I think it’s fair to say that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony at the Commons justice committee was far more explosive than most of us anticipated. Several of us had anticipated to be something that was going to be sufficiently vague so that everyone could read they wanted into it, and we’d be no better off than before. Well, that didn’t happen. Right off the start, she detailed how she was inappropriately pressured by several senior staffers, and a four-month campaign to get her to change her mind on the question of SNC-Lavalin, and the line for her was when they tried to make the case that SNC-Lavalin packing up their headquarters for London either in the middle of the Quebec election or six months before a federal election would be bad news for everyone, and saying that the prime minister made the point that he’s a Montreal MP. She also stated that she didn’t feel the need to resign but would have if they overrode her and published a direction in the Canada Gazette to the Director of Public Prosecutions (no kidding), but toward the end, she did say that nothing illegal happened (despite the fact that the Conservatives have spent the past two weeks trying to make the case that criminal obstruction of justice happened). Oh, and she refused to say whether she still has confidence in the prime minister. (More highlights here). While the opposition questions were, well, less questions than assertions that they believed her version of events and for her to elaborate on just how pressured she felt (and they asked the same thing over, and over, and over, for the entire four-hour hearing), while the Liberals made a somewhat concerted effort to poke holes in where she drew the line of what was inappropriate, and of her loyalty to the prime minister as party leader. Also noteworthy was that very few of the MPs who were involved in questioning were regular members of the committee – the Liberals somewhat inappropriately pulling in a parliamentary secretary for finance, Jennifer O’Connell, along with Ruby Sahota, to be their lead questioners, while the Conservatives pulled in Lisa Raitt and Pierre Paul-Hus as their “heavy hitters.” (The NDP also brought in Charlie Angus and Nathan Cullen to delivery sanctimony in the later rounds, once regular committee member Murray Rankin, had asked his questions).
So if I'm following, the reason why JWR didn't resign at any point during her tenure as AG is because she believed she had successfully held the line on prosecutorial independence. She 'won' in the sense that no directive was issued and the DPP remained in charge.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 27, 2019
When it was all over, Andrew Scheer rushed to a microphone to declare that Justin Trudeau needed to resign and the RCMP needed to open up an investigation, immediately overplaying his hand. Jagmeet Singh in turn demanded a public inquiry, but then again, there is nothing that doesn’t demand a national public inquiry. And Trudeau? He came out and said that he completely disagrees with Wilson-Raybould’s characterization of things, that they never crossed a line, and went back to his line about standing up for jobs while respecting the rule of law.
https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1100977251351515138
For crying out loud, the person at the centre of this spent part of her testimony *reassuring us* that 1) no law was broken, and 2) the system and the rule of law are fine.
So no. Not a constitutional crisis.
— Emmett Macfarlane 🇺🇦 🇨🇦 (@EmmMacfarlane) February 28, 2019
But that’s really where this all winds up, doesn’t it – the subjective line of what constituted “inappropriate” pressure. And this is where the utility of any kind of investigation will fail – the Commons committee certainly won’t be able to come up with a definition because of partisan interest (and no, the Senate would not really do any better, nor do they have the time to devote to their own study of this issue because they are facing a crisis on their Order Paper). The Ethics Commissioner doesn’t have the ambit to deal with this kind of situation. A public inquiry would be led by a former jurist, but this is not a legal question – it’s one of subjective ethical considerations. That’s why this isn’t some black-and-white issue with regard to being on Trudeau or Wilson-Raybould’s side, because there isn’t a clear line. Was the amount of pressure the PMO was putting on her inappropriate? Probably, if her version of events is to be believed (and the description of trying to get an eminent legal mind to provide a third party opinion they could use did stick in my craw, though you will recall that Stephen Harper did the same thing in his attempt to put Marc Nadon on the Supreme Court), but they will be quick to justify it with political considerations (which, let’s face it, are not insignificant for any party). I fully expect Trudeau and the Liberals to try and nuance the hell out of this in the coming days – once you give them the requisite 36 to 48 hours to finally stop stepping all over their message and come up with a coherent line – and there may be another resignation or two from the PMO, but it won’t be from Trudeau. When the committee inevitably recommends that the government split the role of minister of justice and Attorney General into two separate roles, I would imagine that Trudeau would be all over that as a demonstration of good faith, but remember that would require a legislative change, and we’ll see if there’s enough time for that to pass in the remaining weeks of this parliament, or if it becomes an electoral promise (from all parties) to tackle first thing in the next parliament. We’ll have to see.
AGAIN: the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner does NOT have the mandate or capacity to properly investigate this. The mandate relates to conflict of interest, not "ethics" broadly construed. Read our study here: https://t.co/e7IICHLrUM
— Emmett Macfarlane 🇺🇦 🇨🇦 (@EmmMacfarlane) February 28, 2019
Also worth noting that this isn't something that should only be investigated or addressed by "jurists," as suggested by a commentator on CBC tonight. It's an ethics and governance issue, not just a legal issue.
— Emmett Macfarlane 🇺🇦 🇨🇦 (@EmmMacfarlane) February 28, 2019
In hot takes – and there were so, so many, Andrew Coyne calls it a full-out crisis for the PMO and Wilson-Raybould’s testimony to be “damning evidence”, while Chantal Hébert suspects that Trudeau will cling to the line that no laws were broken. Colby Cosh calls it the most compelling event in our Parliament in ages which doesn’t paint a pretty picture of “business as usual,” while Susan Delacourt says that this demonstration of the hard cynicism of power makes it difficult for Trudeau to run on “sunny ways” again this fall. There were a number of columnists that started writing Trudeau’s political obituary, but I frankly didn’t bother with them because seriously, we are a long way from that, particularly if Quebec takes the position that he was standing up for them and their jobs. Paul Wells pens a scorcher about pressure, partisanship, and the particular moral morass that the Liberals find themselves in after this whole affair.
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1100964053092950016
Good reads:
- Ralph Goodale says the government is tabling a bill to provide for no-cost expedited pardons for those convicted of simple cannabis possession.
- With a legit fake news article about Michael Wernick circulating, Karina Gould says she doesn’t want to prejudge if this would trigger the new election incident protocol.
- The International Civil Aviation Office in Montreal suffered a bad cyber-attack in 2016, but ignored vulnerabilities and tried to cover the hack up.
- In a not unrelated matter to today’s drama, it was revealed that SNC-Lavalin procured prostitutes for Muammar Gaddafi’s son during a visit to Canada.
- The RCMP is ramping up preparations for the possible return of ISIS fighters to Canada.
- Drama in the Senate as Conservatives are gaming committee study on C-48 (tanker ban), as well as forcing procedural votes in the Chamber (to force negotiations).
- Liberal MP John Oliver stepped down as a parliamentary secretary and announced he’s not running again this fall. For family reasons, obviously.
Odds and ends:
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
Thank you for the coverage. I needed that with all the purple prose from people like Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells. I won’t even go into my thoughts about the Globe and Mail.