Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:33 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,899
The resignations at the top of SNC-Lavalin were because those people actually pleaded guilty to crimes. I don't consider it reasonable governance to only fire executives when they actually have to plead guilty to felonious behavior in a court of law.

The Deferred Prosecution Agreement actually says that it matters HOW the company changes the executive and its practices. It is supposed to apply to companies whose own self-policing and self-reporting detected and exposed the wrongdoers. For example, a company ombudsman gets a tip from a whistleblower that an executive bribed an official. The company fires the executive, implements new controllership, and reports the infraction to the government. Such a company does not deserve a 10 year ban on contracts. That's the logic of the DPA.

SNC-Lavalin has been convicted of offenses many times, over many years, and perpetrated by many people. It had actual bogus expense classifications specifically put in place to hide bribe money. Its shenanigans didn't stop in 2011-2012, but continue to this day. The last guilty plea from that company came down just two months ago.

I have worked for big companies. I worked for one that had a problem with a sales manager giving bribes. He was fired, the company used his case in new training materials to make sure everyone understood what he did wrong, and we had to take classes that specifically went through various scenarios and we had to identify the ethical failings in each one. Then they put in a new Ombudsman and made his phone number part of the training, and we were all told that there was zero tolerance for cheating or bribery, and that there would be no consequences for whistleblowing.

That's the kind of thing companies are expected to do when they discover malfeasance in their ranks, and that's how they protect themselves from corporate punishment. Those are the companies the DPA was designed for. Not a company that apparently treats the buying of politicians as formalized, standard procedure as is apparently the case at SNC-Lavalin. They do it in foreign countries, and they do it in Canada.

I would really love to see that list of the Canadian politicians who benefited from SNC-Lavalin's little kickback scheme to violate campaign finance laws and hide corporate donations to Liberals behind individual donations. My guess is that we might find one or two people close to the current scandal.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 04-03-2019 at 02:34 PM.
  #252  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:25 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,856
I suspect you're right.
  #253  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:55 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
SNC-Lavalin whistleblower comes forward with new allegations

According to an insider from SNC-Lavalin who is now talking to authorities, the company has actually been borrowing money from the Export Development Bank to fund bribes, and bribing officials is standard operating procedure for the company.
Yes, that's pretty shocking corruption alright. It's all the more disturbing because Export Development Canada is a Crown corporation accountable to the federal government and reporting to the Minister for International Trade. The feds even appoint its board members. And SNC Lavalin was paying many of its bribes with EDC money!

And who was the Prime Minister responsible for federal oversight during this period when SNC Lavalin was not only bribing corrupt officials all over the world, but doing it in collaboration with EDC and with funds helpfully provided by EDC, a de facto agency of the federal government? Why, none other than your beloved upstanding former Conservative leader Stephen Harper! But it's all Trudeau's fault!
  #254  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:17 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,899
Sorry, but you are just reaching now. No one blames Trudeau for what happened before he was Prime Minister, and Harper is long gone. Nice try at deflection, though.
  #255  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:50 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Sorry, but you are just reaching now. No one blames Trudeau for what happened before he was Prime Minister, and Harper is long gone. Nice try at deflection, though.
No reaching, no deflection -- you're the one regaling us with all these stories about SNC Lavalin's alleged corrupt practices over many years, and I'm just pointing out that those many years spanned both Liberal and Conservative governments. So one wonders about the relevance of these tales in a discussion about Trudeau. Are we to believe that no one in the Harper government had a clue about all the bribery that SNC Lavalin was involved in -- over the span of nine years that they governed -- despite all the public findings of guilt and their close working association with EDC? If Trudeau appears to have given them a pass for reasons of realpolitik, it appears he was hardly alone.
  #256  
Old 04-03-2019, 06:11 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,899
But it's not about which governments were in power when the corruption happened. The point is that the company has established a very long history of corrupt practices which made it ineligible for the Deferred Prosecution agreement. You're the one trying to flip this into an attack on Harper, who has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company should have been given a deferred prosecution.

Let's put it this way - even if the CEO of SNC-Lavalin was giving Harper a daily BJ, it wouldn't change the fact that SNC-Lavalin is corrupt, has a long history of corruption, and therefore shouldn't be a candidate for the DPA. Which is what the attorney general concluded.

