PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[PinkLucy]

If I see "a woman scorned" one more time ....

 

[steveintoronto]

Whoa...it's unfair and unwise to judge proceedings on just tuning in, but at this moment, Lisa Raitt is skewering Butts. Butts is evading a lot of questions. Compared to JWR's testimony....I'm dying to comment, but must wait later, but so far, Butts is a wimp, evasive and a 'boy sent to do a man's job'. He's got a long way to go to overturn anything JWR has established. I'm wondering on this 'man' being the one running this nation behind the scenes. Yikes...

JUST Meeting No. 137

Meeting No. 137 JUST - Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

parlvucloud.parl.gc.ca

Must run, business calls. I'll watch the replays and comment more later.

Addendum: Oh man, I'm late, but Raitt has another session and I can't tear myself away from watching, and Butt's is providing his own petard to be hung on. Whoa, Butts is a smarmy little fug that the nation will now get to see in all his snivelling glory.

Justin: You would have done better to have gagged Butts, not JWR.

If Lisa Raitt was to become the leader of the PCs, an election win would be a slam dunk.

No ifs, ands or Butts...

I'm really late, but this is absolutely compelling...Butts is now hiding behind (gist) 'Not being able to produce the quotes, emails, etc' that he claimed he was going to produce, because "he's no longer part of the government'. It's not working, as the language he's using in his 'evasion' is being obtained by other means, via a request to the Privy Council. This should be interesting, and the Privy Council will refuse...which compounds the evasion.

JWR couldn't answer some questions because of the partial gag still on her, and she was excoriated for that. Butts has no gag order on him, and looks for reasons not to come clean.

Pardon my being so subjective, but I really don't like Butts, in any capacity.

Just have to turn off the computer. Angus is now eviscerating Butts. Just heard "Butts is not sworn in for testimony". Holy shid...

 

[Northern Light]

I watched the testimony.

I too found Butts to be evasive and to have some very incredulous 'interpretations' of facts.

***

I was taken to note that Mr. Butts was apparently not under oath (which, in fairness, I gather is the norm of witnesses to this committee)

I find that odd as a general practice, irrespective, I think it was bad politics for the Liberals that they used their majority to vote down putting Mr. Butts under oath.

Even if it were unfair to ask of him in some way, it was brought up, and a party line vote not to require it is bad optics.

**

Likewise the Liberals voted down a motion by Raitt to have the PCO (Privy Council Office) produce all relevant texts/emails to the SNC issue, involving any of the named parties
including JWR, Mr. Butts, the PM, Ms. Telford, etc etc.

Given that Mr. Butts introduced a few selected texts as evidence, I don't see how one can reasonably say you can't see all of the on-point texts.

The optics of a party-line vote to deny even asking for the information are just not good.

***

No matter where one started on the underlying issues at play............I think one could be persuaded that the government isn't fit to stand if they imagine this is what passes for damage control.

Just wow!

 

[Avenue]

I was taken to note that Mr. Butts was apparently not under oath (which, in fairness, I gather is the norm of witnesses to this committee)

I find that odd as a general practice, irrespective, I think it was bad politics for the Liberals that they used their majority to vote down putting Mr. Butts under oath.

Apparently nobody has been put under oath in 25 years for the purposes of such testimonies. What did you expect the Liberals to do?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I found today’s testimony compelling. Can it really be true that the attorney general never put in writing that she was refusing the DPA?

Can it also be true that the decision on the DPA is not supposed to occur until after the conviction?

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

Honestly I have been pretty quiet on the SNC allegations mostly because I thought thew story was overblown. But I actually kinda agree with Butts version of events more than anyone else. I think politicians put pressure on other politicians all the time to advance their pet projects. it is not a good way of governing
but it is 100% expected.
The current "progressive" trend is to throw people under the bus after making one mistake. It is a good way to make enemies and I think the real reason why there has been a rise of populist support. People are willing to forgive a few things. for example the OPP file in Ontario I have a feeling a large number of people would have a problem with what Ford is doing but they are shutting up about it because they understand the bigger picture.

Trudeau was definitely in the wrong for the SNC file. However the crime wasn't that serious and the aftermath of people accusing him of sexism and hurting indigenous reconciliation was just embarrassing, but Trudeau helped fuel that culture so I have zero sympathy.

 

[Jasmine18]

Well said ^

The reason this has blown up so much in Trudeau's face is that "Sunny Ways' was a sham.

I think he rallies his support as its strong base of a personality cult + voters not sold on the alternatives.


However, the Anti Trudeau vote is gonna be very motivated going in the election.

 

[steveintoronto]

Apparently nobody has been put under oath in 25 years for the purposes of such testimonies. What did you expect the Liberals to do?

JWR was. Which puts the claim of "She said, he said:" as a complete sham.

 

[steveintoronto]

Well said ^

The reason this has blown up so much in Trudeau's face is that "Sunny Ways' was a sham.

