Topic: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

[SeaKingTacco]

The way I understand it so far, the suit would be by Trudeau personally against Scheer personally for comments Scheer made on social media and outside the house where he is not protected by Parliamentary privilege. It is, quite obviously, a SLAPP suit aimed at muzzling Scheer outside of the house  and in front of the media. I would expect similar threats to be made against others such as Bergen, Rempel and Polivere.

I get that, but think of the optics, particularly in an election year. Trudeau, with his personal fortune up in the millions is going after (essentially) a middle class man with an opinion (Scheer).

It may not directly involve the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees. Even people who would not normally vote Conservative probably would contribute to a Scheer legal defence fund, just to see Trudeau hammered for trying to silence the leader of the Opposition.

This is another disaster in the making for the Liberals.

[Jarnhamar]

I get that, but think of the optics, particularly in an election year. Trudeau, with his personal fortune up in the millions is going after (essentially) a middle class man with an opinion (Scheer).

It may not directly involve the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees. Even people who would not normally vote Conservative probably would contribute to a Scheer legal defence fund, just to see Trudeau hammered for trying to silence the leader of the Opposition.

This is another disaster in the making for the Liberals.

Exactly. This seems like an amateur move and really too good to be true. I still think we have to be missing something.

I can't imagine Butts approving of this when him and Trudeau do their nightly facetime chats.

[Cloud Cover]

To be clear, I think that Trudeau would not succeed as Scheer could avail himself of the public interest defence. With respect to "honest belief", in general the facts have to be proven before the libellous statements  are made, not after the libel suit commences. A person cannot wander about accusing people of having committed crimes, and then demand evidence to prove it after they've been served with a libel suit.  That being said, there is obviously plenty of evidence, but whether it's proof - well just ask Jean Chretien- "a proof is a proof when I say it is".  And he got away with it, FFS.


The total aggregate damages for Hill were about 1.6 million including 800K in punitive damages, plus costs. There were (i think) 2 defendants.  This case with Trudeau does not come anywhere near the level of defamation that occurred in Hill, where the plaintiff was actually a prosecutor. Here, Trudeau is, at least perceptually, a conspirator.

[milnews.ca]

... who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees ...

Exactly. This seems like an amateur move and really too good to be true. I still think we have to be missing something.

Sometimes a dumb move is just a dumb move -- like the French guy reportedly said ...

[Chris Pook]

Can I get a bit more clarification on something a bit more fundamental?

The business of the independence of the prosecutors?

Isn't it the case that we can "afford" to give the prosecutors, employees of the state, the freedom to prosecute who they like because prosecution is not the same as conviction?

My sense is that in the same context that anyone can enter into a dispute with anyone and then have that dispute resolved by a "disinterested" third party, the courts, then the state, as represented by the prosecutor, can enter into dispute with anyone and, likewise, take it to the courts for adjudication.  The courts then test the arguments and decide if the prosecutor can make the case and demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the person is sufficiently guilty to warrant a sanction.

As people subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts my understanding of my protections are as follows:

The discretion of my neighbours to lay a complaint
The discretion of the police to arrest
The discretion of the prosecutor to charge
The discretion of the court to hear the case
The discretion of the judge and or jury to convict
The discretion of the judge to sentence
My discretion to appeal to superior courts
The discretion of the appellate courts to hear the case
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the conviction
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the sentence
My discretion to appeal to the Crown as represented by the Queen in Council, the government of the day
The discretion of the government of the day to uphold the findings of the courts.

That is an awful lot of people making judgments with little guarantee that all the people exercising their discretion will agree on an outcome.  That puts a load onto many people but in particular it puts a load on the prosecutor because he or she is committing the reputation and budget of the state to a process that could severely injure both in the event of a failed prosecution - and failure is a real possibility.

With that background in mind - two thoughts.

One - the government has ample opportunity, at the end of the process, to assist its friends - if it chooses to do so - in the cold light of day - and if it is willing to put its decision to the discretion of the electorate at the next election.

Two - any organization willing to spend millions, and go to the extent of getting laws changed and risk the perception of corruption,  to keep its case out of the courts must be fairly sure that the prosecutors have a case that the courts will ultimately accept and that will result in sanctions.