If you want to go after Harper for enabling corruption, then do it. Show us the evidence in another thread and we can debate it. But whether he did or not has NOTHING to do with the current debate. It's a hijack.
  #257  
Old 04-03-2019, 07:48 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Is that what this is all about? The DPA? I'm not aware of all the details of what was being suggested to Wilson-Reybould or what her legal options may have been with or without the DPA. And I think your unquestioning conclusion that the DPA absolutely would not apply is far from clear, as all or most of the individuals involved in the scandals you've been citing are long gone. Note that even before the DPA there was such a thing as "prosecutorial discretion", and note also that other countries (like the US, for instance) have had their own versions of the same thing for longer than we have.

In disclaiming the applicability of the DPA you seem to be trying to imply that SNC Lavalin in its entirety is essentially a criminal organization, which is ridiculous. No, it's a multi-billion dollar company with over 50,000 employees and operations in 160 countries. They need consideration, too, not just convicted former executives.
  #258  
Old 04-04-2019, 02:12 AM
Spoons is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 16,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But it's not about which governments were in power when the corruption happened. The point is that the company has established a very long history of corrupt practices....
My Dad was a surety bondsman. Basically, he underwrote large construction projects. Dad's projects included the Coquihalla Highway in BC, Calgary Airport, and Robarts Library at the University of Toronto. He guaranteed the completion of these projects. And they we completed, and Dad collected his fee. (He did kick himself once because he had the opportunity to underwrite the completion of Skydome in Toronto, but he turned it down, thinking, "That roof will never work.")

Dad would absolutely not touch a project in Quebec. Why? "Because Quebec engineers and contractors are corrupt. They expect bribes." Since he was not willing to bribe anybody, he simply did not do business in Quebec. He had plenty of other projects that interested and engaged him, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

An anecdote is never data, especially here on the SDMB, but I think Dad's refusal to underwrite Quebec projects is significant. Dad was not shy about saying that the construction business in Quebec was corrupt. Given what we're seeing about SNC-Lavalin today, it seems that Dad had the right idea.
  #259  
Old 04-04-2019, 09:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
In disclaiming the applicability of the DPA you seem to be trying to imply that SNC Lavalin in its entirety is essentially a criminal organization, which is ridiculous. No, it's a multi-billion dollar company with over 50,000 employees and operations in 160 countries. They need consideration, too, not just convicted former executives.
Lavalin broke the law, yes? The DPA was meant to be used if the infraction seems to be an isolated activity and the company is proactively making changes to root it out. Lavalin has a history of these issues and only fired the people who got caught. It's as simple as that -- no implications of anything else is necessary. I haven't seen a single lawyer on the news channels say Lavalin is a good test case/poster child to qualify for a DPA. They all said the opposite, actually.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-04-2019 at 09:15 AM.
  #260  
Old 04-04-2019, 05:06 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lavalin broke the law, yes? The DPA was meant to be used if the infraction seems to be an isolated activity and the company is proactively making changes to root it out. Lavalin has a history of these issues and only fired the people who got caught.
So who do you think they should have fired? The innocent ones, too? All 50,000 employees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I haven't seen a single lawyer on the news channels say Lavalin is a good test case/poster child to qualify for a DPA. They all said the opposite, actually.
Not a single lawyer? You need to get out more. Or switch channels once in a while. Donald Johnson is a former Liberal, true, but also a former AG and secretary general of the OECD during the time that the Anti-Bribery Convention was adopted, so maybe he knows a thing or two that is worth listening to.

That same article also quotes the Canadian Bar Association as stating that "debarment [from procurement contracts] can lead to the kinds of harm to blameless persons that DPAs are intended to avoid. … An automatic five-to-10 year debarment carries significant consequences and may effectively dissolve a firm that is highly dependent on government contracts."
  #261  
Old 04-04-2019, 05:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Thank god you found a partisan hack to back you up. Too bad he wasn't still AG, then we never would have heard about this.
  #262  
Old 04-04-2019, 06:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Heh, fun fact: the guy who wrote that opinion piece served in père Trudeau's cabinet.
  #263  
Old 04-04-2019, 06:42 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,899
It's interesting seeing someone ostensibly on the left trying his best to hand-wave away the behaviour of a corrupt mega corporation.

Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.
  #264  
Old 04-05-2019, 11:37 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,488
Trudeau's Liberals blew it by not forcing proportional representation through when he had the chance, for the ongoing splits in the left might make the difference in whether or not the Conservatives get a majority now that the never-ending corruption of SNC-Laval and allegations of it having at times involved the Quebec Liberals are back in the public's eye.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.

Last edited by Muffin; 04-05-2019 at 11:39 AM.
  #265  
Old 04-05-2019, 11:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
That's the first time I ever heard anyone suggest proportional representation as being a benefit to one of the major parties. But I guess you're not quite saying that. You're saying they should have passed PR so as to deny the Conservatives a majority in this one election in the wake of a scandal.

