Section 4 Guided Reading And Review The Minor Parties Reviewing Key Terms: Fill & Download for Free

★★★3.5 stars (Give us a 0.5 rating Quora, please).Now one, this is a long chapter wise review and I am boring. Two, I really really hope Balaji sir gives his views on this.I was ready to sleep when Balaji Vishwanathan posted this: From Tryst to Tendulkar book is Live.Free Reading for 24 hours(Yeah I got lucky jealous sulks). I was among the few lucky users who got this chance so naturally you jump off the chair if you are a Quoran and it’s a Balaji book and on top of that there’s a “free” there. That’s red cherry on the white cake right?I decide to read and review it like an amateur idiot.You can skip to the end for a short bulletined review of the overall book if you have not read it.There are major spoilers ahead. You have been warned.First, ‘Chapter 3: Reorganizing India’ and ‘Chapter 6: Fighting for Land in Troubled Waters’ were conspicuously missing in the contents. Second Koushtav’s cover is great though I still don’t get the significance of the butterfly on tryst. So I continue reading making peace with what Balaji said – “The butterflies in the writer’s stomach while writing”.Prelude: It was perfect, one that induces the reader to continue reading.It’s an ingenious way to get young India reading. The way Balaji compares Sachin’s career timeline and Indian and International affairs in the late 90s proves he has conducted careful and all-inclusive research.“India smiled when Sachin smiled. India winced when Sachin winced”I couldn’t find any errors but I am a little doubtful about this sentence: “In his first series in International cricket – played in India’s arch rival Pakistan”. I think it’s “played in Pakistan” so maybe “played on the lands of India’s arch rival Pakistan” would have sounded better.The small bit about Narendra Modi did lighten me up. He is a symbol of optimism just like Tendulkar. I, like many Indians would like to see him emulate what Sachin did to Indian cricket – magic.Including the full Tryst speech by Jawaharlal Nehru was a good call; In spite of being a young Indian I have never read the entire speech. The speech transported me back in time. I think now I understand the significance of the butterfly on Tryst in the book cover.Chapter wise Review:Chapter 0: The Road to Freedom: Starts on a historic and ends on a gloomy yet hopeful note. Rolland’s words were a nice touch. The chapter is a small summary to medieval Indian history before the death of Mahatma Gandhi and is rightly named Chapter Zero given the fact that Balaji intends to present modern Indian history post the freedom struggle. The chapter does a good job at summarizing the Indian history post the Ottoman invasion of Constantinople.Chapter 1: Welding India: I had difficulty with these lines–· “Together this arrangement would have made India quite ungovernable geographic mess without a defend-able border” (It seems something is missing – ‘… made India quite an ungovernable mess’ maybe?)·“The Kashmir valley is predominately Muslim, although the territories of Jammu and Ladakh along with the monarch were Hindu/Buddhist” (Was the monarch Hindu or Buddhist? Or does the sentence mean to say that the territories‘with the monarch’ or was ‘monarch’ meant to be ‘monarchs’).· “The Indian Ocean islands of Lakshadweep was taken over by India by being first to hoist the flag …” (‘Islands of Lakshadweep were’? Since ‘Island of Lakshadweep was’ doesn’t make sense). Also a question – Did the Indian navy hoist its flag on all the islands?· “In case the of NATO, the John F. Kennedy administration used a technicality to avoid acting against India” (“In the case of …”?)First two pages and Balaji leaves you at a cliffhanger. Now that’s what I call genius -“Can the Indian leaders prevent the breakup of India?”An interesting fact was that Patel, Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were all London educated lawyers. Seems lawyers played a big role in shaping India. Also thank you Gujrat! You have been giving us great leaders for a long time.Also since Lakshadweep conquest was covered I would have liked word on Andaman and Nicobar as well but there was none.This was the first time I read about VP Menon, Rajinder Singh and the role they played. I don’t think a lot of Indians have heard about them so points for detail. The provincial and princely states lists were good and neatly detailed.The currency conversions in brackets and the Junagadh Nawabs dogs were not needed. The dogs were of no significance in a book that is mainly concentrating on Indian history. On the last page where it is an example of his riches, fine, but otherwise, I think it was an unnecessary repetitive detail.All in all it was a good chapter though it did get a little repetitive at some points. Some sentences seemed to be ones that I had already read in the previous chapterChapter 2: Making of the Indian Constitution: I couldn’t really find any errors here. The chapter was again well written and covered some really important debates. I particularly liked the one on a common civil code. The arguments of all the framers gave unique insight into the thought process back in those days.Also I really like how Balaji has been adding legendary and remarkable quotes at the beginning of each chapter and before related headings or subheadings.The fact that 3.4 crores were spent on framing the constitution was interesting but it did raise questions – how and why? In a famished post-Independence India why was so much money used for framing its constitution and how does framing a constitution need so much money?The end note on why the jury system was removed was another good piece of information (I have always wondered why we don’t have juries when I see legal cases in British TV shows) but putting it under “Making of the Indian Constitution” seemed odd.Chapter 3: Reorganizing India: The chapter missing from the contents. I found it. I had difficulty with these lines–· “Like the Andhrites, the Marathis have long fought for a separate state.” (We were in the past tense so far and the Marathis have what they wanted. The next sentence is also in the past tense. “… the Marathis had”?)· “…India’s large interior states – Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Chhattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand were created out of larger states.” (One, a full stop is missing after MP which confuses the reader for a moment. Two, writing – “Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh were created out of these states respectively” would have been more informative.The Introduction is well thought out. Relating the Telangana issue to India’s linguistic reorganization was a good move and so was the personal touch which helped lighten the heavily serious tone of the book for a moment.Again, high five for the rich and powerful Gujjus! PEPSU reminded me of Pepsi (yeah I am boring and dumb too).I am not sure if I agree that Chennai is hated by a large portion of Indian’s. As an Indian who has spent half his life down in south India and the other half in North India I have seen the cultures in both these regions closely and I have never really seen hatred between people along regional much less city based lines. If you ask me I love south Indians! I have some great south Indian friends too. There is certainly a little awkwardness and apprehension which I have witnessed firsthand but no hatred. The apprehension I believe is mainly because people have not really experienced each others culture.Overall the chapter cements how India’s “unity in diversity” has helped the country grow. “One destination, many paths” and the destination is indeed a well-developed and prosperous nation which proves to be the “welfare state” the constitution framers wanted it to be.Chapter 4: Ancient Enmities and Troubled Warriors: I had difficulty with these lines–· “In December1949, the controversy rose again as a group of idols allegedly sneaked into the now decrepit mosque in the dark of the night” (Did the idols sneak into the mosque themselves? The Muslims must have alleged that a group sneaked the idols in to the mosque. The Hindu priests might have claimed that they sneaked themselves in).· The heading –“Events Leading to the Demotionof the Mosque” (Demolition).· “Thus, the state suffers from various controversial laws that the army argues as necessary …” (…the army argues are necessary…?).· “…more emphasis on riot management and disaster control to quickly manage such crisis of the future”(…crisis In the future?)There is no denying that the Ayodhya issue is an important part of modern Indian history and continues to be a hotly debated problem even today. Well covered and fluidly written the introduction summarizes it and gives a good idea. That Balaji traveled some parts of India makes me realize that I might be wrong about what I said regarding the cultural differences but well I have been here for a relatively short time. We all have our own experiences, don’t we?Is “triple talaq” a thing? I have heard and read about the Muslim practice in middle school history books but never this term.The chapter intricately and in parallel touches on a lot of important happenings which actually builds a little tension in side my head –The Ayodhya issue, the Shah Bano case, rise of the BJP, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses and Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayana (which my parents and grand-mother talk about even today). I am familiar with these and now I’m actually excited to read what would happen next in a history book. Why did history suck, back in high school?“Mullah Mulayam” was again another first, point for hilarious details.The tension is built further with the introduction of the Khalistan issue, operation Blue star and the national emergency. These are some other hotly debated topics. The Kashmir issue rounds off the 3 most important problems in modern India. The chapter carries great detail. There are no unnecessary superfluous details. Balaji has written everything one needs to know.The conclusion just like Chapter 0 –gloom ridden yet hopeful, I believe echoes with every Indian heart.Chapter 5: Fighting for Water in Troubled Land: I had difficulty with these lines–· “</p><p>For the 15, 00 million people living in the subcontinent …” (bit of HTML?)A short chapter does a good job as it manages to cover relevant interstate and transnational water disputes. The chapter started covering the National water grid but just when it began to generate more interest bam, it ended. Balaji admitted he couldn’t go into the details because he isn’t an irrigational expert but I think given the avid researcher he is he could have given the readers more insight on this.Chapter 6: Fighting for Land in Troubled Waters: Found it again and now that’s art. The Titles are noticeably similar. Our writer is a clever artist and a good one at that. I had difficulty with these lines–· “This attack was caught by surprise and was forced to cover quickly coverup key assets like the Taj Mahal” (Repetition).· “We are in a terrible neighborhood and often was the target of invasions” (‘were often’ … or ‘India was in a …’?)