Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
cannuck

Trudeau lying about SNC

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rue said:

I never stated dpa requirements were black and white. Ever. In fact I went to great detail to explain the exact opposite and that is why you can not just automatically impose one without first reading the many preconditions, considerations and prohibition and using them all as references to determine the appropriateness of the dpa.

I also did not ignore anything JT has done and have been very specific and exact in challenging what he has done.

I also in great detail explained that the fact that Trudeau claims what he did was not illegal does not address the ethical issues.

Egghead if you do not want to read what I wrote, don't. If you don't agree with what I said do not. However do not come on this forum and misrepresent what I said or deny what is there for all to read. Thank you.

 

 

I had read your post. Sorry, I misspoke. I was using my phone to reply the above post and it was hard to quote with the phone. When I said "requirements",  I meant that the AG has the power to sign off the DPA on his (her) own beacuse no law says AG cannot initatie the DPA.

I understood when you said ".... the prosecutor can NOT consider  national economic interest as a public interest....".  That was the prosecutor role, and we all knew no DPA from the prosecutor already. We are talking about the AG's role now. 

 

Actutally, I have a question for you, since Canada's DPA needs the court approval and the court already says no to the DPA review,  what will happen when Lametti finally gives SNC one?

 

Edited by egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, egghead said:

I had read your post. Sorry, I misspoke. I was using my phone to reply the above post and it was hard to quote with the phone. When I said "requirements",  I meant that the AG has the power to sign off the DPA on his (her) own beacuse no law says AG cannot initatie the DPA.

I understood when you said ".... the prosecutor can NOT consider  national economic interest as a public interest....".  That was the prosecutor role, and we all knew no DPA from the prosecutor already. We are talking about the AG's role now. 

 

Actutally, I have a question for you, since Canada's DPA needs the court approval and the court already says no to the DPA review,  what will happen when Lametti finally gives SNC one?

 

1. The Chief Prosecutor not the AG makes the ruling on whether dpa's are to be used in any specific case because in fact the  Chief Prosecutor role was created deliberately to distance the AG from acting in any on-going  criminal case as its prosecutor in any role including the determination of dpas.

2. The Chief Prosecutor remains the only one who can consider whether to use a dpa -she has absolute discretion conferred to her by the dpa law itself.

5. The Federal Court of Canada upheld the Chief Prosecutor's independent and absolute discretion to consider the use of the dpa. A dpa is not a right, its a privilege that requires the consent of the prosecutor.

6. Lavalin has filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. The only grounds of appeal in this case is to argue the Chief Prosecutor abused the legal process, i.e., exceeded the powers given her under the dpa law or did not use powers she should have. Abuse of process is a narrow procedural argument. 

7. I am not aware of any Canadian legal case where exercising absolute discretion in itself was determined to be an abuse of any legal process which is what Lavalin is arguing since they can not challenge the decision simply on the grounds they don't like the way she reviewed and took into consideration the preconditions, conditions and prohibition listed in the dpa law which by the way clearly said the Prosecutor was obliged to consider.

8. In fact had the Chief Prosecutor forced through a dpa without considering those preconditions, considerations and prohibition, that would be an abuse of process and legal groups could have intervened and sought reference to the Federal Court and then Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way any Canadian court can say to a prosecutor, ignore the considerations you must consider as per the law you are applying. If Trudeau et al were right, then it would mean nothing in the dpa law is enforceable and dpa's are an automatic rubber stamp which makes zero legal sense. If Trudeau wanted dpa's to be handed out whenever an accused wants one, why did he not write the law to say that?

9. Right now  unless the Federal Court of Appeal says the Prosecutor's exercise of discretion when considering the preconditions, conditions and prohibition were all wrong, and the Federal Court was wrong,  there are no grounds for the AG to refer to, to justify his involvement and even then, all he could do is re- order the Chief Prosecutor to start again. That is doubtful because the discretionary nature of the Prosecutor's mandate in the dpa law was written to avoid that and only allow an appeal if a serious procedural error arose violating the accused's charter rights.

10. The Federal Court of Appeal can not tell the Chief Prosecutor to act as if the preconditions, considerations and prohibition against dpa, do not exist it can only point out procedural irregularities and tell the prosecutor to remedy them.

11. The AG has no legal authority to do what he wants on behalf of the PM. In the role of AG, all functions are limited to legal administrative ones, not ones of a political nature.

12. The other part of this story requires you read and understand the OECD Convention on Bribery, and how Article V is commented on in the commentary talking about enforcing it and in Annex 1 talking about enforcing it. Article V is the clear prohibition against considering national economic interest as a public interest warranting awarding a dpa.

That commentary and Annex clearly state we agreed as a state when we signed that convention to never use national economic interests or any domestic political interests as a pretext to ignore prosecuting someone who bribes a foreign official to the full extent of the law.

That is as easy to explain it other than to repeat to you the AG has no legal power to decide on the dpa in question or tell the Chief Prosecutor how she should interpret the preconditions, considerations or prohibition in the dpa law.

Please if you can find any legal document or case that says an AG can act unilaterally and do whatever they want an over-rule the Chief Prosecutor, share it, because I am not aware of any.

By the way when I did practice criminal law, we used restorative justice approaches with the Crown similar to dpa's but  they were predicated on some very major conditions being met first. They also can not be used on repeat offenders.

Also the closest case I can find to this one is the Rolls Royce case in Britain but its far different. To start with the dpa was not initiated by an elected official lobbying on behalf of the accused.

Next the agreement required Rolls Royce agree to pay back all money earned from the projects it was awarded by its bribes. Go take a look at how much they had to pay back. Lavalin  already said publically they would never agree to what Rolls Royce agreed to.

Had for example Lavalin approached the Prosecutor directly and not via the Prime Minoister and volunteered to pay all the money it earned from the projects in Libya it was awarded by bribery and an additional fund to compensate victims of Ghaddafi and agreed to disclose the names of all persons  bribed in Libya plus all persons in  Lavalin involved in the bribery and also agreed to a third party auditor imposing an anti bribery checks and balance system to be continually monitored by that neutral third party and had Lavalin then agreed to an increased sentence to take into consideration its a third time offender, then and only then could the Prosecutor even begin to consider asking a Judge to take a plea and avoid a trial.

A case with this much victim impact and ethical implications  is beyond the scope of a dpa. In the Rolls Royce case the victim impact was far different. Rolls Royce did not enable a government to violate human rights as Lavalin did with Ghaddafi. Rolls Royce did not build a concentration camp as Lavalin did.

Take a look at that case and also keep in mind they have a special unit to consider dpa's unlike us in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong on both 1. and 2.

The ag has the power to intervene and rule on a dpa case once they have fully informed the DPP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Owly said:

Wrong on both 1. and 2.

The ag has the power to intervene and rule on a dpa case once they have fully informed the DPP.

 You have made this assertion repeatedly with no proof.  Provide where the AG has the powers you state. He does not and coming on this forum and making bold face claims without reading the dpa law, the Federal Court decision and the job descriptions of the AG and Chief Prosecutor and pointing out where they state what you do is not going to cut it Owly.

