actually, the Liberal government brought forward the DPA legislation... that was passed into (criminal code) law. Nothing was hidden:
=> there were formal consultations leading up to the bill; consultations which drew 370 participants (370 Canadians, industry associations, businesses, non-governmental organizations and others participated.), and 75 written submissions - all public record.
=> members of the House had opportunity to scrutinize the DPA related provisions within the bill - note: the government of the day isn't responsible for doing the Opposition parties due diligence.
=> there was extensive review of the bill provisions at a Senate committee level - all public record
as an aside: during her recent testimony before the Justice Committee, JWR was asked several times for her personal view on remediation agreements (DPAs) - she refused to answer, advising that her personal view is irrelevant. A most curious/interesting response given: Wilson-Raybould snubbed Senate committee on corporate corruption bill
Provide the citations for the public record as to the debates and discussion as to the clause added to the omnibus bill to add on the dpa the Liberals slipped in. Good luck. It does not exist. As for the alleged discussions you said took place, they were not about the Lavalin dpa. You also did not understand why JWR said her personal opinion about dpa's was not relevant. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Look with due respect I am trying to take the time to explain the actual law and how it works exactly as JWR did and any lawyer will not to be a
**** with you. Its hard to explain it in short black and white terms but you must believe me when I say what JWR said is something all lawyers are obliged to know and understand and I will try explain it again making it clear that JWR acted on behalf of not just the AG as she was supposed to but as all lawyers are expected to do and uphold both ethically and legally as she did. She is a classic role model for what we were taught to do or must do. She is an example of an ethical lawyer. They do exist.
Please let’s get it straight. It was on September 19th, 2018 the Criminal Code of Canada was altered to allow for a specific deferred prosecution agreement buried in a clause allowing DPA’s in a last-minute addition to a 582-page Omnibus Budget Bill that was passed. There was no debate on it.
In actual fact the Liberals did not discuss the DPA clause specific to Lavalin but kept it secret because even the Liberal MP’s on the House of Commons justice committee studying the Omnibus Budget Bill said they were surprised and did not know about this clause. It is also a fact Liberal MP Greg Fergus said at the time when he became aware of the clause he was worried the change appeared to be designed to give those implicated in white-collar crimes “a little slap on the wrist”. He stated:
“It seems we’re letting those with the means have an easier time of it than those who don’t have the means,”.
In fact the discussion about dpa’s you refer to was not as to the dpa for Lavalin but dpa’s in general which is not the issue, please go to:https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ci-if/ar-cw/differee-deferred-eng.html .
Also to be clear the issue at hand is not the use of dpa’s but in fact using a dpa for Lavalin which is predicated on the belief that it should get favourable treatment. Dpa's can be of benefit of they in fact provide alternatives to traditional sentencing that serve the purposes of s.718 of the Criminal Code and do not undermine the criminal sentencing process by lending to the appearance of giving special lenient treatment which is what Lavalin asked for.
Public interest is NOT in the Lavalin case one and the same as favourable treatment for Lavalin when Lavalin commits a crime. That I would politely caution you is not possible in law. Law does not consider criminals less criminal and entitled to less of a sentence because they might suffer financially and that in turn may cause people to lose jobs in Quebec which in turn would cause political fallout for Trudeau. No it is not in the public interest to protect criminals who employ people because if that was the case any criminal who employs people who could cause those people a loss of jobs if they are sentenced, would be entitled to the same treatment as Lavalin. Imagine what that would do to the entire legal process. . It would undermine not only the entire criminal process but the need to protect people from criminals.
If this Lavalin dpa is allowed we are to believe the need for specific Quebecers employed by Lavalin to continue working for Lavalin is more important than upholding social values that the need to prevent criminals including Lavalin from committing crimes they did.
How could that possibly be in the public interest? Trudeau et al would have us suspend logic, common sense, and basic fundamental criminal laws and sentencing principles and purposes as well as ethics because it conflicts with his partisan Liberal political need to avoid negative fall out that could prevent him from being re-elected. No. That of course incorrect.
I also want to remind you this dpa would not only lighten the sentence but allow Lavalin to continue to be awarded contracts by our federal government. Why? Why are we protecting a company that engages in corruption and bribery with people like Ghaddafi? Has our legal system become so subservient to large corporations we have a PM who relishes the role of serving as a step and fetch it for a criminal company?
Let’s be clear what this is all about. SNC-Lavalin is supposed to be under trial for fraud and corruption charges for its role in bribing Libyan officials under the Muammar Gaddafi regime as well as defrauding Libyan organizations in the amount of $130 million. If criminally convicted without the dpa for corruption, SNC-Lavalin would be barred from bidding on federal contracts for the next 10 years – and it is this potentially loss of business which causes the fear by this current Liberal government that such a ban could cause SNC to lose jobs or move out of Quebec and thus the dpa to lessen the sentence.
