Rue

Owly provide the wording in the dpa law that allows the AG to overrule the prosecutor's decision. You at this point clearly have not read the law. Stop bluffing. Read the law then go find out the role of AG and Chief Prosecutor. Unlike you I did and made an effort to discuss the actual wording and you will not and now make false statements. Either put up or shut up.

The dpa is not brand new in Canada. The equivalent of it has been used in criminal courts in non bribery or major corporate crime cases. Its been used in youth courts and criminal courts for first time offenders, we just never gave it that name. Next, you continue to miss the point. The fact a dpa is applied is not the issue. The grounds for when it can be used and what it can be used for are the issues. The dpa law clearly prohibits using national economic interests as a public interest justification to not use a dpa. The considerations as to repeat offences and victim impact also exclude it as well. The Liberals in effect want the Prosecutor to ignore all the preconditions, considerations and prohibition because they would have to do that to be able to approve one. Please read the dpa law. Also please understand we have signed an international treaty specifically stating we will NOT use a dpa when it deals with a case of bribing a foreign official. Trudeau is hell bent on the notion of trying to force through a dpa without giving any thought to the wording in the dpa, our treaty obligation or the wording in the dpa that gives only the prosecutor the right to consider the dpa wording. What was the point of drafting he dpa wording as it is, if the intent was to ignore all that wording? From the little I have seen of the appeal it seems convoluted. How does one abuse a process simply because they exercised the power given to them? Lavalin hasn't shown abuse of process, just disagreement with the prosecutor's finding. They are trying to use an appeal that is predicated on it having to challenge "abuse of process" which is a procedural issue to try overthrow a substantial issue (the conclusions drawn from looking at the considerations and preconditions). For their to have been an abuse of process Lavalin needs to show some kind of procedural irregularity done by the Prosecutor and even then if that irregularity can be remedied it doesn't change her right to interpret the wording in the dpa law the way she did. The wording provides the prosecutor ample discretion. Lavalin is trying argue the exercising of the discretion given to the Prosecutor in itself is necessarily an abuse of process so can be overturned. No, to be an abuse of process it needs to be more than exercising the powers given to her to come to a decision Lavalin does not like, it requires showing the Prosecutor did not follow a procedure she should have which they have not done. A dpa is by its very nature NOT a right, its a privilege. In any criminal case where the accused is charged with something they have been convicted of twice, let alone once, the Prosecutor's hands are tied, they can't preempt the Judge's getting involved. A dpa avoids a Judge getting involved to approve the plea. How does a prosecutor with a repeat offender ignore the provisions of the law that increases the sentence required on each repeat offence. Never in the history of our laws or the laws of any British law inherited nation has a dpa been used to circumvent a Judge's right to increasing sentencing on repeat offences and determine what that appropriate increase is. Never has a dpa been used in such a manner by anyone and that is why the prosecutor is asked to ask whether the accused is a repeat offender when determining their eligibility for a dpa. As well, why is their a prohibition against national economic interest being used as a public interest argument to justify a dpa in bribery cases placed in the dpa law? If it was not intended why put it in? It was put in to conform with our agreeing internationally to never allow people charged with bringing foreign governments to avoid a full trial. We have in Canada what is called the plain meaning rule when reading a law. To argue you can ignore the wording of a law as the Liberals are with their dpa law and which you would have to do to grant a dpa to Lavalin, the wording must have more than one meaning IN WRITING in the law itself. The argument the Liberals use to be able to ignore the content of the dpa law wording because its not convenient to Lavalin is not how law works. Trudeau and Liberals want no standard of consideration for giving a dpa out and be use it whenever the accused wants one as long as the accused are a business employing people in Trudeau's riding.

In fairness to you the appeal is very new and it narrows in on the only argument they can use "abuse of process". I do not blame you for not knowing about it. Not my intent Z. As for the AG role, no an AG can not overturn their Chief Prosecutor's decision. They could order the Chief Prosecutor remedy procedural violations set out by the Federal Court of Appeal if they find any but on the substantial issues of trying to order the Chief Prosecutor to ignore the prohibition in the dpa, not consider the considerations listed and not consider the preconditions listed, no.

