National Post (National Edition)
Trudeau and SNC-Lavalin
Re: ‘Troubling’ tactics and denial of access, Brian Platt, Aug. 15
What does it mean to “take responsibility” if one does not apologize, does not resign, does not acknowledge or concede that those whom he strong-armed, censored and disparaged had cause to protest, and does not dismiss anyone involved in the crime or the coverup? I am at a loss. And yet, not surprised.
Simone Collier, Thornhill, Ont.
With Mario Dion’s report, we finally have an opinion that Justin Trudeau says he is willing to accept. But, Trudeau says he will not apologize for standing up for Canadian jobs. Evidently, he sees standing up for Canadian jobs as a legitimate excuse to wallow in conflicts of interest. Indeed, the prime minister makes it sound as though he is proud to take full responsibility for his transgressions because, in his mind, they serve a greater good, namely, protecting Canadian jobs.
It is likely Trudeau would not have travelled the road he did with SNC-Lavalin had he not been guided the whole way by his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, and the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick. Bringing Butts back to help with the upcoming election campaign reinforces the impression that Trudeau is content to be guided along similar rockstrewn roads in the future. Once Stephen Harper’s former top aide Nigel Wright resigned, Harper never brought him back. This is as it should be.
You will have noticed that Justice Minister David Lametti has not yet offered a deferred prosecution agreement to SNC-Lavalin. Surely, if protecting Canadian jobs is such a high priority, he would have done this by now. Or, has he reviewed all the facts and determined that his predecessor Jody Wilson-Raybould was right all along?
It is now too late for the Liberal party to set any of this straight before the election in October. It cannot easily make amends to Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, the former president of the Treasury Board, without simply withdrawing its candidates from the elections in their ridings.
Patrick Cowan, North York, Ont.
I grew up at a time when society seemed to be aware of standards of right and wrong, regardless of politics or station in life. A few decades ago, though, something called situation ethics became part of the school curriculum, not as a subject, but part of teaching a variety of subjects.
Does anyone remember the “life boat exercises” or “if a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family is he wrong”? Moral relativity has become the norm, where one’s deeds stand against one’s intent rather than a law or moral imperative.
No wonder then that Justin Trudeau, in spite of saying he was responsible for everything in the Ethics Commissioner’s report, did not think he owed an apology to anyone. In other words, he is above the law when he thinks his actions are noble.
Sadly, since most of the Liberal voters are also products of situation ethics, they will continue to support him come election time.
Allan Garneau, Abbotsford B.C.
Re: A strong whiff of abuse of power, Andrew Coyne, Aug. 15 Andrew Coyne comes close to the heart of the matter when he writes of “abuse of power and, possibly, obstruction of justice” in the SNC-Lavalin affair. The same politicians who can pressure independent prosecutors to dismiss a charge can pressure them to initiate one — against SNC, former politicians, or me. That way lies tyranny.
Ron Freedman, Toronto
The behaviour of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others acting pursuant to his authority as catalogued in the Dion report and, in most instances, apparently not seriously denied, goes far beyond a mere breach of section 9 of the toothless Conflict of Interest Act. Most, if not all, of it appears to clearly constitute an offence under section 139 (2) of the Criminal Code.
This provision holds that anyone who wilfully and in any manner obstructs (ie. impedes or retards progress) or perverts (ie. leads astray from right conduct) the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence. The concerted effort made by the prime minister and various of his underlings to derail the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in this instance would appear to be a text-book example of abuse of power and obstruction or perversion of the course of justice.
David Marley, West Vancouver, BC
Justin Trudeau was found to have broken the federal conflict of interest law. He effectively obstructed justice. He says he did it to protect Canadian jobs. Does anyone really believe this? Could the real reason be that Trudeau broke the law because he knows no federal party can win power without strong support in the province of Quebec? Therefore, when companies like SNC (with all of the clout and special status that many Quebec companies hold in the halls of power of Ottawa) need help, their pleas get heard? And when Trudeau says he was trying to protect Canadian jobs, was he really trying to protect his job?
Regardless, do Canadians want a leader who is willing to break the law just because he or she believes they know what’s best?
Ian Keough, Toronto