[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Wow, that is a bombshell - a well respected minister.

Indeed.  The pressure on Trudeau is increasing.  And Gerry Butts gets to testify this week to keep the story in the news.

[viper37]

Justin Trudeau: the imposter

Paul Wells: The phoniness of the Prime Minister's handling of the SNC-Lavalin file is a trait he shows the Canadian people all too often

The story a few Liberals were telling privately, in the early hours after Jody Wilson-Raybould delivered her extraordinary testimony to the Commons justice committee about the endless procession of men who tried to make her cancel a criminal trial for SNC-Lavalin, was that she just didn't get it.
The former attorney general is a nice enough sort, the story went, but she doesn't really understand the way the world works. The whole point of amending the Criminal Code to provide for deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) was to make that option—a sort of negotiated fine in lieu of a trial for fraud and bribery—available to SNC-Lavalin. And if the option was available, why not use it? Jobs were at stake. Elections were at stake. Elections, plural, for Pete's sake. First an election in Quebec last autumn, then a federal election this autumn.

So you could drag SNC through the mud of a court trial, long after the individual executives who actually did any frauding and bribing had fled the company, for what? To visit punishments upon everyone else in the company? To maybe scare it out of Montreal for good? To endanger the jobs of thousands of fine upstanding Quebecers and other Canadians? On the eve of elections? Plural?

All of this was just so obvious to everyone who leaned on Wilson-Raybould, it was said privately. What the heck was she missing? Why didn't she get it?
If it's any comfort to the former attorney general, at least she can rest assured that she's not the only person who didn't get that blindingly obvious fix-the-Criminal-Code-to-suit-SNC-Lavalin-and-save-jobs-and-Liberal-hides connection. Because also out of the loop were the people of Canada. And if we were out of the loop, it's because Justin Trudeau and his apparently inexhaustible supply of yes-men worked hard to keep us uninformed.

[...]

[crazy canuck]

I think what is going to be most damaging to Trudeau is that during the election he assured everyone that he was not his father.  He explained that what he meant by that is he would not allow the PMO to govern (in part also a shot at the kind of control Harper exerted) but he would govern through the cabinet.  He made a big show of giving cabinet ministers full autonomy to carry out the instructions in their mandate letters.

But two things have become apparent.  First, he has no reluctance to exert pressure on his cabinet ministers through the PMO and so he is very much is father's son.  Remember Trudeau sr. created that manner of governing within our Parliamentary democracy.  Second, he does not have the skill of Harper to pull something like that off.  Everyone knew he was inexperienced during the election and that is exactly why he made the promise not to govern through cabinet.  Nobody would have trusted him to make the important decisions within the PMO.

Frankly, I did not think he would try to do anything other than govern through cabinet.  Not because he was wise enough not to try but I took false comfort in thinking his advisers would be smart enough not to try.  But I was wrong.

[Oexmelin]

Hence, the dilemma:

Do we want a PM that is so good at governing through the PMO that nothing ever filters, and it weakens parliamentary democracy, or do we want a PM who, through incompetence, actually allows the expression of dissent to shine through.

Part of the problem of media coverage is that they always treat the latter as a failure, and cover it as such, but justly rail at the former, as lack of transparency.

[Barrister]

Hence, the dilemma:

Do we want a PM that is so good at governing through the PMO that nothing ever filters, and it weakens parliamentary democracy, or do we want a PM who, through incompetence, actually allows the expression of dissent to shine through.

Part of the problem of media coverage is that they always treat the latter as a failure, and cover it as such, but justly rail at the former, as lack of transparency.

But the scandal here isn't that there is dissent within cabinet.  As you point out, that is arguably even a good thing.

The scandal here is that the PMO tried to intervene in a criminal prosecution to assist a firm that has donated significant sums of money to the Liberal Party.

[crazy canuck]

Hence, the dilemma:

Do we want a PM that is so good at governing through the PMO that nothing ever filters, and it weakens parliamentary democracy, or do we want a PM who, through incompetence, actually allows the expression of dissent to shine through.

Part of the problem of media coverage is that they always treat the latter as a failure, and cover it as such, but justly rail at the former, as lack of transparency.

It is not much of a dilemma.  We need a party who, when promising to govern through cabinet, actually sticks to that promise.  The issue here is that he didn't do what he said he would do, even though all the circumstances militated against him going against his promise.

[Oexmelin]

But the scandal here isn't that there is dissent within cabinet.  As you point out, that is arguably even a good thing.

The scandal here is that the PMO tried to intervene in a criminal prosecution to assist a firm that has donated significant sums of money to the Liberal Party.

