A DPA is unconstitutional and should be abolished because not every Canadian or American can participate and it becomes arbitrary law allowing only the rich and powerful (corporations) to pay for their own kind of justice
Deferred Prosecutions--Are They Constitutional And How Far Will Government Take Them?
Thought of the day – Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) are they even constitutional? Seems they are not…And why would government need to hide the criteria of DPAs in an omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada? Also, how far will the Canadian government take them – will they, like the Obama administration, allow for, as some put it, big corps to get away with “murder”?1
Budget Bill the government allowed for what is referred to as Deferred Prosecution Agreements
Ah, the 2018 Federal Liberal Budget Bill and the size of the document. I’m certain that everyone, in Canada, took the time to read the entire piece with its multitude of amendments to various other Acts and in particular that pesky amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, allowing for the buying and selling of justice.2
Yes, you read correct – in the Budget Bill the government allowed for what is referred to as Deferred Prosecution Agreements.3
This should be very concerning to all Canadians. These amendments allow government, under certain circumstances, to merely get paid not to prosecute some entity. And it would seem this is the Canadian government following in the footsteps of the U.S. government – again. Should we be following this example if it undermines our very own Constitution?
How it works. The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met:
the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;
the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;
the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and
the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.
In the U.S. one merely has to look at what the Obama administration allowed during the Massey Mine disaster
In other words, as already shown in history, government can decide if you are to be tried in a Court of Law or if you should merely pay the government a fine and walk away. This has been a problem since before Magna Carta and is even part of that document. Section 40 of the original Magna Carta states: “40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”4
And isn’t this exactly what government is doing with its DPAs? A ne’er-do-well violates the criminal law and if said ne’er-do-well pays the prosecution said ne’er-do-well doesn’t see the inside of a court. In the U.S. one merely has to look at what the Obama administration allowed during the Massey Mine disaster.
“The Obama administration’s Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would not press any criminal charges against Massey Energy, or its new owner, Alpha Natural Resources, arising from the death of twenty-nine coal miners at the Upper Big Branch mine in April 2010.
"In exchange for not pursuing criminal charges against the companies, Alpha Natural Resources has agreed to pay $209 million in fines, restorations to the families, and safety improvements to its mines over the next two years.
"No charges were brought against any individual company official for their role in the disaster, although the Justice Department says that those may still come.
"Moreover, no charges were announced against any government official in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, who were responsible for ensuring that Massey followed the safety laws.
Support Canada Free Press
"The $209 million includes $46.5 million to be used to pay $1.5 million to each of the families of the twenty-nine miners killed in the explosion and the two injured miners. $35 million will be used to pay civil fines outstanding against all Massey mines, including fines leveled as a result of the disaster. The remaining $128 million will go to making safety improvements to all its mines.
"Spread out over the two years that the company is required to make the improvements, the total settlement amounts to seventy-five cents per ton of coal that they produce, or less than three cents per ton for each miner killed.
"Family members reacted with outrage to the decision. Gary Quarles, whose son Gary Wayne died in Upper Big Branch, told the Associated Press, “I’ll be satisfied when I hear who they’re going to indict and what for,” he said, adding, “I want to hear names, and I want to know what they’re going to be charged for. Today would have been a fine day for them to have told us.”
“It was an act of murder,” said Clay Mullins, whose brother Rex was killed in the explosion. “They murdered twenty-nine men, and I’m not satisfied one bit.”"5
So, are Canadians prepared for this result? Based on a number of constitutional documents and the fact that the U.S. Constitution is founded with the premise of Magna Carta, the same principles are integral to the laws and Constitution of Canada.
And isn’t this following the path to yet another “Court of Star Chamber” where decisions made were arbitrary and against the law of the land. Remember this is the Attorney General making decisions as to whether an entity is innocent and/or guilty (previous board of Directors compared to present board of Directors [SNC]6) and whether that entity should be tried for criminal actions. Doesn’t this make the Attorney General the Judge and Jury, leaving the law and equal justice laying at the door of his/her chamber?7 And isn’t the A.G. abetting in the proceeds and/or gains from prostitution?8 Isn’t human trafficking something the Canadian government is supposed to be opposed to?
Why is it that our elected officials seem to think, that this time, they are so much more astute than our forefathers?
Then there is the Bill of Rights – 1688-89 and again all of these ancient statutes are part of, and the foundation of, the Canadian Constitution. And again, this document is part of the principle of the U.S. Constitution. So why is it that both governments seem to continue to violate the very foundation that made each of these countries the democratic nations they are? Why is it that our elected officials seem to think, that this time, they are so much more astute than our forefathers? And why is it that our elected officials seem to think, in their own arrogant failed intellect, that this time it will be any different from what history has already shown?
A DPA is unconstitutional and should be abolished because not every Canadian or American can participate and it becomes arbitrary law allowing only the rich and powerful (corporations) to pay for their own kind of justice.
Thought of the day – Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) are they even constitutional? Seems they are not…And why would government need to hide the criteria of DPAs in an omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada? Also, how far will the Canadian government take them – will they, like the Obama administration, allow for, as some put it, big corps to get away with “murder”?9
The hidden key to the SNC-Lavalin scandal: “Moreover, had the Libyan regime not collapsed and the bribery discovered, would this company still be in the game, still arranging prostitute parties and funnelling money to the Gaddafis?”
• Elizabeth Marshall on Facebook
• Non-Partisan Advocate
• Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association
• Author – “Property Rights 101: An Introduction”
• Board Member/Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board
• Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc.,
• Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Municipal Councilors,
• President All Rights Research Ltd.,
I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice. Any information relayed is for informational purposes only. Please contact a lawyer.
Thought of the day – Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) are they even constitutional? Seems they are not…And why would government need to hide the criteria of DPAs in an omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada? Also, how far will the Canadian government take them – will they, like the Obama administration, allow for, as some put it, big corps to get away with “murder”?1
