Because we couldn’t go another weekend in the interminable Double-Hyphen Affair without another bombshell, we got one in the revelation that among the materials that Jody Wilson-Raybould turned over to the justice committee was a recording she made of a conversation she had with outgoing Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, which was quickly pointed out was in violation of the ethical obligations of lawyers (and no, this isn’t a situation of whether you’re wearing your Attorney General or Minister of Justice hat – it’s whether you’re a lawyer, and if you are, you are forbidden from surreptitiously recording a conversation). ETA: This may have been overstating it, but there is an argument that Wernick could have been a client receiving advice, which is where it would violate the rules.
Here's what the Law Society of Ontario has to say about the practice of recording by lawyers. #cdnpoli #SNCLavalin pic.twitter.com/EXF4aYgl04
— Susan (@susandelacourt) March 29, 2019
I did listen to the recording, and I had a few observations, but there are a few things I noticed that weren’t being talked about in any of the rush to find a smoking gun. For starter, there is a very performative element to the recording – she’s asking very leading questions, and fishing for quotes. I know this because I make my living having conversations with people on tape in order to get quotes for stories. And some of the formality of the language with which she speaks – there is a lot of spelling out of acronyms and relationships that read like a literary device we call an “As you know, Bob,” where you explain things in dialogue to someone who should know what you’re talking about. This conversation was rife with this kind of phrasing, so it looked very much like she wanted this for a purpose. She stated that, while she knows it was unethical, she did it because she was afraid the conversation would “inappropriate” and she didn’t have staff around to take notes. But there is an intent here that I’m curious about.
As for the content of the conversation, a few things stood out for me, which I haven’t seen being written about in the media, because they are focusing on the quotes that she specifically set up for them. First of all, Wernick’s tone seemed to me to be more of a friendly warning – the PM was looking for answers, but I didn’t get the sense that there were threats, thinly veiled or otherwise. Wernick made the point several times in the conversation that “He wants to understand more why the DPA route isn’t being used.” Repeatedly, Wernick is trying to get information about why the Director of Public Prosecution has rejected it, and each time, Wilson-Raybould tried to bring it back to “I’m uncomfortable with this, but I’m happy to talk to you,” and threats that these conversations were bordering on inappropriate. Wernick keeps insisting that they are trying to keep these conversations above-board, and that they’re not actually asking her to do anything, but they’re looking for information because they want to ensure that they’ve done their due diligence with regard to those jobs.
Regarding outside legal advice, Wernick said that he was concerned the PM would seek it himself, or if Wilson-Raybould felt it more appropriate, have it go through her, and former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s name is bandied about several times, which should make everyone feel a little gross, but we developed a political culture of “Mother, May I?” in this country when it comes to getting the blessing of the Supreme Court of Canada, either with its current or former members. Wilson-Raybould went on about public perceptions of interference if she overrode the DPP’s decision about granting the remediation agreement, which is fair (and she warned him that she was keeping receipts), and there was even an exchange where she’s talking about the prime minister and prosecutorial independence, and Wernick said “I don’t think he sees it like that,” to which Wilson-Raybould snapped back, “Then nobody’s explaining that to him, Michael.” (As an aside, one wonders if that was not her job). But again, Wernick kept circling back for an explanation – not direction – asking when the DPP related her decision to Wilson-Raybould, and specifically asking “Can they get her to explain?” Wilson-Raybould insisted that the Prime Minister’s office had the report since September, to which Wernick replied “That’s news to me.” And what I find fascinating is that Wernick keeps asking for explanations, and the media picked out the quotes about pressure. They were very much talking past one another,
There were the other documents she turned over, which included her reasons for resigning from Cabinet, and a couple of things leapt out at me from there – one being that with this release, she doesn’t think she has anything left to contribute to a formal process in looking into this. The other is that in her personal observations at the end, she goes on about looking forward “to a future where we truly do politics differently,” which could be hints about future political ambitions. (John Geddes has some more good parsing about parts of the Cabinet conversation around DPAs here).
In fallout from this, Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that he hadn’t been briefed on this conversation, and that he wished that Wilson-Raybould had come to him directly, but he’s taken responsibility for the loss of trust, announced next steps, and he wants to move forward (as a team). This while more Liberals in the caucus are getting restive and want Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to be ousted, and they’re signing their names to it rather than whispering anonymously. With Wernick already on his way out, and Wilson-Raybould saying that there’s no more for her to tell, one supposes that Trudeau hopes this will finally put an end to things and he can move forward without showing any further contrition that his taking responsibility for the breakdown in trust, and that he can leave it up to his pabulum talking points going forward. I guess we’ll see how much is left to litigate in Question Period, but I guess we’ll see if there are any additional rabbits to be pulled out of hats now.
