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...

Secrecy and the Consequences - Dunderdale vs. Stiglitz

I will over the next couple of days take excerpts from a lecture given by Joseph E. Stiglitz- Economist.

Below you will find some information about this professional followed by Exerpt 1 of the lecture. 

As a public - the current "secrecy" bill before our House of Assembly - should be frightening. You and I need to be very afraid of what the Dunderdale government is doing and why.

Appointments:

University Professor. Teaching at the Columbia Business School, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (Department of Economics) and the School of International and Public Affairs

Co-founder and Co-President of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD)

Co-Chair of Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought

Chair of the Management Board, Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester

Member, CFTC-SEC Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues

President of the International Economic Association, 2011-2014

A Modest Proposal for International Monetary Reform, paper presented at the June 

2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul.

Sharing the Burden of Saving the Planet: Global Social Justice for Sustainable Development, Keynote speech at the June 2008 meeting of the International Economic Association, Istanbul (see the powerpoint here).

Co-Chair of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

GDP Fetishism, Project Syndicate, September 2009.

GSP Seen as Inadequate Measure of Economic Health, by David Jolly, New York Times, September 14, 2009.

Towards A Better Measure of Well-Being, Financial Times, September 13, 2009.

Chair of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System

One Small Step Forward, The Guardian (UK), June 28, 2009.

Recommendations for Immediate Action, a statement from the first meeting of the Comission of Experts, January 4-6, 2009, New York.

West urged to increase aid to poor nations, article about the Commission by Heather 

Stewart, The Guardian (UK), January 11, 2009.

UN Panel Calls for Council to Replace G20, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 22, 2009.

Dollar Reserve Reform Urged, by Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 27, 2009.

Final Report of the UN Commission of Experts, released September 21, 2009

Excerpt 1

To me, the most compelling argument for openness is the positive Madisonian one: meaningful participation in democratic processes requires informed participants. Secrecy reduces the information available to the citizenry, hobbling their ability to participate meaningfully. Any of us who has participated in a board of directors knows that the power of a board to exercise direction and discipline is limited by the information at its disposal. 

Management knows this, and often attempts to control the flow of information. We often speak of government being accountable, accountable to the people. But if effective democratic oversight is to be achieved, then the voters have to be informed: they have to know what alternative actions were available, and what the results might have been. Those in government typically have far more information relevant to the decisions being made than do those outside government, just as management of a firm typically has far more information about the firm’s markets, prospects, and technology than do shareholders, let alone other outsiders. Indeed, managers are paid to gather this information.

The question is, given that the public has paid for the gathering of government information, who owns the information? Is it the private province of the government official, or does it belong to the public at large? I would argue that information gathered by public officials at public expense is owned by the public— just as the chairs and buildings and other physical assets used by government belong to the public. We have come to emphasize the importance of intellectual property. The information produced, gathered, and processed by public officials is intellectual property, no less than a patentable innovation would be. To use that intellectual property for private is just as serious an offense against the public as any other appropriation of public property for private purposes.