Sure. I was simply raising a tangential, albeit larger point about the way media covers government, and the way that the PMO concentrates much of their attention. 

To the scandal at hand here, again, I read it as the ordinary corruption of our system, and thus, anything that brings attention to it is a good thing. To circumscribe it as if it were an instance of Liberal quid pro quo seems, to me, slightly off. Not because it is unwarranted, but because the issue is broader.

Ultimately, if we wanted politics to be entirely out of justice, the Attorney General would be different from the Minister of Justice. But I don't think it can't, and so I don't think it should. I think there was a real, political argument to be made about 1) creating that option in our legal code, and 2) using that option for SNC-Lavallin. But instead of making it a transparently political argument, to be debated and discussed, it was handled behind the scenes, through lobbying by SNC, and through pressures on Wilson-Raybould. This is a classic case of democratic political failure - not because of lack of control, but rather, because of lack of recognizing the proper political venue for contentious decisions.

[Oexmelin]

It is not much of a dilemma.  We need a party who, when promising to govern through cabinet, actually sticks to that promise.  The issue here is that he didn't do what he said he would do, even though all the circumstances militated against him going against his promise.

Yes, that would be the ideal. But the concentration of power in the PMO's office is just like powerful weaponry in war. It's really hard to uninvent it once it exist.

[crazy canuck]

It is not much of a dilemma.  We need a party who, when promising to govern through cabinet, actually sticks to that promise.  The issue here is that he didn't do what he said he would do, even though all the circumstances militated against him going against his promise.

Yes, that would be the ideal. But the concentration of power in the PMO's office is just like powerful weaponry in war. It's really hard to uninvent it once it exist.

Agreed.  But I don't really see a good alternative.  The good news is the political consequences of Trudeau jr. will hopefully be severe enough that that future politicians will have second thoughts about replicating the apparatus of Trudeau sr. 

[crazy canuck]

But the scandal here isn't that there is dissent within cabinet.  As you point out, that is arguably even a good thing.

The scandal here is that the PMO tried to intervene in a criminal prosecution to assist a firm that has donated significant sums of money to the Liberal Party.

Sure. I was simply raising a tangential, albeit larger point about the way media covers government, and the way that the PMO concentrates much of their attention. 

To the scandal at hand here, again, I read it as the ordinary corruption of our system, and thus, anything that brings attention to it is a good thing. To circumscribe it as if it were an instance of Liberal quid pro quo seems, to me, slightly off. Not because it is unwarranted, but because the issue is broader.

Ultimately, if we wanted politics to be entirely out of justice, the Attorney General would be different from the Minister of Justice. But I don't think it can't, and so I don't think it should. I think there was a real, political argument to be made about 1) creating that option in our legal code, and 2) using that option for SNC-Lavallin. But instead of making it a transparently political argument, to be debated and discussed, it was handled behind the scenes, through lobbying by SNC, and through pressures on Wilson-Raybould. This is a classic case of democratic political failure - not because of lack of control, but rather, because of lack of recognizing the proper political venue for contentious decisions.

I agree, and as I have posted here already, I think the Conservatives and BB are stressing the wrong thing.  As far as scandals go, this one is almost non existent.  The company is in fact facing a criminal trial.  At most we have people talking to eachother to no effect.

For me the true damaging effect for the Liberals is their flawed governance of the country and the terrible judgments being made by the PM and the PMO, which is now explained by the fact that for all the talk of governance by cabinet there was in fact governance by PMO and a very inexperienced PM.

[Barrister]

I agree, and as I have posted here already, I think the Conservatives and BB are stressing the wrong thing.  As far as scandals go, this one is almost non existent.  The company is in fact facing a criminal trial.  At most we have people talking to eachother to no effect.

"Attempted murder!" Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

I find this defence of "Well SNC Lavelin is still facing charges, so this isn't a scandal" to be thoroughly unconvincing.  The fact that it had to take someone (probably JWR herself) to leak what was going on, require JWR to resign, and then sustained public pressure before Trudeau would partially lift privilege to allow JWR to speak publically, is really not re-assuring about the continued ethical governance by Trudeau.

[crazy canuck]

I agree, and as I have posted here already, I think the Conservatives and BB are stressing the wrong thing.  As far as scandals go, this one is almost non existent.  The company is in fact facing a criminal trial.  At most we have people talking to eachother to no effect.

"Attempted murder!" Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

I find this defence of "Well SNC Lavelin is still facing charges, so this isn't a scandal" to be thoroughly unconvincing.  The fact that it had to take someone (probably JWR herself) to leak what was going on, require JWR to resign, and then sustained public pressure before Trudeau would partially lift privilege to allow JWR to speak publically, is really not re-assuring about the continued ethical governance by Trudeau.