· India is a responsible world citizen and is the among the largest contributor …”Points for the Dickens quote! The introduction which highlights how important the summer of 1991 was in human history is brilliant. How a 7 year old is ignorant of the world around him highlights the innocence of a child. It strikes an emotional cord and sadly reminds me of the recent slaughter of children in Peshawar.Reading how the writer and his family survived the post Rajiv – assassination riots during their vacation was intriguing. It was one of those moments in the book that held my breaths.The chapters may have a similar topic but deals with the problems at a different and much bigger scale. It was longer and covered India’s strategic position in the modern world neatly.The chapter could have used a better conclusion that quickly highlighted the theme of how India was fighting in troublesome waters. The title otherwise feels fancy but a little out of place.Chapter 7: Ocean of Tears: A very short chapter. I had difficulty with these lines–· “This is one of the reasons why you didn’t sea Indian empires …” (‘see’).3 major tragedies etched in Indian minds were recalled.I was living with my parents in an Indian Navy base a few hundred kilometers west of Chennai during the 2004 Tsunami. Though I was just in Grade 4 back then I remember the news coverage of the vexing disaster. The small section reminded me of that time.I am not sure if there are any other disasters that I might not have heard of. Unless any such disaster was missed this was a well written chapter and a good way to transit into the political calculus of the nation after two chapters on water and land disputes.Chapter 8: Political Calculus: Differentiation and Integration of India’s forgotten communities: I had difficulty with these lines–· “They were often given the worst of menial tasks- such as cleaning the toilet and doing anything that caste Hindus traditionally considered impure” (I think it was supposed to be … “Upper caste Hindus”)· “Dalits often lived in isolated quarters of the same village that the caste Hindus inhabited” (“Upper caste Hindus”)I have studied the Naxalbari movement and the consequent split in the rebels closely and I was a little disappointed that it wasn’t covered. But it was a good summary to a long term issue that troubles India to this day. I think many readers would have liked to know the difference between Maoists and Naxalites (I remember answering a question about this on Quora). It could have been a good detail to add.Good that the writer covered AFSPA but from whatever little I have read it has been an issue in Kashmir too. I would have liked to read more about that. This is a very controversial and widely debated act and more insight on this would have been appreciated. The section ends even before it starts.It was a good move to include women under this heading. The Nirbhaya case and the Prime ministers speech take you to the heart of the problem and make you realize the gravity of the issue.Chapter 9: The First Female Dictator: I had difficulty with these lines–· “In May 1974 ……This helped Indiabuy some time and distract her opponents. While the middle class came behind her, the opposition party under JP was not distracted” (Clearly we are talking about Indra)· “This time she listened to the counsel of her tweenageson ..” (Teenage right?)The best chapter in the Book of Struggle.It was a bold title, enough to capture the reader’s interest especially after the writer boldly referred to Rajiv Gandhi (The said dictator’s son) as the “worst Prime minister” India had.Good job with all the major statements and newspaper cuts back then. The description of the emergency was highly accurate given what my parents old me when I read it to them. A little more insight into the post emergency period such as court trails etc could have added more useful substance.Book of DreamsThe titles of the chapters in this section are so attractive that I am dying to read it. No chapters from this section are missing from the contents. A terrific and most fascinating introduction! I think a lot of people in India know about our mountain man Manjhi but the bit on the forest man and how the writer relates the dreams and determination of two unsung heroes to the dreams of over a billion Indians is brilliant.Chapter 10: India’s Tryst with the World: Problems –· “Thus, Modi might until 2016 and hope to revive a relationship …” (…might wait…)A high 5 to the writer for Article 51 (c)! I was the student council head at City Montessori School back in 2011 and recited this very article in front of a crowd of International Chief Justices who had gathered in City Montessori School, Kanpur Road, Lucknow. It reminded me of the amazing experience. I understand the importance of this article in the Indian constitution very well since this is the guiding principle of the annual chief justices conference that our school hosts every year.The chapter covers India’s foreign policy in great detail. It is properly time lined and highlighted under all major prime ministerial eras. After highlight all the reasons for a thorny relationship with Pakistan the line –“There is no reason why India and Pakistan can’t have a peaceful relationship.”Captures the imagination of people on both sides of the border.The part about China ends before it even begun while Bangladesh got way more coverage. This seemed a little out of place since China is as important to Indian interests. The section on Nepal was interesting since I always thought Nepal was a friendly partner. Also points for personally traveling and closely researching for this book.The rest of the chapter is fine. The conclusion where what Modi might do is certainly a list of possible ideas and does at times tend to lean in favor of the legendary leader who is commands a national wave in his approval (more pragmatic etc.). The points are all great and I hope to see the Minister achieve great heights in foreign policy while practicing realism.Chapter 11: Hop, Skip and Jump: The Story of Indian Economy: Problems –· “</p><p>It was the worst summer for India.”(HTML again?)I must say Balaji must have worked really hard selecting some gems to start his chapters with.The way the writer compares the plight of the Indian mothers to mother India is incredible. I think it will strike chord with people who faced the brunt of the depression in the economy back then.The proverbial shit part was repeated and this time it was censored unlike last time. Which is weird, since if you don’t have a problem with the word once you shouldn’t have a problem with it the second time. The phrase is used a third time while describing the rupee trends and this time again without the censoring.The economic period and its political angles in 1991-96 were well covered. Points for acknowledging RBI. I find it hard accepting that a 10 year old was so interested in economics but the times were different back then and it’s Balaji Vishwanathan we are talking about here so I think I can agree.The last part on Dhirubhai and the small hint at Modi (The fellow Gujrati) are a nice touch. We appreciate great entrepreneurs abroad but fail to understand the greatness of some gems among us.Chapter 12: The Great Political Tamasha: Problems –· “CPI and CPI(M) kind of lefties …” (…are kind of lefties …)The title is purely Indian at heart and will manage to win many Indian hearts!The numbers about the heredity problem in the parliament were shocking. More points for research. And I think everyone will agree with the writer that the 2014 elections were history defining. As a young Indian I consider myself lucky to be witnessing this period of Indian politics.The little “Chamchas” tucked away in a bracket induced a laugh! I think how the writer writes about the two major national parties Congress and BJP will dispel any doubts about his leaning towards a party. I remember Balaji posting a screen shot of a question on Quora that tried to corner him calling him a BJP propagandist. I think this bit is a slap on the faces of such people.In spite of the serious tone of the book it’s good that the writer engages in light hearted humor –“If you are forming a socialist coalition, two years is an unlucky interval”.The quick recap through the Indian politics till Modi’s rise is brilliant. Everything we have read so far falls into place and all those chapters and incidents in the book of struggles start making sense in a time lined political context.The last 10 points were good though point 3 needlessly mocked AAP in the end. The writer could have highlighted the mistakes and stopped. Mocking can raise questions like the “Propagandist” ones. Point 10 was again a good way of reminding political startups like AAP about the importance of scaling.Chapter 13: From Bullock Carts to Mars: Problems –· “Four years from the launch of the first rocket, India its one indigenous rocket –Rohini -75 –and it was successfully flown in…”(Seems something is missing after ‘India’ … completed maybe?)You just know what we want to read don’t you dear writer? After the recent MOM this title can get any Indian reader easily exited.Most Quorans must have read about Balaji’s meeting with the legendary Indian president. The short passing reference was a refresher.The photograph of the rocket head being carried on a bicycle was great. It recites the humble beginnings of India’s space programs and makes me swell with a sense of pride when I reflect upon what we have accomplished today.The 6 points on how space research helps in reducing poverty were a really important addition to the book. The point reiterated a very important point that was addressed earlier –Defense spending. Good details.I have read about NASA spin off technologies and I cannot agree more with point 4 in the section on the need of a Mars program. The rest of then details about the nuclear program are brief. There are many other important details that could have been included but this was a chapter mainly about our space endeavors so this can be ignored.Chapter 14: Rice, Cow and Zero: Ancient Indian Triumvirate in New Revolutions: Problems –· “This sustained public investments created a large tech work force & a knowledge network that was tapped …” (comma missing after ‘investments’)A moment of silence for those who didn’t understand the title, including me.(Dumb People).Read on to find out. A lot of information in the beginning of this chapter –Development of the US Silicon Valley, development of Bangalore and its high elevation is such that a lot of Quorans must have read, so there is a sense of familiarity here again.Again points for mentioning long forgotten heroes such as Dr. Surajit. After reading about the Green revolution and White revolution which people in my age group must have read about back in high school and later you understand the title. Rice: Green revolution, Cow: White Revolution and Zero: IT revolution. The ancient trio has been important and saved India in its post-Independence history.Chapter 15: Bombay Dreams: This is the book of dreams and this is the first title with the word ‘Dream’. You read the first point and you are confused –Is this even a history book? Read the second point and you get a clue. Third and you are sure what the writer is talking about –the Indian film industry.I am connecting with a lot of things in the book. Only recently I posted a question asking for a summary of 100 years of Indian cinema and added the film by Phalke sahib as the start of a long celluloid journey. Little did I know that motion pictures came to India long before this.After reading the chapter all I can say is: My question –Answered! The chapter manages to so vividly summarize the shifts in Indian cinema. The readers would have loved to read about some personal experiences and opinions but otherwise the chapter was perfect and rightly titled Bombay “Dreams”.Chapter 16: Score Kya hai? – The story of Indian Sports: Problems –· “India Hockey was unable to raise to the challenge …” (rise to)“Score kya hai?” –That touched a nerve given a lot of Indians must be doing this often in the middle of the ongoing India – Australia test series.Good that the writer chose to add the small detail about how India has no officially designated National sport. A lot of Indian’s wrongly assume its Hockey which is a misconception that I find hard convincing people about.I played book Cricket back when I was small child so I loved that bit! I wonder if new age kids have even heard about it. Good that the writer adds a small description of the game. The graphic was lovely.Now, if the writer could add brackets for currency conversion I believe he should have bothered adding English translations to Hindi lines such as –“Toss laga hua hoga …”. The point is adding the relevant stuff and skipping details that aren’t needed. Most educated Indians are familiar with both the US and Indian number system and will understand the conversion part (and I think so will the people in the states) but I don’t think a non-Hindi reader will understand the small sentence in Hindi, which can be disturbing in the middle of a book. There are more such sentences in the chapter.