Rue

Look no further than the Liberal party for that myth. He taught, drama, French and math at a private school as a supply teacher for one school year. That is the total sum of his wokr career other than as a politician. You want to call a prt time ski instruction a job uh yah. He received a BA at McGill and a B.Ed at UBC then flunked out of two graduate programs in engineering and then geography. The Liberal party focused on his drama to offset his two failed attempts at graduate schools.

For tax purposes and whether tax will change their behaviour...when I say addict, I mean a consumer who feels he or she does not have the power to change their consumer behaviour. If they feel they have no power to change the behaviour you are taxing, I argue they won't change they will just be vulnerable to the tax and will sacrifice other needs to pay that tax leading to other social and psychological related negative behaviours. My point is only this-use the power of taxes in a more focused way not just a disguised cash grab. Take a look at BC. Trudeau's carbon tax is just a repeat of Christy Clark's carbon tax in BC and the tax in BC has made zero difference on co2 emissions. That's why I say to you-show me how you intend to use the tax for changing the negative behaviour.... where's the connection. Let's get serious on understanding how economy and human behaviour work and the relation between the 2. Sorry but as long as the polluters control our governments, I do not believe for a second our governments will use any taxes they collect to protect the environment. .

Your comments make no economic sense and illustrate what happens when people are not taught basic economics or human behaviour in school. Simply charging a tax does nothing to change behaviour for an addict. Addicts are captive taxpayers who will pay any amount of tax and keep engaging in their habit. Charging tax on addictive behaviour is dishonest. It does not encourage change of any kind it just exploits addicts. Drug addicts, alcoholics, gamblers, don't stop their behaviour when you tax it. People are addicted to gasoline. They will not stop using it if its available. They will just pay more, pass on the expense whenever possible, and this will do nothing but fuel inflation to prices of all goods which will also be taxed again on gst. This carbon tax is nothing more than a tax increase using carbon emissions as the pretext. Its a tax increase because this government has spent itself into a deficit that will cost many generations for centuries to come long after this idiot of a PM is long gone. If this government really wanted to deal with carbon emission it would provide tax incentives to industries and technologies reducing emission and creating systems and applications to rid emissions. It does not. The money earned on carbon tax is not earmarked for carbon emissions technology to deal with the problem. Its a tax to pay for all the spending and carbon emissions is nothing more than the script or spin or pretext to pretend its a good tax. This jackass of a PM panders. He panders to the cause of the day posing with whoever and whatever cause he thinks will get him votes. He is a political whore of the worst kind because he poses as if he is ethical and concerned about others. He could care less about carbon tax. He's demonstrated that in his own behaviour and in his refusal to use it directly for carbon emissions. I have unlike some of the Liberal cult followers on this board, no illusions what his taxes will be used for. Hey he will though give Loblaws some grants on between private flights to and from his vacations. Have anyone who wants to lecture me on co2 taxes Show me how it will be used to actually provide an alternative to co2 emissions. Until they can, they just pass methane into the air contributing to the problem. Regards, an over taxed citizen concerned about Liberal methane emissions

I actually agree with you until the last sentence myself. However I know many people who challenge how Trudeau has acted over Lavalin as one issue and their opinions over the pipeline issue as another and they want pipelines I also believe many Liberals don't agree with Trudeau did at all but will not say so out loud. Look the pipeline issue let's be honest, no matter who is in power over that issue, either BC or Alberta will hate you depending on your decision. You can't please them both. . The closest analogies we have to politicians trying to interfere with on-going legal processes are Nixon and Trump and in Canada Marcel Duplessis and Jean Charest..

I apologize its a complex question you asked and I am trying my hardest to explain it. It is confusing if you don't practice this area of law. Please believe me the AG can not just undo things. He has power to conduct a trial but it would be rare indeed. This AG is actually a law prof. Maybe that will cause Trudeau to listen to him and not try turn him into a puppet. Believe me I am not against dpas when used properly. There is a huge debate on whether they protect corrupt businesses in the UK and the US as well. However read the Rolls Royce case in the UK. If tha is the model you think would work with Lavalin I could get that. Unfortunately it's not anywhere near want Lavalin has said it would consider. As well no politician in the UK would dared to have tried to impose one. I do not believe myself dpas should be used to protect criminals just because they employ people.

I of course disagree but that was well written. Thank you for such a well written response. I appreciate that a lot. Listen Z I will try keep it short lol. I agree many countries supported Ghaddafi. Of course in the entire world Lavalin by far is not the only briber but that does not excuse what Trudeau has done.