So the dpa has nothing to do with a sentence proportionate to the crime which is the most basic and fundamental of sentencing principles in Canadian criminal law but introduces the concept that if a criminal is a corporation that is large and employs people that might lose their jobs, this allows that criminal special treatment. Its got nothing to do with the crime and protecting the public from the crime but everything to do with protecting the ruling government from potential negative political fallout if the proper sentence was upheld.
In fact SNC Lavalin began its non stop lobbying and over 80 meetings to influence the ruling government to issue a dpa starting in 2016. Most of the lobbying was done with includes Finance Minister Bill (Fred Astaire) Morneau, Economic Development Minister Navdeep (Big Boy) Bains, Infrastructure Minister (Frankie) Francois-Philippe, as well as meetings with the PMO, specifically Gerald (Bumbum) Butts as well as other senior advisers (minions) to Justin Trudeau.
The new bill allows dpa’s as an option. It says a dpa can be considered instead of pursuing (continuing with a criminal court case). However and this is the crucial element to this dpa amendment, its not an automatic device that MUST be used. It still requires the Director of the Public Prosecution Service to decide whether it would be appropriate to use. Let’s also be clear. We don’t need dpa’s. A prosecutor already has the discretion to plea bargain or not pursue a case. They don’t need a dpa and never did. The problem is precisely what I said, if the prosecutor plea bargains, the final say as to the actual sentence rests with a Judge which Lavalin did not want.
Let us also be crystal clear, the Director of Public Prosecution on Oct.18, 2018 refused to negotiate a dpa with Lavalin saying it was NOT in the public interest and when that news came out Lavalin stock value dropped 14% that same day. Since that time and as far back as 2015, Lavalin has ben lobbying the federal government not to prosecute it.
We also need to be clear, when the Director refused to implement a dpa for Lavalin on Oct.18 2018, Lavalin filed a judicial review challenging this rejection which is still before the court and has not been decided.
Since the firing of the AG for not agreeing to the dpa, her replacement has now said he may force prosecutors to negotiate a DPA with SNC-Lavalin, despite protests from the Director of Public Prosecution Service in Canada. This kind of threat to influence and intimidate prosecutors who are supposed to be free of any political interference from elected officials has never been done before. In fact cases to date have made it clear you can not coerce a Crown prosecutor to do things based on concerns or interests unrelated to the crime itself.
This is such a disturbing development in legal terms, that yesterday 5 former Attorney Generals have filed a law suit against the current government and it should also be mentioned Lavalin is involved in a class action suit by its own shareholders who claim they were lied to by Lavalin about the corruption they engaged in and this dpa would necessarily if followed prejudice their case.
What government gets involved in a process where its Prime Minister applauds his own efforts in pressuring the AG and condoning the concept that a criminal should be able to get the government of the day to change the law directly related to its own case so it can get out of its sentence?
How the phack does any Liberal spinner on this thread not see that there is a conflict for the government of the day to allow itself to be pressured by a criminal to pass a law giving that criminal special treatment in its on-going prosecution?
How does a PM who has told China we uphold the rules of law which means the government of the day can not influence on-going criminal proceedings…do this? How does a PM who says believe a woman who says she is harassed now say, do not believe this woman when she says she was harassed, we didn't harass. The fact we kept calling and calling isn't harassment, its not influence peddling, its not coercion, its "normal". No it is not. No one in government is allowed to pressure a prosecutor to consider looking the other way. That is illegal. It could be obstruction of justice or influence peddling which are crimes. If nothing else its inappropriate. Its a clear conflict of interest. Most importantly how does doing something so unethical (allowing a criminal to lobby to get special treatment) become acceptable to Liberals because they try use this absurd argument they made it legal to be unethical?
What kind of logic is that?
Every lawyer in every province and territory of Canada knows that there is a centuries-old tradition that the attorney general's role as the government's chief prosecutor needs to be independent from their position as a member of the executive branch at the cabinet table an so that it is improper for any other minister to attempt to influence the attorney general in their prosecutorial role.
Imagine what the Liberal spins on this forum would be saying if the Tories had done this and not Liberals. How selective is it for Liberals to now openly advocate for creating laws that allow large corporations to get special criminal treatment. Amazing how the righteousness of Liberals so easily turns to defending corruption and corrupt corporations when it suits their need to get re-elected.
What two faced
**** they are and it did not take long to see Trudeau for what he is a corporate step n fetch it boy.
Yassuh Mistuh Lavalin az a comin to carry yoh bagz massuh.
That sucking and blowing by Trudeau on Lavalin's titties and other parts must by now be painful.