Canadian Politics Today

The above comments do not add to or address any issues and again show you try to deny what I have stated and then try to bait.

sure they do - you just can't/won't accept them... can't/won't acknowledge you're full of shyte. Again, in a public interest regard, an AG can intervene in any prosecution. Your darlin' Jody was quite obviously in over her head in that Justice Minister - AG job/role - many legal experts have severely criticized her failure to realize the mandate she was given... have significantly criticized her failings as Justice Minister/AG. I have cited several of those legal expert reviews. Of recent note, again, is this most telling commentary; you know, the one you're so troubled over - this one:

Brian Greenspan: past president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, founding chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, recipient of an honorary doctor of laws from the Law Society of Ontario, a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Fellow of the International Society of Barristers, recognized in The International Who's Who of Business Crime Lawyers and The Best Lawyers in Canada since their inception, is a Band 1 leading individual in White Collar Crime in Chambers Canada and has been named three times as one of the 25 Most Influential Lawyers in Canada by Canadian Lawyer Magazine:

Did Jody Wilson-Raybould understand her role as attorney-general?

Quote

The reputation and integrity of the administration of criminal justice in Canada has recently been challenged by critics who betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities of key participants in our justice system. Regrettably, these misconceptions have been fueled by our former attorney-general, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

There is no question that the attorney-general must exercise her role objectively and independently. However, in a free and democratic society, the prosecutorial function does not operate in a vacuum, in isolation and immune from debate, discussion and, indeed, persuasion. Isolation breeds tyranny. Access to justice requires those who administer justice to be accessible, to be open to advocacy on behalf of clients and causes. Advocacy in the adversarial process does not undermine independence. In fact, the public interest is best served by ensuring that the decision-maker has meaningfully examined the conflicting positions and has been exposed to a comprehensive review of all relevant considerations.

Thoughtful reconsideration and sober second thoughts do not threaten the independence of the attorney-general nor do they jeopardize the integrity of our justice system.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould has expressed the position that any intervention by the attorney-general with the decision of the director of public prosecutions (DPP) would have been automatically suspect and that it would risk calling into question prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. The DPP, in fact, fulfills her responsibility under and on behalf of the attorney-general, and the act which governs her authority empowers the attorney-general to assume carriage of a prosecution or to direct the director. The attorney-general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an important aspect of our system. The former attorney-general treated the DPP as essentially unreviewable. Politically accountable oversight in ensuring that the public interest is properly taken into account isn’t anathema to the rule of law. The attorney-general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an integral part of our justice system.

The DPP is expressly mandated to notify the attorney-general if a case “raises important questions of general interest.” The conviction of SNC-Lavalin would affect thousands of people, including employees, pensioners and shareholders who were innocent bystanders to the alleged wrongdoing. In fact, one of the key underlying objectives of remediation agreements is to reduce the collateral negative consequences to those not engaged in the wrongdoing. The DPP fulfilled her responsibility to notify the attorney-general, recognizing that this case raised important questions of public interest. However, rather than address, assess or weigh the competing positions, the attorney-general appears to have reflexively deferred to the DPP and abdicated her responsibility for vigorous and independent oversight.