• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
402
Points
910
Cloud Cover said:
Sections 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act allow the PCO to designate documents and other material as Cabinet Privileged ( by certificate). The certificate describes what the documents are, but not the content. Courts have very little sway over this- they can examine the certificate but not the documents.

We have no legal mechanism that if the highest, most powerful piece of our executive government was up to no good, that the judicial branch could intervene?

Wasn't the judge in the Norman case acting as the honest broker and reviewing documents that were covered by cabinet confidence to see what was relevant to the case and could be given to the defense?
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
The whole purpose of Cabinet privilege, where it is applied correctly, is to prevent disclosure especially in  cases like this. I suppose the key is, was privilege applied correctly. In that regard, on motion a court can order a review of the description of documents and evidence withheld, but YMMV.

Public Prosecution Service Desktop:

"Section 39 of the CEA acts as an absolute bar to the disclosure of Cabinet Confidences as defined in s. 39(2). Whereas a judge assesses and makes the determination regarding disclosure or protection of information under ss. 37 and 38 of the CEA, the determination of Cabinet Confidences under s. 39 is made by the Clerk of the Privy Council or a Cabinet Minister. Where a certificate is filed under s. 39 certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence, a court must refuse disclosure of that information without examination or hearing of the information.Objections under s. 39 must be made in writing, certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence."

"The consultation process described above also applies where an accused seeks disclosure of information which has been certified as a Cabinet Confidence. The Clerk’s Certificate produced in court simply describes the protected documents without revealing their contents. This Certificate is evidence that the listed documents are protected from disclosure. A court may not review the Cabinet documents listed in the Certificate. Although the court is not entitled to go behind a proper certificate filed under s. 39, the court can review the certificate to determine if, on its face, it complies with this section."


 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,446
Points
1,110
Cloud Cover said:
The whole purpose of Cabinet privilege, where it is applied correctly, is to prevent disclosure especially in  cases like this. I suppose the key is, was privilege applied correctly. In that regard, on motion a court can order a review of the description of documents and evidence withheld, but YMMV.

Public Prosecution Service Desktop:

"Section 39 of the CEA acts as an absolute bar to the disclosure of Cabinet Confidences as defined in s. 39(2). Whereas a judge assesses and makes the determination regarding disclosure or protection of information under ss. 37 and 38 of the CEA, the determination of Cabinet Confidences under s. 39 is made by the Clerk of the Privy Council or a Cabinet Minister. Where a certificate is filed under s. 39 certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence, a court must refuse disclosure of that information without examination or hearing of the information.Objections under s. 39 must be made in writing, certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence."

"The consultation process described above also applies where an accused seeks disclosure of information which has been certified as a Cabinet Confidence. The Clerk’s Certificate produced in court simply describes the protected documents without revealing their contents. This Certificate is evidence that the listed documents are protected from disclosure. A court may not review the Cabinet documents listed in the Certificate. Although the court is not entitled to go behind a proper certificate filed under s. 39, the court can review the certificate to determine if, on its face, it complies with this section."

The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,404
Points
1,040
Brihard said:
The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.

That only works if they find out. The system is tilted towards the public never knowing the truth.

:cheers:
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,453
Points
1,360
Brihard said:
The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.

Pretty much and there are plenty of examples around the world who give us some very good examples:

Silvio_Berlusconi_May_2019.jpg


FJAG said:
That only works if they find out. The system is tilted towards the public never knowing the truth.

:cheers:

I've learned that many/most people will believe what THEY WANT TO BELIEVE, evidence to the contrary be damned.  Especially when it comes to politics.  I grew up in a Socialist/Left Wing Political Riding.  Joseph Stalin could return from the dead and run for office there and he would win.  All he would need to do would be put that little orange banner under his name.

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
I think there are some things that ought to be protected by Cabinet Privilege, and some things that are not. Defence, National Security, Foreign Policy, trade negotiations, economic issues, budget planning, human resources, immigration, some natural resources discussions - certainly. Discussions regarding manipulating, coercing, bullying and covering up interference of a criminal prosecution- probably not.  I suppose a court could attempt to issue some guidance, but the legislation is very clear and broad and that's what we have today. 

I would welcome any current political party to put forth a platform that tackles this issue, which in fact might challenge the current government to defend the status quo. A very serious "drain the swamp" effort ...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,404
Points
1,040
MilEME09 said:
Can the Supreme court override cabinet confidance?

In short no. The SCC interprets the law and does not make it. The provision respecting cabinet confidences is fairly clear. A court has only the powers to review which have been set out above. The only thing the SCC can do is determine if a judge below properly exercised the limited authority he/she has.

:cheers:
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Saw this in today's news,

CTV News
August 21, 2019

Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-unhurt-tories-not-helped-by-scathing-snc-lavalin-report-poll-1.4558572
OTTAWA -- A new poll suggests a scathing ethics report on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair hasn't so far hurt the Liberals' chances of re-election this fall -- and it hasn't helped the Conservatives.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
838
Points
960
Perhaps today's announcement that the ethics committee voted against having the Commissioner testify will garner some reaction:

Liberal MPs on ethics committee vote down opposition motion for Mario Dion to testify on Trudeau
CBC

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt's motion to demand CBC reporter hand over recordings defeated by committee vote
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,867
Points
1,110
ModlrMike said:
Perhaps today's announcement that the ethics committee voted against having the Commissioner testify will garner some reaction:

Liberal MPs on ethics committee vote down opposition motion for Mario Dion to testify on Trudeau
CBC

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt's motion to demand CBC reporter hand over recordings defeated by committee vote

Move along, nothing to see here..... :whistle:

So at the Dedication of The Memorial, a wreath appeared with guess what corporate name on it????

