D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi



     Ministers  Jody Wilson-Raybould and Justin Trudeau


There are three cases which are converging so to speak to make a perfect storm. They involve Irving Shipbuilding-DND, SNC-Lavalin and Huawei. The corresponding individuals connected to these affairs are Norman, Wilson-Raybould and Meng. The underlying issues are complex and long-standing. There appear to be illegalities connected with them which have yet to be proven in court. One thing which seems to connect them may be the improper conduct of the PMO. On one extreme, the government says there is "nothing" in these cases. On the other extreme, critics say there is obstruction of justice. It is difficult to imagine a series of three nothings--particularly when there is smoke. The open question though is whether there is fire. Certainly, Norman was suspended, Wilson-Raybould was demoted and McCallum was fired. These circumstances suggest a cover-up by the PMO. Because events are quickly developing and Wilson-Raybould has yet to offer an explanation it may be of use to step back and re-evalute matters.

One should begin by defining justice. There is no better person to quote than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He was a lawyer for 10 years, a professor of constitutional law and a Minister of Justice. He said "This is the beauty of the democratic process: it permits that subjective view of justice - which everyone holds - permits that subjective way to express itself peacefully through discussion, through reason and through the voting process."

It seems but a small step for Justin Trudeau who has no training in law to transition from subjective justice to social justice and other social priorities. He asserts that development must promote "social" progress, justice, equality, and diversity. The initial appointment of Wilson-Raybould as an indigenous woman who was a lawyer to Minister of Justice and Attorney-General seemed a socially progressive example of development to Trudeau. However, development as part of infrastructure involving a Quebec company accused of bribery took precedence over both her symbolic and substantive appointment. The result was she was demoted and remediation law promoted. Neither circumstance seems just.

In T.S. Eliot's "Notes Towards the Definition of Culture", he points out the flaw in concept of the social justice approach. He says action might be supported because it represented the aim of 'social justice', which from the point of view of 'justice' was not just. The term 'social justice' is in danger of losing its rational content — which would be replaced by a powerful emotional charge." What is the objective standard for either justice or social justice in the Trudeau government and are they in agreement?

In the SNC-Lavalin case, a remediation bill was piggy-backed on a much larger finance bill. The purpose of this distorted hybrid seems to have been to limit rational discussion and debate of the remediation issue. Strangely, the remediation issue was not proposed by the Minister of Justice. It was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, but the issue has nothing to do with finance. Ultimately, though, it was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

The purpose for a remediation bill was to address an issue of fairness. However, it is anything but fair because a typical remediation bill is proactively designed to deal with misconduct before a company is charged thereby allowing company officials to admit guilt before it is discovered. In the SNC-Lavalin case, misconduct took place on a persistent basis for thirteen years before formal charges were laid. However, remediation was asked and lobbied for by the company after the horses had escaped and the barn door closed. Therefore, the remediation bill did not meet the criterion of fairness.

However, was the bill just? In other words, does it satisfy the entire group of Canadian corporations or everyone with respect to a group of individuals. Hardly, it asks for an exception to the rule of law. It upsets the whole justice system and throws it into chaotic disarray. If laws can be passed after the fact then why is it necessary to have laws?



Justin Trudeau argues that jobs take precedent. He stands in front of a placard that says infrastructure. Is he really interested in protecting and creating jobs through a company that has been accused of bribery? The answer is rather perverse. He wishes to protect the jobs of the executives of SNC-Lavalin; as well as, the Liberal government and his own job which have been secured through the political contributions of the executives of SNC-Lavalin.


Was there justice and fairness in the way Justin Trudeau demoted Ms. Wilson-Raybould from Minister of Justice and Attorney-General to Minister of Veterans Affairs? It appears to have been done arbitrarily. The justifications keep changing as if Trudeau is standing on shifting sands.

Was there justice and fairness in the way Justin Trudeau restricted Ms. Wilson-Raybould to speak publicly based on Cabinet and lawyer client confidentiality? Trudeau dropped the Cabinet confidentiality like a hot potato when Ms. Wilson-Raybould resigned from Veterans Affairs in a matter of weeks. He, the Prime Minister, could speak all he wanted to as he criticized her and made disparaging remarks, but she was gagged. Those ill considered comments will come back to haunt him because it now opens up the possibility for her to respond equally and openly.


Trudeau's idea of social justice seems to change based on time and place. This is because it relies on image rather than substance. If he goes to a gay parade, he wears his white pants and tidy whities to express support for gay rights.  On his Indian trip he wears a full costume presumably to show his support for social justice of the Indian diaspora. In Beijing, he wears a business suit, but with non-matching socks to show Chinese-Canadians that he is promoting trade interests, but will further human rights by wearing unconventional socks and paying lip service to human and civil rights violations.