No actually you did not. You missed the point completely. The issue is not and was not whether the dpa is used elsewhere, it is under what circumstances has it been used. Using a dpa is not the issue-when and why to use it is. United States has literally hundreds of different courts using a very wide and diverse approach to not just dpa's but plea bargaining, civil court procedures, criminal court procedures. Some are similar to our provincial and federal courts some are not. The point you missed is the US courts use dpa's for many reasons we would not in Canada. Canadian courts have always been able to use the equivalent of a dpa and other restorative justice initiatives. You live in a fantasy Liberal script that you can ignore the very dpa law your PM passed. Can you please read it. Can you please read what the difference is between the Chief Prosecutor and AG and understand why the AG can not order his Chief Prosecutor to ignore the dpa law wording and just use one. I know in your world having the Prime Minister intervene in an on-going criminal proceeding to shut it down is acceptable and allowing himself to be contacted by the accused repeatedly and promise that accused to shut down the trial is acceptable. I know you think claiming there might be job losses with zero proof of that claim is acceptable. I know you think Lavalin being a repeat offender means nothing to who is entitled to dpa's. I know you think you can ignore the victim impact and in your fantasy partisan world subjectively declare the need of constituents in Trudeau's riding to make profit from a crime are more important than the murders, torture and harm that crime did to others. I know you think the international treaty we signed pledging we would prosecute to the utmost any Canadian bribing a foreign government means nothing I now you think bribing a terrorist, war criminal and human rights violator who ordered the torture and murder of thousands and used his troops to invade other countries illegally and massacre victims means nothing. Yes I got it. You are a Liberal. You will pose with Syrian refugees but not Libyans with permanent injuries from Ghaddafi. You wil lecture India on how to deal with terrorists while condoning the bribing of terrorists. You cheer on paying Kadr 10 million for being in Guantanamo Bay prison but give not one thought to the victims of Ghaddafi placed in his prisons including the one Lavalin built for $275 million, let alone giving any money to our soldiers who went to Afghanistan to fight terrorists and now suffer from injuries. At one point I was a Liberal. I liked Paul Martin. Its because of what it now is and what you defend I call it out as a corrupted morally bankrupt excuse of a party and shows what happens when followers who think their shit does not think get drunk on their sense of entitlement.

Lametti can not. Only the Federal Court of Canada can and then it goes back to the Chief Prosecutor so unless you want Lametti to fire her and bring in a new one, she revisits the issue. The allegations of abuse do not deal with the wording in the preconditions, considerations and prohibition Ms. Roussel or any other prosecutor would still be mandated to follow in the dpa law. Unless you are planning on rewriting the dpa law good luck.

Again you just show you do not understand what you read. Each state and county in the US and there are thousands have different laws and procedures than the federal court. There is no "U.S." sentencing guidelines. You went to wikepedia to read US federal court guidelines. Using wikepedia to pose as an expert on USA dpa laws is ridiculous. Its far more complex then what you think you refer to. Next we live in Canada. You need to read the dpa law passed by Trudeau. Just once read the actual law.

You can repeat that until doomsday it is false and again you have not read the law nor have you paid attention. The Federal Court if Canada ruled the Chief Prosecutor's ruling that they would not use a dpa is final. Its not appealable. The prosecutor had absolute discretion to decide. The only way Lametti can over turn the prosecutor's decision to reject the dpa is to go to the Federal Court of Appeal, and overturn the Federal Court's decision on the grounds there was an error of law. That would mean ignoring the wording in the dpa law saying the prosecutor's discretion is absolute and also ignoring the preconditions, considerations and prohibition wording in the dpa law. This notion you have where an elected politician can intervene in an on-going criminal proceeding, pass a retroactive dpa law and use it to shut down a trial when the very wording in the dpa prevents that kind of use is fantasy land. Also you advance another idiotic notion that Lametti has power either as Mnr of Justice or AG to overrule his Chief Prosecutor. Please dpa expert show how he can do that.

No that is not what it says. Provide the section you think says that.