I think he rallies his support as its strong base of a personality cult + voters not sold on the alternatives.


However, the Anti Trudeau vote is gonna be very motivated going in the election.

Scheer is no better, also a 'girly-,man'. What happened to the real leaders of the past? From either major party?

But again, Lisa Raitt acquitted herself brilliantly. There was a moment where (gist) Butts being queried by Raitt, and obviously stumped (again) "But you're a lawyer, aren't you...and I'm not". What in hell has that to do with giving an honest answer or not? Try that in court sometime, Butthead.

Lisa Raitt should be the leader of her party, not Scheer the Sneer.

 

[Admiral Beez]

However, the Anti Trudeau vote is gonna be very motivated going in the election.

No, I think this is a case of premature electoral climax for the Tories. By the time we get to the election in eight months this will be forgotten by most. I’m a politically active and informed person, and even I don’t see where the scandal is.

Progressives might not want Trudeau, but in this age of Trump they don’t want Conservative governance even more. I predict another majority for Trudeau. Don’t forget the NDP has imploded, so there is no vote splitting, so no chance for a minority government, either the Libs or the Cons will win a majority, and my guess is it’s the former.

 

[steveintoronto]

I found today’s testimony compelling. Can it really be true that the attorney general never put in writing that she was refusing the DPA?

I think JWR will have something to say on that. There's the slight problem of her gag order still covering some aspects of Privy Council confidentiality. Written record with be with the Prosecutor's Office, and will be produced.

Can it also be true that the decision on the DPA is not supposed to occur until after the conviction?

Yes. And that's the legislation that the Libs are attempting to massage.

even I don’t see where the scandal is.

No comment. You might want to revisit that remark. Depending on interpretation, and JWR stated this: "no law was broken"...but that doesn't mean conduct wasn't scandalous. The law wasn't broken because she repeatedly said "NO" and wouldn't budge. And then they fired her. Unless you believe the fairy tales told today...not under oath, when she was.

I have a close friend who stated what you just have, and he's starting to come around after being presented with the facts behind the case:

As for all the Trudeau V JWR stuff ... I don't mean to say that what Trudeau is doing is right. It's pretty sleazy and we're getting al look at who he really is. Reading a new Paul Wells thing in Maclean's where he says Trudeau backed off on electoral reform when people wanted a different kind than he did. FFS! On Election night when he said that will be the last election for first-past-the-post I thought he was serious. It was more than typical campaign promise...except it wasn't.


I always was aware that the Liberals are a pro business party and a lot of the sunny ways shit was exactly that... shit. I was pushing back because I really fear slip back into Harper Mark II. The whole landscape of our politics is pretty bleak. Where's our Bernie or AOC?

Our Liberals are like Hillary Democrats. In their hearts they mean well but they're way out of touch with reality. It will be interesting, if nail biting , what happens next.

Try interfering with a Prosecutor's case and see how far it gets you when caught. It's a criminal offence. You can do a decade for it. Oddly, the Law applies equally to all. Imagine that...

 

[PinkLucy]

JWR was. Which puts the claim of "She said, he said:" as a complete sham.

Do you have a link or reference for that?

 

[lenaitch]

I found today’s testimony compelling. Can it really be true that the attorney general never put in writing that she was refusing the DPA?

Can it also be true that the decision on the DPA is not supposed to occur until after the conviction?

I caught most but not all of the committee, and did take a look at the legislation a few days ago (some of it sunk in). The way I understand it, the Director of Public Prosecutions makes the call and there is no requirement for documention or disclosure. Traditionally, Crown prosecutors are not required to justify prosecutorial decisions. The AG can override that decision and if so, that direction must be published in the Canada Gazette. Since the AG did not override the DPP, no publication required. She didn't have to justify not doing something. Again, could be mistaken.

Honestly I have been pretty quiet on the SNC allegations mostly because I thought thew story was overblown. But I actually kinda agree with Butts version of events more than anyone else. I think politicians put pressure on other politicians all the time to advance their pet projects. it is not a good way of governing
but it is 100% expected.
The current "progressive" trend is to throw people under the bus after making one mistake. It is a good way to make enemies and I think the real reason why there has been a rise of populist support. People are willing to forgive a few things. for example the OPP file in Ontario I have a feeling a large number of people would have a problem with what Ford is doing but they are shutting up about it because they understand the bigger picture.

Trudeau was definitely in the wrong for the SNC file. However the crime wasn't that serious and the aftermath of people accusing him of sexism and hurting indigenous reconciliation was just embarrassing, but Trudeau helped fuel that culture so I have zero sympathy.

The thing is, he's not a politician. He is (was) not accountable to a constituency or parliament; he's a hired minion.

 

[lenaitch]

Can it also be true that the decision on the DPA is not supposed to occur until after the conviction?