In regards to your first comment, they violated the rule of law. Also the refrain they did not break any laws misses the point. Things can be legal but unethical and violate the rule of law. I again remind you of the Nuremberg trials and the commentary that came from those cases. Hitler was a classic example of a man who broke no laws. So what you ask? The pith and substance of a democracy is that we exercise laws ethically and always uphold the rule of law. So what? The what is that the worst tyrants in the world that have carried out outrageous acts, did so perfectly legally. JWR's past opinions are not the issue. I notice you try smeer her. You can of course but it doesn't establish she did anything wrong with the dpa decision and you need to understand smeering her does not detract from the merits of that dpa decision made by the DPP not her. If she was as tainted as you paint her than that means your Prime Minister is an idiot for not having called her on all the evils you claim. You are using a Trump tactic where Trump claims everyone around him is incompetent and to blame. You think that has made Trump look credible? How naïve are you to think after all the lies Trudeau has been caught in, he's innocent on this one. How does a man directly conflicted in an on-going criminal case and is an elected official, justify using his power to try prevent a criminal trial? What you think the "it wasn't illegal" refrain avoids what he did and the consequences it has on the very fundamental basis of the need to protect democracy by assuring our not elected civil servants and judiciary are not controlled by political partisan agenda? How naïve is that. I did not follow your last comment. Sorry I do not understand how Trudeau is bigger and more important than the principle of the rules of law and his agenda to please his constituents (if you buy into that job loss spin) is more important than the victims of Ghaddafi or the right of our society to expect all its citizens act legally and ethically and not finance Ghaddafis of the world. How many more Hitlers and Ghaddafis do we finance? How do you think concentration camps and the railways to build them to send people to their death were built? They were built by industrialists no different than Lavalin who used the slave labour in the camps to make money for themselves and made their profit building death camps, shipping cynide pellets, etc. Would you please explain how you think the need for Trudeau's constituents to make profit off of building a concentration camp in Libya for Ghaddafi are more important than the Libyans who died and suffered at the hands of Ghaddafi. Explain to all the people murdered by Ghaddafi's financing of terrorists or his military to commit war crimes in other countries is less important than the need of constitutent's in Trudeau's riding to profit from the person engaged in all these crimes? Explain how Trudeau is bigger than them.

Yes absolutely but the current AG by not being the original person to decide the dpa's applicability is in fact not capable now at this point in contradicting the DPP and previous AG unless he has some very solid legal grounds. Without a Federal Court of Appeal decision giving him a pretext to try overturn what the former AG and DPP did, this current AG can't just decide to ignore the court Federal Court decision. Z in a response to me said JWR ignored new evidence which would give the new AG the right to over turn the DPA. I am not aware of any evidence the DPP and AG ignored and one must ask, what evidence would be so strong as to cancel out the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law itself to allow the imposition of a dpa. You are dead on Wes but this current government caught violating the rule of law and in direct conflict of interest, tried to interfere with the independence of both the AG and DPP on a criminal case to get favourable treatment for an accused. It was a flagrant violation of the rule of law which has never in the history of any British parliamentary model of law ever been done. We are witnessing what has to be one of the most flagrant violations of the rule of law and we have Liberal partisans trying to say the law allows this and AG's have arbitrary powers to act political and make decisions based on what the PM wants for his constituents. I apologize for my long drawn out explanations, but I am trying to make sure these Liberal partisans do not misrepresent the law. There is a smugness about partisan politics where partisans pick and chose parts of the law they think suit their political agenda and ignore the rest. There is no law and no procedure in Canada that allows an AG to act in a political manner and arbitrarily interfere with prosecutors and replace them and their decisions on procedural matters unless a court says they must. The law when it does provide absolute discretion to exercise a power as it did for the DPP in deciding the eligibility of a dpa, does not say in s.15 as was quoted, the AG can undo a previous decision of the DPP or its previous AG. It does say the AG could have on their own simply imposed a dpa but JWR did not because it would have abused the intent of the AG's role to remain distinct from political consideration. These liberals can spin all they want, their desire or need to justify imposing a dpa, is a political one. Its not about job loss which is the cover story its about preventing evidence from coming out at trial and we know why. You and I and most Canadians know why. We know damn well there is no job loss issue but there is a cover up because evidence that would come out in a trial could damage Trudeau and mp's in his party who may have accepted bribes or other favours from Lavalin. Given Trudeau's open and brazen arrogance in accepting a gift from the Aga Kahn and laughing off the ethical concerns in that matter, is it a stretch to believe he did something similar with Lavalin he is now trying to hide? The bottom line is Trudeau is screwed. If he tries to force a dpa before the election it will blow up in his face. He has to stall until after the election if he is going to try force a dpa and hope he wins the election. The way it looks now, he will lose the election and the current AG will no longer be in power and the trial will proceed and we will get to the evidence. If Trudeau wins, there will be a minority government and any attempt to ram through a dpa will result in a no confidence vote and his being tossed on his ass. I love watching Liberal partisans blindly spin excuses for him and dictate what the law can do for them but then ignore the law when it does not suit them. Liberal partisans seem to only focus on laws where they think it gives them power to ignore other laws. This reflects a philosophy of entitlement and why should that surprise anyone. Trudeau, Morneau are rich boys. They cater to elitist interests and operate in a vacuum. Here is Trudeau claiming to be a champion of the middle class awarding government carbon tax assistance to Loblaws while ignoring small businesses. He vacations with the elite like the Aga Kahn or when he goes on vacation flies to and fro because the air pollution he causes doesn't count. His shit don't stink in his world. He lives in a world of one standard, the rest of us another. The laws do not apply to him if they are inconvenient. People who work for him must blindly agree with him or else. These are the same Liberals that accused Harper of acting unethically and a tyrant. I bet you most Canadians comparing Trudeau to Harper would choose Harper today in a vote.

