PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[steveintoronto]

Fair point about unconfirmed sources; it may all be for naught. But if true, a decision was made by the DPP and the AG of the day (her) decided not to intervene, and decried external influence to change her mind. Now it seems she was seeking assurance that these same external forces influence the current AG to do the same. The prosecutorial decision of the DPP has not changed. The current AG is free to make his own decision and simply can't be bound by some formal or informal agreement made between other parties.

New Attorney-General David Lametti says he will resist any attempts to ...
The Globe and Mail-1 hour ago
Attorney-general David Lametti says he will resist any attempts to pressure him on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.
[...]
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected that interpretation of the conversation, arguing this is “another attempt to smear Ms. Wilson-Raybould.”

He said all she was doing was telling Trudeau and his office not to interfere.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer agreed, saying he doesn’t put much faith in the leaked conditions, but that that one sounds more like she just wanted a commitment that the prime minister would not interfere in this case at all.

 

[Videodrome]

One of Kevin Clarke's many twitter accounts just followed me. He will be a candidate in the federal election to no one's surprise.

 

[PinkLucy]

Oh yes, upcoming election. Time to block the multiple Kevin Clarke accounts.

 

[Jasmine18]

The reason why the scandal blew up is that unlike Harper for Chretien those guys did not portray themselves as 'doing politics different' or subscribe to 'absolutist moral superiority over others'.

Like if you listen to a lot of liberal supporters, it sounds more like a personality cult where Trudeau must remain PM for Canada to be good and righteous.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Like if you listen to a lot of liberal supporters, it sounds more like a personality cult where Trudeau must remain PM for Canada to be good and righteous.

I've voted for every party except Green. Provincially I voted for the local candidate supporting Harris in 1995 and 1999, McGuinty in 2003 and 2007, Hudak in 2011 and 2014 and Horwath in 2018. Federally I voted for the local candidate supporting Chrétien in 1997 and 2000, Harper in 2004, 2006 and 2011, and Trudeau in 2015.

IMO, Trudeau should remain. But I don't say that as a member of some personality cult or even as a strong liberal supporter. Conservatism is leaning too far right towards anger, us vs. the other, and populism in Canada, North America and globally. Trudeau's only mistake on SNC, IMO was to not chuck out JWR and Philpot right away and use the DPA - that's what Harper, Chrétien and even Scheer would have done. It's that weakness of needing to be liked that made him dither on that.

 

[steveintoronto]

Beware of anything from "unidentified" or "anonymous" 'Liberal Party sources'.

Indeed, JWR never suggested the Lametti lament on his being bound to act in any way what-so-ever save being able to make his own decisions independently without duress.

Some seem to overlook that it's the A-G's role to advise the government, not the other way around.

Trudeau's only mistake on SNC, IMO was to not chuck out JWR and Philpot right away and use the DPA - that's what Harper, Chrétien and even Scheer would have done.

Seriously? I think you'd best supply some reference...after reading it of course. You do realize that the "DPA" didn't exist in Chretien's or Harper's era? And that it's never been used?

DPA in force. In June 2018 Canada enacted a DPA through provisions in the omnibus budget implementation Bill C-74, that amended the Criminal Code.
[...]
In June 2018 Canada enacted a DPA through provisions in the omnibus budget implementation Bill C-74, that amended the Criminal Code.[17][1][2][18]

According to Dalhousie University's Graham Steele—a Rhodes Scholar, lawyer and former provincial finance minister in Nova Scotia—"investigating and prosecuting...transnational corruption cases can be incredibly difficult, time consuming and expensive".[19] Criminal court cases take years to complete and it is very difficult for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.[19] Steele explained that in Canada, while the "attorney general has to sign off on a DPA", the AG does not initiate or request that a prosecutor initiate a DPA.[19]
[...]

Deferred prosecution agreement (Canada) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_prosecution_agreement_(Canada)

[...]
Who initiates the discussion about pursuing a DPA is clearly delineated in the Criminal Code, Section 715.32 (1).

“The attorney general has to sign off on a DPA, but nowhere in the law is it contemplated that the attorney general would be the one who would initiate the DPA or even lean on the prosecutor to initiate the DPA,” said Steele.

“If a prosecutor got that kind of a call they would have to tell the attorney general to ‘buzz off’, that it is not appropriate for them to call.

“Just based on what I’ve seen so far, it sounds like the attorney general knew her role,” added Steele.

In other words, DPAs or remediation make for good law. As for how the PMO has treated Wilson-Raybould, that’s another issue entirely.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...ilson-rayboulds-been-treated-is-another-story

Graham Steele, as quoted above:
Graham Steele, assistant professor of business law in the Rowe School of Business at Dalhousie University in Halifax ...is a Rhodes Scholar, a lawyer and a former finance minister from 2009 to 2012 in Nova Scotia premier Darrell Dexter’s NDP government.