I can only assume you  read

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html

and did not understand it. Either that or you are just sulking.

If you did go to the above web site please do take note of:

1.4. Guiding principles

Given their interconnected responsibilities, an effective relationship between the Attorney General and the DPP is of the utmost importance in ensuring that both can fulfill their important public duties while achieving the legislative goal of an independent, apolitical, and accountable prosecution service. The Attorney General is directly accountable to Parliament, while the DPP is indirectly accountable to Parliament. The DPP is required to report to Parliament annually on its activities through the Attorney General and the DPP may be called to appear before parliamentary committees. Thus, it is crucial that they work in a consultative way so their decisions are fully informed. To ensure prosecutorial independence and accountability, their relationship should be premised on the following principles:

  1. Respect for the independence of the prosecutorial function - By virtue of s. 3(3)(c) and s. 10(2), the Attorney General and the DPP are jointly responsible for establishing general prosecution policy, but the DPP is responsible for the exercises of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to that policy (subject to the Attorney General’s residual powers under ss. 10 and 15).

 

2.2. The power of the Attorney General to issue directives

Prosecutorial decision-making must take place independently of the interests of the government of the day.Note de bas de page31 The historical practice of successive Attorneys General of Canada has been to refrain from becoming involved in the day-to-day operational decision making of public prosecutions.

2.5. The power of the Attorney General to assume conduct of proceedings

Section 15 of the DPP Act sets out the power of the Attorney General to take over a prosecution from the DPP. However, the Attorney General must first consult the DPP regarding his or her decision to assume conduct of a prosecution and must publish the notice in the Canada Gazette “without delay”,Note de bas de page46 unless either the Attorney General or the DPP considers a delay in notice to be justified “in the interests of the administration of justice”.Note de bas de page47 The DPP must turn over the prosecution file to the Attorney General, where the latter assumes conduct of the case, and must provide any information that the Attorney General requires within the time specified by the Attorney General (s. 15(2)).

 

Now given the above wording and this entire site, in theory the AG has a lot of power but in practical reality the combo of 1.4, 2.2 and 2.5 wording I have pointed out above means to date in Canada since the DPP not the AG deals specifically with an individual on-going case and the AG remains dettached not personally inv involved particulary if getting involved would be based on a conflict with political agenda. That is why JWR would not over rule the DPP nor has any AG ever done so.

The AG is supposed to remain the symbolic head and ultimate person responsible but not involved in the day to day prosecution of a case.

The problem is we have people who read sites and do not understand the law as it is actually applied from what they read.

The only issue that may have the AG himself ever involve himself in a case might be a Charter case dealing with a province trying to separate.

Owly provide the cases and the reasons how the AG has over-ruled the DPP. They never have because of the combo of the wording above.

Provide a case that says otherwise. None exist. Provide a legal convention, article that says otherwise.

You have to do more than read things literally to understand the practical application of law.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rue said:

 You have made this assertion repeatedly with no proof.  Provide where the AG has the powers you state. He does not and coming on this forum and making bold face claims without reading the dpa law, the Federal Court decision and the job descriptions of the AG and Chief Prosecutor and pointing out where they state what you do is not going to cut it Owly.

I can only assume you  read

https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html

and did not understand it. Either that or you are just sulking.

If you did go to the above web site please do take note of:

1.4. Guiding principles

Given their interconnected responsibilities, an effective relationship between the Attorney General and the DPP is of the utmost importance in ensuring that both can fulfill their important public duties while achieving the legislative goal of an independent, apolitical, and accountable prosecution service. The Attorney General is directly accountable to Parliament, while the DPP is indirectly accountable to Parliament. The DPP is required to report to Parliament annually on its activities through the Attorney General and the DPP may be called to appear before parliamentary committees. Thus, it is crucial that they work in a consultative way so their decisions are fully informed. To ensure prosecutorial independence and accountability, their relationship should be premised on the following principles:

  1. Respect for the independence of the prosecutorial function - By virtue of s. 3(3)(c) and s. 10(2), the Attorney General and the DPP are jointly responsible for establishing general prosecution policy, but the DPP is responsible for the exercises of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to that policy (subject to the Attorney General’s residual powers under ss. 10 and 15).

 

2.2. The power of the Attorney General to issue directives

Prosecutorial decision-making must take place independently of the interests of the government of the day.Note de bas de page31 The historical practice of successive Attorneys General of Canada has been to refrain from becoming involved in the day-to-day operational decision making of public prosecutions.

2.5. The power of the Attorney General to assume conduct of proceedings

Section 15 of the DPP Act sets out the power of the Attorney General to take over a prosecution from the DPP. However, the Attorney General must first consult the DPP regarding his or her decision to assume conduct of a prosecution and must publish the notice in the Canada Gazette “without delay”,Note de bas de page46 unless either the Attorney General or the DPP considers a delay in notice to be justified “in the interests of the administration of justice”.Note de bas de page47 The DPP must turn over the prosecution file to the Attorney General, where the latter assumes conduct of the case, and must provide any information that the Attorney General requires within the time specified by the Attorney General (s. 15(2)).

 

Now given the above wording and this entire site, in theory the AG has a lot of power but in practical reality the combo of 1.4, 2.2 and 2.5 wording I have pointed out above means to date in Canada since the DPP not the AG deals specifically with an individual on-going case and the AG remains dettached not personally inv involved particulary if getting involved would be based on a conflict with political agenda. That is why JWR would not over rule the DPP nor has any AG ever done so.

The AG is supposed to remain the symbolic head and ultimate person responsible but not involved in the day to day prosecution of a case.

The problem is we have people who read sites and do not understand the law as it is actually applied from what they read.

The only issue that may have the AG himself ever involve himself in a case might be a Charter case dealing with a province trying to separate.

Owly provide the cases and the reasons how the AG has over-ruled the DPP. They never have because of the combo of the wording above.

Provide a case that says otherwise. None exist. Provide a legal convention, article that says otherwise.

You have to do more than read things literally to understand the practical application of law.

 

 

 

 

 

Just read section 15 and you'll have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Owly said:

Wrong on both 1. and 2.

The ag has the power to intervene and rule on a dpa case once they have fully informed the DPP.

I think "overrule" is a better word than intervene.

 

6 hours ago, Rue said:

1. The Chief Prosecutor not the AG makes the ruling on whether dpa's are to be used in any specific case because in fact the  Chief Prosecutor role was created deliberately to distance the AG from acting in any on-going  criminal case as its prosecutor in any role including the determination of dpas.

......

Let not talk about DPA first,; tell me I am wrong; did JWR overrule prosecutor before? I remember she did. It was something to do with people having sex with HIV patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No Owly it is not that simple. You are removing s.15 out of its context of application. It is not a stand alone section. Here is the second part of my response as to the complex issue as to whether Lametti can overturn his DPP’s decision not to award a dpa.