[Rifleman62]

https://blackrod.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-unreported-bombshell-conspiracy.html

The unreported bombshell conspiracy evidence in the Trudeau/SNC-Lavelin scandal

Extract:

Which brings us to the ticking-timebomb-evidence the committee and the public didn't get to hear. In between the appearances by Butts and Warnick, Wilson-Raybould testified to getting a report from her chief of staff who had had a meeting with Butts and Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford. They aggressively pushed the attorney general to get an "outside" opinion from someone like the retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, on dropping the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a non-criminal plea deal.

Wilson-Raybould took contemporary notes of what her staff member told her. "My COS (chief of staff...ed) asked what if the opinion comes saying "She can review it, but she shouldn't" or simply "She can't review it" end of story?  Mr. Butts stated "It wouldn't say that."

BOOM!!!!!!

Read what Butts said again.  And again. And again. "IT WOULDN'T SAY THAT"

The implication of that statement screams out at you: The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin was in on it.  She was part of the conspiracy to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin! It's obvious that the Trudeau conspirators wouldn't be suggesting an outside opinion without knowing in advance what that opinion would be.  They went to McLachlin, she said she would give the opinion they wanted, and all they needed was to convince the attorney general to get off her high horse and listen to her superior legal mind.

But the implications of this are immense. What other approaches did the Liberals make to McLachlin -- when she was still on the bench? How close is their relationship? What other cases might she have welcomed interference in?  Did McLachlin talk with former Former Supreme Court of Canada judge Frank Iacobucci, who is one of the lawyers on SNC-Lavalin’s defence team, before arriving at her opinion? Was she going to tell the attorney general that?

The involvement of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the conspiracy to interfere in a criminal prosecution demands a full public inquiry into the Trudeau/SNC-Lavalin scandal.

[Jarnhamar]

Nadon Incident (2014)

In July 2013, during the consultation period prior to appointment for Marc Nadon, Chief Justice McLachlin contacted justice minister Peter MacKay and the Prime Minister's Officeregarding the eligibility of Marc Nadon for a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that he had refused a phone call from McLachlin on the Attorney General's advice. Harper's comments were criticized by the legal community and a complaint was forwarded to the International Commission of Jurists in Switzerland.The International Commission of Jurists concluded that Beverly McLachlin deserved an apology from Harper, but none had been given as of July 2014.

[ModlrMike]

https://blackrod.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-unreported-bombshell-conspiracy.html

The unreported bombshell conspiracy evidence in the Trudeau/SNC-Lavelin scandal

Extract:

Which brings us to the ticking-timebomb-evidence the committee and the public didn't get to hear. In between the appearances by Butts and Warnick, Wilson-Raybould testified to getting a report from her chief of staff who had had a meeting with Butts and Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford. They aggressively pushed the attorney general to get an "outside" opinion from someone like the retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, on dropping the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a non-criminal plea deal.

Wilson-Raybould took contemporary notes of what her staff member told her. "My COS (chief of staff...ed) asked what if the opinion comes saying "She can review it, but she shouldn't" or simply "She can't review it" end of story?  Mr. Butts stated "It wouldn't say that."

BOOM!!!!!!

Read what Butts said again.  And again. And again. "IT WOULDN'T SAY THAT"

The implication of that statement screams out at you: The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin was in on it.  She was part of the conspiracy to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin! It's obvious that the Trudeau conspirators wouldn't be suggesting an outside opinion without knowing in advance what that opinion would be.  They went to McLachlin, she said she would give the opinion they wanted, and all they needed was to convince the attorney general to get off her high horse and listen to her superior legal mind.

But the implications of this are immense. What other approaches did the Liberals make to McLachlin -- when she was still on the bench? How close is their relationship? What other cases might she have welcomed interference in?  Did McLachlin talk with former Former Supreme Court of Canada judge Frank Iacobucci, who is one of the lawyers on SNC-Lavalin’s defence team, before arriving at her opinion? Was she going to tell the attorney general that?

The involvement of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the conspiracy to interfere in a criminal prosecution demands a full public inquiry into the Trudeau/SNC-Lavalin scandal.