“Indian railways are the soul of India” –Perfectly captured! I have traveled in trains extensively and I am a first-hand witness to this.I love the personal tone of the chapter. Just when you are getting tired of two much history the writer times a good break. The mention of a second trio that the British left us resonates with the 14th Chapter –Chai, railways and Cricket. Though I am not sure if tea was something that British left us.Just when I start getting a little disappointed about how this chapter is titled the story of Indian sports but is concentrating just on Cricket the writer makes the right move and does a good job at quickly running through India’s other sporting endeavors giving right amount of weight to the sports talked about.The chapter ends on a high note with the grandly scripted story of India’s 1983 world cup adventure.Chapter 17: Into the Future: This is the last chapter and after all I have read my expectations are sky high.The chapter manages to meet my expectations and I’ll say it was by far the best chapter in the book of dreams. The 8 point plan for India’s future was brilliant and fascination. The section on removing graft was really good. The writer manages to concentrate on all priority issues. And if there one leaf that the Indian government can take out of this book then it’s this chapter.I have read the last poem by Frost before and it’s one of my favorites. I recited it as a part of my farewell speech when I completed my schooling so once again thanks for reminding me of some old memories!Next there are 16 pages of references whichI confess to not reading.Overall Book ReviewIf 0 –5 compare with poor to outstanding then I will give this book a 3.5 –something between good and very good. This was my first "out of coursework" history book and the experience was enlightening. Summarized analysis –· Good amount of research done. All major events in modern Indian history covered.· Some minor mistakes here and there. Typing errors, which are not good for any book.· The book falters sometimes while choosing the amount of weight some details deserve. While some unnecessary details were given repetitive and unneeded mention some important more relevant details were missing.· I am not an expert in modern Indian history so I can’t comment on any inaccuracies if there were any. The book otherwise does an outstanding job at carrying some fine details which other books I have read don’t.· Point for minor details and the travel done for researching for the book personally. This helps give a ground picture and not just researched bookish stuff.· It’s a history book but the writer manages to hold the readers interest with some important personal references while not delving too deep into them. Points for excellent chapter and content management.· Balaji has done a great job with his first book. This I think is a must read for all young Indian’s who are unfamiliar with modern Indian history. I think this will be my personal recommendation for people who are preparing for civil services.You sir have miles to go before you sleep. Good luck for this one and many book in the future!All quotes in this review are from Balaji Viswanathans book "From Tryst to Tendulkar".

TL;DR: Other answers have suggested that part of it may or may amount to a constitutional “power grab”, and/or subversion of the constitution. Without prejudice to whether that conclusion is right, and however you describe it, good or bad, then any grab that exists provably was planned by 2017 at the latest, and expressly made lawful in 2018 - to be triggered on exit day, exploitation postponed only by the transition period.Note: if it makes you feel more comfortable, feel free to recast any uses of the word “government” below to “executive” or “Whitehall”. Same difference. This really is not a party thing (despite my final Margaret Thatcher quote describing her own party, I also make it clear Jeremy Corbyn likely would have seized the same opportunities in exactly the same way)This answer began as a reply to Phil Booker’s very interesting answer to the OP. On reflection it’s better here…Sorry Phil. Don’t be alarmed. It’s just that one of the many pennies is finally dropping. I absolutely agree with you in principle, and constitutionally-philosophically you’re absolutely right. But legally? Up until 2017 we knew any such Agreement instantly would trigger a constitutional crisis and open up legal challenges by the ERG and any other pro-exit folk so inclined. But 2017 was the year everything changed...Post-exit rule by decree - 2017 origin and developmentI’ll briefly trace the mechanics, since 2017, of how rule-by-decree carefully and intricately has been embedded into the English and UK constitutions. I’ll do this mainly by some document snapshots - but feel free to read in any ordersnapshot - what the parliament reported in 2017 about the EUW Bill;snapshot - what the parliament reported in 2020 about two of the enacted EUW Acts; and a number of otherssnapshot - an academic analysis of the enacted EUWA 2018; andA (very brief!) guide to how a layperson might parse EUWA 2018 to see some of the issues for themselves and draw their own conclusions, via certain words used incessantly.These can be read in any order, but I’d suggest the final “guide” be read either first or last.What the Select Committee reported in 2017 (original emphasis)“We are concerned about the delegated powers the Government is seeking in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers would create what is, in effect, an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of effectively unlimited powers upon which the Government could draw. They would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence. We stress the need for an appropriate balance between the urgency required to ensure legal continuity and stability, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and control of the executive.”Reference: HL Select Committee on the Constitution, Chapter 3, at paragraph 44The URL given above contains the whole of Chapter 3. It’s only 29 paragraphs in total, readable by layfolk. and well worth reading.Note the reference to government assurances re sunset clauses, in paragraphs 49–50!What the same Select Committee reported in 2020 (original emphasis)By 2020 an across-the-board trend had been identified, and become more severe. I limit myself to partial quotations from 15 paragraphs of the 80-paragraph document.“…[after specimen examples]…29. In our previous work on the use of delegated powers, we considered the trend for Government bills to include powers for ministers to create or vary criminal offences and to establish public bodies. We concluded that this trend was “constitutionally unacceptable” where such powers involve matters of public policy which warrant the scrutiny afforded to primary legislation. The process of the UK leaving the EU does not change this principle. Recent analysis suggests the creation of criminal offences using delegated powers with potentially significant penalties is neither a recent nor rare phenomenon.30. The creation of criminal offences and the establishment and empowerment of public bodies by delegated powers is in general constitutionally unacceptable. Nor should delegated powers be used to change in any significant way the category of a criminal offence or to increase the level of punishment applicable to any criminal offence beyond a maximum penalty, which should always be stated on the face of any bill. If, in exceptional cases, minor criminal offences are to be created or changed by statutory instruments, these should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.31. Another issue with the delegated powers in some Brexit bills was the use of illustrative language which sought to specify but not limit broad powers. The Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as brought to the Lords stated “Regulations under subsection (1) may, for example …”, and went on to give a non-exhaustive list of uses to which the powers might be put. This was challenged by members of the House of Lords during debate as “unacceptable” on the basis that it meant that the power was effectively “unconstrained in relation to the type of healthcare which may be funded”. The words “for example” were replaced at report stage with “only do one or more of the following things …”.…33. The DPRRC drew attention to the use of the phrase “in connection with” a power in that Bill which made it effectively open-ended. The phrase “in connection with” was also used in respect of the broad delegated power in the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL], which we and the DPRRC concluded was inappropriate.34. Drafting techniques such as “for example” and “among other things” are not necessarily inappropriate. They become problematic when used in relation to broad delegated powers. Given the breadth of many of the powers sought in the Brexit bills, and the lack of policy to indicate how they might be used, such illustrative language emphasises the wide range of circumstances to which such powers might be applied. It is difficult for Parliament to predict how these powers might be used by a future government and where the line is to be drawn between their lawful and unlawful application. These concerns are compounded when the powers are not circumscribed by sunset clauses or other safeguards.35. Delegated powers should be sought only when their use can be clearly anticipated and defined. Illustrative language that does not meaningfully constrain broad powers is inappropriate and should not be used.…40. In exceptional circumstances when broad delegated powers are necessary, they should be constrained as far as is possible and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In most cases such powers should be limited by sunset clauses or other means.41. We recognised that the Government would require some Henry VIII powers to deliver legal certainty and continuity after Brexit. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided these wide powers but made the most significant subject to a sifting mechanism to allow for additional scrutiny where appropriate. We are concerned that the subsequent Brexit bills, including the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, contain further wide powers which are not subject to the same scrutiny process.Powers to amend retained EU law outside of EUWA scope and safeguards42. The powers in the EUWA to amend ‘retained EU law’ were accompanied by safeguards, in recognition of their breadth and the fact that they involved changes to policy in areas that had previously been determined at EU level. A feature of the Brexit bills that followed was powers to amend retained EU law without equivalent constraints and safeguards. For example, section 8 of the EUWA enables ministers by regulations to make such provision as they consider appropriate “to prevent, remedy or mitigate” deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal.43. However, other bills contained powers that were just as broad, and in some cases broader, than those in the EUWA, but subject to weaker safeguards. For example,……45. In our report on what became the EUWA, we were concerned about the lack of clarity on the status of retained EU law. Following our report and discussions with ministers, the Bill was amended to differentiate between retained direct principal EU legislation and retained direct minor EU legislation, roughly corresponding to primary and secondary legislation in the domestic context. This distinction is particularly important in relation to delegated powers to amend the different types of retained EU law and the scrutiny process for the exercise of these powers. Some of the Brexit bills introduced subsequently in the 2017–19 session failed to reflect this conceptual differentiation in the powers they contained.46. The Government must ensure that all legislation that provides powers to amend retained EU law includes the distinction between principal and minor EU law.47. Another feature of some of the powers in Brexit bills has been the Government seeking powers for convenience rather than necessity. For example,……48… We concluded that the procedure was being sought for non-urgent reasons as a convenient means of executive law-making. We agreed with the DPRRC that this procedure “should be confined to urgent cases”.49. The task of delivering Brexit should not involve the creation of delegated powers for executive convenience—or for issues not related to Brexit. These powers should be strictly limited in scope to address specific policy challenges. There should also be no proliferation of the made-affirmative procedure, which should be used only for urgent matters related to the process and immediate effects of Brexit.