[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

But the scandal here isn't that there is dissent within cabinet.  As you point out, that is arguably even a good thing.

The scandal here is that the PMO tried to intervene in a criminal prosecution to assist a firm that has donated significant sums of money to the Liberal Party.

Sure. I was simply raising a tangential, albeit larger point about the way media covers government, and the way that the PMO concentrates much of their attention. 

To the scandal at hand here, again, I read it as the ordinary corruption of our system, and thus, anything that brings attention to it is a good thing. To circumscribe it as if it were an instance of Liberal quid pro quo seems, to me, slightly off. Not because it is unwarranted, but because the issue is broader.

a classic trumpian defense.  "Ah the others did it/didn't do it so I will do the same".

Look, you hate the Conservatives and anything to the right of Sanders.  They are instruments of evil.  Everything Harper did or say was bad.  "We're going to make conservatism the natural governing force of Canada" translates as "We're going to be elected for life".  Where as, when it came from Liberal supporters that the PLC is "Canada's natural governing party" it was never bad.  I get it.

You think that fiscal conservatism is a bad thing.  I get it too.

You think social conservatism is a bad thing.  I also get it, and on this point, I share your mistrusts.

But to say the Harper government was eroding our democracy and we must choose between that and a corrupt incomptent and tragically biased against Quebec political party, I find you lack of facts disturbing.

[Oexmelin]

You don't get much about my political stance, actually. You're just too busy creating a convenient bugbear of all your idiosyncratic political hatreds.

[viper37]

You don't get much about my political stance, actually. You're just too busy creating a convenient bugbear of all your idiosyncratic political hatreds.

Over 3 forums on 2 languages, I think I've developped a good understanding of your political vision.

But go ahead, say I invent everything if that pleases you.  I'm long past caring about anything.

[viper37]

Gerald Butts testifying.
I'll spare you the details, here's the summary:
- We did not apply undue pressure on JWR
- She should have written to the PM saying I was applying undue pressure
- She should have written me the PM was applying undue pressure
- I met her once, we never discussed politics and SNC
- The Prime Minister loves women and the First Nations
- JWR wasn't doing a good job with Indian Affairs (reconciliation) we moved her out of Justice for this reason and because Brison was leaving
- I did not resign because of SNC Lavalin, I had other reasons


Basically, he's defending his party and long time friend.

[Barrister]

Butts' opening statement:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/gerald-butts-testifies-at-justice-committee-full-opening-statement/?utm_source=UrbanAirship&utm_medium=WebNotifications&utm_campaign=MME_WN&utm_term=06-Mar-2019&utm_content=Gerald_Butts_full_testimony

Personally, I'm not buying it.  It comes across as very self-serving.  But y'all can come to your own conclusions.

[Barrister]

:shakeshead:

This is not some esoteric line.  Really: go back to JWR's testimony.  They made it pretty fucking explicit what they wanted her to do - and when she didn't two weeks later she was out at AG (and a Montreal MP was put in as AG who would surely know the score with SNC).

Maybe for a true Conservative believer.  But, to use your language, when the PM meets with the Justice Minister, there is nothing fucking wrong with saying what he said.  The problem which arises is although the meeting was to discuss matters arising in her Justice portfolio, the conversation veered to matters which could reasonably be characterized as falling within her AG portfolio.

The problem was further exacerbated when the Minister, again to use your language, didn't say a fucking thing during the meeting to warn the PM of that potential problem = as was her legal duty to do as the AG. 

So what do we make of all that?  Well if you are a Conservative true believer, apparently you ignore all the nuance.  Frankly it makes me think a pox on both parties.  They both have fundamental problems.

Again, your characterization is at odds with what JWR had to say:

The prime minister asks me to help out – to find a solution here for SNC – citing that if there was no DPA there would be many jobs lost and that SNC would move from Montreal.

In response, I explained to him the law and what I have the ability to do and not do under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act around issuing directives or assuming conduct of prosecutions.

I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the director.

In response, the prime minister further reiterated his concerns. I then explained how this came about and that I had received the section 13 note from the DPP earlier in September and that I had considered the matter very closely.

I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the attorney general and that I am not prepared to issue a directive in this case – that it was not appropriate.

The prime minister again cited potential loss of jobs and SNC moving. Then to my surprise – the clerk started to make the case for the need to have a DPA. He said "there is a board meeting on Thursday (Sept. 20) with stock holders ... they will likely be moving to London if this happens and there is an election in Quebec soon."

At that point the prime minister jumped in stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that "I am an MP in Quebec – the member for Papineau."

"Are you politically interfering with my role as the attorney general," Wilson-Raybould says she asked Trudeau. "I would strongly advise against it."
I was quite taken aback. My response – and I remember this vividly as well – was to ask the prime minister a direct question while looking him in the eye.

I asked: "Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney general? I would strongly advise against it."

The prime minister said, "No, no, no – we just need to find a solution."

JWR says that a decision has been made.  She then explicitly warns the PM himself that it would be wrong to interfere with that decision.  The PM however insists he is just trying to find a "solution", and his office continues to bring up the DPA idea.

The PMO later tells JWR that there is no solution that doesn't involve political interference, and that the PM is "going to find a way to get it done one way or another".

[crazy canuck]

We now have two very different versions of events.  The questions asked of Butts by the Conservatives was weak and a bit disappointing.  Other than Raitt, their lack of sophistication regarding how to properly question a witness was astonishing. The other Conservative members should have just let her do all the questioning.

One thing that is consistent in all the testimony is the former Minister never did actually tell anyone at the time that she viewed what they were doing as being improper.  That appears to be a characterization she has made after the fact.

