A blog to give a voice to our concern about the continued erosion of our democratic processes not only within the House of Commons and within our electoral system but also throughout our society. Here you will find articles about the current problems within our parliamentary democracy, about actions both good and bad by our elected representatives, about possible solutions, opinions and debate about the state of democracy in Canada, and about our roles/responsibilities as democratic citizens. We invite your thoughtful and polite comments upon our posts and ask those who wish to post longer articles or share ideas on this subject to submit them for inclusion as a guest post.
Contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Much ado about nothing?

Does anyone believe that most, if not all, large national and international companies seeking to do business with overseas entities such as Saudi Arabia do not provide 'incentives' to the principals involved?

Does anyone believe that without such 'incentives' said companies would not receive the contracts but would be passed over in favor of those that do 'grease the wheels'?

Does anyone believe that all governments, past, present and of any political stripe do not 'encourage' and / or turn a blind eye to such practices when large contracts that benefit Canadian companies and jobs are at stake?

Does anyone believe the the opposition Conservatives who signed a deal with said corrupt overseas government for a London, Ontario company to supply military equipment to them will not pretend moral outrage at such actions.

Does anyone believe that JWR was not under immense pressure to find a way to avoid having such a large employer of Canadians be effectively removed from carrying on government related business in Canada?

Does anyone believe that JWR was not removed from her post as AG in direct response to her unmoving decision regarding the SNC-Lavalin prosecution?

Does anyone believe that much of the 'outrage' by both the Conservatives and the NDP is not politically motivated and will be kept 'in play' right up to election time?

Does anyone believe that the AG's role should not be separated from government control and influence and any political influence and not be a member of cabinet?

The whole fiasco is not over yet by a long shot and I predict that the court proceedings will drag on till AFTER the election at which time, irregardless of what party is then in power, a way will be found to 'rescue' SNC-Lavalin and save Quebec jobs.

'A deal to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal liability could still be on the table amid a furor over whether the Trudeau government tried to meddle in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, the Star has learned.

My understanding is when criminal proceedings are ongoing that that option is always available,” Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said in an interview.

The requirement to continually assess the strength of the prosecution case, evidence, witnesses, and changing circumstances are “an ongoing obligation” within the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) regime, as in any prosecution, she said.'

Enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers


Anonymous said...

Good lord, man. the plural of company is companies, not companys. Three times in a page is a bit much.

The trouble is that Justice minister and AG are one and the same person in our system. Justice minister is the political position - other cabinet ministers are free to try and influence that persona. They are not free to influence that person in their AG role.

Nor can the AG order the Public Prosecution Service
to stop prosecution of a case except for a legal reason that has to be publicly gazetted. An AG is duty bound to accept the recommendations of the PPS, which is independent unless there is some obvious reason not to. That's what an independent PPS is for in the first place.

Why is it so difficult to understand these basics? I read the same old stuff over and over again on ProgBlog trying to justify the indefensible. I note that JWR has opined that nothing criminal occurred because she in effect chose to have her Justice minister hat on, but did mention that she hoped Trudeau wasn't trying to influence her in her role as AG back in September. And the man backed away from that at once, both he and she said if my recollection is correct.

Overall, what I get from your epistle is that hey, we're all big boys here and spot of corruption is bound to occur, so why not let it? I cannot agree.

What we need is to separate the role of AG from that of Justice minister. It's obvious. Two persons, one a public servant as AG, and whatever dope politician they want as Justice minister. It seems to me that the hell JWR has gone through is precisely because she occupied two roles, which in this case became mutually incompatible. JWR chose to uphold the AG side of her mandate and was pressured on the justice minister side. Because her brain didn't cave in to the political side, JT demoted her and no doubt brought in Lametti, a new complaisant Justice minister/AG who couldn't care less about ethics jusging by his utterances. All he has to do now is ward off an angry PPS and wave his magic wand for SNC-L to get a DPA for their corrupt behaviour, which even the neoliberal World Bank found wanting. That'll be a reaL fight with the PPS after this schemozzle.

I read reams of words that don't get to the point about the dual nature of Justice minister and AG in one perason, or are confused, or want to excuse big companies acting criminally, because sob, there might be job losses among the everyday saints working within it. What kind of message does a DPA send to them? It's OK to be unethical? I'm a retired engineer myself and due to the oath I took, I want prosecution to clear these peoples' minds up about right and wrong.

Liberals and Conservatives, the dark underbelly of Canada. Cruisin' along, makin' deals, the last thing on their minds the average pleb despite high and mighty words. They do it for personal fortune and to polish their corporate CVs. Both political parties need chucking to the curbside for past "deeds". Disgusting. No honour shown here by anyone that I can perceive.


Rural said...

BM, I don't pretend to be good at correct spelling, thanks for the correction now fixed!
As for the rest you will note that the content is posed as questions for I am not at all sure who or what to believe anymore......

Lorne said...

In terms of the point BM makes about the need to separate the AG from the Justice Minister, that is precisely the way Britain operates. There, the Justice Minister sits in Parliament as a member of Cabinet. The Attorney General, a separate person, does not sit in Cabinet. Clearly, that is something that needs to be considered in Canada.

Rural said...

I light of recent events there seems to be increasing support for such a move Lorne.

Owen Gray said...

Therer is plenty of human failing behind the situation, Rual. But the failing is also structural.

Rural said...

Its going to be an 'interesting' but rather scary few months Owen!