[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The thing I don't understand (I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't know this area of law) is why a decision made by the minister cannot be questioned by the cabinet.  I understand why politicians cannot reach into the bureaucracy but why cant they talk to another politician?  Why is she allowed to simply assert that her decision is final and nobody gets to give any further input?

[Barrister]

The thing I don't understand (I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't know this area of law) is why a decision made by the minister cannot be questioned by the cabinet.  I understand why politicians cannot reach into the bureaucracy but why cant they talk to another politician?  Why is she allowed to simply assert that her decision is final and nobody gets to give any further input?

Okay, so of course I should be clear I'm just a front-line prosecutor.  I don't have any kind of experience at this kind of a high level.

Prosecutorial decisions are not political decisions.  The AG does have, at time, a quasi-judicial role.  The "further input" others can have can not be political considerations.  And at what point does "further input", after repeated meetings (and requests for meetings) not constitute interference?

Anyways, JWR did give an option - she said have SNC write a letter which she would present to the DPP outlining their concerns.

Of course, the PM could always order the AG to take this action.  Just like Trump could always order his AG to fire Mueller.  But it would violate every principle of prosecutorial independence.  It appears clear that JWR would have resigned, rather than acquiesce to such a command - ala the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre.


Anyways, not that it matters much, but Scheer has called on Trudeau to resign.

[Monoriu]

the evangelical Chinese community

I didn't know that was even a thing.

Google tells me there are three evangelical chinese churches in Edmonton - and there's a hell of a lot more Chinese people in Vancouver than in Edmonton.

My ex-girlfriend in Canada was a devoted Chinese Christian.  She totally accepted that evolution was a lie and so on. 

[crazy canuck]

The thing I don't understand (I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't know this area of law) is why a decision made by the minister cannot be questioned by the cabinet.  I understand why politicians cannot reach into the bureaucracy but why cant they talk to another politician?  Why is she allowed to simply assert that her decision is final and nobody gets to give any further input?

Okay, so of course I should be clear I'm just a front-line prosecutor.  I don't have any kind of experience at this kind of a high level.

Prosecutorial decisions are not political decisions.  The AG does have, at time, a quasi-judicial role.  The "further input" others can have can not be political considerations.  And at what point does "further input", after repeated meetings (and requests for meetings) not constitute interference?

Anyways, JWR did give an option - she said have SNC write a letter which she would present to the DPP outlining their concerns.

Of course, the PM could always order the AG to take this action.  Just like Trump could always order his AG to fire Mueller.  But it would violate every principle of prosecutorial independence.  It appears clear that JWR would have resigned, rather than acquiesce to such a command - ala the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre.


Anyways, not that it matters much, but Scheer has called on Trudeau to resign.

But that is the heart of my question.  How is the presentation of a letter to someone who did not make the decision make any sense.  She claimed she made the decision.  And if the DPP did make the decision how is what she suggested any better than making the submissions directly to her?

[Barrister]

The thing I don't understand (I am not saying you are wrong, I just don't know this area of law) is why a decision made by the minister cannot be questioned by the cabinet.  I understand why politicians cannot reach into the bureaucracy but why cant they talk to another politician?  Why is she allowed to simply assert that her decision is final and nobody gets to give any further input?

Okay, so of course I should be clear I'm just a front-line prosecutor.  I don't have any kind of experience at this kind of a high level.

Prosecutorial decisions are not political decisions.  The AG does have, at time, a quasi-judicial role.  The "further input" others can have can not be political considerations.  And at what point does "further input", after repeated meetings (and requests for meetings) not constitute interference?

Anyways, JWR did give an option - she said have SNC write a letter which she would present to the DPP outlining their concerns.

Of course, the PM could always order the AG to take this action.  Just like Trump could always order his AG to fire Mueller.  But it would violate every principle of prosecutorial independence.  It appears clear that JWR would have resigned, rather than acquiesce to such a command - ala the Nixon Saturday Night Massacre.


Anyways, not that it matters much, but Scheer has called on Trudeau to resign.

But that is the heart of my question.  How is the presentation of a letter to someone who did not make the decision make any sense.  She claimed she made the decision.  And if the DPP did make the decision how is what she suggested any better than making the submissions directly to her?

The decision lies with the DPP to make - it's an independent body that reports to Parliament.

JWR only reviews that decision to ensure it was properly made.  She doesn't get to just substitute her own opinion if and when she desires.  In order for her to overrule the DPP she has to issue written instructions, published in the Gazette (which I've never actually heard of that happening).

[crazy canuck]

Ok, that helps.  Thanks

[Barrister]

There was a line in JWR's statement that amused me.  Gerry Butts was talking about the DPP law (which more formally enshrined prosecutorial independence), how it was passed by Harper, and he didn't like it.  JWR replied "well it's the law we have".