Based on what I heard today I am more firmly of the view that if this is something that approaches a scandal, it is the most lame scandal in Canadian history. 

I continue to be of the view that the more damaging aspect for the Liberals is that just months away from a general election there is a failure of leadership as evidenced by two cabinet ministers resigning over what appears to be, at most, significant differences of opinion with the PMO.  It is astonishing that this could not have been better managed and that it has come to this.

[crazy canuck]

I asked: "Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney general? I would strongly advise against it."

The prime minister said, "No, no, no – we just need to find a solution."

Yeah, exactly. She asked a direct question - "are you trying to interfere?" and he said no.  At all times he said it was her decision.  Which we know as a fact she made on her own.

That is some of the best evidence that the claim now being advanced by the Conservatives has no merit.  She now claims that despite the PM's assurance he was not trying to interfere, somehow she thought he was.  But the point is, she never said that.  And this comes from her own evidence.

We now know that Butts characterizes what happened very differently.  For example, he claims the first he heard that a decision had been made by the AG is when she testified before the committee.  So if you take that into account the claim withers on the vine.

[Barrister]

Yes, if you accept Butts word where it differs from Wilson-Raybould then the story should die.

I just don't think you can do that.

And remember it's not just me being a "Conservative Partisan".  Jane Philpott ( a Liberal cabinet minister) felt strongly enough about it she resigned from cabinet.

By the way, the Liberal majority on the committee is voting against recalling JWR to have her respond to Butts' claims.

[Barrister]

One of the more insulting things (to me) about this story is the repeated insistence that there should be an outside opinion on granting a DPA.  In particular they wanted retired chief justice Beverly McLaughlin to be consulted.

Now I have no beef with Bev.  But going over her resume she practiced law for a grand total of six years, from 1969 to 1975.  From there she was a professor, then varying levels of judge, until being appointed to the SCC.  She's certainly a smart lady.  But she's never ran a prosecution in her life.

And it's not that prosecutors are shy about getting second or third opinions.  I'm always asking my colleagues.  We will ask other prosecution offices if they have particular expertise, or we are worried we might be conflicted.

But one thing we would never, ever do is consult with private counsel.  They just don't have the experience, don't have the training, on what considerations should (and should not) be taken into account.

Here the ultimate decision was made by Kathleen Roussel, the DPP.  Checking her bio she's a lawyer with 25 years experience, has worked criminal defence, and has been with the public service since 2001.  She was the deputy DPP in charge of regulatory and economic prosecutions since 2013.  You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with more experience and qualifications to make this call.

[crazy canuck]

She is the most accomplished jurist this country has ever had.  To suggest she knows less about how to interpret a statute (and a new one at that) than a prosecutor with must less experience and years at the bar is nonsense.

[Barrister]

She is the most accomplished jurist this country has ever had.  To suggest she knows less about how to interpret a statute (and a new one at that) than a prosecutor with must less experience and years at the bar is nonsense.

And yet there's a reason why exercise of prosecutorial discretion (which offering a DPA would be) is non-reviewable by the courts except in cases of flagrant impropriety.  This isn't just about interpreting a statute - although I'm quite certain both Ms. Roussel and Ms. Wilson-Raybould are equally adept at doing so.  It's about balancing all of the competing interests.

[crazy canuck]

She is the most accomplished jurist this country has ever had.  To suggest she knows less about how to interpret a statute (and a new one at that) than a prosecutor with must less experience and years at the bar is nonsense.

And yet there's a reason why exercise of prosecutorial discretion (which offering a DPA would be) is non-reviewable by the courts except in cases of flagrant impropriety.  This isn't just about interpreting a statute - although I'm quite certain both Ms. Roussel and Ms. Wilson-Raybould are equally adept at doing so.  It's about balancing all of the competing interests.

I think what you are missing is this was a new statutory provision.  It makes sense to obtain the best advice possible as to how that prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in the context of that new legislative provision.  I stress, as Butts did, that is not to obtain an opinion as to what the outcome out to be.  That is a matter for the client to decide. But to advise regarding what is properly taken into consideration in the exercise of that discretion.

To suggest that only a prosecutor can interpret legislation in that way is simply ludicrous.  If we were to follow that logic to its conclusion there would be no need for a court.   We could just trust that a prosecutor always gets it right.

edit: corrected for spelling.  For some reason prosecutorial was turned into proprietorial by auto correct

[crazy canuck]

She is the most accomplished jurist this country has ever had.  To suggest she knows less about how to interpret a statute (and a new one at that) than a prosecutor with must less experience and years at the bar is nonsense.

This isn't just about interpreting a statute - although I'm quite certain both Ms. Roussel and Ms. Wilson-Raybould are equally adept at doing so. 

This deserves special comment.  It turns out that the Minister, you and the Conservative party are all wrong in your legal interpretation of that statute.  She asserted, and the Conservative case hinges on, a statement of fact that her decision was "final". Whether or not Butts knew a "final" decision was made, the law is that there is no such thing as a "final" decision by the AG prior to a conviction.  At all times prior to that the AG is duty bound to consider whether an agreement would be more appropriate.

So yeah, it turns out if she has received advice from a more knowledgeable more senior lawyer, she may not have fallen into that mistaken understanding and none of this would have been an issue.

edit: the evidence of the Clerk (a non partisan position) explained that point rather nicely today.

[crazy canuck]

I think the Conservatives may be overplaying their hand and missing the real chance here.  If the worst this gets is that the Clerk of the Privy Council called the Minister to express a view about the benefits of a prosecution agreement then this really will be much ado about nothing.

Turns out, that is exactly what it is.