Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

[Remius]

Luckily for PM Trudeau Canadians are more concerned about how many hamburgers Donald Trump had for lunch and who he's tweeting about than something as insignificant as ethics violations by the Prime Minister.

Yup.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You know, FSTO, when our democracy was young (first Parliament of the Dominion of Canada), parliamentarians had already foreseen the risks of party politics working only towards gaining and keeping power in governement, as opposed to merely helping the people's representatives getting elected in their riding. One of the very first Act of parliament was a law titled the "Independance of Parliament Act" whose specific purpose was to make sure that the government of her Majesty did not come to dominate or impose its will on Parliament. The concept that MP's were elected to keep the governement in check was so ingrained that under this Act (and until 1954), if a MP was asked to become a Minister of the Crown, he/she had to resign from being a siting MP and run in a by-election. The purpose: giving the constituents of that riding a chance to decide whether they wanted to be represented by a Minister, or by someone who would look to their interest by keeping the governement in check.

It started to erode with some, aterward never repealed, emergency powers during WWI, then some more during WWII, and it just quickly cascaded down after the early to mid 1960's.

 

[TCM621]

On the other hand you do not have the legislative/executive gridlocks that have been going on south of the border the last eight years or so.

:cheers:

That is kind of by design. Any policy that doesn't have solid support is usually killed at one level or another. The concept being that they would rather nothing was done rather than have something forced upon them. The federal government was also supposed to be the least important level of government behind the state and municipal governments who were supposed to do all the heavy lifting. It is a lot easier to get consensus in your town or state than it is nationally.

The American system is one of the greatest ever drawn up on paper but like all other systems it is run by people and people are irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal. The fact that the government barely functions at a time when there is growing gap between left and right with very little bipartisan discussion would be evidence, I think, to the designers of the system that they got it right.

 

[FJAG]

That is kind of by design. Any policy that doesn't have solid support is usually killed at one level or another. The concept being that they would rather nothing was done rather than have something forced upon them. The federal government was also supposed to be the least important level of government behind the state and municipal governments who were supposed to do all the heavy lifting. It is a lot easier to get consensus in your town or state than it is nationally.

The American system is one of the greatest ever drawn up on paper but like all other systems it is run by people and people are irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal. The fact that the government barely functions at a time when there is growing gap between left and right with very little bipartisan discussion would be evidence, I think, to the designers of the system that they got it right.

I tend to disagree. The system was conceived as reactionary to a strong central British government. Since the country existed as separate colonies, the founders tended to design their system to retain primary power within their various fiefdoms and provide collective power to only the most essential items such as defence, coinage, international trade and postal services. Even in war, primary power remained with the states where the country's primary military forces were based on a militia system rather than a central army (something which was very much at the heart of the state-oriented, uncooperative Confederacy's defeat)

Note too that the electoral college system is founded on the principle that the masses may screw up the election and therefore the individual states' "elite" electors would have an opportunity to correct the populist vote.

Essentially the founders missed seeing the major shift that was coming within all modern societies at the time being the one from a loose, widely dispersed agrarian society to a more centralized, more connected one founded on industry, urbanization and communication. This factor and the failure to provide for a universally recognized central government led to the most destructive war in the nation's history. While the Constitution was silent on the issue of political parties, the growing divisions within the country quickly formed them by virtue of the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.

While the US has corrected many shortcomings of the original Constitution by it's amendments, it has nonetheless remained a checkerboard of inconsistent laws in many vital areas such as criminal law and nation-wide human rights because of it's earliest structure which is still being used by numerous special interest groups to preserve their special status.

