I always wondered what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s political fate would have been had he come clean on the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2018-19 and admitted to Canadians that he went too far when he tried to pressure then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to drop criminal charges against the Montreal-based company.
It was a turning point in Trudeau’s political career, one that will likely end in either his resignation or electoral defeat in 2025.
By the fall of 2019, after it was clear the prime minister and his most senior staff badgered Wilson-Raybould for months to try to get her to change her mind on the SNC-Lavalin case, Trudeau’s Liberals were reduced to a minority government in an October federal election. The prime minister never recovered.
The SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2018-19 could be considered a turning point in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s political career. (Spencer Colby / The Canadian Press files)
He could have taken a different path. Trudeau could have, in the first place, refrained from politically interfering in a criminal prosecution case. That would have been the best option.
But once he and others in his government did try to pressure Wilson-Raybould (and, by extension, the director of public prosecutions) to drop charges against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a “remediation agreement,” he still could have admitted his error and told Canadians the truth.
He was given that option by Wilson-Raybould, who eventually resigned from cabinet and was subsequently punted by Trudeau from the Liberal caucus. She suggested to Trudeau when the two met alone at a private plane terminal at the Vancouver International Airport on Feb. 10, 2019 that he still had the chance to tell Canadians the truth.
“There still would have been a way to admit everything publicly, address the wrongs, and do better — much better,” wrote Wilson-Raybould in her 2021 book titled Indian in the Cabinet: Speaking Truth to Power (which I’m finally getting around to reading).
“There still would have been a way to preserve the credibility of our system and respect the rule of law.”
Wilson-Raybould said she was hopeful when she left the meeting that the prime minister would do the right thing. The SNC-Lavalin story was still fresh; it was just three days after the Globe and Mail reported that the Trudeau government attempted to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. Trudeau immediately denied the story, calling the allegations “false.” But Wilson-Raybould thought there was still time to turn things around by telling the truth.
“He said he would think about it and that we would talk again,” she wrote. “I left the meeting feeling hopeful — in hindsight, too hopeful.”
That hope was short-lived. Trudeau called a second meeting with Wilson-Raybould for the next day, this time at a Vancouver hotel. The prime minister was condescending, dismissive and refused to admit wrongdoing. He rejected Wilson-Raybould’s advice.
“I recounted, again, the incidents where pressure was attempted, and he again had excuses or answers for everything,” she wrote. “I could see the agitation visibly building in the prime minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it.”
Trudeau became “strident” and disputed everything Wilson-Raybould said. He claimed everyone in his office was telling the truth (implying Wilson-Raybould wasn’t) and that she had not experienced what she said she did, a line he would later use publicly by claiming Wilson-Raybould “experienced things differently.”
He was gaslighting her. He wanted her to lie.
The prime minister became increasingly angry during the hotel-room meeting because he wasn’t getting his way.
In a third meeting that evening, she told the prime minister she would be resigning from cabinet the next day. She did and the rest is history.
But what would have happened had Trudeau taken Wilson-Raybould’s advice and publicly acknowledged his errors, early enough to avoid — or at least mitigate — the catastrophic political fallout that ensued?
He could have said something like: “In my zeal to find a solution to the SNC-Lavalin issue and to avoid job losses, I went too far in my discussions with the attorney general. Upon reflection and after seeking further advice, I now realize that by repeatedly urging Ms. Wilson-Raybould to reconsider her position not to overturn the decision of the director of public prosecutions, I was inappropriately interfering in a criminal prosecution. That was wrong, I apologize unreservedly and I am committed to upholding the rule of law and the independence of the prosecutions branch.”
Don’t people want their politicians to admit errors when they make them? Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change from the constant duck-and-cover style of politics we’re so used to, where politicians rarely, if ever, acknowledge wrongdoing?
Elected officials will make mistakes from time to time — it’s unavoidable.
Wouldn’t it be healthier and more constructive for them to admit those errors, to demonstrate — for the public good — that they have the intellectual capacity to change their minds upon further reflection, or due to changing circumstances? Would they not be rewarded politically for doing so?
We’ll never know for sure on the SNC-Lavalin file. But Trudeau’s decision to dig in, lie and gaslight Canadians, rather than admit he was wrong (his wrongdoings were later confirmed in a scathing ethics commissioner report), was the beginning of his political downfall. There were other things that contributed to that downward spiral and his inability to form a majority government again.
But things may have turned out very differently for Trudeau had he taken Wilson-Raybould’s advice during those meetings in early February 2019.
tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca
Tom Brodbeck
Columnist
Tom Brodbeck is a columnist with the Free Press and has over 30 years experience in print media. He joined the Free Press in 2019. Born and raised in Montreal, Tom graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1993 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and commerce. Read more about Tom.
Tom provides commentary and analysis on political and related issues at the municipal, provincial and federal level. His columns are built on research and coverage of local events. The Free Press’s editing team reviews Tom’s columns before they are posted online or published in print – part of the Free Press’s tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.