Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during Question Period, Feb. 20, 2019.CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
Undue pressure?
Re Former A-G Told Cabinet SNC Pressure Was Improper (Feb. 21): If, as we are being asked to believe now, Jody Wilson-Raybould’s conscience was greatly troubled by the SNG-Lavalin matter in the fall of 2018:
1) Why didn’t she resign as attorney-general after her meeting with the Prime Minister on Sept. 17, some five months ago?
2) Why did she accept the post of veterans affairs minister on Jan. 14, 2019?
3) Why did she resign from that post a month later?
The logic of the sequence of her decisions escapes me.
Peter Bly, Kingston
.......................................
Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale emerged from a closed meeting and assured us he saw no evidence that Jody Wilson-Raybould had been put under pressure on the SNC-Lavalin file.
Why, then, did he not vote to open up the entire affair and let the great unwashed among us reach our own conclusions? And why does his boss continue to show his disdain for the citizens he claims to represent by his amateurish evasions on the subject?
It puts me in mind of Leslie Nielsen in front of an exploding fireworks factory in Naked Gun, urging people to move along: “Nothing to see here.”
Indeed!
J.C. Henry, Mississauga
.......................................
Jody Wilson-Raybould was removed from the prestigious positions of justice minister and attorney-general and demoted to veterans affairs minister. If that does not constitute “undue pressure,” I do not know what does!
Mary Burge, Toronto
One minister, two hats?
Regarding the current discussions vis-à-vis SNC-Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Justin Trudeau et al., there is a rather obvious question: Why are the roles of the minister of justice and the attorney-general vested in the same person?
Irrespective of the unfolding who-said-what drama, the current situation makes it pretty clear the two roles conflict.
The MoJ is a politician and a member of cabinet who, as an active team member, is obligated to discuss political and economic implications of the government’s decisions. The A-G, however (according to the DoJ’s own website), “is the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for conducting all litigation for the federal government.” In that role, the A-G clearly needs to be distanced from political interference. Ideally, a mature and experienced individual would be able to keep the two hats separated when discussing specific situations.
In reality? Not so much.
Of course there is no guarantee, had the two roles had been separated, that we would not now be in the same situation.
But at least discussions between two politicians could not have been conflated to imply pressure. Influencing an independent A-G would be more obvious and difficult to misinterpret. And, one would hope, less likely to happen.
Bob Rafuse, Beaconsfield, Que.
Court(ing) SNC
It occurred to me upon reading Tuesday’s Dilbert cartoon, that with the substitution of just three words, the dialogue between Dilbert and his boss could very well represent the SNC-Lavalin story.
Dilbert: The bidding process doesn’t support our plan.
His boss: We know our plan is brilliant. So just adjust the bidding process to support it.
Dilbert: You mean corrupt the bidding process.
His boss: Let’s not get hung up on the definitions of things.
The last line sums up the situation – that when it comes to bidding on large international projects, what one person (in Canada) might consider to be “bribery” is simply “effective lobbying” to another (in Libya).
Let’s not destroy an important Canadian company by insisting on prosecuting something that, in Libya, and in other parts of the world, is simply a way of doing business. The SNC-Lavalin case is clearly one that calls for an out-of-court settlement.
George Parker, Cobourg, Ont.
.......................................
Instead of taking the high road and facing the fraud and bribery accusations against it in court, SNC-Lavalin has engaged in a massive political lobbying effort.
The leniency the company seeks in wanting to avoid a trial and asking for a deferred prosecution agreement risks lowering professional ethical standards for the entire country. Its example encourages industry competitors to lower their standards; corrupt behavior could become merely a commercial consideration.
I fear we will devalue the considerable efforts of most Canadian companies to behave ethically, thus putting at risk the continued collective integrity of our engineers and trades contractors.
Much has been said about the loss of jobs if SNC-Lavalin cannot bid on government contracts for 10 years. There is no large job loss, in that there will be a normal rebalancing between SNC-Lavalin and its competitors. No single company would ever win all the bids and none of the companies bidding are immune to downsizing when they are not successful with bids.
We should feel sorry for the employees, the thousands of hard-working professionals who are having to assure friends and family they are not party to this behaviour.
R.G. Metka, Montreal
.......................................
It seems the Liberals caused one scandal by trying to avoid another. Can you imagine the fallout if no one in the PMO thought to question the decision not to offer a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin, potentially resulting in SNC’s conviction on charges of fraud and bribery, being shut out of federal government contracts for a decade, and sold to a foreign engineering company, resulting in the loss of thousands of well-paid jobs across the country?
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and NDP critic Nathan Cullen would be expressing outrage, demanding to know why the Prime Minister did what he did …
Oh, wait …
Maureen Hulbert, Toronto
Confused
We’re two weeks into the SNC-Lavalin affair and I’m still waiting for the scandal to emerge.
No break-ins to Conservative Party headquarters, no gym bags stuffed with $300,000 in unmarked bills. The nearest I can see, it hinges on whether “informing [the attorney-general] of particular considerations” within the meaning of the Shawcross Doctrine shades into pressure.
If indeed the Trudeau team crossed that rather subjective line, it was not for personal gain, or in my view, even political expediency, but in order to promote a legitimate alternative to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
If the Trudeau government’s handling of the affair appears confused, perhaps it’s partly because they’re as confused as I am as to what the “scandal” might actually be.
Andrew Leith Macrae, Toronto
.......................................
Why did Justin Trudeau not stand by then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, and instead (effectively) let her go?
Coz it’s 2019.
Ajay Rao, Toronto