It's hard to categorically conclude that Justice McLachlin was in on it. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. She's likely smart enough to not get roped into something like this. What we can conclude is that team Trudeau felt sure enough of her support that they were willing to situate the estimate. Still, this continues to solidify the issue regarding the PMO's involvement, and desire for a DPA as the only acceptable end state.

[SeaKingTacco]

It's hard to categorically conclude that Justice McLachlin was in on it. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. She's likely smart enough to not get roped into something like this. What we can conclude is that team Trudeau felt sure enough of her support that they were willing to situate the estimate. Still, this continues to solidify the issue regarding the PMO's involvement, and desire for a DPA as the only acceptable end state.

If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....

Ah, well. Guess we will never know, one way or another...

[milnews.ca]

If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....

... or a government committee of some sort dealing with things to do with justice?

[Fishbone Jones]

If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....

Ah, well. Guess we will never know, one way or another...

You mean law enforcement? People are starting to think that's also a dead end. Every day I see more and more on social media where people are saying his appointed female RCMP commissioner is in his pocket and that you won't see the RCMP get involved with investigating this government. Plus, given his penchant for doing what he wants and bullying people, might not be far off. I'm certainly not very impressed that it hasn't even been looked at. There are a number of people that have asked the RCMP to investigate, through formal legal requests. Every complaint appears to have been denied, according to those that requested them.

Now, police don't report on ongoing investigations, nor do they necessarily announce an investigation. Given this government though, you'd never, ever keep that under wraps, it'd end up leaked and someone in the press would be trying for a Pulitzer.

The complete silence of the RCMP on these matters only leads to more gas on the fire of their public persona. Not only is he ruining his own legacy and that of his party, but the stink is starting to waft into other departments of this government, like the RCMP, Veterans Affairs and RevCan, and is ruining their legacy also.

I'm not even sure who's job investigating crime in government would fall to. I would assume some sort of special branch though.

No hard evidence, just what I've been reading.

[Chris Pook]

You mean law enforcement? People are starting to think that's also a dead end. Every day I see more and more on social media where people are saying his appointed female RCMP commissioner is in his pocket and that you won't see the RCMP get involved with investigating this government. Plus, given his penchant for doing what he wants and bullying people, might not be far off. I'm certainly not very impressed that it hasn't even been looked at. There are a number of people that have asked the RCMP to investigate, through formal legal requests. Every complaint appears to have been denied, according to those that requested them.

Now, police don't report on ongoing investigations, nor do they necessarily announce an investigation. Given this government though, you'd never, ever keep that under wraps, it'd end up leaked and someone in the press would be trying for a Pulitzer.

The complete silence of the RCMP on these matters only leads to more gas on the fire of their public persona. Not only is he ruining his own legacy and that of his party, but the stink is starting to waft into other departments of this government, like the RCMP, Veterans Affairs and RevCan, and is ruining their legacy also.

I'm not even sure who's job investigating crime in government would fall to. I would assume some sort of special branch though.

No hard evidence, just what I've been reading.

Fishbone, I think what they are suggesting, is that if we had a functioning parliament then the Justice Committee and/or the Ethics Committee would be doing their jobs.  But they aren't for the same reason we don't have a coherent defence and security policy.  Our parliament is an extension of our government - not its counterweight.

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks Chris, got it. I'm just wishing for anyone with some balls and authority to say, "We start taking witness statements on Monday. Any interference into this investigation, by parties involved will result in further investigation and possible charges."

I envision Diogenes wandering around Ottawa carrying a lamp and searching for an honest man.

I fear his quest may be futile and he'll be arrested for adding to the carbon footprint with his burning oil.

[Haggis]

Because today is a new day, here's the latest development in this reality TV show that is causing me to lose track of The Doinald. According to this article from April 3, there was no vote taken prior to the PM's announcement of their expulsion, just 'conversations" with the caucus chairs.

[ballz]

Because today is a new day, here's the latest development in this reality TV show that is causing me to lose track of The Doinald. According to this article from April 3, there was no vote taken prior to the PM's announcement of their expulsion, just 'conversations" with the caucus chairs.

