Today, readers are responding to Margaret Wente’s column Jody or Justin: Who do you trust? Readers are discussing news that SNC-Lavalin warned federal prosecutors in writing last fall that the company could break up and move its corporate headquarters to the United States if it was not invited to negotiate a deal to suspend criminal prosecution.
"Canadians now have a stark choice about which politician they should believe: the smarmy Justin, with his repeated reassurance that there’s nothing to see here, or the earnest Jody, who’s so laden with probity and notes – and even tape recordings – that you wonder if she’s ever cracked a joke," writes Margaret Wente.The Globe and Mail
Don't under estimate Justin Trudeau. He may seem somewhat frazzled right now because of the tremendous pressure placed on him. Nevertheless, he knows how to counter punch. Oh, and yes I do trust him implicitly.
Who to trust Jody or Justin? Well, putting aside all the assumptions and insinuations being made in the press and in these comments, and just going by the visible facts, the one thing I can determine in relation to that question is: Jody’s story has remained consistent throughout, while the prime minister’s has varied significantly. So, for me, it’s really hard to trust the PM on this matter. Regarding Jody - I’m holding out judgement on that question, until we get more information.
Well, the CBC is currently reporting that while she was the Attorney-General, Ms. Wilson-Raybould recorded at least one of those conversations during which she testified to facing pressure from various representatives of the PMO. If it turns out that she did so without informing the other party that could certainly cause me to re-evaluate my position about who I would trust in this matter.
Well, that depends. Remember she was feeling consistent pressure from a number of people, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Wernick, Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford that she thought was highly inappropriate. She understood that it would only be her word against that of four of the most powerful people in the country. Remember this was political interference in the judicial system - a very serious matter that goes to the core of our democratic system in Canada. In those circumstances you might want an accurate accounting of events as well.
Readers are discussing to news that SNC-Lavalin warned federal prosecutors in writing last fall that the company could break up and move its corporate headquarters to the United States if it was not invited to negotiate a deal to suspend criminal prosecution.
Neil Bruce, the President & CEO of SNC-Lavalin, is photographed at the SNC-Lavalin office in downtown Toronto, on March 20 2019.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
So SNC-Lavalin threatened Canada with leaving and hurting Canadians if we had the temerity to prosecute them for fraud and corruption of governments? That shows the same contempt as the original fraud and corruption allegations thereby proving they haven't learned a thing, reformed a whit, are not remotely qualified for a DPA and must be a clear demonstration that Canada can neither be be threatened, nor bought. Right, Mr. Prime Minister? Mr. Prime Minister?! Mr. Prime Minister?!
You have it wrong. Canada is threatening SNC-Lavalin. Threatening substantial penalties. In turn, SNC-Lavalin is expressing the mutual negative impact. That is not a threat. It is merely a reality.
"Warned". What a nice, planted euphemism for attempted to threaten. And Ms. Roussel didn't bite. So they didn't get the DPA. Does that mean that they're in the process of moving? I haven't heard any such reports. And isn't SNC-Lavalin contractually bound with the Government of Quebec to keep its head office in Quebec for some time to come. And so what? The projects in Canada that need to be done will be undertaken by other companies who will hire the staff needed to do them.
Well, well, well. So the job loss threat was real, just as the government said all along. The last few days have indeed been very informative in terms of "truths" coming out.
They submitted a confidential document to the PPSC which according to the CBC was delivered to the Canadian Press anonymously. So we now know that Wilson-Raybould would have likely known that the PPSC was already aware of the so called public interest argument and that they were remaining firm on their decision to prosecute. This means that the argument that she was ignoring important info is not valid. She had the info long before Butts et al started hounding her. Now if someone would just leak another part of the puzzle and tell us why the PPSC chose not to offer a DPA then that would be great.
Many who support the actions of the Liberals and SNC executives in this sorry affair argue that SNC-Lavalin has reformed, that its ethics have improved. This revelation and the obvious contradictions demonstrate that these supporters were naive at best, overly partisan at worst.
Somewhere out there is the truth. We haven't heard it yet. But it's going to end someone's career. Stay tuned.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter.
From the Comments is designed to highlight interesting and thoughtful contributions from our readers. Some comments have been edited for clarity. Everyone can read the comments but only subscribers will be able to contribute. Thank you to everyone furthering debate across our site.