02.09.2019 09:52 AM

It’s never the break in. It’s always the cover up.

Even former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions understood he needed to recuse himself. Even Jeff Sessions understood he could not stand in judgment of himself.

Canada’s new Attorney General? He doesn’t understand any of that at all.

OTTAWA — Current Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti said there has been no evidence to justify a committee investigation into whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or anyone in his office tried to have former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould abandon the prosecution of a case against SNC-Lavalin.

“All we’ve heard are allegations in a newspaper,” Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould when she was shuffled into the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio last month, told CTV’s Question Period host Evan Solomon.

“The prime minister has said that these allegations are false. We haven’t had any corroborating evidence there. There hasn’t been anything to my mind that justifies a committee investigation.”


  1. Grant says:

    I see our AG Lametti has decided Justin is pure as the driven snow because the PM has assured him he has done no wrong….. “But certainly from what I have seen, and what the prime minister has said, I can reassure Canadians that there has been nothing inappropriate that has happened,” Lametti said…..so I guess this AG was well chosen….he is able to determine guilt and innocence BEFORE any type of investigation is carried out. And just imagine how much money we can save by simply asking any potential criminal if they did it or not.
    Canada has become a banana republic….the rot is right out in plain view now. They are not even trying to hide it now.

  2. John says:

    Wonder if the PMO and Lametti have the balls to let SNC skirt prosecution now. Their arrogance tells me yes.

  3. Robert White says:

    AG Lametti is right to assert that there is NO incriminating evidence to suggest that a public inquiry is warranted. Our Prime Minister has stated publically that the allegations are ‘false’. Presumption of innocence is still protocol, eh?

    With opposition hurling spaghetti on the wall and looking to see what sticks we are still waiting for the smoking gun evidence to fire up any sort of criminal investigation by the RCMP Major Crimes Unit.

    The PM will prorogue Parliament if opposition gets remotely close to a public inquiry.

    Not going to happen in my lifetime, ever!


  4. Matt says:

    From a follow-up Globe and Mail article yesterday:

    “A robust discussion is not pressure, one official said. Another official said the PMO had every right to raise the prosecution case with the justice minister, because a conviction could destroy the company and hurt thousands of workers at SNC-Lavalin.”


  5. Matt says:

    Have you seen the hit piece on JWR on the Global News site this morning?


    “But the reality is she wasn’t being moved because she was universally loved and doing a bang-up job.

    “She was being moved because she had become a thorn in the side of the cabinet, someone insiders say was difficult to get along with, known to berate fellow cabinet ministers openly at the table, and who others felt they had trouble trusting.”

    Um, if any of that were true, then why wasn’t she booted right out of cabinet??? She’s still at the cabinet table to “berate fellow ministers”

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      This coming from a man who deigns not to use his full name. That choice hardly adds credibility to your comment.

  6. Senhor Bernhardi says:

    Logic dictates that only one narrative can be true: either this is Lavalingate or a spectacular disinformation campaign. Either way, cabinet meetings must play out like scenes from the Godfather!

  7. Gord Tulk says:

    The better watergate analogue is the Saturday Night Massacre.


    Lametti is Nixon’s Robert Bork. But that is a bit of a slag against Bork who didn’t participate in the cover-up beyond firing Cox. Lametti on the other hand is now the public face of the attempt to bury this crime.

  8. cN47 says:

    Don’t be too disappointed when Wilson-Raybould denies the allegations as well.

    • Matt says:

      WK will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure solicitor-client privilege allows a lawyer to deny allegations.

      She didn’t deny them. She said she had no comment.

      • cN47 says:

        Yeah, I doubt solicitor-client privilege is preventing Wilson-Raybould from denying the Globe’s allegations, but she hasn’t… Not yet anyhow.

  9. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Remember all that praise following his appointment?

    I feel bad for him after his comments so I will help by giving him a course in Justice Minister and Attorney-General 101: either you say this is an ongoing investigation by Parliament and therefore I have no comment, OR you simply have no comment. JWR got that.

  10. Lance says:

    And since there is no further REAL mechanism for recourse, I guess all that is really left is to wait until October to get it. Whether this festers or withers I can’t even say.

  11. Gord Tulk says:

    This from Joan Bryden should be enough to require a mass resignation:

    “They argue the discussions were all perfectly within the law and, indeed, the government would have been remiss not to deliberate over the fate of the Quebec engineering and construction giant given that a prosecution could bankrupt the company and put thousands of Canadians out of work.”

    So breaking the law by trying to get these guys out of being prosecuted FOR A CRIME is justifiable because it would save jobs.

    Tainted Tuna just on a far larger scale. Despicable but not surprising in the least.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.