IsThisTheDPAOrJustAnother
CountryVille
The good Mr. Butts has now had his say.
And I couldn't help but notice that he conflated the regulatory TMX decision with the criminal SNC Lavalin decision.
And, oh yes, he also brought up the fact that all those innocent Canadians and their jobs were a policy decision that needed to be discussed.
So.
Where were all those wild-eyed innocents when the trial avoiding deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) thingy was inserted into our Criminal Code?
Why, nowhere to be found.
Paul Wells had that story in the pixel pages of Macleans before Ms. Philpott resigned and Mr. Butts whined:
....When the government inserted the DPAs into the Criminal Code, how did it announce the move? With a single paragraph on page 202 of the 2018 federal budget document, under the catchy heading “Addressing corporate integrity.” You really had to go to page 202 to learn anything at all about the scheme. Finance Minister Bill Morneau made no mention of it in his nationally televised budget speech.
And how was the DPA described on page 202, for insatiably curious or insomniac readers who might stumble across it? As a way to get tough on corporate wrongdoers. DPAs would be “an additional tool to hold corporate offenders to account,” the document said. They would “sanction criminal conduct appropriately and deter wrongdoing.”...
'Holding corporate offenders to account'?
With a trial avoidance tool inserted at the behest of lobbyists from a corporation that, based on past performance, was known to offend?
Protecting the innocent, indeed.
.
Links 4/25/24
1 hour ago
9 comments:
It’s my understanding that the charges were laid by the RCMP under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing public officials in Libya. Section 715.32(3) of the Criminal Code prohibits the prosecutor thusly:
“Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.”
Wouldn’t attempting to get the prosecutor to consider the impact of 9000 jobs on the national economic interest or repeatedly invoking the name of SNC Lavalin be counselling the commission of a crime?
during life there are a few lines I've always tried to remember:
-if you're not mentally ill when you wind up living on the street, you will be in a year.
- if your spouse assaults you once, they'll do again, so get out while you're alive and well.
- sometimes you have to decide whether the fxxking your getting is the worth the fxxking you're taking.
- you can't out run a bullet so stand and fight, if its a knife, run
- if a politician isn't corrupt when they go into politics they'll be corrupted in their effort to stay in office.
- the first order of business of any government is to stay in power. everything is secondary.
- a secret ceases to be one the second you tell some one else.
- keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
- not every one is lying. some times its their interpretation of the truth and that can vary.
None of what is going on right now ought to be surprise to any one. When the other guy does something "questionable" its a crime, when you do it, its good business or for the greater good.
I've read people complaining Moreneau put the "get out of jail" card in a budget on pg. whatever thus hiding it. These same people seem to forget the budgets Harper put out, had all sorts of non monetary items in them. It was like an omnibus bill.
My take on it is,
- the media is having a wonderful time, it gives them something to report on. For those who don't like Trudeau and the federal Liberals they have ammunition to hopefully unseat him.
-JWR did what she believes is the right thing and so does Philpott. Both are principled individuals based on their actions that we have seen.
-Trudeau and others around him, thought they were doing the right thing in an effort to support SNC and stay in office, believing they provided better government than the Cons.
If Trudeau keeps both JWR and Philpott in caucus no one can say he's vindictive. He may even want to appoint them to cabinet or other positions after the election.
-Its a long time to the election. We have the Stanley Cup finals, summer vacations, camping and a lot of time between now and election day. Will every one remember much of this by that time. Not so much. Many don't even know what is currently going on or have the national "scandal" mixed up with the Leg. "scandal" here in B.C. Yes, are people who are running around after their children, getting their kids to games, school, getting themselves off to work, trying to get their bills paid on time, making sure they keep a roof over their heads and the vehicles running. What these same people will look at come election time is: who is going to do something for me. Right now I'd have to say the federal Liberals because they hand out the monthly cheques for those who need them, for their kids. The Conservatives have always been great at tax credits, but more those who really need the money tax credits don't matter, cash in the bank does.
-In Oct. none of this will matter much. Good election campaign and perhaps hints of a national prescription plan and Trudeau will be re elected if not with a majority, a minority who will be supported by the Greens, and yes there will most likely be more than Elizabeth May, the Bloc if they have to, and the NDP. all will extract a price, but the average citizens will still be better off with the federal Liberals than the federal Conservatives. I'd rather see an NDP P.M. but that isn't going to happen in what is left of my life time.
of course, its great fun to watch the unraveling. I confess to really, really enjoying the show. But a few things stick in my craw- like, would this be an issue at all if 'they' hadn't demoted JWR? Because as far as I can tell that is the ONLY thing that triggered the so-called moral outrage.
What about the substance of the debate? The government implemented DPP's to use in this very case. Perhaps its self evident (given the repeated ethical lapses of SNC), but I'd still like to understand why JWR decided that it wasn't appropriate. Besides saying that it was her sole prerogative and no one should interfere in that 'right', an actual explanation of the rationale might be helpful.
I guess I don't really like the notion that somehow politics is a grubby business, but the legal system is above reproach. That the attorney general is standing tall to ensure the rule of law, everyone else is playing politics.
