>>5459261 PB

Highlights of parliamentary emergency debate on Justice scandal in Canada.

…continued (will add as I re-review tonight).

Mark 11:35 to 12:51. Say one thing and do another. Goes to the heart of our democracy.

Mark 27:55 to 29:25. If we do not pursue justice we will be passing onto our children a much weakened constitutional order and a much weakened Parliament.

52:40 to 53:40 Watch the former AG's testimony. It is believable. To the Government member: Are you not ashamed?

53:54 I was not ashamed of what I heard yesterday. She said nothing unlawful occurred.

>>5459857 PB (re notable in old bread)

… continued, highlights from Canadian Parliament emergency debate on Justice scandal:

57:30 to 58:27 Government member: Deferred prosecution (plea deal) is meant to protect workers and to hold corporate leaders accountable. Lawful advocacy of the public interest is at the heart of this debate. Five members of the G-7 (including USA) now have this provision in their countries.

01:00:38 01:08:33 There was an attempt, at the highest levels of our system of government, to interfere with the decision of an independent Attorney General. The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy.

01:05:25 to 01:09:31 Vice-Chair of Justice Committee: What I experienced at the committee hearing was very disturbing. How can we not hear from the 11 people the former AG named? The issue here is beyond the mandate of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner; Liberal majority on the Justice Committee seems to be against efforts to get at the truth; we are left with the need for a judicial inquiry.

01:08:45 to 01:09:53 Vice-Chair continued: Canadians must hear the testimony of the former AG. Devastating, chronological, careful, sophisticated account of what she experienced – an attempt to browbeat her to change her mind. What part of NO do you not understand, she should have said. Veiled threats not just once, twice, but three times in one day.

to be continued …

>>5460247

… continued, highlights from Canadian debate in Parliament on Justice scandal.

I'm re-listening so generally Anons do not need to wade through it all themselves. But please do go to the debate because it is a good overview of what is at stake. Also, of course, do your own research.

So while I continue in moar posts tonight, Anons might be interested to reference the following info:

See the Shawcross Doctrine.

The real scandal in the SNC-Lavalin affair

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/michael-spratt/the-real-scandal-in-the-snc-lavalin-affair-16895/

Quote

So, SNC began lobbying for Jody Wilson-Raybould to overrule the director of public prosecutions.

Wilson-Raybould could do it, but that decision is hers and hers alone. The principle is called the Shawcross doctrine and it’s pretty simple: The responsibility for prosecutorial decision, such as overturning the SNC decision, rests with the attorney general, and she is not to be put under any pressure by the government.

And this is where Wernick’s evidence becomes important. Because his evidence, examined in context, leads inextricably to the conclusion that there was pressure put on Wilson-Raybould to reverse the SNC decision.

And here is where the timeline, as confirmed by Wernick, matters.

unQuote

Also, the following discussed the structure that protects the rule of law – but it was written prior to the former AG's testimony which provided the specifics that the author said was still unavailable at the time he worte the piece.

The Public Law Principles

http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/public_law_blog/2019/2/9/laffaire-snc-lavalin-the-public-law-principles.html

Also see:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10485882

>>5460352

… cont, highlights, debate on Canada's Justice scanal – the SNC-Lavalin affair.

01:10:14 to 01:10:25 A line was crossed here even if you believe only a little of what the former AG said. I support the motion that the PM must testified under oath at the Justice Committee hearing.

My observation: Liberal MPs have emphasized the public interest as a legitimate basic for questioning or advising an AG on decisions about prosecution vs plea bargains. The former AG already had taken that into consideration and was open to further consideration (on the record not casually) after the decision to prosecute had been made. But nothing more on public interest was forthcoming so her decision was finalized. What the Liberal MPs are doing is distracting away from the illegitimate basis for re-opening a finalized decision – partisan politics is not a legitimate basis.

Also the Liberal MPs have talked about lawful advocacy – what an elected rep is supposed to do for constituents – within the context of the role of parliamentarians, cabinet members, and the PM's office. This is also beside the point but they want to make it central to their position.

The real test for that, it seems, would be for the PM to testify on the chronology put forth by the former AG; also to open up discussion past the time when the former AG resigned from her other cabinet post – where she had been demoted away from the Justice ministry.

moar in a bit…

>>5460418

01:15:42 01:18:12 The corrupt culture of Ottawa insiders. There are two betrayals. 1. The attempt to undermine the rule of law through brazen and reckless abuse of PM's power. 2. Betrayal of electorate's hope for open government on which the PM had campaigned. Friends in the new Liberal party are hurting tonight because of that betrayal by the raw exercise of power by the old Liberal Party.

continued…