You have to do a lot better than that . First of all go find out the difference between a fine and restitution payments to victims. Secondly there is no spotlight because evidence is released. Next Lavalin's workers that supposedly would lose jobs in Quebec are not blue collar guys or gals and there is zero evidence to indicate any of these guys or false were losing jobs or even would lose jobs and the head of Lavalin is on public record denying any jobs would be lost. The assumption jobs would be lost comes from the assumption that the federal government would ban Lavalin from getting federal government contracts for 10 years. That assumption comes from the fact that the World Bank has suspended funding any Lavalin projects outside Canada for 10 years for bribing foreign governments in Bangladesh and Cambodia. The fact they did that does not mean the federal government would. Next, in fact Lavalin gets very few federal contracts. The vast majority of their work, over 95% comes from elsewhere in Canada and even more importantly if there was a ban it could only apply to the Canadian subsidiary of Lavalin not its other subsidiaries operating in Canada. The assumption any job would be lost is fabricated. Its not based on reality. That is why even the head of Lavalin shot it down. The head office can not be moved out of Quebec until 2024 due to an agreement they signed with the Caisse Populaires of Quebec. Can you go read it. If they tried to move out before then they would have a huge penalty clause to pay back to the Caisse. Can you please read the Canadian dpa law and in particular the preconditions, considerations and prohibition that has to be considered by the prosecutor. You have not and that has nothing to do with my defective analysis, it has to do with your willful attempt to bluff your way taking about a law you didn't read. While I am at it, only 4 dpa's have been used in Britain and never in situations for bribing foreign governments. Likewise in the US . The US uses dpa's for many legal matters. It averages about 40 a year in the entire country which is when you think about the number of trials across the US an infinitely small no. Never has a dpa been used in the US, Britain or anywhere, where it was predicated on the elected leader of the country intervening to pass a retroactive law to have one apply to an on-going criminal case on behalf of the accused. Now can we get something crystal clear. DPA's were designed for first time offences NOT with repeat offenders and there is a reason for that go find out why if you claim to be an expert. Next there is a clear prohibition against considering national economic interests as a ground of public interest to use to justify using a dpa with the very acts of bribery under the very law, Lavalin was charged. How about you go read that prohibition. It was placed in the dpa precisely to avoid a conflict with a treaty we signed in 1999 with the OECD where we promised never to allow our own domestic financial considerations to be used as an excuse not to pursue bribing of foreign government officials. Britain, the US and Australia also signed that treaty. Next when you throw out the US, Britain and Australia as using dpa's at least find out when they use them. They have never used them in the context Trudeau wanted the dpa used and there is a reason for that. You aren't going to impress anyone if you try bluff your way through a debate based on reading one summary article of the new law.

You just proved my point that you have no clue what a dpa can be used for in Canada and think you are an expert based on reading one article. Do better then that. Go read the dpa law.

You clearly need to go find out how those dpa's were initiated and what the conditions were for using them. You have not. Not one came about from a retroactive law passed by an elected representative acting on behalf of the accused. Not one was used on a repeat offender like Lavalin is. Not one was used in a case of bribing a foreign government official. Anything else? By the way to look up what dpas are used for in the US.

Have you? What have you read? How about you start with the actual dpa law itself in Canada. Read the preconditions, considerations for eligibility and the prohibitions against it. Also read the treaty Canada signed with the OECD in 1999. You think you can pose as an expert? Start with that before you question anyone else.

No one knows what this decision means. Thanks though you are right. It's poorly worded. Let us see if it's appealed. Reporting people back to a safe third country does not put them in danger and I did not read in the decision it did. You could be right though as tonite implications. Its a very poorly worded decision.

It is illogical to pose that a person engaging in lying and/or other unethical acts is owed protection through confidentiality. There are exceptions in specific professional relationships only to preserve a greater need to society to encourage trust in that professional relationship. The purpose and intent of JWR's tape was to expose unethical acts against all of Canadians. In fact it would have been unehical for her to have remained silent knowing the silence might aid and abet the cover up of an unethical act and/or continuation if unethical actions. As well there is nothing unethical about proving someone is lying about you. The fact the tape is inadmssable in court without the consent of the taped person does not make it unethical. A liar is owed nothing but exposure of their lies. Nuremberg trials made it clear all humans let alone politicians have an ethical duty to question and expose wrong and not blindly obey.

