On CP24, I saw the headline “Butts in hot seat tomorrow”.
I’m sure he’ll help them get to the bottom of this.
Sadly, I don’t get CP24, so I’m glad you posted it. Yes, I laughed. CTV (my usual go-to for news) has been quite respectful of Mr. Butts’ name, and they plan to air his remarks tomorrow. I guess we’ll see what he has to say.
We’re going to find out who’s behind this.
Somebody’s ass is on the line, that’s for sure.
Philpott’s resignation hurt. Hopefully there will be no more statements along the lines of “[JWR] was demoted because she doesn’t speak French”.
But at the end of the day, having discussions on how to punish a wayward company is not a hanging crime, and it is unlikely that interference, though aggressive and dubious, constitutes a crime. Some of the media handwringing is overwrought. That said, Canadians don’t like it when one region has the perception of favouritism, and expect the laws to be taken seriously.
Right, the Feds bought a $4.5 billion pipeline project just for shits and giggles not for the benefit of Alberta.
From CBC News – Butts seems to be drawing a fine-line distinction:
Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s former top aide, testified Wednesday there was no intention to pressure Jody Wilson-Raybould to change her mind on the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and official engagements were only meant to ensure she had full facts on the impact of a potential conviction.
“I am firmly convinced that nothing happened here beyond the normal operations of government,” he said.
Butts said highly trained legal staff worked on the file to ensure no line was crossed in engagements with the former attorney general. He said the objective was to underscore the impact of a prosecution, including the thousands of jobs at stake.
First we had “too big to fail”. Now we appear to have “too big to prosecute”.
I’m not sure I understand his logic. “We weren’t trying to pressure anyone not to prosecute, we were just explaining that if they went ahead with prosecution it would mean the end of the world as we know it. Just so they understood, you know?”
The idea behind a remediation agreement is that (a) it’s quicker and cheaper than a prosecution and (b) it will cause less harm to innocent employees (in this case, the ones not involved in bribery). So I think it’s logical that part (b) would apply more to businesses with lots of innocent employees than just one or two innocent employees.
Or perhaps “You say you don’t want to do a remediation agreement, but it’s a new idea so maybe you’re too dumb/ignorant to know what a remediation agreement really entails. Why don’t you ask for a second opinion?”
I have read deferred prosecution agreements are far more onerous than a simple fine — that they can be prosecuted if they step out of line, that there is monitoring in addition to fines… I’m sure a lot depends on who is monitoring.
Every Canadian region thinks other parts of Canada profit at their expense. These perceptions are not changed by the fact Canada was hoping to help Alberta by buying expensive pipeline rights. Broad consultation is needed but has practical limits; giving any small group or big province veto power is a terrible mistake. The Liberal tent (and those it is dealing with) includes some sincere environmentalists, folks genuinely concerned about Aboriginal rights and reconciliation, and others more concerned about provincial politics than a national goal. Still, I wish Trudeau had been more direct on this difficult issue.
I believe JWR was likely asked many times about this. I am prepared to believe some of these requests were slightly aggressive. I doubt she was physically threatened, I don’t know if she thought she would lose her job. But I’m not sure that this degree of pressure, though inappropriate, is tremendously unusual in business or politics. Harper, who I respect, was known for running a tight ship too and for making personal views the party policy.
The fact the World Bank banned SNC for ten years over concerns in multiple countries says something, if after this violations did continue.
Except, as mentioned above, the prosecutor is not permitted to take “the national economic interest” into account, nor “the identity of the organization or individual involved”. So if the prosecutor is not allowed to take jobs into account, nor that it’s SNC Lavalin, how can the AG be pressured into doing precisely that?
Good news! Mr. Trudeau has addressed the issue and it turns out it’s all just a misunderstanding and poor communication. Nothing to see here. Time to move forward.
I may not be entirely convinced.
Worst. Beatles lyric. Ever.
But did he send Jody roses? Gals love roses when a guy’s not been treating her right.
I’m not sure what not considering “the identity of the organization” means, and I don’t know what factors they are allowed to look at. So I can’t comment on that.
I think that Trudeau is within his rights to ask her to double-check that SNC Lavalin is not eligible; maybe the prosecution service made a legitimate error in their assessment, for instance. Pestering her on ten different occasions is ridiculous, though.
The problem is that a “Chinese wall” does not work with one individual who wears two hats. As the AG, the law seems clear she can’t take into account the identity of the company, jobs, etc. and as the Justice Minister advising Trudeau, giving political advice is expected. It’s barely workable; these are not mutually compatible jobs. They should be separate. They will be. There is probably a reason this hasn’t happened, and dollars to doughnuts this type of thing has happened before. Now that doughnuts cost a dollar, this phrase has become equivocal.
The problems in this case are the degree of coercion, a degree of ignorance and desperation on the part of the Liberals, the independence of JWR and the fact Canada has few big infrastructure companies and SNC is both globally influential and Québécoise.
This is a very Canadian crisis. JWR stick to her guns and the decision did not change. The entire judicial system is not at serious risk. This is not a Trumpian effort to subvert the law, although Trudeau took threats literally.
Let me know when that pipeline benefits Alberta. Until then, the most likely reason for the purchase was to bail out the company that realized its investment was going nowhere due to the environmental protests and legal challenges of the sort that Trudeau actually approves of.
It’s not just the political and economic costs of protests and consultation. Companies can’t value the risk accurately, and if you can’t put a price on it then you can’t buy insurance against it.
They bought it to keep the project alive and hint hint, that wasn’t because Quebec wants the project alive.
Just how connected to the Liberal party are the companies involved? Because given the events of the past few weeks, that seems important.
It also seems bizarre to spend 4.5 billion on a pipeline project, then put forward a bill (C-69) which effectively kills the ability to build a pipeline across Canada. But that may be more a result of stupidity than corruption. It’s hard to tell with Trudeau, because he does both so well.
This sounds similar to our to our government’s insane plan to buy thousands of railroad tanker cars because they couldn’t negotiate pipelines. Of course, since our leaders were previously anti-pipeline activists, I’m sure they tried their best to get them built once in government.
We are being ruled by idiots.