Fake news... as per the LPC representative states, "we never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill."

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471585347830

In other words, "we never opted into following the law." What a joke.

And here's what Michael Chong had to say about it. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471566915902

[Cloud Cover]

And here's what one twitter user has to say about the PM talking smack:

[Colin P]

Fake news... as per the LPC representative states, "we never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill."

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471585347830

In other words, "we never opted into following the law." What a joke.

And here's what Michael Chong had to say about it. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471566915902

The interviewer really didn't like that bit about "it's the law", but, but, but...

Then trying to get around that niggling fact which Chong handled well.

[Tcm621]

Nadon incident

Try as I might, I can't figure out what the problem is. The appointment process is controlled by the PM, who can consult with whom ever he chooses. I don't think he is under any obligation to run his choice past the Chief judge of the Supreme court (although I can see why he might).

[milnews.ca]

And here's what Michael Chong had to say about it. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471566915902

... with some of his train of thought on the issue earlier via his Twitter feed here.

[Fishbone Jones]

If the law is as stated, and the liberals agree they didn't follow it, they just admitted to breaking the law. Breaking the law requires, investigation and the recommendation of charges, if the investigation conclude the law was indeed broken.

The Ethics commissioner can fine parties it recognizes as having stepped outside those ethics rules.

I don't believe the Commissioner has the power to investigate and prosecute a blatant breaking of the law, outside their mandate.

If all the above is true, who is supposed to be looking and saying, "Hey, they just broke the law" and having brought that to the authorities, who says, "Yep, let's investigate and if proven,we'll prosecute."

Surely, someone has the legal standing and independence to do this, without any input from the parties.

Or do we just have to do the same as we've watched with these latest hearing where the sitting government can just shut down the kangaroo court and say "Move along, nothing to see here."

The law is the law. Period. Breaking the law, requires consequences.

Why aren't our Federal Law Enforcement not enforcing? Are they powerless when it comes to investigating their bosses? Not their bailiwick?

If not, whose?

Getting away with constant disregard for our laws and Charter, will just give the rest of us an excuse to say "frig it" also.

Not good when they expect legal and law abiding firearms owners to voluntarily turn in their iron, because the same government that constantly disregards the law says they made a new law and we have to follow it. Just an example.

It could easily be, oh I don't know, paying taxes, or any other law. If the King doesn't follow it, his subjects don't have to either.

[Brihard]

The applicable sections of the Parliament of Canada Act, as amended by Chong’s Reform Act:

“49.1 In this Division, caucus means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.
Marginal note:Expulsion of caucus member

49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if

(a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and

(b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.”


With that established, I looked for any specific or general offense provision that would link to this, and there isn’t one- so I don’t see an offense that a party leader or official(s) could be investigated for and charged with for a contravention of this. I think this leaves it subject to either civil litigation or judicial review on application to a court, but I’m really not sure how that would play out. I’m wondering if FJAG might have some insight for how an aggrieved party could proceed in such a case? I’m sure there’s recourse, but I don’t know what it is, and I don’t see anything that would bring the police into play...

[Colin P]

I suspect the JR route is most likely.

[Cloud Cover]

Deleted.

[Jarnhamar]

This is like watching some twisted version of the Milgram experiment.

[Loachman]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/liberal-markham-stouffville-riding-resigns-jane-philpott-1.5084247

Most of Jane Philpott's Liberal riding association leadership quits

'We had a star candidate in Jane,' says board secretary

Amara McLaughlin CBC News Posted: Apr 09, 2019 11:27 AM ET

Most board members of the federal Liberal riding association for Markham-Stouffville - represented by MP Jane Philpott - have stepped down in solidarity with the well-liked former cabinet minister, with the board's secretary saying she no longer has "the heart" to back a new candidate.

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, an emotional Leea Nutson said she and nine other members of the association's 16-member board tendered their resignations following a meeting Monday night.

With a fall federal election campaign bearing down, Nutson said that two board members will be staying on in the interim to assist the campaign of the next Liberal candidate. Three others will continue serving the riding association, while one member's intentions are unknown.