Yes. I am not proud of being a Jew. The Talmud and Torah warned that pride is a moral weakness just like the New Testament does anecdotes many other philosophies and other religions do. The belief Jews have the right to sufferage or statehood is not based on pride but survival. Zionism is not about pride or feeling superior to others. I agree with religions and philosophies that warn pride is a weakness . I do understand anyone who feels if they have been ridiculed responding to the ridicule with pride and dignity. In that sense it is different than being used to feel better than someone else. In that sense we really mean self respect not a nacissistic sense of self importance. White pride is usually used as a justification to hate, resent non whites and justify it. Show me a white person using it to address hatred against whites in a healthy way and not as a platform to hate others I probably would see it as a healthy response to hatred. All that said I believe we need to learn humility not pride. Those are all my personal views to add to all of the comments. Have someone show me someone with white pride who is not a neo nazi. I like beliefs and values that teach humility. Pride to me is not something I need, I don't feel the need to show how wonderful I am. Pride for me is what insecure people give off..compensating for feeling inferior. Martin Luther King's version of identity I like. He preached for dignity of his people with humility. He was far more effective than any black panther. James Brown's pride really meant self respect. He did not preach false pride. His version of pride was self-respect but no false inflated ego.

Bullshit, no one but terrorists bare responsibilty for the choices they make.

Lol I don't. I argue with myself all the time.

You said: "2. Why "must" they ? I don't think White Racist terrorism results in white people being shot in churches, so it is different." Muslim extremism does result in Muslims being shot and killed in mosques and like white racist extremism has resulted in Jews and Christians shot and killed almost anywhere including churches and synagogues as well. The actual point is any extremist attack can be used as the pretext by any individual for any reason to justify engaging in one themselves. I don't agree with your attempted double standard.

I like others want to know why the media and government covered up the terrorist nature of this pretty much like the media was so quiet with the nutcase who killed people in Greektown in Toronto. There seems clearly to be a need to avoid any reference to terrorism and how these people's version of Islam fueled their terrorist actions. If we report how racism and extremist white supremacist views fuel terrorist attacks we must say the same about the correlation of extremist Islamic views fueling terrorism. Just like all white people are not neo Nazi extremists neither are all Musims terrorists but the government and media seem to be playing us as unable to understand that and now not covering these incidents thoroughly and being selective presenting one method to describe white supremacists and another Muslim extremists. They both must be described in the same manner. It is crucial the extremism of their views and what those extremist views are based on are explained. I think the media shows a bias against Canadians thinking when we see Muslim extremist terrorists commit crimes they won't deal with them fearing its unfair to all Muslims but when it comes to some neo nazi, they have no problem discussing it not worrying about the possibility innocent white people might be smeered. Its stupid. The press treats us like idiots and so does this current government which has clear leftist biases that select what information it thinks we should know. The media needs to start reporting in the same objective neutral manner. This story is about a Muslim extremist terrorist attack. It is as dispicable and disgusting as the idiot who went into the mosque in Quebec City or the mosques in New Zealand. Can we stop being selective and report them in the same manner. I am calling Lisa Laflammes today and complain. I would call Ian Hanamansigh but come on Lisa is the Oprah of Canada-I think she should do one of her hair blowing in the wind reports live from some street in Wawa, Ontario discussing this. Why Wawa? Its a hot-bed of extremists. Even worse than Forget, Saskatchewan. You should see what they do with their Tim Horton's coffee.

100% correct. I only say this as well because people know I teach Immigration and Global Trade Law and worked in that area as a lawyer among other friggin jobs so when you are right its imp. I say so. People can look it up as well on the Immigration site. You and Marcus are very accurate in your comments although have of course different opinions. When you guys get the law right, its imp. to back you up.

In fairness to you all your descriptions about Immigration law are 100% accurate. There is a loophole allowing illegal migrants from the US to claim refugee status right now. Most will be rejected as refugees on the grounds they came from a safe third country that they should have made their refugee claim in. Then at that point they are supposed to be deported. People can go on to the Immigration site to see the rate of deportations and to which countries. I believe it is averaging right now 35 people a day. The problem is many disappear and can not be deported. Other than that loophole which is probably responsible for anywhere from 20-40 thousand migrants coming in taking advantage of that huge loophole and people claiming refugee status who are not, which are both yes serious issues, can we be fair. The vast majority of immigrant prospects coming to Canada are going through many rules and regulations and judged on whether they have skills and language ability. It is not easy as some think. There is also a bad tendency to lump legitimate immigrant prospects who are doing the right thing and come to Canada following all the rules and then working with these others taking advantage of loopholes. I think immigration bashing is irrational and does not lend itself to proper discussion as to the true defficiencies in the immigration process. Illegitimate entrants give legitimate immigrants a bad name and as much as I detest what Marcus stands for when he makes legitimate points I have to defend them and show deference to them. Fair is fair. I also think Taxme has zero credibility on this issue. He has made it clear he is a white supremacist or what many of us call a neo-Nazi. Ironically many immigrants who come to this country who are as pink as Taxme came to get away from people like him and want nothing to do with what he stands for. This country with the exception of aboriginals is immigrants so I think unless you are aboriginal posing as someone who does not want immigrants is a joke. I totally disagree with Trudeau's policies on Immigration law. He has undermined the system by allowing a ridiculous loophole. I detest how he used Syrian refugees as props for a photo op and went running to do a photoop crying at a fire in Halifax with Syrian refugees. He is in many ways as dispicable as any out and out racist. He uses immigrants to get votes. He panders.

