[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

Remember that for many years this dude was by far the greatest national leader in North America...and he still might be it is just that Obrador has only been in office for a few months.

[crazy canuck]

 

A sad state of affairs indeed.

[viper37]

To digress a bit, one of the things I took some comfort in last election is that Trudeau had some smart people around him to advise him and he appeared able to take that advice and implement it (so long as he had a good script).  But the underlying assumption about the nature the of the advice he is getting is starting the fray - to say the least.

I can not remember what I told you at this time...?

Oh, wait, I do.



I got to admit, I am impressed by Scheer, in both official languages, while in parliament, as opposition leader, he is much better than I thought he would be.
https://www.facebook.com/AndrewScheerMP/videos/559211831264397/

[crazy canuck]

To digress a bit, one of the things I took some comfort in last election is that Trudeau had some smart people around him to advise him and he appeared able to take that advice and implement it (so long as he had a good script).  But the underlying assumption about the nature the of the advice he is getting is starting the fray - to say the least.

I can not remember what I told you at this time...?

Oh, wait, I do.

Yes, this is a legitimate "I told you so" moment

[Grey Fox]

The alternative being so so so much worse a I told you so moment is a Pandora's Box opening comment.

This is so much a tempest in a teapot. I really don't get what the RoC is twisting their panties so much.

[Barrister]

The alternative being so so so much worse a I told you so moment is a Pandora's Box opening comment.

This is so much a tempest in a teapot. I really don't get what the RoC is twisting their panties so much.

Is it you don't understand why SNC Lavelin isn't getting a DPA because of how important the company is?  Or that this sort of thing goes on all the time, so we're not quite sure why we're making a big deal out of this case?

Because this kind of thing doesn't happen.  It goes against the very idea that the law is supposed to be blind - the reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.  Maybe it's just because I am a prosecutor, but this story is a Big Deal.

What about the merits of the SNC case itself?  I understand the argument - it's basically that SNC is "too big to fail", they've tried very hard to move on at an executive level.  And here's the thing - it was always quite possible and legal for Trudeau to direct the PPSC to give SNC a DPA.  It's just he would have to do so publicly.  Let him justify to the nation why he is letting SNC off the hook in this way, and let voters make up their mind in the fall.

[viper37]

The alternative being so so so much worse a I told you so moment is a Pandora's Box opening comment.

This is so much a tempest in a teapot. I really don't get what the RoC is twisting their panties so much.

Separation of powers. A pillar of democracy.  Trivialities for the left.  Unless it's violated by the right.
Look, it was an option for the judge in the case.  It was up to him to decide.

I'm all for giving judges guidelines, like minimum sentencing for some crimes, but never for specific cases.

That the possibility exists is one thing.  I don't like it.  I don't like the way it's been brought up by the Liberal Party, in exchange of donations and electoral support, as always.  But it's there, it's the law of the country.

You go to court for murder, once convicted, there are a myriad of sentencing a judge can give you.  I may agree or not with the sentencing.  But it's not the Minister's job, or rather, the PMO via the Minister to direct what kind of sentencing should someone or some corporate entity should get.

Besides, as leftist as you are, you'd be the first complaining the rich got off easy once again...

Right now, 2 of their former managers have already been acquitted due to Jordan's briefs.  Let SNC off the hook too, and everyone can do it again.

Might as well not make it a crime to offer a bribe if you're going to penalize it.

[Grey Fox]

The alternative being so so so much worse a I told you so moment is a Pandora's Box opening comment.

This is so much a tempest in a teapot. I really don't get what the RoC is twisting their panties so much.

Is it you don't understand why SNC Lavelin isn't getting a DPA because of how important the company is?  Or that this sort of thing goes on all the time, so we're not quite sure why we're making a big deal out of this case?

Because this kind of thing doesn't happen.  It goes against the very idea that the law is supposed to be blind - the reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold.  Maybe it's just because I am a prosecutor, but this story is a Big Deal.

What about the merits of the SNC case itself?  I understand the argument - it's basically that SNC is "too big to fail", they've tried very hard to move on at an executive level.  And here's the thing - it was always quite possible and legal for Trudeau to direct the PPSC to give SNC a DPA.  It's just he would have to do so publicly.  Let him justify to the nation why he is letting SNC off the hook in this way, and let voters make up their mind in the fall.

Why the freak out over Trudeau to direct the PPSC. I agree with the your position & you actually have made the argument I wanted to make.

[viper37]

A Cabinet minister should not call a judge during a trial to enquire about that trial.  Even less so to influence a possiblie verdict, or a matter of procedure.

So far, it has not happenned, that we know of.

But there is a hint of pressure on the Justice Minister to do just that.

She said so in her resignation letter when she was transferred to another dept.

