A Fascinating Rorschach Test

Reading the newspaper this morning, it occurred to me that the reactions to Jody Wilson Raybould's testimony before the Commons Justice Committee constitute a kind of political Rorschach Test, one that helps reveal people's values, psychology and moral sensibilities. As one would expect, it demonstrates that the Canadian psyche is a multi-faceted one, one that prompts reactions ranging from outright condemnation of the government as if it were the devil incarnate to a reflexive defence of the Liberals. While some of these public reactions constitute nothing more than political theatre, they are worthy of deeper examination.

First, there was the overblown call by Andrew Scheer for Justin Trudeau to resign. A risible attempt to suggest he occupies the high moral ground, his gesture would satisfy only inveterate Conservative supporters who think with their adrenaline, not their brains. In many ways, his stunt represents politics at its manipulative worst.

But extreme partisanship that abandons critical thinking is hardly limited to the right. A popular theme in so-called progressive circles found online and in Facebook political groups is that it is incumbent upon all to rally to the Liberal Party. The argument, simplistic in the extreme, is that to join in the criticism of Trudeau's tactics is to empower the Conservatives and risk handing over the next federal election to them.

This depiction of the political landscape through a Manichean filter benefits no one. Like the Conservative hysteria, it demands a surrender of critical thinking and morality in service of what is depicted as a far lesser evil than the party of Scheer. As well, there is a distressing tactic, taken right out of the reactionary's page, of shooting the messenger. The CBC, CTV, major newspapers, etc. are condemned as tools of the right for reporting on this scandal and keeping it alive. I choose to provide no links to demonstrate any of this, as I do not want to give them further exposure, but they are quite easy to find if you look.

The idea of voting for the lesser of evils no longer holds any appeal for me. Perhaps that sensibility is a function of my age as well as extensive reading and my ongoing efforts to be a critical thinker. The fact is that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not the only choice in the next election, and perhaps it is time for people to start taking their vote with greater seriousness and reflection. For a perspective on this, I highly recommend a post by The Mound that he wrote last month. As well, a post he wrote yesterday makes for worthwhile reading.

Finally, there is the reaction based, neither on pragmatics nor partisanship, but on morality and integrity. As I wrote yesterday, what I took away from Wilson-Raybould's testimony was a woman who fought hard to maintain her principles and integrity in the face of incredible pressure from both the Prime Minister and his operatives. It is a theme upon which Tanya Talaga writes:

Across Indigenous social media, this one quote of Wilson-Raybould’s was shared over and over again, “I was taught to always hold true to your core values, principles and to act with integrity. I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth-teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House. This is who I am and who I always will be.”

An indigenous upbringing helped inform those principles:

“The history of Crown-Indigenous relations in this country, includes a history of the rule of law not being respected. Indeed, one of the main reasons for the urgent need for justice and reconciliation today is that in the history of our country we have not always upheld foundational values such as the rule of law in our relations with Indigenous peoples. And I have seen the negative impacts for freedom, equality and a just society this can have firsthand.”

For over 150 years Canada has bent laws, disrespected treaties, spent millions taking First Nations to court over resource sharing and tried to bully communities into pipelines.

But Wilson-Raybould refused to be complicit.

Integrity in public office is rarely seen, but I like to think I can recognize it when I see it. And judging by some of the reactions I have seen and read about, I am hardly alone in valuing it.

We have all witnessed politicians of various stripes come and go. Our cynicism, our pragmatism, our ideology clearly play a role in that revolving door. But sometimes the truth really is out there; all we have to do to see it is to try to shed some of our preconditioned responses.

For What It's Worth

I would like to use this post to comment on one of the questions swirling around the resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould, one that came up yet again on last night's At Issue panel:

Why did Wilson-Raybould wait until she was was moved to Veterans Affairs to resign from cabinet?

The implication of the question is that hers was a 'sour-grapes' resignation, not a principled one, since the time to resign was when she felt she was being pressured to change her mind about the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Indeed, early on in this scandal, Justin Trudeau cited her ongoing presence in the cabinet as evidence of her contentment, after which the former Justice Minister resigned.

I beg to differ. And I believe yesterday's testimony to the justice committee by Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, sheds some light on this sordid episode; pertinent are three meetings in particular:

The first was a meeting on Sept. 17 between himself, the prime minister and Wilson-Raybould.

... Wilson-Raybould told the prime minister that a deferred prosecution agreement “was not a good course and she had no intention of intervening,” Wernick recalled. In turn, the prime minister told Wilson-Raybould the decision to intervene in the case was hers alone, he said.

Ergo, it is clear that Wilson-Raybould had made her decision not to direct the Public Prosecutor to offer SNC-Lavalin a DPA (deffered prosecution agreement). If we are to take Wernick's testimony at its face value, that should have been the end of the matter if, indeed, Trudeau said it were her decision alone.