Lol probably not..comparing the two is like comparing syphilis and gonnorhea.

I don't know. It makes Trudeau look spineless and dishonest actually. I think it was leaked from the former Privy Council head Michael Wernick. When you see a document leaked you have to ask who does it vindicate, certainly not Trudeau, it paints him as a panicked, conflicted coward manipulated by Lavalin. It doesn't help Lavalin because it directly contradicts the statements of their CEO last week. Interestingly it would if you were Wernick justify his feelings of anger that he felt the threat was public policy and that is why he got involved. I think its people inside Lavalin plus Wernick who think Trudeau bailed on them and their CEO is bailing on them. The CEO's comments sound like someone last week who has had enough and wants to plead guilty. Trudeau has had enough and wants this over. So I think its Wernick who left in a tantrum andf feels he has been hard done by, It does enhance the argument JWR was pressured by Trudeau so it could be her but it also plays to Wernick saying he spoke to Lavalin every day, there was nothing wrong with that and he had good concern over them leaving Canada. The timing points to Wernick. Then again I am guessing and your guess is as good as mine. What it leaves to be questioned is this...why wouldn't Trudeau or Wernick or both have conducted an independent study to see if Lavalin could leave Canada or would? That claim makes no sense. Lavalin actually has very little federal government business in Canada as most of it is with other people or governments in Canada. As well most of that is with subsidiaries who would be making money in Canada but untouched by any potential fed. gov. business ban so they would have no reason to move abandoning their on-going projects. They also would face a huge financial penalty from Caisse Populaire on an unpaid loan if they tried to move any part of the head office before 2024. There is a r possibility Trudeau panicked because Lavalin has other dirt on him like info as to Liberal MP's including Justin himself taking money from Lavalin and given Trudeau was so blatant about placing himself in a conflict of interest with the Aga Kahn, accepting favours from Lavalin could be quite conceivable. However the leak plays out to showT rudeau as one dumb weak ass and the current Lavalin CEO as a liar and it doesn't really add to JWR's position but it sure as hell adds negatives to both Lavalin's CEO and Trudeau in one foul leak. I think given the wording in the release that places all kinds of emphasis on Lavalin caring about their shareholders and this is why they tried so hard for a dpa because they supposedly carer about their shareholders , it points to old time executives in Lavalin now facing a class action law suit by sharerholders in a Windsor class action law suit starting in June. I think it was leaked by them to try protect them via Wernick who is close with the old corrupt executives who the new Lavalin CEO is trying to distance himself from and try dismiss. My gut says its executives sued at Lavalin over the shareholder insider law suit with or without the assistance of Wernick. It is inconceivable the current CEO of Lavalin let this out. The press spokesman for Lavalin clearly will be fired for commenting on it and humiliating the CEO. Watch for that. If he is not either the CEO is a lame duck and totally lost control or is one stupid man. From what I understand he sees himself on a mission to clean up Lavalin and distance itself from asking for the dpa and former dirty transactions. From what I understand he wants Lavalin coming clean and pleading guilty.

Bernie is a scum bucket. He's been silent throughout the Lavalin fiasco because he is a sleezy coward and doesn't want to alienate Quebec votes. He should have spoken up weeks ago instead of continuing to hide. He's also an idiot. I listen to him in French. He has the i.q. of a cucumber.

This just in. No one is praying in the subway on a carpet Taxme but people did get together in a large prayer circle to acknowledge the massacre in Christchurch. The more you hate the more you will cause the opposite reaction. I have people coming up to me Taxme today as we speak saying hey are you a Jew? Wow..caan I have your autograph and tell me are those Matzah balls? Your Uncle Mel Gibson and I had a beer the other night. He told me he is still in pain and and he wished he was Jewish every year at this time.. He is very competitive with the Tim Horton's roll up the rim contest.