As I stated earlier the intent of having a DPP is  not to replace them when they don’t do what the AG wants for these reasons:

Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html

On December 12, 2006, the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) was created with the coming into force of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The Act makes the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) responsible for the prosecution of federal offences. The ODPP was created to ensure that the mechanisms to protect prosecutorial independence from improper influences, including improper political influence, are statutory and transparent. “

 

Next the role of the DPP was created to report to the AG but still maintain independence.

 Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html

Role of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Under section 3(3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the DPP has been delegated the Attorney General’s authority to initiate and conduct federal prosecutions, to intervene in proceedings that raise a question of public interest that may affect the conduct of prosecutions or related investigations, to issue guidelines to federal prosecutors, and to advise law enforcement agencies on matters related to prosecutions generally and particular investigations that may lead to a prosecution.

The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction… unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15. (note: the AG did not take conduct of the prosecution-since the DPP's powers are binding, the only way the AG could avoid them being binding is to have appointed herself the prosecutor BEFORE the DPP made her ruling) Before assuming conduct, the Attorney General must first consult with the DPP. (note: why would the DPP agree to being replaced and contradicted if its not based on a legal error)To safeguard the DPP’s independence, any decision to assume conduct must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. ..The Attorney General’s powers to assume conduct of a prosecution does not extend to all the work undertaken by the DPP(note this wording is placed in because the AG was only intended to take over a prosecution not to replace a DPP's decisions but to conduct a trial in very specific cases)

The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction, unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General under section 10(1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act or unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15.”

also:

cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html

Section 14 of the DPP Act gives the Attorney General the power, after notifying the DPP, to intervene in proceedings at first instance or on appeal that, in his or her opinion, raise questions of “public interest”. 41 In theory, the Attorney General may intervene in prosecutions conducted by the DPP  (note how it says in theory)in order to present different views on an issue, for example proceedings that raise issues of informer privilege, broader issues of police conduct or cases that raise both Charter and division-of-powers issues. However, such interventions in federal prosecutions would be rare, in light of the power to take charge of a prosecution.

Section 15 reflects the fact that the Attorney General retains his or her criminal law related powers under the DPP Act. The foregoing power, like the power to issue directives, is one which is to be exercised sparingly in order to preserve the independence of the DPP. Nevertheless, s. 15 recognizes that the Attorney General is ultimately accountable to Parliament for federal prosecutions. Accordingly, there must be a residual capacity in the Attorney General to ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. (a residual power means a power of last resort-it would mean the AG would have to believe they have a legal reason not a political one to over-ride the DPP, right now there is no legal reason-which is why I said without a ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal to justify using this residual power, the AG just deciding to ignore his DPP at this point is absurd. Its too late. The DPP already exercised her discretion delegated to her. There is no procedure for "taking it back".

So given all the above  y in theory the AG could intervene in any case but its not the way the law works in reality or practicality or how the AG has functioned up until today. Here are other reasons whywhy:

Cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-david-lametti-deferred-prosecution-agreement-1.5048528”

“Craig Martin Scott, a York University law professor, agreed that there is nothing to preclude the attorney general from intervening at any point, up until the verdict. But it may be impractical for the new attorney general, or any attorney general, to keep abreast of a case for that period of time, he said.

To say that the AG has the same kind of active duty to constantly be keeping in mind a file in order to determine [do they] intervene with the prosecutors, that just doesn't follow….

No system can work with the AG constantly being on watch over multiple files as to whether they're going to intervene…..

It means (if the AG intervenes( that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."..It means that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."

So based on the above this is why I have tried to explain had the DPP not already made her decision and had the Federal Court then not supported it, the AG might have been able to act as a puppet for Trudeau and allow a dpa.  This current AG came in after the decision was made. This current AG would have had to have intervened BEFORE the other AG delegated the dpa decision to the DPP.

He will also have to would have to publish in the Canada Gazette the reason for his intervention  and how will he do that without support from the Federal Court of Appeal? He'd have no legal grounds to intervene and the Gazette would show the world his transparent lack of legal grounds.

The s.15 power  is predicated on not waiting until AFTER the DPP exercised her power as a way to over-rule her. Its never been used in such a manner and why would it?

If the DPP was told she was wrong by the Federal Court of Appeal, she would first have to remedy what the court tells her to. You don't just ignore her and replace her.

Now that she  has been supported by the Federal Court as I said, the only way an AG could at this point justifying trying to undo what has been done is a valid legal reason given to him by the Federal Court of Appeal and he would not intervene unless the DPP refused to follow that appeal decision.

So without a decision supporting a review from the Federal Court of Canada Appeal level, if the AG at this point tried to ignore what the Federal Court said and undo what the DPP did, and ignore the Federal Court of Appeal if they agree with their lower court,  he would have ignored to levels of court decisions as well as ignoring all the wording of the dpa law that mandates him to consider the preconditions, considerations and prohibition.

If he did something that outrageous it would cause a constitutional conflict and constitute an abuse of power of the AG  and a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that could in theory require the AG to resign.

At this point to try impose a dpa without a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal  would be a transparent political consideration not a legal one. 

Oxy your take on s.15 might in theory have happened if the original AG was a puppet of Trudeau and had not delegated to the dpa eligibility questions to the DPP which is standard procedure. AG's don't involve themselves in plea bargaining at preliminary stages.

More to the point, AG's don't intervene in criminal cases. They might with constitutional cases of national importance but not criminal cases.

With due respect there is more than just the section you read. There is a greater context on how its applied and I have tried my best to explain it as any lawyer would or could to you.

If you think an AG can at this point second guess JWR or her DPP, without a constitutional crisis and engaging in abuse of process you are with due respect mistaken.

AG's can not act in a partisan manner or in a manner that lends to partisan appearance.

If the AG did this, at this point, you would have a legal conflict explode starting with 5 former AG's and numerous legal groups seeking a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada.

If Trudeau would be that reckless at this point after all this, its a sure sign he's worried about a hell of a lot more than supposed jobs.

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

No Owly it is not that simple. You are removing s.15 out of its context of application. It is not a stand alone section. Here is the second part of my response as to the complex issue as to whether Lametti can overturn his DPP’s decision not to award a dpa.

As I stated earlier the intent of having a DPP is  not to replace them when they don’t do what the AG wants for these reasons:

Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html

On December 12, 2006, the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) was created with the coming into force of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The Act makes the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) responsible for the prosecution of federal offences. The ODPP was created to ensure that the mechanisms to protect prosecutorial independence from improper influences, including improper political influence, are statutory and transparent. “

 

Next the role of the DPP was created to report to the AG but still maintain independence.

 Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html

Role of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Under section 3(3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the DPP has been delegated the Attorney General’s authority to initiate and conduct federal prosecutions, to intervene in proceedings that raise a question of public interest that may affect the conduct of prosecutions or related investigations, to issue guidelines to federal prosecutors, and to advise law enforcement agencies on matters related to prosecutions generally and particular investigations that may lead to a prosecution.