Yeah, can't see that as "blowing it".
  #266  
Old 04-05-2019, 08:19 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
SNC-Lavalin appeals to Federal Court of Appeal; seeks judicial review of the decision by Crown prosecutors not to offer a deferred prosecution agreement.

https://postmediatorontosun.files.wo...0-19-doc-1.pdf
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #267  
Old 04-06-2019, 02:14 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
SNC-Lavalin appeals to Federal Court of Appeal; seeks judicial review of the decision by Crown prosecutors not to offer a deferred prosecution agreement.

https://postmediatorontosun.files.wo...0-19-doc-1.pdf
That's... ballsy.
  #268  
Old 04-06-2019, 10:15 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
Yes, especially since the Supreme Court has held that the courts do not review the decisions of prosecutors on whether and how to charge someone. It's a separation of powers issue: the executive is responsible for deciding whether and how to prosecute. The courts are responsible for judging the case the Crown brings.

CBC has summarised the basis for the appeal here: "Prosecutor cited 'gravity' of alleged SNC-Lavalin offences: Court documents"

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5086604

Apparently the Crown gave three reasons why they decided not to consider a deferred prosecution agreement:

1. The "nature and gravity" of SNC-Lavalin alleged corruption in Libya;

2. The degree of involvement of senior company officials in Montreal;

3. SNC-Lavalin's failure to self-report.

SNC-Lavalin argues in its notice of Appeal that it had answers to those comments, which weren't relayed to the Attorney General. Also seems to be arguing that a prosecution would now be politically tainted and unfair.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #269  
Old 04-06-2019, 11:37 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862

How's Trudeau doing, Canada?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Not a single lawyer? You need to get out more. Or switch channels once in a while. Donald Johnson is a former Liberal, true, but also a former AG and secretary general of the OECD during the time that the Anti-Bribery Convention was adopted, so maybe he knows a thing or two that is worth listening to.
Ah yes, one of the friendly op-eds that Ms Telford said the PMO would start lining up to defend their decisions.

Minister of Justice under Trudeau père? Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount? Former President of the Liberal Party?

Yes, he's clearly a neutral, disinterested public commentator.

And he says that he doesn't know the reasons why the Crown prosecutors decided not to offer a deferred prosecution agreement. Undeterred by his admitted lack of knowledge of the case, he confidently asserts "If ever there was a case for a deferred prosecution agreement, it was here."

That's not how prosecution decisions, or decisions by the Attorney General should be made. Decisions should only be made on full information, not what you've read in the papers.

He also seems to criticise the fact that the Crown office has not disclosed their reasons for refusing the DPA. But it's an essential part of our criminal system that the Crown doesn't hold press conferences to gain public support for their prosecutorial decisions. Doing that inevitably politicises the prosecution service. They've communicated their reasons to SNC-Lavalin, who is the affected party, and to the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the Crown. That's how the system works, to protect the target of a prosecution and the non-partisan nature of prosecutions. I would have thought that a former Attorney General would know that.

He also takes a nasty little swipe at the entire federal prosecution service, asserting that the issues around deferred prosecution agreements are beyond their understanding, poor things

Only an outside, private lawyer, hand-picked by the PMO, apparently can be trusted to deal with this type of criminal prosecution decision.

And, he also criticises the Canadian voters. If only the PM and his people had had a better media plan in place to explain how DPAs work, this wouldn't be a story. Better media spin by the PMO would have defused this whole situation and Canadian voters would have just nodded and said, "Sure, it's okay if a major company uses its political influence to get out of a criminal conviction. They'll pay a little fine and the Crown comes after the company minions, but not the company? Well why didn't you tell me?!?"

Sorry Don, but I think Canadian voters aren't that easily "spun" and have a pretty good idea of what's going on here.

Got anything better? Maybe someone who doesn't have any ties to the Liberal party and la famille Trudeau?

Quote:
That same article also quotes the Canadian Bar Association as stating that "debarment [from procurement contracts] can lead to the kinds of harm to blameless persons that DPAs are intended to avoid. … An automatic five-to-10 year debarment carries significant consequences and may effectively dissolve a firm that is highly dependent on government contracts."

Sure, but that was speaking about the idea of deferred prosecution agreements in general, back when the federal government was first floating the idea. It's a general comment on the proposed law, not a comment about whether a DPA was appropriate in this particular case.

