Political Interference in the Case of
SNC-Lavalin
Hearings of the
Standing Committee on
Justice
and Human Rights -- the Significance of
Wernick's
Testimony
- Barbara Biley -
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of
the House of Commons heard from witnesses this week at the public
hearings it is conducting "for the study of the Remediation Agreements,
the Shawcross Doctrine and the Discussions between the Office of the
Attorney General and Government Colleagues." On February 21 the
committee heard from Attorney General David Lametti; Deputy Minister of
Justice and Deputy Attorney General Nathalie Drouin and Clerk of the
Privy Council Michael Wernick. On February 27 the Committee heard
former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and, besides others, it is
scheduled to hear Prime Minister Trudeau's former Principle Secretary
Gerald Butts on March 6. Butts resigned his post on February 18, saying
in his resignation letter that he did this so as to "not take one
moment
away from the vital work the Prime Minister and his office is doing for
all Canadians."
The hearings are being held to address concerns
regarding
accusations of attempts by the Office of the Prime Minister to
influence the course of criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.
The accusations were first revealed in an article by Robert Fife
in the Globe and Mail on February 7 in which the claim was
made, citing "sources," that members of the Prime Minister's
Office "pressured" then Attorney General Jody Wilson Raybould to
use her authority to get the director of public prosecutions to
reverse her decision and offer a remediation agreement to
SNC-Lavalin.[1] A remediation
agreement would have resulted in the
staying of criminal charges that the company is facing.
SNC-Lavalin is appealing the decision.
What Michael Wernick's Testimony Reveals
Mr. Wernick chose to preface his testimony with opening
remarks which have scandalized the country in various ways, not
least of which is how he used the hearings as a
"bully-pulpit"[2] to
present personal views of an inflammatory and defensive nature,
contrary to the people's understanding of the impartiality
expected from a senior public servant.[3]
In this regard, Wernick's
views seemed to have the aim of intimidating any individual or
political force in the country that dares to challenge the status
quo and express an opinion contrary to that of the ruling elite
as currently represented by the Trudeau government. He opened by
saying, "A lot has been said and written in the last few weeks
and I think there are a couple of things that need to be
clarified. I worry about my country right now, I'm deeply
concerned about my country right now and its politics and where
it's headed. I worry about foreign interference in the upcoming
election and we're working hard on that. I worry about the rising
tide of incitements to violence, when people use terms like
'treason' and 'traitor' in open discourse. Those are the words
that lead to assassination. I'm worried that someone is going to
be shot in this country this year during the political
campaign."
Wernick next made reference to
remarks
made by Conservative
Senator Michael Tkachuk at a pro-pipeline rally on Parliament
Hill. The Senator was reported in the press to have told the
rally "I know you've rolled all the way here, and I'm going to
ask you one more thing: I want you to roll over every Liberal
left in the country, Because when they're gone these bills are
gone." The reference was to two bills before Parliament and clearly
to "roll over every Liberal left in the country" was an appeal for
voters to defeat the Liberals in the
upcoming October federal election. Wernick, however, said, "I think
that it's totally
unacceptable that a member of the Parliament of Canada would
incite people to drive trucks over people, after what happened in
Toronto last summer. Totally unacceptable and I hope that you, as
parliamentarians, are going to condemn that."
To accuse Senator Tkachuk of calling for the equivalent
of
the van attack in Toronto in which 10 people were killed and 16
injured degrades political discourse in Canada. It also provides
feedstock to the Trudeau government's rationale to
justify putting the police in charge of elections and deciding
what is and is not legitimate speech.
Having raised the spectre of assassinations and other
violence, along with claims that the reputations of honourable people
are "being besmirched and dragged through the market square," and
reference to the "trolling from the vomitorium of social media entering
the open media arena," Wernick said that "Most of all, I worry
about people losing faith in the institutions of governance in
this country, and that's why these proceedings are so important."
He then sought to reassure Canadians that they have nothing to
worry about concerning the rule of law in this country, because
everything that was done was legal.
Are we to understand that because he is an experienced
civil
servant, one of whose main qualifications is to not get involved
in partisan politics, the committee conducting the hearings
should draw the same conclusion, that everything is legal and
above-board? Wernick forcefully asserted that everything is
working fine, "the prosecutor is independent," "the Lobbying
Act worked as intended," "the ethics commissioner initiated
his own process," "the shields held," the proof that the
government is not "soft on corporate crime" is that "the company
did not get what it wanted -- demonstrably, because they're
seeking judicial review."