The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction… unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15. (note: the AG did not take conduct of the prosecution-since the DPP's powers are binding, the only way the AG could avoid them being binding is to have appointed herself the prosecutor BEFORE the DPP made her ruling) Before assuming conduct, the Attorney General must first consult with the DPP. (note: why would the DPP agree to being replaced and contradicted if its not based on a legal error)To safeguard the DPP’s independence, any decision to assume conduct must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. ..The Attorney General’s powers to assume conduct of a prosecution does not extend to all the work undertaken by the DPP(note this wording is placed in because the AG was only intended to take over a prosecution not to replace a DPP's decisions but to conduct a trial in very specific cases)

The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction, unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General under section 10(1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act or unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15.”

also:

cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html

Section 14 of the DPP Act gives the Attorney General the power, after notifying the DPP, to intervene in proceedings at first instance or on appeal that, in his or her opinion, raise questions of “public interest”. 41 In theory, the Attorney General may intervene in prosecutions conducted by the DPP  (note how it says in theory)in order to present different views on an issue, for example proceedings that raise issues of informer privilege, broader issues of police conduct or cases that raise both Charter and division-of-powers issues. However, such interventions in federal prosecutions would be rare, in light of the power to take charge of a prosecution.

Section 15 reflects the fact that the Attorney General retains his or her criminal law related powers under the DPP Act. The foregoing power, like the power to issue directives, is one which is to be exercised sparingly in order to preserve the independence of the DPP. Nevertheless, s. 15 recognizes that the Attorney General is ultimately accountable to Parliament for federal prosecutions. Accordingly, there must be a residual capacity in the Attorney General to ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. (a residual power means a power of last resort-it would mean the AG would have to believe they have a legal reason not a political one to over-ride the DPP, right now there is no legal reason-which is why I said without a ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal to justify using this residual power, the AG just deciding to ignore his DPP at this point is absurd. Its too late. The DPP already exercised her discretion delegated to her. There is no procedure for "taking it back".

So given all the above  y in theory the AG could intervene in any case but its not the way the law works in reality or practicality or how the AG has functioned up until today. Here are other reasons whywhy:

Cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-david-lametti-deferred-prosecution-agreement-1.5048528”

“Craig Martin Scott, a York University law professor, agreed that there is nothing to preclude the attorney general from intervening at any point, up until the verdict. But it may be impractical for the new attorney general, or any attorney general, to keep abreast of a case for that period of time, he said.

To say that the AG has the same kind of active duty to constantly be keeping in mind a file in order to determine [do they] intervene with the prosecutors, that just doesn't follow….

No system can work with the AG constantly being on watch over multiple files as to whether they're going to intervene…..

It means (if the AG intervenes( that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."..It means that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."

So based on the above this is why I have tried to explain had the DPP not already made her decision and had the Federal Court then not supported it, the AG might have been able to act as a puppet for Trudeau and allow a dpa.  This current AG came in after the decision was made. This current AG would have had to have intervened BEFORE the other AG delegated the dpa decision to the DPP.

He will also have to would have to publish in the Canada Gazette the reason for his intervention  and how will he do that without support from the Federal Court of Appeal? He'd have no legal grounds to intervene and the Gazette would show the world his transparent lack of legal grounds.

The s.15 power  is predicated on not waiting until AFTER the DPP exercised her power as a way to over-rule her. Its never been used in such a manner and why would it?

If the DPP was told she was wrong by the Federal Court of Appeal, she would first have to remedy what the court tells her to. You don't just ignore her and replace her.

Now that she  has been supported by the Federal Court as I said, the only way an AG could at this point justifying trying to undo what has been done is a valid legal reason given to him by the Federal Court of Appeal and he would not intervene unless the DPP refused to follow that appeal decision.

So without a decision supporting a review from the Federal Court of Canada Appeal level, if the AG at this point tried to ignore what the Federal Court said and undo what the DPP did, and ignore the Federal Court of Appeal if they agree with their lower court,  he would have ignored to levels of court decisions as well as ignoring all the wording of the dpa law that mandates him to consider the preconditions, considerations and prohibition.

If he did something that outrageous it would cause a constitutional conflict and constitute an abuse of power of the AG  and a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that could in theory require the AG to resign.

At this point to try impose a dpa without a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal  would be a transparent political consideration not a legal one. 

Oxy your take on s.15 might in theory have happened if the original AG was a puppet of Trudeau and had not delegated to the dpa eligibility questions to the DPP which is standard procedure. AG's don't involve themselves in plea bargaining at preliminary stages.

More to the point, AG's don't intervene in criminal cases. They might with constitutional cases of national importance but not criminal cases.

With due respect there is more than just the section you read. There is a greater context on how its applied and I have tried my best to explain it as any lawyer would or could to you.

If you think an AG can at this point second guess JWR or her DPP, without a constitutional crisis and engaging in abuse of process you are with due respect mistaken.

AG's can not act in a partisan manner or in a manner that lends to partisan appearance.

If the AG did this, at this point, you would have a legal conflict explode starting with 5 former AG's and numerous legal groups seeking a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada.

If Trudeau would be that reckless at this point after all this, its a sure sign he's worried about a hell of a lot more than supposed jobs.

 

 

 

The AG can overrule the DPP. Don't know how many times I need to tell ya that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are reasons the new AG could overturn the Chief Prosecutor’s decision:

1. New information was presented to the AG in September by SNC that either wasn’t considered or was simply ignored by JWR.  

2.  The DPA legislation was passed in June of 2018 and the decision not to allow a DPA was concluded in September of 2018.  How much time did SNC have to make its case under the new DPA legal framework?  When they tried to bring forward evidence, it’s arguable that it wasn’t properly considered.  

3.  In terms of the “public interest” or “national economic interest” argument non being applicable, that’s fine, don’t use that argument.  The purpose of a DPA is to protect innocent workers.  That criterion applies here.  

4.  Fines can still be applied to SNC as part of a DPA in lieu of a ban on federal contracts.  There is no reason to presume that SNC wouldn’t pay them.  Culprit were already fired and charged.  SNC isn’t fighting that.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this of the AG and DPP is neither here nor there.

The fact is that Trudeau was flagrantly overstepping his bounds to exert pressure on the AG to use the DPA for SNC Lavalin. There's ample evidence of this now.

Follow the trail of cookie crumbs:

SNC lobbied for a DPA type of law to be created. Trudeau didn't just randomly come up with the idea for that law out of the blue, he created the DPA law almost specifically for SNC. His cronies were caught on tape pressuring Ray-Bold to use the DPA and saying that Trudeau wasn't going to let the issue go away.

That's the crux of the issue, right there.

Whether or not some sycophant AG or DPP comes along now and decides that the DPA law is applicable doesn't change the fact that Trudeau himself was trying to ram it down the AG's throat. He's not the Ayatollah. He's not the King. He was way out of his lane and he got caught.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Owly said:

The AG can overrule the DPP. Don't know how many times I need to tell ya that.

I am also not sure how many times I can explain to you that he can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, egghead said:

Is it just me, or did Rue move the goal post? :blink:

No I did not. Read what I wrote. You can't pull a section out of context. The law is not just what  one legal section says. Its about reading all the sections that might apply to how you use it. I have gone out of my way to explain all the different sections that are used so that no s.15 is not an absolute power. The AG can not after they delegate a power to the DPP undo it simply because they do not like what they did. That is not what s.15 was designed to do. It was designed to allow the AG on very specific cases to actually do the trials. The reason these interventions are published in the Gazette is because they are rare indeed and need good justification. Its not a whim. Its not a power where the AG doesn't like what a prosecutor is doing and takes over.