And then come the hot takes, and hottest of all is Andrew Coyne, who takes this as a complete vindication for Wilson-Raybould. Susan Delacourt sees some poetic parallels between Trudeau fighting for his political life right now, with that boxing match with Senator Brazeau some seven years ago this weekend. Chris Selley notes that the tape really won’t change anyone’s mind, but does give Wilson-Raybould props for not bowing to the status quo.
https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1111738095018430465
Good reads:
- The prime minister named an interim Auditor General, as well as the date that the new Clerk of the Privy Council takes office.
- The government is contemplating additional retaliatory tariffs to convince the Americans to lift their steel and aluminium tariffs.
- Canada is asking the UN for another couple of weeks to consider the decision to extend the Mali mission.
- Bill Morneau and Jean-Yves Duclos were in Quebec City, strongly hinting that Davie Shipyard will be getting new federal contracts soon.
- Marie-Claude Bibeau says they are waiting for visas so that a high-level delegation can head to China to discuss the canola situation.
- Navdeep Bains headed to Windsor after Chrysler announced 1500 job cuts there.
- The justice department is playing defensive on the Mark Norman case, insisting that the redactions by a Wernick memo are above-board and for the court to decide.
- Senator Lynn Beyak continues to refuse to remove the racist letters from her website, and insists “there’s no racism in Canada.”
- At the Progress Summit, Jagmeet Singh laid out a signature platform proposal of…raising capital gains taxes. So that’s going well.
- Colby Cosh appears to be a bit exasperated by the Alberta election.
- Alan Freeman has concerns about Senator André Pratte moonlighting for Power Corporation in Montreal.
- Kevin Carmichael offers a suggestion that the government talk about addressing inequality rather than framing it under the pabulum Middle Class™ talking points.
- Chantal Hébert reminds us that the plight of Grassy Narrow is one that we should be angry about, as it has been going on for 40 years.
- Andrew Coyne wonders if the rest of Canada has the political courage to stand up to Quebec on their “secularism” bill, in a meaningful way.
- My weekend column looks at Samara Canada’s democracy “report card,” and what the fixes that we need are, which they pussyfoot around.
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
Attorney General
Under section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada is the chief law officer of the Crown and as such:
Responsibilities
is entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the office of the Attorney General of England by law or usage, in so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Canada, and also with the powers and duties that, by the laws of the provinces, belonged to the office of attorney general of each province up to the time when the Constitution Act, 1867, came into effect, in so far as those laws under the provisions of the said Act are to be administered and carried into effect by the Government of Canada; (many of which, in relation to prosecutions, are now exercised by the independent Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General);
shall advise the heads of departments of the government on all matters of law connected with such departments; and
shall have the regulation and conduct all litigation for or against the Crown or any department, in respect of any subject within the authority of jurisdiction of Canada.
Legal Services to Government
The Attorney General provides legal services to the government and its departments and agencies. These services include the provision of legal advice, the conduct of litigation and the drafting of legislation and regulations.
While client departments generally provide instructions to the Attorney General in civil litigation matters, the Attorney General represents the Crown and not individual departments or agencies. Therefore, the Attorney General seeks to protect interests for the whole of government when providing legal advice and conducting litigation
“it’s whether you’re a lawyer, and if you are, you are forbidden from surreptitiously recording a conversation”
A strange notion seems to have developed that any time a lawyer talks to any person about anything that person becomes a client. That simply isn’t true. So, in the present case, as the language tweeted by Delacourt demonstrates, Wilson-Raybould broke no rules because Wernick was neither “a client or another legal practitioner.” You can unclutch your pearls now, Dale.
Ultimately, whether it’s legal or not really won’t matter, I am confident about that. Although how it would be handled in a court of law as a piece of evidence — that would be very interesting and I’m sure disappointing to people who say things like “you can unclutch your pearls now.”
With regard to all the feedback from media and so on that it’s okay because JWR is on the side of the angels — I can only think they have never had a conventional job where rudimentary trust of your co-workers should be a given. Many people will identify with the poor sod who didn’t know he was being recorded, because they have to negotiate challenging work relationships every day. If she had revealed that she recorded that conversation at the Justice Committee, even if she hadn’t played it, it would have complicated the image she wanted to project.
Eventually, that little detail will become more significant to people. The more clips get played, the more obvious it is that she manipulated the conversation and seeded it with her favourite quotes.
“In fallout from this, Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that he hadn’t been briefed on this conversation…”
They had the audio for 3 days, and this is the best they can come up with: the dog ate my homework?
It seems odd in retrospect that nobody speculated that she had a recording, given how precise her testimony was in front of the Justice committee. Although, it looks like Wernick might have figured it out, maybe after her testimony. (In the recording, he sounds to me totally baffled at how she ramps up the tenor of the conversation.)
To me, it signifies how naive everyone has been during this whole thing, from the PMO, to opposition, to the media — everyone you rely on to see the bigger picture. Even now, everyone is turning their heads in the direction JWR points. It doesn’t bode well for our ability to detect election interference.