YES NC Trudeau

By now most Canadians are asking what happened between former Justice Minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR), the Prime Minister, the PMO and SNC Lavalin.

After watching and reading many different news stories, commentaries/opinions, social media discourse, legal filings, banking information, global conventions, and documents of the World Bank - I am prepared to put together a maybe.

The following represents my thoughts, speculations, and opinions based on what really seems plausible to me.

Please note that not all the statements below are facts - rather a group of facts and hypothesis based on what we know and don't.

SNC Lavalin is experiencing difficulties primarily do to their self-made legal troubles. I do not believe losing the Canadian marketplace is where they are most worried (easy for government to get around that).

The companies urgent concerns are anywhere where the World Bank is backing developments wherein SNC is likely and able to bid for work.

I believe it's possible that JWR - the former Justice Minister was chosen by Trudeau and strategists for that Cabinet post for 2 reasons.  The first is to enhance and display their branding - indigenous woman holding a top portfolio - the second they estimated that JWR was malleable to execute a saving agreement for SNC Lavalin. I find the first reason insulting as I do not believe it was sincere - just part of a large scale marketing plan and the second was one of the the greatest miscalculations of a person and their integrity, intelligence, and backbone I have ever seen.

SNC Lavalin knew what they needed long ago. They pegged the Liberals for delivery and worked their back-room magic for insurance.

They "lobbied" that is to say they prettied up influence to make an attempt at a legal process to direct their reward.

They did not want - they needed - very desperately for the bribery and fraud allegations and charges to disappear.

They could not suffer an additional blow to their already trashed reputation at the World Bank.

The Liberals did the first thing that was necessary and that was to change the Criminal Code. They did so under a Budget Bill. That was more due to urgency than it was anything else. If it had gone through a proper process - a process expected when one proposes to change the Criminal Code it would likely have been too late for SNC Lavalin.

Once the Budget Bill passed - the rush was on to get SNC Lavalin the fix they needed.

They needed a Remediation Agreement (RA) applied to the company.

No doubt SNC Lavalin went through the motions of "lobbying" while who knows what other methods of communication to get this process moving.

The prosecutor was not budging - so the deed was passed to JWR.

One can guess that this whole compromise deal was raised in Cabinet and probably the majority of Cabinet agreed to the proposed fix for the company. Unlike other Cabinet Posts the Department of Justice and the Attorney General must be independent. It's only proper. It was then no doubt that JWR started to feel the pressure. It may have come from a combined effort applied by Cabinet colleagues and the PMO.

It may have been at this point that JWR started to put it all together and began to wonder what was truly her "role" in the Trudeau administration.

She started to smell a rat and felt that she must do what was expected or she would end up under a political bus.

At that time she probably did want reassurance from the man who had praised her so highly and made a very compelling public case for equality in the Cabinet. Surely this man - who had embraced her and praised her skills and intelligence would provide some assurance that making - what she felt was the right decision - would be welcome by this Prime Minister.

Whatever happened at the meeting and the tone of which words were spoken will only be known when JWR speaks.

Trudeau however had his answer and it was not what he or SNC wanted to hear. No deal!

It could have been real tidy, a Minister that played her role - for the sake of saving Quebec enterprise. Gazetted by Minister JWR and in the event of a backlash (spin did not work on the SNC file) she could have been sacrificed while the rest stayed "clean". No deal!

That presented a unique and difficult situation for the Liberals and their buddies. Now what?

Well if he hauled her out of the portfolio it may very well be seen as pandering to SNC and firing her for not doing what they expected she would.

BMO and other banks and their investment divisions certainly are affected  by the potential outcomes of a potential SNC Lavalin failure or takeover.

This part is a bit trickier because I have mixed thoughts on whether Scott Brison knew or not - regarding a needed Cabinet Shuffle. BMO might have offered him what is a very lucrative and prestigious position at a time when Brison may have wanted a change for more than one reason. They all might have played him like a fiddle or he might have taken one for the larger corporate/political team (so to speak) as the cushion he landed on was quite soft.