The AG is a supervisor not a hands on prosecutor and was never intended to be. Plus as I said the DPP was deliberately created so they would not have to involve themselves in decisions that could appear to conflicted with their other role as Mnr of Justice and their role as  being subordinate to Parliament. Being subordinate to Parliament is something the AG is and the DPP is not. This enables the DPP to concentrate only on the legal merits of a case not issues that could APPEAR or in fact be governed by political interests.

I did not move any goal posts but I would appreciate if you tried to read what I sent you. I am not removing anything. What I have provided has always been there and I in fact cited the entire basis of the legal application of AG and DPP interaction.

What you and Owly need to look at is not reading s.15 in isolation. No law is read in isolation. Each section interacts with other sections.

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

There are reasons the new AG could overturn the Chief Prosecutor’s decision:

1. New information was presented to the AG in September by SNC that either wasn’t considered or was simply ignored by JWR.  

2.  The DPA legislation was passed in June of 2018 and the decision not to allow a DPA was concluded in September of 2018.  How much time did SNC have to make its case under the new DPA legal framework?  When they tried to bring forward evidence, it’s arguable that it wasn’t properly considered.  

3.  In terms of the “public interest” or “national economic interest” argument non being applicable, that’s fine, don’t use that argument.  The purpose of a DPA is to protect innocent workers.  That criterion applies here.  

4.  Fines can still be applied to SNC as part of a DPA in lieu of a ban on federal contracts.  There is no reason to presume that SNC wouldn’t pay them.  Culprit were already fired and charged.  SNC isn’t fighting that.  

 

Can you please clarify 1. I am not aware of any evidence JWR ignored or the DPP Rousel ignored. Can you explain what this information was and why it was new? 

Sorry 2 will not work, Lavalin was given as much time as it wanted in fact never in the history of a criminal proceeding has an accused been allowed to ask a Prime Minister to interfere and stop a preliminary inquiry to pass a retroactive law to apply to the specific case stopped and attempt to dictate the terms of the dpa.

In regards to 3, its not limited to just that. Read the preconditions, considerations. There are far more criteria the prosecutor is mandated to consider than just that one.

In regards to 4, yes absolutely correct on the first part. On the second part Lavalin has indicated publically it will not agree to pay back all money earned on the projects it obtained through bribery nor has it ever recognized the harm done to persons in Libya and offer to set up a victim's fund. To get a dpa it would have needed to approach the Prosecutor and agree to both but it has publically said no. Interestingly the closest case I can think of the British dpa case of Rolls Royce, RR agreed to both. So I would say had Lavalin approached the prosecutor from the get go and volunteered to pay back the profit from the bribes plus set up a victim's fund, instead of going to the PM to do an end run around the Prosecutor who did not give them a favourable plea bargain to their liking- we would not be here. Lavalin has no one but themselves to blame. They were cocky trying to dictate the terms of the plea. No Judge would approve a dpa or any plea unless its the same as what you see in the Rolls Royce case as the minimum standard,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

All this of the AG and DPP is neither here nor there.

The fact is that Trudeau was flagrantly overstepping his bounds to exert pressure on the AG to use the DPA for SNC Lavalin. There's ample evidence of this now.

Follow the trail of cookie crumbs:

SNC lobbied for a DPA type of law to be created. Trudeau didn't just randomly come up with the idea for that law out of the blue, he created the DPA law almost specifically for SNC. His cronies were caught on tape pressuring Ray-Bold to use the DPA and saying that Trudeau wasn't going to let the issue go away.

That's the crux of the issue, right there.

Whether or not some sycophant AG or DPP comes along now and decides that the DPA law is applicable doesn't change the fact that Trudeau himself was trying to ram it down the AG's throat. He's not the Ayatollah. He's not the King. He was way out of his lane and he got caught.

 

The PM and his coterie applied pressure on the AG to consider a policy that they valued, but they didn’t break any laws.  So what?

JWR has had controversial opinions in the past and to call her outspoken and having a political agenda is an understatement.  I won’t try to discern her motives, but okay, let’s see her in the best possible light as a defender of judicial fairness and independence.   She appears to have ignored or downplayed certain evidence (September SNC filings) and cases (wrongful conviction of a man for murder), and she appears to have politicized her testimony regarding political pressure on the AG by bringing in rhetoric that comes straight from her days settling land claims and refusing to be an Aboriginal Affairs minister because she has spent her life “speaking truth to power”.  Is anyone really naive enough to believe that she is totally impartial and merely standing up for fair judicial process?  Recording phone conversations, resigning from cabinet, refusing a cabinet post where she could really make a difference (Aboriginal Affairs).  Honestly you would think Trudeau was a convicted Nazi the way this story has been spun.  

Don’t forget that it was Trudeau and his sunny ways that empowered JWR in government, made Reconciliation a centrepiece of his mandate, boosted spending on Indigenous affairs, and implemented an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women.  The Liberals and the government are bigger than one person.  The government isn’t about JWR or Trudeau, but as he is the party leader and PM, it’s more about him than her.  JWR will survive this mess and she has her supporters.  Trudeau’s government may fall over this SNC affair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

All this of the AG and DPP is neither here nor there.

The fact is that Trudeau was flagrantly overstepping his bounds to exert pressure on the AG to use the DPA for SNC Lavalin. There's ample evidence of this now.

Follow the trail of cookie crumbs:

SNC lobbied for a DPA type of law to be created. Trudeau didn't just randomly come up with the idea for that law out of the blue, he created the DPA law almost specifically for SNC. His cronies were caught on tape pressuring Ray-Bold to use the DPA and saying that Trudeau wasn't going to let the issue go away.

That's the crux of the issue, right there.

Whether or not some sycophant AG or DPP comes along now and decides that the DPA law is applicable doesn't change the fact that Trudeau himself was trying to ram it down the AG's throat. He's not the Ayatollah. He's not the King. He was way out of his lane and he got caught.

 

Yes absolutely but the current AG by not being the original person to decide the dpa's applicability is in fact not capable now at this point in contradicting the DPP and previous AG unless he has some  very solid legal grounds. Without a Federal Court of Appeal decision giving him a pretext to try overturn what the former AG and DPP did, this current AG can't just decide to ignore the court Federal Court decision.

Z in a response to me said JWR ignored new evidence which would give the new AG the right to over turn the DPA. I am not aware of any evidence the DPP and AG ignored and one must ask, what evidence would be so strong as to cancel out the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law itself to allow the imposition of  a dpa.

You are dead on Wes but this current government caught violating the rule of law and in direct conflict of interest, tried to interfere with the independence of both the AG and DPP on a criminal case to get favourable treatment for an accused. It was a flagrant violation of the rule of law which has never in the history of any British parliamentary model of law ever been done.

