[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[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.

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.

Yeah, "final" is a kind of tricky word in my line of work.  I'm always concerned that if I were to tell defence counsel I won't even listen to what they have to say, that I won't even read any letter they might send, that might constitute the kind of 'flagrant impropriety' the cases talk about.

HOWEVER

Once I have made up my mind on how to exercise my discretion (such as on whether to continue with a prosecution) you'd better give me something new to think about.  A new argument, or new evidence, or some new law.  I will run into defence lawyers  who seem to think that if they keep repeating their same argument over and over eventually I'll give in.  And of course I won't.

Here, the PMO wasn't giving any new evidence or new argument.  They kept repeating "SNC will leave and it will cost jobs".  JWR's one option that was presented - for SNC to write a letter directly to the DPP outlining its concerns - was never followed up on.  Instead they kept, well, pressuring JWR.

And when I make a comparison to defence lawyers calling me... its the job of defence lawyers to call me.  It's what I do.  Politicians are on thin ice the moment they open their mouth to start talking to the AG about specific individual prosecutions.  There's a fine line here, which is why smart politicians (and their staff) just won't do it at all.  So when they do open their mouths, are told a decision is final, and then keep repeating the same talking points ad nauseum, plus throwing in some veiled threats... well that equals improper political influence.



Oh, by the way... it's March 6 and SNC Lavelin hasn't moved out of the country, and hasn't fired anyone.  And even if they did, those workers will likely be snatched up by any number of competing construction / engineering firms.  After all the work will still be there to do.

[crazy canuck]

Again, you are treating this like a run of the mill case.  This was the first time this provision was being considered by the prosecutorial office.  In those circumstances there is absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to the AG that she consider getting legal advice from one of the best legal minds this country has ever produced.

[Barrister]

Again, you are treating this like a run of the mill case.  This was the first time this provision was being considered by the prosecutorial office.  In those circumstances there is absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to the AG that she consider getting legal advice from one of the best legal minds this country has ever produced.

I really think you're disrespecting the DPP and PPSC lawyers.  Some of the best legal minds in the country do work there.  DOJ likes to call itself the largest legal organization in Canada.  If they felt they needed an outside opinion, they could easily turn to colleagues at Ontario's MAG (or for that matter the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service).  Or they could consult with the British Crown Prosecution Service, or even the US DOJ.  I have never ever heard of going to outside private counsel for advice.

And while this is a high profile case, Parliament loves to tinker with the Criminal Code.  Every year there are multiple changes.  I can't even imagine what it would mean if we needed outside advice every time the law changes! 

[crazy canuck]

Again, you are treating this like a run of the mill case.  This was the first time this provision was being considered by the prosecutorial office.  In those circumstances there is absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting to the AG that she consider getting legal advice from one of the best legal minds this country has ever produced.

I really think you're disrespecting the DPP and PPSC lawyers.  Some of the best legal minds in the country do work there.  DOJ likes to call itself the largest legal organization in Canada.  If they felt they needed an outside opinion, they could easily turn to colleagues at Ontario's MAG (or for that matter the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service).  Or they could consult with the British Crown Prosecution Service, or even the US DOJ.  I have never ever heard of going to outside private counsel for advice.

And while this is a high profile case, Parliament loves to tinker with the Criminal Code.  Every year there are multiple changes.  I can't even imagine what it would mean if we needed outside advice every time the law changes! 

So now your argument turns on an assertion that something wrong was done because someone had the temerity to suggest considering obtaining an outside legal opinion from one of the best legal minds of our time because that is somehow disrespectful to the people currently employed in the system.  You realize you started this conversation by trying to suggest our former Chief Justice would not have been up to the task, right?


Like I said, if it is a scandal, it is the most lame scandal in Canadian history.

[Barrister]

So now your argument turns on an assertion that something wrong was done because someone had the temerity to suggest considering obtaining an outside legal opinion from one of the best legal minds of our time because that is somehow disrespectful to the people currently employed in the system.  You realize you started this conversation by trying to suggest our former Chief Justice would not have been up to the task, right?


Like I said, if it is a scandal, it is the most lame scandal in Canadian history.

Right.  Because she's a jurist, not a prosecutor.  I don't care how well designed and well built a hammer might be - it does no good when what you need is a screwdriver.

And you're entitled to your opinion.  I have seen it shared by some people.  But not many.

[crazy canuck]

So now your argument turns on an assertion that something wrong was done because someone had the temerity to suggest considering obtaining an outside legal opinion from one of the best legal minds of our time because that is somehow disrespectful to the people currently employed in the system.  You realize you started this conversation by trying to suggest our former Chief Justice would not have been up to the task, right?


Like I said, if it is a scandal, it is the most lame scandal in Canadian history.

Right.  Because she's a jurist, not a prosecutor.  I don't care how well designed and well built a hammer might be - it does no good when what you need is a screwdriver.

