Public Inquiry - Demanding Truth to Power - The SNC Lavalin Affair

PART I Public Inquiries

Marginal note:Inquiry

2 The Governor in Council may, whenever the Governor in Council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 2.

Marginal note:Appointment of commissioners

3 Where an inquiry as described in section 2 is not regulated by any special law, the Governor in Council may, by a commission, appoint persons as commissioners by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 3.

Marginal note:Powers of commissioners concerning evidence

4 The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to


(a) give evidence, orally or in writing, and on oath or, if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters on solemn affirmation; and


(b) produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 4.

Marginal note:Idem, enforcement

5 The commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

__________________________________________________________________________________

It is important to reiterate:  "cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.."

There is no doubt - regardless of any partisan viewpoint - that an Inquiry regarding the SNC debacle is a matter of "the good government of Canada".

Canadians - despite their political stripe are very concerned about the system of Justice in our country. They need to be reassured or otherwise advised that good government is what exists in Canada right now.

There is also a need for Canadians and in fact many parliamentarians to understand fully what our justice system looks like.

From an education perspective - an Inquiry could provide information through testimony written or oral to Canadians and many parliamentarians about the role of the Attorney General and the role of Minister of Justice. This piece alone would allow Canadians and our lawmakers a good foundation in order to review the roles and the benefits of having the roles separated.

This is evidenced by the ignorant remarks of many politicians, pundits, some journalists,  and the Twitterati. Many are struggling to understand the difference in the two positions.

If the objective is to have a more engaged and participatory electorate - which all Parties say they are interested in achieving - an Inquiry on this affair would be very helpful.

Yesterday, when listening to the testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould (hereinafter referred to as JWR) and the questions from some committee members I have no choice but to conclude they (some committee members) do not understand the roles of the AG and Minister of Justice. If I don't find they are ignorant - I must find they are playing partisan games with an extremely important issue for Canadians.

Subsequent to the testimony of JWR - I observed further juvenile attempts at making the former Attorney General appear as a rigid person with no sympathy for jobs and a Canadian company. Why not join with and cooperate with her colleagues in Cabinet? The fact that she cannot do that as the Attorney General does not seem to faze them. That represents an extreme disrespect for the Justice system and must not be tolerated - particularly by lawmakers.

Let's run it through this way. As Minister of Justice JWR would sit in the Cabinet room and participate in making decisions about changing laws - and referencing the SNC affair the change to the Criminal Code making Remediation agreements a "tool" for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider and then perhaps offered to a company facing corporate corruption charges.

As the Attorney General - JWR's role was not that of Cabinet solidarity and reasoned consensus among equals.

The fact that the two roles are being used in a politically expedient way to justify twisting the story to Canadians is not acceptable. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to answer all questions with "we are interested in protecting good jobs in Canada" - he is deliberately confusing the reality of what occurs during the process of Justice.

From JWR's testimony last evening, I got the distinct impression that she as Minister of Justice may not have agreed with her Cabinet colleagues in making the change to the Criminal Code - when they did. JWR may have taken exception to the haste in which the legislation was occurring - the manner in which it was presented (under a Budget Bill) and further the promise by her own party that the report on DPA's or RA's would be reviewed and time would be given under "Next Steps" for people to comment on the findings of the report. Instead the report was made public for Canadians to see and just five days later a law was drafted and presented in a Budget Bill. This is another example of Justin Trudeau's leadership and the desire to satisfy SNC instead of satisfying the need for good laws and how and when to utilize an RA. Hence why we might be hearing she was too rigid. If what I stated above is the case - JWR once again, made a good decision to slow down the process of changing the Criminal Code simply to satisfy one corporate entity.

I did find it remarkable that while JWR did support the Budget Omnibus Bill as a consolidated member of Cabinet - she was not out extolling the benefits of such a change.

It would be instructive for Canadians to hear what process was used to push through a change in the Criminal Code for potentiially corrupt corporations to escape prosecution. It would be instructive to know why the government reneged on its promise to review the consultation report on RA's DPA's and allow Canadians to comment further on the findings. This certainly leads one to believe that SNC Lavalin was getting preferred treatment even before the law was passed.

An Inquiry would also be very constructive with respect to Canada's global participation and agreement with conventions to deal with Corporate Crime worldwide - particularly in third world nations with emerging economies. There is a reason the World Bank has guidelines for companies - such as SNC Lavalin - for bidding on projects they are financing. There is a reason SNC Lavalin is under debarment by the World Bank. Further having been found in violation of these rules for procurement - SNC would be of concern to emerging economies and the safety of people living in them.