We are witnessing what has to be one of the most flagrant violations of the rule of law and we have Liberal partisans trying to say the law allows this and AG's have arbitrary powers to act political and make decisions based on what the PM wants for his constituents.

I apologize for my long drawn out explanations, but I am trying to make sure these Liberal partisans do not misrepresent the law. There is a smugness about partisan politics where partisans pick and chose parts of the law they think suit their political agenda and ignore the rest.

There is no law and no procedure in Canada that allows an AG to act in a political manner and arbitrarily interfere with prosecutors and replace them and their decisions on procedural matters unless a court says they must. The law when it does provide absolute discretion to exercise a power as it did for the DPP in deciding the eligibility of a dpa, does not say in s.15 as was quoted, the AG can undo a previous decision of the DPP or its previous AG. It does say the AG could have on their own simply imposed a dpa but JWR did not because it would have abused the intent of the AG's role to remain distinct from political consideration.

These liberals can spin all they want, their desire or need to justify imposing a dpa, is a political one. Its not about job loss which is the cover story its about preventing evidence from coming out at trial and we know why. You and I and most Canadians know why.

We know damn well there is no job loss issue but there is a cover up because evidence that would come out in a trial could damage Trudeau and mp's in his party who may have accepted bribes or other favours from Lavalin. Given Trudeau's open and brazen arrogance in accepting a gift from the Aga Kahn and laughing off the ethical concerns in that matter, is it a stretch to believe he did something similar with Lavalin he is now trying to hide?

The bottom line is Trudeau is screwed. If he  tries to force a dpa before the election it will  blow up in his face. He has to stall until after the election if he is going to try force a dpa and hope he wins the election. The way it looks now, he will lose the election and the current AG will no longer be in power and the trial will proceed and we will get to the evidence.

If Trudeau wins, there will be a minority government and any attempt to ram through a dpa will result in a no confidence vote and his being tossed on his ass.

I love watching Liberal partisans blindly spin excuses for him and dictate what the law can do for them but then ignore the law when it does not suit them.

Liberal partisans seem to only focus on laws where they think it gives them power to ignore other laws.

This reflects a philosophy of entitlement and why should that surprise anyone. Trudeau, Morneau are rich boys. They cater to elitist interests and operate in a vacuum. Here is Trudeau claiming to be a champion of the middle class awarding government carbon tax assistance to Loblaws while ignoring small businesses. He vacations with the elite like the Aga Kahn or when he goes on vacation flies to and fro because the air pollution he causes doesn't count. His shit don't stink in his world. He lives in a world of one standard, the rest of us another. The laws do not apply to him if they are inconvenient. People who work for him must blindly agree with him or else.

These are the same Liberals that accused Harper of acting unethically and a tyrant. I bet you most Canadians comparing Trudeau to Harper would choose Harper today in a vote.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The PM and his coterie applied pressure on the AG to consider a policy that they valued, but they didn’t break any laws.  So what?

JWR has had controversial opinions in the past and to call her outspoken and having a political agenda is an understatement.  I won’t try to discern her motives, but okay, let’s see her in the best possible light as a defender of judicial fairness and independence.   She appears to have ignored or downplayed certain evidence (September SNC filings) and cases (wrongful conviction of a man for murder), and she appears to have politicized her testimony regarding political pressure on the AG by bringing in rhetoric that comes straight from her days settling land claims and refusing to be an Aboriginal Affairs minister because she has spent her life “speaking truth to power”.  Is anyone really naive enough to believe that she is totally impartial and merely standing up for fair judicial process?  Recording phone conversations, resigning from cabinet, refusing a cabinet post where she could really make a difference (Aboriginal Affairs).  Honestly you would think Trudeau was a convicted Nazi the way this story has been spun.  

Don’t forget that it was Trudeau and his sunny ways that empowered JWR in government, made Reconciliation a centrepiece of his mandate, boosted spending on Indigenous affairs, and implemented an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women.  The Liberals and the government are bigger than one person.  The government isn’t about JWR or Trudeau, but as he is the party leader and PM, it’s more about him than her.  JWR will survive this mess and she has her supporters.  Trudeau’s government may fall over this SNC affair.  

In regards to your first comment, they violated the rule of law. Also the refrain they did not break any laws misses the point. Things can be legal but unethical and violate the rule of law. I again remind you of the Nuremberg trials and the commentary that came from those cases. Hitler was a classic example of a man who broke no  laws. So what you ask?  The pith and substance of a democracy is that we exercise laws ethically and always uphold the rule of law. So what? The what is that the worst tyrants in the world that have carried out outrageous acts, did so perfectly legally.

JWR's past opinions are not the issue. I notice you try smeer her. You can of course but it doesn't establish she did anything wrong with the dpa decision and you need to understand smeering her does not detract from the merits of that dpa decision made by the DPP not her. If she was as tainted as you paint her than that means your Prime Minister is an idiot for not having called her on all the evils you claim. You are using a Trump tactic where Trump claims everyone around him is incompetent and to blame. You think that has made Trump look credible? How naïve are you to think after all the lies Trudeau has been caught in, he's innocent on this one. How does a man directly conflicted in an on-going criminal case and is an elected official, justify using his power to try prevent a criminal trial? What you think the "it wasn't illegal" refrain avoids what he did and the consequences it has on the very fundamental basis of the need to protect democracy by assuring our not elected civil servants and judiciary are not controlled by political partisan agenda? How naïve is that.

I did not follow your last comment. Sorry I do not understand how Trudeau is bigger and more important than the principle of the rules of law and his agenda to please his constituents (if you buy into that job loss spin) is more important than the victims of Ghaddafi or the right of our society to expect all its citizens act legally and ethically and not finance Ghaddafis of the world.

How many more Hitlers and Ghaddafis do we finance? How do you think concentration camps and the railways to build them to send people to their death were built? They were built by industrialists no different than Lavalin who used the slave  labour in the camps to  make money for themselves and made their profit building death camps, shipping cynide pellets, etc.

Would you please explain how you think the need for Trudeau's constituents to make profit off of building a concentration camp in Libya for Ghaddafi are more important than the Libyans who died and suffered at the hands of Ghaddafi. Explain to all the people murdered by Ghaddafi's financing of terrorists or his military to commit war crimes in other countries is less important than the need of constitutent's in Trudeau's riding to profit from the person engaged in all these crimes?

Explain how Trudeau is bigger than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

In regards to your first comment, they violated the rule of law. Also the refrain they did not break any laws misses the point. Things can be legal but unethical and violate the rule of law. I again remind you of the Nuremberg trials and the commentary that came from those cases. Hitler was a classic example of a man who broke no  laws. So what you ask?  The pith and substance of a democracy is that we exercise laws ethically and always uphold the rule of law. So what? The what is that the worst tyrants in the world that have carried out outrageous acts, did so perfectly legally.