Trudeau said it perfectly today - if Brison had not resigned JWR would have remained and still be the Minister of Justice and AG. Reread above - yes we can assume that just throwing her out on her own without another reason for a shuffle would have been too obvious.

Regardless of why Brison took the leap - he did and this gave the PM an opportunity to shuffle. The shuffle was ridiculous and clearly a demotion for JWR. That is part of the Liberal's incompetent attempt at covering.

The PM then appointed a person who could certainly be seen to enjoy towing the line and getting done what JWR would not.

The new Minister and AG did a poor job of playing it coy and generally delivered an amateur attempt at being a master "politician" - at a time when the Liberals needed one most.

JWR stayed in Cabinet and probably learned that SNC would be taken care of - so to speak.

Between that and the mixed, confused, and inconsistent messaging attempts of Trudeau and his overrated cast of cohorts - JWR decided it was time to pull out.

One thing remains if Trudeau can be taken at his word - being she would have remained as Minister of Justice had Brison not resigned - then certainly we can assume that the decisions she made re: SNC would be continued and would have been acceptable (not). This is what makes the whole thing ridiculous, unbelievable, and and likely the reason the Liberals may be defeated.

Then again - I am of the belief that SNC will be saved at the cost of losing government if necessary. All those who deliver would certainly expect to land as softly as let's say Scott Brison.

As Trudeau likes to say we are working for the middle class and those trying to join the middle class - just like his loyal backbench is working hard to join the Cabinet.

They might just want to pause and really think about what their actual role is.

Everything you have read above makes coincidence unlikely but political/corporate collusion more than likely.

One last note - remember this:
On December 17, 1997, Canada signed the Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD Convention). In 1998 Parliament passed the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) to implement Canada’s obligations under the OECD Convention into Canadian law.
The OECD Convention aims to stop the flow of bribes and to remove bribery as a non-tariff barrier to trade, producing a level playing field in international business.  The OECD Convention came into force on February 15, 1999, following Canada’s ratification. To date, 44 states have ratified the OECD Convention, including the 36 member states of the OECD and eight non-member states: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Russia and South Africa.
In June 2013 Parliament amended the CFPOA to increase the maximum penalty for convicted individuals, to create a new books and records offence and to expand jurisdiction based on nationality.  In addition, the 2013 amendment stated that at a later date the Government would eliminate the exception for facilitation payments. Facilitation payments are those made to foreign public officials to secure or expedite the performance of acts of a routine nature that are within the scope of the official's duties. The repeal came into force on October 31, 2017 and such payments are now included under the foreign bribery offences listed in the CFPOA.


and now in 2018 The Trudeau government did this:
In September 2018, a Remediation Agreement (RA) regime came into force through the creation of a new Part (Part XXII.1) of the Criminal Code. An RA is a new tool available for use by prosecutorial authorities – at their discretion, in the public interest and in appropriate circumstances – to address corporate criminal wrongdoing. It is an agreement, between an organization accused of committing a listed offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence, if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.


Perhaps it's time the World Bank amended its position to ignore such weakening of commitment to cleaning up the global market by not recognizing such RA's.  

and there is this last little bit: (emphasis added for easier read)


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.

Come on now.... Really?  Yes Canada they really do believe we are stupid.... but they also underestimated Jody Wilson-Raybould...

Public correction of error by Minister King necessary

It's bad enough that Darin King believes the need for a public inquiry rests on his feelings on the investigation when it's over. The Minister, however, outdid himself by proclaiming for all radio-land that he and he alone is the one who decides if an inquiry is called.

I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.

What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.

Here is part of Section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act

Commissions of Inquiry

     3.(1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order establish a commission of inquiry and report on a matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers to be a public concern. 

        (2) Where a commission is established under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order, 

        (a) appoint the members of the commission in accordance with section 21;

        (b) establish the jurisdiction of the commission by setting terms of reference for the inquiry;

        (c) designate the Minister responsible for the inquiry; and

        (d) fix a date for the termination of the inquiry and for the delivery of the commission's report.

emphasis added 

It is not only responsible but one would think in keeping with the Minister's Oath of Office that Darin King clear up any errors he may make when explaining anything to the public. 

