Susan Delacourt writes that the SNC-Lavalin Affair illustrates the difference between criminal law and family law. Jody Wilson-Raybould and Gerald Butts told two different tales at the Justice Committee:
Where Wilson-Raybould, a lawyer, presented a case, Butts, a non-lawyer and literature graduate, presented a story. Where the former justice minister came armed with copious notes, Butts came to the justice committee armed with confessions and insider tales of how cabinets are made and political relationships are maintained.
Wilson-Raybould presented her exit from Trudeau’s cabinet last month as a matter of legal principle and the limits of ministerial confidence. Butts explained how he gave up his job at Trudeau’s side, also last month, because of a trust breakdown between Wilson-Raybould and the prime minister, for which he took prime responsibility.
It's a contrast that has turned traditional stereotypes on their heads:
The difference between the Butts and Wilson-Raybould testimony at the Commons justice committee has actually turned some familiar gender stereotypes upside down — well, if you go along with this notion that men deal in abstraction and women deal in the contextual; that men lean on rules while women need to know circumstances.
It was Wilson-Raybould who told her story last week with black-and-white, absolute certainty of her position and a minimum of emotion. She refused, for instance, to respond to questions about how she felt in this whole drama, letting long pauses substitute for replies to her MP interrogators.
It was Butts who injected the proceedings on Wednesday with talk of regret, relationships and emotional, anecdotal asides to friends and foes around the committee table.
This distinction in their approach even applies to the very central matter at hand — whether SNC-Lavalin was eligible for a deferred prosecution agreement in its ongoing fraud and corruption charges.
When it came to the basic question of whether a final decision had been made inside the government on such a plea deal for SNC-Lavalin last fall, it now looks like Wilson-Raybould was adopting the hard, take-no-prisoners line, while Butts and Trudeau’s PMO were looking for something that would be more of a collaborative, make-everybody-happy kind of thing. The woman minister was saying a hard No; the prime minister and the team around him (mostly men) were saying “maybe.”
Delacourt says that the different approaches speak to two different types of law:
Beyond these Venus-Mars differences in the two testimonies, maybe the more significant and immediate distinction is one also found in the legal system — between criminal and family law.
Broadly speaking, criminal cases get sorted out by a fair hearing of both sides: prosecution and defence, and the winner is the one with the clearest case. Family law often requires a repeated back-and-forth between the disputing sides — mediation.
And it's mediation that has been the problem. Trudeau has failed at what was supposed to be one of his strengths. Will admitting that failure do a lot of damage?
Stay tuned.
Image: Huffington Post
8 comments:
There may well be a third type of 'law' in play here as shown by the OPP appointment fiasco here in Ontario, Owen. "I AM the law and you shall do as I say" an attitude that seems to be increasingly practiced by political elites of all stripes!
In fact JWR said there was no papertrail and presented no evidence. Butts said here's the papertail take a look.
.. in my opinion Owen.. Canadians have not been well served at all by MainMedia in regard to l'affaire Lavalin. As well I am picking up related polarization and popularity contesting or 'partisanship' within the good ship Miss Liberal.
I've mentioned here and there that I see this as a conundrum with extremely soft edged rules of engagement or even legal riules. In which case its highly unlikely many will have the common sense to avoid wandering senselessly in a daze, within the maze.. much less accept or forgive and forget. I've now heard Butts yesterday and Trudeau this morning state they had the belief (from whom & when & on what legal basis?) that right to the end of the trial and a verdict, that Ms Wilson-Reybould could reverse her final decision of September 16th.. (that they incidently were left unaware of..) and presumably tell Ms Roussel - Director of Prosecution.. thanks.. but I've decided to offer a PDA to SNC-Lavalin.. ! This after hearing a judge pronounce a verdict.. Really ?
Has anyone .. inquired of Ms Wilson-Reybould or Ms Roussel.. if that was their legal understanding ? ? In my humble view, how did we get to this bizarre level of political, legal, media hysteria without such knowledge ? It seems laughable and beyond stupid all at once
It's the authoritarian impulse, Rural, best articulated by the French monarch, Louis XIV, "L'etat c'est moi!"
Oh, there is a paper trail, rumley -- an email trail. The argument is over the interpretation of that evidence.
Most definitely, there's blood in the water, sal. And it attracts all kinds of scavengers.
I've been trying to dig out the back story in the Lavalin affair. If SNC was barred from bidding on federal contracts what would that mean to the industry at large? It turns out that SNC is Quebec's largest construction contractor but there is a handful of what I deem "top tier" construction firms in this country. The others are primarily Alberta and Ontario-based. There is a gaggle of "second tier" firms and they're similarly distributed by province.
Quebec is the historic anchor of the Liberal Party. It is also Canada's top "have not" province when it comes to equalization. Channeling federal revenues into Quebec at the very least does not hurt Liberal fortunes. However, if those revenues flowed instead to an Alberta firm, it's hard to see that benefiting Liberal fortunes in Alberta.
Tenders will still be called. Bids will be submitted. Contracts will be let. At issue is whether Quebec has an institutional leg up. I mean how can you say 9,000 Quebec jobs are at risk without having an understanding that the contracts will go to SNC-L?
Quebec has always been key to Liberal fortunes, Mound. Before the advent of Stephen Harper, it was also key to Progresssive Conservative fortunes. Nobody underdstood that better than Brian Mulroney and Lucien Bouchard. The Liberals want to avoid what happened to Mulroney. That is at the heart of what is going on now.
Post a Comment