August 20, 2019
Justin Trudeau’s SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal was a sad chapter in our country’s history. The Prime Minister of Canada was found to have broken ethics laws in order to try and get his corporate friends out of criminal corruption charges.
The Ethics Commissioner provided many new details for Canadians concerned about this corruption scandal, but there are now even more outstanding questions and Canadians deserve answers.
Justin Trudeau promised to do politics differently. He promised to be open, transparent, and honest, but throughout this corruption scandal he has proven time and time again to be not as advertised. He has stonewalled the Ethics Commissioner, shut-down committee investigations, and silenced Jody Wilson-Raybould.
This week, Canada’s Conservatives have recalled the Ethics Committee in the search of answers. Let’s hope the Liberal members on the committee do the right-thing, put the interests of our country ahead of the Liberal Party, and allow the committee to look into the matter.
Here are a few of the outstanding questions in Justin Trudeau’s SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal:
1) On April 3, 2019, Justin Trudeau said “we put forward an unprecedented waiver that suspended solicitor client privilege in this matter, that suspended cabinet confidentiality so (Jody Wilson-Raybould) could speak fully to this matter.” Yet the Ethics Commissioner found that 9 people were being gagged by Justin Trudeau and were unable to talk. Why is he continuing the cover-up?
2) In a letter dated June 13, 2019, Justin Trudeau’s deputy minister sent a letter to the Ethics Commissioner declining to provide additional information. Did Justin Trudeau or his close advisors instruct another public servant to do his political dirty work?
3) The Table of Public Statutes identifies the Minister of Justice as the responsible Minister for the sections of the Criminal Code related to remediation agreements. The Ethics Commissioner revealed that Jody Wilson-Raybould did not sign the Memorandum to Cabinet authorizing this legislative change. Who did?
4) Why did Justin Trudeau say after his September 17th meeting with Jody Wilson-Raybould that she was open to revisiting her position on interfering in an ongoing criminal trial?
5) Why did Scott Brison attempt to exert influence over Jody Wilson-Raybould to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin?
6) Why did Scott Brison send SNC-Lavalin’s legal strategy to senior advisors to Justin Trudeau two weeks after SNC-Lavalin launched a judicial review of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to not negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement?
7) Why did senior advisors to Justin Trudeau brief SNC-Lavalin that Gerald Butts would advocate for their issues with Jody Wilson-Raybould as the two of them met at the Chateau Laurier?
8) Why did Gerald Butts tell Jody Wilson-Raybould’s Chief of Staff that “the government had set up the remediation agreement regime to allow SNC-Lavalin to benefit from the tool”.
9) Does Justin Trudeau agree with his legal counsel that he is not “vicariously liable” for the actions of his staff? How does this equate to “taking full responsibility”?
10) In the Trudeau II Report, the Ethics Commissioner writes “Mr. Trudeau’s legal counsel also wrote that Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s anger at being moved from the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General coloured her perception of prior events…Ms. Wilson-Raybould failed in her duty, as Attorney General, to acquaint herself with all the relevant facts. Rather than making a meaningful, independent decision of her own, Ms. Wilson-Raybould reflexively deferred to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision.” Does Justin Trudeau agree with his legal counsel’s apparent assessment that Jody Wilson-Raybould was emotional and couldn’t be reasoned with?