Margaret Wente’s opinion piece published 28 February 2019 about the SNC Lavalin affair is an example of a press feeding frenzy. The press smells blood and like sharks they circle in for the kill, oblivious of the consequences.
In her testimony, Jody Wilson-Raybould outlined 15 key interactions in a 4 month period which she interpreted as undue pressure or political interference on the SNC Lavalin file. Lost in all the rhetoric is the fact that she is both Justice Minister and Attorney-General. As part of her role as Justice Minister, she is responsible for ensuring that Canada has a rigorous but fair set of laws. One would expect that she would have many more meetings about this and other such matters over the course of 4 months. Having one person serve as Justice Minister and Attorney General has served Canada well for most of its existence. Perhaps politics is just too complicated these days for one person to fulfil both roles, at least it seems it is for Jody Wilson-Raybould. It is time to split the role as it is in the UK and many other democratic countries around the world. In the SNC Lavalin case, there is already a provision for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Not a slap on the wrist, but a very significant penalty that would financially hurt SNC Lavalin executives and shareholders enough to create real change so that such illegal activity did not occur again. The SNC Lavalin case is very significant to Canada since the potential of a prosecution approach could be to put them out of business or cause them to relocate their head office to another country. Thousands of jobs could be lost, huge tax revenues could be lost, and perhaps even more significant in the long term there could be huge losses of Capital flow into Canada. To Ms Wente’s credit, she did acknowledge that she did not have any solutions for this problem, but then blithely goes on to endorse Jody Wilson-Raybould’s decision as the only right solution with no acknowledgement or even understanding of the devastating consequences for Canada. And similarly, Andrew Scheer has not offered any solutions and has implied that if he had been Prime Minister, he would not have talked to the Justice Minister and Attorney General about SNC Lavalin, in turn implying that he would not fight to save Canadian jobs. Does Canada want a Prime Minister that will not fight to save Canadian jobs or a Prime Minister who will? I am not ashamed for my country nor a Prime Minister who fights for Canadian jobs.
0 Comments
Here is Ministerial Accountability as outlined in official government document
"Our Parliamentary Framework".
Here are Roles and Responsibilities of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada as outlined in the Official Justice Department Website.
Jody Wilson-Raybould had a responsibility to “defend Cabinet decisions” as Justice Minister but had political independence as Attorney General while still being accountable to Parliament. Parliament has the responsibility of ensuring that she does both jobs appropriately. One would assume that Parliament would have the right to inquire about anything she does, provide guidance on what she does and how she does it without directing her final decision. A position fraught with difficulties as we have seen. With Respect to SNC Lavalin, she had the responsibility in her due diligence to consider the case through the prism of Canadian Law. What was her due diligence process? Nobody has asked and she has only said that she did do due diligence. From everything we know so far, it appears that her due diligence primarily focused on the legalities of persecution. There is little evidence that she considered a DPA (Deferred Prosecution Agreement) with equal due diligence. If she did, and given this is the first time in Canada’s history that we have prosecuted such a significant case, it would be reasonable to expect that due diligence on a DPA would be to consult with outside experts such as Beverley McLachlin or even the UK and the US given their much greater and longer experience in such matters. It would be right for Parliament to direct her to do so as part of her due diligence. Did this happen? What other aspects did she consider or not consider? While she does have political independence, she also has a responsibility to Parliament to demonstrate that she is doing an appropriate job and should expect some guidance from Parliament. It appears that the dialogue between Jody Wilson-Raybould and other members of Parliament diverged from a discussion to find a solution to two entirely different opinions of what that discussion actually was. Is there still not room for some sort of compromise solution? After all, that is how our democracy is supposed to work. What if the prosecution goes ahead but the law in modified to allow for the consideration of a Negotiated Agreement, if convicted, as the penalty in this case. If SNC Lavalin is found guilty of the charges, then the government would have more leverage in negotiating such an agreement. Penalties under such an agreement could be very severe, but stop short of putting them out of business. This would be a win for democracy, a win for the people with jobs at SNC Lavalin, a win for Canadian taxpayers, and a win for business in that SNC Lavalin will likely lead the way in developing a more socially moral business ethic. |
If you already have a feed reader set up, choose that reader and add this blog. Otherwise I suggest you select FeedBlitz to get email notifications of new blog posts.
AuthorRetired and loving life. Archives
February 2024
Categories
All
Link to my Climate Change blog: |