This is not to side with Trudeau (I'd surely be hit by lightning were that the case) and this incident has helped shed light on the obvious phoniness and emptiness of his progressive promise. But surely no one really believed all that BS.
Anon-At-The-Top--
The Cookie Dough Mike Shuffle? You're killing me.
______
Lew--
Apparently bringing the 'jobs thing' into it is expressly forbidden. Sandy Garrosino is promising a story laying all this out - I, for one, look forward to it.
Interestingly, Mr. Butts made an emphatic point that the jobs thing was 'policy' presumably to distinguish it from the criminal aspect of the thing and thus providing him and his with cover.
______
eaf--
Didn't the pre-election channel changing already start today (see, for example, the national pharmacare stuff)
_____
Glen--
Can't disagree with you thaatdemotion did propel the former AG to take things public. However, if she had been threatened with such prior? Regardless, I agree that it would be good to hear her explicitly state the reasoning behind her decision. On that point, could she not have been asked to do just that during a return visit to the Committee? Too bad the majority voted to prevent such a visit today.
Your perspective on the difficulty distinguishing the political from the legal is interesting (and, obviously, understandable) - thing is, don't you think that, on the face of it in this case, that they actually went out of their way to meld the two prior to JWR stepping in and following the prosector's recommendation (or am I reading that wrong)?
Regarding the emptiness of the promise to be a prog rocker....While I didn't buy that, as a Stat Vote backer last time I out I must confess that I did put a little money down on the prospect of a return to peace order and (pretty) good government. Perhaps even that was naive and wishful shopping.
.
not sure what was on t.v. today spent too much time reading Empty wheel and all that stuff. What was interesting was the first commenter on the post regarding Jerome Corsci and his retraction on the Seth Rich story. The comment advised Ezra Levant used to interview Roger Stone on The Rebel. then they went on to write, about Ezra Levant and allegations of election tampering in France. What makes that all interesting to me, is Ezra Levant's former college at The Rebel is Hamish Marshall, Andrew Scheer's campaign manager. its such a small world. Still have to read the article which covers it,
now if corporations can get that DPP or DAP or DOP, what ever it is, why can't the rest of society get similar things, say like embezelers, you know they promise not to do it again, they keep the business, etc. I promise not to rob a bank again, go out and rob it and then we're good because I'm not going to do it again.......
Want to know where Robert Fife got the story and what prompted him to go with it.
e.a.f.--
Two words re: the root of the propagammonish connection between the two very fine fellows you mentioned...
Ethical Oil.
.
At the heart of this issue I do think there is a huge difference in leadership between women and men. I suppose that's obvious, but it really struck home with me on this issue (two resignations). In my experience, women greatly appreciate process and consensus decision making. As I stated before, I'm struck by this being a 'process dispute". In other words, how decisions are made in many cases is more important to women that what the decision actually is. This is not a criticism...far from it. A deep faith in respecting and valuing
People and dialogue as opposed to top down decision making is at the core of the difference. It really is a women versus men debate that we are witnessing.
Glen, you haven't lost your touch, back in the day you valued the opinion of women, noticed it when Elaine D. was ..........
From my Union days, I remember some of the courses, Women in Leadership, women only courses at the C.L.C. it really became apparent that women did have a different manner of processing. Frequently every one came to the same conclusion, but the process of getting there was different. Agree its a 'process dispute'. From what I understand JWR speaks about the pressure, not so much about what it was about. Then Philpott resigns in support of JWR. Haven't heard that sort of thing since my Union days when some women actually did that to support each other.
The processes some of the women used were excellent. moved through very continuous issues, step by step. Got to decisions via consensus. they also used similar processes to work through all learning new things, operating on the job, etc. Haven't given any of it much thought for over 20 years........
off to read Ethical Oil, omg, that is funny, never heard of an ethical oil company, back in the day remember a line about people who worked at one large international oil company....."find one more oil well and you're fired". Never forgot and never believed the later b.s. about the world running out of oil.
fast education, which found some brain cells still retaining recent old stuff, by reading an article by Andrew Nikiforuk, 29 Sept. 2011, Tyee, titled, "Five Falsehoods about Ethical Oil". Brought back to mind all the documentaries I saw so many years ago and the execution of Nigerian poet, Ken Saro-Wiwa. I remembered world leaders asking he not be executed all to no avail because as the line went back then the only one who can stop it is Shell Oil and they want him dead. Shell oil who provided the tankers of oil to the South African military during the protests against apartheid. Now that is one unethical oil company,. The Royal Dutch Shell Corporation.
Thanks for the referral because I learnt Ezra levant used to be a Tabaco lobbyist. oh, its such a small world and some times we forget our history. remember the real old stuff but the recent old, of my life time does get lost.
Perhaps those who protest the pipelines might want to re aquaint us with the history of some of those "lovely" ethical people who play in our oil patch. There are so many younger people those in their 40s and younger who never learnt this.
those oil companies and today SNL, perhaps they all belong in jail together for if not current crimes the old ones. the executives keep making money as do the share holders. average worker is making less than they did back in the 1970s, in real dollars. What is in it for us? those who get by on the crumbs of the corporations and yes those in the oil fields are just being paid scrapes.
Post a Comment