Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick is hardly the partisan your agenda speaks to! He's worked within the governments of 3 Prime Ministers; during his testimony he openly praised Harper and related legislation Harper Conservatives put through.
Wernick responded to the questions he was asked - you simply don't like his answers. Perhaps you can explain how to answer those very direct and pointed questions... in a "neutral manner"... one where the Opposition members are satisfied and your feefees aren't hurt!
citation request
I am trying to understand your response. What you said I question. Please provide his comments where he "praised Harper and related legislation" I strongly doubt he made such partisan comments and if he indeed praised Harper and legislation he passed which I would love to see cited, that would also make him a partisan individual engaging in partisan inappropriate comments further evidencing what I stated.
No civil servant, let alone the head of the civil service is allowed or should make comments expressing his or her personal sentiments or subjective opinions as to legislation. Its not their job. They are administrators only. There job is not to determine what is appropriate only administer the laws given to them. It is elected officials who decide what is politically appropriate and Judges who decide what legal meanings are to be given to a piece of legislative wording not the friggin Privy head.
Let me be as clear as can be, The Privy Council Office (PCO; French: Bureau du Conseil privé) is the secretariat of the federal cabinet of Canada, which is a committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and is to provide non-partisan advice and support to the Canadian ministry, as well as leadership, coordination, and support to the departments and agencies of government. It never was given the role of making legal judgements or expressing subjective partisan opinions.
The Privy Council Office's role is NOT and should not be the same as the Prime Minister's Office. The PM's office is a personal and partisan office and hus advisors like Butt will provide strategy advice to the PM on how to best get him relected. Its a narrow perspective concerned with getting him relected and examining which policies or functions the government carries out would make him unpopular and less likely to be reelected. This office puts the best interests of the Prime Minister being relected before the best interests of the country.
However because that is well known and understood it has always been a basic premises of Canadian politics that because of that narrow perspective, the Prime Minister also receive advice from other sources mor e neutral. To that end, the PCO is supposed to function as an alternative advisor. Both offices situated physically next to one another serve as boith policy-oriented and politically-sensitive advisory unitsto the Prime Minister but the PCO's first priority is good government not what gets the PM rerelected unlike the PMO office which is the other way around.
The Minister of Justice of Canada is elected. Clearly they do what they do to get reelected. They are partisan in favour of their political party. However unlike other cabinet ministries this Ministry has multiple roles and some of those roles do not allow it when serving those roles to be partisan in nature.
To be specific the Attorney General of Canada is also the Minister of Justice of Canada. This Minister wears two hats, one political and partisan the other a constitutional role defined by the laws of Canada.
Those laws say the Attorney General is obliged (they have no discretion)to assure that the legal systems it overseas are followed as per the procedures set out in those laws. The AG can't exercise-if there is legal grounds to believe a Canadian criminal law is violated, they MUST prosecute.
This means the Attorney General MUST it has no choice...advise the Cabinet that it must prosecute criminal cases that might have political fall out so as to ensure that the Cabinet’s actions are legal and constitutionally valid and that the rule of law is maintained. This type of legal advice, provided by the Attorney General, differs significantly from the Attorney’s General policy advice; while the latter could be disregarded, the former can not.
Every lawyer in this country knows if the AG allows the PMO office or anyone including the PCO office to pressure it not to pursue a prosecution or seek a lesser sentence for POLITICAL reasons, that this violates the law and the basic rules of law. There is no grey area. Crowns decide based on the merits of evidence, NOT the outcome of what it might lead to which could alienate votes in Quebec.
Here go to:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/principles2-principes2.html, the Liberals haven't deleted it yet...it states:
"As will become evident, I view the unique role of the Attorney General as a fundamental pillar of the rule of law in Canada. In its simplest articulation, the rule of law ensures that no one, including the elected Government of the day, is above the law. As a guardian of the rule of law, the Attorney General is tasked with upholding the public interest."
No the Privy Council head does NOT and never had the role of or right to comment on or try approach the AG to discuss what sentence terms she should pursue against Lavalin which is what Trudeau and his Butt Boy did.
You can deny until doomsday but they wanted her to guarantee them no one would go to jail and the fine would not be so large as to negatively impact on the company and they wanted to make sure the verdict would not prevent this company from continuing to get contracts from the federal government once convicted.