Can you please clarify 1. I am not aware of any evidence JWR ignored or the DPP Rousel ignored. Can you explain what this information was and why it was new? Sorry 2 will not work, Lavalin was given as much time as it wanted in fact never in the history of a criminal proceeding has an accused been allowed to ask a Prime Minister to interfere and stop a preliminary inquiry to pass a retroactive law to apply to the specific case stopped and attempt to dictate the terms of the dpa. In regards to 3, its not limited to just that. Read the preconditions, considerations. There are far more criteria the prosecutor is mandated to consider than just that one. In regards to 4, yes absolutely correct on the first part. On the second part Lavalin has indicated publically it will not agree to pay back all money earned on the projects it obtained through bribery nor has it ever recognized the harm done to persons in Libya and offer to set up a victim's fund. To get a dpa it would have needed to approach the Prosecutor and agree to both but it has publically said no. Interestingly the closest case I can think of the British dpa case of Rolls Royce, RR agreed to both. So I would say had Lavalin approached the prosecutor from the get go and volunteered to pay back the profit from the bribes plus set up a victim's fund, instead of going to the PM to do an end run around the Prosecutor who did not give them a favourable plea bargain to their liking- we would not be here. Lavalin has no one but themselves to blame. They were cocky trying to dictate the terms of the plea. No Judge would approve a dpa or any plea unless its the same as what you see in the Rolls Royce case as the minimum standard,

No I did not. Read what I wrote. You can't pull a section out of context. The law is not just what one legal section says. Its about reading all the sections that might apply to how you use it. I have gone out of my way to explain all the different sections that are used so that no s.15 is not an absolute power. The AG can not after they delegate a power to the DPP undo it simply because they do not like what they did. That is not what s.15 was designed to do. It was designed to allow the AG on very specific cases to actually do the trials. The reason these interventions are published in the Gazette is because they are rare indeed and need good justification. Its not a whim. Its not a power where the AG doesn't like what a prosecutor is doing and takes over. The AG is a supervisor not a hands on prosecutor and was never intended to be. Plus as I said the DPP was deliberately created so they would not have to involve themselves in decisions that could appear to conflicted with their other role as Mnr of Justice and their role as being subordinate to Parliament. Being subordinate to Parliament is something the AG is and the DPP is not. This enables the DPP to concentrate only on the legal merits of a case not issues that could APPEAR or in fact be governed by political interests. I did not move any goal posts but I would appreciate if you tried to read what I sent you. I am not removing anything. What I have provided has always been there and I in fact cited the entire basis of the legal application of AG and DPP interaction. What you and Owly need to look at is not reading s.15 in isolation. No law is read in isolation. Each section interacts with other sections.

I am also not sure how many times I can explain to you that he can not.

No Owly it is not that simple. You are removing s.15 out of its context of application. It is not a stand alone section. Here is the second part of my response as to the complex issue as to whether Lametti can overturn his DPP’s decision not to award a dpa. As I stated earlier the intent of having a DPP is not to replace them when they don’t do what the AG wants for these reasons: Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html “On December 12, 2006, the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) was created with the coming into force of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The Act makes the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) responsible for the prosecution of federal offences. The ODPP was created to ensure that the mechanisms to protect prosecutorial independence from improper influences, including improper political influence, are statutory and transparent. “ Next the role of the DPP was created to report to the AG but still maintain independence. Cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/tra/tr/01.html “Role of the Director of Public Prosecutions Under section 3(3) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the DPP has been delegated the Attorney General’s authority to initiate and conduct federal prosecutions, to intervene in proceedings that raise a question of public interest that may affect the conduct of prosecutions or related investigations, to issue guidelines to federal prosecutors, and to advise law enforcement agencies on matters related to prosecutions generally and particular investigations that may lead to a prosecution. The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction… unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15. (note: the AG did not take conduct of the prosecution-since the DPP's powers are binding, the only way the AG could avoid them being binding is to have appointed herself the prosecutor BEFORE the DPP made her ruling) Before assuming conduct, the Attorney General must first consult with the DPP. (note: why would the DPP agree to being replaced and contradicted if its not based on a legal error)To safeguard the DPP’s independence, any decision to assume conduct must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. ..The Attorney General’s powers to assume conduct of a prosecution does not extend to all the work undertaken by the DPP. (note this wording is placed in because the AG was only intended to take over a prosecution not to replace a DPP's decisions but to conduct a trial in very specific cases) The DPP has the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute offences under federal jurisdiction, unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General under section 10(1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act or unless the Attorney General assumes conduct of the prosecution under section 15.” also: cite: https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html “Section 14 of the DPP Act gives the Attorney General the power, after notifying the DPP, to intervene in proceedings at first instance or on appeal that, in his or her opinion, raise questions of “public interest”. 41 In theory, the Attorney General may intervene in prosecutions conducted by the DPP (note how it says in theory)in order to present different views on an issue, for example proceedings that raise issues of informer privilege, broader issues of police conduct or cases that raise both Charter and division-of-powers issues. However, such interventions in federal prosecutions would be rare, in light of the power to take charge of a prosecution. Section 15 reflects the fact that the Attorney General retains his or her criminal law related powers under the DPP Act. The foregoing power, like the power to issue directives, is one which is to be exercised sparingly in order to preserve the independence of the DPP. Nevertheless, s. 15 recognizes that the Attorney General is ultimately accountable to Parliament for federal prosecutions. Accordingly, there must be a residual capacity in the Attorney General to ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. (a residual power means a power of last resort-it would mean the AG would have to believe they have a legal reason not a political one to over-ride the DPP, right now there is no legal reason-which is why I said without a ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal to justify using this residual power, the AG just deciding to ignore his DPP at this point is absurd. Its too late. The DPP already exercised her discretion delegated to her. There is no procedure for "taking it back". So given all the above y in theory the AG could intervene in any case but its not the way the law works in reality or practicality or how the AG has functioned up until today. Here are other reasons whywhy: Cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-david-lametti-deferred-prosecution-agreement-1.5048528” “Craig Martin Scott, a York University law professor, agreed that there is nothing to preclude the attorney general from intervening at any point, up until the verdict. But it may be impractical for the new attorney general, or any attorney general, to keep abreast of a case for that period of time, he said. To say that the AG has the same kind of active duty to constantly be keeping in mind a file in order to determine [do they] intervene with the prosecutors, that just doesn't follow…. No system can work with the AG constantly being on watch over multiple files as to whether they're going to intervene….. It means (if the AG intervenes( that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors."..It means that people can keep taking a run at the AG behind the scenes through the government cabinet structure. So it just does not make policy sense and it makes doesn't make practical sense to say the AG has the same continual duty to continually keep in mind the case as the prosecutors." So based on the above this is why I have tried to explain had the DPP not already made her decision and had the Federal Court then not supported it, the AG might have been able to act as a puppet for Trudeau and allow a dpa. This current AG came in after the decision was made. This current AG would have had to have intervened BEFORE the other AG delegated the dpa decision to the DPP. He will also have to would have to publish in the Canada Gazette the reason for his intervention and how will he do that without support from the Federal Court of Appeal? He'd have no legal grounds to intervene and the Gazette would show the world his transparent lack of legal grounds. The s.15 power is predicated on not waiting until AFTER the DPP exercised her power as a way to over-rule her. Its never been used in such a manner and why would it? If the DPP was told she was wrong by the Federal Court of Appeal, she would first have to remedy what the court tells her to. You don't just ignore her and replace her. Now that she has been supported by the Federal Court as I said, the only way an AG could at this point justifying trying to undo what has been done is a valid legal reason given to him by the Federal Court of Appeal and he would not intervene unless the DPP refused to follow that appeal decision. So without a decision supporting a review from the Federal Court of Canada Appeal level, if the AG at this point tried to ignore what the Federal Court said and undo what the DPP did, and ignore the Federal Court of Appeal if they agree with their lower court, he would have ignored to levels of court decisions as well as ignoring all the wording of the dpa law that mandates him to consider the preconditions, considerations and prohibition. If he did something that outrageous it would cause a constitutional conflict and constitute an abuse of power of the AG and a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada that could in theory require the AG to resign. At this point to try impose a dpa without a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal would be a transparent political consideration not a legal one. Oxy your take on s.15 might in theory have happened if the original AG was a puppet of Trudeau and had not delegated to the dpa eligibility questions to the DPP which is standard procedure. AG's don't involve themselves in plea bargaining at preliminary stages. More to the point, AG's don't intervene in criminal cases. They might with constitutional cases of national importance but not criminal cases. With due respect there is more than just the section you read. There is a greater context on how its applied and I have tried my best to explain it as any lawyer would or could to you. If you think an AG can at this point second guess JWR or her DPP, without a constitutional crisis and engaging in abuse of process you are with due respect mistaken. AG's can not act in a partisan manner or in a manner that lends to partisan appearance. If the AG did this, at this point, you would have a legal conflict explode starting with 5 former AG's and numerous legal groups seeking a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada. If Trudeau would be that reckless at this point after all this, its a sure sign he's worried about a hell of a lot more than supposed jobs.