Nutson said that the board members chose to resign independently and did not offer their resignations as "a protest" against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The volunteers simply "don't have the energy" to support another candidate, she said.

"I have no longer got the heart to run or work on another campaign," Nutson told CBC News from her home in Markham, north of Toronto, today.

"We had a star candidate in Jane."

<snip>

In Philpott's riding Tuesday, many said they would continue to support her if she ran - even as an independent.

"She's been good for the town and she probably stood up for what she thought was right. I think if she were running again here, we'd probably still vote for her," said resident George Sled.

Those leaving the federal Liberal riding association board are among its most senior members. Many worked on Philpott's campaign in 2015 and those of previous party candidates.

The board is the backbone of the Liberal party in the Markham-Stouffville riding. The volunteers are key players for a candidate seeking a foothold in the community because they organize campaign rallies, phone banks and door-to-door canvassing.

"The board members that are left are very worthy individuals," said Nutson, adding they're going to have to work fast to find replacements for more than half of the association's leaders.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/philpott-says-trudeaus-caucus-expulsions-violated-law/wcm/5f130f40-5df0-4dbb-9a99-f47dafcd8f99

Philpott says Trudeau's caucus expulsions violated law

Philpott says the Parliament of Canada Act says MPs can't be kicked out of their party groups without a vote and Trudeau ejected them on his own

The Canadian Press Updated: April 9, 2019

<snip>

On Sunday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer revealed that Trudeau's lawyer had sent him a libel notice, demanding he retract his claims that the prime minister had lied to Canadians and interfered with the SNC prosecution. Scheer made clear he has no such plans.

Trudeau, asked about the legal threat, said Tuesday that with an election coming up, it's important that politicians be discouraged from twisting the truth and distorting reality.

"You can’t be lying to Canadians," said Trudeau. "It’s not something we're going to put up with."

https://www.straight.com/news/1225301/ex-federal-liberal-agency-canada-director-calls-party-probe-expulsion-wilson-raybould

Ex-Federal Liberal Agency of Canada director calls for party probe into expulsion of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott

by Charlie Smith on April 8th, 2019 at 6:32 PM

For more than three decades, Vancouver chartered professional accountant Elbert King (Bert) Paul was a loyal federal Liberal.

He served on the board of the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, which is the party's chief agent. And he chaired its audit committee.

Today, Paul asked the Liberal Party of Canada president, Suzanne Cowan, to launch an "independent investigation" into the April 2 expulsion of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus.

In a letter to Cowan, Paul cited a recent interview with Conservative MP Michael Chong on CBC's Power & Politics show.

<snip>

He copied the correspondence to Canada's chief electoral officer, Stéphane Perreault.

"I have specific concerns arising from possible contravention of the Canada Election Act pertaining to the rights of disenfranchised liberal voters in the ridings of Vancouver Granville and Markham-Stouffville [which are represented by Wilson-Raybould and Philpott]," Paul stated. "I, along with Canadians, await your response with deep concern."

https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/04/03/i-will-never-vote-again-for-the-liberals-bc-voters-reconsider-their-ballots-after-jody-wilson-raybould-expulsion.html

‘I will never vote again for the Liberals’: B.C. voters reconsider their ballots after Jody Wilson-Raybould expulsion

By David P. Ball Star Vancouver Wed., April 3, 2019

VANCOUVER - Many B.C. voters who cast their ballots for the Liberals in the last federal election are having second thoughts as the next one looms - and several told the Star that the "last straw" was seeing one of B.C.’s star members of Parliament expelled from caucus.

That backs up a recent poll by Research Co. that found dwindling support for the party from the very people who supported it in 2015.

The survey, released last week, found one-third of 2015 Liberal voters in B.C. think a different leader than Trudeau would do things better, while one in four thought "a different party would do things better in Ottawa as a government than the Liberals." (The poll of 800 people had a 3.5 per cent margin of error).

In that election, British Columbia was home to nine of 70 narrow victories - ridings where Liberal candidates beat their opponents by less than five per cent of the ballots. That's why experts say the Liberals need to be careful about risking B.C. ahead of this fall's federal election, which must be held before Oct. 21.

<snip>