Yep, from what I have seen so far it's not a great day for Justin.
Now I am going to try be fair and objective. Of course you are right. Having listened to and still listening to her replies she felt inappropriately pressured.
I will tell you what though. My major concern is the head of the Privy Council. It was his role to tell Justin Trudeau to cool it. He had a role as the neutral top civil servant to say to Justin, stop you are going over the line. He did not. In fact he enabled and empowered the PM to continue pushing.
Here is the thing. Jody R is dead on correct. As AG you can not under any circumstance consider political considerations when determining appropriate plea bargains or sentences. Everything she said about the AG's role and my criticism of the Privy Council head I stated yesterday are the same and I would say every lawyer would understand this. Its basic law. the AG can only consider the merits of the evidence when deciding a sentence or plea.
No I do not think its inappropriate any PM or Minister OTHER than the AG worry about political fall-out when deciding policies or what kind of legislation to pass. However not as to pleas with specific prosecutions. In regards to law in general, yes broad policy considerations are the domain of the Minister of Justice, but not for a specific prosecution when the Minister then acts as AG.
The attempt by the Liberals at the inquiry today to say deferred prosecution agreements are normal is not and was not the issue. The issue was communicating to the AG as to how to use the deferred prosecution agreement in specific regard to the Lanalin case. That was the issue. The Liberals tried to redefine public interest as concern that if Lanalin did not get a certain plea it could cause political fall out, i.e., loss of jobs and that concern is a legitimate consideration to build a plea. No its not.
That's not the AG's criteria for consideration of a deferred prosecution agreement. It can't be because it does not consider the merits or evidence of the case.
As well a deferred prosecution agreement which is simply a reworded term for a plea bargain for a corporation is something the current Liberals want to paint as legitimate. No, its not legitimate if its not used properly. Its the context in which it is used that makes it legally appropriate or not. Today the Liberals tried to argue its used in other countries and so its non problematic. No. Plea bargains of any kind can not lend to the appearance of providing favourable treatment. Plea bargains are used because courts are over-loaded with cases or because they properly match a sentence to the nature of the crime committed.
Plea bargains still must follow the sentence parameters of the criminal code as well. This latest deferred prosecution agreement was specifically created and passed by hiding it in an Omnibus bill to avoid open debate in Parliament as to what grounds it would be used for, before it was used.
Arguing as the Liberals now do that its a legitimate consideration to consider sentencing predicated on how many people might lose jobs if you find their companyis guilty is bullshit.
Public interest can not be advanced by allowing corporations to feel because they employ people, they can expect a different standard of behaviour and sentencing in society.
No public interest can not be defined as what gets the PM re-elected.
The head of the Privy Council had the role to step in and say to Trudeau-Sir you have a right to be concerned as to the negative fall-out over Lanalin and consider it in cabinet discussions but you can not change laws or force your AG to influence a prosecution to give favourable treatment to a company because you fear losing votes in Quebec. Your role as a partisan head of government can not over-ride the role of the AG prescribed to her by law. If you want to pass legislation to undo certain crimes and make them non existent, you can do tht, but you can't influence a prosecution outcome.
I see no evidence of the Privy Council head warning Trudeau to stop. Why not? Well this arrogant prick told the committee he felt it appropriate both he and the PM pressure the AG.
I think Trudeau showed poor judgement and immaturity in how he handled this matter and should have walked away once told by Jody R she could not interfere. He did not and he must b e held accountable. She could not have been any clearer. There was undue political interference against the AG.
HI can not help but wonder, if the Privy Council head acted non partisan and told Trudeau to stop, would he have continued as he did? I believe it could be argued the Privy Council led Trudeau to believe he could keep pressuring the AG and that may have been one factor in the questionable behaviour. Non-partisan advice Trudeau needed was not there.
Of course Butts pressured the AG we well but Butt's job was to cover the PM's ass at all costs and laws are an inconvenience to him... if they would get in the way of reelecting Justin which Butts felt it did in this specific case.
The AG was 100% correct on this one and the Privy Council needs to be fired immediately and Trudeau looks like he fired Jody R when she would not compromise her role as AG to placate Trudeau's political concerns as to Lavalin.
As for Trudeau people in the next election have to decide is this the kind of leader they want Do you want your laws superceded by partisan motives or not? He has done it with our immigration laws, with Kadr, with his Christmas trip with the Aga Kahn, now this. This won't stop. Trudeau is not one used to being told no.
Trudeau acting like a spoiled vengeful
**** is no surprise The lack of safeguard to curtail the PM from engaging in this behaviour by the Privy Council head does surprise me. He needs to be tossed on his ass.