You have made this assertion repeatedly with no proof. Provide where the AG has the powers you state. He does not and coming on this forum and making bold face claims without reading the dpa law, the Federal Court decision and the job descriptions of the AG and Chief Prosecutor and pointing out where they state what you do is not going to cut it Owly. I can only assume you read https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html and did not understand it. Either that or you are just sulking. If you did go to the above web site please do take note of: 1.4. Guiding principles Given their interconnected responsibilities, an effective relationship between the Attorney General and the DPP is of the utmost importance in ensuring that both can fulfill their important public duties while achieving the legislative goal of an independent, apolitical, and accountable prosecution service. The Attorney General is directly accountable to Parliament, while the DPP is indirectly accountable to Parliament. The DPP is required to report to Parliament annually on its activities through the Attorney General and the DPP may be called to appear before parliamentary committees. Thus, it is crucial that they work in a consultative way so their decisions are fully informed. To ensure prosecutorial independence and accountability, their relationship should be premised on the following principles: Respect for the independence of the prosecutorial function - By virtue of s. 3(3)(c) and s. 10(2), the Attorney General and the DPP are jointly responsible for establishing general prosecution policy, but the DPP is responsible for the exercises of prosecutorial discretion pursuant to that policy (subject to the Attorney General’s residual powers under ss. 10 and 15). 2.2. The power of the Attorney General to issue directives Prosecutorial decision-making must take place independently of the interests of the government of the day.Note de bas de page31 The historical practice of successive Attorneys General of Canada has been to refrain from becoming involved in the day-to-day operational decision making of public prosecutions. 2.5. The power of the Attorney General to assume conduct of proceedings Section 15 of the DPP Act sets out the power of the Attorney General to take over a prosecution from the DPP. However, the Attorney General must first consult the DPP regarding his or her decision to assume conduct of a prosecution and must publish the notice in the Canada Gazette “without delay”,Note de bas de page46 unless either the Attorney General or the DPP considers a delay in notice to be justified “in the interests of the administration of justice”.Note de bas de page47 The DPP must turn over the prosecution file to the Attorney General, where the latter assumes conduct of the case, and must provide any information that the Attorney General requires within the time specified by the Attorney General (s. 15(2)). Now given the above wording and this entire site, in theory the AG has a lot of power but in practical reality the combo of 1.4, 2.2 and 2.5 wording I have pointed out above means to date in Canada since the DPP not the AG deals specifically with an individual on-going case and the AG remains dettached not personally inv involved particulary if getting involved would be based on a conflict with political agenda. That is why JWR would not over rule the DPP nor has any AG ever done so. The AG is supposed to remain the symbolic head and ultimate person responsible but not involved in the day to day prosecution of a case. The problem is we have people who read sites and do not understand the law as it is actually applied from what they read. The only issue that may have the AG himself ever involve himself in a case might be a Charter case dealing with a province trying to separate. Owly provide the cases and the reasons how the AG has over-ruled the DPP. They never have because of the combo of the wording above. Provide a case that says otherwise. None exist. Provide a legal convention, article that says otherwise. You have to do more than read things literally to understand the practical application of law.