From the left, it is a betrayal, because she was well liked by First Nations and Feminists.
From the right, there is suspicions that Trudeau tried to interfer with the trial.

We know SNC lobbyied intensively to have that particular law adopted.  Fair game.  Distasful, but fair.
But the PMO willing to send instructions to PPSC is a step too far.

Remember a certain Jean Charest?  He was forced to resigned for something like that in 1990, while a minister in the Conservative government.

Also, this is the second time something like this is happening with the Libs, the first time being with Vice Admiral Mark Norman over the case of Davie.

Elected officials are not supposed to be talking to judges or the prosecutors about a trial.  Except maybe to be given explanation of why this or this happenned, but not to give specific instructions like "go hard on him, go easy on him, sentence him to time served, sentence her to 10 years", etc.

The lawyers will be able to explain this better than I can, though.  It's their field of expertise and their language.  Sorry.

[Barrister]

Just to clarify - the case hasn't been in front of a judge yet.  Instead this was a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions - the chief Federal Prosecutor.  As prosecutors we have a quasi-judicial role ourselves in deciding whether or not to prosecute a file.

[crazy canuck]

Viper, I don't think this is going to be anything close to what you described.  At most there was a discussion at the cabinet level about whether a prosecution agreement would be appropriate and some made arguments that it would be appropriate.  The details of that discussion will be characterized by both sides to suit their purposes.  As the Macdonald piece I linked stated, if this was any other cabinet minister this would be much ado about nothing.

But Trudeau has made some significant blunders to keep to his narrative of being the great reconcilator and feminist which forces him to make silly arguments like if Brison had not resigned Wilson-Rayboult would still be in cabinet.  As I said from the start, this has a lot more to do with what she was doing (and not doing) as Minister of Justice but Trudeau can't say that and still stick to his narrative.  And so he looks more and more inept by the day while the former Minister wins the PR battle without saying anything (and in fact making a point of the fact she feels, rightly or wrongly compelled not to say anything).

[Barrister]

So JWR met with cabinet and liberal caucus yesterday, and is still asserting solicitor-client privilege.

[viper37]

The details of that discussion will be characterized by both sides to suit their purposes. 

At this point, it does not really matter if it was a "simple inquiry" or "a direct order" or "any kind of pressure".

There is an appearance of conflict between the seperation of powers.

Appearances is what you call "ethics".

Maybe he did something illegal, maybe he did nothing, maybe he just inquired if it was a possibility.

I suppose a politician could call BB (well, his office) and inquire about a particular case, what kind of charges could be brought, what kind of penalty we're looking at.  That isn't pressure.  And it's clearly defensible and provable the politician did nothing wrong.

What we have here, however, is a cover up.

If there is nothing wrong and it is a misunderstanding, why move the minister?
If there is nothing wrong, why refuse that anyone from the PMO office testify in the Judicial committee?
If there is nothing wrong, why refuse that the Minister of Justice at the time testify in the Judicial committee?
If there is nothing wrong, why refuse that the Minister of Justice be relieve from her vows of secrecy on this particular incident?
If there is nothing wrong, why change the narrative everytime he has to answer questions about it?
If there is nothing wrong, why did the Minister specifically mentionned the separation of power in her resignation letter and the appearance of conflict?
If there is nothing wrong, why did the Prime Minister allow his chief of cabinet, his longtime McGill pal to resign over the issue?  Nothing wrong was done, why quit?  If you've done nothing wrong, do you offer your resignation to protect your boss?

[Barrister]

I suppose a politician could call BB (well, his office) and inquire about a particular case, what kind of charges could be brought, what kind of penalty we're looking at.  That isn't pressure.  And it's clearly defensible and provable the politician did nothing wrong.

While it would be improper for an individual MLA to call me up to chat about a case, it's entirely appropriate and happens with some regularity that the minister's office calls up wanting to know what is happening on a file.  We have to pretty much drop everything and write up a memo about the case so far (and ideally we should know that the minister might be curious and write up the memo ahead of time).

It also certainly happens that we get directives on how to treat certain kinds of cases.  For diversion there are lists of what charges are and arenot appropriate.  We have complex rules about what we can and can not do on impaired charges.

[crazy canuck]

Viper, as BB says, it is a bit more complex than you have described.  The devil is definitely in the details but imagine a world in which government did not turn its mind to how criminal justice matters should be appropriately dealt with.  There is a line but it is not entirely clear whether anyone came close to crossing it.  If Trudeau had dealt with this more competently it would likely not even be an issue.  I think that is the point that is going to hurt him the most.  Every commentator I have read is essentially making the point - wtf is this guy doing.  And that plays on the old fears that, to quote Harper - he is just not ready.