JWR's past opinions are not the issue. I notice you try smeer her. You can of course but it doesn't establish she did anything wrong with the dpa decision and you need to understand smeering her does not detract from the merits of that dpa decision made by the DPP not her. If she was as tainted as you paint her than that means your Prime Minister is an idiot for not having called her on all the evils you claim. You are using a Trump tactic where Trump claims everyone around him is incompetent and to blame. You think that has made Trump look credible? How naïve are you to think after all the lies Trudeau has been caught in, he's innocent on this one. How does a man directly conflicted in an on-going criminal case and is an elected official, justify using his power to try prevent a criminal trial? What you think the "it wasn't illegal" refrain avoids what he did and the consequences it has on the very fundamental basis of the need to protect democracy by assuring our not elected civil servants and judiciary are not controlled by political partisan agenda? How naïve is that.

I did not follow your last comment. Sorry I do not understand how Trudeau is bigger and more important than the principle of the rules of law and his agenda to please his constituents (if you buy into that job loss spin) is more important than the victims of Ghaddafi or the right of our society to expect all its citizens act legally and ethically and not finance Ghaddafis of the world.

How many more Hitlers and Ghaddafis do we finance? How do you think concentration camps and the railways to build them to send people to their death were built? They were built by industrialists no different than Lavalin who used the slave  labour in the camps to  make money for themselves and made their profit building death camps, shipping cynide pellets, etc.

Would you please explain how you think the need for Trudeau's constituents to make profit off of building a concentration camp in Libya for Ghaddafi are more important than the Libyans who died and suffered at the hands of Ghaddafi. Explain to all the people murdered by Ghaddafi's financing of terrorists or his military to commit war crimes in other countries is less important than the need of constitutent's in Trudeau's riding to profit from the person engaged in all these crimes?

Explain how Trudeau is bigger than them.

Okay, I won’t even get into your comments on Canada’s business affairs in Libya.  Britain, France, the US and many other western countries, like Canada, have had business interests in Libya since 2004.  Canada is a relatively small player there.  Bribery is unfortunately part of the business culture in Libya.  I can almost guarantee that it’s mainly because of Canada’s high reporting and accountability standards that we’re even hearing about bribery, but forget all of that.  Facts on the ground are that some executives in SNC, now long gone from the company, used bribery to win business contracts.  The purpose of the DPA is to limit the liability and penalties to those who committed the crimes, rather than crippling a company that employs tens of thousands of workers.  You’re welcome to argue that SNC wouldn’t be crippled, jobs won’t be lost, head offices won’t be moved out of Canada.  That’s fine and I’m not interested in that conversation.  

I’m merely asserting that the people who elected Trudeau on the basis of progressive policy in terms of boosting female representation and affirmative action, increased support for Indigenous affairs, and even increased transparency and accountability largely got what they wanted to the extent that it’s crippling the government.  That’s one of the reasons I didn’t vote for the Liberals and won’t in the next election.  We’re overtaxed enough in this country and we can’t even get our resources to market because the over-regulated National Energy Board thinks it’s fair for a Hereditary Chief grandmother to cause a public relations nightmare for resource development.  The vast majority of the population is becoming enslaved  by radical special interests, eco warriors and identity politics activists.  Who is paying the bill?  Who will continue to pay the bill when the jobs disappear?

Trudeau has tried to be all things to all people.  I was skeptical of him and saw the lynch mobs coming for him on both the left and the right.  Again I ask the question, who can successfully represent the middle anymore?  The Liberals used to do this quite well.  We know the Conservatives will ignore climate change and trim government spending in exchange for tax cuts.  We know the NDP will overspend on programs, increase the debt, and alienate business.  In this populist environment the middle has become untenable, which has been the case in the US for some time.  People have become more tribal, supporting their left or right wing team at the expense of the other side.  I do wonder if this is the real threat to democracy.  It’s also what Russian and even Chinese political interference have been trying to achieve.  

This SNC scandal is more concerning because of what it illustrates about mutinous forces in Trudeau’s government than it is about Trudeau’s inappropriate pressure on the AG.  I can tell that many of the posters on here slamming Trudeau over SNC are really just Conservative supporters who found another reason to dump on Trudeau.  That’s fine, but the Conservatives should take the SNC affair as a cautionary tale.  Be careful about the forces you invite into government in the name of inclusivity.  Be careful about ceding too much authority in the name of consultation.  Be careful about inviting too much media and public attention in the name of openness and accountability.  Trudeau’s attempt to do things “differently” have backfired big time.  His dad was a bit of a commie, but Trudeau Senior let everyone know who was boss. He was feared and respected, even if he didn’t always get it right on policy.  He garnered respect and boosted Canada’s brand.  

It’s not too late for JT.  He has charisma, energy, and I’ll even grant him, some vision, but if he wants to remain in power he has to toughen up, cut out superficial feel good, fluffy priorities and apology parades and get down to the business of job creation and expanding the middle class.  That includes building pipelines and even seeking DPA’s for the likes of SNC, if he can get past the politically correct lynch mob.  He can try to maintain his climate action policy, but he’s got to focus on what’s most important to most people or the Conservatives will rightly eat his lunch.  It may already be too late.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

All this of the AG and DPP is neither here nor there.

The fact is that Trudeau was flagrantly overstepping his bounds to exert pressure on the AG to use the DPA for SNC Lavalin. There's ample evidence of this now.

Follow the trail of cookie crumbs:

SNC lobbied for a DPA type of law to be created. Trudeau didn't just randomly come up with the idea for that law out of the blue, he created the DPA law almost specifically for SNC. His cronies were caught on tape pressuring Ray-Bold to use the DPA and saying that Trudeau wasn't going to let the issue go away.

That's the crux of the issue, right there.

Whether or not some sycophant AG or DPP comes along now and decides that the DPA law is applicable doesn't change the fact that Trudeau himself was trying to ram it down the AG's throat. He's not the Ayatollah. He's not the King. He was way out of his lane and he got caught.

 

Deleted

Edited by egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rue said:

No I did not. Read what I wrote. You can't pull a section out of context. The law is not just what  one legal section says. Its about reading all the sections that might apply to how you use it.…

 

I read it . That is why i say u move the goal post. We are taking about breaking the law, and you are talking the "political" fallout.  I am a simple man, and I only ask simple question. If ag gives dpa to snc, can u call rcmp or for constitutional review or for judicial review?

I am not saying ag shall give dpa to snc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Okay, I won’t even get into your comments on Canada’s business affairs in Libya.  Britain, France, the US and many other western countries, like Canada, have had business interests in Libya since 2004.  Canada is a relatively small player there.  Bribery is unfortunately part of the business culture in Libya. 

Just Libya? It's looking more of that this is SNC-Lavalin's global culture of bribing people.

Now along with, bribes, corruption, we have election interference on the local, provincial AND federal level.

SNC-Lavalin is nothing more than a Canadian government sanctioned mafia cartel.

 

This is from 2016

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/08/snc-lavalin-broke-laws-in-donations-to-liberals-conservatives.html

Quote

“(SNC-Lavalin) acknowledges that the proscribed activities compromised the transparency and integrity of the political financing regime created under the act by enabling (the company) . . . to indirectly make political contributions and conceal the true origin of the contributions in question,” reads a compliance agreement between SNC-Lavalin and the federal elections watchdog.