Not only is it - not his decision to call an inquiry - he may not even be chosen by the Cabinet to be the Minister responsible for the inquiry after it has been called. 

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are going to have to hold our politicians more accountable. It is very difficult to have faith in our government when a Minister of the Crown speaks with authority about a law that he/she clearly does not understand. 

This is what Minister King said:

"Well I guess I decide that if I'm the one that calls the inquiry - ultimately - to be blunt about it. I think the Public Inquiries Act provides that the Minister is the one that makes the call so ultimately I would be the person who had to make the decision."

Please try to reconcile the Act and the Minister words. How long has he been a Minister of the Crown? 

Further to insure the Minister's red herring does not continue - we are not asking that an inquiry actually take place before the current investigation is over. We want a commitment that one will be called.

       

Darin King - shed the Political cloak

Since the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - many people in the public have been asking for an inquiry.

Today - our Justice Minister Darin King had a response to that. CBC Story

I have no issue with Minister King waiting for the investigation to be over before an inquiry is called.
 
I have a real issue with the Minister saying, "I think it will be much too early to predetermine whether in fact there will be another inquiry called," and "I will want to see the current, ongoing investigation unfold and see what the results are,".

The investigation into the event is a justice issue. It seeks to determine what took place and if any charges should be laid in connection with the event.

There is no doubt that for the family this process is very important and they will - according to their lawyer - make decisions regarding any potential civil legal action after the investigation has concluded.

The Inquiry though is a different matter altogether. The public confidence has already been shaken to the core and there is evidence that people may have lost faith in public institutions or bodies. Further as the protocols for protection of elected officials forms one component of the event - it already meets the need for an inquiry to be called.

I can imagine no outcome of the investigation that would cause me to lose interest in holding an inquiry.

Minister King should know that as important as insuring the family of the deceased and the officer  have the benefit of justice - society as a whole must move forward progressively to achieve better policies, protocols, and outcomes.

One of the best summations of what a judicial inquiry or inquest is may be found on the website of Toronto law firm - Paliare and Roland,

It states:

Public or judicial inquiries are called by the municipal, provincial or federal government to review events that cause public concern or outcry. Unlike a trial, the inquiry process is investigative, rather than adversarial – its purpose is to review those events, in order to determine what happened and why, and most importantly, how to prevent them from ever happening again.

If one is looking for a more in depth look at inquiries - I recommend "Some Observations on Public Inquiries" written by the Honourable Dennis O'Connor, former Chief Justice - Ontario Court of Appeal. 

Despite the judgement cast upon those of us in the public who are vocal in our concerns - by some traditional media and politicians - most of us are genuinely concerned about all the events leading to the death of Don Dunphy and want to ensure this type of tragedy never happens again.

Minister King should remove his usual partisan political cloak and don instead the cloak of duty - his office demands. Right now the Minister needs to eliminate any hint of politics and instead forge ahead to find answers and solutions. If the Minister is fearful that such an inquiry may intrude into the Premier's office - he must rid himself of those concerns and understand he is a representative of  the people not the Premier. Is the problem that he cannot convince his Cabinet colleagues?

Now is a really good time to announce that the government of which you are a part will call a judicial inquiry after the investigation is completed. Now is a really good time to make the necessary preparations for this to occur.

Hello - are you out there media?

Leaks - partial information - one-sided declarations - are present in the reporting - regarding the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.

There has been much debate over what should be released or answered now and what should wait until the "investigation" is complete.

How about this - journalists of Newfoundland and Labrador - will you please provide the citizenry of our province with factual information that is helpful.

1. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home?

2. If so - was the police officer alone?

3. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home under circumstances where a single officer was simply conducting a voluntary questioning?

4. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officer in their own home following a "perceived" threat on any social media site?

5. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officers in their own home - where the only officer present was in the ordinary jurisdiction of another police force?

6. In Canada - how many times has a person been killed by a police officer in their own home following "proactive" and not "reactive" policing.