And you're entitled to your opinion.  I have seen it shared by some people.  But not many.

I could not care less how many people share my opinion.  If 99% of the country thought it improper to suggest that the AG consider obtaining legal advice from one of the best legal minds this country has ever produced, I would question our education system.

[Oexmelin]

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

The Clerk might be a non partisan position, but this specific clerk is, erhm... let's just say that, by temperament, he's someone who highly value authority and doesn't really appreciate dissent.

[crazy canuck]

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

The Clerk might be a non partisan position, but this specific clerk is, erhm... let's just say that, by temperament, he's someone who highly value authority and doesn't really appreciate dissent.

Maybe, but the interpretation of the law on this point is pretty clear.  The then Minister simply misunderstood her role when she asserted that when she made her decision, it was final.  The senior bureaucrat who followed the Clerk, gave testimony to the same effect.

So basically what we are left with is this.  The AG thought she had made a "final" decision and took offence to the fact people kept contacting her because in her own mind that that was improper.  Butts did not know a "final" decision had been made and in fact he had received legal advice that the AG continued to have discretion up to the point of a conviction (ie there is no such thing as a final decision); and with that in mind the suggestion was made to the AG that the AG consider obtaining legal advice from the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is absolutely nothing legally wrong with that fact pattern.

[Barrister]

Here's a fun bit of news: for all of Trudeau's talk about needing to save 9000 jobs, and how SNC would move it's headquarters to London, SNC is obligated because of an investment in SNC by Quebec's pension fund to keep its headquarters in Montreal until 2024.

https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-is-trudeau-crying-wolf-on-snc-lavalin/wcm/c9946ed8-184a-4753-9794-90ed986f75a6?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2ABHB0Cfuvq_vYJzu2B_q8RrIVpGsvAbnBR6NkP2sF3yuCGhT_wYGpbK4#Echobox=1551896652

[crazy canuck]

Here's a fun bit of news: for all of Trudeau's talk about needing to save 9000 jobs, and how SNC would move it's headquarters to London, SNC is obligated because of an investment in SNC by Quebec's pension fund to keep its headquarters in Montreal until 2024.

https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-is-trudeau-crying-wolf-on-snc-lavalin/wcm/c9946ed8-184a-4753-9794-90ed986f75a6?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2ABHB0Cfuvq_vYJzu2B_q8RrIVpGsvAbnBR6NkP2sF3yuCGhT_wYGpbK4#Echobox=1551896652

all of their gnashing of teeth internally missed the real issue completely.

Wow.

[viper37]

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.

he is Trudeau's best friend since McGill.  He is a devout Liberal.  Even under oath, as proven by other inquiries, the truth is a subjective matter to these people.

[viper37]

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

The Clerk might be a non partisan position, but this specific clerk is, erhm... let's just say that, by temperament, he's someone who highly value authority and doesn't really appreciate dissent.

Maybe, but the interpretation of the law on this point is pretty clear.  The then Minister simply misunderstood her role when she asserted that when she made her decision, it was final.  The senior bureaucrat who followed the Clerk, gave testimony to the same effect.

So basically what we are left with is this.  The AG thought she had made a "final" decision and took offence to the fact people kept contacting her because in her own mind that that was improper.  Butts did not know a "final" decision had been made and in fact he had received legal advice that the AG continued to have discretion up to the point of a conviction (ie there is no such thing as a final decision); and with that in mind the suggestion was made to the AG that the AG consider obtaining legal advice from the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is absolutely nothing legally wrong with that fact pattern.

really, I wish I could afford you for every case I have.  Instead of a plea bargain to get one ticket go away, or to eliminate fees from some large tickets, I'd stand a chance of being totally acquitted.  Ok, maybe it would cost more than the actual price of the ticket, but at least I could boast of never having been convicted of any wrongdoing

[viper37]

there is a paywal, but MSN is offering the entire column for free.  That is a bigger problem for another thread.
Anyhow:
Why Jody Wilson Raybould is no hero

[viper37]

In other news, Andre Scheer just made his first campaign promise today.

And it was a very dumb one, proving he still doesn't understand part of why the Conservatives lost last time.

Climate change is real.  You can't pretend you understand this and then go around making stupid shit like this.

Helping lower income elderlies is a worthy goal.  Eliminating all taxes on "heating" (hydro? gaz? propane? coal? oil?  that was unclear in the clip) is just plain dumb.  Energy efficiency is a worthy goal, aiming toward neutral buildings is the key.

If he wants to help elderly people on low incomes, he should instead increase their pension revenue, not doing stupid moves like that.

[Barrister]

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.

he is Trudeau's best friend since McGill.  He is a devout Liberal.  Even under oath, as proven by other inquiries, the truth is a subjective matter to these people.

Gerry Butts was not under oath.  Liberals on the committee voted that down.