Not the way I read the legislation(Part XXII.1 Criminal Code). A "remediation agreement" may be instituted where an organization has alleged to have committed a scheduled offence. It is an alternative to prosecution. If it was applicable after conviction it would a sentencing agreement. When you look at the words, the agreement 'defers' the 'prosecution'.

The way I understand it, the aspect they are trying to 'massage' is the impact it would have on contract eligibility, which is government procurement legislation. It is not spoken to in the Criminal Code.

 

[steveintoronto]

The way I understand it, the aspect they are trying to 'massage' is the impact it would have on contract eligibility, which is government procurement legislation. It is not spoken to in the Criminal Code.

It's still a pretty grey area, and according to a number of legal views, SNCL, from actions demonstrated so far, would not meet the terms as most understand them for a DPA:

The effect of the DPA is to suspend the outstanding prosecution while simultaneously establishing specified undertakings that the organization must fulfill in order to avoid facing the potential criminal charges. These undertakings often include fines, remediation measures, enhanced reporting requirements or allowing for independent third-party oversight of corporations compliance techniques. Once the accused company has fulfilled the terms of the DPA the charges will be dropped.

Authorities in countries such as the U.S. and U.K. actively utilize DPAs to reduce corporate criminal behavior. DPA regimes help to encourage the voluntary disclosure of misconduct by corporations for criminal activities that may otherwise have remained unknown to regulators, while simultaneously denouncing wrongdoing by holding organizations accountable for their actions. By entering into a DPA, a company can avoid criminal conviction while abiding by strict undertakings that make the organization a better corporate citizen.

Implementation of the regime
The incoming remediation agreement regime, which was created following consultations held by the government toward the end of 2017, will for the first time establish the availability of DPAs in Canada.

To be eligible for a remediation agreement under the regime, the accused must be an organization other than a public body (e.g., a government department), a trade union or a municipality. The remediation agreement can only be entered into for economic offenses, such as bribery or fraud, and not for crimes that result in death or bodily injury, or for conduct that violates the Canadian Competition Act.

In order for the prosecutor to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement, the following conditions must be met:

• There is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;
• The impugned conduct did not cause serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;
• Negotiating the agreement must be in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and
• The Attorney General must consent to the negotiation of the agreement.

Prosecutors will consider a number of factors when deciding whether to negotiate a remediation agreement, including:

• the circumstances in which the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities;
• the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on any victim;
• the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization;
• whether the organization has taken disciplinary action, including termination of employment, against any person involved;
• whether the organization has made reparations, or taken other measures to remedy the harm caused and to prevent the commission of similar acts or omissions;
• whether the organization has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in related wrongdoing;
• whether the organization — or any of its representatives — was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar conduct;
• whether the organization — or any of its representatives — is alleged to have committed any other offences; and
• any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.

As well, the corporation would need to:

• accept responsibility for, and stop, their wrongdoing;
• pay a financial penalty;
• relinquish any benefit gained from the wrongdoing;
• put in place or enhance compliance measures; and
• make reparation to victims, including overseas victims, as appropriate.

Remediation agreements under the regime must be approved by a judge, who must be satisfied that the agreement is in the public interest, and the terms of the agreement are fair, reasonable and proportionate.

Going forward under the regime
The new regime establishes an important tool for Canadian regulatory bodies, the availability of which is to the benefit of both enforcement authorities and companies accused of corporate wrongdoing. In particular, the regime provides added incentive for companies to proactively self-report wrongdoing. Companies should maintain rigorous compliance programs, including internal whistleblower reporting systems, and should actively investigate any allegations in order to determine the veracity thereof and whether to report such conduct to regulators. Companies should seek advice from external counsel both during the investigation and in determining whether to self-report any given allegation.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) come into force in Canada

On September 19, 2018, amendments to Criminal Code came into force establishing for the first time a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) reg...

www.osler.com

There's an incredible amount of double-speak from the PM's Office on this, from the "9000 jobs lost" to exactly what JWR said "no" to. Since believable reports (and this is part of the still gagged waiver) indicate that SNCL were not even close to meeting terms conferred by the Prosecutor's Office, then the A-G wasn't about to over-rule her lead prosecutor on it. (again, we have no produced evidence of what the PM's office was considering in 'loosening the terms of the legislation, and whether that would be by Order in Council, or presented to the House).

To compare Canada's DPA to others, which the PM et al have done, is like comparing tariffs on socks to the amount of rat droppings permitted in Finnish rutabagas.

It's pretty hard to see what's burning when the fire is smothered in smoke.

Let's just examine this condition for a moment:

Remediation agreements under the regime must be approved by a judge, who must be satisfied that the agreement is in the public interest, and the terms of the agreement are fair, reasonable and proportionate.

This particular case hasn't even gone to pre-trial, let alone a judge appointed to consider a DPA as being applicable.

And, of course:

• The Attorney General must consent to the negotiation of the agreement.

Keep this in mind, and many other investigations in the past that never went to trial, many due to plea bargaining or just plain inexplicable bumbling: (next pane)