…”Reference: HL Select Committee on the Constitution, 6th Report of Session 2019–21.An academic analysis of EUWA 2018[Conclusion]“…It seems Brexit not only threatens economic prospects, the balance of executive and parliamentary power, clarity and legal certainty, human rights, and not least Northern Ireland and the Irish peace process, but the very integrity of the United Kingdom itself.The EUWA has serious implications for the British Constitution. It is an opaque statute, very difficult even for experts to comprehend. Many of its provisions lack legal clarity and certainty, such as the post-Brexit status of ‘retained EU law.’ This lack of clarity and certainty has serious implications for the rule of law. It shifts the balance of power in an unparalleled manner from MPs to Ministers, enabling a great deal of ministerial legislation… It also fails to protect human rights, most notably by explicitly excluding the EU Charter from its scope. Lastly, in its provisions on devolution, it fails to respect the logic of the devolution settlement, and threatens the integrity of the UK.And yet this is the piece of legislation set to become a crucial (perhaps the most crucial) element of the Constitution if we enter a post-Brexit world. Will the loser of the Brexit process be the British Constitution? … And the consequences may be extreme. An assessment of the EUWA does not suggest it is designed as a vehicle for Parliament to ‘take back control’, but rather to increase the power of the executive…” [my emphasis]Reference: The Constitutional Implications of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018: A Critical Appraisal(disclaimer: iirc I’ve communicated on occasion with Professor Douglas-Scott since 2016, but not about UK EUW legislation, only Sexit)Some lay hints as to parsing key implications from the primary source of lawThe EUWA 2018 is difficult for anyone to read, because everything is interrelated: too much spaghetti law and teleportation of the meat into squirrelled-away Schedule 8 and so on. Other than that, the 100+ pages isn’t too bad by UK standards (complex by EU law standards for obvious reasons, but we won’t be letting anyone but good British lawyers anywhere near our laws any more so hey ho that’s a good thing innit? ;))Link to European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018Click on “Print Options”Click on PDF in “The Whole Act” sectionOpen the pdfHave a quick look at section 20 which contains definitions. With that in mind, skim-read sections 7 and 8. Note the references to “primary legislation”.There follows am explanation of some key differences between primary legislation and “subordinate” (aka “delegated”) legislation (which for brevity I won’t fully explain so treat with caution!).… Primary legislation requires a vote. Delegated legislation does not. The vast majority of UK legislation is “delegated” by the parliament. Delegation (very broadly) was invented about five centuries ago by way of an arrangement with Henry VIII. “Delegation” is done within primary legislation, permitting Ministers to enact free-standing rules within a scope that (until now) has to be specified by the parliament. Over the last half-century or so, very few of these laws get to be voted on by anybody in the normal way. Parliamentary enactments each year include a handful of Bills being turned into Acts (depending on power conflicts in Whitehall), but literally thousands of laws per annum delegated to Ministers alone. Given that on average only about one of these thousands per annum get rejected in a parliamentary vote (if only because most fly past without MPs even noticing them), the delegation power is extremely powerful. It’s therefore also where parliamentary control over the executive is most crucial, by way of the parliament’s direct and Bill-specific scoping of Ministerial lawmaking powers.Once delegated legislation gets crunched through the parliamentary sausage-machine, whether voted or not voted, it’s law. It still can be challenged in Court as unlawful ab initio - if and ONLY if the Minister is judged to have gone beyond the scope of the powers delegated by the parliament (a subset of the “ultra vires” concept).Do a text search on “resolution” . There are 71 instances. Quickly track through them to get a feel (ignoring section 13). You’ll notice that every amendment to UK or (many) devolved laws must be passed through the material parliament / assembly by way of a “resolution”. This is perfectly normal in every way….…until you realize two things. First - that “resolution” (undefined in section 20) is in practical terms code for the parliamentary procedures associated with passing delegated legislation. For which voting is optional (“affirmative” as distinct from “negative” procedure for resolutions, normally stipulated in Bills but now effectively at government discretion.Secondly - remember the references to “primary legislation”? The effective government business process here is to take any or all existing primary legislation it wishes, and transmute it in any way it wishes into new law. As if it were delegated legislation, but without the parliament permitted to define the delegated scope. And without the parliament being able to “interfere” by debating, speechifying, reading, reporting, scrutinizing, or (mostly) even voting any more.On top of that, where there are no scope restrictions, then delegated legislation (generally) cannot directly be dis-applied (“struck down”) in Court (only its application to individuals, and no longer on the grounds of scope)If that is right, in constitutional terms we may have returned to the days before the amicable arrangements our cash-strapped Henry VIII made to play nice with his parliament (that so regrettably controlled the purse-strings). Instead of ruling entirely by decree. Full circle.In turn, it follows that from 1 January 2021 (exit day having been effectively if not technically postponed until then because until then our now abolished Charter rights arguably might have been used to strike down delegated legislation), parliamentary sovereignty has died. RIP.Pity about that, but hey, that’s we voted for? Innit?This is why for years I’ve been describing EUWA 2018 a parliamentary suicide note.Nobody in the nation except for a few geeky lawyers and academics appeared to notice that that the 2018 exit bill was about anything but the exit. Except for many MPs who begged that the cancelled sunset clauses be restored, and tried to amend the Bill accordingly. All such amendments were rejected by the UK government and defeated in the parliament.So. While Remoaners and Quitlings were snapping at each other over who was to blame for the government’s incompetence in supposedly restoring parliamentary sovereignty by means of exiting from the EU, the government was focusing its considerable energies on a very different exit. The exit of parliamentary sovereignty from the UK. Was the exit from the EU ever about anything more than a pretext?Why can’t any of this be constitutionally challenged?Theoretically it’s no longer justiciable in England by the English. The English ERG folk and other English pro-exiters can no longer do a “Gina Miller” judicial review on the government for unconstitutional legislation whether driven by Brussels or George Soros or The Joker or any other ERG hate figure du jour. Not even Gina Miller can do a “Gina Miller” judicial review on the government any more, in respect of any such legislation whether proposed or enacted. Unless of course she’s an EU citizen….Happily, however, about four million people in this country can. The beneficiaries of the New Apartheid legislation enacted by that nice Mr Johnson making English citizens second-class citizens in their own country. To whom? To the resident EU citizens, of course! That also started at the end of the transition period. Even the new media is starting to clock this - see. Let’s wait and see, hey? :) But there are dangers inherent in “Johnny Foreigner” acquiring a legally (as well as economically) privileged position over English nationals in England, Not least: the UK’s possible fissioning far more savagely and rapidly than we’ve already seen.So. That nice Mr Johnson comprehensively has stabbed his ERG “allies” in the back, along with pretty much everyone who voted for him. Impressive! But we mustn’t laugh at the remorseless rise of mediocrity to absolute power. The sad reality is that in 2018 parliamentary sovereignty, for which at least some of the pro-exit folk on this forum have assured us they were fighting, was given a series of lethal injections beginning in 2017. If the parliament’s reports are to be taken seriously, it can be inferred that nice Mr Johnson’s government has only accelerated thr trend. What once was obvious only to lawyers, and in fairness many MPs, slowly will start to become obvious to everyone. Sure, they’ll sensibly boil the frog slowly to delay and “normalize” public awareness - but now all UK governments, without exception, can now rule by decree. Pandora’s box is wide open. It’s the Jeremy Corbyn dream.What does “rule by decree” mean, in context?All primary legislation, indefinitely, now can be enacted (should any government so elect) without parliamentary scrutiny, debate, or even voting, via the negative resolution procedure for secondary (“delegated to Ministers”) legislation. Effectively, all legislation going forward can be Henry VIII powers, formally delegated by the parliament to the monarch, who now is even more a captive of the government than is the parliament. Which works just fine if you have an exceptionally brilliant person at the helm. Someone as spectacularly brilliant (foreign adventures aside) as Henry VIII himself. So long as they don’t start chopping heads off, or any of the other stuff that governments like doing but temporarily suspended after one monarch got the chop himself - by the parliament. Suspended until now, anyway - because, apropos parliamentary sovereignty over legislation, the parliament now is a dead parrot (albeit a zombie one).As a corollary, the terrible capriciousness of ministerial diktat, so accurately lampooned by Lord Atkin in his doomed Liversidge v Anderson - Wikipedia dissent, might now accompany every law, not merely badly drafted ones."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master, that's all."Rule by decree didn’t have to be written into the January 2020 parliamentary enactments. It was already redundant then. Because it was quietly pre-written into our law in 2018, to be triggered by the exit itself, then inconveniently extended by the transition period until today. The government simply decided to double-down in 2020 by increasing its powers to rule without the parliament.Is this a power grab?Answers on a post card. I tend to go with Professor Douglas-Scott’s conclusion, repeated from above: “An assessment of the EUWA does not suggest it is designed as a vehicle for Parliament to ‘take back control’, but rather to increase the power of the executive”However there’s a more interesting issue. if you wish to describe it as a power grab (by anyone at all), or subversion of the constitution, or any other nasty names, then you also must face up to its corollary. That, from the documents set out above, this very carefully has been planned and managed since 2017. The government knew exactly the implications of what it was doing, throughout. It’s all there in black and white print, in the extracts and document references to parliamentary reports set out above.What does this mean for our understanding of UK parties and governments?Evidently, the party of government, over several decades, has morphed into the most radical revolutionary party in UK and English history; completed by the 2019 purges. Parliamentary sovereignty defines the constitution like literally nothing else. You break parliamentary sovereignty? You break the constitution. And along with it any sane claim to conservatism. This is why I, a mere jobbing lawyer, unlike my smarter colleagues, have become increasingly exercised by this exit frolic. Take back control? By eliminating Parliamentary sovereignty? Interesting method! Another possible reason that (vitally for the exit to occur) Jeremy Corbyn was so equivocal (“Hmm. Hey Diane, what might a future Labor government do now that those useful idiots have eliminated the only check on our power?”_…If you disagree as to the government party’s radical anti-conservatism, or when it first started shifting in that direction,(EDITED) I refer you to Jonathan Sumption’s lecture (from the day before exit), in which he expands on his casual Reith lecture observation regarding extremists (named on this occasion!) infiltrating, colonizing and purging both of the two major parties…… but I’ll leave the last word to Jeremy Corbyn’s centralizing soulmate:“We are not a ‘conservative’ party… The name is all wrong.” - Margaret Thatcher