Don't get me wrong. I think the US Constitution at the time was a noble experiment especially in the face of the model of existing European imperialist governments and even to some extent the fledgling democratic monarchies, but by the mid 1800s the march forward into a proper nationwide democracy had been greatly curtailed. What should have been a major correction of the system after the Civil War failed due to the various chaotic components of the Reconstruction era. The point, however, is that a truly great constitution (on paper) should be one that can not only weather but defeat the "irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal" people who run it. One of the greatest checks and balances to any democratic system is through a truly independent judiciary that protects and grows the constitutionally protected rights as the nation matures. Unfortunately, in the US the highest level of judiciary, primarily through it's appointment system, is heavily politicized and, IMHO, basically a small handful of judges make up the law to suit the ideological bend of their individual factions.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

The US federal government wasn't designed to be obstructionist or to be weak.  Those are effects.  What was important was setting the pieces up so that any one part couldn't do much during those time when, inevitably, rot set in.  What motivated the founders was distrust in men.  They were correct about that; and what they set up has been highly effective.  Some powers were dispersed among the states; some powers were dispersed within the federal government itself.

 

[ballz]

Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition).  Suppose it is.  Should a leader be removed for it, or not?

I have my doubts too, particularly considering nothing actually happened, but after the Ethics Commissioner report it seems to me it clearly fits a breach of trust.

Legal tests for breach of trust:

1) the accused is an official
2) the accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office
3) the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office
4) the accused’s conduct represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust
5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.

#1 and #2 Not in question
#3 & #4... Given the Ethics Commissioner's report that he *broke the law*, and after finding out that there was a deliberate attempt to *deceive the AG* into making taking legal advice from a loaded deck, any and all doubts have been removed for me...
#5 That is clearly what happened here at the Ethics Commissioner concluded as much. Dishonest and partial purpose have easily been met. I would go as far as to say corrupt.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Not a fan of Trudeau ..... But! He is the Prime Minister and he had enabling legislation passed and provided hints to Wilson-Raybould.  She was too thick to figure it out.  He should have fired her after the first hint and appointed himself Attorney-General and used his best judgement on the case.  When settling cases instead of prosecuting becomes government policy, how can the Prime Minister be conflicted?

 

[FJAG]

Not a fan of Trudeau ..... But! He is the Prime Minister and he had enabling legislation passed and provided hints to Wilson-Raybould.  She was too thick to figure it out.  He should have fired her after the first hint and appointed himself Attorney-General and used his best judgement on the case.  When settling cases instead of prosecuting becomes government policy, how can the Prime Minister be conflicted?

The PM is conflicted when the government policy/legislation is designed so that an impartial and non politically motivated Director of Public Prosecutions is the one empowered to make the decision as to whether any individual case is to be prosecuted or offered an opportunity for deferred prosecution agreement. The AG can overturn the DPP's decision so long as it is done in writing and the instruction is made public in the Canada Gazette. Finally there is also a provision that a judge review and approve the agreement on the grounds of whether it is in the public interest.

All of this is to ensure that Prime Ministers do not take charge of the justice system so as to provide favouritism for his cronies.

Becoming PM and setting a government policy does not equate to ultimate power to implement whatever you want. If the PM wants more powers then he needs to have parliament put it into legislation that does not offend the Constitution.

:cheers:

 

[Haggis]

5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.

#5 That is clearly what happened here at the Ethics Commissioner concluded as much.

In his rebuttal to JWR's testimony, the PM has already stated that he disagrees with this assessment.  He  believes he acted in the public interest by safeguarding Canadian jobs.  Not all Canadian jobs, just those of  a Liberal friendly corporation headquartered in the Liberal stronghold of Québec.  But Canadian jobs nonetheless.  And, if you vote Liberal again, maybe next time he'll look after Alberta jobs.  Maybe.  But that could be asking for more than he can give right now.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Luckily for PM Trudeau Canadians are more concerned about how many hamburgers Donald Trump had for lunch and who he's tweeting about than something as insignificant as ethics violations by the Prime Minister.

One's more confusing than the other

 

[Kirkhill]

In his rebuttal to JWR's testimony, the PM has already stated that he disagrees with this assessment.  He  believes he acted in the public interest by safeguarding Canadian jobs.  Not all Canadian jobs, just those of  a Liberal friendly corporation headquartered in the Liberal stronghold of Québec.  But Canadian jobs nonetheless.  And, if you vote Liberal again, maybe next time he'll look after Alberta jobs.  Maybe.  But that could be asking for more than he can give right now.