The DPP law was one of the first pieces of legislation passed by Harper when he was elected in 2006 as a minority.  Now introducing a Director of Public Prosecutions just introduces into Canada what a number of other jurisdictions have done such as the UK and Australia.  But the principle reason Harper introduced it in 2006 was in response to the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal of the Martin era.

No wonder Gerry Butts didn't like it.

[crazy canuck]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

However, the way Trudeau is responding is pathetic.  It is now clear he could not deal with this strong willed Minister.  Instead he relied on others to deal with her.  He has yet to give a reason for why she was shuffled out of her portfolio - even though, from his perspective, it is clear that there were multiple reasons for doing so.  His press conference today continues the trend of his poor handling of this situation.

The more I see, the more I think Harper may have been right all along -  Justin is just not ready.

[Malthus]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

However, the way Trudeau is responding is pathetic.  It is now clear he could not deal with this strong willed Minister.  Instead he relied on others to deal with her.  He has yet to give a reason for why she was shuffled out of her portfolio - even though, from his perspective, it is clear that there were multiple reasons for doing so.  His press conference today continues the trend of his poor handling of this situation.

The more I see, the more I think Harper may have been right all along -  Justin is just not ready.

This was always the strike against Trudeau - that he was a nice figurehead, trading on his father's name and capable of nicely playing the part of today's leader in touch with the realities of a changing society ("because it's 2018") but lacked character and substance. That he'd do fine as long as 'his people' were there to tell him what to do and to make the hard decisions for him, but flounder if left on his own. 

The issue was whether this was party propaganda, a caricature, or a reasonable impression.

Edit: being vilified by a creature like Trump made Trudeau seem a positive genius without him having to do much. 

[Barrister]

Yeah, I really don't understand what Trudeau is doing here.  As I see it JWR is accusing your office of committing crimes.  Either deny it if you can, or admit responsibility and promise it will not happen again.

But this weird attempt to play it off as all some big misunderstanding just isn't working.

[viper37]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

reminds me of the people in total denial about the sponsorship scandal even after the Gommery inquiry...
they used political arguments to try and sway her mind.  "Our boss is going to lose in Quebec if you don't comply".  That is illegal, apparently.
the rest of the story, you can believe it's much ado about nothing, others won't.

[Tamas]

Trudeau  playing the part

I'd just like to add that this has been my impression of him since forever. Crancking up the Progressive to 11 was really cringy.

[crazy canuck]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

reminds me of the people in total denial about the sponsorship scandal even after the Gommery inquiry...
they used political arguments to try and sway her mind.  "Our boss is going to lose in Quebec if you don't comply".  That is illegal, apparently.
the rest of the story, you can believe it's much ado about nothing, others won't.

You seem certain what occurred was illegal.  The former justice minister herself said it was not illegal during her testimony. But I am sure you are correct that the actual facts and legal analysis won't matter to some others.

[Barrister]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

reminds me of the people in total denial about the sponsorship scandal even after the Gommery inquiry...
they used political arguments to try and sway her mind.  "Our boss is going to lose in Quebec if you don't comply".  That is illegal, apparently.
the rest of the story, you can believe it's much ado about nothing, others won't.

You seem certain what occurred was illegal.  The former justice minister herself said it was not illegal during her testimony. But I am sure you are correct that the actual facts and legal analysis won't matter to some others.

That really didn't make much sense to me.  She said it wasn't illegal because their attempts didn't succeed.

But an attempt to commit an offence is still an offence - see s. 463 of the Criminal Code.

I put it down to a residual loyalty on her behalf to her own political party.

[crazy canuck]

I have been doing some more reading about it and I am still unconvinced that anything improper occurred even if everything she said is true.

reminds me of the people in total denial about the sponsorship scandal even after the Gommery inquiry...
they used political arguments to try and sway her mind.  "Our boss is going to lose in Quebec if you don't comply".  That is illegal, apparently.
the rest of the story, you can believe it's much ado about nothing, others won't.

You seem certain what occurred was illegal.  The former justice minister herself said it was not illegal during her testimony. But I am sure you are correct that the actual facts and legal analysis won't matter to some others.

That really didn't make much sense to me.  She said it wasn't illegal because their attempts didn't succeed.

But an attempt to commit an offence is still an offence - see s. 463 of the Criminal Code.

I put it down to a residual loyalty on her behalf to her own political party.

Ok, but she was the one in the room and so has direct knowledge. She is a former justice minister, a former crown prosecutor and she is being advised by a former justice of the SCC so her legal interpretation is likely robust.  I think her view was a considered one.