My goals here are three-fold:To give non-Canadian readers a window into the story that’s going to determine whether Trudeau gets re-elected this year.To give Canadian readers a clearer and more complete sense of what’s happened than is easily found in any other single source.To make a few arguments re: what does and doesn’t matter here, and why. (And in the case of what doesn’t matter, outlining a theory on why some are pretending otherwise.)By necessity, what follows isn’t exactly short. But I’ve done my best to keep it as interesting and concise as possible while still hitting the above goals.For those unfamiliar with my writing, two quick notes: (1) My only interest in the partisan side of politics is deconstructing it. I have no team or tribe. (2) To ensure the most accurate takes possible, I offer rewards for all corrections.Ok, enough housekeeping.[EDIT: My original answer here was written March 1st. I returned on March 13th to make a few minor corrections and to address some common questions / objections. Where it made sense, I added edit snippets throughout the main text. Where I felt additions would be too distracting, I saved new commentary for the end. You can track all changes via the answer’s edit log.]Background ContextHere’s what brought us to today, in six bullet points:SNC-Lavalin is an EPC firm, which is to say that they’re the folks governments turn to when they want to contract out large infrastructure projects. SNC has roughly 50k employees globally, including 9k or so in Canada, with some 700 of those Canadian jobs being in the Montreal area (where SNC is currently headquartered). As recently as last October, SNC was worth about $9bn CAD, which is a fair amount for a Canadian company. If not quite a crown jewel, they were right at the top of the next tier down.SNC engaged in some shady stuff between 2001 and 2011, leading to a mire of lawsuits and investigations. As evidence of their misdeeds mounted, thousands of employees left, the board was made over, and a host of new compliance procedures were put in place to ensure that The Bad Times were behind them.In July 2012, the Harper government (the Conservative majority that preceded Trudeau’s Liberal majority) had Canada’s national contracting office revise their anti-corruption rules, with the net effect being that any vendor found guilty of certain crimes would be “rendered ineligible” for future federal contracts for a period of 10 years (reducible to 5 with good behavior). The Conservatives also made further amendments over the following years to reduce options for leniency, largely (it’s assumed) to position themselves against the Liberals, who had a party history of bedfellowing with shady corporations.For obvious reasons, SNC didn’t care much for this. They began lobbying for Canada to adopt what many other countries call deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), which are something like plea deals, where a corporation can admit wrongdoing and submit to certain penalties and government-supervised renovations without bearing the full weight of a potentially crippling criminal conviction. (The logic here being that it’s not generally fair or useful to punish an entire enterprise for the sins of a few, especially if those few are no longer there.)The Trudeau government, which came to power in late 2015, ultimately did move forward with creating a DPA regime this past September. Unsurprisingly, SNC was quick to request an invitation for entry, arguing that they’d already done all the sorts of penance and reform that a DPA would require, and that further punishment was basically just value-destruction with no upside.The person responsible to decide on SNC’s request said no, setting off a chain of dramanoes just now reaching their crescendo.Now, before we can unpack the decision itself, we have to make a quick detour into the structure of the Canadian government — which I promise isn’t (quite) as boring as it sounds!Super Fun Learning Time!Trudeau, in addition to being Prime Minister (PM), is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing a riding in Montreal. That’s because in Canada the PM is always head of the executive branch and a sitting member of the legislature, with those two branches of government being heavily intertwined.[EDIT: Mike Hewson pointed out that all ministerial roles, including PM, can legally be filled by Senators and/or credentialed professionals, though this is only applicable in fringe cases where no suitable MP is found for a given role, which almost certainly would never be the case for PM — though this did happen twice in Canada’s early days when the sitting PM died in office.](I’m going to skip over the roles of the Queen, her Governor General, her Privy Council, and the Canadian Senate — mostly because those are all legacy institutions that hold marginal effective power today. If a PM has the backing, or “confidence”, of a majority of individual MPs, the PM effectively is the government. They own nearly all executive powers, and have enormous influence over legislation. Individual MPs have latitude to vote as they will, but those in the PM’s party will generally support the PM on all but rare “vote your conscience” items. The only part of the federal government that a majority-party PM has no real influence over is the judicial branch.)Anyway, there’s this other thing that the Harper government did (again, presumably) to brand themselves in distinction to the scandal-ridden Liberal Party of the early 2000s.In brief:The Conservatives instituted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was to be subordinate to (but somehow independent of) the Department of Justice.The Department of Justice is headed by the Attorney General (AG), who is almost always a sitting MP selected for said purpose by the PM. In this new arrangement, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would be a civilian appointed by the sitting Attorney General.The idea here is that the DPP would be two steps removed from the PM, which would theoretically protect the former from undue political influence from the latter as far as deciding whom to prosecute.(Oh, and by the way, the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice, which is a totally different hat that the same person always wears. It’s a confusing duality not worth getting into here, outside the basic idea that the same person is to be considered independent or not-so-independent depending on the hat they’re wearing in a given instant, which often leads to all the obvious complexities that one would expect.)Now, if you’re wondering what the division of power is between the AG and DPP on a practical level, there’s a handy guide for that very thing: Relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.In a way, it’s the most “Canadian Politics in a Nutshell” thing you could ever read — almost 4,000 words of high-sounding rhetoric (“independence!”, “justice!”, “accountability!”) that accomplishes basically nothing outside of making the system even more convoluted and bureaucratic.Two reasons I say that:The DPP serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves at the pleasure of the PM. While this gap between the DPP and PM probably does make it slightly harder for an otherwise good PM to improperly influence an otherwise good DPP, it doesn’t at all solve the problem that a bad PM would appoint a complicit AG, who would hire a complicit DPP.The AG can overrule and/or sideline the DPP at their own discretion, making the whole thing kinda pointless. (The AG would have to publish a memo of sorts explaining why, but that’s about it.)The obvious (if uncharitable) reading here is that Harper wasn’t all that interested in changing anything, so much as he was very interested in the optics of being seen to change things. That this chess move would also make it near impossible for his successor to reverse the changes without massive blowback (despite the changes being largely symbolic) was just an added bonus.[EDIT: For more on Harper’s presumed insincerity, see this combined with this. Also note that the current chair of SNC’s board was a key figure in Harper’s government for three years, as he’d been in several governments prior. He was expecting his calls to be answered, regardless of who was PM at the time. The idea of a Conservative government handling the SNC case any differently on a practical level seems like bad fiction to me, and I’m not sure on which grounds someone could even argue otherwise. I suspect Harper was unsurprised to hear that his trap had worked, if also a bit surprised to learn it was the SNC deferral that sprang it.]This all in mind, let’s get back to the current narrative.A Series of Unfortunate DecisionsBefore the new law even came into effect, the SNC began pushing hard for their chance at a deferral. But Canada’s current DPP, Kathleen Roussel, for reasons still unknown, decided that she was going to tell SNC “no deal”, leading her to issue an internal memo to this effect on September 4th of last year. The contents of said memo aren’t public at this point, having been private to the AG. But the fact of the decision was communicated to the PM’s office, which Trudeau and co. were, well, not entirely satisfied with. This set off a chain of contacts over the next three months or so, which broadly consisted of the PM’s office looking for the AG to either reconsider or allow an outside legal opinion.As to Trudeau’s motivations here, we can make some reasonable guesses:SNC is headquartered in Trudeau’s home city.Trudeau has an election coming up, and Quebec often plays the deciding role. SNC is a big deal to Quebec, and a conviction could cause deep harm to SNC. (At the least, the conviction would play poorly, whatever the ultimate economic consequences.)The Liberal Party has always been corporate-friendly (in ways both good and bad). In particular, they’ve largely been against value-destruction as a general principle. And Trudeau almost certainly sees refusing SNC’s request to be textbook value-destruction.Anyway, whatever his motivations or their relative weighting, Trudeau’s entreaties to Wilson-Raybould to intervene didn’t change her mind. But they did cause significant friction between them, which Trudeau was unable to keep entirely private. This was a gift that Andrew Scheer feasted upon. (Scheer is the current leader of the Conservatives, and Trudeau’s chief competition in this year’s election.)As a further gift to Scheer, Trudeau initiated a cabinet shuffle in January, which included the reassignment of Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs (with additional responsibilities in National Defence). While this was met with some suspicion, the real drama began on February 7th when The Globe and Mail published a rundown of the spreading rumors. This in turn led to someone asking Trudeau a few days later if he and Wilson-Raybould were still on good terms. His answer was to the effect of “well, she’s still here working for me, which should be its own answer” — which, uh, backfired spectacularly in that she resigned a few hours later.