This is why we have a court system, isn't it?  For arbitration when two people believe that they are in the right but circumstances demand that only one of them can be allowed to act on their belief?

 

[PuckChaser]

This is why we have a court system, isn't it?  For arbitration when two people believe that they are in the right but circumstances demand that only one of them can be allowed to act on their belief?

Seems like he's set the stage for his defense in court already. Is the greater public interest that corporations be held to account for their actions and that politicians are not improperly lobbied, or that some replaceable jobs are temporarily at risk?

 

[FJAG]

Seems like he's set the stage for his defense in court already. Is the greater public interest that corporations be held to account for their actions and that politicians are not improperly lobbied, or that some replaceable jobs are temporarily at risk?

He will never be in the court over this.

Fundamentally, the question here isn't whether or not there was a crime by SNC and whether or not punishing SNC and thereby losing the ability to get government contracts and thereby endangering SNC jobs (and let's face it if an SNC employee doesn't get the job some other Canadian will) is a public interest issue where the government should step in.

The question is do out leaders have to follow the rule of law where they perceive a public interest issue (that incidentally effects their political interest)?

The point is we had a law and a legal process that was moving forward. The government then changed the law so that an escape clause for SNC existed but which decision was quite rightly controlled by an independent agency. When that agency, following the law, decided that exercising their discretion wasn't appropriate, the executive decided to lay on the heat. No proper thinking Canadian could possibly think this was the right thing to do, regardless of the impact on SNC workers. It showed a callous disrespect for the rule of law in this country.

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

What troubles me is that millions of citizens seem to think this either SOP for the PMO (any PMO) and so this is a fully conditioned and now operative expectation. They might not even agree with it, but they accept it and might be so bold to occasionally demand it.  Do it once and get away with it, keep on doing it and it then becomes an executive power by custom if nothing is done to stop it. Now maybe there is no such thing as “ executive power by custom”, and while it’s true that the AG did not and has so far not let the PMO succeed, a more compliant AG might have and that’s a problem we need to fix.  It may very well be that we have crossed into the reality a politically corrupt country that has poisoned the legal system, with potentially former Supreme Court Judges inadvertently playing a hand in it.  Not in the sense or scale of Putin, but more like a drunken Duplessis (without the religion unless Twitter is your religion). This is something again that many Canadian people are apparently prepared to tolerate and even defend as long as it doesn’t affect them negatively or if they are counting on it for some reason.

What may have nearly happened here, and the story isn’t over, is that Parliament, it’s oversight bodies and to some degree the judicial system have been rendered powerless, and only useful when the PMO approves. A 4 year election cycle with a cheque for everybody is not an efficient check on power. Elections appear to have devolved to a mass invitation to larceny, when you think about it.

I think it’s noble that many people refuse to move off this subject. I would love be to see a political party reveal a platform that fully addresses abuse of power.

 

[ballz]

What may have nearly happened here, and the story isn’t over, is that Parliament, it’s oversight bodies and to some degree the judicial system have been rendered powerless, and only useful when the PMO approves.

If the RCMP don't lay charges*, this is exactly what I see happened as far as I'm concerned. Call me a crazy tinfoil-hat wearing lunatic, but our democratic system is incrementally failing.

We know we're supposed to have prosecutorial independence which is protected by nothing, and was almost compromised... what measures do we have in place to ensure the RCMP, which are part of the executive branch, are executing their duties on this independently and free from interference from the PMO / Minister of Public Safety?

*And I'm okay with a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Now maybe there is no such thing as “ executive power by custom”

There is plenty of "customary" government in Canada.

The thing about custom is that it is mutable.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

The thing about custom is that it is mutable.

You'd have to ask the Supreme Court about that one.  Which way is the wind blowing today?  From the left?  I look upon the courts as being as political as the legislators.

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/

Nothing suspicious here at all.....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well, ain't that convenient....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Indeed ...