I'd be surprised if the CBA would comment on an ongoing prosecution, knowing that they don't have the complete record. But if you can find a comment from the CBA on this particular case, I'd be interested in seeing it.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 04-06-2019 at 11:42 AM.
  #270  
Old 04-06-2019, 02:24 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,899
I suspect everyone is going to get away with this. SNC-Lavalin will continue to poke at this decision, and it will be quietly overturned sometime down the road when no one is paying attention. And by the time of the election, the media will dutifully take the line that this is old news, and that the other parties are desperate to keep it alive for political reasons, and the Trudeau is actually the maligned party by having an old obscure issue repeatedly brought up for partisan reasons and it's time to move on and talk about the real issues Canadians care about, such as how great Justin Trudeau is.

After all, he did just give them a $600 million dollar gift in an election year.
  #271  
Old 04-06-2019, 04:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Well, it will be old news. And I doubt the charges will be dropped

At the end of the day, this is a very unsexy scandal. Nothing really happened. Trudeau et al may have pushed ethical boundaries but they didn't break a law, and the pushing of ethical bounds didn't change anything.

Yes, the media will dutifully drop this in a couple months, because their duty is to be interesting. Everyone but partisans will be bored of this by August..

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-06-2019 at 04:07 PM.
  #272  
Old 04-06-2019, 04:35 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
...Minister of Justice under Trudeau père? Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount? Former President of the Liberal Party?

Yes, he's clearly a neutral, disinterested public commentator....
LOL
  #273  
Old 04-06-2019, 05:11 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Yes, especially since the Supreme Court has held that the courts do not review the decisions of prosecutors on whether and how to charge someone.
Correct, but that's not the basis of the appeal. The basis of the appeal is the allegation that there was an "abuse of process", which is, in fact, valid grounds for judicial review. I don't actually think they have much of a chance, but let's keep the facts straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Minister of Justice under Trudeau père? Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount? Former President of the Liberal Party?

Yes, he's clearly a neutral, disinterested public commentator.
I didn't say he was "neutral" or "disinterested". I said he was worth listening to. The OECD doesn't appoint someone as their secretary-general because he's a useless partisan hack, as someone referred to Johnson upthread. Let's face it, everyone who votes has a position here tainted by some degree of partisanship. It doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Sure, but that was speaking about the idea of deferred prosecution agreements in general, back when the federal government was first floating the idea. It's a general comment on the proposed law, not a comment about whether a DPA was appropriate in this particular case.
It was speaking about the damage that can be done to many innocent parties by the prosecution of a few, which seems to me to be right on point here.

I'm hardly a diehard Liberal Party partisan. I've also voted both Conservative and NDP at different times. Quite frankly, my concern here is both about the Canadian and Quebec economies and also the fact that throwing Trudeau under the bus for this is the proverbial throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Trudeau has been a notable and laudable icon of progressivism in a world that lately seems to be dominated by populist regressives, bigots, and xenophobes. The last thing we need in Canada now is Harper Lite.
  #274  
Old 04-06-2019, 08:30 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
.
I didn't say he was "neutral" or "disinterested". I said he was worth listening to. The OECD doesn't appoint someone as their secretary-general because he's a useless partisan hack, as someone referred to Johnson upthread. Let's face it, everyone who votes has a position here tainted by some degree of partisanship. It doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.
Hmm, the only time the word "useless" seems to appear in this thread is in your posts.

Johnston was nominated to his OECD position by Chretien. I have no idea what rigorous vetting takes place before the members vote on it, so feel free to impress me. But I'll offer a slight change to my original statement, I haven't seen a single non-party affiliated working lawyer say SNC was a good candidate for DPA.
  #275  
Old 04-06-2019, 09:02 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I didn't say he was "neutral" or "disinterested". I said he was worth listening to.
Johnston's own words:

"If there was ever a case for a DPA, it was here. Canada had an opportunity to illustrate how corporate wrongdoing can be addressed effectively without destroying globally competitive companies, leaving jobs, skills and technologies to be profitably harvested abroad."

Acting in the national economic interest is specifically something that CANNOT be used as a reason for a DPA regarding the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. It says so in the legislation.

Quote:
Quite frankly, my concern here is both about the Canadian and Quebec economies and also the fact that throwing Trudeau under the bus for this is the proverbial throwing out of the baby with the bathwater.
There are the sorts of sad excuses that often accompany a disinterest in democracy and the rule of law. "We certainly can't prosecute this big company, that would be bad for business! Never mind the norms of governance, that might mean the right candidate won't get elected!"
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #276  
Old 04-06-2019, 10:09 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Johnston's own words:

"If there was ever a case for a DPA, it was here. Canada had an opportunity to illustrate how corporate wrongdoing can be addressed effectively without destroying globally competitive companies, leaving jobs, skills and technologies to be profitably harvested abroad."