It is not surprising that Trudeau is a moral relativist who uses reason based on the context of the situation and the audience. To the Canadian public --and particularly to the Quebec voters--he says that it is unfair if workers, pensioners and contractors are hurt for the illegal deeds of former employers. Actually, though, he is pandering to the commercial elite of panhandlers who asked for federal loans and who provide campaign contributions to the Liberal Party in return, as they were bribing others to secure contracts. Isn't Trudeau really implying by his words and actions that social justice is derived from the moral relativism of a few who wish to act beyond the bounds of the law and conventional morality and who have no legal or moral restrictions or responsibilities?


The case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is equally disturbing. Norman was suspended after being charged with breach of trust after he was accused of leaking cabinet secrets to executives of Davie shipyard in Levis, Quebec. In the pre-trial hearing, an unnamed defence witness told court about an alleged scheme with National Defence to avoid using Norman's name in internal correspondence. This was interpreted by the defence as an attempt to bury evidence. Secondly, a former member of the PMO who attended discussions of the supply ship contract never received clarification as to what she could discuss without violating rules concerning cabinet secrecy. The defence argued this either delayed or prevented the release of thousands of government documents necessary for Norman's defence. Most recently, the defence lawyer alleged that Crown prosecutors had been discussing trial strategy with the Privy Council which was "more concerning than political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Lastly, there is the John McCallum affair involving the Meng Wanzhou case. McCallum had served over the years both the Canadian people and the Liberal Party. He was rewarded with an ambassadorship to China. As ambassador though he returned to Canada at the beginning of the campaign season in 2019 where he called a Chinese press conference at one of his old ridings in Markham. It was clear that he was trying on behalf of the Liberal Party to get the vote of Chinese-Canadians who are important in 18 ridings. His first three points were clearly scripted by the Liberal Party in that they gave open support for Meng Wanzhou in her extradition hearing. This clearly meant political interference in the judicial process. Other comments may have been floridly elaborated upon; nevertheless, they agreed in temperment with his government's outlook on China.

It was only when there was tremendous backlash to his non-diplomatic, political stance which interfered in the judicial process that the Prime Minister took notice. After waiting for several days to see which way the wind blew, Trudeau decided to fire McCallum, but not before the ambassador had returned to Beijing to receive accolades and applause from the Chinese.

Let's examine quickly the series of events that followed. Ms. Wilson-Raybould continued to feel pressure from various sources in the PMO to be favourably disposed to offer remediation in the on-going case of SNC-Lavalin. No doubt she was familiar, however, with similar cases of remediation in the United States during the time of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis when not a single executive was held accountable for anything.

It does not appear that Ms. Wilson-Raybould wished to play this game of political expediency and crony capitalism as it involved rule of law and the judicial process. As a result, she was removed as Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. She was then demoted to become Minister of Veterans Affairs. The PMO wanted to move ahead on the remediation law even though there appeared to be at least political inference if not downright obstruction of justice in the judicial matters. Ms. Wilson-Raybould was the scapegoat for the PMO.


The McCallum affair was different. Ambassador John McCallum had served as minister in several ministeries in his long career as a Liberal. He knew how to play the game and that was what he was doing in Markham. He toed the line and supported the position of the PMO. However, while his message may have played well with the Chinese press it ignited a fire-storm with the Canadian public. As a result, he was fired and became a scapegoat for the PMO.

While Ms. Wilson-Raybould's role as Attorney-General was critical in the remediation issue involving SNC-Lavalin, it was no less important in the extradition hearing of Meng Wanzhou. In the final stage of the process, it would be the Attorney-General who would make the final decision. It does not take much imagination to see that if Ms. Wilson-Raybould was not open to pressure from the PMO regarding the remediation issue then she would not be open to political pressure from the PMO to give a favourable ruling in the judicial process regarding Ms. Meng's extradition.

The author says outright that he has no legal training. He does though see a possible link between the new Remediation Agreements which are now in force in Canada and that of Deferred Prosecution Agreements in the United States. If Ms. Wanzhou is charged in the United States with alleged white-collar crimes that have a similar counterpart in Canada then what would stop her from asking protection under a Canadian Remediation Agreement?


Only a couple of hours ago, Gerald Butts--the Prime Minister's Principle Secretary and personal friend-- resigned from the PMO. He claims no responsibility for alleged political interference in the justice system. Why then did he resign? Maybe he was also another scapegoat for the Prime Minister. The common saying is "where there is smoke there is fire". It appears that Butts butted out after he had butted in. Justice demands an RCMP investigation.

In conclusion, patterns are established in any field when one has a series of three related things. It is unusual in the judicial process that there would be three separate cases which are conducted at the same time where there would be judicial interference or obstruction of justice unless there is a pattern. The cases involve the application of a Remediation Agreement with respect to SNC-Lavalin, shipbuilding and the DND and outright support of a defendant who will be involved in an extradition hearing. The interference or obstruction of justice seems to be coming from the PMO. It is all the more shocking because the Prime Minister is constantly telling us and the world that Canada has rule of law.

