Broken trust causes political damage
Surprising as it may seem, politics is built on principles, loyalty and trust. With Jody Wilson-Raybould’s recent resignation from cabinet, a rupture in trust has clearly occurred in the government.
It was all so different in 2015. History was made when the PM welcomed Wilson-Raybould as the first Indigenous minister of justice and attorney general. Photos depict a tangible bonding between Justin Trudeau and his minister.
No one foresaw then, that in 2019, she would leave cabinet, one month after she had been shuffled from justice to veteran’s affairs. She resigned “with a heavy heart.” The PM was “disappointed and puzzled.” So is the public.
What caused the breakdown between these two high-profile politicians?
Unfortunately, there are far more questions than there are answers.
The minister’s resignation was subsequent to anonymous allegations of obstruction of justice by PMO officials published in the Globe and Mail.
Was there interference and by whom? If so, it was not successful because Wilson-Raybould resisted any pressure to overturn the decision of her independent director of public prosecutions (DPP) regarding Montreal’s giant engineering firm SNC-Lavalin. The company had hoped to avoid a trial relating to millions of dollars paid in bribery charges during the Gadhafi era in Libya. The DPP disagreed.
Was there overt political pressure? Yes. The SNC lobbying was aggressive. Reports say that 50 registered meetings between SNC and officials took place, including a meeting with Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer. In addition, there were 14 meetings with PMO officials.
At what point does lobbying, a legitimate activity, provided it is transparent, turn into harassment? The minister would have needed blinkers not to feel the political pressure. SNC is hugely important to Quebec. But was she directly asked to intervene? Will we ever know?
Wilson-Raybould’s unprecedented engagement of a former Supreme Court justice to advise as to what she can say, given her Privy Council oath of confidentiality and her ethical obligations as a former attorney general, sends a strong message that any comments will be carefully considered.
So far, she has been unable, or unwilling, to comment. Her silence has been understandable because ministers do not traditionally comment on former portfolios. Related ongoing judicial proceedings further complicate the situation. However, her refusal to deny the story was interpreted as an unwillingness to support the prime minister. That assumption may, or may not, be correct.
But why did the former minister accept a second portfolio if she had been pressured? Did she feel an obligation to remain, given she was the only Indigenous representative around the cabinet table?
In the end, she resigned a day after meeting the prime minister, who, obviously uncomfortable, suggested the situation was her responsibility. Surely, as prime minister, he must understand that he, too, holds great accountability.
Finally, why did government insert a Criminal Code amendment into the budget omnibus bill sponsored by finance? The amendment (known as a deferred prosecution agreement in other countries) is a prosecutorial tool that allows companies a pass for wrongdoing, but only if a number of stringent measures are followed. The goals of such a remediation agreement are to avoid a criminal trial, to preserve jobs by not penalizing innocent employees and to allow a company to continue business in spite of wrongdoing.
Ironically, the government has promised to appoint an Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise with a “mandate to investigate allegations of human rights abuses linked to Canadian corporate activity abroad.” So what exactly is government policy regarding wrongdoing by Canadian companies?
The Globe article and the minister’s subsequent resignation were like a time bomb. Political damage has been strewn everywhere. SNC’s credit ratings have been downgraded. The government is in damage control. The Opposition smells blood. The commissioner of conflict of interest and ethics has launched an inquiry, quite narrow in scope, as has the justice committee. And the former minister is clearly fighting for her reputation against her own government.
We have only anonymous allegations at this point and one resignation. Time will tell if any laws have been broken.
But trust has been broken. And, frankly, that is damage enough.