And specifically from the Criminal Code:

• Factors not to consider
  (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.

• 2018, c. 12, s. 404.

• https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-179.html#h-263

 

[BurlOak]

The reason why the scandal blew up is that unlike Harper for Chretien those guys did not portray themselves as 'doing politics different' or subscribe to 'absolutist moral superiority over others'.

Like if you listen to a lot of liberal supporters, it sounds more like a personality cult where Trudeau must remain PM for Canada to be good and righteous.

It also llikely blew up because it was more serious than any in recent memory.
Chretien hiring add firms with government money to do no work, but funnel money back to the party is a distant memory to the younger voters that voted for Trudeau.
And repaying $90k in questionable expenses (that turned out to be legal), is not that serious of a crime.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ In support of @Jasmine18 's position:

• STAR COLUMNISTS
  OPINION
  Rosie DiManno: The Liberals have abandoned their moral principles and it’s Justin Trudeau’s fault

Although I'm more focused on the legal aspects (the ones the Libpologists are doing anything to avoi...Squirrel! Over there!), that's what makes a referenced case or not, I'm deeply offended not just by JT himself, but all those Libpologists that were so fffing quick to jump on the likes of Jian Ghomeshi and others tried in the press (don't get me wrong, there was and still is something really creepy about him....and why women who were affected never saw that, God only knows), and screamed the banner of "Feminism" and "women must always be believed" have now abandoned that in droves to defend their darling his Justiness.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of these 'liberals' is sickening. As I'm prone to say: "Justin's Feminists do as they're told". A total defilement of the term.

I have immense respect for both Philpott and JWR. And so do the majority of Canadians polled.

And watch this closely along with the federal by-election on the Green...whoops, West Coast, where a second Green seat is looking very likely:
Door open for Wilson-Raybould, Philpott to join the Greens: May
BY CORMAC MACSWEENEY
Posted Apr 4, 2019 12:36 pm PDT

Last Updated Apr 4, 2019 at 12:37 pm PDT
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/0...son-raybould-philpott-to-join-the-greens-may/

To quote the Prime Minister: "Errr...uhhh...ummm...errr..."

 

[Northern Light]

And watch this closely along with the federal by-election on the Green...whoops, West Coast, where a second Green seat is looking very likely:
Door open for Wilson-Raybould, Philpott to join the Greens: May
BY CORMAC MACSWEENEY
Posted Apr 4, 2019 12:36 pm PDT

Last Updated Apr 4, 2019 at 12:37 pm PDT
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/0...son-raybould-philpott-to-join-the-greens-may/

To quote the Prime Minister: "Errr...uhhh...ummm...errr..."

JWR in particular would be a good fit; but I think Philpott likely would as well.

Though given the relative nature of the ridings, it would be easier for JWR to hold her riding as a Green than for Philpott to do the same.

Still, the idea has great merit.

I would also not get ahead of myself and conceded the Greens are not in contention for government in the upcoming election...........at least not now.

But, their potential ascension in that direction (to contender) may be further along that some people think.

They are contending for gov't in PEI and polling over 20% in 4 seats federal seats in the maritimes today.

They are, excluding JWR's seat, reasonable contenders in 4 races on Vancouver Island, and one on the mainland.

They have 2 seats in Ontario where they should be able to contend; Guelph, and Parry Sound Muskoka.

Now, they may win few of these and only return Ms. May again in the fall............but to even be credible in potentially a dozen seats..........

 

[steveintoronto]

JWR in particular would be a good fit; but I think Philpott likely would as well.

JWR has now become what MPs always should be: Judged on their merit, and not their party leader. She has very high support in her riding, I pity anyone the Libs run no matter what JWR's flag is. I suspect she'll run as an independent with a declared 'affinity' for/with 'other independents/Greens'.

Though given the relative nature of the ridings, it would be easier for JWR to hold her riding as a Green than for Philpott to do the same.

Agreed, especially when presented as 'JWR has much less repositioning to do than Philpott'. Philpott could/would have to use Schreiner (Guelph MPP) as one of her supports, campaigners even if she officially runs as an independent. Schreiner has 'broken the mould' of what preconceived notions were for the Greens. I'm a Centrist with Old School Con roots and ironically, Schreiner appeals to those sensibilities with his pragmatic and considered ideals and platform. There's change afoot in Cdn politics, and he's at the forefront of it, as are JWR and JP.

their potential ascension in that direction (to contender) may be further along that some people think.