[EDIT: The timing of an ethics probe may have also played into her timing. Also, it isn’t clear how aware Trudeau was of how Wilson-Raybould felt until the shuffle. She says it should have been obvious. He says it wasn’t. As of this time, no documentary evidence has come out proving either right or wrong.]Her resignation obviously raised even more questions, which ultimately led to her appearing before the House Justice Committee to address concerns over whether Trudeau and co. had crossed any legal lines in their lobbying.The FalloutYou can read Wilson-Raybould’s opening remarks here.Being as objective as able, I’d summarize them as follows:Trudeau and team lobbied aggressively on SNC’s behalf, and he made it clear that he was displeased with her and Roussel for being inflexible.While she didn’t accuse them of breaking any hard laws, she feels they did cross well into “inappropriate” territory, both in tone and frequency of approach, including after she’d basically said “no means no”.She feels that she was “demoted” because of her stand.All said, she seemed entirely credible. Her notes were thorough and it’s hard to imagine her having lied on any point. Even so, there’s the open question of interpretation, especially as it concerns that last bullet point.While there’s much that’s still unclear, we do know that, as far as immediate causes go, she was reassigned as part of a larger cabinet shuffle triggered by someone else’s resignation. This in mind, Trudeau’s official position has been “had Scott Brison not stepped down, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.”Now, Scheer is obviously hoping for a smoking gun that will prove this statement false. But we don’t have one yet, and it doesn’t seem all that likely to me that one exists. Could Trudeau have opportunistically used the shuffle to punish her? It’s possible. But it’s also possible that he was simply annoyed at how she handled the whole affair, leading him to decide that he’d prefer her elsewhere. I can see how either scenario could be viewed as objectionable, but I’m less sure that even the former rises to the level of criminal obstruction. Whatever Trudeau’s motivations in shuffling her, his replacement AG has so far left the existing DPP in place, which means nothing involving SNC-Lavalin has actually changed. I suppose you could still argue pettiness, but pettiness isn’t quite a crime.[EDIT: There’s also the possibility that there was no pettiness at all and that the shuffle was exactly and only for the reasons that Trudeau’s former top aide suggested. I found his testimony compelling in its own right, and I’m not sure how to adjudicate between the two accounts outside further evidence. My lean is that it feels a little unlikely for there not to have been some secondary motive, however small. But YMMV. I get into this a bit more in the edits at the end.]Anyway, all those arguments are meaningless to Scheer, mostly because it’s very convenient for him to not consider them.(Note: As I don’t want to give anyone cause to believe that I’m meaningfully biased, I’ll point out before continuing that one of the last two votes I cast was for a Conservative. And I’m fine with throwing more votes in their direction — just as soon as they stop nominating feckless lizardpeople like Andrew Scheer.)A Study in InsincerityWhile I wasn’t much of a Harper fan, my dislike for him was mostly benign. Had he won against Trudeau in 2015, I’d have made a vaguely disappointed clicking noise and then gone back to whatever I was doing. I ultimately voted against him because I was displeased with how he seemed to court the alt-right as it became clear he was going to lose — but his work as PM was largely … fine?Andrew Scheer, however, is a different category of conservative. Andrew Scheer, in a nutshell, is the kind of person you’d get if you isolated all the unhealthy impulses that Harper struggled with and then doused them with growth hormones (and then also stripped most of Harper’s policy/strategy IQ).He made a speech yesterday in response to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, of which I’ll share just one excerpt:The testimony Canadians have just heard from the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould tells the story of a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. A Prime Minister who allows his partisan political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law. A Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins. And a Prime Minister who has allowed a systemic culture of corruption to take root in his office and those of his most senior cabinet and public service colleagues.Now, much of this is just your run-of-the-mill disingenuous nonsense. But even in that ignoble context, I still find this one line incredible:a Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins.Scheer seems to be making one of two absurd arguments here: (1) that “the government” is somehow separable from the declared values/views/proposals of those specifically elected to form said government; (2) that a majority government should set the values/views/proposals they were elected on aside so as to privilege the values/views/proposals which voters judged less attractive.I honestly don’t know which one of those ideas is less preposterous, but that Scheer would employ that kind of cutesy phrase despite it not actually meaning anything is one of many reasons I hope he’s never allowed to run anything more important than a blender. (Like, is it better if he just didn’t think through how dumb the sentence was, or if he did and said it anyway? And in the case of the latter, what does it say about the state of things if he judged this a viable tactic?)[EDIT: I don’t know how I forgot this, but by far the funniest thing here is that Harper had literally renamed the Government of Canada as “The Harper Government” in 2011! And guess who worked for Harper at the time? I wonder if he was this passionate about the distinction then?]Anyway, let’s shift from the statement to the motivation behind the statement. Who benefits from the SNC being prosecuted? Scheer! Who benefits from Trudeau being perceived as trying to interfere with this prosecution? Scheer! He wins either way. The only way he doesn’t win is if he’s forced to actually give his own opinion on why SNC does or doesn’t deserve a deferral.Lucky for him, no one is going to force him to do that — which I’d argue is symptomatic of the defining problem in this whole mess.About That DeferralBefore we move on to why Scheer is able to get away with all this, a few final words about SNC.What Scheer would prefer lost in the hubbub is that a deferral is not an exoneration. It’s a decision to choose a scalpel over a sledgehammer. While there may be times when the latter is the more appropriate tool, Scheer hasn’t really made any argument to that end (nor will he on this side of the election). His argument is simply “the DPP said sledgehammer, so Trudeau has to use the sledgehammer, which I don’t otherwise have an opinion on, but hey it does win me a lot of votes! — and PS, if Trudeau argues against the sledgehammer, it’s because he’s a coward/crook who hates Canada!”Trudeau’s response hasn’t been “c’mon, let’s let them off lightly because they’re my yacht buddies and besides I need their votes!” but rather “let’s pursue a form of justice which doesn’t introduce unnecessary collateral damage — and PS, I’d rather keep those votes thank you very much”.All else being even, it isn’t unreasonable for politicians to lean towards decisions that benefit them in the polls. But all else isn’t even here. One of these decisions is better for Canada, and one is worse.Now, is it possible that the DPP and AG actually had good reasons to stick it to SNC? Could be. The problem is that neither explained their reasons, both citing that it would be inappropriate to comment while SNC is pursuing their appeal of said decision in the courts. (This is probably a reasonable position now, though I’m less sure it’s a good reason for not having explained the decision at the time.)[EDIT: Just to be super clear on this point: the DPP’s Section 13 memo was read by the AG and no one else that we know of. The AG’s deputy didn’t read it. No one in the PM’s office read it (though Wilson-Raybould says a copy was forwarded, and then re-sent again after her conversion with Wernick on Dec 18th). SNC was never told why they were rejected. It’s all a mystery. And despite this being the first decision on this law, the AG refused to solicit an external opinion from a former Chief Justice of Canada. The AG had the right to make this set of decisions, but it’s hard to understand the logic here.]While their silence keeps us from perfect clarity, there are two dominant theories for why the DPP and AG decided against SNC’s plea:They agreed on the technical argument that SNC is legally ineligible for deferral on the explicit grounds of national economic interests (which is to say that Canada can’t use that as a factor in its judgment).They found compelling evidence that SNC hasn’t reformed and/or wouldn’t offer good faith cooperation in context of a plea.In the first case, it’s hard to argue against this reading of the law being facially correct. Even so, there are non-trivial counter-arguments: (i) Governments make this kind of self-benefiting decision all the time. The game is that you simply list reasons other than “national economic interest” when filling out the paperwork, regardless of how important said interests actually were. Now, maybe countries shouldn’t do this. But they do. And while I personally see the appeal of “let’s go by the book, even if mostly alone, even if that’s a net tax”, I don’t think people who take the other side are necessarily bad. (ii) If you have enough other reasons outside the national economic interest, it isn’t clear to me that it being helpful to the national economic interest is bad. (iii) Pragmatic flexibility is half the Liberal Party’s platform. Most voters who had an informed opinion here would have expected Trudeau to take precisely the stance he has. As such, you could argue that this is a form of mandate that he’s actually responsible to uphold.In the second case, the counter-argument is simply that over-ruling the PM’s judgment shouldn’t actually be their call, regardless of what the current letter of the law may say. Remember that this whole new structure was a Harper innovation, and arguably just a symbolic one. And while the AG has always theoretically been independent from the PM’s office, there are realist arguments for why this distinction has always been something of a legal fiction.(To be clear, we don’t know which — if either — of these arguments Trudeau is leaning on, largely because we don’t know what Roussel’s thinking was.)Formalist v. Realist(As preface for what follows, I’m not trying to convince anyone that one particular school of thought here is better or more right than the other. My point is that both are valid, in as much as they’re both logically robust frameworks that you could believe and defend without being inherently bad or crazy.)As to what I mean by the realist school, there’s a significant parallel here (in a narrow way) to the current situation in the US with Trump. When his new AG (who at the time wasn’t yet his AG, but who had been an AG before under Bush Sr.) issued an unsolicited memo outlining an argument that Trump was constitutionally OK to reassign and fire his way to outcomes he wanted without this implying actual obstruction of justice, this was widely met with cries of “treason!” — despite (a) that not being what treason means, and (b) it being a coherent and well-argued theory of law.Now, sure, you or I may disagree with this philosophically. And we may be right! But the idea that the chief executive has extraordinary and unilateral powers over nearly all executive affairs isn’t necessarily as dangerous as it may seem at first blush.Over-simplifying this a bit, imagine two competing scenarios:You restrain the executive’s powers with a complicated set of rules which are really hard to enforce with any consistency and which involve endless subjective judgment calls and which can easily be misused by a belligerent opposition to thwart the executive doing its job and which really don’t offer much effective restraint anyway.You restrain the executive’s powers with two simple levers: (a) in the case of gross judgment, you vote the executive out next election; (b) in the case of gross judgment that will cause more harm if left that long, you vote them out by pressuring your reps for impeachment / a no-confidence vote.Now, yes, there are real objections to this second system, which we’ll get to in a second. But just keep this idea of two approaches in mind as we consider a statement from Wilson-Raybould’s remarks yesterday:We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not.This is basically an argument for that first system — which, on its face, seems entirely reasonable. The rule of law is obviously good! And independence sure sounds like something we’d want! But step back for a minute. Let’s recall that the AG is a member of the executive (not the judiciary). They serve at the pleasure of the PM. And while we’d want the AG to have their own personal philosophy and set of legal interpretations, they weren’t elected to enact those. (In the US, the AG isn’t even an elected official at all!) And if the PM/President happens to have a different philosophy and set of legal interpretations (which they, in effect, were elected to enact), it isn’t at all obvious why they must lose in the event of a tie.By way of analogy, imagine that I’m a hiring manager working directly under the CEO in a public company. She’s the one hired by the shareholders (via the board), not me. She’s hired me to be an extension of her vision. To the degree that I do this well, all is well. But if she and I disagree on whether to hire a given candidate, my objection of “well, our bylaws say this is my call” isn’t itself all that compelling. I can go to the board and say “hey, she overruled me and our bylaws say she can’t do that”, but for the board to be fully interested they’d want me to also add “and her judgment was dangerously flawed for x reason”, else the board would just say “yes, well, we hired her and not you, so if she thinks your judgment is wrong, you’re not really fulfilling the function you were hired to fulfill, so I’m not sure why you’re still here”. What they care about most is whether the CEO displayed poor judgment relative to the standard they were hired to uphold. Whether or not bylaws were broken along the way is somewhat incidental. (While some board members care a lot about bylaws, that concern is more often about organizational dynamics than any higher theory of justice. If they like the CEO’s vision and you were hired to execute that vision and the CEO no longer feels like you are executing that vision, arguing “but the bylaws!” is probably not going to save your job.)To be ultra clear, this isn’t to say that a CEO or PM or President should be allowed to “get away” with whatever they want. There are many occasions where a PM will want something that’s not actually consistent with the platform on which they were elected (or that’s just generally bad in some moral or ethical sense) — in which case we would want the AG to object, and object strongly. But in cases where the AG loses this argument, we’d also expect them to no longer be AG thereafter, which is itself fully consistent with a healthy system provided that their exit triggers a thorough review.To use an extreme example, imagine that Trudeau tells his AG to tell her DPP to bring a Biblical flood of lawsuits against his next-door neighbor because they objected to his backyard Nickelback concert. In the realist view, it doesn’t necessarily matter if the AG says yes or no, or even whether they have the latitude to make that decision. What matters is that the public is informed so that we can all decide whether this is something we object to or not. And if we do, enough of us will call up our local MP and say “if you don’t stop this guy immediately, we’ll vote in your opponent next year”, which they’ll take as impetus to go vote the PM out. It’s no less an effective check against the PM’s abuse of power than the AG having theoretical independence. It’s just a different mechanism. Sure, there are plenty of people who prefer one mechanism over the other (which is the kind of viewpoint diversity that’s good and healthy!), but it’s hard to argue that this realist view is essentially wrong. Having an independent AG is not as structurally important as having an independent judiciary — provided that the actions of the executive are regularly and efficiently reported back to a voting public interested in holding leaders to account.And it’s exactly with this last bit that things get thorny.A RequiemThe phrase “constitutional crisis” has been bandied about a lot in both Canada and the US in recent days. Yet few of the underlying situations really seem to fit the bill, at least relative to a much deeper constitutional crisis that’s been growing unchecked for decades now.The constitution (both in the US and Canada, and in nearly every developed democracy) depends upon an engaged citizenry willing to demand and do, and a press capable of giving said citizenry the data on which they can fairly decide.The problem is that none of this works if we don’t share common ideas of which bad things are especially bad, or if we don’t all trust that at least a few impartial and talented journalists will always ask the right questions to empower useful explanations of what the executive did so that we can vote and/or pressure our reps accordingly.The challenge as I see it is that Canadians have long been remarkably ill-served by their press.Huge chunks of the country only have a Postmedia outlet as their local paper. (Postmedia being the antithesis of unbiased.)There are less sensational papers, including some large national ones. But none are especially good at what we need them to be good at. (If you can find me an explainer from a major outlet that’s anywhere near as thorough or clear as this one, I’ll send you $25. And I really don’t mean this to my own aggrandizement. I just don’t think one exists.) [EDIT: I’m happy to 10x this offer to $250 CAD just in case $25 isn’t enough of an incentive.]Most papers have dedicated an increasing amount of space to opinion pieces, which are quite good for clicks and quite bad for reader education. (They’re too short, too slanted, and they mostly use the little space they have to tell rather than show.)Most opinion columnists sell a partisan spin, which only serves to divide people into camps that inevitably grow further and further apart, thus making voter coordination across party lines difficult to impossible, all while also reducing common ideas of which things are worth coordinating on.No outlets have shown a willingness or ability to force Trudeau or Scheer to answer hard questions. (Hard to say if they’re too worried about losing access, too self-focused to coordinate, or too distracted to see the civic necessity of getting those answers.)I’ve polled a bunch of my Canadian friends — all bright young people who regularly vote and try to do so intelligently. None could really explain what happened with Trudeau and SNC, nor were they sure where to turn to rectify the gap. Plenty of stories were a search away. But which would give my friends the context required to understand Trudeau’s decisions for what they were?(That’s a non-rhetorical question, by the way. My wallet is open if I’ve misspoken here.)Why This MattersConsider this current case. It’s fine for someone to say “hey, I believe in closely following the letter of the law in all cases” and for them to thus side against Trudeau here (assuming he did in fact inappropriately pressure Wilson-Raybould). Like, I may not personally find this to be the world’s most sophisticated ideology, but the point is that we all tend to think our own judgment best, which is exactly why we do things like vote in free multi-party elections. Lots of people probably believe that an AG should be 100% independent in every way, and these voters should be welcome to form a party around that belief! But that party wouldn’t quite be today’s Liberal Party (or the Conservatives), which is something that’s been poorly explained to voters.The resulting issue is that I don’t think most people will go to the polls this October with optimal clarity in mind. While some are only ever going to vote against the candidate they hate more, many with less tribal feelings are going to be swayed by a faulty assumption that Trudeau committed some especially heinous crime here, where the reality (to the current public evidence) is more that, at worst, he and his AG were approaching from two different angles, with one of them ultimately having the trump-card of being the elected PM.There are all sorts of valid reasons why someone might vote for or against Trudeau. But I think it’s important that those votes are cast in light of what actually happened here and what it actually implies — which Scheer is actively trying to muddy and misrepresent, which the media is largely unwilling to combat, which I think is probably a bad thing?EDITS: ROUND #1Original answer written March 1st. Coming back on the 13th to get around to some needful updates/corrections/addendums.Some I’ve made above; others I’ll list here in no particular order:Trudeau and Butts have been arguing that they do believe in full prosecutorial independence. But I almost wish they wouldn’t. It’s hard to believe that they (or any PM team) totally believes it to be the best possible mechanism. I get that it’s scary to say anything else (imagine the headlines!), but this feels like a good opportunity to maybe start talking about all the stuff I’ve outlined here. (I suppose there’s a world in which they could totally believe in the idea. Butts certainly sounded sincere when he talked about it. But I just can’t get there as it concerns a PM. The sorts of people who win national elections aren’t generally the sorts to take being overruled by an underling all that well. I only leave this door open because of how authentic Butts seemed on the point.)My original piece included this note: “In the interests of precision, the most recent source I could find said that SNC has 3,400 employees in Quebec (vs. just Montreal). But as their headquarters are in Montreal, I’m assuming the bulk are there. I could be wrong.” As an update, this authoritative-seeming Globe & Mail article puts the number in Quebec at 2,500 and the number in Montreal at 700.Lots of commentary out there about just how at risk those 9,000 Canadian jobs were (and about how a federal debarment wouldn’t necessarily influence bidding on provincial/municipal projects). Though I’ve made a few edits to account for these arguments, they all seem peripheral to me for two reasons: (i) if SNC was found guilty, this would almost certainly impact their employee retention and bidding prospects in a general downstream way (we have evidence of recent press impacting them already); (ii) while most displaced workers would find new jobs, there’s no obvious replacement within Canada for SNC in terms of EPC firms. (For more, I thought this take was balanced and thorough — though I did find the final four sentences wildly upsetting.)I found this personal testimony from a current SNC exec (who lives and works in Saskatchewan) worth reading. His main point is that those trying to politicize this as some Liberal gambit to exclusively favor Quebec are overlooking that some 2/3rds of SNC’s Canadian workforce don’t live or work in Quebec. (On a political level, an SNC conviction would definitely hurt Liberals more. But his point that Trudeau is fighting for jobs that are mostly not in Quebec is certainly valid.)It still isn’t clear to me which laws/precedents are shielding the DPP’s SNC-related memo(s) from public review. The court has since ruled against SNC’s appeal, and it really feels like this whole debate would be much simpler if we all knew exactly why Roussel and Wilson-Raybould felt so strongly against SNC being eligible for a deferral. (FWIW, you can read the full text of the deferral-related legislation here.)For those asking, I’m 100% behind a thorough investigation. Let’s get lots of uninhibited testimony, and let’s subpoena relevant emails/texts, etc. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. But let’s also report those findings in a cautious and contextual and non-sensational way.There’s a representative thread here on why the AG's independence is somehow sacrosanct. All such threads/articles I've come across share the same hallmarks: (i) they ignore/discount that individuals serving at the pleasure of the PM can never be truly independent; (ii) they make a weird assumption that independence is a required pre-condition to keeping a PM from interfering with prosecutions in a gross way (when a non-independent prosecutor could just as easily report the PM for gross judgment). I don’t know who is debating that bad judgment is anything other than bad, or who is suggesting we shouldn’t deter/punish it. The question is whether a certain old and imported legal doctrine is the most effective mechanism to ensure an end we all agree is important.The way most journalists use the word “political” in the phrase “political interference” is also weird! Whether interference is “political” has nothing to do with whether it’s good or bad. Take the case of weed-related prosecutions. Most would say that more political interference would have been good (in terms of directing prosecutors to not prosecute any more pot cases while new legislation was framed). The fact that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould didn’t interfere with those prosecutions is a widespread criticism. That resources were spent fining and jailing people for trivial amounts of pot possession after Trudeau’s majority election on a “legalize pot” platform is, to many, a symptom of a flawed system, not proof of some sacred pillar doing its job. The public will was pretty clear about this (and had been for some time). Following the existing law to the letter led to an outcome that most consider bad. Governments semi-regularly opt to not prosecute existing laws for various political reasons (most of them positive/healthy). This isn’t necessarily a meaningful threat to the rule of law. (This is doubly true when it’s a new law with no prosecutorial precedent either way.)On a related note, I think “rule of law” is one of those phrases where everyone has some idea of what they mean by it, but where few actually have a robust conception that could survive a hard cross-examination. By any conception, sure, inconsistent and partial rulings are generally to be avoided. But the idea that prosecutorial independence (which just shifts who gets to make the decisions which some will find inconsistent and/or partial) has some necessary role in supporting the rule of law is curious. Taking up the example of pot again, look how many Americans were angry at Jeff Sessions for increasing the number of pot prosecutions given that this was contrary to Trump’s platform. Sessions’ decision caused all sorts of confusion/chaos, and it clearly favored one demographic of voters at the expense of another. No one is questioning that he was legally allowed to make said decision (the federal law was clear, and the restrictions placed upon on it by the previous AG were non-binding), but I’m not sure how any could argue that his decision reflects the rule of law working in a positive way either.A few good write-ups about the Shawcross doctrine (the basis in Canadian legal theory for prosecutorial independence) here, here and here. The last link (about the UK implementation) is interesting in that it describes a “Shawcross letter” (i.e., a letter sent by the AG to their ministerial colleagues to solicit their input). This was, in effect, what Wilson-Raybould didn’t do. She made up her mind independently, then dismissed those who expressed contrary views. Had she gathered up all available views to inform her decision (rather than decide based exclusively on her and her DPP’s legal judgment), one imagines that others would have found less cause to ensure their views were being heard/considered. (She had the legal right to make up her mind independently, but that hardly means she was right in doing so.)I’ll have to write a separate answer about Butts’ testimony at some point, but the big things for me were: (i) it gave a pretty good explanation for why Wilson-Raybould was shuffled; (ii) Butts made an extraordinary and easily-falsified set of claims about her interactions with him about the SNC file, which, if true, are enormously problematic for her case.The other thing that came out of Butts’ testimony was that Trudeau really dropped the ball in offering Wilson-Raybould (who is Indigenous) the Indigenous Services portfolio as opposed to the Crown-Indigenous Relations portfolio, with that difference being, roughly, the difference between being in charge of restructuring relations (the latter) and being in charge of administering welfare (the former). She was never going to accept the former, and he and Butts have no real excuse for not foreseeing this.The real crisis here (if we must use the term crisis) seems to be that Trudeau was so out of tune with two of his ministers, and that he was unable to keep them in the fold after they raised their objections (even if the way they raised them was less than ideal).On the subject of raising objections, Scott Welch wrote a great companion answer here about the various opportunities (if not obligations) that Wilson-Raybould had to report any inappropriate or unethical behavior on the part of Trudeau or his staff. She, to our current knowledge, made use of none of them. Prior to her being shuffled, her only vocalized discontent came in the form of telling some people (paraphrasing) “stop lobbying already!”, which is not at all the same thing as raising a formal concern/complaint about misconduct. (And again we have Butts’ testimony that his sole one-on-one conversation with her about SNC came at the end of a friendly two-hour dinner which she initiated, with no other text or email ever being sent to him on the subject. Per his testimony, she was the one who brought it up then, and her after-dinner text said nothing further about it. He claims she never laid out her concerns until during one of their “four or five” “long” and “personal” conversations they had after she was transferred, and that he was dumbfounded when she mentioned her suspicion on why she had been moved.)While she isn’t a disinterested party (and while I think some of her criticisms are overly strong), I thought Sheila Copps’ interview with CBC contained some solid points, namely: (i) that saying “I’ve made up my mind, now go away” is not exactly consistent with the role of an AG/MOJ when your colleagues don’t feel heard, (ii) that it’s kinda weird to quit a cabinet without also quitting caucus, (iii) that the number of meetings which Wilson-Raybould took on this file was not especially high, (iv) that the original decision to not prosecute was split. (As an aside, I really dislike that interviewer. He’s part of the problem.)EDITS: ROUND 2So, the Conservatives have started a “Let Her Speak” campaign pushing for a second (at least) round of testimony from Wilson-Raybould. While I’m broadly supportive of this, it’s worth noting that Trudeau has a rational case for saying “no” that isn’t solely rooted in being afraid of some harmful truth being revealed. From his perspective, Wilson-Raybould is on a mission to take him down. Let’s assume that every word she said in the first testimony was true. There was nothing particularly damning in it from a legal context, but it played very poorly for Trudeau all the same. He’s now facing a decision between: (i) allowing her to speak again and the same thing happening again and it hurting him more in the polls, (ii) not allowing her to speak again, which will hurt him in the polls now, but which may also cap the damage. Were I his advisor, I’d push him toward letting her speak and then prepping a killer set of rebuttals (assuming the facts are indeed on his side). More downside, but more upside. That said, it would seem that he’s being pushed in a different direction. While I’m not so much a fan of this, I wouldn’t infer from it (as many are) that it’s necessarily a sign of guilt.Ok, a bit more about Scheer. I keep getting comments wondering why I dislike him so much. First, I should point out that most Conservatives never cared much for him either until he was their sole hope against Trudeau. He didn’t crack 20% in opinion polls until after Kevin O’Leary dropped out (and that’s among Conservative Party members). He won the nomination on the 13th ballot, having trailed on all 12 ballots prior. The fact that he won (which was contested due to significant inconsistencies) was largely viewed as a frantic rejection of Maxime Bernier (who had led on all of the first 12 ballots), not an endorsement of Scheer. From his first speech post-nomination, he’s relied on red meat, generalities, and strawmen. That’s not what we need from the Leader of the Opposition. We need someone able to carefully and accurately deconstruct the PM’s decisions, showing voters a detailed vision of some plausibly better way. Jack Layton was that guy. Harper, in his own way, was that guy. Scheer is not that guy. He once wrote an op-ed in support of Brexit — aka, arguably the most ill-conceived set of decisions in modern political history. (He was still in support of it as recently as this past November, which is just wild given how things have unfolded. It’s one thing to be theoretically in favor of sovereignty. It’s quite another to be in favor of a nation jumping off a cliff to get it.) Scheer’s campaign chair, Hamish Marshall, is also a former director of Rebel Media, which is morally inexcusable in itself. (Marshall says he had nothing to do with editorial there and that he eventually did resign. But this rundown of all the content they published before he quit is deeply disturbing — not to mention that we have no reason to believe that he quit for moral reasons.)I’d been waiting for a transcript of Nathalie Drouin’s (Wilson-Raybould’s former deputy) testimony before the House Justice Committee (which it seems doesn’t exist anywhere, maybe due to some rule). But snippets were reported by the CBC. A few interesting takeaways: (i) JWR had given Drouin an instruction not to talk about the SNC case by September 17th, which was super early into the process; (ii) JWR forbade Drouin from answering a question from the PCO (civil service) about the potential impact of SNC failing to get a deferral; (iii) Drouin was never told what the evidence against SNC’s case was. This is all very odd.An important open question: where did the original leak to the Globe & Mail come from? And why was a leak made to the press before internal remedies were exhausted (or even attempted)?An interesting tidbit from Butts’ testimony that I missed the first time around: Wilson-Raybould was the second minister that Trudeau attempted to move from a dream portfolio to Indigenous Services using the same logic. The difference is that the first person said yes. (Incidentally, this was the other minister that later quit in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould.) While it was still an unwise move, this does lend credence to the argument that Trudeau was doing it to signal continued support for his Indigenous reconciliation efforts, which is to say it could have been a bad decision made with positive intent. (Logically, though, this same move having been made before might have been a really convenient cover. I don’t know how we’d know for sure unless we’re just taking someone’s word.)Echoing what Copps said about the insubstantial meeting count, Butts estimated the number of meetings on the TMX pipeline deal as being around 100. By comparison, the SNC file ended up drawing 10 meetings and 20 contacts over a little more than three months. While the context is a bit different with an AG vs. other ministerial roles, this number still doesn’t seem outlying.Lots of people have been mentioning how prosecutorial independence is “constitutionally guaranteed” (or other wording to that effect). This is true in a sense, but that sense is mostly misleading. Canada is unlike the US in that we have no single document called The Constitution. What we have is a messy patchwork of acts, statutes, orders, and precedents. Prosecutorial independence is a “constitutional convention”, meaning that it’s an unwritten rule with no binding power over Parliament. In the absence of contrary legislation, conventions are the best practices which all are generally expected to follow. But not only have conventions been broken from time to time with little consequence, the House is free to pass new laws to make written what is unwritten, and the courts (explicitly) have no power to overrule. So if Trudeau were to decide tomorrow “hey, let’s do away with this thing” and if enough MPs were to say “yeah, let’s do that”, then the bill would be passed. (There are more steps, but the gist is that there’s no way to stop a majority-supported bill without sparking an actual constitutional crisis likely to resolve in the House’s favour.) While I can’t imagine that any PM would try this in the current climate, there’s nothing actually legally stopping them.