Feb. 23: The wide divide in the SNC-Lavalin affair

Open this photo in gallery:

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

..................................................................................................................................

A wide divide in what’s plausible – and not – in the SNC-Lavalin affair

The Rashomon effect – based on the famous Japanese movie of the 1950s – suggests different people can see the same situation and come up with contradictory, yet plausible conclusions. I see the effect operating in two ways around the SNC-Lavalin case.

I watched Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick’s testimony and concluded Jody Wilson-Raybould was informed of the possible consequences of her decision on SNC, yet was left free to make it.

Your Friday front-page headline – Top Bureaucrat Says Trudeau, Staff Pressed Wilson-Raybould On SNC-Lavalin Settlement – was that the former A-G was pressed. The only concern here for us, as an electorate, is to know the difference between informing and pressing.

What may help us, is to look at the second way this issue is subject to the Rashomon effect: the dilemma the government had in making the decision on SNC.

Do we cut a legal, yet controversial, deal with SNC and save thousands of Canadian jobs (probably the Liberal government’s view)?

Do we show we act impartially in our legal decisions, and risk losing those same thousands of jobs (probably the A-G’s view)?

From this vantage point, it appears nothing that was done was wrong; two sides differed on an issue and only one had the authority to actually make the decision.

The only questionable part of this in my mind is why the government removed Ms. Wilson-Raybould from her position as A-G.

Were the reasons based on her overall performance as A-G, or was it the government’s way of saying: Your decision on the SNC issue was faulty from our point of view, and we don’t see you as a member of the team any more?

Elizabeth Fernandes, Toronto

..................................

I was deeply disappointed by the wording in your front-page headline: Top Bureaucrat Says Trudeau, Staff Pressed Former A-G On SNC Settlement. It contributes directly to the chaotic debate by the media and talking heads over the matter, and the passions being aroused in the public. The real question is not whether or not there was pressure, but whether or not the pressure was “inappropriate.” Watching on CPAC, I saw Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick explain the difference eloquently and thoroughly. Too bad the term “inappropriate pressure” didn’t make it into your headline. We are all the less for it.

Keith Oliver, Cobourg, Ont.

..................................

Pity the poor underling whose task it was Friday morning to tippy-toe into Michael Wernick’s office, and lay on his desk a copy of Friday’s Globe and Mail. The headline was was probably not the one he was expecting.

My father, the late Ged Baldwin, was a long-term Red Tory MP in the days of Diefenbaker, Stanfield and PET. He saw first-hand the mandarin class, over decades, learn all the secret doors and back stairs of power. Some of them, over time, became a little used to smacking mere transient politicos into shape. Mr. Wernick’s performance in the House committee on justice makes one wonder if he has fallen into that category?

Thanks for bringing this very upsetting matter to our attention and making some sense of it. Like most Canadians, I’m saddened by the possible implications of these revelations.

Gerald Baldwin, Sherwood Park, Alta.

..................................

Cabinet ministers are expected to deal with pressure from many sources – colleagues, the opposition, lobby groups, even from their boss. It appears that whether the pressure – if it was that – was undue or not, Jody Wilson-Raybould resisted it.

She did not feel it necessary to resign at the time, nor did she take the matter any further. She did not resign when subsequently moved to another cabinet post. She only did so later, seemingly because the Prime Minister said that her presence in cabinet speaks for itself. Was this the last straw? If so, it seems that she resigned not on a point of principle, but because she felt ill-used.

Nobody comes out well in this affair – not the Prime Minister and his staff, who have bungled communications and made an error in judgment in cabinet shuffling; not the Opposition or the media, who in my view have largely based their accusations on speculation and mischaracterization, and, though we have yet to hear from her, perhaps not even Ms. Wilson-Raybould herself.

Charles Magill, Ottawa

..................................

My boss recently called about a purchasing decision. He noted that while the supplier to be chosen was my call, he and the company would really like to pick another company whose marketing people he had had several meetings with. I said I was sticking with my choice, that his preferred supplier had internal problems and I wanted to avoid them.

Then the VP Business Development called and said he understood my decision, but the company would really, really like me to choose that other company, whose sales manager he had had several meetings with. Again, I said I was sticking to my choice.

Then the CEO called me. He told me how very important it was to him, and to the company, that I select the other supplier. He told me how employees would suffer if I didn’t change my mind. I asked him, “Are you directing me to use that supplier”? “Oh, no,” he said, “I just want you to understand the consequences of your decision.”

But, of course, I felt no pressure. None whatsoever. Not at all. A few weeks later, I was demoted to head up a small department in an outlying area.

I am sure it was unrelated.

Tom Curran, Ottawa

..................................

Jody Wilson-Raybould ran for the office of politician, not sainthood. Being a woman or Indigenous does not make you a saint. She appears to have run the Justice Department in a reasonable fashion. She also had her share of blunders. She appeared indifferent to the urgent request for appointing additional federal judges, which seriously hampered the administration of law. The plea from seriously ill people to adjust the right-to-die law was met with a cold, legalistic and unfriendly attitude. This same approach appears to be her attitude to the jobs of SNC employees, who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Whether it is Ms. Wilson-Raybould or Justin Trudeau, it is wrong to put someone on a pedestal, and have impossibly high expectations of them. It just ensures disappointment in the collision with the reality of everyday politics and the need to balance the needs of all Canadians.

Gerhard Henkemans, Edmonton

..................................

Both the PMO and the former attorney-general were doing their jobs. Jody Wilson-Raybould’s role was to supervise the workings of her department and act accordingly ... and the PMO was trying to preserve jobs in Canada.

Perhaps there was a bit too much pressure. Perhaps the removal of the minister to another portfolio was not the right response by the PM. But none of this is sinister or against the law.

Robert Morrow, Dundas, Ont.

..................................

And the Oscar goes to …

For achievement in sound editing: Jody Wilson-Raybould in Less is More;

For performance by an actor in a supporting role: Gerald Butts in From Dalton to Justin to Distraction;

For achievement in directing: Justin Trudeau in It Was Her Decision to Make.

Rudy Buller, Toronto