1. The Chief Prosecutor not the AG makes the ruling on whether dpa's are to be used in any specific case because in fact the Chief Prosecutor role was created deliberately to distance the AG from acting in any on-going criminal case as its prosecutor in any role including the determination of dpas. 2. The Chief Prosecutor remains the only one who can consider whether to use a dpa -she has absolute discretion conferred to her by the dpa law itself. 5. The Federal Court of Canada upheld the Chief Prosecutor's independent and absolute discretion to consider the use of the dpa. A dpa is not a right, its a privilege that requires the consent of the prosecutor. 6. Lavalin has filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. The only grounds of appeal in this case is to argue the Chief Prosecutor abused the legal process, i.e., exceeded the powers given her under the dpa law or did not use powers she should have. Abuse of process is a narrow procedural argument. 7. I am not aware of any Canadian legal case where exercising absolute discretion in itself was determined to be an abuse of any legal process which is what Lavalin is arguing since they can not challenge the decision simply on the grounds they don't like the way she reviewed and took into consideration the preconditions, conditions and prohibition listed in the dpa law which by the way clearly said the Prosecutor was obliged to consider. 8. In fact had the Chief Prosecutor forced through a dpa without considering those preconditions, considerations and prohibition, that would be an abuse of process and legal groups could have intervened and sought reference to the Federal Court and then Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way any Canadian court can say to a prosecutor, ignore the considerations you must consider as per the law you are applying. If Trudeau et al were right, then it would mean nothing in the dpa law is enforceable and dpa's are an automatic rubber stamp which makes zero legal sense. If Trudeau wanted dpa's to be handed out whenever an accused wants one, why did he not write the law to say that? 9. Right now unless the Federal Court of Appeal says the Prosecutor's exercise of discretion when considering the preconditions, conditions and prohibition were all wrong, and the Federal Court was wrong, there are no grounds for the AG to refer to, to justify his involvement and even then, all he could do is re- order the Chief Prosecutor to start again. That is doubtful because the discretionary nature of the Prosecutor's mandate in the dpa law was written to avoid that and only allow an appeal if a serious procedural error arose violating the accused's charter rights. 10. The Federal Court of Appeal can not tell the Chief Prosecutor to act as if the preconditions, considerations and prohibition against dpa, do not exist it can only point out procedural irregularities and tell the prosecutor to remedy them. 11. The AG has no legal authority to do what he wants on behalf of the PM. In the role of AG, all functions are limited to legal administrative ones, not ones of a political nature. 12. The other part of this story requires you read and understand the OECD Convention on Bribery, and how Article V is commented on in the commentary talking about enforcing it and in Annex 1 talking about enforcing it. Article V is the clear prohibition against considering national economic interest as a public interest warranting awarding a dpa. That commentary and Annex clearly state we agreed as a state when we signed that convention to never use national economic interests or any domestic political interests as a pretext to ignore prosecuting someone who bribes a foreign official to the full extent of the law. That is as easy to explain it other than to repeat to you the AG has no legal power to decide on the dpa in question or tell the Chief Prosecutor how she should interpret the preconditions, considerations or prohibition in the dpa law. Please if you can find any legal document or case that says an AG can act unilaterally and do whatever they want an over-rule the Chief Prosecutor, share it, because I am not aware of any. By the way when I did practice criminal law, we used restorative justice approaches with the Crown similar to dpa's but they were predicated on some very major conditions being met first. They also can not be used on repeat offenders. Also the closest case I can find to this one is the Rolls Royce case in Britain but its far different. To start with the dpa was not initiated by an elected official lobbying on behalf of the accused. Next the agreement required Rolls Royce agree to pay back all money earned from the projects it was awarded by its bribes. Go take a look at how much they had to pay back. Lavalin already said publically they would never agree to what Rolls Royce agreed to. Had for example Lavalin approached the Prosecutor directly and not via the Prime Minoister and volunteered to pay all the money it earned from the projects in Libya it was awarded by bribery and an additional fund to compensate victims of Ghaddafi and agreed to disclose the names of all persons bribed in Libya plus all persons in Lavalin involved in the bribery and also agreed to a third party auditor imposing an anti bribery checks and balance system to be continually monitored by that neutral third party and had Lavalin then agreed to an increased sentence to take into consideration its a third time offender, then and only then could the Prosecutor even begin to consider asking a Judge to take a plea and avoid a trial. A case with this much victim impact and ethical implications is beyond the scope of a dpa. In the Rolls Royce case the victim impact was far different. Rolls Royce did not enable a government to violate human rights as Lavalin did with Ghaddafi. Rolls Royce did not build a concentration camp as Lavalin did. Take a look at that case and also keep in mind they have a special unit to consider dpa's unlike us in Canada.