According to Côté’s office, SNC-Lavalin employees and their spouses were encouraged to give money to the Liberals and Conservatives by senior executives in the president and CEO’s office, who have since left the company. The company would then reimburse those employees.

The donations span the time from Paul Martin’s Liberal government through to Stephen Harper winning a majority government with the Conservatives in 2011.

And no SNC is not looking to change their behavior ... as this is still going on.

Quote

The federal scheme was not unlike what SNC-Lavalin had in place in Quebec, where the company donated more than $1 million to the Parti Québécois and Quebec Liberal party between 1998 and 2010.

For years, SNC-Lavalin has been attempting to clean up their image after a string of serious bribery and kickback scandals brought international charges and resulted in the company being blacklisted from World Bank development projects for a decade.

In a statement, SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce said the compliance agreement shows the company is committed to “resolve past issues.”

 

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rue said:

I am also not sure how many times I can explain to you that he can not.

Then I suggest you stop trying to explain what is not true and study the dpp act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rue said:

 

Can you please clarify 1. I am not aware of any evidence JWR ignored or the DPP Rousel ignored. Can you explain what this information was and why it was new? 

Sorry 2 will not work, Lavalin was given as much time as it wanted in fact never in the history of a criminal proceeding has an accused been allowed to ask a Prime Minister to interfere and stop a preliminary inquiry to pass a retroactive law to apply to the specific case stopped and attempt to dictate the terms of the dpa.

In regards to 3, its not limited to just that. Read the preconditions, considerations. There are far more criteria the prosecutor is mandated to consider than just that one.

In regards to 4, yes absolutely correct on the first part. On the second part Lavalin has indicated publically it will not agree to pay back all money earned on the projects it obtained through bribery nor has it ever recognized the harm done to persons in Libya and offer to set up a victim's fund. To get a dpa it would have needed to approach the Prosecutor and agree to both but it has publically said no. Interestingly the closest case I can think of the British dpa case of Rolls Royce, RR agreed to both. So I would say had Lavalin approached the prosecutor from the get go and volunteered to pay back the profit from the bribes plus set up a victim's fund, instead of going to the PM to do an end run around the Prosecutor who did not give them a favourable plea bargain to their liking- we would not be here. Lavalin has no one but themselves to blame. They were cocky trying to dictate the terms of the plea. No Judge would approve a dpa or any plea unless its the same as what you see in the Rolls Royce case as the minimum standard,

 

We all need to take pt 1. with a  grain of salt. It was on a liberal friendly media. They (don't remember the news named names or not) said that the evidence had been sitting on the JWR's desk since sept (<- important time-line), and she never touched it. Point 3 and Point 4 are as 'soured' as JT's kool-aid :wacko:

Edited by egghead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Just Libya? It's looking more of that this is SNC-Lavalin's global culture of bribing people.

Now along with, bribes, corruption, we have election interference on the local, provincial AND federal level.

SNC-Lavalin is nothing more than a Canadian government sanctioned mafia cartel.

 

This is from 2016

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/08/snc-lavalin-broke-laws-in-donations-to-liberals-conservatives.html

And no SNC is not looking to change their behavior ... as this is still going on.

 

I don’t disagree with much of what you said, but you’re referencing a period of history when there were few limitations on the amounts or nature of donations to political parties, so all parties took donations and countless companies made them.  Times have changed and there’s higher standards and more accountability in campaign financing.  In the US both major parties are essentially corporate sponsored entities.  Hillary took massive payouts from private health insurance companies.  SNC is a massive international company.  That doesn’t excuse past bad behaviour, but you need to bring context.  Many international companies simply don’t have the kinds of accountability and reporting standards that we have in Canada.  I certainly don’t think SNC should get away with any bad behaviour, but make sure the punishment fits the crime and impacts the perpetrators.  There was an excellent article in the Toronto Star today by Clayton Ruby.  His message to JWR is that the reason the Liberals brought in DPA’s is because judges hated having to apply mandatory minimum sentences such as ten year bans on applying for government contracts.  It undermines judicial discretion and hurts innocent workers.  That’s the real issue. JWR didn’t seem to value the new process.  She didn’t seem to consider valid evidence and decided to make AG independence, hers in particular, the hill she would fight and die on.  It seems at least a bit like an underhanded political move, enough that I’m willing to see the greyness of this affair.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The PM and his coterie applied pressure on the AG to consider a policy that they valued, but they didn’t break any laws.  So what?

JWR has had controversial opinions in the past and to call her outspoken and having a political agenda is an understatement.  I won’t try to discern her motives, but okay, let’s see her in the best possible light as a defender of judicial fairness and independence.   She appears to have ignored or downplayed certain evidence (September SNC filings) and cases (wrongful conviction of a man for murder), and she appears to have politicized her testimony regarding political pressure on the AG by bringing in rhetoric that comes straight from her days settling land claims and refusing to be an Aboriginal Affairs minister because she has spent her life “speaking truth to power”.  Is anyone really naive enough to believe that she is totally impartial and merely standing up for fair judicial process?  Recording phone conversations, resigning from cabinet, refusing a cabinet post where she could really make a difference (Aboriginal Affairs).  Honestly you would think Trudeau was a convicted Nazi the way this story has been spun.  

Don’t forget that it was Trudeau and his sunny ways that empowered JWR in government, made Reconciliation a centrepiece of his mandate, boosted spending on Indigenous affairs, and implemented an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women.  The Liberals and the government are bigger than one person.  The government isn’t about JWR or Trudeau, but as he is the party leader and PM, it’s more about him than her.  JWR will survive this mess and she has her supporters.  Trudeau’s government may fall over this SNC affair.  

I get it that you personally feel like Trudeau is the be-all end-all, but it might be time to step back and take another look at Mr Sunny Ways.

Have you ever heard that saying: "If you put a frog in hot water it will jump out but if you put it in cold water you can keep turning up the heat and the frog will stay there 'til it dies"? Well, if you just suddenly learned all there is to know about Trudeau up to this point would he still have your respect? At some point you need to place more value on your own loyalty, and just step away from a guy who has turned out to be a fraudster.

JWR's issues are hers alone, but they're nowhere near as bad as Trudeau's. And the truth from her is as good as anyone's truth if she has the evidence to back her up, which apparently she does.

Honestly, what makes her recordings unethical? She felt like she was being pressured to do the wrong thing, by people who had absolutely no right to pressure her.

 

At this point do you feel like Trudeau put pressure on JWR to give SNC a DPA? Do you feel like it was Trudeau's place to do so? Why did his story change so much? Why is he so afraid to get to the bottom of this? Why would he create a law JUST TO GET A COMPANY LIKE SNC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WHEN THEY HAVE SO MANY SERIOUS CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THEM in the first place?

 

Trudeau pretends to care about 9,000 jobs (that was another lie of his) at SNC in Montreal, but he literally doesn't give a crap about 100,000 jobs in Alberta. And he's your guy? That's where your loyalties lie? This is your hill to die on? I hope that you come to your senses soon bruh because we need to get this guy out of power. This is the most critical vote in the history of our country, by far.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...