 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,090
mariomike said:
Saw this in today's news,

Yeah, it confirms a bit of what I was saying earlier.

This is old news, Canadians have moved on, people made up their minds months ago.

I was also critical at the time of Andrew Scheer's performance then and now.

He jumped the gun back then calling for the PM to resign.  Because of that he has nowhere to go and is making white noise about it now.  He seems to a have moved away to policy issue as him repeating himself wasn't getting traction and may have hurt him. 

He would have been far more effective had he waited for the resignation calls.
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Remius said:
Yeah, it confirms a bit of what I was saying earlier.

This is old news, Canadians have moved on, people made up their minds months ago.

I was also critical at the time of Andrew Scheer's performance then and now.

He jumped the gun back then calling for the PM to resign.  Because of that he has nowhere to go and is making white noise about it now.  He seems to a have moved away to policy issue as him repeating himself wasn't getting traction and may have hurt him. 

He would have been far more effective had he waited for the resignation calls.
Yes, isn’t it amazing how hindsight is always 20/20.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,090
Jed said:
Yes, isn’t it amazing how hindsight is always 20/20.

The difference is that it was obvious at the time when he started with the resignation calls right out of the starting block.  He should have waited. 
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Remius said:
The difference is that it was obvious at the time when he started with the resignation calls right out of the starting block.  He should have waited.
I guess he didn’t have Gerald Butt’s sage advice to guide him, lol.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,090
Not sure who is advising him but I am sure they are all trying to figure out why none of this is gaining them any points. 

I think there are a few things that have insulated the Trudeau and the LPC.

1. They settled the Norman case.  If this went to trial it would have revived some things.

2. The Ethics commissioner is a bit of lame duck (The LPC named him for a reason I guess) and the report came out before the election is called.  Trudeau actually makes his response into a non response that looks like he's sorry but not really.  Wording was key in his statement and some people fell for it.  It is almost as if a reset button was pushed.  Not sure how to explain that.

3. Lame opponents. They can turn it around but they better start getting substantive.  Scheer is getting collateral damage from the Ford government and events south of us.  Enough that moderate voters either won't turn up or will just bite the bullet and vote for the devil they know.


 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
837
Points
1,060
Remius said:
Not sure who is advising him but I am sure they are all trying to figure out why none of this is gaining them any points. 

I think there are a few things that have insulated the Trudeau and the LPC.

1. They settled the Norman case.  If this went to trial it would have revived some things.

2. The Ethics commissioner is a bit of lame duck (The LPC named him for a reason I guess) and the report came out before the election is called.  Trudeau actually makes his response into a non response that looks like he's sorry but not really.  Wording was key in his statement and some people fell for it.  It is almost as if a reset button was pushed.  Not sure how to explain that.

3. Lame opponents. They can turn it around but they better start getting substantive.  Scheer is getting collateral damage from the Ford government and events south of us.  Enough that moderate voters either won't turn up or will just bite the bullet and vote for the devil they know.

There's that, or just plain old overload.

People have gotten so sick of the shenanigans and criminality of the liberals, they no longer pay attention. Their minds are already made up that they won't vote for them, so everything coming down the pipe about them is just noise they don't want to listen to.

Numbers don't move for a variety of reasons. Polls and their biases, faux neutrality and skewed numbers don't impress people anymore, so they are not participating. The polls show non-movement. So what? It's not like there's any truth there anyway.

The MSM has been effectively bribed and the populous no longer cares about their opinion and skewed reporting. They can state trudeau is neck and neck and everyone knows it's a lie. Nobody cares, they have other more important things to do.

As to the debates? Those are so stacked as to become comical. Many will probably tune in for about 20 minutes, see the biases and turn it off. If they watch at all. They won't amount to much and nothing new will be stated. Just lots of finger pointing.

People have just gone quiet with a seething anger that has made them resolute that they won't be voting liberal and they are beyond the sway of the carnival PR that's happening. They know how they are voting and have moved on with their lives, leaving the barking seals to rouse their tiny corners of conflict.

Just my  :2c:
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,819
Points
1,010
>Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll

I could wish this fresh example would put to rest the endless mock bewilderment some people express as "I don't understand how anyone can vote for him/them", but that's improbable.  I can guess that some people preparing to vote LPC remain outraged on the basis of some imagined bugbear that anyone would consider voting CPC - self-reflection is beyond them.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,090
Brad Sallows said:
>Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll

I could wish this fresh example would put to rest the endless mock bewilderment some people express as "I don't understand how anyone can vote for him/them", but that's improbable.  I can guess that some people preparing to vote LPC remain outraged on the basis of some imagined bugbear that anyone would consider voting CPC - self-reflection is beyond them.

A lot of people don't want Scheer as leader.  whether it is fear or policy disagreements or whatever.  He isn't doing it for the CPC. 

Best case for me is a weakened slim Liberal minority.  I don't think they have the skill that Harper had at managing a minority government and they will screw up at some point again and they'll lose the following election.

Trudeau gets a minority.  Scheer resigns, probably stays as a member (he really has not done anything else and has been an MP since his twenties.  Someone more effective is chosen, McKay or Ambrose.

Trudeau forced to play along with others.  Including the opposition forcing Trudeau and the LPC to launch an inquiry into SNC.  That is a gift to the CPC as Trudeau will be a sitting PM while this happens. 

LPC Gvt falls after a year a maybe. 

CPC wins a majority under a better leader, possibly for two terms.

If Scheer wins a minority he'll be out in a year as well and the Liberals will likely get power again. 

 
 
Top