I never stated dpa requirements were black and white. Ever. In fact I went to great detail to explain the exact opposite and that is why you can not just automatically impose one without first reading the many preconditions, considerations and prohibition and using them all as references to determine the appropriateness of the dpa. I also did not ignore anything JT has done and have been very specific and exact in challenging what he has done. I also in great detail explained that the fact that Trudeau claims what he did was not illegal does not address the ethical issues. Egghead if you do not want to read what I wrote, don't. If you don't agree with what I said do not. However do not come on this forum and misrepresent what I said or deny what is there for all to read. Thank you.

I haven't ignored anything and I ask again, where does the AG have the power to over rule the AG on his own. Show me please. I have asked. That is what is being ignored. The AG has no inherent power to impose partisan agendas. Everything in the AG's role must be based on law not partisan policy consideration. If he can not provide a legal basis, i.e., a Federal Court appeal decision basis, he has no power to do what you claim he does as much as you want to ignore the law.

Mehopes you are wrong but methinks you unfortunately may have a point that anything is possible in politics. IThen again you call yourself Realitycheck. No doubt you think you are being realistic in.. I am hoping Canadians see through this crap and the law prevails..

Don't be so sure about that. You pander to Quebecers. They are not as stupid as you think. They know only to well how Lavalin bribed corrupt Montreal municipal and provincial politicians. There are working class Quebecers who do not like Trudeau and consider him an elitist corporate lacky. Quebec under its French personna is by nature conservative and willing to put up with some corruption but not when it humiliates them in the eyes of others. Quebec has a complex identity. Trudeau will have lost the leftist/socialist and minority vote in Quebec. He's counting on Montreal English ridings and upper class French ridings. I don't think he carries the blue collar ridings. I don;t thing Singh will keep them either for the NDP. That said just who will vote for Trudeau? He's pissed off BC over the pipleline as well as Alberta. He's lost the aboriginal voter, women's vote, middle class vote over his pandering to Loblaw's , banks, the Aga Kahn, who is his constituency at this point?

Not as easy as you think. To start with he will have to be given the right to overturn his Chief Prosecutor by the Federal Court of Appeal first. Even then he'll have to fire her creating yet another issue. As well he will have to explain why he ignored all the preconditions, considerations and prohibition in the dpa law wording plus violated the commentary and guidelines of the OECD asking Canada NOT to consider national economic interest as a pretext to grant a dpa. There is law and there is partisan agenda. When you ignore the Law as Trudeau does, it looks easy to get around. In reality ignoring the sanctity and independence of the prosecutor in an on-going legal proceeding is harder than it looks. As well if you think a Judge will allow Lametti or Trudeau to tell them to ignore the fact this is a third time offence, it isn't happening. On a third time offence even if you could push a dpa, iut has to provide an increased sentence. The dpa requires at minimum Lavalin pay back all the money from the projects it procured from its bribes to Ghaddafi plus another amount paid to the victims of Ghaddafi. That is its bare minimum sentence. From the sounds of it the new heads of Lavalin also wants no part of the dpa or the corrupt officials in Lavalin holding onto the seat of their pants hoping the dpa will protect them from being named and charged individually as criminals as well as Lavalin which the law most certainly does in such cases and has done in two previous convictions against Lavalin. Believe me this aint over by a long shot. Politicians who interfere with the independence of the legal process might in the short term gain some personal interest but in the long term expose themselves to unintended worse legal consequences. Any attempt by Trudeau at this point to undo what the Chief Prosecutor did is going to blow up in his face right at election time. I think Trudeau is headed for a fall on his arrogant above the law buttocks. Then again you never know.