Acting in the national economic interest is specifically something that CANNOT be used as a reason for a DPA regarding the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. It says so in the legislation
EXACTLY! (I think I made that point earlier in this thread but can't be bothered looking for it. )


Quote:
There are the sorts of sad excuses that often accompany a disinterest in democracy and the rule of law. "We certainly can't prosecute this big company, that would be bad for business! Never mind the norms of governance, that might mean the right candidate won't get elected!"
And, the legislation also prohibits taking into account "the identity of the organization or individual involved." So arguments that "This is SNC-Lavalin, Jody! We can't let it go under!" are equally irrelevant.

In other words, for whatever reason, Parliament decided that it's harder to get a DPA for prosecutions under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act than "ordinary" corruption offences under the Criminal Code.

Again, you would think that a former Attorney General and exec sec from the OECD would appreciate that you can't make an argument about "SNC might leave Canada and take their expertise, like Avro did!"

That sure sounds to me like an argument based on the identity of the organisation involved, which is prohibited.

Last edited by Northern Piper; 04-06-2019 at 10:11 PM.
  #277  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:51 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Correct, but that's not the basis of the appeal. The basis of the appeal is the allegation that there was an "abuse of process", which is, in fact, valid grounds for judicial review. I don't actually think they have much of a chance, but let's keep the facts straight.
That is one of the grounds of appeal now, but SNC-Lavalin did not allege abuse of process in their initial application (SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. v. Canada (Public Prosecution Service, 2019 FC 282):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane J, Federal Court
[64] The Respondent notes that although prosecutorial discretion may be reviewed for abuse of process or flagrant impropriety by the prosecutor, this is not alleged by the Applicants.

[159] The Applicants submit that the Respondent has lost sight of the remedy they seek in their Application, which is to set aside the DPP’s decision and to be offered to negotiate a remediation agreement. They do not allege abuse of process or seek a stay of proceedings.
(my bolding)

They are now trying to raise abuse of process on appeal, but it's hard to introduce new issues on appeal.

Their main argument in the Federal Court was that the decision to offer a deferred prosecution agreement was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore could be reviewed by the courts. The Federal Court dismissed that argument, saying that just because it doesn't lead to a conviction and sentence doesn't take it out of prosecutorial discretion. The Crown's decision whether or not to offer the deferred prosecution agreement is part of the prosecutorial discretion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane J, Federal Court
The law is clear that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for abuse of process. The DPP’s decision to not invite the Applicants to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion.
They seem to have argued that a remediation agreement is just that: an agreement, more like a civil settlement, and that takes it out of the scope of prosecutorial discretion. (Curiously, that argument seems to match the arguments advanced by the Clerk of the Privy Council in the taped phone call...).

The Judge firmly rejected that argument. She reviewed numerous cases which held that when the Criminal Code gives the prosecutor discretion to consider alternative measures to the classic trial guilty/not guilty, it is still an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to offer the alternative measures (paras. 133-136).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane J., Federal Court
[141] In conclusion, the decision for which the Applicants seek judicial review is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that falls within the prosecutor’s role in bringing and continuing the prosecution and all that entails.
She also highlighted the constitutional nature of prosecutorial discretion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane J, Federal Court
[76] In Miazga, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted that the independence of the Attorney General as prosecutor is constitutionally entrenched. The Court noted at para 46:
The independence of the Attorney General is so fundamental to the integrity and efficiency of the criminal justice system that it is constitutionally entrenched. The principle of independence requires that the Attorney General act independently of political pressures from government and sets the Crown’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion beyond the reach of judicial review, subject only to the doctrine of abuse of process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I didn't say he was "neutral" or "disinterested". I said he was worth listening to. The OECD doesn't appoint someone as their secretary-general because he's a useless partisan hack, as someone referred to Johnson upthread. Let's face it, everyone who votes has a position here tainted by some degree of partisanship. It doesn't mean their arguments are wrong.
I just think that equating the partisan interest of a past president of the Liberal Party to that of the individual voter is a bridge too far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It was speaking about the damage that can be done to many innocent parties by the prosecution of a few, which seems to me to be right on point here.
...
Quite frankly, my concern here is both about the Canadian and Quebec economies ...
But as RickJay and I have pointed out, the Criminal Code prohibits the Crown from taking into account "the national economic interest" and " the identity of the organization or individual involved", when it's a charge of bribing foreign public officials. See Criminal Code, s. 715.32(3).
  #278  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:24 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There are the sorts of sad excuses that often accompany a disinterest in democracy and the rule of law. "We certainly can't prosecute this big company, that would be bad for business! Never mind the norms of governance, that might mean the right candidate won't get elected!"
I'll respond to that by beginning with this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
At the end of the day, this is a very unsexy scandal. Nothing really happened. Trudeau et al may have pushed ethical boundaries but they didn't break a law, and the pushing of ethical bounds didn't change anything.
I agree with this. The whole discussion of the technicalities of a DPA or the larger question of prosecutorial discretion in general, or of the alleged pure evil of SNC Lavalin, are all peripheral to the larger issue that concerns me here. One can acknowledge that what Trudeau is alleged to have done was wrong, and still legitimately ask whether it rises to the level of wrongness that should cost him the right to govern and perhaps his political career, particularly given that it was done with good intentions and not self-serving motives like self-enrichment.

