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.

Marshall fired and Ball on Notice?

Muskrat Falls is a boondoggle.

This is not from Captain Obvious Marshall - this is from those who predicted the problems with the contemplation of the deal and development going back to 2006.

Stan Marshall was hired to act as a CEO - his shareholders are the people. While Stan is used to dealing with very wealthy shareholders - right now he's been charged to deal with all of us as shareholders. As such we should be treated like shareholders of a publicly traded company and he should be seeking to maximize our investments and stop boondoggles with our money.

As we learn from Uncle Gnarley's post this morning - the latest executive choice to gamble or hedge $1.82 billion of public (us being the shareholders) money - did not fare well. 

I wonder if we spent let's say 65 million (equivalent to what we lost) on the USA Powerball, currently standing at 650 million, would we fare much better. 

We are losing our province and our youth to this mess and yet we carry on. We hope sometime in the future to have a public inquiry of the failure? Really? Are we completely mad? 

We have not been privy to much truth on Muskrat Falls and Nalcor/Government continues to keep us in the dark on this complete and total failure of a "project".

We have transmission towers here there and everywhere - little signs on the highway sprinkled like salt in our wounds - telling workers where to turn off on the Muskrat Highway for the latest erection of metal. 

A forensic audit needs to happen today, not tomorrow, not next week but today. 

The findings of that audit need to be publicly reviewed. 

Then we need to look at all our economic and legal options as it relates to this province.

These options must be vetted in full - transparently to shareholders. 

Then we need a referendum. 

Will we stop and use the asset another way? 
Will we stop completely?
Will we proceed with re-opening contracts and renegotiating our position?
What are the potential legal obligations of any of these actions?
What are the potential legal obligations if a forensic audit finds corruption, malfeasance, lies, deceptions, and or fancy accounting? 

Now that we've started to play lotto 649 with our money on hedge-bets - why not take a chance on gambling to find the truth?

Sitting here and saying let's have a public inquiry when this mess is completed is insanity. Let's foreshadow this choice.

100,000 seniors sitting in the dark - if they want to eat that is - trying to follow an Inquiry via snail mail? Seniors and low income families unable to afford the internet, power, telephone, or television - will be shouting out to their neighbours to see if they heard from one of their kids or grand-kids on the mainland watching our public inquiry? 

Wake up and shake yourself off. 

We cannot now or ever afford this project and that's notwithstanding the real possibility that the structure may fail. 

If the dam does not fail - will the transmission system?

Who are we finishing the project for?

1. Not for the ratepayers of Newfoundland
2. Not for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
3. Not for required power
4. Not to eliminate Holyrood
5. Not for industry in Labrador

Then who?

1. Galway?
2. Nova Scotians?
3. The corporate elite making billions?
4. Emera?
5. Hydro-Quebec?

So Dwight Ball and Stan Marshall - do your job for the people and the shareholders respectively. Stop this project until it is thoroughly reviewed by a forensic audit and a public inquiry - NOW. 

As for this latest finance disaster on the hedge bet - we don't need a forensic audit or inquiry. Fire the executive of Nalcor and put Ball on notice. 

Our only choice may be greater than Liberal PC or NDP in 2019. 

As for Nalcor gambling in the "futures" market. That is what they have failed at consistently since 2006. Our future.   

Meanwhile we are charging grandmothers and journalists for trying to have a peek?

"Sources told the CBC"

It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.

This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.

Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.

Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.

I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.

Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good,  that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.

There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.

Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.

The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.

In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?

1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication


This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.

I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?

We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.

Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.

A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family.  Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.

We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.

We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.

It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.

On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.

Call an Inquiry or "Simon Says" Call an Inquiry

This from a CBC story July 06-07

St. John's blogger Simon Lono, however, believes it is not the job of the police to look at where the constituency spending system broke down.Lono is spearheading an online petition calling for a public inquiry into the operations of the house of assembly.

Gerry Reid today in the Telegram on MHA spending:

"There is enough guilt to go around and everyone feels bad enough as it is," he said.

"I don't think that should become an election issue, because it can work both ways."

Question is will Gerry speak to Simon and ask him not to mention the issue - or will Simon do what he is passionate about and call for a public inquiry during the campaign?

Simon is Right - Russell is Right - Bill is Right

There must be a Public Inquiry into the whole House of Assembly Affair. Sue's Blog is going to call it the - PPP Politicians Plundering the Public and in some morbid respects public - private - partnership.

The issue of PPP is out of control and needs a real hearing. Russell Wangersky is correct when he writes the politicians want this to go away too quickly - especially the Premier.

Bill Rowe is right when he says that Marshall and Williams not taking the $2875 is either elitist or another attempt to cover - "sucking and blowing" at the same time is an appropriate analogy for those two intelligent people trying to skirt the scandal by saying they didn't take the cash.

Simon Lono is absolutely right when he says a Public Inquiry is the only way to go - to "clean the House".

Here are three astute people and are people who have been around politics in one way or another for many years. They know that fundamentally some politicians are going to have to be wiped out and exposed for this PPP mess to truly go away and deter it from happening again.