It would have been a tempest in a teapot if Trudeau had dealt with it properly at the beginning.  He should have immediately said that yes, he certainly did have discussions with the Justice Minister about the appropriateness of entering into a DPA.  He should have clearly explained why what had occurred, why it was not wrong to do so, and that he made it clear it was her decision. He should also have explained carefully what a DPA is and the fact that it is far from letting the company off the hook (something that is entirely lost in the Conservative approach).  However, he did the exact opposite.

He should then have explained clearly the reasons for demoting her to her new cabinet post and not play the insincere game of claiming he had no idea why she was upset.  From his perspective, he had valid reasons to shuffle her.  But again, he did the exact opposite.

It is his dramatic failure of leadership and particularly his failure to take responsibility and explain his decisions that has caused his present political problems.  Not some esoteric legal debate about whether or not those conversations crossed an ambiguous technical legal line.

[crazy canuck]

A CBC article regarding the LIbs dropping in the polls sums up the problem Trudeau has created for himself rather nicely.

Gerry Butts, Trudeau's friend and former principal secretary, is set to testify before the House of Commons Justice Committee tomorrow morning. He and the prime minister have both repeatedly said that they did nothing wrong or improper in talking to the former Justice minister about SNC-Lavalin's future.

But making that case convincingly without attacking Wilson-Raybould's integrity, or besmirching her character — potentially causing an even bigger rift in the party and with voters — will require far more deftness than the Liberal government has shown thus far.

[Barrister]

It would have been a tempest in a teapot if Trudeau had dealt with it properly at the beginning.  He should have immediately said that yes, he certainly did have discussions with the Justice Minister about the appropriateness of entering into a DPA.  He should have clearly explained why what had occurred, why it was not wrong to do so, and that he made it clear it was her decision. He should also have explained carefully what a DPA is and the fact that it is far from letting the company off the hook (something that is entirely lost in the Conservative approach).  However, he did the exact opposite.

Umm, that's what he's been trying to do.  That he had strong opinions, they were shared with JWR, but the decision was up to her.

Problem is that has been flatly contradicted by JWR.  Remember "I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of it."

He should then have explained clearly the reasons for demoting her to her new cabinet post and not play the insincere game of claiming he had no idea why she was upset.  From his perspective, he had valid reasons to shuffle her.  But again, he did the exact opposite.

It is his dramatic failure of leadership and particularly his failure to take responsibility and explain his decisions that has caused his present political problems.  Not some esoteric legal debate about whether or not those conversations crossed an ambiguous technical legal line.

:shakeshead:

This is not some esoteric line.  Really: go back to JWR's testimony.  They made it pretty fucking explicit what they wanted her to do - and when she didn't two weeks later she was out at AG (and a Montreal MP was put in as AG who would surely know the score with SNC).



Anyways, the latest news: Trudeau has cancelled public events, and there are reports he will offer a statement of "contrition".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763

Look - there's nothing wrong with a good old-fashioned apology.  It might even do Trudeau a world of good.  Admit that he was carried away with concern over jobs, but that his PMO clearly breached the line of the independence of prosecutorial discretion.  Promise that PPSC will be free to handle this prosecution without any directive or influence from politicians.  Re-assure JWR (and Jane Philpott) they are valued members of caucus, and hope that one day they might re-join cabinet.  Probably ask Michael Wernick to retire.

He'd probably receive calls from Scheer and Singh to resign, but it should at lest put an end to the constant drip-drip-drip of this scandal.

But I have almost no confidence he'd do so, or is even capable of doing so.  It's going to be some mealy-mouthed 'contrition' that doesn't really say much of anything

[crazy canuck]

:shakeshead:

This is not some esoteric line.  Really: go back to JWR's testimony.  They made it pretty fucking explicit what they wanted her to do - and when she didn't two weeks later she was out at AG (and a Montreal MP was put in as AG who would surely know the score with SNC).

Maybe for a true Conservative believer.  But, to use your language, when the PM meets with the Justice Minister, there is nothing fucking wrong with saying what he said.  The problem which arises is although the meeting was to discuss matters arising in her Justice portfolio, the conversation veered to matters which could reasonably be characterized as falling within her AG portfolio.

The problem was further exacerbated when the Minister, again to use your language, didn't say a fucking thing during the meeting to warn the PM of that potential problem = as was her legal duty to do as the AG. 

So what do we make of all that?  Well if you are a Conservative true believer, apparently you ignore all the nuance.  Frankly it makes me think a pox on both parties.  They both have fundamental problems.