Of course that is partisan political influence peddling and it is morally wrong and it could very well have crossed the line and become illegal influence peddling.
What makes it repulsive is Justin Trudeau got elected criticizing Harper for passing omnibus bills hiding legislation that was unpopular in larger cumbersome bills so no one would read the unpopular laws placed in the middle of the others.
Justin did the same thing passing a law to allow himself to influence peddle and give him and his PMO the right to approach the AG and tell her to PLEA BARGAIN a specific plea the Crown would not decide on the merits of evidence of the case but based on what would enable SNC to avoid any negative impact to prevent it from losing jobs and in that way placate Quebec voters who might otherwise be put out of work.
In simple terms, the legal plea being asked for was determined on what was most favourable for getting Quebec votes not based on the merits of the evidence of the case and it would have been wrong for any government of the day to do what Trudeau and Butts did.
This is the same Trudeau who went on vacation with the Aga Kahn who paid for his vacation at the same time he lobbied the government for funds.
Trudeau to date has refused to admit this was a breach of ethics or as he promised discuss it with the Ethics Commissioner and his lie, his absolute and utter lie was played out in Parliament as when he was asked why he did not go to the Ethics office refused to answer.
This is someone who plea bargained behind closed doors a 10 million hand out to a terrorist and then gave that terrorist's lawyer a judge's position.
This is someone who has openly stated to the world he is rewarding people breaking Canadian immigration law by giving them more rights than legitimate immigrants lining up.
This is a PM who openly breaks laws. This is someone who lectures China that his government does not involve itself in legal matters while at the same time engages in this Lavalin fiasco for China and the world to see. Zero credibility.
Then you write me and ask what the Privy Council head said that was partisan? Bull
****. You heard what he said. His entire testimony from the moment he opened his mouth to when he left was partisan and ultra vires the jurisdiction of his powers. No the head of the Privy Council does not claim there will be assassinations because he feels some people overly question the government. What bullshit. What arrogant bullshit. Now he decides what political opinions incite violence. I call bullshit. Its not his role.
Next he should have made NO comment as to whether the PMO's office went too far. Its not his role. He can only discuss policy implications. Being head of the civil service he can not question any Crown Attorney let alone the head Crown Attorney as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to pursue charges and its only after a sentence is entered that discussions as to the appropriate sentence should come up.
If there is a plea bargain arrangement its between the Crown and SNC not the PMO, not the PCO, not the AG, not the PM.
All lawyers know exactly what happened to Jody. She could not guarantee a specific plea bargain that they tried to pressure on her and they got pissed at her and punished her with a demotion and she in turn is pissed at them.
So the question now is, who is left standing. Her or Justin. The fact she is still an MP and Butt boy ran and Trudeau did an about face about her being able to testify should tell you he caved in. He tried to bully her, failed, and now he's trying to salvage what's left of his pathetic tenure.
His decision to go to Halifax to a funeral where he did not belong to giggle and cry and make sure to hijack the service to show pictures of him smiling and crying is par for the course.This is his m.o. Attend public events, hijack their focus to show him.
Does he think his shedding a tear works anymore? Boohoooo.
Now you want to deny what Kimmy said? Really? You want to pretend the PCO has the right to do what it did. No you cite. Don't tell me to cite you cite. Cite the law where it says the head civil service is to call the AG and tell her to make specific plea bargains. Please.
The Attorney General is also responsible for all criminal prosecutions in the country. However, some prosecutions are conducted by the provincial Attorney General authorities under the Canadian Criminal Code. The Attorney General may provide the police with some legal advice but should never cause charges to be laid – the ultimate decision is in the hands of the police authorities. The Attorney General has to fulfil his or her criminal prosecution duties independently of any political or government pressure. These duties require fairness of the presentation of cases and does not necessarily result in a conviction. This is a basic criminal law precept which is not well-understood at times or perceived as just. The office of the Attorney General operates under the 1867 Constitution Act which postulates that provincial legislatures have authority over the administration of justice. The provincial Attorney General may be designated as such or as a minister of justice for the particular province. In some provinces, the post may combine both functions.
law. To be clear, The Attorney General of Canada is the highest-ranking prosecuting officer in Canada.