D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi



   Pierre Elliott Trudeau: La balance céleste de la Justice

                Sun Dawu: Justice and Fairness

Justice is often represented by a pair of scales. The origin of this image may involve the Judgement of Osiris. This was where the soul's heart was placed on a scale and the feather of truth on the other scale. If the heart of the soul was lighter than the feather then the soul could pass on to the bliss of the Field of Reeds.


It so happens that Sun Dawu also uses an image of a pair of balanced scales (although they are not heavenly) along with an abstract symbol resembling a person composed of an inner and outer triangle. The following description is augmented with interpretation. On the right is an image of a set of scales composed of black triangles of the same size which are theoretically balanced. They may represent ideal justice in society. On the left is what might be an abstract body and/or head representing man as a down-to-earth, social being. Within the human being and/or head is a large black triangle with a smaller white triangle inside. The former might represent justice while the latter may represent attitude.


                                    SUN Dawu

Sun Dawu is a self-educated farmer and a self-taught entrepreneur. Surprisingly, though, he was the first person in China to develop the Private Entrepreneurial Constitutional System in 2004. This constitution was based on models in France, Great Britain and the United States along with historical Chinese ones. Democratic elections are held every two years. Every one must vote.


                               John Stuart Mill

Fifty years ago, the author was enrolled in Philosphy 101. His lecturer at the U of T was Derek Allen who had been trained at Oxford. The author submitted an essay on John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. Allen corrected that essay with lengthy definition of terms like "everyone" [an indefinite pronoun equivalent to "everybody" and "every one" [two words meaning "each". With respect to the word "everyone" it exhibits an exception with regard to verb tense in the third person singular. Of course, the young, foolish student regarded this criticism as somewhat pedantic, but he now appreciates its exactitude. Derek Allen is now Professor Emeritus.

Basically, Mill expressed the view of utilitarianism or the greatest good for the greatest number. Generally, it applied to "everyone" rather than "every one". However, since that time critics have emphasized Mill's self-restraint principle which allows individuals to experience truth as "our own". In other words, there is a balance between quantity and quality or the objective and subjective.


                                    Dawu City

The balance between justice and fairness is achieved in both the philosophy and poetry of Sun Dawu which is practically applied at Dawu Group in Dawu City. The author quotes three paragraphs of a paper just published in February 2019. These lines which have been translated from the Chinese encapsulate his philosophical views.

The Dawu Group regards justice as a serious issue. What we say is the difference in common prosperity is justice. What we reward is justice through more work. But we still have to be fair; that is, "to guarantee a limit". The welfare of the group is equal and this is fair.

Because of justice, everyone is motivated; because of fairness, every one has unity, and only if they have a direction of justice do they have common values. In order to achieve the goal of common prosperity, we must develop this enterprise on the basis of justice. Everyone is a group, [every one] should [each] try [his/her] best to get rewards and enjoy the benefits. This is fairness.

Justice (reason) is one, and fairness (attitude) is two. We must first find one, occupy the "reason", and then ask for two, and seek fairness. The Chinese have a good face and are very concerned about their attitude and forget what the origin is, so they are often passive. As long as you take advantage of it, other factors that are unreasoanble or unfavourable to you will be transformed.

The message conveyed by Sun Dawu is that the basis of justice is reason. Fairness is derived from justice and is reflected in attitude. Both should be equal or in balance which means harmony is achieved. In Dawu Group, justice for everyone is based on reason. From justice of everyone is derived an attitude of fairness for each and every one in the Dawu Group. For example, the Chairman of the Group may make three or four times the salary of a worker, but the Chairman's salary is capped in relation to the worker's. It is just and fair that there be no great distortions in salary as a reward for work and as a way to achieve happiness.

It may also be understood with respect to legality and morality. Reason establishes rule of law for everyone in the Group. From rule of law is derived morality or attitude of every one or each individual in the Group. Legality and morality must continually adjust to be in balance. The one hundred year goal of the Dawu Group is that workers and citizens as a whole live under rule of law while individuals as parts of the whole follow guidelines of Confucian morality regarding fairness derived from reasoned justice.


Keep in mind that the system developed by Dawu Group is a family-based private one. Also, as the author understands it, Sun Dawu ceased to be a legal entity with his conviction in 2003. He is though the head of the family and one might also say the extended Sun family; as well as, head of others who wish to be part of a greater family while setting up their own families.

The legal structure of the Dawu Group is based on the constitutional systems of Great Britain, France and the United States and the Legalism that can be traced back to the prime ministership of Guan Zhong and later Mozi. The moral structure is based on the Confucian concept of the family. Basically, there was a kind of union so to speak in ancient times between Legalism which emphasized good government and Confucianism which dealt with morality.

D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi


Meng Hongwei