The next event he predicted Wilson-Raybould would raise was a conversation between her chief of staff and officials from the Prime Minister’s Office on Dec. 18. Wernick, however, said he was not there and is not aware of what transpired.

Strangely, although Wernick claims no knowledge of the nature of the meeting, he predicts she will bring it up in her testimony.

Finally, Wernick highlighted his own conversation with Wilson-Raybould on Dec. 19. Wernick said he wanted to “check in” with her on SNC-Lavalin and the possibility of mediating the criminal charges against the company, as well as other legal issues before the government.

“I conveyed to her that a lot of her colleagues and the prime minister were quite anxious about what they were hearing and reading in the business press about the future of the company, the options that were being openly discussed in the business press about the company moving or closing,” Wernick said.

Asked later if he pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the case and halt the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, Wernick said no — he doesn’t believe he improperly pressured her.

“There’s pressure to get it right on every decision, to approve, to not approve, to act, to not act. I am quite sure the minister felt pressure to get it right,” he said.

“Part of my conversation,” he added, “was conveying context that there were a lot of people worried about what would happen, the consequences — not for her — the consequences for the workers in the communities and the suppliers.”

Now, many will argue, as Wernick himself did, that there was nothing improper about these meetings and that he didn't consider them to constitute undue pressure. We all know that politics is a rough and tough arena, so that may well be. I do not have the expertise to make that assessment. But I do have some thinking ability, and here is where it has led:

To return to the point I began with, the character-undermining question being asked is why Raybould-Wilson did not immediately resign if she felt she was being pressured to change her decision. My question (and answer) is, why would she?

She had remained firm in her conviction that SNC-Lavalin should receive no preferential treatment. She had received the assurance from Mr. Trudeau that the decision was hers alone. She successfully weathered pressure from both the PM and the PMO to change her mind. Presumably, she felt that she had prevailed in upholding her own principles in the matter, and the issue was closed. Until, of course, it wasn't.

On February 11, Wilson-Raybould tendered her resignation, mere hours after Trudeau publicly declared all was well, attested to by her ongoing presence in the cabinet. I suspect this assertion was the breaking point for Raybould-Wilson, that and the likely belief that her replacement as Justice Minister, David Lametti, would ultimately order a DPA.

In his testimony yesterday, Michael Wernick expressed his fears about the direction in which Canada is heading. He

told MPs he’s worried Canadians could lose “faith in the institutions of governance in this country.”

As a citizen who loves Canada, I have the same fears. However, Messieurs Wernick and Trudeau should look to their own house as one source of this crisis of faith. Justin Trudeau came to office with great promises, including 'doing politics' in a new way.

In that, he would seem to have failed abysmally.

Just Who Was The DPA Enacted To Help?

If you watch the following interview with law professor Jennifer Quaid, you will find her take on the Omnibus Bill provision for the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) that SNC-Lavalin salivates over very, very disturbing. Start at about the 1:40 mark. The big 'reveal' is at the 4-minute mark, when Quaid discusses what she claims is an open secret:



Of course, the Liberals denied any such assertion during yesterday's committee meeting, as they

... denounced Opposition suggestions that SNC-Lavalin had gotten the Liberal government to change the law to allow deferred prosecutions for companies like the Quebec engineering giant facing fraud charges.

In the closest thing to an explanation anyone on the government benches has offered for the change since the scandal broke last week, Boissonault said Canada adopted the legal change to allow deferred prosecutions for companies facing fraud charges to align with its trading allies and called Opposition allegations of political favouritism “specious.”

If the allegations are true, this is a far, far bigger scandal than simply trying to pressure Wilson-Raybould to go easy on SNC-Lavalin. It reeks of the rankest corruption imaginable.

UPDATED: Sounds Like A Version Of Victim-Blaming To Me

I doubt that this performance will endear Mr. Trudeau to women or indigenous communities:




UPDATE: Chantal Hebert explores the optics of Trudeau's take-no-prisoners strategy:

Trudeau may hope to tilt the balance of public opinion in his favour by undermining Wilson-Raybould’s credibility. But he should worry about a boomerang effect on his already damaged moral authority.

The optics of this prime minister attacking the integrity of a prominent Indigenous champion is already dismally poor. The fact that this crisis pits Trudeau against one of the highest-profile women in his caucus makes for a lethal political combination.

The last thing the prime minister needs at a time when he has bridges to repair with the Indigenous community is to give Canadian women — including some of those around him in the House of Commons — cause to close ranks behind Wilson-Raybould.

Breaking News! Wilson-Raybould Has Resigned

You can read her official announcement here.