is highly problematic, especially when that ‘context’ is coming
from the Prime Minister’s Office.”
The Prime Minister’s Office made a tremendous, if
spectacularly failed, effort to treat this as “much ado about nothing.”
Speaking to the Justice Committee, Butts attempted to dismiss it all as a
misunderstanding among colleagues who really had no improper intent but just
wanted to save jobs.
The concern with the constitutional integrity of Canada’s
justice system has been taken up by the international press, a surge of
negative attention to which Trudeau is unaccustomed. And then, in mid-March,
the OECD issued a statement that it would “closely monitor” Canada’s
investigation into the SNC-Lavalin affair, in particular, allegations that PM
Trudeau and his office may have interfered politically in the prosecutorial
process. If OECD concerns are substantiated, Canada could find itself in
violation of a multilateral anti-bribery convention to which it is a signatory.
Canadians, an eminently fair lot, are no longer buying
the breezy explanations or saccharine platitudes. There is a palpable
crankiness among the public and the previously adulatory press. This
displeasure is reflected in current polling data, which records plummeting
numbers for the Liberal government and, more pointedly, Trudeau personally.
If an election were held today (it is scheduled for
October 2019), the opposition Conservative Party of Canada would form a government
with either a resounding minority or, possibly, a majority mandate.
Should Trudeau begin to honor his pledge to govern
“differently” and more transparently, then he may still salvage, somewhat, what
appear at the moment to be dim electoral prospects. However, based on his
conduct of the last month or so, the likelihood of overweening hubris may well
continue to cloud his better judgement and continue the self-inflicted death
spiral that has, thus far, prevailed.
* Vivian Bercovici adds: “In the interest of full
disclosure, the reader should be aware that I was recalled by PM Trudeau
effective June 2016. On June 29, 2018, I initiated a lawsuit against the AG
Canada for damages arising from harassment and other tortious conduct,
including the withholding of my personal pension contributions.”
No comments:
Post a Comment