My Take On Northern Perspective And SNC-Lavalin.

First off, after leaving the CPC over disagreements with the way Harper was running the government, I left the party and spent a decade as a Liberal party member. Like so many of you, I was disgusted by SNC-Lavalin and the PMO's attempt at broadening the Justice Minister's legal options against her will. I'm going from memory now but my recollection is that the Minister stood firmly behind the DPP's decision that a DPA was not appropriate in the SNC-Lavalin case. To my mind, the Clerk had no business injecting himself into that debate and should have told the Prime Minister No when it came to placing that call. IMHO, that was at least a serious error of judgement on the Clerk's part. A wise Clerk would have consulted internally with PCO legal counsel before agreeing to the PMO's request.

Now to Northern Perspective: in the wake of this controversy, I've subscribed to this channel and admittedly watched some of their videos in the past. Yes, they are centre-right but definitely not far-right. Fife's comment was a cheap shot. The journalists should have been more open to discovery even given the fact that the then Prime Minister is no longer in office. In short, so what.

It's not my place nor that of PP or even Northern Perspective to summarily decide who or who should or should not go to jail. That is solely a matter for the courts. As an observer of what took place in committee my sense of it is that the RCMP was more concerned with damage control and yes, covering their ass than anything else when they testifed in committee.

Do I think this was predetermined from the get-go? Absolutely I do but that had nothing to do with the RCMP or their decisions. That's why I argue that PP was wrong and irresponsible to make those accusations without what I would call new or developing evidence on the Aga Khan trip or SNC-Lavalin. The legislation was deliberately designed that way to give any PM a legal out. Under that Criminal Code section 121(1)(c),that reads as follows: 

• (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

Trudeau had no immediate superior and therefore no one in law could either in writing signoff or disavow his intended or actual conduct. IMHO, from that point on the investigation's inquiry by the RCMP was cooked. 

Cabinet confidentiality was also used as a mechanism to limit or curtail the flow of evidence at both the parliamentary and ethics levels. Again, the RCMP was over a barrel. The first question then became was there a legal remedy whereby this issue could be taken before the courts for adjudication? My sense is that there was a narrow legal remedy, a possible production order and/or search warrant but what court would likely defy the cabinet confidentiality rule and time limit ban? Has it been done before? If not, no court is my answer.

Some will say that the RCMP played right into the government's hands when they requested additional documents. They had to know ahead of time that the answer would be No. In any event, where they went wrong was in not referring this matter to the Crowns. That made them look bad not to mention politically boxed in. 

Now imagine that the RCMP would have made a referral for possible prosecution, no Crown would have likely proceeded with charges given the limited and predetermined access to evidence. In addition, the prospective defendant would have been the actual head of government.  The Crown given those circumstances was probably unlikely to proceed even if the RCMP had recommended laying criminal charges so IMHO, the alleged case against Trudeau more than likely still would have gone nowhere legally speaking. 

In short, the mind needs to be concentrated on this or a future Parliament amending the Criminal Code and other laws to make sure that the present out is legally removed for future potential investigations. Finally, can these files be reopened and can the RCMP compel the now former prime minister to submit to an interview about either of these scandals? If you can see a legal mechanism, you're far more perceptive than I am.