Because ISTM that most of those who profess their outrage at this supposed "scandal" are of a Conservative-supporting inclination who would be happy to see Trudeau gone, just on general principle, like my Conservative buddy who can't even mention his name without throwing in a juvenile insult. So again, I'm not saying that Trudeau wasn't wrong, I'm commenting on the political opportunism seeking to exploit it to the maximum possible extent. They had no problem at all when SNC was distributing bribes all over the world using funds from Export Development Canada under Harper's watch, but are suddenly scandalized when Trudeau regards a major Canadian company as too big to fail, particularly in the hypersensitive context of Quebec politics. The perception in Quebec that the federal government was torpedoing one of Quebec's biggest companies and biggest employers would be politically explosive, particularly if they were banned from all federal contracts.

Remember that all this back-and-forth started when I simply expressed my annoyance with seeing Wilson-Raybould's smugly grinning mug on the front pages of news sites every single day. She single-handedly escalated this tempest in a teapot to a national spectacle, often using unethical sleazy tactics, and created a largely artificial scandal out of all proportion to the actual transgression. And she did it for reasons that I personally find suspiciously self-serving. I don't see that "democracy and the rule of law" were ever under any real threat, or that Wilson-Raybould's sanctimonious grandstanding has done anything to save democracy or take the country in a better direction. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile -- speaking of political opportunism -- is worried that this may all fade away and as recently as today was handing out alleged new material to keep the "scandal" alive.
  #279  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:01 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
To the OP's question:

Well, he's going to be mocked on the Simpsons this weekend.

Bit of a come-down from a Vogue glamour shot.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...cing-1.5106507
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #280  
Old 04-24-2019, 06:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
To the OP's question:

Well, he's going to be mocked on the Simpsons this weekend.

Bit of a come-down from a Vogue glamour shot.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...cing-1.5106507
Thanks for the heads-up -- that looks like it's going to be fun!

But I don't see any basis for the "going to be mocked" comment. From the guy who did the Trudeau voice-over: "I think if there was a clear intention to mock someone or make someone look bad, then there would be some problems. I can honestly say there's absolutely no malice either for [Trudeau] or anybody else. It really is just about trying to be funny," he said."
  #281  
Old 04-24-2019, 10:15 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,862
Any other time i’ve Seen a political leader on Simpsons, they’ve been mocked: Ford, Bush I, Dole and Clinton all come to mind. But maybe they ‘ll break the pattern for Trudeau.
  #282  
Old 04-25-2019, 03:11 AM
Spoons is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 16,552
There will be mockery, I'm sure, but it will be gentle and of the sort that even Mr. Trudeau and his family can laugh at.

Remember the Simpsons episode with Bush the First was a "Dennis the Menace" parody, with Mr. Bush playing Mr. Wilson to Bart's Dennis; and Bob Dole was an "inaction" figure, who, when you pulled the string, said, "You are hearing me talk." Ford invited Homer over for nachos and beer and TV football. No biting satire, like SNL might do; just gentle humour exploiting the various presidents' (and others) petty foibles and habits.

I'm sure that it will be the same with Mr. Trudeau. There won't be any serious issues or inappropriate mannerisms addressed, just things that Mr. Trudeau can laugh along at, and perhaps say, "Okay, you got me there."
  #283  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:50 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,488
What? A Simpson's Trump character will not be grabbing Trudeau by the . . . ?
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017