7. In all cases - if any exist - what was the follow-up to the event. Was there an inquest or inquiry? 

8. Many provinces in Canada have a special investigations unit that is separate from police - do we have one?

Determining that this situation is unique is very helpful in determining what procedures are needed to give the fatal incident a thorough vetting. In the event it is not unique - applying processes used for other similar events.

It is also important that we work as a society to prevent this from ever occurring again.

Manning Sound Bites 2 - Listening

The first installment of Manning Sound Bites deals with the Minister's propensity to blame others or avoid answering at all - questions regarding background, experience, and suitability for the job.

Today we will deal with - listening.

As Paul Davis touts that his administration will listen to the people - one would expect Ms. Manning to be a good listener.

This sound bite and the others I will write about all come from Ms. Manning's interview with David Cochrane (On Point). Listen HERE 

Cochrane: You mentioned just a few minutes ago that you're contemplating legislative changes as part of the public safety Agenda. I guess I'm curious - how do you plan to advance that public safety agenda where you're not elected because legislative changes are legislation which has to be done in the House of Assembly. So you can't table legislation - you can't champion it and you can't debate it in the House. How do you make this work from outside the legislature.

Manning: Well I'd just like to correct you a little - on one point there. I'm certainly sitting at the Cabinet table and I'm certainly able to champion legislative changes at the Cabinet table.

The first thing Manning does is correct Cochrane on something that he was not incorrect on. Cochrane was surely referring to all the things she could not do in the House and asked her specifically what she could do outside the House. Sitting at a Cabinet table is not in the House of Assembly and Cochrane's reference was certainly championing inside the House. You should also note the continued condescending tone Ms. Manning uses with Cochrane with phrases - such as "I'd just like to correct you a little". The Minister comes across as patting a little child on the head and helping to correct the mistakes they might make.

The Minister continued...

Manning: You're absolutely right I will not be sitting in the House until such time as I'm elected and I'm looking forward to having that happen as soon as possible.

Right after applying a little correction she points out on the matter of her not sitting in the House - that Cochrane is absolutely right. Wow - she gave Cochrane that one - imagine he was right that she would not be sitting in the House. It was a perfect display of patting the child on the head and encouraging them for at least getting half of his statement right.

Secondly of course is the false and misleading statement that she's looking forward to getting elected as soon as possible. Clearly Ms. Manning has chosen to avoid that opportunity - and very publicly so. The Minister is NOT listening to the people and neither is Premier Davis. It is abundantly clear the people want her to seek election now - in one of the by-elections. That will not happen.

On the continued claim that Minister Manning is under unusual scrutiny - well yes if you compare it to an elected MHA moving into a Ministerial portfolio. The people of the province usually provide a honeymoon period - wherein they mostly overlook flubs - however - this individual received an extraordinary appointment. When the Premier reached outside the body elect and plucked this person out of thin air - there is no honeymoon - as the extraordinary talents and experience she must possess for such an extraordinary appointment would mean she's hit the ground running right?

To date Minister Manning is not demonstrating a real talent for listening - instead the message seems to be - look at me - I am polished - listen to me - I am well-spoken - and by all means understand that I empathize with anybody beneath my station. Arrogance and unjustified superiority? Ms. Manning comes across as feeling entitled - and as such why should she have to justify anything?

Ms. Manning does not seem to understand the basic premise of her position. She is there to serve the people not to address her subjects from a respectable distance.

Manning playing gender card

If Judy Manning is trying to impress the public with her skills - she is failing.

To date we have a "superior work ethic" that has been alleged by the Premier but not proven.

We have "extensive legal experience" that has not been backed up by demonstrated work.

Now Ms. Manning is playing the gender card. That is not a card that one should use so cavalierly. There are real situations where women are discriminated against - this is not one of them.

She is a lawyer - yet she is doing her profession a disservice if what she calls responsible public scrutiny - "character assassination". There is zero evidence that this is the case.What has been reported has been accurate and if that information causes Ms. Manning to believe that she is seen in an unfavourable light - then she should take time and reflect herself.