With due respect to him his hands are tied. He has to wait for the Federal Court of Appeal to make its decision whether it even grants leave of appeal, then allows an appeal after that and if so on what grounds. Even then the appeal decision may give him little if any ability to overturn his Chief Prosecutor's decision. Please read Article V of the OECD convention then Anex 1 on enforcing Article V plus the commentary on enforcing Article V which is the identical wording prohibiting using national economic interest as a pretext to call that public interest to then use that as a pretext to grant a dpa. The OECD expects all its members which includes Canada not to use national economic interest as a pretext to grant a dpa. As well when dpa's have been used in bribery cases, none of those dpa's dealt with a repeat offender. Not only that they did not deal with a company that did not initiate the request for dpa. Never has a government's elected officials ever tried to get involved in a dpa to force one on a prosecutor in an ongoing proceeding. The whole point of a dpa is that its supposed to be initiated byt he accused voluntarily and they agree to many things first which Lavalin has said it will not do, i.e., pay back all money earned from the projects obtained by bribes, full disclosure of all executives of Lavalin who bribed and full disclosure of the names of the person they bribed, a clear system of auditing controlled by an independent third party to prevent future bribery, dismissal of any executives involved in the bribery scheme, a full apology to the victims who suffered as the result of bribing Ghaddafi and enabling him to be able to do what he did to these victims. All these preconsiderations and factors can not be ignored by any prosecutor considering the dpa. Trudeau wants his AG to order the Chief Prosecutor to ignore the dpa law preconditions, conditions and prohibition and simply push forward the dpa. If the dpa law wording is ignored, then the Prosecutor will not have followed their mandatory obligation to consider those preconditions and considerations and prohibition and this will not only create an intervention by legal groups and 5 former Attorney Generals but would create disasterous optics for Tudeau. In the last two days Trudeau provided grants to Loblaws for new fridge units while ignoring small businesses. His Finance Minister retracted a report as to banks and regulatory issues to please the banks. The optics of Trudeau being a lacky of corrupt corporations that bribe and large business is out in the open. Progressive leftist Liberals now have to decide how far they want to go with this charade he represents the middle class. As for you I note you ignore the dpa law wording and the commentary and Annex 1 of the OECD convention which directly warns against governments intervening with political bias and considerations to prevent prosecuting businesses that bribe foreign governments. Why? What does that have to do with my faulty analysis when you have not done any at all. Please explain why you ignore the dpa law's preconditions, considerations and prohibition against using a dpa for national economic interests. Please provide the law or source you think says the AG can over-ride the Chief Prosecutor and make her redo her decision or fire her because her decision is not to his liking. There is law, and there is partisan political agenda. In Canada as much as Trudeau refuses to see the distinction there is. One last thing Trudeau again showed his contempt for rule of law today and if you think voters do not notice you are mistaken. A law exists that says if a migrant enters a safe third country and seeks refugee protection they must apply in that country. They can not move on to Canada. This is to prevent jurisdiction shopping. Trudeau has condoned and encouraged this law to be violated. He has told illegal immigrants in the US to come to Canada. He told them if they enter legally they will be prevented from applying for refugee status so come illegally and they will be allowed this privilege. He rewards people for breaking the law and entering illegally making a mockery of genuine refugees and immigrants who come properly. Then he insults the intelligence of Canadians. He announced that if a migrant came from the US, New Zealand, Britain or Australlia BUT NO OTHER SAFE THIRD COUNTRY, and enters illegally they still will be rewarded for breaking the law and given a refugee hearing unless they already asked for one from those countries. The law already says if you asked for and were rejected for refugee status in any safe third country not just the above, you can not ask for a second refugee hearing in Canada. Trudeau lies. He pretends he has modified a loophole. He has not. He's fooling no one allowing the current Immigration Law on third safe countries to be broken. He shows his contempt for that law and uses his office to allow it to be broken. This is what Trudeau is about, someone who has no respect for law and if it does not suit him, he ignores.

Hey its simple instead of hiding from me provide the law that says the AG has the power to overturn the Chief Prosecutor's say on the dpa. I am wairing. You still haven't explained why the dpa law wordings can all be ignored and an international treaty be violated so that the dpa can be allowed. Owly simply stating a subjective opinion doesn' t cut it. Put up or shut up. Provide the wording. It does not exist. Also read the Federal Court ruling and explain why its wrong because I upheld what I am telling you.

I have asked people to provide the law where the AG has the right to sign off on a dpa without the prosecutor's consent. That is not what the law says. Sorry but there are just too many of you who come on this forum, do not bother to find out what the roles of the AG and Chief Prosecutor are and what the dpa law actually says which does NOT allow it. In regards to your comment "That is the main reason JT and h is minions want her to do.(sic)" No the reason why JT wants to do it is shut down a trial. The dpa law makes it clear when considering eligibility for a dpa, the prosecutor can NOT consider national economic interest as a public interest. The prohibition was placed there to void conflict with a treaty we signed internationally where we pledged if a Canadian bribed a foreign government we would not allow them preferential treatment and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Do it is important we get out of fantasy land and this false script that the Prime Minister has the right to intervene in a criminal proceeding on behalf of the accused. He does not. That is an outrageous violation of the rule of law and its never been done by an elected member of Parliament in any British law country until now and the dpa law does not allow it. Next no one until now elected to office has ever shown such a blatant disregard for the concept of conflict of interest and suggested his own political self interests in protecting his constituents is a justification to break the rule of law, let alone to say that political self interest supercedes the interest of all Canadians to assure that a criminal in the elected member's riding who he elected member intervenes on behalf of is given lenient treatment simply because they employ people in the intervening politician's riding and that politician is the Prime Minister. Next nowhere does the dpa law or any criminal law justify the use of dpa's or any restorative justice initiative or plea bargaining on a repeat offender precisely because the sentence must escalate which each successive conviction and only a Judge can determine the successive increase in sentence. Next nowhere in criminal law is there any case decision let alone legal concept that says the need to make profit from a crime to employ people from the crime, is more important than the impact of that crime on its victims which is what all of you buying the liberal script of job loss advance. You are all arguing the need of Canadians to make money off of a crime,is more important that the harm the bribes caused people by empowering Ghaddafi and prolonging his tenure to torture and abuse and violate human rights, international war conventions and engage in crimes against humanity,. Why do you liberals do not have the integrity to come on this forum and argue why the need for people in Trudeau's riding to make profit from their Ghaddafi blood money is more important than what happened to the victims of Ghaddafi. Why? Also why do you think anyone let alone Trudeau or the AG can iignore the dpa law preconditions, considerations and prohibition? Explain why those words don't apply. Please just once. Has anyone seen Owly respond when he was asked. He can't. He either won't read the dpa law or is deliberately ignoring it. Go on someone please explain the wording that allows the AG to overturn his Director of Prosecutions let alone allows anyone to ignore that the dpa law says because the entire preconditions, conditions and prohibition in the dpa law would have to be determined NOT TO apply to be able to apply a dpa law for Lavalib Next go read what Guylan Prison is. Just once go read what Lavalin built for $275 million thanks to a bribe it gave Ghaddafi- then explain to me as a good progressive leftist Liberal how building a concentration camp for Ghaddafi is something you think is acceptable for Canadians to make money off of. Also while you are at it explain why we should blatantly violate the international law we signed with the OECD and read that treaty. We signed on to that treaty agreeing to use our government to assure no Canadian would bribe foreign government officials. Now we have a PM deliberately trying to break that treaty saying his constituents need to make money off of bribing terrorist war criminals is more important than the victims of those corrupted officials we pay. So explain why we now violate that treaty and how that violation is in the best interests of Canada. One of you Liberals just once step up to the plate and finish an argument. Do any of you liberals have the integrity to look at what Lavalin has made its money off of and how and who it has bribed? Where is your credibility? Where is your proof even one job would have been lost if you buy into that phony bullshit script. There is no public interest Trudeau stepped up to protect-there is only his self interest. That self interest is the need to stop evidence coming out in a full trial and you need to ask why. Your PM went on a vacation paid by someone who he awarded government funding to and for two years he denied he had a ethical conflictand eventually when the Ethics Commissioner told him he did his response was a sarcastic one line terse statement he was sorry but no he did not stand up in Paliamet and apologiz.He condoned Bill Moreneau's insider trading of his family shares before a change in law devalued those shares. He condoned his Defence Minister lying abouthis military record. He out and out lied to Canada and China saying under no circumstance did the rule of law allow him to inytervene in the Hua Wei matter while he was inyterfering directly in the criminal matter with Lavalin. He lied and said JWR had not made up her mind on the dpa issue when we now know in fact it was her Chief Prosecuor who did. In fact the PM via a supposedly neutral civil servant to tell JWR after they were both advised they were not allowed to discuss ongoing criminal cases with the AG, that with our without JWR's help Trudeau was going to make sure he got a dpa for Lavalin. This was about using the dpa as a devise to shut down the Lavalin trial. A dpa was never intended to be used by a politician directly or indirectly. Its predicated on a voluntary approach by the accused to the prosecutor never via a politician lobbying on behalf of the accused let alone passing a law to impose retroactively in the prosecutor to force them to consider using one, a power she already had. Dpa's are not new. We've called them out of court plea bargains in the past. The fact Trudeau felt he needed to pass a law makes no legal sense but it does lend to the appearance he was trying to pressure the AG to use one. Trudeau's contempt for the law and using it for political self interests does not end. Now he engages in nonsense theatre and threatens to sue Sheer. For what? For disagreeing with him? Do any of us need to explain that any of us who engages in political debate can express subjective opinions and not be sued? Does that really need to be explained? Do I need to explain it is a fundamental right of you and I to be able to openly disagree with out leaders and challenge them? Do I need to explain under defamation laws, the Plaintiff must prove damages. What damages? Did Trudeau have an anxiety attack? He gets free medical care over and above OHIP unlike you and I. So what are his damages?