It is important for Canadians to know exactly what has gone on with SNC globally (where the majority of their "employees" work) and why the debarment occurred. It is equally important for Canadians to know why that matters to them and to the commitments made on behalf of our citizens by our government. An Inquiry could achieve this.

Then there are the outlying situations that should be reviewed by an independent body such as an Inquiry. They can call witnesses and it would be beneficial to Canadians if such were to occur.

Upon trying unsuccessfully many times to influence a decision of the Attorney General regarding SNC Lavalin - the government set upon finding another way to change the mind of the Attorney General. The government can and probably will change procurement policy to allow SNC the ability to bid on federal projects regardless of conviction or not. The bigger worry to SNC Lavalin and the majority of its work in the global marketplace is the debarment by the World Bank. In that regard SNC needed to keep its nose clean and if they were convicted by the courts in Canada of corporate crimes - additional penalties may apply.

An Inquiry would be able to examine and call witnesses regarding the miraculous event of Scott Brison retiring from politics thereby allowing a shuffle under less suspicious events. Even today the Prime Minister states that if Scott Brison had not resigned JWR would still be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. In other words, it would not look so obvious that she was being removed for saying NO as the Attorney General. A quick note on Trudeau's insistance that JWR would still hold the portfolio - it does not jive with the smear campaign that she was rigid, incompetent, and difficult to deal with etc. Let's see what possibly could have happened to make this miraculous opportunity occur. Brison was clearly offered a prestigious position with BMO.

Please read the following:


The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Kevin earned his BA from Mount Allison University, a Masters in Economics from the University of Manchester and a doctorate in Economics from McMaster University. He was made a Member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada in 2009, was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2011, has received 11 honorary doctorates from Canadian Universities, and was awarded the Queen’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee Medals for public service.

This CV alone can draw questions as to why an offer to Scott Brison ever occurred and particularly when it occurred.

Interestingly most media outlets and politicians will not delve into this side of things. After all the bankers hold a little bit of influence over them all.

An Inquiry could be very useful in vetting this occurrence and any role it may have played in the miraculous opportunity to shuffle Cabinet. It could sniff out any improper or potentially illegal interference by SNC in the governance of our country. Certainly, the past operations of SNC would lend credit to such interference being possible. They have proven the lengths they will go to get a desired result either in law or for a contract - both inside and outside Canada.

An Inquiry could review the lobbying efforts of a company while under criminal charges and look at real measures to ensure this type of activity is regulated to benefit the best interests of Canadians not SNC Lavalin or any other company in the same position.

Canadians are concerned about transparency and ethical behaviors in government. They are concerned about undue influence by powerful corporations and the people employed by them. They are concerned about the system of Justice and whether our system has the necessary protections to avoid negating the independence of Justice.

The fact that our country has been tied up by this messy SNC Lavalin for this long certainly adds to the need for a Public Inquiry and the clarity it could bring to the broader issues of law and independence of it.

With respect to the Ethics Commissioner and an investigation into these matters - it is limited in scope. It will not - because it cannot - look at the broad implications of interference. By all means carry on looking at ethics and potential conflicts of interest of parliamentarians and some staff - however this must be augmented by an Inquiry to fully review what has taken place here.

An Inquiry into these matters may produce a Shawcross like document - which for Canada and Canadians would be positive and be very relevant to Canadian laws and interpretation. This must only be seen as a good benefit that could be achieved from a very questionable affair.

Positively - an Inquiry may teach a very important lesson to parliamentarians. This sad sorry state of affairs may well have been avoided completely if Trudeau and his government took the transparent approach to SNC Lavalin and its plight. Trudeau's real problem is he was in large part elected because he was not Stephen Harper. He was going to shed light on our system, be transparent, be socially advanced with women in Cabinet and bringing equality to our system. He and his government could have come out and made a public case for DPR's or RA's - particularly for SNC - instead of some backroom deal attempt with the Attorney General and guaranteeing her good op-eds if she would be onside. SNC was not served well by this approach and they clearly believed that Trudeau et al would only respond to the dark backroom of lobbying and potential interference. His commitment to women has been destroyed by this approach - he is willing to throw a woman of integrity under the bus for having integrity and taking her role seriously. Once again the irony exudes as Trudeau uses the words "we take seriously" in his spin lines of preference.

Finally - unless Trudeau removes the gag from JWR - allowing her to continue to provide Canadians the remaining information since her departure from Justice and AG - the Public Inquiry could get to the bottom of that relevant information.

All one has to do is to watch the concerns of Canadians on this matter - to agree there is a need for a Public Inquiry. The Prime Minister of Canada could make this happen and prove his commitment to transparency and the rule of law.

What could possibly be negative about a Public Inquiry unless - you know of course - the findings would be horrific. How about we demand truth to power.