The latest interview with Ms. Manning by David Cochrane highlights what appears to be a pattern for the unelected Minister. According to the CBC On Point story - Ms. Manning contends "that she was surprised by the focus of the interview, thinking it would be about general delays in the system and not her role as review commissioner." However the story goes on to say: the Oct. 24 email from CBC asking for the interview stated this: “I am working on a story about Minister Manning's previous role with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division (WHSCRD). My specific areas of inquiry are the number of cases she handled in that role, the number of reports she filed, and what happens to cases she did not complete.”

Then there is this quote in the story: “Did I break the system in the three months that I heard hearings? No. I have great empathy for the people that are going through this process, and I understand the frustration that’s emerged with the delays, but am I the author of those delays? Absolutely not”

Notwithstanding Ms. Manning's misrepresentation of the focus of the interview - she goes on to say she has great empathy for the people going through the process. Empathy defined as the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings. This itself is questionable as it was Ms. Manning who walked away from the files to take an unelected position in the Davis Cabinet. It was Ms. Manning's resignation from the WHSCRD that has caused the delay for these people.

Here we are today - and Ms.Manning is going to haul out the gender card and seek empathy for herself from women who truly face discrimination in the workplace. The questions that are asked of Ms. Manning is appropriate scrutiny of any person who is an unelected Minister. It is unusual for Ministers to be unelected and as such these exceptional circumstances require exceptional scrutiny - replacing what would normally be electoral scrutiny. Further as Ms.Manning refuses to run in any of the three by-elections called or anticipated - she demonstrates a sense of entitlement and arrogance - hardly a just comparison with the injured workers left to wait for decisions on basic human needs.

I now have to look at why Ms. Manning has chosen to throw out an unsubstantiated claim of possible gender discrimination. My take is that Ms. Manning may be playing the card now in an effort to thwart off what will be a continued and justified volley of criticism in the House of Assembly - as Question Period proceeds without her. Perhaps Ms. Manning is putting it out there so people will relate probing in the House of Assembly as the Opposition members - picking on a woman.

None of Ms. Manning's protestations to date are becoming of a Minister of Justice and Attorney General - it has nothing to do with being a woman.

It is time for Ms. Manning to resign - or in the alternative run in one of the three upcoming by-elections.

Perhaps the greatest criticism of the Manning appointment should fall at the desk of Premier Paul Davis. Ms. Manning was chosen by Mr. Davis - to date he has not successfully justified his choice - his call - his decision. 

Minister Judy Manning must be replaced

Here we go again.

CBC has completed some research with respect to Ms. Manning's experience and background.

This person is supposed to be our Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

Sorry she does not cut it. Please remove her from the position.

Evidence for such a move as follows:

The CBC reported and asked Ms. Manning about the information below

According to the provincial government, Manning was assigned 19 cases and held hearings for all of them, but did not file any decisions before her resignation.

Now, the family of one of those injured workers is complaining about delays in his case — an appeal for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle — saying they have had no contact from anyone about what will happen now.

Ms. Manning's response was

But Manning is defending her role at the WHSCRD, saying commissioners routinely miss the legislated 60-day deadline for decisions.

It is absolutely unacceptable - unprofessional - and perhaps worse... The Attorney General of our province justifies breaking the laws of our province by advising that others routinely do.

This is not acceptable from any Commissioner but from the Attorney General? This does not evoke any sense of confidence in our Department of Justice - in fact it does the opposite.

The Minister goes on to say

"I'm entirely comfortable with how I've discharged my duties as a review commissioner and certainly to date I'm entirely comfortable with the energy and the enthusiasm that I've brought to this position,” she said.
“And I'm looking forward to continuing to execute in a similar manner."

Let's get this straight - our Minister of Justice is entirely comfortable with not finishing files she is responsible for - not concerned about breaking the law - connects enthusiasm with quitting and not finishing files and then advises Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that she plans to do the same with this job?

Will she commit to quitting in 5 months?

The CBC story is filled with more of these remarkable and troubling statements.

Why not we call a spade a spade and recognize that Ms. Manning in not even close to being ready to be Minister of Justice or Attorney General.

Great piece of journalism Rob Antle - giving us the information we need to make decisions - without drawing the conclusions for us.