In our democracy we have a multi-party system - this is designed to bring light to positions so they may be fully exposed - debated - and resolved. When our democracy is faced with all parties being involved in questionable activities at the same time - the role of Opposition must fall to the media and the people - if not we are in a banana republic.

There are many viewpoints out there - many partisan - but many more reflect the disgust over the PPP. We must get to the bottom of this - and the public should make educated choices when voting - this cannot be done without all the information.

Some of the politicians have run for cover - with many more about to do the same.

Chief Justice Greene - with the stated mandate cannot get to the bottom of it.

The RNC with only some of the file cannot get to the bottom of it.

The Auditor General cannot call public witnesses nor release some of the information we need.


We need to hear from all MHA's and others from 2000 - 2007.
Call to the stand Beth Marshall (AG in 2000) - question her on the findings and why she requested to audit the books of the House of Assembly.

You must understand that when she was blocked - those who blocked the Office of the Auditor General are now administratively responsible for costing us millions in overpayment's - special investigations (forensic audits) - the cost of the Chief Justice (special review) - the cost of the RNC and its investigations. All of it may have been prevented if Beth Marshall had been permitted to audit in 2000.

On that note - all MHA's from 2000 should be called to a stand and publicly tell us why they voted for legislation that effectively removed the Auditor General.

Bring back Tobin - make him talk on a stand - under oath.
Bring back Furey - Dicks - Shelley - Byrne and yes Loyola Sullivan - make them talk under oath.
Bring back Lloyd Snow - Tom Lush - Lloyd Matthews - bring them all back.

If we do not hear all of the unfettered evidence from our elected officials - we will never know the truth and we will not deter similar behavior.

The 2004 PPP is the same - the IEC rendered that proposal (#) be approved and every MHA gets the $2875. We know that 2 did not take it - one sat on the IEC and was the former AG that supposedly wanted to bring these types of things to light - and the other is the Premier who claims he wants it all cleaned up.

What we have here are the politicians blocking the use of our taxpayer dollars to investigate them. After the fortune they have cost us to date - under their control - shouldn't we have the same right to answers under our rules?

Let me use this example:

We all remember the vote in the House of Assembly to boot Fraser March our of the position of Citizens Representative - we know there were some expenses that were questionable. They were not questionable enough to have the AG file a 15.1 on him. That's the part of the Act where the AG feels a recommendation for further investigation is warranted.

15.1 's have been issued for:

Ed Byrne
Wally Anderson
Randy Collins
Jim Walsh
Percy Barrett
John Hickey
Kathy Goudie

All but one of these MHA's were sitting in the House of Assembly when they fired Fraser March.

Then John Hickey upon being exonerated from any criminal wrong-doing forgets his incompetence which caused the numerous cases of double-billing and comes out swinging at Roger Grimes. Give me a break John - you are still responsible for too many cases of double billing - all that has changed is that you are incompetent - not corrupt.

Let me say that again - John Hickey you are incompetent not corrupt. Now sue me!

Now the 2006 budget is overspent - and nobody is going to deal with it.

I do not care what rules are put in place "on a go forward basis" it will not be a real deterrent to this type of activity - unless some measurable consequences come to all MHA's that were either incompetent or corrupt.

All MHA's are in a position of conflict regarding the calling of such a Public Inquiry - because it is they that will be examined. For instance - if you had a bank robber and those who watched it - participated in it - knew about it - determine whether or not they should be charged and face trial - we could close the courts.

All the MHA's say they are really concerned about this situation and being "under a cloud" of suspicion - when they are innocent - funny not one of them have said - let's have a Public Inquiry - and that way I can be removed from the pack of others guilty of incompetence or corruption.

The Liberals asked for a Public Inquiry on the fibre-optic deal yet will not demand a Public Inquiry over this - I can assure Gerry Reid the people who will not get out and vote are not deterred by the fibre-optic fiasco - they are deterred by an inability to vote for a perceived dirty house - and it's all about perception right?

Danny will do everything other than an Inquiry which will bring into the limelight more of his own members than he wants - and then there's also the reason he did not take the cash. Let's find out if Beth Marshall and Danny Williams tell the same story.

Let's see who is really serious here! Let's see which organizations will call for the Inquiry.

NAPE?
CUPE?
Federation of Municipalities?
Federation of Labour?
FFAW?
St. John's Board of Trade?
Canadian Federation of Taxpayers?
the Media?
how about the people?

The St. John's Board of Trade can go lie down out of it - if it's calling for the reduction of taxes - when it does not demand to know what the dollars went to and why.

The public service Unions are not that mad over the $2875 if they are not interested in what really took place.

And John Hickey - remember this - you were allowed to stay in Cabinet while after you double-billed expenses and were under investigation by the RNC. If all you had to do was pay back the money - will you stand and demand that Fraser March be returned to Office? Go on hypocrite - show your stuff! Do you think you look any less ridiculous as your former colleague Kathy Goudie because she cried and you yelled?