Absolutely! In my circles, which are admittedly academic and progressive, there's a real hunger for an alternative at the top. If JWR and JP aren't at that threshold yet, they're very close. Justin has let down a lot of people I know, albeit some of them slow to admit it for fear of it appearing to embrace the Cons, and the Dippers are a losing proposition right now. As to why they dumped Mulcair, God only knows...still, it makes it that much easier to pick up Lib and Dipper voters.

They have 2 seats in Ontario where they should be able to contend; Guelph, and Parry Sound Muskoka.

No argument from me. A good chunk of the electorate is at the point of realizing: "The rationale in the past was to not waste my vote on parties that won't win. I'm wasting my vote on parties that do win, so I'll vote for who I think represents me best, and screw the rest".

And again, it doesn't compare in a totally linear manner, but the UK Independent Group is the wedge breaking up UK party politics at this time. Their crisis came earlier. It's time for us to deal with the one we have now in Ottawa.

 

[lenaitch]

New Attorney-General David Lametti says he will resist any attempts to ...
The Globe and Mail-1 hour ago
Attorney-general David Lametti says he will resist any attempts to pressure him on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.
[...]
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rejected that interpretation of the conversation, arguing this is “another attempt to smear Ms. Wilson-Raybould.”

He said all she was doing was telling Trudeau and his office not to interfere.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer agreed, saying he doesn’t put much faith in the leaked conditions, but that that one sounds more like she just wanted a commitment that the prime minister would not interfere in this case at all.

There is no good outcome for the Government on this. If a DPP isn't allowed, they Government doesn't get what it wants. If one is allowed, they will wear the allegation that they interfered. Steele is quite correct that these types of prosecution are extremely difficult to prove, but then again . . . The Government can only hope that, if prosecution continues, the case gets tossed at some stage. For them, the sooner the better.

 

[steveintoronto]

The Government can only hope that, if prosecution continues, the case gets tossed at some stage.

Serendipity:

SNC-Lavalin revives court bid for deferred prosecution agreement, citing new facts

OTTAWA
THE CANADIAN PRESS
PUBLISHED APRIL 5, 2019UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO

SNC-Lavalin, the company at the centre of a national political storm, underscores what it calls new and troubling facts in a fresh court bid for a special agreement to avoid prosecution on corruption charges.

The Montreal-based engineering and construction firm cites revelations from recent parliamentary-committee testimony in trying to revive its Federal Court case against the director of public prosecutions.

SNC-Lavalin is asking the Federal Court of Appeal to give it another chance to challenge the director’s decision to not negotiate an agreement that would see the company avoid a criminal trial and a possible prohibition from receiving federal contracts for 10 years.

In a March ruling, the Federal Court tossed out the company’s plea for a judicial review of the 2018 decision.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...id-for-special-agreement-to-avoid-criminal-2/

I'll add comment later after seeing what else I can find out about this. This smacks of desperation.

Addendum: Desperate it is:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-federal-court-appeal-1.5086604

I was just going to quote the legal basis for above, only to find the latest development:

SNC-Lavalin special plea agreement denied due to ‘nature and gravity’ of offences: court documents
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...id-for-special-agreement-to-avoid-criminal-2/

[...]
The company’s submission to the Federal Court of Appeal is the first public mention of the prosecutor’s apparent rationale for not pursuing an agreement with SNC-Lavalin that would see the company avoid a criminal trial and a possible 10-year prohibition from receiving federal contracts.

The engineering and construction giant faces prosecution over allegations it paid millions of dollars in bribes to obtain government business in Libya from 2001 to 2011.
[...]
In a March ruling, the Federal Court tossed out the company’s plea for a judicial review of the decision. The court said the law is clear that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for cases where there is an abuse of process.

In its new filing with the Court of Appeal, SNC-Lavalin says “new and deeply troubling facts” that came to light in the political drama show that checks and balances intended to ensure accountability were “critically circumvented,” amounting to a “clear abuse of process.”
[...]

SNC-Lavalin says Wilson-Raybould made no mention of these developments and was likely not aware of them. As a result, her conclusion not to intervene “was based on incomplete information,” the company contends.

It points a finger at Roussel, arguing the prosecutor failed to advise Wilson-Raybould that she had agreed to receive additional information from the company and neglected to update her Sept. 4 memo to the then-attorney general.

lol...I admit to not being at my brightest at this moment, bit under the weather, but:

[...]
Who initiates the discussion about pursuing a DPA is clearly delineated in the Criminal Code, Section 715.32 (1).

“The attorney general has to sign off on a DPA, but nowhere in the law is it contemplated that the attorney general would be the one who would initiate the DPA or even lean on the prosecutor to initiate the DPA,” said Steele.

“If a prosecutor got that kind of a call they would have to tell the attorney general to ‘buzz off’, that it is not appropriate for them to call.