What is the purpose of this presentation?
Wernick made best efforts to present his actions as
legal, along with those of others whose actions he is tasked with
shielding
from public scrutiny. But his testimony
should in fact be seen as setting the stage for what is to come.
Not without reason, he expressly conflated what is legal with
what is presented as being "legitimate" for reasons of national
security or job creation or a matter of being humanitarian, and
the like. The most egregious violations of the fundamental
principles guiding the rule of law nationally and internationally
are dispensed with in the name of a cause said to make the
actions "legitimate."
 His personal concerns for
his country served to raise
alarm
and create a climate of fear and suspicion of foreign actors and of
one another, particularly in the context of the federal election,
as a justification for increased police powers. This is the modus
operandi paving the way to justify the
criminalization of dissent and to silence all those who undermine
the people's "faith in the institutions of governance in this
country," the very point raised by the political police when they
instruct political parties of what is "legitimate opinion" and what
is not. Any opinion contrary to the official state position is
considered to be "illegitimate." This is in line with measures
taken to expand the role of the state's intelligence agencies in
elections and the attempts to enforce officially
sanctioned political opinion.
When everything is said and done it looks like Michael
Wernick made the ultimate medieval chivalrous gesture of falling
on his own sword, considering himself the
consummate civil servant, devoted to defending the person of state
in these troubled times. At a time the shameless pay-the-rich
corruption and shenanigans of consecutive governments have shattered
"faith in the institutions of governance," what the Clerk of the Privy
Council has come to tell the nation amounts to saying, it is not only
all "legal" but, more importantly, "legitimate" because of the high
ideals involved to save jobs and, in any case, you are powerless to do
anything about it. At a time, the "institutions of
governance" are being called into question by the polity precisely
because they are instruments to serve the rich, the servants of the
Canadian state rise to defend this practice. In the corridors of power,
laws can be snuck in which make whatever the rich demand legal, while
the coterie in government, the highest position in the civil service,
former justices of the Supreme Court and the media argue the merits, by
making themselves the decision-makers on what is "legitimate" and what
is not.
Notes
1. A Justice Department
backgrounder titled "Remediation Agreements and Orders to Address
Corporate Crime," states that remediation agreements can be used by
prosecutors "at their discretion to address specified economic crimes
if they consider it to be in the public interest and appropriate in the
circumstances." It goes on to explain, "A remediation agreement would
be a voluntary agreement between a prosecutor and an organization
accused of committing an offence. Agreements would set out an end date
and would need to be presented to a judge for approval. [...] While an
agreement is in force, any criminal prosecution for conduct that is
covered by the agreement would be put on hold. If the accused
organization complies with terms and conditions set out in the
agreement, the prosecutor would apply to a judge for an order of
successful completion when the agreement expires. The charges would
then be stayed and no criminal conviction would result. If the accused
did not comply, the charges could be revived and the accused could be
prosecuted and potentially convicted."
In considering a company for a remediation agreement, "if the
organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or
4 of the Corruption of Foreign
Public Officials Act, the prosecutor
must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect
on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the
organization or individual involved." In other words, amongst the
reasons that could be given for offering a remediation agreement, the
future of the company is not a legal option available.
2. The term "bully pulpit" was coined by
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to his office as
a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from
which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt used the word bully as an
adjective meaning "superb," "wonderful" or "first-rate," a more
common usage at that time, not the noun bully ("a blustering,
browbeating person"), that is common today. (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary)
3. The Government of Canada's
Privy Council website says the role of the Clerk "is to advise the
Prime Minister and elected Government officials in managing the
country. The Clerk does so from an objective, non-partisan, public
policy perspective. He also ensures Canada's federal public service is
managed effectively and follows a code of value and ethics in its work
to design and deliver high quality services and programs for Canadians
and their families."
This article was published in
Volume 49 Number 7 - March 2, 2019
Article Link:
Political Interference in the Case of
SNC-Lavalin: Hearings of the
Standing Committee on
Justice
and Human Rights -- the Significance of
Wernick's
Testimony - Barbara Biley
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