While the issues are complex I doubt Eye understood you were trying to explain why I would guess to say many Canadians if not the majority use the reasoning you explained. No doubt he will take it personally, etc. Your point is well taken. Most people believe he above as do many aboriginal peoples who left their societies to live in the non aboriginal world. The system is broken because we created an environment that creates a never ending cycle of dependence on government handouts. There is abuse of the funding process and money itself is thrown into a political network that often mismanages or out and out embezzles the funds. Reforming the corrupted parallel government of the aboriginals is an issue frought with accusations of racism if you point it out as a non aboriginal and a guaranteed accusation you are a sell out traitor if you are aboriginal. It will take more than fake tears from a shallow poser like Trudeau at photo ops to deal with the issues. The Indian Act should have been ditched years ago. Also the federal government has the right to ask for specific accounting standards if it gives out money which its not enforcing or even asking for. I believe aboriginals need to step up to the place in regards to examining their own internal corruption. All that said, when we pollute and harm any community we must step up to the plate and remedy the damage and hold he polluters as much as possible responsible for the expense of the clean up. In regards to certain not all aboriginal communities that are isolated, we have to ask, if someone wants to live in isolation, is it realistic they can expect the same services as someone in a complex built up city. For people in isolated communities it may be we need to plug them in with satellite technology solar energy, wind and water purification systems for their het and air conditioning and communication systems not high transmission lines, or traditional energy grids. We should also be introducing biodegradeable mould proof housing materials or even housing.

You are right. The nature of the game is disinformation to create domestic and internal disagreement to side-track people and distract from paying attention to particular foreign issues by obsessing more with internal domestic ones. No more, no less. In the case of Canada, most people are unaware we are highly unpopular with Putin. We have 500 troops in Ukraine training their officers and there is reason to believe some our elite units may have been involved in direct combat with Russian troops although that will ever be disclosed. We are considered an enemy of Putin particularly our Foreign Minister who is of Ukrainian descent and has made some pretty scathing remarks about Putin. Do not underestimate his thin skin and wanting to plant nonsense stories just to stir up the pot. In regards to China, their intelligence is all about trade and being able to sell products and get ideas from competitors and make their products cheaper and so their intelligence is focused on business. They don't obsess with ideologies of government, they obsess over control over trade markets. Its a different focus of intelligence. If Canada was a threat in the South Pacific Sea as a naval obstacle then maybe we become a military issue to them but clearly we have no navy and our air force is of no concern to China. Their concern is access to our markets and intellectual property.

Vaccines are another issue for another thread but the ad you provided is misleading. Just go ask your pharmacist or doctor about vaccines. You think they would deliberately poison you and open themselves to a law suit? That is for another thread? We all agree on this issue at least.