“Just based on what I’ve seen so far, it sounds like the attorney general knew her role,” added Steele.

In other words, DPAs or remediation make for good law. As for how the PMO has treated Wilson-Raybould, that’s another issue entirely.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...ilson-rayboulds-been-treated-is-another-story

I guess they can't lose any more than they already have, or are likely to. Unless I'm missing something massive here, SNC's latest claim is completely without merit. The DPP doesn't have to tell the A-G anything! It is the decision of the DPP and no-one else's.

 

[lenaitch]

Serendipity:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...id-for-special-agreement-to-avoid-criminal-2/

I'll add comment later after seeing what else I can find out about this. This smacks of desperation.

Interesting. Their original application was tossed when the court ruled that the decision to offer an agreement was the prosecutor's to make (the DPP, not the AG - the AG has the power to override). It ruled that the discretion is not subject to judicial review absent evidence of abuse of power. If that's their argument, in my non-learned view it will be a tough one to successfully make, but it seems they don't have confidence that a trial judge will rule in their favour. Can't say I blame them; use all the arrows in your quiver.

 

[steveintoronto]

(the DPP, not the AG - the AG has the power to override)

My attention span is compromised at this point, (lol...more than usual) but it seems that part of the SNC's legal argument is this:

Conditions for remediation agreement

• 715.32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the
• [...]
  • (d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-179.html#h-263

The above is from the "Remediation Agreement" section, and I'm not sure it applies. But this certainly does:

5.2. Federal prosecutor as agent of the Attorney General of Canada
A federal prosecutor would almost never act as counsel or agent for the Attorney General, because this would suggest that the prosecutor could take directives directly from the Attorney General. This would go against the underlying purpose of the DPP Act which is to insulate the prosecution function from the Attorney General and the political process. Where the Attorney General intervenes in a prosecution or an appeal under s. 14 of the DPP Act, or assumes conduct of a prosecution under s. 15 of the DPP Act, normally counsel from the Department of Justice would act as agent of the Attorney General in that prosecution, intervention or appeal. The only rare situation where a federal prosecutor would be counsel for the Attorney General would be where the Attorney General appointed a federal prosecutor to act on behalf of the Attorney General in a s.14 intervention or a s. 15 prosecution.Footnote18 This type of appointment would require prior approval of the DPP and, if approved, would involve certain administrative steps in order to formalize the fact that a federal prosecutor (who acts pursuant to s. 9 of the DPP Act) is no longer agent for the DPP when acting on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada in relation to a specific file.

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch02.html

Addendum to above:

Directives
Marginal note: Directive from Attorney General — specific prosecution

• 10 (1) Any directive that the Attorney General issues to the Director with respect to the initiation or conduct of any specific prosecution must be in writing and be published in the Canada Gazette.
• Marginal note: Directive — generally applicable
  (2) The Attorney General may, after consulting the Director, issue directives respecting the initiation or conduct of prosecutions generally. Any such directives must be in writing and be published in the Canada Gazette.

Marginal note: Delay in publication — directive

• 11 (1) The Attorney General or the Director may, if he or she considers it to be in the interests of the administration of justice, direct that the publication in the Canada Gazette of a directive referred to in subsection 10(1) be delayed.
• Marginal note:Limit on delay
  (2) The publication of a directive may not be delayed beyond the completion of the prosecution or any related prosecution.

Marginal note: Directives not statutory instruments

12 For greater certainty, directives issued under section 10 are not statutory instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Issues of General or Public Interest
Marginal note: Duty to inform

13 The Director must inform the Attorney General in a timely manner of any prosecution, or intervention that the Director intends to make, that raises important questions of general interest.

Marginal note:Intervention

14 When, in the opinion of the Attorney General, proceedings raise questions of public interest, the Attorney General may, after notifying the Director, intervene in first instance or on appeal.

Assuming Conduct of Prosecution
Marginal note:Taking conduct of prosecution

• 15 (1) The Attorney General may only assume conduct of a prosecution after first consulting the Director. The Attorney General must then give to the Director a notice of intent to assume conduct of the prosecution and publish it in the Canada Gazette without delay.
• Marginal note:Transfer of file
  (2) The Director is required to turn the prosecution file over to the Attorney General and to provide any information that the Attorney General requires within the time specified.
• Marginal note: Delay in publication
  (3) However, publication may be delayed if the Attorney General or the Director considers it to be in the interests of the administration of justice.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/D-2.5/page-2.html#docCont

 

[Videodrome]

So, let's talk about Trudeau's housing announcement today. It was a good thing and much needed for the city. However, a half dozen yellow vest idiots tried to crash the event and spewed racist comments. Tory did the right thing and denounced them. Scheer openly supports these people and went to one of their rallies with Faith Goldy.